Some countries are experiencing strong economic growth, even as food and nutrition insecurity increase. Conflicts over resources (land, water, and biodiversity) and degraded resource bases often threaten the poor and the marginalised who are directly dependent on these resources.

Poverty is not just about a lack of money. It has as much to do with people’s asset base in a much broader sense, and thus with power. Poverty is also about people’s capability to deal with situations of shock or stress – whether social, economic, political or physical. Poor people lack the resilience to effectively cope with these shocks. Over the last decade climate change has added to these problems, resulting in ever growing resilience deficits in rural communities.

How can poor people in rural areas break out of this vicious cycle? In the June 2014 issue of Farming Matters we will focus on how agro-ecological approaches strengthen the resilience of family farmers and help them break out of poverty. We will look at how agro-ecological farming practices and the social dimensions of family farming contribute to strengthening resilience and sustainable resource management. In so doing we examine the roles of young people and women and how policymakers, organisations and researchers can actively encourage the effective and widespread use of agro-ecological approaches as a way to address rural poverty. We welcome your contributions, with supporting evidence.

Articles for the June 2014 issue of Farming Matters should be sent to the editors before March 1st, 2014.

E-mail: info@farmingmatters.org

The post Call for articles: Family farmers breaking out of poverty appeared first on Ileia.

Linguists predict that by the end of the 21st century, 50 to 90% of the world’s languages will disappear. These findings, from a recently published scientific article, point to a strong correlation between biodiversity and language extinction. This sounds like a final wake-up call: what kind of world we are heading for, destroying our nature and cultures at such a massive speed?

We all seem to agree that biodiversity is not only beautiful but also essential to keep the global ecosystem going. So why aren’t we making some radical decisions? Why aren’t we doing something concrete, both as individual citizens and as a society? Is this tremendous loss of biodiversity inevitable? No, it is not.

So let us fight against the forces that undermine biodiversity and care for the great variety of plants and animals that still exist today. Let us enjoy the colour, flavour, texture and nutritional value of our food. Let us remember what happened after hurricane Mitch in Central America: the greater the variety of trees and crops on farms, the less damage was incurred by farmers. Biodiversity offers an insurance against an unpredictable climate, far superior to the use of climate-smart “miracle seeds”. So let us value the important role that family farming, fishing and herding communities play in maintaining global biodiversity. They hold precious knowledge and are rendering a great service to humanity. Paradoxically, little value is given to what these producers do: their approach to agriculture is considered “peripheral” to the global economy.

Biodiversity goes hand in hand with multifunctional family farming and is inextricably linked with farmers’ knowledge, language and culture. If family farming ceases to exist as a way of life, the consequences for our food system, the world’s biodiversity, our languages and culture will be severe. Better reverse the dramatic decline before it is too late. Long live biodiversity, long live family farming!

Edith van Walsum
director ILEIA

The post Editorial – Time to celebrate biodiversity, before it is too late appeared first on Ileia.

Agrobiodiversity encompasses crop, livestock and fish species, varieties and breeds, soil biodiversity and pollinators and the diversity of farming systems and agricultural landscapes. It is the basis of the food we eat.

Agricultural biodiversity is also about how, over generations, people have drawn on their accumulated skills and knowledge, building on the natural environment and all its diversity, to utilise, develop and conserve these natural resources and their products − the seeds that grow into our food crops, the livestock and fish, the wild biodiversity that supports key functions of the agro-ecosystem, the diversity of landscapes, farmers and knowledge systems.

Agriculture depends on biodiversity. It is the DNA of the agricultural landscape, both literally and metaphorically, and the cornerstone of food and nutrition security, climate change adaptation, conservation and sustainable livelihoods. However, in practice the vast majority of the world’s agriculture and food systems are destroying the very biodiversity on which they rely at a very fast pace. Control over genetic resources is increasingly being placed in the hands of transnational corporations. Farmers’ access to these resources is at risk.

Industrial biodiversity?

One of the big debates around agrobiodiversity centres around “land-sparing” versus “land-sharing”: either the separation or integration of farming and natural ecosystems.

Proponents of land-sparing advocate intensive industrialised agriculture. They argue that this leads to more productivity per hectare, and leaves land for nature and biodiversity conservation. This approach has failed to nourish the majority of the world’s rural people, has polluted and depleted vast amounts of natural resources and biodiversity and displaced local communities. Moreover, the homogenisation of agricultural systems has resulted in the increased vulnerability of crops and livestock to the effects of climate change and to pests and diseases. The recent avian and swine flu epidemics are a clear reminder of the latter.

A land-sharing approach does not separate biodiversity from agriculture but acknowledges the intrinsic linkages between the two. This approach builds on the productive potential of agrobiodiversity combined with farmer knowledge, cultures and skills. A landsharing approach, translated into policy and support for scaling up, could safeguard the biodiversity base of our food and agricultural system and reduce the risk of (further) surpassing our planetary boundaries and risking the future of farming.

Small farmers, huge potential

According to the FAO, over 1.5 billion people in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa alone live on smallholder family farms. These farmers have the right to a sustainable livelihood in the areas they currently live in, and agro-ecological practices building on biodiversity can provide them with a strategy to claim that right.

Family farmers are, often by default, custodians of biodiversity. This especially holds true for those living in poverty, as building resilient farming systems is the most logical choice for them. This is clearly seen in the Deccan region of India .

Many family farmers who live on marginal land where climate change impacts and selection pressures are greatest, have become local experts in identifying crop species and varieties resilient to shocks and stresses. Particularly women and older farmers are active breeders of plants and livestock, conserving local landraces and traditional breeds, drawing on wild species and selecting their preferred and adaptive characteristics over generations. Building on the natural capacities of a diverse agro-ecosystem makes these family farmers less dependent on external (chemical) inputs. Agro-ecological practices are also well suited to the smallholder context, as labour use is flexible and used to optimise livelihoods rather than to maximise production.

However, farmers’ rights to develop, save, exchange and sell their landraces and traditional varieties is threatened. Under pressure from international trade agreements and conventions such as UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), many governments have started to give intellectual property rights over seeds to transnational corporations. Legislation increasingly demands requirements of stability, uniformity, and distinctness on seeds that are sold and exchanged. Local varieties used by farmers often do not meet these conditions as they carry high genetic variability. This puts biodiversity, cultural heritage and farmers’ rights at risk and stifles the very innovation and development such agreements claim to stimulate.

Knowledge for transformation

Globally, there is a rich mosaic of locally rooted practices and initiatives that promote and enhance agricultural biodiversity. Together, they make up the ingredients for a transformation of the current system towards robust future-proof and farmer-centred agro-ecological systems based on agricultural biodiversity. But such a transformation will not happen by chance. Analysing case studies and learning from emerging successes of scaling up (see box) are essential for understanding the factors that could catalyse large-scale change. Farming Matters shows that many groundbreaking experiences are or can be the foundation for larger transformations.

For the past two years, a network of organisations and individuals in the agrobiodiversity@knowledged knowledge programme has started to address some of the questions around the transformation of our food system and the role of generating, sharing and promoting the uptake of knowledge on agrobiodiversity at different levels. We found that there seems to be a “glass house” that prevents the many positive examples from around the world from taking hold at a larger scale. Scaling includes both horizontal scaling out (spreading of practices) as well as vertical scaling up (uptake in policy and by institutions). The Network members identified five interlinked themes that constitute entry points for positive change: markets and trade; policies and governance; seeds, breeds and technology; information platforms, and community resilience.

Catalysing the process of scaling

 Scaling up in India
 
In January 2014, G.V. Ramanjaneyulu and his team at the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) in India received the Best Innovation Award for their work on sustainable agriculture, especially on ecological practices to reduce pesticide use. Many farmers have reported on the effectiveness of these practices, their economic viability and how they have increased their self-confidence.
 
Women farmer organisations have even demanded that the programme be initiated in their villages. CSA’s goal to mainstream an alternative to pesticides overlapped well with the government’s aim to improve livelihoods through cost reduction in farming. Bringing other actors on board scaled up individual islands of success. CSA is currently working in more than 11,000 villages! The Maharashtra State Rural Livelihoods Mission award holds further promise for the future, as the state aims to collaborate to scale up the experience in ten districts. Just one week later, CSA received another award, this time in Bihar. Their work clearly is convincing people and changing attitudes.

Why does change lead to transformation in some regions or systems, but not in others? Social and cultural norms form some of the strongest barriers, according to Michael Commons .

Many experiences show that interaction between researchers and local communities plays a crucial role in understanding how landscape and system transformations take place. Scientists can contribute by, among other things, making models for analysing data aggregations, bringing in new germplasm from other areas and providing technological support.

Communities naturally have a deeper knowledge and understanding of local conditions, including experience of historical events that have contributed to shaping the current system. And they outnumber the scientists. Their potential contribution to change is enormous. Such collaborations have shown to be effective in a number of experiences, as can be seen in Micronesia and Iran.

Furthermore, experience shows that with adequate support and investment from governments, agro-ecology can be efficiently scaled up. This requires political will and, ultimately, a real democratisation of agricultural and food governance. Political will can be created through positive experiences and pressure from civil society, as was the case in Brazil (box) and India (box). In other places around the world, farmers, indigenous communities, citizens and non-governmental organisations are mobilising to protect the right to save, exchange and sell seeds.

As this issue goes to print, farmers and citizens are contesting proposed seed legislation in Ghana and Brussels that would increase corporate control over seeds, threaten the sale of traditional and farmer varieties and, in the case of Ghana, allow the commercial sale of GMOs. Farmers and citizens point at the high cost of GM seeds and the failed promises of better yields and lower pesticide use in surrounding countries. Several months ago, Colombian farmer organisations successfully protested against a resolution that would have made it illegal for farmers to save seeds and handed all control over seed markets to private companies. At the international level, civil society pressure has led to the ambitious reform and significant democratisation of the decision making processes of the FAO’s Committee on Food Security.

We found that it is fundamentally important to invest in knowledge building and sharing among different stakeholder groups and to tailor your messages and means of communication to different audiences. The use of participatory approaches that bring different knowledge systems together is particularly important, as is the building of partnerships based on trust and equality. This is what we learnt from the work of EkoRural with farmers in Ecuador.

Similarly, in Uganda, Ankola Longhorn cattle keepers have played a crucial role in documenting and sharing their knowledge on the importance of animal genetic diversity .

The road to success and scale cannot always be thoroughly planned in advance. Sometimes you need to grab an opportunity when it presents itself by making use of champions, as in the case of Ecuador, or by recognising windows of opportunity. The Deccan Development Society celebrates successes among women farmers and the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture in India used the opportunity provided by a well-known talk show host to share its case.

The future holds promise

A transformation towards an agricultural system powered by biodiversity and farmer communities is possible and already happening. Its scaling requires inclusive, community-oriented and knowledge-based approaches that put farmers, rather than corporate interests, centre stage. It builds upon readily available resources: people, their labour, their knowledge and their local natural resources.

Local and informal sector networks and initiatives are not only important for promoting biodiversity-based agro-ecological farming and sharing knowledge and skills. They also matter for enhancing farmers’ capacity to stand up for their rights at local, national and international fora. The International Year of Family Farming is an excellent opportunity to acknowledge, celebrate and support such networks and initiatives, and to put their successes in the spotlight. We hope that this issue of Farming Matters is a good start and will be an inspiration for many.

Gine Zwart, Sarah Doornbos and Willy Douma

Gine Zwart, Sarah Doornbos and Willy Douma work on the joint Hivos/Oxfam Novib knowledge programme agrobiodiversity@knowledged, which has been operational for the past two years. They work with a large group of organisations and individuals from around the globe to generate and share knowledge around agricultural biodiversity. This issue of Farming Matters has been compiled in close co-operation with the agrobiodiversity@knowledged programme.
E-mail: ginezwart@oxfamnovib.nl; s.doornbos@hivos.nl; w.douma@hivos.nl

The post Theme overview – Agriculture, biodiversity and communities: does it add up? appeared first on Ileia.

Access to genetic resources and genuine collaboration with scientists is lacking in most parts of the world. The Centre for Sustainable Development (CENESTA) in Iran developed a model that has given a large number of farmers access to a great amount of biodiversity in a relatively short time: Evolutionary Plant Breeding (EPB).

A dynamic and inexpensive strategy, EPB rapidly enhances the adaptation of farmers’ crops to climate change. It builds on our experience with Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB), where farmers plant a number of different varieties of the same crop and, after several years of selection, choose a small number of varieties for multiplication and use. In EPB, farmers start planting a much larger mixture of hundreds or thousands of different varieties, and do not necessarily aim to arrive at single varieties.

Our ideas evolve, as do our seeds

EPB relies on mixing as many different types of a particular crop as possible, and leaving them to cross freely between each other. Genetically, the seed which is harvested is never exactly the same as the seed which was planted.

Several farmers in different regions plant and harvest a small sample of seed (4-5 kg) in the same 250 m2 plot for successive years. These plant populations then evolve under different types of agronomic management and in the face of specific combinations of stress from diseases, insects, weeds, drought, extreme temperatures and salinity. In this way, the frequency of genotypes adapted to local conditions gradually increases.

The idea of EPB is not new. As early as 1929, methods were developed for generating heterogeneous populations of barley where locally adapted varieties were needed. In 1956, the idea was labelled as the “evolutionary plant breeding method”. Yet already in 1956 there was a strong demand for uniformity in the most important food and feed crops. This was driven by the growing use of chemical inputs, which required uniformity to give a consistent response. In addition, emerging seed companies attempted to protect their breeding programmes and associated products by promoting this uniformity. Therefore it was only in 2008 that EPB was first implemented in a formal project.

Before CENESTA launched participatory breeding projects, all the breeding programmes in Iran had excluded farmers from the most important stages of the breeding process, and farmers often did not adopt the products of these programmes. EPB follows a completely different approach, with farmers at the centre of producing new varieties and applying the principles of natural selection themselves.

Sowing the seeds of success

“Farmers can guide the evolution of their crop mixtures”

In 2008, with support from Dr Salvatore Ceccarelli, CENESTA started with EPB by providing five farmers in Kermanshah and Semnan provinces with mixtures of, 1,600 different types of barley supplied by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

This mixture included a wide range of germplasm: the wild progenitor, Hordeum spontaneum, landraces from several countries and modern breeding material. Within such an “evolutionary” mixture different plants cross naturally to produce new types. Each year, the types produce more seed and gradually the population becomes better adapted to the specific and changing circumstances of farmers.

The success of EPB spread far beyond these first five farmers. Based on the success of the barley population, the Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARSI) established a similar programme for bread wheat. Evolutionary populations of a variety of crops are now also grown in several other countries. Also, the Iranian farmers of the first years were so satisfied with the population’s performance that they shared their mixtures of barley with other farmers in four other provinces, through CENESTA’s PPB programme and also informally with neighbours, friends and relatives. The populations now cover several hundred hectares and are planted in 17 provinces by about 150 farmers.

Living gene banks

“Thirty years ago we used to have many different varieties,” said Abdol-Reza Biglari, a farmer in Garmsar. “Most of the new varieties introduced to us were not suitable for more than one or two years. This shows that we have to return to biodiversity.” Gene banks perform an important role in the conservation of species, but they freeze not only seeds but also their evolution at the time of collection. Local varieties and wild relatives must also be conserved in situ. By combining participation and evolution in breeding programmes, farmers can guide the evolution of their crop mixtures in the most desirable way for them.

The evolutionary populations can be considered as a living gene bank. Farmers (by themselves or with scientists) select the most desirable plants and use them in participatory breeding programmes. For farmers who prefer to sow mixtures rather than single varieties, the evolutionary populations serve as a source of genetic resources for creating new mixtures. The importance of having secure access to such a collection of seeds became apparent in Jordan, for instance, where farmers and scientists turned to evolutionary populations once the civil war in Syria disrupted their regular source of breeding materials. Farmers become the owners of their future: with the best varieties evolving in their fields, there is less, or no, need to buy seeds.

Better seeds

Nemat Salemian, a farmer in Anjirak, recalls his first encounter with EPB. “We received this wheat from another farmer who told us that it’s a mixture of hundreds of different varieties and that we should plant it in our worst soil. My father said that in the 80 years that he has been a farmer, he has never seen better plants, despite the very bad soil and the climatic conditions this year.”

The EPB mixtures have been shown to produce higher yields and perform better in adverse conditions than their local or improved counterparts. Despite late sowing, in the first year of CENESTA’s programme, the evolutionary populations of barley out-yielded the local barley and performed almost as well as the improved barley cultivar. In the following year, the evolutionary populations of wheat yielded more than twice as much as the local varieties.

The EPB populations are also more resistant to weeds, diseases and pests. In 2011-2012, a farmer in the district of Garmsar witnessed that his evolutionary population of wheat had higher yields than the local improved variety and the evolutionary population did not need to be treated with pesticides and herbicides. This suggests that evolutionary populations could be very useful in organic agriculture and cheaper to grow.

Farmers can face some challenges with EPB. Very small plots of land may not be enough to grow their own evolutionary population. To resolve this, in a community of small farmers the evolutionary population could rotate among them. Also, in the case of severe climatic events, only a small fraction of the population may survive – leaving too little diversity in the mixture to continue to adapt. In this case it may be necessary to supplement the mixture with new types. Nevertheless, in such circumstances the farmers growing the evolutionary population will have more chance of harvesting some of their crops, while fields with only one variety may be entirely destroyed.
After receiving a small amount of seed in the first year of the EPB trials, we expected farmers to continue to sow just enough to allow the population to evolve and to act as a source of locally adapted varieties.

One of the most unexpected outcomes of the evolutionary population trials was that some farmers decided to sow all the seed they had harvested, multiplying and cultivating the seed as their main crop.

“About 20 farmers have asked me for this seed, after they saw it in my field last year,” Faraj Safari recalls. “This year I am only going to grow this mixture. I’m going to plant about 40 hectares with this mixture. I can give seed to about 10 or 15 other farmers this year, and more next year.”

The question of the consumer

Many people are concerned if the final product from EPB mixtures is of a suitable quality to use and sell. In Iran, with wheat and barley, there has been no reason for worry. A protein analysis of the barley varieties, which are mostly used as an animal feed in Iran, showed that the evolutionary population had more protein than the local improved variety. For wheat, farmers and bakers have been pleased with the bread they made from the evolutionary populations. Some are even marketing the bread in local artisanal bakeries. Farmers growing evolutionary populations in France and Italy confirmed that creating mixtures not only brings greater yield stability, but also greater aroma and quality to the bread.

The suitability of evolutionary populations as the main crop depends on the use of the crop and the cultural preferences of farmers and consumers. Even when the crop does not lend itself to being consumed as a mixture (as with many vegetable varieties), the evolutionary populations still serve as living gene banks for farmers to source individual varieties. The use of EPB with vegetables is currently underway in Italy with tomato, beans and courgettes.

Where next?

The evolutionary populations of wheat and barley continue to be spread throughout Iran, both through farmer-to-farmer exchanges and through exchanges organised by DARSI, the Department of Agriculture of Fars Province, and CENESTA. The main challenge is to keep up with the fast spread of these seeds, to track the spread and the outcomes and to support farmers.

The first national workshop on EPB was organised in Shiraz in January 2013 where farmers from several provinces shared their experiences. Regular local, regional and national workshops and field visits are needed to strengthen farmers’ knowledge about how to use these populations. At the same time, we must try to develop awareness of the potential impacts of different seed laws and policies on farmers’ rights to save, exchange, develop and sustainably use their seeds.

Maryam Rahmanian, Maede Salimi, Khadija Razavi, Dr Reza Haghparast and Dr Salvatore Ceccarelli

Maryam Rahmanian (maryam@cenesta.org) and Maede Salimi (maede@cenesta.org) are Research Associates at CENESTA. Khadija Razavi (khadija@cenesta.org) is CENESTA’s Executive Director. Dr Reza Haghparast is the Head of the Rainfed Cereals Department at DARSI in Kermanshah, Iran (r.haghparast@areo.ir). Dr Salvatore Ceccarelli is a consultant at ICARDA (s.ceccarelli@cgiar.org).

To read more on EPB in Iran, visit www.cenesta.org.

The post Evolutionary populations: Living gene banks in farmers’ fields appeared first on Ileia.

I was chatting with my mother when a woman carrying grasses and flowers entered the house. The two greeted each other and the lady carefully unwrapped the shawl that she covered her load with, presenting a variety of grasses and flowers. It was the 11th of September, Ethiopian New Year, and the visit was part of Atete, a women’s ritual. My mother sat gracefully on a stool wearing her hand-made cotton dress and layers of beads around her neck. The kinche, a dish made with a special type of wheat, ghee and spices, was ready to be served.

My mother received four varieties of grass from her visitor and explained to me how each of them were used. The traditional fifth type of grass was missing. The place where this variety was always collected had been converted to a flower farm.

This little story transmits how I feel about agrobiodiversity. It shows how culture is at the centre of agrobiodiversity protection. The variety of spices that our mothers put in their ghee, the grass and the flower species that the visitor brought: they are all central to our culture. The grasses do not grow in degraded land, so a healthy ecosystem is another critical factor for agricultural biodiversity to thrive.

My total ignorance about the uses of these grasses symbolises the erosion of knowledge about our agrobiodiversity. We see this all over Africa: the present generation understands and appreciates little of the richness and diversity of crops, animals, vegetables and nutrition, or how to handle our seeds and food.

The biggest concern for me is Africa’s agriculture policies. As farmers, we have been told time and again that we are backward, ignorant, lazy and corrupt. We are pressured to relinquish large tracts of land to companies; orient agriculture to the market; use plenty of agricultural chemicals; become profit-driven entrepreneurs; forget our seeds and depend on external supplies. But I am convinced that this path will lead us to further loss of our agricultural biodiversity.

I think there is a better way to feed Africa while still maintaining our cultural practices in harmony with nature. We can produce healthy food in plentiful amounts through agro-ecological practices, while reviving our ecosystems, ensuring that traditional ecological knowledge passes on to the next generation, linking farmers with consumers and keeping our seeds in the hands of farmers.

Dr Million Belay

Dr Million Belay is the director of the Movement for Ecological Learning and Community Action (MELCA), Ethiopia, and the co-ordinator of the Africa Food Sovereignty Alliance. Farming Matters welcomes Dr Belay as regular columnist throughout 2014.
E-mail: millionbelay@gmail.com

The post Opinion: A better way to feed Africa appeared first on Ileia.

As this issue of Farming Matters illustrates so impressively, the world is witnessing an explosion of popular initiatives and experiences to use, save and develop agrobiodiversity. At GRAIN we also see this happening. Seed saving projects, seed festivals, community seed initiatives and exchange networks are mushrooming everywhere. This is both extremely encouraging and dearly needed.

We can’t count on governments to help us with the tremendous task of keeping biodiversity alive. They tend to move in the opposite direction as they facilitate the corporate takeover of seed and animal breeding, and promote industrial farming.

Some 20 years ago, many of us were excited when the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Biosafety Protocol and the International Seed Treaty were signed. But none of them have contributed much to keeping diversity alive in the fields. The Seed Treaty is now almost exclusively focused on gene banks, and mostly serves corporate plant breeders. The Convention on Biological Diversity became a tool for governments to turn biodiversity into a commodity under the banner of access and benefit sharing. And governments use the Biosafety Protocol to adopt biosafety laws that permit rather than prohibit GMOs.

All of these agreements talk about the rights of farmers and indigenous communities, but these were never implemented, and never will be. Instead, in many parts of the world, governments are now pushing restrictive seed legislation that gives intellectual property rights to corporations while outlawing farmers’ traditional role in maintaining diversity on the farm.

Peasants are keeping agrobiodiversity alive, but their survival is under threat from the rapid expansion of industrial farming. Driven by the powerful food and agro-fuel industries, the world is turning over its fertile farmlands to grow commodities that don’t feed people. In the past fifty years the amount of land dedicated to just four crops – soybeans, oil palm, rapeseed and sugarcane – has tripled. They now use an extra 140 million hectares of fields and forests where small farmers used to live. This amounts to just a bit less than all the farmland in the entire European Union.

We can only save agrobiodiversity if we save peasant farming. Global farmer movements such as La Via Campesina are trying to do precisely that by advocating food sovereignty. Food sovereignty promotes the use of agro-ecology, biodiversity, local markets and indigenous knowledge. It pushes for agrarian reform, fights against the industrial food system and global trade and puts local food producers centre stage again.

Unless we all join and win the battle against the industrial food system and for food sovereignty, local agrobiodiversity initiatives won’t stand a chance of surviving. At most, they will become isolated pockets of interesting experiments in a world of uniformity, controlled by corporations.

Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)

The team at GRAIN, a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.
Visit www.grain.org or e-mail: grain@grain.org

The post Opinion: No agrobiodiversity without peasants appeared first on Ileia.

Agrobiodiversity enables rural family farmers to cope with the dynamics and shocks that are inherent in farming, especially weather and market fluctuations and pests.

For villages in high altitude and risk-prone environments, such as the Ecuadorian Highland Andes, this is especially important. In the words of farmer Julio Guamo from Naubug village in Chimborazo, “With agrobiodiversity we can produce many different crops. If one does not succeed, others survive, so we don’t lose everything and are able to eat in difficult times.”

Nevertheless, numerous studies in our region showed that on-farm genetic resources have been in sharp decline over the last half-century. Something had to be done.

Farmers as custodians of seeds

Despite owning just 20% of the land and water resources dedicated to agriculture in Ecuador, smallholder family farms provide more than 70% of the country’s staple products. Farmers have historically conserved these traditional seeds and the knowledge about how to use them that form the basis of this food production. Smallholder family farmers are the largest supplier of seeds of both improved and local varieties for the majority of Andean crops. “Improved” seed varieties have never constituted more than 1-2% of planting material in Ecuador.

Since the 1960s, agricultural policies that favoured monocultures and export-led production have neglected smallholder management of genetic resources and weakened the role of the state in improving knowledge and organisation among small farmer systems. Undoubtedly, Ecuador’s current farmer seed system is one of the most conspicuous forms of social self-organisation, encompassing an extensive network of actors, traditions and institutions that has vigorously resisted the influence of external actors and agricultural policies.

Recently, there has been more political and scientific recognition of local biodiversity as a critical element for maintaining resilient and dynamic agricultural systems. For instance, a recent ministerial decree recognises the potential of smallholder family farmers to produce and market potato seeds. The Bill of Agrobiodiversity and Seeds, currently subject to heated debate in the National Assembly, also recognises farmers’ seeds and the need to strengthen the informal system.

Action research on agrobiodiversity

Despite these positive trends, smallholder management of agrobiodiversity is at great risk, as we found in the communities in the central highland provinces of Bolivar, Chimborazo and Cotopaxi between 2007 and 2012.

To assess the state of these communities’ on-farm agrobiodiversity and locally run seed systems, we worked with farming communities to document and share their knowledge about genetic resources and the functions in their lives, as well as on knowledge and practices tied to the management, availability, access and control of seeds.

In addition to conducting approximately 800 surveys with farmers in more than 30 communities, we carried out participatory assessments using a variety of tools for community management of agro-biodiversity. Timelines, transects, focus groups, mapping of farms, and lists of agro-biodiversity were accompanied by a method called Participatory Four Cell Analysis (see also p. 40). This entails in-depth discussion on the destinations of specific crops, their sale, terms of trade, and family consumption, revealing the relevance and importance of particular crops.

We motivated the farmers to start a dialogue about their genetic resources, because it is often felt that only when things are expressed and said, they exist. The main objective of this participatory process was therefore to make visible to the community the role and function of their seeds, and to recognise those individuals with outstanding knowledge and capacity to conserve biodiversity.

Disappearing varieties

Our findings showed that, despite their high nutritional values and historic importance for food security, Andean roots and tubers such as mashua (Tropaeolum tuberosum), oca (Oxalis tuberosa), jícama (Pachyrhizus erosus) and melloco (Ullucus tuberosus) have become infrequent. According to the farmers, several factors have contributed to the decline of these traditional crops. They include the expansion of monoculture planting and market-driven agriculture, which commonly emphasise the cultivation of “European” vegetables. Farmers also mentioned changes in traditional weather patterns, which have increased the risk of crop failure and, as a consequence, the loss of seeds.

The results of our research, some of them summarised in the table, illustrate the systematic loss of community knowledge and control of their biological resources. However, the table also shows that there are farmers who are passionate about managing plants and seeds. These individual leaders hold tremendous value for the transmission of knowledge and the enhancement of socio-technical innovations.

New initiatives

“It was crucial to make the role and function of the seeds visible to the community”

Following this analysis, we strengthened farmers’ awareness of, and control over, their biological resources. For example, we enabled community members to visualise the multiple relationships between farming families and their biological resources and seeds and their livelihood priorities.

We assisted local farmer leaders with conducting experimental learning activities with other farmers, seed circulation, botany, and genetics, by using field days, tours, and farmer-to-farmer exchanges. As a result of this combination of research and action, communities are now more aware and better equipped to start building control over their biological resources.

Recently, communities have started to (re)construct, strengthen and expand their own seed banks. For each seed that farmers receive from the bank, they return two after their harvest. This is a multipurpose support fund: it protects the seed varieties and generates products for continued circulation. A number of pilot banks are now operating with good results. This success is arousing curiosity among other neighbouring communities, who are in the process of setting up their own exchange systems and seed banks. We also identified highly innovative families and worked to build them into a support network of like-minded peers. Through research organisations, they accessed germplasm stored in gene banks, especially to recover lost potato varieties.

Nevertheless, such efforts in the use and conservation of biodiversity will be at risk without new economic models that recognise the value of local food products. If there is no demand for local food, there will be no use for local seeds. In the last four years we have also encouraged a crucial complementary process that connects urban citizens directly with rural producers so that they can access fresh, healthy local food. This stimulates farmers to continue growing a variety of crops using agro-ecological practices, reconnecting the cultural and political aspects of food. Already, we see that this is having a very positive impact on health, the environment and the local economy.

Slowly but steadily building change

We started small with short, inspiring experiences, which have enabled community members and organisations to become active stakeholders with vested interests in the process. These processes take time to implement, but once they become embedded in the community structure they are ultimately much more sustainable.

The result has been a slow but steady counter-movement against the continued loss of biodiversity in these communities. Several actors, including non-governmental organisations, universities, research institutes and local governments have begun to promote discussion on the value and relevance of conserving and utilising native biodiversity.

Urban organisations are actively involved in the discussion on the new laws of food sovereignty, agrobiodiversity and seeds, among others. Both the community members and ourselves feel that this experience needs to be continued and expanded to new crops and territories.

For us, the key factor of success has been to work with (rather than against) local experiences. Everywhere, even under the most difficult conditions of hardship and social marginalisation, there are always families that are capable of defending and advancing their own on-farm biodiversity. We find great hope and inspiration in these families. The challenge is in finding ways to strengthen their knowledge and to build linkages with other like-minded people to stand firm against the ongoing threats and mass-marketing of industrial agriculture and industrial foods.

Ross Mary Borja, Pedro Oyarzún, Sonia Zambrano, Francisco Lema and Efraín Pallo

Ross Mary Borja, Pedro Oyarzún, Sonia Zambrano, Francisco Lema and Efraín Pallo work with the EkoRural Foundation in Quito, Ecuador.
E-mail: rborja@ekorural.org.

The authors wish to thank the participating campesino organisations from the Central Highlands, Steve Sherwood, Keely McCaskie, the McKnight Foundation, the Dutch Embassy, the Tidlund Foundation, the Swift Foundation, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for their contributions.

The post Realising the potential of peasant seeds appeared first on Ileia.

Five years ago, the land behind our house was nearly entirely devoid of topsoil and almost nothing would grow there. My wife’s parents, who are farmers, didn’t think it was even worth trying to grow anything on this poor soil, and preferred to use their other land which was much more fertile.

From organic farmers in our network I had learned the value of using land close to the house, or as they call it, the “supermarket behind my house”. At that time, I was professionally supporting organic farming and its benefits. If I could start from one of the worst situations and get to a wonderful fertile farm – this would be a good story to tell.

My first significant act was to cover the soil with the rice straw that many people in our area burn after harvesting. This and this alone was enough to change the conditions drastically.

A few months later, the soil was softer, moister and there was more life. Weeds started to appear where before there were none. At first, I didn’t like the dominant weed growing, but then I observed that its roots had many nitrogen-providing rhizobium nodules and the plant was basically an effective soil cover. I realised that this plant, which I didn’t plant at all, was doing quite a lot for my soil and my garden. I could go on describing other steps, but that is a longer story. My experience shows that even if we do very little we can still help nature along in the right direction in a big way.

In my ten years of supporting organic agriculture, I have seen many successful examples where farmers have revitalised their soil and environment and are producing better quality crops. Initially organic farming is more work, but once nature takes over and the soil and agro-ecology work their magic, there is very little a farmer needs to do besides being present, learning from the farm, and occasionally doing some tweaking.

Why is not everyone doing it?

As an American living in Thailand, I stick out, and being a foreigner people expect and accept that I will do some strange things – like investing time and effort in the backyard on which everyone had given up hope. For others, particularly in the village environment, social pressures often make it difficult to try something new. Even though thousands of organic farmers around the world were strong enough to go forward in spite of being told they would fail, they are still a minority and their way of thinking has not yet transformed the dominant village culture.

I see a global set of norms that appear to go against the practices and principles that support biodiversity, making it even more difficult for people to change their ways. Even though there are other reasons that biodiverse forms of agriculture are not taking off, for me the invisible barrier of the “glass house” is present in these cultural and social norms that influence how we see and act in the world, largely unconsciously.

Norms and barriers

A first such norm is the emphasis on a very structured and organised cleanliness that has emerged. It also is referred to as “sanitary”, meaning free from any sort of insects, animals (aside from pets), and micro-organisms. Weedicides, fungicides, pesticides, GMO varieties: they all work in this direction. If a biodiverse “jungle” in someone’s garden or farm is considered bad and a sterile orderly environment is good, we will have an inherent adversity to biodiversity.

A second norm is an expectation of instant results. Let’s take the example of pesticides for instance, or in the Thai language, “insect killing medicine”. Someone who expects and appreciates quick results may not be impressed with slower acting herbal pesticides, let alone with helping a healthy ecosystem to re-establish a balance.

Thirdly, there seems to be a loss of value and respect for one’s own knowledge and responsibility, and an increase in value and respect for knowledge from outside “experts” and recognised authorities. If some sort of accreditation or label establishes that GM foods or a small amount of pesticide residue is safe to eat, it is good enough. On the other hand, many question whether using aged manure as fertilizer is safe – even though this fertilizer has been used longer than anything else. Rather than to depend only on the global knowledge of “experts”, the traditional and cultural knowledge passed on by one’s ancestors can be a great starting point, as is exchanging knowledge with one’s neighbours.

I have also observed a norm of increasing specialisation in response to globalised trade networks. The dominant mantra is that the secret to success is to specialise, producing one thing very efficiently for the global market. Taken to its maximum this may lead to areas that are not only free of agricultural biodiversity but to huge agro-bio-uniform industrial plantations that are free of small-scale farmers as well.

Finally, there is the mantra of money. While it is recognised by most that there are universal goods, like peace, biodiversity and environmental health, these goods do not show on one’s balance sheet of growth until they generate dollars. With such a mantra of money, agro-biodiversity is only likely to receive more general support when it can be shown to support economic development. This really limits the number of options and paths to take.

How to change such norms?

My only idea is to expose others to alternatives and new interpretations. This is effectively what pioneering organic farmers have done. While changing societal norms does not normally come quickly or easily, this process may also be fun. I see this with many of my organic farmer friends.

Having continued and succeeded in spite of many telling them that they were crazy, they no longer fear failure, and thus they get to play and experiment and learn every day. I look forward to seeing new manifestations of agrobiodiversity, such as “agrobiodiversity meets shopping centre” or “agrobiodiversity meets parking lot”. These may sound like crazy concepts now but this could just be the limitation of our imagination.

Michael B. Commons

Michael B. Commons lives in Thailand and works for the Earth Net Foundation.
E-mail: michael@greennet.or.th

The post How to break through the glass house: A personal reflection appeared first on Ileia.

Mountain farming is family farming: A contribution from mountain areas to the International Year of Family Farming 2014

S. Wymann von Dach, R. Romeo, A. Vita, M. Wurzinger and T. Kohler (eds.), 2013. FAO, CDE, BOKU. 100 pages.

Family farming is the main type of land use in mountain areas around the world. Yet mountain farming is rapidly transforming everywhere, due to population pressure, out-migration, urban encroachment, mining expansion and increasing claims on land for conservation.

A testament to the diversity and commonality of mountain farming, this report provides a collection of case studies from mountain areas across the world. It aims to raise awareness about mountain family farming and to encourage appropriate support for mountain areas. This report highlights opportunities for mountain family farmers to continue to develop organic farming practices, strengthen local and regional co-operation and seize niche marketing opportunities.

Reclaiming food security

M. Carolan, 2013. Routledge. 196 pages.

This book presents a critique of the dominant directions taken by public policy in the name of food security. He argues that food should not be treated in the same way as any other commodity and genuine food security should be firmly aligned with principles of food sovereignty, wellbeing, equity and ecological sustainability. He examines the history of pursuing increased agricultural production (at all costs), trade liberalisation, global market integration and increased marketing and why these approaches have failed to deliver food security. The author urges that we move towards a renewed conceptualisation of food security that embraces freedom for people and nations to lead happy, healthy and long lives.

Scaling-up agroecological approaches: what, why and how?

S. Parmentier, 2014. Oxfam-Solidarity. 92 pages.

Agro-ecology is a science, a social movement and a broad set of agricultural approaches. Scaling up agro-ecology requires a systematic search for combinations of techniques and strategies that fit specific ecological, social and political contexts. This discussion paper aims to support civil society and government actors by providing evidence of the centrality of agro-ecological approaches for sustainable agriculture.

The author also highlights the challenges (along with specific actions) to scaling up agro-ecological approaches. These include breaking down ideological barriers, supporting farmer-to-farmer networks, creating supportive policy environments, empowering women and democratising the policy making process.

Smallholders, food security and the environment

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2013. 54 pages.

This easy-to-read overview of family farming gets right to the point: smallholders form a vital part of the global agricultural community. This is one of the three key messages of the report. In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa smallholders are responsible for supplying 80% of local food. Yet they are often relegated to infertile soils, and face threats from large-scale land grabs and policies that are biased against them. The second message is that smallholder productivity depends on well-functioning ecosystems. Historically the two have always supported each other and understanding of these interactions and practices to strengthen them have been continuously refined.

The authors argue that intensification needs to focus on strengthening the natural processes responsible for ecosystem services such as pest control, nutrient cycling, and water retention. This requires a redefinition of the relationship between agriculture and the environment; the report’s final key message. An array of sustainable agriculture intensification approaches already exist: conservation agriculture, agroforestry and integrated pest management.

Sustainable intensification also requires the removal of policy barriers, more research and better provision of information to smallholders. What the report lacks is a reflection on the wealth of farmers’ own experiences: the practices they have devised, which include some of those mentioned above, and cases where farmers themselves have managed to transform research and policies to strengthen food security and the environment. Such examples could offer an important contribution to the authors’ call “to facilitate sustainable, autonomous smallholder livelihoods adapted to local conditions and to enable smallholders to develop their own futures.”

More on agrobiodiversity

The conservation of agrobiodiversity begs the questions, what have we lost and what have we saved? The Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) publication, “The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture” (2010) provides an impression of some trends in conservation and the use of plant genetic resources worldwide.

Family farmers have long understood the benefits of sustaining biodiversity, while scientists and policy makers are increasingly acknowledging the roles played by farmers. “Community biodiversity management promoting resilience and the conservation of plant genetic resources” (2013) presents some history and experiences from organisations supporting farmers and farming communities with in-situ management of biological resources. This book is part of a comprehensive series published by Bioversity International in association with Earthscan entitled “Issues in agricultural biodiversity”. This series deals with many issues, from legislation on access and benefi t sharing of genetic resources to crops’ wild relatives.

Many individuals and organisations are actively supporting the conservation of agrobiodiversity and helping family farmers to retain traditional practices and knowledge. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) website on Biocultural Heritage provides tools, and shares research and review policies on indigenous people’s knowledge, practices and biological resources.

A report published by The European Learning Network on Functional Agrobiodiversity (ELN-FAB), “Functional agrobiodiversity nature serving Europe’s farmers” (2012), offers insights into European agricultural and biodiversity policies as well as some practical ways for farmers to increase their on-farm biodiversity.

A recent report released by the Gaia Foundation and the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance entitled “Seeds for life – scaling up agrobiodiversity” (2013), proposes urgent actions to revive seed diversity in the face of numerous threats. The Gaia Foundation’s website also features two films, “Seeds of freedom” (2012), which charts the history of seeds from traditional farming to the global food system and “Seeds of sovereignty” (2013), which journeys to Africa to see how farming communities and organisations are resurrecting traditional seed diversity.

The post Mind! New resources / More on agrobiodiversity appeared first on Ileia.

Nepal: Participatory analysis of agrobiodiversity

While the government of Nepal is promoting improved and hybrid seeds, in 1998 the Nepalese NGO Local Initiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development (LI-BIRD) developed a method called “Participatory Four Cell analysis”, which enables communities to assess the status of their agricultural biodiversity. It visualises the amount of crop diversity available in a community and the varieties that might be at risk of being lost.

The four cell analysis consists of a matrix, with one axis mapping the number of farmers planting a specified variety and the other the size of the area in which the crop is grown. This method has gained worldwide recognition. It provides a basis for communities to manage their biodiversity, including seed production, expansion of areas planted with local varieties, breed purification, and processing and marketing of traditional and local food items.

LI-BIRD has worked with over 11,000 farming households across Nepal, who are now managing their agrobiodiversity better as a result. This generates social, economic and environmental benefits. For example, local aromatic rice varieties such as Tilki and Kalonuniya were about to disappear, but thanks to community seed selection and enhancement, they have become commonly grown varieties and people are now selling them at premium prices.

For more information contact Pitambar Shrestha or Sajal Sthapit at Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD).
Visit www.libird.org or e-mail: pitambar@libird.org or ssthapit@libird.org

Zimbabwe: The diversity wheel in motion

Diversity Wheel during the community seed fair in Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe (UMP) district. Photo: R. Alcadi (IFAD)
In Zimbabwe, support from IFAD, Oxfam Novib and its partners has encouraged farmers and NGOs to build on the experience of LIBIRD in Nepal (see above). Community seed fairs are a valuable opportunity to exchange seeds and knowledge, and to take stock of the status of biodiversity in their communities. One way to do this is by using the “Diversity Wheel”, originating from the Four Cell Analysis in Nepal and further developed by the Zimbabwean Community Technology Development Trust.

At a seed fair, a facilitator picks up one seed variety and ask the farmers present, “How many of you are growing this variety?” and “Is this variety grown on a large or small area of land?” A fifth cell was added to the original tool, referring to varieties that a community lost. This prompts farmers to discuss why certain varieties are no longer being grown, or why they value a specific variety. It leads them to reflect on how to pro-actively ensure the conservation of varieties at risk.

Once all the crops that farmers grow are placed on the Diversity Wheel the farmers find it easy to visualise how their food security and diet composition is evolving. The Diversity Wheel is a story of partnerships, where good ideas build on each other and travel across continents. It is also an example of a tool that puts the farmers firmly in the driver’s seat.

For more information contact Rima Alcadi and Shantanu Mathur at the Strategy and Knowledge Department of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
Visit www.ifad.org or e-mail: r.alcadi@ifad.org

Mozambique: The Maputo Earth Market

The Maputo Earth Market proves that markets and agrobiodiversity can support each other. Like its counterparts in Austria, India and the United States, Africa’s first Earth Market taps from the rich, but often hidden, potential of local ecosystems and cultures. Traditional leafy vegetables, fruits, street food, fresh vegetables, liquors, jams and more are on display. In contrast to other urban market places, all the products are local, seasonal, organic or artisanal and all stalls are manned by small-scale family farmers.

Farmers appreciate the market as it enables them to bypass intermediaries and sell their produce directly to consumers. Having a diverse range of seasonal and traditional vegetables and other foods is also valued by consumers. This encourages family farmers to plant a diversity of crops on their farm and maintain local varieties. The market is not merely a purchase point. It is also a meeting place for farmers and consumers.

Farmers eagerly talk about how they cultivate their crops. They explain how traditional foods are prepared or delve into the nutritious value of certain foods. In this way local food cultures are shared and maintained. The Maputo Earth Market is a collective effort for food sovereignty, introduced by Slow food, its local chapter Muteko Waho, Gruppo di Volontariato Civile, and the National Union of Mozambican Farmers.

For more information contact Velia Lucidi at Slow Food International.
E-mail: v.lucuiedi@slowfood.it

Chile: Certified biodiverse communities

In the Chiloé archipelago, located in the south of Chile, traditional agro-ecological production systems host a wide range of biodiversity and indigenous cultural cultivation practices. Communities have cultivated many different varieties of potato for generations, offering a range of adaptations to different socio-ecological conditions. The farming communities, the Centro de Educación y Tecnología and other institutions and organisations joined forces to get Chiloé recognised as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) site by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

In order to achieve tangible benefits from this label, the communities registered a brand called “Chiloé”, based on this GIAHS recognition, to certify products on the basis of their geographical origin. This brand then certifies that the products were cultivated in highly diverse agro-ecosystems, where indigenous agricultural practices play an important role. It does not focus so much on the produce itself, but emphasises regional recovery and resilience. Farmers benefi t economically by selling their milk, cheese, native potatoes and fruits in the local market under this name, but are also developing rural tourism services.

The experience in Chiloé demonstrates that a certification that builds on the biocultural heritage of rural communities can generate clear benefits, both economically and in terms of self-worth and recognition. The process promotes and enhances the communities’ ancestral outlook on the conservation and use of biodiversity, particularly of their ancient potato varieties.

For more information contact Carlos Venegas, Director of the Centro de Educación y Tecnología (CET) in Chiloé.
E-mail: cetchiloe@gmail.com
A longer version of this article has been published in Spanish in LEISA Revista de Agroecología 29-4.

The post Locally rooted: Ideas and initiatives from the field appeared first on Ileia.