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
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
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Evidence for
genetic erosion

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)

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 (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
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)

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

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

• 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
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
• 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
• 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

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)

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

• 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
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.”

• 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

• 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

International Expert Meeting
Huacanyo, Peru

Approach
Monitoring required at
different levels:
• Genetic
• Species/variety
• Landscape
• Traditional knowledge and
cultural practices

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;

Thank you
www.bioversityinternational.org