What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat
monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods an...
2
CGRFA-13 Request
“to elaborate on the means and opportunities for
establishing a global network for in situ
conservation...
3
• Survey – among stakeholder to get a feel about what
stakeholder thought were the need for a global
network
• Technical...
4
Survey methodology: partners
• FAO and CDI/WUR designed a global survey
– to identify interventions and practices that c...
5
What type of interventions: main
areas?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Community based conservation and use
Crop improvement and pla...
6
Global network supporting OFM?
95%
86%
5%
14%
OFM practitioners PGRFA managers and policy-makers
Yes
No
7
Support: what type?
0% 20% 40% 60%
Direct technical assistance and expertise
Training and capacity development
Informati...
8
FAO Technical Workshop on in situ conservation
and on-farm management 13 Nov. 2012
• Attended by experts, country NFPs, ...
9
Benefits of a Global Network
• Technical workshop recognized a number of key benefits
that a global network would bring ...
10
Type of Global Network
• There was a clear consensus that in situ
conservation and on-farm management are two
different...
11
RECOMMENDATION
• Recommends that every means and opportunities
should be further explored to bring together key
stakeho...
12
FAO Expert Consultation workshop -6
March 2014
• Review a draft document ‘Global network options for
in situ conservati...
Evidence for
genetic erosion
Global concern about the loss of
genetic diversity
(both ex situ collections and in situ populations)
• International Trea...
Changes in cultivation of maize hybrids and
landraces over time in southwest China
(Jingson Li, 2012)
Diversity (morphological)
Main correlates:
1. Closeness to Pucallpa
city
2. Location in hilly area
Correlates with erosion...
17
Genetic erosion in coconut
• Bioversity / COGENT in India, Sri Lanka, Philippines and
Kiribati
• Rapid survey undertake...
Genetic erosion in Coffee ex situ collections
(a) CATIE, Costa Rica
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Before
1950
1951-196...
No change in diversity – case of pearl
millet and sorghum in Niger
Many local varieties of
millets and sorghum in
Niger we...
• It is clear that genetic
erosion is of concern
but evidence is still
lacking about:
– rate of loss
– variation among
cro...
21
Need for Better Monitoring
• There is no global, harmonized observation
system for delivering regular, timely data on
a...
22
• Many studies have been undertaken to develop indicators
for biodiversity, but only partly specifically dealing with
a...
23
• Literature review undertaken (citing 70 papers) seeking to
identify the main groups of indicators that can cover the
...
Current measurements and indicators
(crops)
• Primarily focus on ex situ genebanks
– Do not measure state or trends of div...
25Copyright © 2012 Bioversity International
Global indicators: Significant traditional variety diversity continues to be
m...
• HT Integrated Indicator- Bonneuil et al. (2012)
– Varietal richness, Spatial evenness; Effect of between-variety genetic...
27
CBD - Global Target by 2010
“To achieve a significant reduction of the current
rate of biodiversity loss at global, reg...
• No. of species
• No. of accessions within collections
• Geographical origin of accessions
BIP: Ex situ collection indica...
• Aichi Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed
and domesticated animals and of wild rel...
International Expert Meeting
Huacanyo, Peru
Approach
Monitoring required at
different levels:
• Genetic
• Species/variety
• Landscape
• Traditional knowledge and
cult...
Summary
• Efforts for developing a global network for in situ
conservation and on farm management are underway
• Global co...
Thank you
www.bioversityinternational.org
What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods an...
What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods an...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

1,601 views

Published on

Ehsan Dulloo, Bioversity International Conservation and Availability Programme Leader, presented at the international conference Enhanced genepool utilization - Capturing wild relative and landrace diversity for crop improvement, in Cambridge, UK, 16-20 June 2014.

It is said that “you can't manage what you don't measure”. The unprecedented global loss of agricultural species, varieties and associated traditional knowledge is of increasing concern, threatening the provisioning, regulatory, supporting and cultural ecosystem services of importance to the livelihoods of the poor as well as the welfare of broader society. Such services include such public goods as maintaining agroecosystem resilience and future option values.
Unfortunately, although many crop genetic resources (CGR) are widely recognized as being threatened, there is only limited information available regarding actual status. Only isolated efforts at monitoring have been undertaken. Conventional monitoring efforts, where they exist at all, have been subject to limitations due to ad hoc approaches that lack rigorous survey and sampling approaches, do not adequately account for search effort costs or systematically involve the participation of local-level actors, and are usually based on collections instead of direct observations in the field. Furthermore, the links between specific CGR conservation levels/configurations and the provision of specific ecosystem services are poorly understood.
There is thus an urgent need for the development of a systematic approach to the monitoring of CGR. This presentation draws on the outcome of a recent Bioversity International/CIP international expert workshop aimed at the development of such an approach. The proposed multi-scale approach builds on a wide range of existing monitoring experiences and a review of the literature related to agricultural biodiversity-relevant ecosystem services. A number of proposed indicators that could be used to assess CGR threat levels, be used for monitoring purposes and/or assist in evaluating ecosystem service public/private good trade-offs arising from agricultural intensification are presented, with a view to supporting the potential for prioritizing, designing and implementing on-farm/in situ conservation measures that actively involve farmers, support livelihoods, complement existing ex situ conservation efforts and facilitate access and benefit sharing.

Find out more about Bioversity International work on conserving crop diversity on the farm and in the wild http://www.bioversityinternational.org/research-portfolio/conservation-of-crop-diversity/

Published in: Science, Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,601
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
70
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

  1. 1. What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services Ehsan Dulloo and Adam Drucker, Bioversity International Enhanced Genepool Utilization Conference, Cambridge, UK, 16-20 June 2014.
  2. 2. 2 CGRFA-13 Request “to elaborate on the means and opportunities for establishing a global network for in situ conservation and on-farm management of PGRFA, avoiding duplication of efforts.” CGRFA-13/11/ report, paragraph 41
  3. 3. 3 • Survey – among stakeholder to get a feel about what stakeholder thought were the need for a global network • Technical Consultation “Towards the establishment of a global network for in situ conservation and on-farm management of PGRFA” - 13 Nov. 2012 • Consultation workshop – options for global network – 6th March 2014. What has been done?
  4. 4. 4 Survey methodology: partners • FAO and CDI/WUR designed a global survey – to identify interventions and practices that contribute to the maintenance and use of local crops and varieties, and – to explore the degree of connectivity between ‘OFM practitioners’ and ‘NPGRP managers and policy- makers’. • 1168 Respondents: 818 OFM practitioner and 350 PGRFA managers and policy-makers Source: Nilsen et al. (2014) Relationship between national plant genetic resources programmes and practitioners promoting on farm management results form a global survey. PGRFA Characterisation and Utilization 12(1) : 143-146.
  5. 5. 5 What type of interventions: main areas? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Community based conservation and use Crop improvement and plant breeding Characterization and assessment of diversity Organization, training and capacity development Sustainable agricultural and land management practices Ex situ conservation and gene bank management Seed production and distribution Marketing, processing and promotion of diversity products Surveying and documentation of plant species and diversity Advocacy, law and policy development Protection and promotion of farmers’ rights Food, seed and cash relief
  6. 6. 6 Global network supporting OFM? 95% 86% 5% 14% OFM practitioners PGRFA managers and policy-makers Yes No
  7. 7. 7 Support: what type? 0% 20% 40% 60% Direct technical assistance and expertise Training and capacity development Information and awareness Supply of agricultural inputs and equipments Organizational and logistical support Policy and legal support Financial support PGRFA managers and policy makers supporting practicioners and their organizations OFM practitioners supporting farmers and their organizations
  8. 8. 8 FAO Technical Workshop on in situ conservation and on-farm management 13 Nov. 2012 • Attended by experts, country NFPs, as well as several international organizations such as CBD, ITPGRFA, Bioversity International and others. • Purpose is to identify options, ways and means for establishing a global network.
  9. 9. 9 Benefits of a Global Network • Technical workshop recognized a number of key benefits that a global network would bring for supporting in situ conservation of CWR and On-farm management: – Provide Information, Knowledge-sharing and tools for capacity development especially at national an regional levels; – Enhance technology transfer; – Would facilitate linkages between and among decision makers; – Catalyze development of national strategies on CWR; – Help build partnerships and collaborations; – Provide funding opportunities; – Provide policy, legal and institutional support . • Point of view that a global network is not a priority and that focus should be on national implementation
  10. 10. 10 Type of Global Network • There was a clear consensus that in situ conservation and on-farm management are two different processes that requires different approaches; but complementary to each other • They operate under different environments with different nature of problems and involve different actors/ stakeholders; – on-farm management– process involves farmers and their organisations at all levels – CWR in situ - involve ministries of agriculture and environment, as well as genebanks and users of germplasm and local communities
  11. 11. 11 RECOMMENDATION • Recommends that every means and opportunities should be further explored to bring together key stakeholders in order to avoid duplication through creation of a Community of Practice for each – CWR: a consortium of key players from both agriculture and environment sectors would be important; e.g. FAO, CBD, UNEP, ITPGRFA,UNESCO, IUCN, CGIAR, NGOs etc. – On-farm management: Process that is inclusive enough to ensure representation of local level development and conservation farmers organizations and local NGOs – strengthen collaboration between practitioners of on-farm management and policy makers
  12. 12. 12 FAO Expert Consultation workshop -6 March 2014 • Review a draft document ‘Global network options for in situ conservation and on-farm management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture’ – Need for a global network – Functions of network – Possible structure and governance – Process for establishment of global network
  13. 13. Evidence for genetic erosion
  14. 14. Global concern about the loss of genetic diversity (both ex situ collections and in situ populations) • International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture “Alarmed by the continuing erosion of these resources” [i.e. PGRFA] • Global Plan of Action on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture “Genetic erosion is reported to continue many regions of the world and the genetic vulnerability of crops has further increased”. • Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. No clear (rather conflicting) evidence of actual loss of diversity is occurring overall (van de Wouw et al. 2009)
  15. 15. Changes in cultivation of maize hybrids and landraces over time in southwest China (Jingson Li, 2012)
  16. 16. Diversity (morphological) Main correlates: 1. Closeness to Pucallpa city 2. Location in hilly area Correlates with erosion (from farmer surveys): 1. Cattle present (yes) 2. Source of planting material (market) 3. Closeness to the road 4. Location in plains Genetic Erosion of Cassava in the Peruvian Amazon Willemen et al. 2007
  17. 17. 17 Genetic erosion in coconut • Bioversity / COGENT in India, Sri Lanka, Philippines and Kiribati • Rapid survey undertaken using 36 indicators of genetic erosion • 90% of farmers agreed that genetic erosion existed • Based on weighted scores the rate of genetic erosion was 25-49% (in a period of 10 years) • Farmers were able to rank causes of genetic erosion: – Replacement with other crops – Lack of interest by community – Urbanization – Biotic and abiotic factors (soil erosion, typhoons, cyclones, drought)
  18. 18. Genetic erosion in Coffee ex situ collections (a) CATIE, Costa Rica 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Before 1950 1951-1960 1961-1970 1971- 1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2000-2005 Numberofaccessions Accessions lost New accessions (b) Kianjavato, Madagascar 0 50 100 150 200 250 1961- 1970 1971- 1980 1981- 1990 1991- 2000 2000- 2005 Numberofaccessions Accessions lost New accessions (c)JARC, Ethiopia 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Before 1970 1971- 1980 1981- 1990 1991- 2000 2000- 2005 Numberofaccessions Accessions lost New accessions (d) CRI, Kenya 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Before 1960 1961- 1970 1971- 1980 1981- 1990 1991- 2000 2000- 2005 Numberofaccessions Accessions lost New accessions Dulloo et al. 2008
  19. 19. No change in diversity – case of pearl millet and sorghum in Niger Many local varieties of millets and sorghum in Niger were replaced by improved ones, but overall diversity of pearl millet and sorghum varieties has not changed between 1976 and 2003 in the terms of varietal names and DNA markers (Bezançon et al. 2009) 2003 1976 50-55 days 55-60 days 60-65 days 65-70 days 70-75 days 75-80 days 80+ days
  20. 20. • It is clear that genetic erosion is of concern but evidence is still lacking about: – rate of loss – variation among crops, situations – economic implications • Monitoring changes in genetic diversity and analyzing causes of change is still needed
  21. 21. 21 Need for Better Monitoring • There is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering regular, timely data on agricultural biodiversity change • Different organizations and projects adopt diverse measurements, with some important biodiversity dimensions, such as genetic diversity, often missing • Conventional monitoring efforts, where they exist at all: – subject to ad hoc approaches that lack rigorous survey and sampling approaches – involve poor understanding of search effort costs – do not systematically involve the participation of local-level actors – usually based on collections instead of direct observations in the field.
  22. 22. 22 • Many studies have been undertaken to develop indicators for biodiversity, but only partly specifically dealing with agricultural biodiversity (Buiteveld et al., 2009). • However, the indicators for the specific public good ecosystem services associated with ABD not yet well developed. These relate to such services as: – landscape level agroecosystem resilience (environmental, economic and social dimensions) – maintenance of traditional knowledge/cultural practices – maintenance of future option values and evolutionary services Indicator Development Status
  23. 23. 23 • Literature review undertaken (citing 70 papers) seeking to identify the main groups of indicators that can cover the public good benefits generated by ABD (Nguyen and Drucker, 2013) • Set of 12 priority indicators identified, related to aforementioned ABD-relevant ecosystem services: – Diversity and spatial distribution – Area – Farmer numbers – Seed system – Knowledge – Ex situ measures Indicator set for ABD-relevant Ecosystem Services Illustration source: CIP- UPWARDS, 2003
  24. 24. Current measurements and indicators (crops) • Primarily focus on ex situ genebanks – Do not measure state or trends of diversity at the genetic level in real world agroecosystems • FAO indicators – monitoring progress of the implementation of second Global Plan of Action. 66 indicators covering 4 main areas viz. – In situ conservation and management (12 indicators) – Ex situ conservation (12 indicators) – Sustainable use (22 indicators) – Building institutional and human capacities (20 indicators)
  25. 25. 25Copyright © 2012 Bioversity International Global indicators: Significant traditional variety diversity continues to be managed by small scale farmers in the developing world. Jarvis et al., 2009 PNAS Hungary, Mexico, Peru • -LN(1-Farm evenness) •0.0 •0.5 •1.0 •1.5 •2.0 •LNFarmrichness •0.0 •0.5 •1.0 •1.5 •2.0 A B 2-3 2-3 39-89 4-20 5-14 1-2 4-5 9-74 Morocco, Ethiopia 1-2 4-12 1-2 5-27 4-5 15-28 Burkina faso Nepal and Vietnam Peru Community Richness House Hold richness Richness = 9 Evenness A > B 2-3 9-18 Uzbekistan 3-5 6-19 Leading the collaboration of >60 institutes world wide
  26. 26. • HT Integrated Indicator- Bonneuil et al. (2012) – Varietal richness, Spatial evenness; Effect of between-variety genetic diversity; Within- variety genetic diversity • Tested against a historical dataset on bread wheat varieties dating back to 1878: Allelic diversity; Acreage share of each variety; Contribution of within variety diversity to total genetic diversity • More varieties (the varietal richness factor) can mean less diversity when (i) their genetic structure is more similar (the effect of between-variety genetic diversity), or (ii) when more diverse landraces are replaced by many homogeneous lines (the effect of within-variety genetic diversity) or (iii) when one or a few varieties become hegemonic in the landscape (the spatial evenness effect) A New Integrated indicator
  27. 27. 27 CBD - Global Target by 2010 “To achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and national levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth.”
  28. 28. • No. of species • No. of accessions within collections • Geographical origin of accessions BIP: Ex situ collection indicator Principle: Accessions entering the collection can be characterized for their originality Index: An integrative function reflecting the collection’s enrichment Any new accessions entering the collection at a given time is compared to the accessions already present: • Is it a new species? • Does it come from a new area? The more original it is, the more weight it is given. The weight is based on a log function so that it decreases when a species is well represented. Enrichment Index of ex situ crop collections as an indicator on the status and trend of crop genetic diversity
  29. 29. • Aichi Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio- economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. UN- Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
  30. 30. International Expert Meeting Huacanyo, Peru
  31. 31. Approach Monitoring required at different levels: • Genetic • Species/variety • Landscape • Traditional knowledge and cultural practices
  32. 32. Summary • Efforts for developing a global network for in situ conservation and on farm management are underway • Global concerns of genetic erosion- conflicting evidences • Much has been done in the past to document genetic diversity across a whole range of scale –ex situ, in situ, on farm, production landscape, forest gene conservation units • Genetic diversity is important for building resilience for crops and landscape level- sustaining evolutionary processes • More precise indicators are required monitor agricultural biodiversity • FAO Global Plan of Action • Strategic Plan for Biodiversity2011-2020 - Aichi target 13;
  33. 33. Thank you www.bioversityinternational.org

×