Document(s) 3 of 9

Part 2

THE APPROACH

A focus on community

Agrobiodiversity is complex and many-faceted, but ultimately it's all about food. More food, better food, secure food, food for all. However, if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, the focus must be on people, on the communities where diversity lives, and on engaging the people of these communities in a broader approach to the sustainable use of agrobiodiversity.

There is a scientific rationale for such a focus: it is that these communities are the principal stewards of the greater share of the world's biodiversity. Communities contain the skills and knowledge that have contributed to the wide range of distinct types and varieties of plants, animals, fish, and microorganisms that are vital to their (and our) food and health security. Communities have shaped and maintained the environments that support this diversity.

From the Andean highlands to the foothills of the Himalayas to the arid zones of Africa and the Middle East, farmers who have never heard the word "agrobiodiversity" understand full well the importance of selecting and preserving the best seed, the sturdiest stock. Farmers and the people of rural communities -- the women and men who are the stewards -- value agrobiodiversity for their very survival as well as for a variety of sociocultural reasons. Other users with a stake in agrobiodiversity are concerned with ecological, economic, and political values. So it is essential that any concerted effort to strengthen global agrobiodiversity begin by identifying what agrobiodiversity means -- and to whom.

Agrobiodiversity is a broad concept that includes a variety of biological diversity components -- from agricultural ecosystems, to crop varieties, to genes in plant and animal species. From an ecological perspective, agrobiodiversity supports and protects human lives, it provides continued inputs for evolution; it increases the productive capacity of ecosystems. Lessen agrobiodiversity and you weaken the resilience of the system and its capacity to deal with change. When this happens, communities face more limited options in managing their land and resources. And the end result is that opportunities for the creation and re-creation of farmer knowledge and experimentation -- the very processes that are essential for agrobiodiversity conservation, evolution, and improvement -- are lost.

Stemming the loss of diversity is critical. Community participation is the key. The most effective way to address the loss of agrobiodiversity is to concentrate first on the importance of biodiversity resources to the livelihoods of people, particularly in marginalized communities. It is in these marginal environments where resource conflicts and competition are often greatest. Second, these communities must be given the opportunity to participate as equals in enhancing the sustainable use of agrobiodiversity.

From that twofold focus comes the IDRC approach to PPB research -- an approach that is driven by three specific objectives:

• promote the use, maintenance, and enhancement of the knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local communities to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity;
• develop incentives, methods, and policies that facilitate the development of strategies for the conservation and enhancement of in situ agricultural biodiversity, and the participation of communities in their design and implementation; and
• support the creation of policies and legislation that recognize the rights of indigenous and local communities to genetic of resources and to the equitable sharing of benefits of the use of these resources.

By no means is this an isolated view. The approach and the objectives have a global context that builds directly on Article 12 of the CBD, which deals with research and training. They also link to many other CBD articles, such as those dealing with conservation and sustainable use, in situ conservation, access to genetic resources, and technical and scientific cooperation -- to name a few -- as well as to other international agreements.

PPB requires close collaboration between researchers and farmers, and potentially other stakeholders, to bring about plant genetic improvements.

By this point it should be clear that the issue of agrobiodiversity conservation is far from simple. Methodologies that combine understanding of the biological and the social aspects of complex systems are urgently needed. They should also utilize linkages between local and broader economic and policy frameworks. PPB is one such methodology. It is an approach requiring close collaboration between researchers and farmers, and potentially other stakeholders, to bring about plant genetic improvements. This covers the complete cycle of research and development activities associated with plant genetic improvement, including

• identifying breeding objectives,
• generating genetic variability or diversity,
• selecting within variable populations to develop experimental materials,
• evaluating these materials (this is known as participatory variety selection, or PVS),
• releasing materials, and
• diffusion, seed production, and distribution.

The approach could also include assessing existing policy or legislative measures, or both, and designing new ones where needed. Farmers and breeders, and other stakeholders -- such as traders, processors, distributors, and consumers -- can take on different roles at various points in the cycle, but they join forces to bring about change.

The right questions

Research begins with questions, and getting the questions right is half the work. PPB research combines not just plant genetics and plant pathology, it also includes economics and elements of anthropology, sociology, marketing, production, and of course farmer know-how. Defining the questions, then, is no simple task, and it is only the beginning. The real challenge is to find answers that are appropriate in the context where the research is conducted; answers that perhaps can also be applied successfully in other contexts.

The agrobiodiversity and PPB research projects that are described in the next chapter of this book all attempt in one way or another to find answers to three types of questions:

Questions dealing with the knowledge and practice of in-situ conservation and improvement of agricultural genetic resources:

• What do farmers know about the properties and uses of agricultural genetic resources, including conservation and improvement? How can we ensure that this knowledge is respected and used appropriately and fairly for the benefit
  of both local communities and the wider society?
• These are times of agroecological and socioeconomic change. What are viable management practices, fair cost- and benefit-sharing mechanisms, and useful incentives to strengthen in situ conservation and improve agricultural genetic resources under changing conditions?
• How can we encourage new participatory models in agricultural genetic conservation and improvement -- models that generate mutual benefits, encourage farmer-to-farmer exchange, and strengthen linkages between formal sector research-and-development and farmer experimentation?

Questions dealing with participation:

• What can be done to stimulate a more meaningful participation in research, development, and policy-making by the custodians of agricultural biodiversity?
• Are there enabling political and legislative conditions or changes that could help to make this happen?

Questions dealing with access, ownership, and compensation:

• What about policy or legislative changes? Are new regulations, incentives, or laws required to give marginalized farmers more equitable access to information and resources for conservation and improvement of agrobiodiversity?
• What impacts do intellectual property rights (IPR) in living organisms have on farmers' experimentation and innovation? And do farmers have fair access to the benefits derived from these processes?
• How can we work out fair access and compensation arrangements among stakeholders before actual interventions?

These questions represent a dynamic approach to crop conservation and improvement that incorporates the use of a PPB research methodology through the inclusion of elements such as social or gender analysis, consideration of policy linkages, and the formulation of policy and legislative alternatives.

Seeking the answers

As one of a number of development organizations supporting research on PPB and agrobiodiversity around the world, IDRC has accumulated a base of findings that is both broad and diverse. Many of the elements discussed above can be found in the design of the research that produced these results, and in many cases is still ongoing.

A decade of agrobiodiversity and PPB research has been more or less evenly spread across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East, and has included a number of global projects with research sites on several continents. Much of the research has been carried out in collaboration with other organizations. These include centres affiliated with the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), nongovernment organizations (NGOs), national agricultural research systems (NARS), and universities.

The research projects are as diverse as the participating organizations. They include all three major crop propagation types, with a clear focus on the major staple crops: rice, beans, maize, and to a lesser degree sorghum. Many projects focus on two or more crops, including combinations of open-pollinated, self-pollinated, and clonally reproduced, as well as vegetables, fruits, and other crops. Multicrop farming systems and home gardens are also included.

Most of the research has been conducted in unfavourable agroecosystems. "Unfavourable" in this context means agroecological areas with harsh climatic conditions, poor soils, and rugged landscape, or any combination of these. Some work is also underway in sites that offer more favorable environments, for purposes of comparison of results and to explore how PPB techniques might be useful under better conditions. However, this book focuses on PPB research in unfavourable conditions.

Not surprisingly, productivity or diversity, or both, are the focus of at least half the projects. However, empowerment is also an element in a good number of projects. Empowerment? Not just a buzzword in this context, it has to do with making farmers -- or even entire communities -- real partners in research. It also means improving the technical expertise of farmer­breeders, and affirming the rights of local people to have control over, and benefit from, their genetic resources.

Empowerment means making farmers real partners in research, and affirming the rights of local people to have control over, and benefit from, their genetic resources.

The participatory approach can be either consultative or collaborative. In the former, farmers and other stakeholders are consulted by the researchers from the formal system, but have little or no direct influence on the project and no decision-making power to direct the project in one way or another. In other words, although the project is participatory, the researchers still keep research decision-making firmly in their own hands. More recently it is encouraging to see that a number of projects have gradually moved to a more collaborative approach, with researchers and farmers discussing research steps and sharing
the decision-making on an equal footing.

User-differentiated analysis, particularly where it relates to gender, is now generally accepted as a very important feature of sound agricultural research. This type of analysis examines outcomes on the basis of a range of factors that may account for social differentiation, unequal power relationships, or economic inequity. These include gender, age, education, class, caste, and ethnicity. For example, it has been found that women make seed selections based on quite different factors than those used by men. Also, different ethnic groups within a region can show distinct preferences for certain food characteristics, such as flavour or cooking quality.

Policy analysis is also an important component of many crop-improvement projects. For example, government policies relating to pricing and marketing may be a contributing factor in how farmers manage their systems. Other policy issues include intellectual property rights and the certification of organic produce -- an increasingly important issue as the global demand for organic foods increases.

An understanding of the relationship between agrobiodiversity and the people who use, nurture, and depend upon it is vital to encouraging interactions that enhance and maintain this diversity. In Part 3 of this book we offer six participatory plant breeding "stories" -- examples of projects that are helping to build that understanding. These are projects that are also innovating research practice with the aim of producing food and seeds for all.

Document(s) 3 of 9