Posted April 1999

Report: Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro-ecosystem Functions

3. Workshop results

The priority issues identified by participants (see Annex III) were selected through discussions on: relevant COP decisions, including those addressing incentive measures, the ecosystem approach and sustainable use; the ongoing analysis of activities and instruments relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity; the case studies provided to the workshop; and participants' own experiences.

In the context of the three principal dimensions of agricultural biodiversity, the sustainable production of food and other agricultural products, the provision of biological or life support to production as well as ecological and social services provided by agro-ecosystems, the opportunities, actions, mechanisms and linkages were finally brought together under four main headings, as outlined below:

• Information, assessment and indicators
• Research and development
• Awareness raising and capacity building
• Development of policies and instruments

3.1  Information, Assessment and Indicators

Opportunities

Many bodies, especially research institutions and NGOs, are involved in the collection and dissemination of information on relevant agricultural biodiversity issues. Most of the information is held locally in agricultural communities and by local organizations and refers to certain scales of intervention, e.g. a watershed or a production system, is relevant to specific sectors, e.g. agricultural production or environmental conservation, and focuses on certain actors, e.g. small- or large-scale farmers or herders. There is need for a greater flow of information between different levels of intervention, different sectors and different actors (see Case study 1).

Actions

The workshop identified the urgent need to facilitate the exchange of information between different actors and stakeholders while putting in place mechanisms to access information held by local and indigenous communities, by means of research and development organizations through some form of CBD Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) or networks.

Mechanisms and linkages

It was felt that through electronic means - e-mail, listservers, Internet - low-cost options for information exchange could be developed both informally through spontaneous initiatives as well as formally through the use, for example, of web sites and information dissemination mechanisms of institutions such as FAO, CBD and CGIAR. However, it was recognized that the mechanisms for driving information through these systems need to be enhanced and appropriate capacities developed.

Case study 1 Enhancing soil biodiversity in intensive crop production through conservation tillage, Brazil* Productivity, income and agricultural biodiversity gains resulting from the widespread uptake of conservation tillage. In Santa Catarina, Brazil, the soil was traditionally tilled using conventional means (sometimes on steep hills) but now, owing to the widespread uptake of conservation tillage, there is a well managed landscape, achieved by simply leaving more cover on the soil. Farmers, with the same tools they used traditionally, now open only the planting furrow, instead of tilling the entire field. The crop establishes itself between the rows of crop residues which, through the organic matter, provide a conducive environment for soil biodiversity. Conservation tillage is defined as any tillage or planting system in which more than 30% of the soil surface is covered with crop residues after planting. Zero tillage, also a form of conservation tillage, is sometimes used synonymously. This reduces soil erosion and provides material for biological tillage, which builds up soil biodiversity and organic matter that, in turn, stabilizes the soil structure and improves water infiltration. Its benefits are not only in production, through improved yields and lower maintenance requirements for farm equipment, but also to the wider environment through improved water quality owing to less erosion and more regular flow of streams from better infiltration and soil moisture storage and reduced losses of applied inputs in run-off. Conservation tillage results in 70% less herbicide run-off, 93% less erosion and 69% less water run-off as compared with mould-board or disc-ploughing. There is also reduced release of carbon gases and reduced air pollution. The uptake of conservation tillage in Santa Catarina was successful because of well organized farmer groups, who developed the necessary technologies, together with scientists, technicians and the private sector, and farmer-to-farmer extension. A high level of management skills is required to achieve successful transition from conventional to conservation tillage systems including the ability to deal with: the rehabilitation of degraded soils to a level where soil life can prosper; the effect of surface plant residues on planting equipment; the different timing and ways of application of fertilizers through the surface cover; and the initial increases in weed populations and greater herbicide use. As a result of the uptake of conservation tillage in Santa Catarina, there has been a sustainable increase in production of maize and wheat with yields up by more than 200%. Similar results have been recorded in the rest of Brazil as well as in other countries in Africa and Asia. Large areas of Brazil's soya crop are now under zero tillage systems. It is estimated that about 1.93 million households in 20 countries now have more than 4 million ha of land under conservation tillage with significant improvements in production and agricultural biodiversity at all levels. * Adapted from case study presentations by José Benites and Theodor Friedrich, FAO, and Helvecio Mattana Saturnino, President of APDC (the Zero Tillage Association of the Cerrados), Brazil.

Special attention should be given to communications with and between local farmers, herders and fishers whose knowledge, innovations and practices are recognized as essential for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity. In this regard, the work of NGOs and locally focused research programmes was commended. The information generated by such programmes was seen to have great value. It was recognized that better and more sustainable use of this information is necessary. The workshop considered what might be appropriate mechanisms for the exchange and generation of required knowledge, information and understanding, including the use of systems like the FAO Global Plant Protection Information System (GPPIS).

3.1.2 Assessment and indicators

Opportunities

The scientific, institutional and political pressures to understand better how to measure the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, the changes in resource stocks and the influences that bear on these, are gaining momentum. In particular the growing concern over the impacts of modern agricultural practices on agricultural biodiversity is providing increasing opportunities to carry out important work in this area.

The identification of agro-ecosystem-specific indicators and the use of these for assessment, monitoring and understanding the causes of changes in agricultural biodiversity is recognized as a priority issue. This requires the development of effective tools and methodologies which can be used in such a way as to promote practical actions that mitigate the harmful and enhance the positive impacts of agriculture on biological diversity.

The need was identified for the development of rapid assessment methodologies for assessing the status and trends of agricultural biodiversity in different production systems and agro-ecosystems. The application of such methodologies could start with those systems that appear to be the most threatened and/or the most valuable for present and future generations.

Actions

The workshop suggested two main areas on which to focus the development of indicators for assessment and monitoring of agricultural biodiversity in ecosystems as follows:

Assessments of landscape/watershed and agro-ecosystem/production system levels

• Identification and monitoring of key indicators, scalable between levels where possible, for specific environmental functions and agro-ecosystem multi-functionality, interactions, resilience and sustainability (e.g. for soil biota, pollinators, predators, soil erosion, water quality, wild relatives).
• Identification and monitoring of key indicators to include critical economic, ecological, spatial and social (including demographic) factors at all scales, for example, the work of CONABIO in Mexico, the OECD working group on agri-environmental indicators and work currently being done by FAO.
• Monitoring and understanding of short- and long-term impacts of agricultural practices/ technologies on the environment at landscape/watershed and agro-ecosystem/production system levels, facilitated through the use of GIS and other remote sensing tools. In intensive agricultural systems, in particular, the impacts on the status and trends of the totality of agricultural biodiversity should be monitored, especially below ground and in field margins and landscape areas.
• Research and identification of key environmental functions/processes for different agro-ecological areas/production systems to be carried out with the full participation and involvement of local communities and civil society utilizing community-based natural resources management principles.
• Identification of key habitats (threatened and neglected) and key species (threatened, neglected and under-utilized crops, wild relatives of domesticated species, wild sources of food).
• Application of environmental and/or biodiversity impact assessment of agricultural practices at farm and landscape levels.

Such activities for the identification and development of indicators and assessment methodologies require the collaboration of all stakeholders, building wherever possible on local/traditional knowledge systems and practices and their assessment criteria. They should include long- and short-term assessments at multiple levels, and should allow comparison, where possible, of the impacts of distinct interventions.

Assessments of economic forces that influence agricultural biodiversity

sustainable production and food and livelihood security

In view of the decisive impact of economic forces, there is a need to identify, assess and monitor activities which may allow for profitability of sustainable agricultural practices, while sustaining agricultural biodiversity through, for example, the following:

• Assessing both positive and negative externalities in investments, incomes and prices, with a view to internalizing these. The constraints to this include: lack of data (especially information related to environmental multi-functionality and safe minimum standards values); difficulties in synthesizing complex information in agro-environmental indicators and translating this ecological information into economic language; and difficulties of assessment and monitoring of safe minimum standard values, requiring new skills and greater awareness of all actors from farmers to governments.
• Identifying (qualitative) and measuring (quantitative) environmental and economic indicators which define the performance of environmental functions by agro-ecosystems through the assessment of safe minimum standard values.
• Assessing the economic value of agricultural practices which maintain or enhance (positive externalities) or diminish (negative externalities) the performance of environmental multi-functionality by agro-ecosystems.
• Identifying, assessing and monitoring incentives (for example, legal, land tenure, niche markets, certification of sustainable practices/technologies) which may have positive or negative impacts on the economic performance of the agricultural sector and systems (i.e. value added) through government intervention (taxes, subsidies) or market mechanisms.
• Assessing environmental accounting systems (in physical, monetary and energy units of measurement) capable of eliciting impacts of the agricultural sector on conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and also impacts of other economic sectors on natural resources and environmental functions used by farmers (through inter-sectoral analysis).
• Assessing global benefits of agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable use compared with local costs accruing in achieving them (including the import/export of environmentally positive/negative externalities in international agricultural trade).

Mechanisms and linkages

Many activities have been planned or are in progress. Noteworthy are the activities of the CGIAR in developing methods and indicators both sectoral and for a wide range of agro-ecosystems and, in particular, its system-wide initiative on "functional agricultural biodiversity". The activities of many organizations, such as WRI, IUCN, UNDP, UNEP, FAO and OECD, include the development of indicators and assessment methodologies.

3.2 Research and development

The workshop recognized that there is a need for greater attention to support the adaptation and development of appropriate technologies for different production environments and different agro-ecological zones taking into account the socio-economic context. This could be achieved through participatory research with the involvement of local communities and scientists in the South utilizing South-South and South-North linkages. There is also a need to promote increased research and development directed towards intensive production systems in high potential areas as well as towards biodiversity "hotspots" and fragile ecosystems, which are considered marginal for agricultural production but important for populations in these areas who rely on the natural biological and physical resources for their livelihood and food security.

Opportunities

The research and development programmes of many international, national and local organizations already have focused activities in areas of agricultural biodiversity at agro-ecosystem and production system levels, including those that address the agriculture-environment interface and those concerning integrated or multi-disciplinary resource management approaches. This has been illustrated by the diverse and numerous contributions to the workshop and the ongoing assessment.

Many relevant research and development activities are under way or planned, but coordination and information sharing between them was noted as important. However, it was also noted that the development and dissemination of appropriate technologies, research and resources is often not prioritized and that Southern countries, in particular, have less access to what they require and less opportunity to agree on priorities for resource allocation.

Actions

In regard to research and development the workshop identified three main issues to work on: ecosystem approaches and ecosystem functions, specific research areas such as soil biota, pollinators and predators and threats and positive incentives for agricultural biodiversity.

The ecosystem approaches and ecosystem functions. An important action is the development of methods and technologies for applying an ecosystem approach through the review of current research programmes to ascertain to what extent and how current research on agriculture looks at the environmental aspects and impacts of agriculture. This builds on the Malawi Principles^[10] and decision IV/1.

The development of methods of ecosystem research should not be seen as some sort of sectoral or focused environmental research, but as a wider and more holistic research that draws upon a number of disciplines. For example in the fisheries sector, research should include not only fish stocks assessment but marine ecosystem research and relevant environmental research.

A priority area for further investigation is to increase understanding of the relationship between agriculture (the production system and practices) and agricultural biodiversity at agro-ecosystem level. There are a multitude of types of agro-ecosystems and production systems and the precise relationships vary from one locality to another as a result of the complexity of interlinking social, economic and environmental variables. Therefore, it was noted that such research would require appropriate indicators and rapid assessment methodologies in order to identify important issues and trends.

The workshop considered that there is a need to establish guiding principles that help identify which species and their interactions are most critical to the health, stability and functioning of the different agro-ecosystems and production systems throughout the world. This may include:

• the identification of keystone or critical species which provide vital functions;
• the identification of those biodiversity components which have a biological or life support function in the agro-ecosystem essential for both agricultural production and nature conservation;
• the effects of the addition or loss of a dominant or abundant species on the ecosystem character and function in different production systems;
• the identification of rare or minor species, which today may be considered expendable, that have the potential to take over key ecosystem functions if and when other species are lost;
• the impacts of a change (addition or loss) in one species on other species and on ecosystem functions resulting from cascading interactions between species.

Soil biota, pollinators and predators. The workshop confirmed that soil biota and pollinators, as outlined in decision III/11 and IV/6, as well as predators are of great importance to the conservation of natural ecological processes and the maintenance of sustainable and productive agricultural systems and that they deserve greater attention and understanding. Not only are their interactions and related ecological functions and processes little known, but these are seen to provide an entry point for joint work between ecologists and agriculturalists, with support from social scientists as necessary.

Threats and positive incentives. The workshop identified the following as primary action points for research and development:

• improvement of knowledge of the status and trends of agricultural biodiversity in key farming systems;
• identification of the forces behind changes in farming systems that lead to threats to (or negative impacts on) agricultural biodiversity;
• identification and use of indicators of agricultural biodiversity to facilitate research work in these two areas;
• development of mechanisms to use or exploit market forces through consumer surveys and also standardization and best practices for eco-labelling.

Mechanisms and linkages

Many relevant activities for which the research findings can be shared and further built upon are under way or planned. Examples of relevant programmes and relevant actions focusing on research and development at ecosystem level, include:

• the CGIAR system-wide "functional agricultural biodiversity" initiative, IPGRI's in situ conservation project;
• the Tropical Soils Biodiversity and Fertility programme, programmes of DIVERSITAS on agro-ecosystems and "wild" plants for food and agriculture;
• many NGO research, development and extension activities with local communities in, for example, Brazil (AS-PTA), Zimbabwe (Sorghum Landrace Study), Kenya (ITDG's on-farm maintenance of PGRFA) and in many other countries, as recorded in Cultivating Diversity by Lori Ann Thrupp, WRI (see Case study 2);
• actions to implement the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA);
• actions to implement the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Domestic Diversity.

Case study 2 Sustainably using agricultural biodiversity through integrating soil and pest management in diverse farming systems, Senegal* Increasing yields by using diverse, regenerative farming and animal husbandry methods is being promoted through effective partnerships. The purpose of this initiative was to respond to the concern of the smallholder farmers for a system that would regenerate degraded soils, increase production and maintain an ecological balance through the use of integrated pest management techniques. The techniques employed include: the use of large applications of compost and livestock manure, up to 2 tonnes/ha; intercropping of legumes and crop rotations to build up soil organic matter, water retention, nutrient balance and health in order to increase resistance to soil-borne pathogens and insect pest populations and to provide a more nutritive and drought-tolerant environment for the root systems of crop plants. Production of crops, vegetables and fruits as well as livestock was increasingly integrated. In parallel, chemical fertilizer and pesticide applications were reduced or eliminated and the use of organic and cultural alternatives, such as applications of Neem extracts, was increased. This is being achieved through effective partnerships and two-way exchanges of information between farmers, NGOs, extensionists and scientists who together, under the direction of the communities, select techniques and methods of implementation. Farmers monitor results and share this information with others in order to assess impacts. These include increased yields and income from grains, vegetables and livestock, for example, millet yields have shown increases of 400 kg/ha; reduced costs for chemical inputs; and greater organization and empowerment of farmers' groups. However, differing institutional objectives, lack of open dialogue between actors and struggles for control at a local level are constraints that need to be overcome. The outcome of this initiative has shown that integrated methods have restored soil and plant health, increased yields and incomes and improved conservation of resources needed for sustainable production. *Adapted from a case study on the Senegal Regenerative Agricultural Resource Centre, Gad Khaye, which works with the Rodale Institute, presented by Lori Ann Thrupp, WRI.

The workshop tested a simple schema for reviewing case studies using the examples that focused on enhancing agricultural biodiversity and production in intensive production systems. The further development of such an analytical process could be very useful with a view to identifying those technologies and practices which deserve to be promoted for agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustained productivity (see Annex IV).

The use of participatory processes, which build on local knowledge, innovations and practices that have been acquired over generations of research experience and adaptation by the resource users, is considered important and will enhance and validate research findings.

3.3 Awareness raising and Capacity Building

Despite the activities and actions of FAO, CBD and many expert institutions at all levels, including those represented in the workshop, and the decisions and actions of the countless millions of farmers, herders and fishers, one of the key issues raised was the lack of awareness of the value and importance of agricultural biodiversity, especially at the agro-ecosystem level. In particular it was generally agreed that those who have decisive impacts on the food system, from politicians and directors of corporations to producers and consumers, need to become more aware of the multifunctional character of agriculture and the links between agricultural biodiversity, sustainable production, environmental management as well as food and livelihood security.

An opportunity exists for greater awareness raising of consumers so that the market demand becomes oriented towards and favours products emanating from biodiversity friendly production systems. To promote a shift towards environmentally sensitive agro-ecosystems actually requires mutual understanding and feedback between both sets of actors: the producers and the consumers as has been generated with regard to organic production methods throughout the world.

Arising from this lack of awareness, a number of needs were identified as follows:

• to have clearer definitions and explanations of terminologies;
• to agree upon a clear overarching framework for policies, plans and programmes for agricultural biodiversity based on its dimensions for sustainable food and agriculture production and the provision of biological or life support to production as well as ecological and social services;
• to collect, exchange and integrate data at different levels regarding different components of the ecosystem to ensure a holistic view;
• to develop effective linkages between sectors and institutions to ensure the development of synergetic and complementary approaches and be able to exchange information about mutually agreed common issues;
• to disseminate, or develop as necessary, improved research methods, especially for the study of agro-ecosystems.

Actions

In regard to awareness raising and capacity building the workshop suggested actions for the following areas: capacity building to improve awareness, knowledge and information on agricultural biodiversity, capacity building to disseminate sustainable methods for agricultural biodiversity conservation and capacity building for decision-making and planning and policy-making on agricultural biodiversity.

Capacity building to improve knowledge and information on agricultural biodiversity

1. Developing participatory (hands-on) and integrated training, and non-farm multidisciplinary education processes, including the training of trainers, and the development of curricula and structures to facilitate this.
2. "Re-educating" formal professionals and institutions (universities, NARS, IARCs, etc.) to include, inter alia, agro-ecology, ecosystem functions, agricultural biodiversity, participatory approaches and techniques, incorporating local knowledge and local producers, when possible.
3. Educating policy-makers through field visits and through feedback on impacts of practices.
4. Integrating and coordinating stakeholders to share knowledge and information on agricultural biodiversity.
5. Improving education (hands-on) of schoolchildren and university students on agricultural biodiversity and agro-ecology (see Case study 3).
6. Building awareness among consumers, retailers and suppliers (create market demand for products emanating from biodiversity-friendly production systems).
7. Recognizing and validating local indigenous knowledge systems used for agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
8. Developing and promoting the use of Geographical Information Systems for collecting and analysing multivariate data, for monitoring and assessing trends and for looking from a holistic point of view at production systems and their impacts on the wider environment.
9. Developing and promoting the use of improved information and communications technology for sharing and assessing experiences and for addressing the findings through appropriate and targeted messages, especially through South-South information sharing.

Case study 3 Promoting on-farm conservation of Andean tubers through agro-ecotourism, Cusco, Peru* A new incentive for on-farm conservation of Andean crops is being provided through the development of agro-ecotourism. Cusco is important for tourism in Peru because it is the centre of pre-Hispanic Inca culture; however, the rural population benefits only marginally. One source of income is through the sale of their produce, mostly derived from the unique biological resources of the region. In recent years there has been a loss of traditional conservation practices and other customs (food, dress, etc.), leading to erosion of the biocultural wealth of local communities. This has been mainly because of the expansion of the use of high-yielding species and varieties in commercial agriculture, climatic factors, pests and diseases, inappropriate agrarian policies and development activities and poverty, which increase the migration of indigenous youth (with their knowledge, experience and customs of traditional Andean agriculture). In th In the communities included in the present initiative, it is the local farmers who have conserved the wide range of local varieties of Andean root crops on farm with exceptional success, mainly because they do not seek maximization of yield or income but rather, recognizing the need to spread risks, plant mixtures of different genotypes on small parcels of land, guaranteeing sustainable production every year. Th The incentive provided by the development of agro-ecotourism could facilitate new mechanisms for promoting traditional conservation and sustainable use practices. During guided tours to the communities, tourists will see the remarkable morphological and agronomic variety of Andean plants and tubers in demonstration plots, a potato museum and restaurants with menus based on traditional Andean produce. Further attractions include displays of Andean camellids (Vicuña, Alpaca, Llamas and Guanacos). This proposed initiative intends to support a school education programme about Andean crops and culture and the participation of the young people in agro-ecotourism in order to reduce migration. * Adapted from a case study presented by Ramiro Ortega, ANDES/IPBN.

Capacity building to disseminate sustainable methods for agricultural biodiversity conservation

1. Enhancing farmer mobilization and participation, for example in the use of IPM schemes and conservation tillage (see Case study 4 from Viet Nam and Case study 1 from Brazil).
2. Developing farmer-to-farmer (and South-South) exchange and education and farmer field schools on alternatives that work; this may help to confront market or other pressures such as the use of inappropriate technologies.
3. Training of media and communication specialists to disseminate objective information to the public.

Capacity building for decision-making and planning and policy-making on agricultural biodiversity

1. Integrating agricultural biodiversity initiatives into sectoral, cross-sectoral policies, plans, and programmes at national, regional and international levels.
2. Facilitating networking and exchange among lawyers and agriculture policy-makers on laws concerning IPRs and biosafety and their impacts on agricultural biodiversity.
3. Developing democratic participation and conflict resolution for agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable use (converging on common interests) but strengthening capacities to take controversial positions, if needed.
4. Developing policy-making capacities to link agriculture and environment interests (such as measures to internalize environmental costs).
5. Sharing experiences about policies and incentives that work (e.g. India's tax on pesticides, European agri-environmental measures [2078/92], Ethiopia's laws on IPR).
6. Conducting policy reviews and analyses and the formulation, application and enforcement of coherent policies and laws to encompass agricultural biodiversity issues.
7. Conducting an institutional analysis with a view to identifying requirements for reform.

Case study 4 Improving agricultural biodiversity functions in intensive rice production through Integrated Pest Management and Aquatic Life Management, Viet Nam* Farmers achieving higher production of rice and other crops by using Integrated Pest Management systems are also conserving and enhancing agricultural biodiversity. Conservation of agricultural biodiversity is an essential part of intensification to increase agricultural production levels. In rice monocultures wider agricultural biodiversity is important, for example, species that decompose organic matter contribute through an aquatic food chain to the build up of predator populations early in the season, even before planting. Ecologically, this renders the agro-ecosystem more resilient and therefore more productive. So long as pesticides are not used some 700 arthropod species can be found which keep these highly productive agro-ecosystems well balanced between pests, predators and parasitoids. Populations of fish, snails, frogs, aquatic insects and other species that constitute an important part of the diet of many rice-farming households are also enhanced in these systems. This is achieved through using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques: the careful integration of a number of available pest control techniques which discourages the development of pest populations and keeps pesticide use and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and safe for human health and the environment, and enhances production of all functionally important species. In hundreds of replicated field experiments it has been shown that there is a significant variation in biodiversity and population numbers between insecticide-sprayed and unsprayed fields within a distance as close as half a metre. This means that local variation dominates the context of decision making, so that human expertise is crucial and needs to be decentralized to the field and village level - and not kept in the research station nor in the extension system. The approach used to reach and enhance local human expertise for IPM is through Farmer Field Schools (FFS) which build on local knowledge and expertise. About 25 farmers in FSS spend five to six hours together weekly; two hours are spent in the field observing the ecosystem and analysing its biodiversity. They collect arthropods in plastic bags and after the field work discuss what they have observed, prepare poster diagrams and present findings to their fellow farmers. They classify populations into functional groups depending on their trophic position in the agro-ecosystem. Farmers observe populations in the field but also test their trophic linkages by setting up "insect zoos". These answer their questions on "what eats what" and "how many are eaten", etc. Such experiments advance farmers' knowledge and lead to further experimentation with agricultural biodiversity, for example, the planting of different rice varieties that can make a big difference to disease resistance or other factors. In the case of double cropped irrigated rice, in Viet Nam, with annual yields over 300% of the world average, farmers' advanced knowledge about rice field biodiversity has also led to experimentation with different management options. One example is growing a "crop" of fish together with rice in the same field, using the rice field to grow the crop of fish between two rice crops, or growing fish after rice instead of a second rice crop. Financial benefits per hectare surveyed in a sample of Farmers Field Schools in more than 1 300 villages averaged from 20 to 25% higher in IPM fields than in regular fields. Better utilization of resources, healthy crops of rice and fish and increased income and food security reinforce farmers' acceptance of IPM and their rejection of pesticides. However, a prerequisite for these changes to take place is an enabling policy environment, for example, removing perverse pesticide subsidies or, as in India, putting a tax on pesticides. The increased skill and empowerment of farmers' groups through FFS also leads to stronger local accountability and the ability of farmers to determine local policies that increase benefits to production, income and the environment including agricultural biodiversity. *Adapted from a case study presented by Peter Kenmore and Matthias Halwart, FAO.

There are many good examples of best practices and of useful and appropriate technologies and approaches, including those for capacity building and awareness raising. The workshop concluded that it was necessary for these to be more widely available in order that the benefits could be more widely shared (see section 3.1.1). This will require worldwide efforts to incorporate such best practices and technologies into the training curricula and materials at all levels from farmer field schools to universities.

Mechanisms and linkages

In the light of the above and as emphasized repeatedly in the workshop, an approach is needed to improve the capacity of actors at all levels, including their capacity to work together. There are many very capable and knowledgeable people in all countries and at all levels; however, their capacities are often limited by resource constraints.

3.4 Development of policies and instruments

The decisions of the COP, FAO, CSD and other international and national bodies, through programmes of work at global, regional and local levels, provide many avenues for, and have committed governments to, the development of relevant policies and the need to ensure coherence between these.

Countries are already developing national biodiversity strategies and action plans, in accordance with relevant COP decisions. The opportunity exists to include agricultural biodiversity as an integral part of these through appropriate guidelines. Equally important, the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biological diversity could be included in agriculture, rural development, trade, and other sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, and research and extension strategies at national, regional and international levels.

In regard to the reform of policies, particular opportunities to deal with these issues exist in Europe (EU) with the revision of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the development of Agenda 2000. Eastern European countries are seeking access to the EU and will need to harmonize their trade and environmental legislation, without further eroding their agricultural biodiversity resources.

In regard to the WTO negotiations, the participants recognized that agricultural biodiversity policies may be impacted by trade measures, including TRIPs, if these policies do not permit local determination of production methods and priorities nor recognize the importance of protecting agricultural biodiversity for sustainable food production, biological or life support systems and ecological and social services.

The current reviews and negotiations in the WTO require immediate action by all governments - the implications are significant. For low-income developing countries, extra time is being granted to implement WTO measures, which will give added opportunities to negotiate satisfactory arrangements internally and internationally in these countries. In light of this, there is a need to assess impacts of trade rules on environmental measures, including the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.

The workshop identified that in the ongoing round of negotiations on trade-related issues in the WTO context, competitive advantage will accrue to countries or regional blocs that negotiate effectively to reduce subsidies and gain support for the implementation of environmental measures. In this regard there is a need for countries within a region to collaborate in the identification and negotiation of such opportunities.

It was felt that appropriate actions need to be taken by competent bodies and authorities to account for biosafety considerations, with a view to avoiding and/or mitigating negative impacts on agricultural ecosystems resulting from pollution by chemicals, invasion by alien species and trends towards genetically uniform crops and breeds which threaten plant and animal diversity.

3.4.2 Coordination

Opportunities

The need for coherence at national level between relevant ministries and other sectoral bodies was thus raised as a key issue and as an opportunity to achieve integration of agricultural biodiversity concerns in overall biodiversity, environmental and agricultural policies, strategies and action plans. For example, it could be possible to ensure that ministries of agriculture are aware of and implementing relevant policy with respect to agricultural biodiversity that may hitherto have been the responsibility only of environment ministries. Similar coordination and cooperation between international organizations (similar to that achieved between FAO and CBD) should be encouraged.

Actions

Cross-sectoral coordination, joint planning initiatives and integrated approaches to the development of policy were seen as essential for progress in this area. The workshop noted the following areas for attention:

• national environmental action plans and conservation policies and plans;
• agricultural policies strategies and action plans including those pertaining to in situ and on-farm conservation;
• land-use policies;
• trade and marketing policies and regulations;
• wildlife and forest policies;
• plant variety protection laws;
• legal framework for pollution control, quarantine laws and safe minimum standards.

There are many ecoregional and national differences in the impacts and importance of such measures. Thus, national and regional meetings could be organized to facilitate discussion and debate on these issues and to assist in the development of appropriate and coherent national legislation, policies and strategies.

Relevant governmental bodies and organizations should be encouraged to mainstream agricultural biodiversity issues into their national planning processes including the development, implementation and evaluation of agricultural and environmental policies, programmes and actions.

3.4.3 Negative market influences

Many issues were raised concerning the influence of the market on production and consumption patterns. The market is largely unregulated in terms of environmental and social impacts but highly influenced by international and national policies and trade rules. Market forces were seen to favour "new" varieties and use of agrochemicals, as well as larger economies of scale, the foci of agro-industry in lower-labour, industrial and monocultural production systems, leading to reductions in agricultural biodiversity. Other negative indirect effects were also identified, such as reduced recognition of local knowledge systems or of local diversity (e.g. local varieties and foods). This leads, in turn, to lower investments in local technological development by scientists and other innovators (including farmers). It also leads to lower income opportunities in agriculture in particular and in rural areas in general, and to the consequent loss of skilled people and new entrants into agriculture owing to outmigration from the area or the sector. The workshop contemplated whether there were any opportunities to bring about a change in paradigm to encourage agro-industries to strive for combined production and biodiversity goals and create alternative market structures to enable resource-poor producers to participate in these initiatives.

3.4.4 Incentive measures

Opportunities

The need for incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity is based on the premise that those resources are a valuable asset for present and future generations and that their preservation is essential for human economic development and is also important for social and cultural benefits. However, as many of the benefits of agricultural biodiversity conservation accrue to the public as a whole, and because of information, market and government failures, they are often utilized at levels that are not sustainable. Thus, incentive measures are required to internalize the costs of maintaining agricultural biodiversity in the activities that lead to this loss, and to provide the necessary information, support and encouragement for its sustainable use and/or conservation.

In this context it is recognized, for example by the OECD, that: incentive measures should be designed in the context of sustaining ecosystems and with targeted resource management stakeholders in mind; and economic valuation of agricultural biodiversity and its products is an important tool for well-targeted and calibrated economic incentive measures.^[11]

In order to identify appropriate incentive measures it is necessary to understand the relationship between market forces and agricultural biodiversity. This requires targeted research in different regions where different trade frameworks apply within different production economies.

Actions

The workshop discussed the use of different economic incentives:

• fees, charges and environmental taxes;
• market creation (see Case study 5) and assignment of well-defined property rights, in the context of full recognition of Farmers' Rights and appropriate land tenure regimes;
• reform or removal of perverse incentives;
• regulations and funds (standards, regulations and access restrictions; environmental funds and public financing);
• certification and eco-labelling (see Case study 6).

Case study 5 Rebuilding the endangered Aubrac cattle breed through niche marketing of cheese, France* Local production and niche marketing of a named cheese has lead to the revival of the Aubrac milking cow. Since the twelfth century the area has been used as summer pasture by cattle herds from farms up to 50 km away in the surrounding valleys. Most of the cows were draught animals of the local Aubrac breed, whose milk was used to make Laguiole, a local pressed fresh cheese. Since the 1920s the numbers being milked dropped for economic and social reasons as well as because of the reduction in requirements for draught animals. In 1960 the "Young Mountain" Cheese Cooperative was created to collect milk from the small producers and produce the now rare Laguiole cheese. However, the producers experimented first with Holsteins, which did not thrive on the mountain fodder and their milk was low in protein resulting in much rejected cheese, and then with multipurpose Simmentals (draught, meat and milk), which were more adapted to the mountains and in 1998 represented over 85% of the livestock in the area. However, this was still not completely satisfactory and in the early 1990s in order to re-establish a closer relation between the land and the cheese, the producers decided to assess the feasibility of re-introducing the local Aubrac race, famed for quality Laguiole cheese. With the help of the Laguiole Syndicate and the Livestock Institute, they are selecting and breeding improved dairy cows from some 15 mature Aubrac cows. The milk yields are rising dramatically and from an average of some 1 993 litres in 1956 it has reached 3,200 litres to date. The aim is to reach 4 000 litres per lactation through breed improvement over some 10 to 20 years. * Adapted from a case study submitted by Guy Bouloc, Cooperative Jeune Montagne.

Case study 6 Increasing biodiversity conservation within coffee landscapes through eco-labelling, El Salvador* Premium prices paid for biodiversity-friendly coffee is an incentive to maintain diverse shade-coffee landscapes - habitats for globally significant biodiversity. Coffee is an important export crop in El Salvador. When introduced in the eighteenth century it was grown as a sun crop but then evolved within a shade-dominated farming system. Recently there has been a change back to (more intensive) "sun-coffee" systems owing, in part, to a USAID project, which provided subsidies to replace old coffee varieties with newer varieties that responded well to chemical fertilizers. The new system required removal of shade trees, in part to reduce the spread of coffee leaf rust. By the mid-1990s, of the estimated 2.8 million ha of coffee cultivated in the region, an estimated 1.1 million ha were considered to be "sun-coffee". This production system has yield advantages but has very negative impacts on biodiversity, mainly because it reduces the structural diversity of the system resulting in greatly reduced habitat, niche and species diversity. Several studies indicate the relatively high biodiversity in native and migratory bird species in traditional shade-coffee systems in Central America. Of 509 bird species in El Salvador, 310 are Neotropical residents, of which 128 are restricted to forest habitats and are mostly found in shade-coffee areas, and of these, two are threatened and 24 are vulnerable. There was a consensus, achieved through collaborative project design, that the focus of biodiversity efforts needed included environmental restoration and promotion of biodiversity in existing productive landscapes, through the maintenance and enhancement of habitats within "shade-coffee" plantations. This would provide habitats for globally significant biodiversity through the establishment of a biological corridor composed of "shade-coffee" plantations. It required the promotion, certification and marketing abroad, especially in the United States, of biodiversity-friendly coffee production. At the outset of the project, there was no developed market for existing "shade-coffee" and a lack of established product distribution systems. It was also necessary to demonstrate financial feasibility through pilot projects and to educate financing institutions about the value and opportunities for sales of environmentally-friendly coffee as well as its suitability for credit (coffee absorbs 75% of private sector credit for the agricultural sector). There was very little relevant environmental, social or economic data, no government research on "shade-coffee" agro-ecosystems and no training in sustainable, organic agriculture. The project is showing that market forces, driven by consumer choice, can be harnessed to promote this ecologically-sustainable and bird-friendly form of management of coffee production and that the 5% premium for this new type of coffee (together with income from other non-coffee uses of traditional systems) is proving an incentive to keep lands in traditional, lower yielding but lower cost, production systems. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is covering the cost of "risk" to market the new product, through a grant of some US$3 million. *Adapted from a case study presented by Random Dubois, FAO.

The workshop stressed the importance of the contextual framework as an integral part of the incentive measures including information provision, scientific and technical capacity building, economic valuation, institution building and stakeholder involvement.

Mechanisms and linkages

There are significant initiatives being taken by various organizations, not only by governments and intergovernmental bodies, to promote incentive measures in various fields. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), among others, is pressing for satisfactory eco-labelling systems, supported by legislation, that will be recognized by trading partners.

3.4.5 The precautionary approach

The workshop highlighted the importance of applying the precautionary approach in agricultural development through the development and use of appropriate assessment and regulatory mechanisms. The aim is to ensure biosafety^[12] in agriculture by taking necessary precautions to avoid negative impacts and to mitigate potential threats resulting from agricultural technologies on agro-ecosystems and their surrounding ecosystems (those resulting from the use of agro-chemicals, the introduction and use of genetically modified organisms and/or alien invasive species).

3.4.6 Codes of conduct and practice

Some of the participants suggested that a new code of conduct for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity be developed which would not duplicate existing codes such as those for Responsible Fisheries, the Safe Collection of Plant Varieties, Biotechnology, etc. The aims of the new code would be to identify and synthesize the relevant regulatory frameworks already existing or planned, highlighting their relevance to ecosystem level, as well as the rights and obligations of different actors. It was felt that such a code of conduct could helpfully draw together the private sector, civil society and national, regional and international institutions in a synergistic relationship.

Notes

11. Based on Technical Brief No. 2 "Incentive Measures and the CBD" prepared for this workshop.

12. Biosafety is defined as the safe and environmentally sound use of all biological products and applications for human health, biodiversity and environmental sustainability in support of improved global food security (FAO/COAG/15/X0074).

To: Conclusions, recommendations