Introduction
Farmers throughout the world continue to maintain substantial crop diversity in their production systems, contributing to the conservation and management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) in their fields. On-farm management (OFM) of PGRFA refers to the use and maintenance of crops and varieties in agricultural systems and is considered an important strategy contributing to the conservation of PGRFA and adaptation of crops and varieties in existing production systems. Local crops and varieties, such as landraces and underutilized traditional crops, are also essential for the food security of smallholder farmers and provide a wider range of options for livelihood diversification and economic growth, thereby promoting resilience and enhancing farmers' capacity to adapt to change (Naeem and Li, Reference Naeem and Li1997; Gowdy et al., Reference Gowdy, Howarth, Tisdell and Kumar2009; Roe et al., Reference Roe, Thomas, Smith, Walpole and Elliott2011; De Boef et al., Reference De Boef, Subedi, Peroni, Thijssen and O'Keeffe2013a).
The importance of OFM and the sustainable use of PGRFA are increasingly being recognized at the international level, and key policy developments to promote and regulate this area have taken place, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Treaty on PGRFA (ITPGRFA). Such instruments specify the need to support farming communities in the conservation and management of local crops and varieties in their agricultural systems. A range of community-based initiatives and practices aimed at creating an enabling environment for OFM are currently being established as key components of crop conservation strategies. An example of a methodology that promotes this is community biodiversity management (CBM), which is geared towards raising awareness, building capabilities and encouraging communities to make informed decisions on the conservation and maintenance of their local crops and varieties (Shrestha et al., Reference Shrestha, Subedi, Peroni, De Boef, De Boef, Peroni, Subedi, Thijssen and O'Keeffe2013). However, the increased interest and interventions in support of OFM have not yet led to a clear global strategy for how crop diversity should be managed on farm with the involvement of local communities (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010), and many countries lack strong national PGRFA programmes (NPGRPs) that could support stakeholders in the conservation and management of PGRFA.
This article provides insights into practices and networks that involve and benefit ‘OFM practitioners’, i.e. professionals directly engaged in OFM or directly assisting farmers in OFM. Four key questions were used to analyse data from a survey of key stakeholders engaged in OFM, corresponding to two categories: ‘OFM practitioners’ and ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’:
-
(1) Which community-based practices do OFM practitioners currently promote?
-
(2) Which community-based practices do ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ and ‘OFM practitioners’ consider critical for supporting OFM?
-
(3) In what type of networks are the two groups of stakeholders currently involved and in what manner do they participate in these networks?
-
(4) What do the two groups of stakeholders see as the key benefits of participating in such networks?
The answers to these questions enable us to better understand which community-based practices can support farmers and local communities in OFM and which mechanisms are in place to promote collaboration and participation across stakeholder groups. This information will support and contribute to more participation and consultation of local communities in the design of national priorities, policies and programmes. A better understanding of the networks that stakeholders are currently involved in, the extent of their collaboration, and the benefits that they receive from collaborating can provide insights for increasing and improving the outreach of these networks, and NPGRPs, in their efforts to strengthen their support to OFM.
Methodology
The FAO, together with the Centre for Development Innovation (CDI) at Wageningen University and Research Centre (The Netherlands), designed a global survey in 2012 to
-
(1) identify interventions and practices that contribute to the maintenance and use of local crops and varieties;
-
(2) explore which practices various groups of stakeholders are involved in to support OFM;
-
(3) assess the degree of connectivity between OFM practitioners and managers and policy-makers associated with NPGRPs;
-
(4) assess to what extent stakeholders are active in relevant networks.
The survey was available in English, French and Spanish and disseminated electronically using SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com). The complete survey questionnaire is shown in Fig. S1 (available online). It targeted the national PGRFA focal points of the FAO and the ITPGRFA, professionals engaged in NPGRPs and alumni of CDI's PGRFA training programmes, as well as those involved in OFM through their work in governmental and non-governmental organizations, academia, research organizations, initiatives and projects. Organizations and networks that are not primarily associated with the conservation of genetic resources, such as those led by the Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), were also surveyed to reach a wider group of OFM practitioners.
The survey was structured to match two key categories: ‘OFM practitioners’ and ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’, and a set of complementary questions were put to the respondents of both profiles. The respondents were requested inter alia to indicate which activities they considered critical for promoting the OFM of local crops and varieties, how they were supporting these activities, and to what extent they were involved in networks supporting OFM.
Of the total 1168 survey respondents, 70% (818) classified themselves as ‘OFM practitioners’, while 30% (350) identified themselves as ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’. A total of seven stakeholder groups were identified among the respondents, including governmental organizations/authorities, national agricultural research institutes (NARIs), universities, civil society organizations (CSOs), non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and international and regional organizations. The survey had a global coverage, with 39% of the respondents being from Africa, 27% from the Americas, 21% from Asia and the Pacific, and 13% from other regions.
Results
Community-based practices supporting OFM
To get a better insight into what the ‘OFM practitioners’ consider to be the main areas of intervention of their organizations, we requested the respondents who matched this profile to identify the three major areas in which their organizations are engaged. ‘Community-based conservation and use’ was identified by more than 35% of the respondents, followed by interventions such as ‘crop improvement and plant breeding’ and ‘characterization and assessment of diversity’, all related to the conservation and use of PGRFA. Almost one-quarter of the ‘OFM practitioners’ are primarily involved in areas related to rural development, ‘organization, training and capacity development of local groups’, and ‘sustainable agricultural and land management practices’. One-sixth of the respondents also consider ‘ex situ conservation and gene bank management’ to be a key area of intervention, which indicates that many ‘OFM practitioners’ value and are involved in conservation methods other than those primarily addressed in the survey. Very few of the ‘OFM practitioners’ are engaged in ‘the protection and promotion of farmers’ rights' (5%); ‘advocacy, law, and policy development’ (4%); and ‘food, seed and cash relief’ (3%), which indicates that OFM may be less associated with these areas.
To identify the type of interventions carried out by ‘OFM practitioners’ in communities, we requested this group of respondents to indicate the level of their involvement in a number of practices related to the OFM of local crops and varieties. The respondents were asked to define their involvement in those practices over the last 5 years as ‘not involved’, ‘supported’, ‘participated’ or ‘organized’. More than 60% of the respondents in this group reported that they had been involved in the following practices: ‘production, storage and promotion of local products’ (70%), ‘documentation of diversity and knowledge’ (63%), and ‘educational programmes’ (61%). Most of the respondents defined their involvement in these practices as ‘organized’, indicating that the practices are regarded as key interventions supporting OFM. In Fig. S2 (available online), the involvement of ‘OFM practitioners’ in practices that contribute to the OFM of PGRFA is illustrated. A high percentage of the ‘OFM practitioners’ (57%) reported that they had been involved in ‘participatory crop improvement’, with 18% specifying that they had organized this activity. This shows that participatory crop improvement schemes are increasingly becoming a priority area for practitioners and farming communities. Practices in which less than 45% of the ‘OFM practitioners’ had been involved and less than 14% claimed to have organized are ‘community seed banks’, ‘diversity blocks with local crops and varieties’, and ‘eco- and agro-tourism’. These practices may have a large potential for supporting OFM, but this has not yet been fully explored, according to these results. Generally, the results show a higher percentage of people participating in, rather than supporting or organizing, practices. This was expected and reflects the fact that many community-based practices are designed to attract participation of many (i.e. diversity, seed and food fairs).
The respondents of both profiles (‘OFM practitioners’ and ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’) were requested to indicate three of the practices listed that they consider critical for promoting OFM. The results are shown in Fig. 1. The practices in which the majority of the ‘OFM practitioners’ are involved are also among the practices regarded as most critical, including ‘local product production, storage and promotion’, ‘documentation of diversity and knowledge’, and ‘educational programmes’. The opinion of both groups of respondents was similar in the identification of critical practices; for example, ‘educational programmes’ was identified as a critical intervention by approximately 30% of both groups of respondents. Subsequently, more than 20% of both groups of respondents identified the following practices as critical: ‘documentation of diversity and local knowledge’, ‘participatory crop improvement’, ‘local product production, storage and promotion’, ‘diversity awareness-raising’, and ‘value addition and market promotion’; these results show the variety of ways in which OFM is supported. They also show that ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ see ‘value addition and market promotion’, ‘diversity, seed and food fairs’, and ‘eco- and agro-tourism’ as activities with a larger potential for supporting OFM, while ‘OFM practitioners’ consider ‘distribution of local crops and varieties’ and ‘recognition of the role played by farmers’ as more critical issues than the other group. This indicates that ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ put greater emphasis on the economic benefits obtained from the use of crop diversity as a driver of OFM, while ‘OFM practitioners’ specified other benefits related to access to PGRFA, such as social and cultural value and resilience of households and local communities.
Practices critical for promoting the on-farm management (OFM) of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), as indicated by the two profiles of survey respondents. Notes: n= 818 for OFM practitioners and n= 350 for national PGRFA programme (NPGRP) managers and policy-makers.
Participation in networks related to OFM
As we consider networks to be an important driver of collaboration between groups of stakeholders, we asked both groups of respondents whether, and to what degree, they were part of any existing network associated with OFM. About 40% of the respondents of the profile ‘OFM practitioners’ and almost 50% of those classified as ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ reported that they are part of such a network. To determine which type of organizations are most commonly involved, the responses were clustered according to the respondents' type of organization (Fig. 2). More than 55% of the respondents representing NARIs reported their association with networks relevant to OFM, outranking the other stakeholder groups. On the contrary, a relatively high percentage of the respondents from CSOs (56%), the private sector (46%) and universities (43%) confirmed that they were not part of any network relevant to OFM. This demonstrates that a large proportion of key stakeholders are not contributing to existing networks that address OFM and might therefore have little collaboration with other stakeholders in this area. It is also worth noting that only 45% of the respondents working in ‘governmental organizations/authorities’ are participating in networks associated with OFM, which may indicate that OFM is not considered a priority at the national level, or in NPGRPs.
Stakeholders' association with networks relevant to the on-farm management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. NARI, national agricultural research institute; CSO, civil society organization; NGO, non-governmental organization; Int & Reg Org, international and regional organizations. Notes: n= 873.
Respondents who reported that they are part of a network also specified the number of networks that they are involved in at various levels, ranging from the community to the international level. The results are shown in Fig. 3. The responses were grouped according to the two profiles and a similar pattern was observed for both profiles with, on average, less than 10% of difference between them. Clearly, the majority of the respondents are part of one or two networks, with a focus on the national, regional and international levels. More policy-makers are members of national and regional level networks and less are involved in international and local level networks, where there are more ‘OFM practitioners’. Both ‘OFM practitioners’ and ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ reported that their most important network is at the national level, followed by networks at the international and regional levels. The results show that, despite the fact that many of the respondents are participating in several networks, the overall focus of the respondents is clearly on the national, regional and international levels rather than on the community and local levels. Creating strong local networks is a process, and these results might reflect the relatively recent focus on the need to fully involve communities and local organizations in OFM initiatives. However, as OFM takes place at the local level, these results reveal a major weakness in the composition and current outreach of many OFM networks.
Association of the survey respondents with networks supporting the on-farm management (OFM) of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA); disaggregated by the geographical level in which the network operates. NPGRP, national PGRFA programme. Notes: n= 279.
The percentage of ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ (19%) holding an executive position within these networks is higher than that of ‘OFM practitioners’ (11%). Still, a high percentage of ‘OFM practitioners’ stated that their organizations hold certain responsibilities within an OFM network or provide specific services when requested (62%), indicating that they are actively contributing to existing networks.
The respondents were also asked to specify what they consider to be the benefits of participating in networks; each respondent could choose up to three types of benefits. The results are shown in Fig. 4. ‘Capacity development’ and ‘collaboration and partnerships’ were scored high by both groups of respondents (15–22%), as did ‘exchange of seed and planting materials’, which is considered a key benefit by 13–15% of the respondents. A considerable difference in frequency between the two groups was observed with regard to ‘advocacy and policy influence’, where 7% of the ‘OFM practitioners’ reported this area to have a key benefit, compared with 12% of the ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’. As expected, ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ placed more emphasis on ‘advocacy and policy influence’ as this is an area more closely associated with their work.
Key benefits from involvement in networks associated with the on-farm management (OFM) of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), organized according to the two profiles of survey respondents. Notes: n= 619 for OFM practitioners and n= 317 for national PGRFA programme (NPGRP) managers and policy-makers.
Discussion
Community-based practices supporting OFM
Crop diversity provides actual and potential resources for improving farmers' livelihoods, nutrition and economic opportunities, which is emphasized by the Benefit-sharing Fund of the ITPGRFA. Despite this, on-farm crop diversity is declining in many parts of the world, and there is a need to find solutions to reverse this trend (FAO, 2010). Several studies have focused on the ecological, cultural and economic factors that contribute to the persistence of local crops and varieties in certain farms (Maxted et al., Reference Maxted, Guarino, Myer and Chiwona2002; Brush, Reference Brush2004; Jarvis et al., Reference Jarvis, Hodgkin, Sthapit, Fadda and Lopez-Noriega2011). These studies remind us that farmers adopt and abandon crops and varieties for different reasons, often driven by a complex set of issues, including the low economic potential of many traditional crops; the lack of technology, infrastructure and value addition; and unfavourable policies affecting diversity on farm. Therefore, the task of OFM is large and multifaceted, where local solutions must be sought and where different organizations working in different fields can contribute and play a major role.
The survey confirms that the category of ‘OFM practitioners’ represents a diverse group of stakeholders, from organizations that follow community-based conservation approaches and capacity development to research-based organizations that focus on crop improvement and engage in the characterization and assessment of diversity. The fact that a large number of ‘OFM practitioners’ are engaged in organizations whose main area of intervention is not conservation and management of PGRFA indicates that OFM is often promoted as part of an agricultural intervention or community development initiative and that many stakeholders are beginning to consider more integrated or participatory approaches to conservation. The majority of the ‘OFM practitioners’ promote practices that are directly linked to capacity development, such as ‘educational programmes’, which further highlights the strong correlation between OFM and livelihood development. This also supports the vision of the CBM methodology, which is aimed at building community organizations and strengthening their capabilities to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA through participatory processes (De Boef et al., Reference De Boef, Verhoosel, Thijssen, De Boef, Subedi, Peroni, Thijssen and O'Keeffe2013b). CBM incorporates a set of practices that are known and regularly used by a number of stakeholders involved in conservation and development at the local level, including rural diversity drama and poetry, diversity fairs, diversity kits and diversity blocks, and may result in the development of community biodiversity registers and community organizations such as community seed banks. Several CBM practices have also been central to the development of value addition and marketing initiatives (De Boef et al., Reference De Boef, Thijssen, Sopov, De Boef, Subedi, Peroni, Thijssen and O'Keeffe2013c) and to participatory crop improvement programmes (De Boef et al., Reference De Boef, Thijssen, Sthapit, De Boef, Subedi, Peroni, Thijssen and O'Keeffe2013d). It is clear from the results of the survey that such practices are considered critical among both ‘OFM practitioners’ and ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’.
Participation in networks related to OFM
To inform the design of projects and activities and build stronger and more cohesive PGRFA programmes at the national level, it is essential to understand what type of partnerships and networks the ‘OFM practitioners’ are involved in and what benefits they receive from participating. The survey confirms that there are a number of professional networks associated with OFM, from the community to the international level, but that policy-makers place greater emphasis on building partnerships than practitioners. There are also large gaps in the participation of stakeholders, where most organizations are focused on participating in national and regional networks, rather than in local and/or community-level networks. Even assuming that the survey did not reach a sufficient number of respondents involved in community-level and local networks, it illustrates the fact that networks at the local level have few linkages with networks at the national and regional levels. One anticipated problem is that local networks are too narrow, with a limited set of stakeholders and restricted outreach. Results reported by Nilsen et al. (Reference Nilsen, Subedi, Dulloo, Ghosh, Chavez-Tafur and De Boef2014) reveal that there is a lack of awareness, understanding and collaboration between the two groups of stakeholders and that OFM is not considered a priority in many NPGRPs. To address this and ensure that strategic networks and partnerships in the area of OFM have a greater impact, mechanisms should be put in place to strengthen the collaboration between stakeholders operating at various levels. This should involve raising awareness, on the one hand, among ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’ on the role that practitioners play in the implementation of OFM and, on the other hand, among practitioners on their actual and potential contribution to national and global goals and their potential role in linking and collaborating with NPGRPs. The need to develop capabilities to support communities and local networks also emerges as highly relevant. In order for networks that are focused on the conservation and use of genetic resources to contribute to rural development, they need to provide benefits that are relevant and attractive for the local communities. They should also acknowledge that the benefits they provide have the potential to be national, regional or even global and should therefore be rewarded as such.
National programmes can play a significant role by including and involving local networks and contributing to more extensive collaboration between the national and local levels. As stated in the Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Second GPA), NPGRPs should play a key role in the coordination of activities, distribution of roles and responsibilities, and identification and strengthening of linkages between all relevant stakeholder groups in working towards national priorities (FAO, 2011). To be able to do this, a first step will be for the national programmes to evaluate the level of collaboration at the country level and to initiate, include and support stakeholders and networks as appropriate. These efforts can include the stimulation of local networks, ensuring better integration of representatives from farming communities and motivating appropriate linkages with regional and national partners. Participation in the networks should benefit the members, and the survey showed that both groups of stakeholders value the same benefits of being part of them, including ‘capacity development’, ‘collaboration and partnerships’, and ‘exchange of seed and planting materials’. Global initiatives and networks should consider these benefits when designing their interventions for OFM and should focus on having an impact at the local level and supporting interventions in communities that allow farmers to maintain local crops and varieties. The need to consider means of improving and strengthening national and regional networks was emphasized during the Fourteenth Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), 2013) and should be seriously considered in all efforts to create global partnerships to promote OFM. Global, regional and national networks need to be aware of their role in the strengthening of local and community networks and promote the participation and influence of ‘OFM practitioners’, especially in areas where they are currently less involved, such as in advocacy, law and policy development.
Conclusions
Although the rate of loss of crop diversity, and its implications, can be discussed from several angles, it is well established that genetic diversity increases our opportunities for food security (Love and Spanner, Reference Love and Spanner2007; FAO, 2010). From a rural development perspective, we must also consider the fact that local crops and varieties play an important role in local communities, being an asset for many farmers and providing food and livelihood for millions of people. A lot of work remains to be done regarding the establishment of sustainable mechanisms for maintaining these resources on farm and combining them with aspects of rural and livelihood development. Further studies must be conducted to explore how communities and farmers can be fully involved in interventions aimed at supporting OFM and how NPGRPs can support more participatory and integrated approaches, involving policy-makers, scientists and local communities. This survey confirms the need to root OFM at the local level and ensure that farmers and communities that successfully conserve and manage biodiversity benefit from this practice. It also highlights the importance of strengthening and building upon local organizations, capacities and networks as part of promoting the sustainable use of crop diversity. One of the current weaknesses in countries' support for OFM is the lack of collaboration between stakeholders, and especially the inadequate integration of local and community networks in national and global fora. Currently, no single mechanism exists for providing information, support and coordination for activities related to OFM. In response to a request from the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 2013), the FAO, together with its partners, is currently exploring the establishment of a global mechanism that addresses and promotes OFM in the social, scientific and economic landscape of PGRFA. The functions of such a global mechanism should be to create sustainable pathways that will contribute to improved livelihoods for resource-poor farmers and strengthen the collaboration between stakeholders and networks, especially at the local level.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1479262114000616
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate all the respondents of the survey. The assessment was only possible due to the participation and feedback of more than a thousand individuals. They also thank the FAO and CDI and the many other organizations and individuals who contributed by providing valuable and constructive suggestions throughout the planning, preparation and testing of the survey, including Bioversity International, ILEIA, the Secretariat of the ITPGRFA, and the Secretariat of the CGRFA. They cordially thank Elizabeth O'Keeffe, Kurshid Dulloo, Rafael Vidal, Georgina Catacora-Vargas, Petra Straberg and Manon van Lent for their support in editing, translating and disseminating the survey. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the FAO, current or previous employers, or contributors to the implementation of the survey.
