CASE STUDY No. 11
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE:
PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATION OF THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

AUTHORS

William Settle

FAO Plant Protection Service.

[email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Case studies for this document were commissioned by Nadia Scialabba, FAO - Environment and Natural Resources Service. Authors for the case studies were: Uganda - Charles Walaga (World Conservation Union IUCN) and Mary Jo Kikinda (Africa 2000); Thailand - Vitoon Ruenglertpanyakul (Green Net); Iran - Taghi Farvar (Centre for Sustainable Development - CENESTA); India - Bernward Leclerq (Auroville). Special thanks to Caroline Hattam for editing the drafts of the case studies, and translation from Spanish for the Honduran case study. Both Caroline Hattam and William Settle were supported by the FAO/Netherlands Partnership Programme for Biodiversity.

RESPONSIBLE TECHNICAL DIVISION

Plant Producion and Protection Division

Plant Protection Service

William Settle

INTRODUCTION

“…in the sort of issue-driven science relating to environmental debates, facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent.”(Funtowicz et al., 1999)

World-wide degradation of ecological systems is challenging researchers and policy makers to move beyond traditional disciplinary and institutional boundaries in order to seek practical and productive cross-disciplinary solutions to increasingly serious economic, environmental and social problems. The challenge demands the willingness to share ideas and experiences among researchers, resource managers, industry and environmental advocacy groups, policy makers, and most importantly, with the vast numbers of people who, through their everyday actions, have direct and often cumulative impacts on the systems in question.

An ecosystem approach

The Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) describes ‘ecosystem’ as: “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment acting as a functional unit”. Decision V/6
(http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/) suggests an Ecosystem Approach as defined by 12 Principles and five Operational Guidelines. The CBD considers that a general application of the Ecosystem Approach will help achieve a balance of three objectives: conservation; sustainable use; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

While this definition is meant to give the widest possible scope for discussions related to biological diversity, specific reference to agro-biodiversity can be found in Decision V/5. However, in comparison to the rest of the CBD documents on biodiversity, this reference to agro-biodiversity is brief and to the point stating that we lack sufficient methods and understanding of the role of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems:

“...Understanding of the underlying causes of the loss of agricultural biodiversity is limited, as is understanding of the consequences of such loss for the functioning of agricultural ecosystems. Moreover, the assessments of the various components are conducted separately; there is no integrated assessment of agricultural biodiversity as a whole. There is also lack of widely accepted indicators of agricultural biodiversity. The further development and application of such indicators, as well as assessment methodologies, are necessary to allow an analysis of the status and trends of agricultural biodiversity and its various components and to facilitate the identification of biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices...”.

Although many of the details and mechanisms remain unclear, the overall trends are hardly in dispute: loss of biological diversity around the world, from a multitude of causes, is correlated with decreasing productivity, increasing fragility in systems and increasing exposure of farming families to uncertainty, poverty and hunger. Reversing these trends will require a huge effort to understand the ecological, economic and social problems, while at the same time educating people from all walks of life producer, consumer, scientist, policy maker and farmer. While our lack of understanding is profound, the urgency of the problems forces us to conclude that we cannot wait for the development of a complete set of assessments and indicators before we start to take action. Policy, research and operational programmes in the field must work together; all seeking to communicate, to evaluate and to improve through ‘learning-by-doing’ this is a form of science in the broadest meaning of the word, and in essence what is meant by Adaptive Management, one of the five Operational Guidance points to the Ecosystem Approach.

Balancing theory and data

Science, as defined by the noted 20th Century philosopher, Thomas Kuhn, involves the development of a disciplinary matrix comprising: a symbolic language; conceptual models (i.e., theories); case studies (i.e., data), and (this being a major point of departure from previous definitions) values held by the scientist (Clark and Minta, 1994). Theories without data lack substance, while data without theory lack direction and meaning and are subject to misunderstanding and misapplication. Theories and data without explicitly understood values lack human context and are subject to bias and hidden assumptions of researchers and agencies. For a practical science that addresses the needs of society we need to interweave theories, data and values in a process that is responsive to the needs of people, transparent to all, and in which all people can be engaged.

The ecosystem approach set forth in Decision V/6 of the CBD is a highly-distilled set of principles and guidelines based on ecological, economic and social theories of ecosystem management. In slightly more than bullet-point form the document offers a kind of “toolbox” of concepts from which administrators, scientists and policy makers might begin to think and to discuss common issues. However, to successfully make use of this toolbox will require people first to explore and to understand the meaning, validity and utility of these key concepts. The best way to do this is to challenge them in light of data from the field case studies inform theory, and theory illuminates case studies.

FAO’s efforts to mainstream biodiversity

While the ecosystem approach was designed to address the broadest definition of ecosystems, and particularly with “natural” systems in mind, FAO has for several years been employing and making operational an ecosystem approach to a slightly more narrowly defined set of managed ecosystems, including managed forests, fisheries and all manner of cropping systems. FAO’s biodiversity programme applies ecosystem approaches in community level education and experiential learning by rural people. It applies the same approaches to educate national agricultural policy makers who wish to understand how to fulfill commitments made to environmental treaties such as the CBD and the Convention to Combat Desertification and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, while still meeting production demands. The dual processes of ecological education by and of farmers as well as policy makers is FAO’s tested strategy for mainstreaming agro-biodiversity. The Objective of the Agro-biodiversity Theme is to advance agro-biodiversity considerations into the mainstream of the national programmes and policies of FAO’s member countries. This recalls both the FAO-CBD-Netherlands 1998 Technical Workshop on Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions, and the Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity, which the CBD in its 2000 COP Decision V/5 asked FAO to coordinate.

In the context of FAO’s six-year Medium Term Plan this objective is being approached through partnerships that produce three categories of outcomes. These outcomes are:

• Assessments of Agro-biodiversity and which services it currently or potentially delivers to agriculture and the larger public good;
• Case Studies of Adaptive Management and good practices illustrating how ecosystem services can be generated; and
• Local Capacity Building, which empowers local communities to make and implement better decisions as they manage their agro-ecosystems to deliver services.

The theme brings together work from 13 operating Divisions of FAO in the Agriculture, Economic/Social, Fisheries, Forestry, Information, and Sustainable Development Departments and the Legal Office.

The work of the Agro-biodiversity Theme is organized into three Sub-theme Clusters; all strive in parallel to stimulate the outcomes and reach the theme’s objective. Each cluster contains four sub-themes that share common approaches and goals.

• Genetic Resources : animal genetic resources, plant genetic resources, Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS), and access to, exchange and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity;
• Ecosystem Approaches : Integrated Pest Management (IPM), soil biodiversity, pollinators, and global invasive species programme; and
• Monitoring and Appraisal : forest ecosystem services, indicators, awareness, and remote sensing.

A current picture of progress is given in the Indicative Summary Matrix, which presents the work of the theme against the three intended outcome areas and the objective in terms of outputs delivered, activities ongoing, and activities planned.

Partnerships

At the core of the Agro-Biodiversity Programme of the FAO/Netherlands Partenership Programme are about 45 officers from thirteen divisions across FAO. This is the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Biodiversity, which has been mainstreamed into FAO as a Priority Area for Inter-disciplinary Action. The members share inter-disciplinary concepts and language about genetic resources, ecosystem approaches, awareness, policy reform, case studies and, in particular, local community empowerment for sustainable use of agro-biodiversity. These officers are linked to a number of external partnerships with NGOs, field projects and innovative government programmes. The five case studies presented below are just a recent small sample taken from these partnerships.

FIVE CASE STUDIES

We present here a brief summary of five case studies from very different ecological regions of the world. Interspersed throughout the summaries we provide comments that attempt to link aspects of the case studies to the 12 principles and the five Operational Guidelines for the application of the Ecosystem Approach as set out by the CBD Decision V/6.

CS-1 Uganda: poverty eradication in the Iganga district

The “Poverty Eradication through Environmentally Sustainable Technologies” (PEEST). The Iganga district, is one of the most densely populated districts of Uganda with approximately 200 people per Km². The project has been supported since inception in 1997 by Cordaid (formally Bilance) of the Netherlands. The lowland project area comprises a network of permanent swamps and wetlands, which drain into lake Victoria to the south and Lake Kioga to the north. Farmers combine perennial tree crops with rain-fed annual crops within a mosaic of tropical forest remnants and encroaching savannah shrubs and grasslands. Households keep small numbers of farm animals, mostly under free-range conditions with some supplementary feeding. Animal traction is rare.

Project Location and Coverage

The district, with a population estimated at over one million people is growing at a rate of 3.5 percent per year, which is well above the national average of 2.5 percent per year. It is one of the most densely populated districts of Uganda with about 200 people /Km².

The population situation is aggravated by the polygamous practices of many of the families. Eighty-five percent of the households depend on subsistence farming. Mean annual rainfall is approximately 1250 mm occurring on 100–130 days per annum. It is mainly conventional with two peaks associated with the equatorial trough in April–May and September–November. The soils of the district are shallow and represent almost the final stages of weathering and prolonged leaching and are therefore of low to medium productivity. The district is characterized by gently undulating flat topped hills with gradients ranging from two degrees on the lower slopes, five degrees in the middle to 12 degrees at the top. The undulating hills are separated by wide valleys which, are either occupied by wetlands of impeded drainage or drained by sluggish streams.

Farm holdings average two hectares and support an average family size of eight people. A wide variety of crops are grown under traditional farming systems to provide food and income. The most important crops are sweet potatoes, cassava, maize, bananas, rice, yams, arrowroot, millet, sorghum, beans, pea nuts, Soya beans, simsim, tomatoes, cabbages, pineapples, and the traditional cash crops coffee and cotton. A typical farm of a peasant in the district comprises some perennial crops like coffee and bananas with fruit trees (orange, mangoes, avocados, jack fruit and papaya) and shade trees like Ficus natalensis and Albizia sp. grown adjoining the homestead area constituting about 25 percent of the total land holding. The rest of the land is usually under annual crops and fallow. Families keep small numbers of cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and chicken mostly under free-range for cattle and chicken and tethering for goats, pigs and sheep with supplementary feeding on household crop remains.

The excellent description above of the project setting provided by the NGO allows for a picture to be formed of theEcological Context. Population growth rates and overall densities are high; soils are highly weathered, productivity is low, and an undulating terrain portends erosion problems. Traditional farming systems still hold an impressive variety of crops, although the genetic diversity per crop is unknown. Such a picture is hardly unique and could represent a wide swath of territory across Africa and beyond. Problems and solutions found here might well have application elsewhere.

Trends and Constraints

The natural and agro-ecosystems of the district have been degrading since the 1970s as the population rapidly grew and the economic situation deteriorated. As the population grew, natural forest and woodlands were cleared for agriculture use, fuelwood, timber and human settlement. Wetlands were massively converted to agriculture use for rice, sugarcane, yam, millet, sweet potato and vegetable production. By 1997, 591 km of wetlands had been converted. Over time, the numbers of wild species have been declining and swamp soils have been drying up, shrinking and becoming sterile due to oxidation, and acid or salt precipitation.

The mass clearing of forests, woodlands and wetlands has also resulted in the increasing scarcity of fuelwood, timber and drinking water from natural wells and springs which are increasingly drying up at a much faster rate during the dry season. The increasing soil erosion that is deposited into Lake Victoria is destroying the fish breeding grounds at the lakeshores.

By 1997, many farmers in the Iganga district were faced with a problem of increasing vulnerability characterized by high poverty levels (above the national average of 45 percent living below the poverty level of one dollar per day) and food insecurity. The causes are many and include:

• The rapidly growing rural population, expanding the frontiers of agriculture into natural forest and wetland ecosystems.
• Degraded natural resource base due to inappropriate farming practices resulting in low crop yields and degraded pastures.
• Fuelwood scarcity. Ninety-five percent of the total quantity of energy consumed in the district is provided by woody biomass, mostly firewood and charcoal production for cooking, lighting in households and fish processing. Energy has become a very critical issue in the community as sources of woody biomass are fast getting depleted and agricultural biomass, which would have been used to replenish soil fertility, is also being used for fuel.
• Weak farmers’ organizations.
• Expensive and often inappropriate agriculture inputs.
• Inaccessible and/or inappropriate extension services.
• Poor marketing systems.
• Lack of access to credit.
• Pronounced gender inequality

Operational Guideline #1: Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems

• Principle #3: Consider the effects on adjacent and other ecosystems
• Principle #5: Conserve structure and function
• Principle #6: Manage within ecosystem limits

The trends and characteristics of the system presented in the case study present an all-too-familiar list of environmental, social and economic weaknesses. The list, however, leaves us to sort out for ourselves what might be the causes and what might be the consequences. Keep in mind that in complex systems cause and effect are often difficult to tease apart because they are often mutually interdependent. Although Decision V/5, as quoted above, laments the lack of widely accepted indicators of agricultural biodiversity, we know enough from general principles that several elements indicated on the list, specifically the loss of woody cover, wetlands and riparian zones, are key causes of resource-base degradation and a downward spiral in productivity and ecosystem health.

Riparian zones, as narrow borders between aquatic and terrestrial systems, are considered “Critical Transition Zones” (CTZs), characteristically housing some of the highest levels of biodiversity as well as providing key ecosystem services in the form of filtering, processing and otherwise intercepting the flow of soil erosion, toxins and excess nutrients from terrestrial to aquatic systems (hence, the loss of fish breeding grounds) (Ewel et al., 2001). Because of their relatively small size and difficulty in being exploited for various purposes, riparian zones tend to be overlooked for the important ecosystem functions they play. Wetlands themselves are a key habitat for all manner of species that often link back into surrounding terrestrial habitats to play critical roles in terrestrial (natural as well as agricultural) habitats.

Also a familiar trend is loss of woodlands leading to increased pressures for fuel and structural timber. In semi-arid rangeland environments, loss of shrubby vegetation leads to leakage of nutrients in the system (Shachak et al., 1998). In general, biodiversity mediates proximate flows of water and nutrients on and in the soil (Bardgett et al., 2001). All-in-all, the picture is one of mutual interdependency and interaction of soil, water and biological organisms. The description provided in this case study points to a set of positive feedbacks (i.e. amplifying rather than dampening effects) leading to a characteristic “downward spiral” of environmental degradation and increasing pressures on the environment. The task of an ecosystem approach to agriculture (and to environmental management in general) is to arrest this downward spiral, and then to provide the conditions by which the spiral can be reversed and conditions gradually improved.

The social and economic factors listed are symptomatic of systems in a decline, but are not necessarily the “drivers” of such a spiral of declining ecosystem health and productivity.

Project Goals and Activities

The three-year project aimed to improve the sustainability of farming in the area through:

1. improving environmental knowledge and management skills (Operational Guide #3: use adaptive management practices):
• The project employs meetings, workshops and exchange visits to raise general awareness of the linkages between natural resources and local livelihoods.
• Participative appraisal and training methods help farmers plan for desired goals with a 5-10 year horizon.
• Farmers then set out, with the assistance of the project, to implement small projects with their goals in mind.
• The project helps with training on specific focal areas including a variety of organic soil management methods like compost production, mulching and fallow techniques. Other topics include crop and animal husbandry, IPM and agro-forestry;
2. improving fuelwood production and efficiency and diets, (Operational Guide #1: focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems) Improved woodstoves were introduced, capable of reducing fuelwood consumption by 50-75 percent as well as improving safety in the kitchen;
3. to promote a more balanced contribution by both men and women, (Operational Guide #2: enhance benefit-sharing);
4. to ensure that successful project activities are scaled up and unsuccessful ones avoided: the project sought technical advice through collaborative relations with several international research agencies, including ICRAF, CIAT, TSBF, as well as Ugandan government and university agencies. (Operational Guide #5: ensure intersectoral cooperation).
0. Management training workshops aim to improve farmers’ ability to network and to interact effectively with external agencies.
• A revolving credit scheme was set up to facilitate resource poor farmers to acquire productive assets including legume seeds for improved fodder production and soil fertility management.

Operational Guidelines #1, #2, and #4 functional relationships, benefit-sharing and appropriate scales for action. The project seems to have a clear vision of the necessary operational goals, and activities required to achieve these goals. Improved wood stove technology is a proven method for fuel-wood conservation, leading to significant environmental, economic and health benefits for the community.

Operational Guidelines #3, #2, and #5: adaptive management, benefit sharing, and inter-sectoral cooperation. The stated goal of improving environmental knowledge and management skills requires activities centred on an appropriately constructed and participatory-based training programme. Participatory training we know to be most effective when addressing both male and female sectors of the community. Finally, the project’s attention to the issues of “scaling up” and attention to collaborative relationships with other organizations shows taking responsibility to make sure that projects have a realistic chance of having significant impacts at a regional level.

Project Accomplishments

Since 1997 more than 20000 farmers have benefited from the project. Promotion of an increased diversity of indigenous crop varieties has contributed both to maintaining local agro-biodiversity and to increased food security. Evaluation at the end of the first three-year phase showed 99 percent of the participating farmers reporting increased food supplies, 89 percent of farmers reporting an increased income and 61 percent of households reporting increased savings and effort in accessing fuelwood as a result of improved cook stoves.

Constraints

Constraints include inappropriate national policies that promote, through government extension, monocropping with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

Problems arose with inexistent or weak farmers’ organizations in not being able to effectively market production surpluses. Low literacy rates among female farmers constrained participation in training on farm record keeping. Polygamous family settings were generally not receptive to gender messages promoting increased control of income by women. Finally, regardless of gains, population pressure from a 3.5 percent growth rate will necessarily limit hopes for long-term sustainability. The project is currently beginning to address both the literacy problems and family-planning issues.

Problems in estimating accomplishments and impacts

Although it is not specifically outlined in the CBD documents, one of the areas with keenest need for attention is impact assessment. Our inability to adequately and consistently evaluate likely benefits of project activities leaves us guessing in the dark. Evaluating impacts is a complex and in many ways uncertain task. This project, as with most, is limited to asserting that simple counts of numbers of participants and amounts of increased income or decreased expenditures is in fact both significant and justifies the effort and expenditure. While this is logical and relatively unambiguous, it misses several different categories of possible benefits.

Consider a project whose immediate benefit might be considered quantitatively small (e.g. the development of a handful of good farmer trainers), but for which the influence is likely to multiply over time, carrying forward to have untold and disproportionate impacts on future communities. In such a case, substantial positive impacts may be incremental, cumulative and involve substantial lag times. Another such example is the case with improved inputs of soil organic materials, or improved vegetation coverage, resulting in a suite of improved soil fertility characteristics that are only noticeable over several years. Other problems in impact evaluation are likely to exist due to our ignorance of indirect effects, which might link the obvious action to results that we may not even be thinking of measuring. For example, only relatively recently has it been suggested that below-ground (or below-water) species’ richness and biological diversity has an important functional relationship to above-ground services such as pest suppression if we can’t imagine the mechanism, we most likely will miss the outcome. Finally, the benefits resulting from the project’s actions may result in outcomes for which we have no means of assessing value, for example, what is the value of a single human who, through project activities, finds himself or herself with a new-found confidence and enthusiasm to explore the natural world around them, and to make better management decisions based on a more informed appreciation of their world?

Summary of activities in view of their relationship to key operational guidelines (see Appendix A)

CS-2. Honduras: mountain areas South of Lempira

FAO, with support from the Dutch embassy supported the project “Preparative assistance for the rural development of Lempira”, which finished in 1994 and set the stage for the South Lempira-FAO Project (PROLESUR), which will go from 1995 to 2003.

Project Location and Coverage

The southern area of the Department of Lempira is located in the upper part of the river basin of the Lempa River which is shared with Honduras and El Salvador (fig. 1). It has a population of more than 110000 inhabitants in an area of 1929 km². The average family size is nine and it has been identified as the region of greatest poverty and the lowest indices of human development in Honduras. The cases of low indices correspond to circumstances where poor distribution of resources, lack of access and serious agro-ecological limitations exist together. Production systems are based on corn and beans. Primary forests have disappeared in the region, and the use of slash-and-burn practices on soils with slopes of up to 65 percent gradients has led to low-fertility soils and high levels of erosion. Few areas, especially those above 1000 m, have sufficient humidity.

Soils are principally occupied by pastures or scrub and areas of cultivation are few.

Slash-and-Burn

Traditional systems allowed the land to lie fallow for 10-25 years before cultivating again with slash-and-burn methods. In recent years the fallow periods have fallen to 3-4 years, or sometimes disappeared altogether. Farmers have tried to compensate with the use of synthetic fertilizers, and later, contact herbicides and insecticides. The result has been a gradual reduction in yields over time, and during times of drought production is drastically reduced or even lost entirely (Principle #7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales).

Extensive Crop-Pasture Systems

This system is managed in a traditional manner, taking advantage of natural pastures in the times of rains (last days of April until the last days of October). In the summer the cattle food is based on tuza (dried husks of maize), guateras (bundles of dried stems of maize, sorghum and sometimes cut grass) and the livestock are introduced to the areas that have been used for the production of maize and sorghum to eat the remains of the crops. In this system the traditional use of fire is with the intention to facilitate the sowing of grasses such as el Jaraguá (Hyparrenia rufe), to stimulate the re-shooting of pastures and to reduce pests. Almost all of the producers in Honduras dedicate a part of their lands to the production of maize and beans, those that usually use this system dedicate 25 percent of the farm to the production of maize and beans and 15 percent is managed as a guamil (type of fallow system). The continued use of burning in the pasture land and slash-and-burn as a method of preparation of the soil for sowing crops have impoverished the soils through the loss of nutrients through volatilization and run-offs and it is evident that it has reduced the biological diversity at the macro and micro levels. Intensive use and over-grazing of pasture lands, especially in the dry season, leads to soil erosion and the loss of nutrients due to run-off.

Principle #7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Agriculture is often declared a “disturbance” to natural systems, yet disturbance is a natural part of all ecosystems. Tree-falls in a forest or a localized fire from a lightening strike provide an opportunity for new cycles of growth (and increased biodiversity) through the opening of the canopy to sunlight and the liberation of nutrients otherwise bound up in the living forest biomass. Slash-and-burn or swidden agriculture clearly evolved to take advantage of this natural cycle of destruction and regeneration. What is at issue here is not the nature of the disturbance, but the scale at which this disturbance takes place. Slash-and-burn systems under increasing population pressures lead to an increase in the spatial and temporal scale at which the disturbance is experienced that eventually goes beyond the limits of the system to regenerate. Again, this drives systems into a downward spiral of ecological degradation and increasing social and economic hardship. Correlated with this is of course a dramatic loss in both soil and above-ground biodiversity.

Some will rightly argue that this type of cursory analysis does not do justice to the human history and accumulated traditional human ecological knowledge associated with swidden agriculture. We do not contest this point and we whole-heartedly endorse efforts to work with swidden systems to seek a continuation of systems that without doubt have a long and fascinating history of sustainability. Our only point is that in places where population pressures drive swidden systems beyond the range in which they are sustainable, other alternatives must be found that may well involve a radical restructuring of the swidden system into one best described as “intensive”. However, our experience strongly suggests that “intensive agriculture” does not necessarily require, and should not imply, the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

Principle #6: Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning. In the Honduran case study, not only was productivity gradually declining, but farmers also experienced an increasing number of years when, due to poorer than average rainfall, their systems did not yield at all. One of the indications of increased fragility (loss of resilience), in general in any system, is an increasing frequency of what previously would have been considered unusual or infrequent episodes of sudden and serious system failure, termed as “surprise” in the literature on ecosystem management (Holling, 1995). Examples of “surprise” in ecological systems can be seen everywhere, from localized pest outbreaks on a small scale, to the appearance of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, at a very large scale.

Principle #5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach. Some proponents of high-input, industrialized agriculture have argued that the answer to slash-and-burn (and therefore to loss of forest biodiversity) lies in agricultural intensification through the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. This is incorrect precisely because this avenue does not conserve ecosystem structure and does not function any better than slash-and-burn. The problems with over-extended slash-and-burn systems are linked to degradation of soil health and biodiversity loss. Microbial communities in the soil need not just nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium, but important amounts of carbon for energy. Synthetic fertilizers, in the absence of the recycling of organic materials, lead just as surely to a collapse in soil fertility as does over-extended slash-and-burn farming. Farmers using insecticides are substituting an array of biocides in lieu of, and at the expense of, a potentially diverse community of organisms, the structure and function of which provide pest supression as an “ecosystem service”. History strongly suggests that an approach to agriculture in the tropics that substitutes chemicals for proper ecological processes is not sustainable, and will eventually head into a downward spiral.

Project Goals and Activities

The main objective of the PROLESUR project is to facilitate the introduction of agro-silvo-grazing production technologies on the slopes, in order to increase production and reverse the process of natural resource degradation. Its strategy:

• to encourage dialogue between producers and resource persons, and among producers themselves (Operational Guide #3: adaptive management practices);
• to encourage farmers to abandon traditional slash-and-burn methods in favor of minimum tillage techniques, use of soil cover crops, and improvement of forage crops and livestock vaccination (Principle #5: conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services);
• to validate agronomic methods, such as the use of vegetative buffers for soil erosion, the reincorporation of crop residues as mulches, the planting of perennial fruit trees, and IPM (Principle #5);
• to “rescue” edible indigenous species that have progressively been disappearing from the local markets (Principle #10: the ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity);
• to employ participatory learning methods (FFS), which focus on an agro-ecosystem analysis by farmers (Operational Guide #3: use adaptive management practices); and
• to build local capacity through in-service training (Operational Guide #3).

The project is taking a participatory approach to training farmers in methods focused on the conservation and improvement of soil fertility through a radical restructuring of prior farming system patterns (i.e. through abandonment of Slash-and-burn practices). Farmers are only likely to make radical shifts in prior practice when they are fully convinced that benefits outweigh added costs and risks. An adaptive management approach involving participatory, skills-based training is likely to be the most effective and possibly the only realistic method for accomplishing this task. Appealing to the best interest of farmers implies an educational approach that focuses on mechanisms and trade-offs.

Project Accomplishments

The scarcity of firewood, the growing pressure for productive land and the decreasing soil fertility induced farmers to modify their productive practices of basic grains through the development of agro-forestry systems with the aid of the project. In the course of project, farmers reported positive returns from the abandonment of slash-and-burn methods, which have practically disappeared from the project areas. Participating producers have begun to see regeneration of soil fertility with use of improved soil fertility management methods. Improved methods include planting with zero tillage, the adjustment of crop densities, the management of crop and pruning residues, appropriate use of fertilizers and the introduction of IPM techniques.

During the last eight years, participating farmers have observed a gradual modification of the traditional agro-pastoral system towards a system that has, due to the effect of abandoning slash-and-burn, seen an increase of trees in the pasture-land, and the use of crop harvest residues over the ground of the milpas (land cultivated with maize). In this system jaragua grass is associated with local tree species such as the aceituna (olive) (Simaroouba glauca), almendra de agua (water almond) (Andrina inermis) and laurel (Cordia alliodora). Although it would be ideal to incorporate leguminous trees, the introduction of these has been difficult due to grazing.

In this system, both small and medium livestock farmers also cultivate maize and bean, usually without clearing or burning small areas. When the farms are more than 10 ha, the farmers usually rent part of their land to other farmers for the production of basic grains. Farmers do not use synthetic fertilizers on the grazing land, but have reduced soil degradation and increased conservation of soil moisture by incorporation of crop residues. Many farmers have begun to vaccinate their cattle, and have seen improvements in milk yields and net income.

Summary of activities in view of their relationship to key operational guidelines

(see Appendix A)

CS-3. Thailand: organic and fair-trade rice project

The Organic and Fair-Trade Rice project originated more than 10 years ago in north-eastern Thailand famous for its Jasmine variety of rice as a cooperative effort between local Thai NGOs in Surin and Yasothorn provinces, and a Swiss-based fair-trade organization, Claro. In 1996 the project expanded its scope to include organic farming as a central objective. The main objective was to establish an organic conversion programme comprising three main components: farmer field school training (FFS), market access, and organic certification.

Project Location and Coverage

Topographically, the northeastern region of Thailand, locally known as Isan, is dominated by the Khorat Plateau. The northern and eastern boarder is marked by the Mekong river. The northen part has some high mountains and various plateaus ranging from 300 to 1200 meters above sea level. Soil is poor, predominated by entisols, incepticols and ultisols. In various parts of the region, salt deposits can be found in subsoil level. An estimated 2848 million hectares of land (16.9 percent) are thought to be affected by soil salinity.

An estimated 68.6 percent of agricultural lands in the northeast are cultivated with rice. Rice is predominantly grown in low land during the rainy season, where local rice varieties are cultivated for family consumption while high-yield or high-value rice varieties are for sale. On upland areas, different types of cash crops are grown, including tapioca, sugar cane, maize, bean, jute.

The northeastern region is also the poorest region in the country. The average annual income is around one-third of the national income, i.e. Baht 19331 (ECU 48328) compared to an average national annual income of Baht 56336 (ECU 1408.40). Almost three quarters of the population in the northeast is involved in the agricultural sector, i.e. 71.9 percent.

Aims and Objectives

The project’s main aim is human development through ecological production, with a focus on the farmer as a centre of development, and looks at three inter-woven aspects:

Awareness/Consciousness raising and ethical responsibility;
Appropriate skills and technology; and
Grassroots organization.

Awareness is not sufficient to convince a producer to change his/her production to a more sustainable path. Consciousness raising together with ethical responsibility must be instituted. A dynamic of action-reflection where the producer reflects on his/her practice can better ensure a raised conscience while a fairer return on farm produce offers the producer an incentive to make an ethical commitment and responsibility. The project is convinced that an organic agriculture development project must incorporate practical learning activities where the producer has opportunities to practice and reflect upon his/her own actions and that the project must link to fair-trade market opportunities, possibly to offer fairer prices for the organic produce. This in turn also requires that the organic project must include post-harvest processing and management (e.g. quality assurance and product development) as a key component in its activities.

Practical skills and appropriate technology are key to ecological production. One of the main constraints facing organic farming is the lack of appropriate practical skills and technology that the producer can employ on his/her farm. Indigenous knowledge, rapidly eroded, is often praised but no concrete efforts are made to revitalize it and especially to enhance it so that it can offer practical solutions to tackle the present problems facing local farming communities. The project is committed to participatory technological development and learning approaches and has been using two methodologies the “Farmer Field School” (FFS) and “Participatory Technological Development” (PTD) as main tools for developing appropriate organic farming skills and technology while also incorporating local indigenous knowledge.

The project also believes that producers’ organizations play a key role in organic agriculture and that they must be strengthened so that they can become more effective in delivering technological services to their members, reinforcing consciousness and ethical responsibility among their members, and handling organic produce. The project therefore works with producers’ organizations committed to organic agriculture and sustainable development.

The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is a participatory adult learning method. Participating farmers come together on a regular basis (e.g. every 7 10 or 14 days) to study agroecosystem management of a selected study field, known as “field school”. In the field school, the plot is divided in half, with one half cultivated with conventional rice and the other with organic rice. The conventional rice field is managed in the same manner as typical local farmers would do to their own conventional field while the organic filed is managed according to organic standards with joint farmers’ decision on fertilization plans and pest control strategies. Participating farmers are guided to observe both conventional and organic fields in the actual local conditions comparable to their own fields, comparing crop inhabitants (insects and plants), growth and yield.

This exercise is done in a small group to facilitate active participation and group development. Small groups analyze and present crop conditions, then make organic management recommendations. A trained facilitator (trained extension agent or trained and experienced farmer) synthesizes the group's recommendations. These management recommendations are tested in the school field and farmers observe test results in the next school session. In this process, farmers have an opportunity to share their indigenous knowledge of farming and to learn about different organic management alternatives.

Operational Guide #3: use adaptive management practices

Operational Guide #4: carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralization to lowest level, as appropriate

The core operational goal essential to the success of this project was its focus on education and training. They chose a Farmer Field School (FFS) approach, based on participatory “learning-by-doing” principles, which was first developed by FAO in the late 1980s in Asia, and is now being adopted by an increasing number of NGOs and institutions responsible for farmer training in Asia, Africa and Latin America

In producer groups that have already undertaken FFS training, but where participating farmers are interested in testing new or additional techniques, a participatory technical development (PTD) activity is organized. Here a specific technique is first discussed and evaluated by farmers (in the spirit of the FFS training). The group sets up field trials on farmer members’ fields. The results of these field trials are presented to the group for collective analysis. These trained FFS farmer groups are a natural kernel around which to develop farmers’ organizations.

The PTD activity mentioned above is one form of follow-up study. One of the earliest ‘lessons learned’ in the FFS programme was that a one-shot training of farmers was not, in itself, sufficient to guarantee long-term change. Enthusiastic FFS farmers need some form of future opportunities for continued learning; therefore, follow-up activities were adopted early on in FFS programmes. These activities are devised by farmer-alumni and cover a wide range of possible activities depending on the interests of the farmers’ group, including new training in new cropping systems, focused studies on specific soil or pest problems of particular concern, or training for farmers to become trainers.

Organic certification is taken care of by a local private organic certifier, the Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand (ACT), which was awarded IFOAM accreditation by the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS) in November 2001. The farmers' organizations are assisted to develop internal control systems (ICS) to monitor the compliance of participating farmers to organic standards. Farmer leaders and their staff (who sometimes can also be NGO staff) are trained to run the ICSs, and conduct internal farm monitoring and inspection. This helps to further strengthen producers’ organizations and ensure that organic standards and certification requirements are adherred to. Conversion to organic requires 12 months for annual crops, but can be extended if the farm has a history of heavy agro-chemical use. The project provides organic fertilizer credit so that participating farmers can assure that rice yields of converting fields are maintained during the conversion period. This allows more farmers to successfully convert their entire rice fields to organic. From 1998 to 2001 the land under organic production in the project area increased to more than 5000 Rai (800 hectares), a five-fold increase from year one.

Reported Improvements

• Soil fertility. The most often self-acclaimed benefit expressed by organic farmers is that “soil is darker and softer”. Rice straw and stalks, often burnt in the past, are now being ploughed back into the soil. Animal manure and green manure that farmers apply also add organic matter to the soil. All these contribute to the improvement of the soil’s physical structure and chemical composition.
• Biodiversity. The cessation of agro-chemical applications contributed to an increase in different animals in rice ecosystem. Farmers noticed an increase in natural enemies, e.g. spiders, birds and fish in rice fields. Fish in the rice fields are from natural sources.
• Health. Organic rice farmers have lower risk of exposure to pesticides (a serious problem in most farm areas in Thailand). Rice fields are an important food source, where vegetables and animals (mainly fish from natural sources) are caught for family consumption.
• Economic. The Organic and Fair-Trade Rice Project is based on fair-trade principles. The organic rice produce is guaranteed a fair premium price, set at a fixed level taking into account the rice farming cost. At present, the certified organic paddy is purchased from farmers locally at TBT 10 kg (US$0.24), TBT 8 kg (US$ 0.19) for in-conversion paddy, and TBT 7 kg (US$ 0.167) for non-certified organic paddy. This is quite a significant premium as conventional paddy currently costs only TBT 4.7 kg (US$ 0.11). These farm gate prices include both organic and fair-trade premiums. With such a premium price system, organic rice producers have doubled their incomes in the last two years.

Operational Guide #2: Enhance benefit-sharing

Principle #1: Management is a matter of societal choice

Again, societal choice implies adequate knowledge to ensure an informed choice. Organic certification is an expressly defined valuation of what constitutes an adequate quality for agricultural production, and provides a vehicle for society to exercise choice in a manner that is both transparent and fair to both producer and consumer.

Principle #4: manage the ecosystem in an economic context (i) reduce market distortions that affect biological diversity; (ii) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; (iii)internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible

More than almost any other country in Southeast Asia, Thailand has a history of heavy pesticide and fertilizer applications, so it should not be surprising that farmers in the Thai organic rice project were initially very wary of “risking” an organic approach. The project, by providing a guaranteed price to the producer, was easing the fears and uncertainties of farmers, allowing them to move in the direction of a more ecologically sustainable farming system. It will be interesting to see if the market-farm links can be established to a sufficiently stable point to allow these farmers to be “weaned” from the price-stabilization mechanisms.

Summary of activities in view of their relations hip to key operational guidelines (see Appendix A):

CS-4. Western Iran: sustainable livelihoods project

In 1998 a project in area-based and community-managed sustainable livelihoods was started by the Iranian NGO “Centre for Sustainable Development” (CENESTA) in three regions of the country, including the Houraman Valley, in the lower reaches of which is located the village of Naw. The areas were selected on the basis of being comparatively more deprived and poorer than others. The provinces of Kurdistan, Kohgiluyeh and Hormozgan were on UNICEF’s list of those with the greatest disparity in indicators of well-being, especially of women and children, and in each province, consultations were held with those government agencies that deal most closely with rural communities, including health and rural development workers. The programme was designed in three phases: short-medium-and long-term. Phase I (two years) was financially helped by UNICEF, and a number of government departments joined CENESTA in carrying out the action programmes.

The village of Naw in the Houraman Valley of Kurdistan was selected for study for rain-fed agriculture in the arid lands project of FAO. Iran is considered largely arid and semi-arid. The region of western Iran, including Kurdistan, is especially suited, in good years, for rain-fed (dry) farming as its rainfall is adequate for the purpose. The Province of Kurdistan is divided into two climatic zones by the Zagros Mountains. While the western reaches of Kurdistan can have up to 700 mm of rainfall, mostly coming from the Mediterranean region, the eastern reaches of the province are affected more by the warm and dry air coming from the central plateau. Here the rainfall rarely exceeds 350 mm.

The Houraman valley has a complex and integrated agricultural system, consisting of dry farming, fruit orchards, transhumant pastoralism, and agro-forestry and forest products. Rangelands are important factors in the household economy in providing animal feed and access to woodland products. The system of exploitation of natural resources is a contributor to their conservation and sustainable use in the area.

Naw’s production system includes, in addition to agriculture and livestock, handicrafts. Women are noticeable in most of the economic activities, in which all participate. The fruits of this work are used equitably. Government institutions have little or no effect on the economic and social activities of this region.

Naw is a part of Houraman Dehestan (village cluster), which is part of a mountainous region in Kurdistan Province in Western Iran in the lower reaches of Houraman valley, some 1100 metres above sea level. The main access road to Naw is earth and gravel, and the nearest town is 35 km away. The village has about 160 households, with just over 800 people.

Soil resources

The steep slopes of the area (see table 1), the hilly and mountainous terrain, and the occasional hard rains have caused soil erosion, especially in the higher regions. This has resulted in the meagre depth of top soils and the prevalence of gravel and rocks in the surface and depths of the soil, causing many exposed rocky areas, poor soil nutrition and lack of organic matter in the soils. The soils are usually clay to sandy, with poor organic composition. They do not lack drainage due to natural draining capacity, which is why there is no salinity problems in the area. The agricultural land, which has a surface area of some 900 ha (about 700 ha of farming land and 200 ha of rangelands) is suitable for agriculture but with limitation of frequent high and low terrains as well as high gravel content.

The peasants of Naw classify their soils into three categories: clay, white (clay of Marne origin) and black (volcanic), and consider that most of the soil used for orchard or dry farming needs to receive animal fertilizers. There is no known use of chemical fertilizers or compost in the region. Local peasants use terracing for creating their orchards, a system known as “Talan.” Top soil is often transported to cover these terraces using animal power, usually mules. They establish stone walls to retain the terraces. Trees are then planted and water is absorbed and stored in the terraces. Even in the rangeland areas they use a system of micro-catchment basins in the form of semicircular stone retainers around oak trees that helps in catching and storing water and humidity.

Water resources

Water resources include surface and ground water. In the rainy seasons the water from rains or the melting snow above moves through a natural flood channel which acts as a drainage mechanism to reach the Sirwan river south of the area. Local farmers construct traditional stone bunds and earth or stone ditches and canals which take these seasonal floods into the orchards of vines, pomegranates and figs. The height of these stone canals sometimes reaches over two metres. Rain-fed vineyards have usually been constructed along these channels or in snow catching highlands. Ground water manifests itself in the form of springs inside the village with a yield of 5-40 litres per second. The water needed by the orchards comes from two sets of springs. Some six springs in the higher terrain provide the water needed for the animals. This village has no qanats or tube wells. The seasonal and ground water flows have good quality water. The drinking water is taken by goat skins from springs located in the northern highs of the village. Small water retention barriers near the springs help provide the water needed by livestock.

This is a fascinating description indicating a huge effort in terms of initial outlays of labour to capture and control water. Although not mentioned in the case study, it is likely that these stone ditches and canals also serve to capture silt run-off, which might then be redistributed.

Traditional knowledge in this system is clearly highly attentive to arresting soil loss through erosion, yet there is no history of recycling organic inputs, most probably because any such crop residues would go to feed animals.

Biodiversity and natural resource management

The Zagros Mountain Range has its own climatic system with many mountain and piedmont habitats that have given rise to considerable biological diversity in ecosystems, species and genetic resources. Steep slopes, woodlands and forests, which are part of the natural Zagros biome, are found here. Plant communities of oak, wild pistachio and almond are among the prevalent trees and bushes, which create both impressive landscapes and suitable niches and habitats for wild fauna including many species of mammals, reptiles, birds and insects. Some dominant species of wildlife include squirrels, snakes and lizards, mountain sheep and goats, foxes, wolves, jackals, rabbits, boars, bears, leopards and birds such as quails, water birds and raptors including eagles, and insects such as grasshoppers, lepidopterans, beetles, Sunn insects, lady beetles and others. Some agro-forestry also happens on a scattered basis in these woodlands.

Among the plants of biodiversity interest in the area one can name the tree and bush species Quercus persica (Persian oak), Pistacia mutica (wild pistachio), Acer persicum, Crataegus sp. (thornapple tree), Amygdalus orientatus (wild almonds), Amygdalus scoparia (mountain almonds), the Rhus sp. (sumac), Pyrus glabra (wild pears) and a plant with the Kurdish name “homr”.

The leaves and acorns of the oak are used for animal feed, and the wood as well as the tannin extracted from the acorns has industrial and medicinal uses. Acorns, after the extraction of tannin by osmosis in water, are also ground into a meal from which a local type of bread is made for human consumption, especially at times of food shortage. The wild pistachio yields a gum which is used locally as well as processed and exported. The gum extraction work provides income for the inhabitants.

The woodlands, trees and shrubs are owned by the clans and sometimes households in the village, the rights to which are inherited. Sometimes up to 10 households may have use rights for just one or two trees. The Amygdalus shrubs have pharmaceutical, industrial and sometimes food value. They are harvested around April or May. The wild pistachio and many of the other species have endemic value. There are also many annual wild plants of medicinal value, including Echium amoenum, Glycyrrhiza glabra (liquorice), Fumaria parviflora (leaved fumitory), Althaea officinalis, anis, Astralagus acutus (milkvetch) and other plants with such Kurdish names as “azbu”, “gole kabud”, and “panareh”, are used for medicinal and industrial purposes. These plants reach 30-100 cms, and usually grow in the spring and last until the end of autumn.

Environmental management

Most villages in Houraman valley have a vertical migratory pattern, where they spend about a third of the year in higher lands called “hawar”. Each “hawar” has a name of its own, and acts like a second village with its own production, habitat and farming system.

In “hawar” each household has a given terrain for its use, and the rangelands are kept and managed as common property. Part of the rangelands is usually kept in a state of “qoroq” or “gia-jar” i.e. no one is allowed to use these resources in the spring until sometime in May. During the remaining months of spring and summer, in addition to extensive grazing, the grass in the “giajar” ranges will be harvested three times. The hay thus harvested is then dried and, if necessary, stamped by oxen or mules and then stored away for use as winter feed for the animals of the village.

In “hawar”, the villagers have their traditional ways of protecting and enhancing the species most appreciated in rangelands. Women and men collect the seeds of such plants, as they dry, while grazing the animals during their steady climb (similar to alpage in Europe). At the time of migration back to the base village, at the end of summer, the seeds collected are spread on these rangelands. The livestock are kept in these lands for some time in order to fertilize the lands. The movement of the animals in the areas causes a “ploughing” of the soil and the burying of the seeds. The coming of the next rainy season will cause the rangelands to be renewed with these plants.

The energy for cooking and processing dairy products is traditionally obtained in the “hawar” by cutting the head branches of the oak trees. Until the recent past the villagers had to sometimes cut trees in order to provide firewood for the cold of the winter. This was one of the contributing factors to losing the plant cover and the occurrence of flooding and damage to the fields. In recent years, government agencies have managed to provide fossil fuel products like paraffin (kerosene), which has resulted in reducing the need to cut trees and increased willingness on the part of the local population to protect the woodlands and forests. As a result local folks can perceive a definite improvement in the plant cover around the community. Local people recall frequent floods in times past, but they have not had them in the past decade or so, since they are no longer having to cut trees for fuelwood. This is especially noticeable in the flood paths and gulleys, which are now rich in shrubs and trees, which helps slow down running water and prevent floods.

(Principle #1: the objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice)

The apparent success in managing common pasture-lands through collaboration and agreed-upon social norms is surely a sign of a social system still integral, and not yet subject to pressure to the extent that would drive individuals to dispense with social norms.

The replacement by appropriate concentrated alternative fuel sources for fuel-wood gathering, especially in typically fragile semi-arid ecosystems, is an absolutely critical first step towards creating and maintaining sustainable systems.

The complementary and inter-dependent nature of livelihood systems in Naw help protect the biological diversity of the landscape. Wheat and barley are harvested and the straw from them provides a major source of feed for animals. In the higher ranges the pasture plants are harvested and used for winter feed for animals. Oak leaves from the forests are also used, sparingly enough, for animal feed. The partial cutting of some of the bows has a pruning effect on the trees. The period of time that livestock spend in the “hawar” is not too long to cause damage to the trees or the rangelands, since they are regularly taken for pasturing higher up. The acorns are sometimes used for grinding, after soaking in water overnight to eliminate the tannin, acorn bread is made for human use, particularly at times when other sources are lacking.

The Naweans don’t use steep slopes for pasturing animals. Furthermore, they preserve the trees in these slopes. The orchards are rich in medicinal plants, which are picked for local use, but not for commercial sale. When bleeding Amygdalus and wild pistachio for gum, they are also careful not to damage the trees and shrubs. Even wildlife has become more abundant in recent years.

Farming Systems in Naw

We have seen that the farming system in Naw is an interactive set of relationships between farming and horticulture, range and forestry (mostly harvesting) activities. Agriculture takes up about 700 ha of which some 40 are partly irrigated orchards. Dry-farming consists of vineyards, grains and pulses. Fig and pomegranate make up most of the orchard horticulture. Grains are planted in autumn and harvested around June.

The agricultural rotation system depends on soil quality, rainfall prognostics and the perception of situation in the market place and availability of labour and agricultural tools. The most prevalent rotations are as follows: Wheat-chickpea-wheat; Wheat-barley-wheat, and Wheat-chickpea-barley-wheat. The rotation system in agriculture is driven partly by the demand in the market place and partly by the needs of the subsistence economy. A major factor determining the dominant role of wheat and barley in the rotation system is the needs of the livestock. In the summer animals feed on the stubble from grains in addition to the pastures, and in winter straw, hay and barley is fed to the animals in addition to the stored range cuttings. Summer horticultural crops are planted on a limited scale, mostly for meeting the needs of the household, amounting to some 0.4 ha per household “hawar”. Most of the animal dung in the village is used for the orchards, around 6-7 kg per tree in September. No chemical fertilizers are used. The use of insecticides is conspicuous by its absence.

Seeds used for agriculture are local indigenous varieties and the trees used in orchards are also from local genetic stock. There is no felt need in the region for inputs such as seeds and seedlings, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, or agricultural machinery.

The main pest of grains is the Sunn pest, which, in this area, has no major outbreaks, and the farmers often deal with it by generating smoke to chase them away. Farmers say locusts in the area are hunted by birds, and do not cause much damage. In conclusion, in the farming system of this area, it is natural and cultural factors such as the topography, rainfall, land tenure and self-sufficiency that play the major role in the production of rain-fed crops like grains and pulses.

Analysis of agricultural, ecological and economic systems

We can conclude that despite the lack of access of the community to modern “technical” advice and agricultural inputs, and despite the relatively adverse environment given the steep slopes, lack of water for extended irrigated agriculture and relatively poor soils, it has managed to keep a reasonably productive system, mainly for subsistence purposes, through the application of traditional knowledge and wisdom, extensive dry-farming, and the integration of various types of agriculture with forestry, gathering of non-timber forest products, and range management for livestock production. The mutual benefits of agriculture and animal husbandry help maintain higher productivity for both livestock and crops, and the maintenance of rangelands and soils in reasonable condition.

The average area of dry farmed land for each household is about 6 hectares, some 10 times the land under annual irrigated crops. Due to the overall low productivity of the agro-ecosystems, and the essentially subsistence character of agriculture, this system does not contribute to savings-based investment. Therefore, many of the households are in a relative state of poverty. The subdivision of land rights due to inheritance may become another problem in the future.

The Naw society has evolved its particular system of subsistence based on its agro-biodiversity, topographic and climatic conditions, the predominance of the tribal traditions, and reliance on seasonal transhumant animal husbandry and agriculture. It has done so in such a way as to make sustainable use of its environment and natural resources. In the spring, with the growth of range species, transhumant migration to higher areas starts. This also keeps them at bay from harmful insects like ticks, flies and mosquitoes. Animals are fed with fresh pasture, and the clean water of the higher range is used for animal and human consumption. New crops are planted at this time as old crops begin to get picked. Pest control takes its natural course with endemic natural biological agents, and livelihood is complimented with small-scale marketing of products from the orchards, forests and handicrafts as well as with occasional seasonal migrant labour.

Sustainable Livelihoods Project

The main purpose of the project is:

• Improvement of the conditions of life of local communities in the areas selected, with special attention to the situation of women and children, through community solidarity and control over decisions concerning planning, implementation and evaluation in their own development, with the effort to overcome the disparity that affects their areas;
• Elaborating, designing and applying models of development that would be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable;
• Establishing endogenous mechanisms for the adaptive replication of the project.

Preliminary results

The project depends heavily on participatory planning and appraisal methods to explore the priorities of the community. The priorities arrived at by the community of Naw include:

• the promotion of shoe-making from local materials;
• protecting and improving organic production of agricultural and horticultural crops;
• processing of horticultural products including pomegranate sauce;
• solar cookers for further improvement of the forest cover;
• marketing agricultural products, and a videoteque project;
• Eco-tourism was also discussed as a priority in the longer term, given the unique beauty and way of life of the Valley of Houraman, including especially the village of Naw.

The project in western Iran introduced above differs from the first three projects in several ways-most importantly because, through their isolation, the Nomads of Naw have maintained an intact traditional culture with a long history of adaptation and survival in an extremely arid and fragile climate. However, most all peoples seek increased economic opportunity and well-being, and judging by the results of their participatory workshops, these people are no exception. The advantage held here by the project is that they are able to address issues of community development before the environmental and economic factors have collapsed into a downward spiral.

Summary of activities in view of their relationship to key operational guidelines (see Appendix A)

CS-5. India: Tribal farmers and hunter gatherers in the tropical deciduous areas of Tamil Nadu

The Keystone project started in the Tamil Nadu region of India in June 1999, with financial assistance from Inter-Cooperation (IC), an organization created for the purpose of dealing with Natural Resource Management by the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC). The duration of the project is 3 years, until June 2002.

Location

The project is located in South India, in the northwestern part of Tamil Nadu, not far from the city of Ooty, the Nilgiris District’s capital, on the border of the States of Kerala and Karnataka. The villages covered under the project are part of Talukas (administrative subdivisions of a district) – Kotagiri and Coonoor. Land holdings are very close to the forested areas at middle elevations of 800-1000 metres. The entire Nilgiris range rises up to a maximum of 2600 m. The area is in the humid/semi humid tropics.

Environment

The Nilgiris consist of one of the most ecologically fragile areas in India. The hills are steep. Traditional forests have been depleted and are under further threat, because of the increase in large tea plantations and substantial destruction of natural vegetation by the Forest Department, through introduction of exotic commercial tree plantations. Consequently, soil erosion is rampant. Tea and coffee plantations have replaced large parts of its original vegetation and marshes have been converted into agricultural fields. Fifty percent (30000 ha) of all cultivated area consist of tea plantations. Although no hard figures are available, it is common knowledge that conventional tea plantations make heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and reduce the water retention capacity of the soil.

It is for the above-mentioned reasons that the area has become part of the Nilgiris Biosphere Reserve, as declared under the Man and Biosphere Programme of UNESCO. During the past 19th and 20th centuries, deforestation, illegal and select cutting of valuable species was carried out. Vast areas of grasslands were replaced with plantations of Wattle, Eucalyptus and Cinchona. Thus large parts of pasturelands, belonging to the indigenous pastoral communities were taken over by the Forest Department. The negative effects of slash-and-burn practices, over-grazing, fire and the development of large plantations in the lower areas have been considerable.

However there are still good tracts of forests, representing the original Nilgiris’ vegetation. Here, people live in harmony with the forest and collect Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) like wild nutmeg, cinnamon, sugarcane, pepper, honey and herbal plants. These deciduous forests and thorny thickets are found at elevations between 800-1200 m. Rosewood is the dominant species in the wet areas, teak and sandalwood in the drier zones. But, the forests are much more diverse: Erythrina, Dendrocalamus, Cedrella toona, Terminalia, Anogiessus latifolia, Pterocarpus marsupium grow in the wet zones. Zizyphus and Vitis, many grass varieties and herbs in the drier areas. The area is rich in fauna too. Elephants, bisons, spotted and barking deer, Bears, leopards and numerous smaller animals have their habitat in the area.

Guideline #1. “Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems.”

The environmental description presents what is clearly a common pattern: an ecologically fragile environment due to a combination of factors, including conversion of wetlands and forests, use of pesticides and excessive amounts of synthetic fertilizers, over-grazing, soil erosion and lack of organic material inputs. While the CBD laments the lack of environmental indicators in agricultural systems (referring to specific characteristics of soils, or animal or plant species assemblages) it certainly doesn’t take much imagination to look to certain suites of agricultural practices, like those mentioned, as indicators of a system that is most likely moving in a downward spiral towards ecological, economic and social decay or collapse.

Crop history

The history of change from traditional cropping to the newer commercial cash crops of tea, coffee and vegetables is interesting. In 1818, when the British entered the District, they found a “primitive population” practising slash-and-burn agriculture. In the 1820s, the British first introduced vegetables. The Badagas, in the plateau area of the Nilgiris took to the cultivation of beans, cauliflower, cabbage and carrots on a large scale. In 1897, 1600 ha of tea were planted. In 1949 the tea area increased to 8900 ha. Today, tea occupies 50 percent of Nilgiris’ total cropped area. It has changed the land-use significantly, destroying grasslands and marshes and replaced a mixed cultivation with a monocrop cash crop.

Coffee was introduced on the slopes of the hills in 1838. This was the zone where the hunters/ gatherers lived - Kurumbas, Irulas and Jenu Kurumbas were soon introduced to this crop, which spread within the forested lower zones. The main coffee plantations were in the Gudalur-Wynaad region but also on the slopes of Coonoor and Kotagiri Talukas. Coffee soon became an integral part of the homesteads of tribals and a popular beverage amongst them. Nowadays, coffee is facing a threat from the more lucrative and hardy crop, tea.

People

The Tribal population, which occupies the hills amounted to 25000 (Census of India, 1991), but may have gone up slightly since. The main hunting and gathering communities consist of Alu Kurumbas (5000), Irulas (6000), Jenu Kurumbas (1000), Betta Kurumbas (3000) and Kasavas (1000). They are Dravidian-speaking and belong to the autochthonous Indian population. They are predominantly-forest dwellers- hunters and gatherers, but have been gradually involved in agriculture as small-scale cultivators. They use shifting cultivation and slash-and-burn techniques. Primarily it is a subsistence economy, in which hunting, fishing and collecting are combined with subsistence agriculture and some daily wage labour on the plantations. A study done by Keystone in 1997, among the tribal hamlets revealed that 39 percent are landless; 14 percent have less than one acre; 35 percent between 1-2 acres and 12 percent between 2-3 acres.

With the increase of tea plantations, all communities lost their usufruct rights. For most of the tribal communities, it is living on the edge. Most tribals depend for survival on daily wages, earned for their work on the plantations. Interestingly, the number of women as regular workers is much higher than the number of men. The maximum earnings per week, including NTFP are Rs 200-250 (US$ 4-5). However the type of work depends on the remuneration available and the season of the year. The study reveals that NTFP collection starts in January/February and ends with the honey harvest in May/June. Between July/November, people in the upper plateau have no option than to search for wage labour. In other zones, where it is difficult to get work, people supplement their meagre meals with collected forest roots. Still, to survive is difficult. And if they do, there are little or no reserves. In times of illness, at festivals or funerals, they depend on moneylenders who provide loans at exorbitant rates of interest, up to 120 percent per year.

From the above, it can be concluded that there are two main problems: A highly fragile environment and a marginalized community of tribals.

It has been Keystone’s conviction that environment and people are inter-related and improvement of the environment is impossible without a strong involvement of the communities. Keystone mentions as its mission: “A conscious goal to enhance the quality of life and the environment. It means: breaking new paths that are innovative, yet relevant and dealing with diverse problems/issues in an integrated manner”.

Keystone’s pre-project

In 1995, Keystone started to work with the Irulas and Kurumbas tribal communities on apiculture. The main objective was to improve their techniques of honey gathering and processing. At that time, the idea to develop alternatives for growing tea plantations emerged. The reasons were the following:

Tea plantations, with the exception of the organic ones, make heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Tea is a mono-crop, endangering especially the lower slopes of the Nilgiris. Water retention capacity is reduced and vast tracts of primary forested land are destroyed for tea cultivation, limiting food security for the tribals. Moreover, the need for fuelwood, which is commonly used to process tea, increases.

Some of these aspects are also true for coffee, except that it is not a monoculture and in fact has a variety of shade trees: jack, silk cotton, pepper, orange, guava, and a number of forest trees. The water retention capacity therefore is much better.

Traditional crops and coffee were introduced, to increase biodiversity and to decrease the dependence of the Tribals on wages. seven kg of millet seeds were bought from various villages in 1996 and together with pumpkin, chillies and mustard seeds, distributed in one village, as an experiment. This yielded sufficient produce to start a seed bank in the same year. In 1997, these traditional seeds were sown on 1,5 acres of land, owned by the Kurumbas in the village of Semmanarai. Many tribal families became interested as they realized the importance of food crops and vegetables, especially for babies and children. In 1998, the experiment got a boost when three other villages expressed interest in clearing their land for planting millet and vegetables. Thus 44 villagers from four villages became involved. The division was as follows:

The story of the village Vagapanai is illustrating. After an initial failure of Keystone to increase beekeeping, new meetings were held in which the earlier problems were analyzed and new approaches agreed upon. In 1998, 18 families agreed and started to clear the land. This increased to the present 27, which virtually means the total settlement. They took care of the land, built small huts on the cultivated land and moved in with their children, goats, dogs and chicken, only to go back once in a while to check their houses and buy provisions. Thus they could more easily weed and protect their fields against monkeys, wild boars, buffaloes and elephants. The first crop harvested was maize and as a festivity served to all guests. Other grains and vegetables followed.

Another initiative by an individual Kurumba to set up a coffee nursery was taken in 1997 in Semmanarai village: 4800 saplings were grown; 350 were distributed throughout his village for free and the remaining 4050 sold. Keystone monitored the achievements and decided in 1998 to set up two more coffee nurseries in other villages. These village nurseries were used for planting saplings in tribal lands. In total 9500 saplings were raised, according to organic agricultural standards. Ecologically, coffee is a much better crop than tea, as coffee grows together with many other crops.

Gradually the idea emerged to change the livelihood of the tribals by growing food crops as well as cash crops (coffee) organically and to improve the agro-ecological environment.

The project; its aims and objectives

Keystone’s programme looks at land use as a whole. It aims to achieve the following objectives:

• Promote traditional crops cultivation to ensure food security for tribal families.
• Encourage cultivation of millet and vegetables to improve the nutritional intake.
• Discourage the spread of tea on the lower hill slopes.
• Promote Tribals to start and develop their own coffee nurseries. The saplings to be planted in village lands.
• Create a seed bank of rare millet and coarse grain seeds for use by other villages and for the conservation of local food grain varieties.

Overall objective

To promote a form of land use which preserves biodiversity, enhances a mix of cash and food crops and is ecologically sustainable.

Specific objectives for the project

The specific objectives for the project are:

• Initiate soil and water conservation methods for present land holdings.
• Provide options of growing different crops/plants/trees in the land.
• Provide food supplements to tribal families through reviving traditional agriculture
• Integrate off-farm activities of floriculture and beekeeping.
• Promote a mix of commercial crops/oilseeds along with useful traditional varieties.
• Document traditional indigenous practices in hill agriculture systems (for example Darsi seed banks, barter systems, rodent control, social and cultural mountain rituals).
• Establish a seed bank and nurseries for useful crops for the hills.
• Enable greater biodiversity patches within hill agriculture areas through introduction of multi-tier shade coffee bushes.
• Initiate greater awareness of the importance of sustainable land development against traditional shifting, subsistence agriculture.
• Design a package of benefits combining forest gathering and agricultural produce .

The project has 3 distinct themes:

• development of traditional/organic agriculture, which involves millet cultivation and vegetables, to supplement the diet;
• the development of cash crops, including coffee and vegetables;
• the integration of off-farm activities as floriculture and beekeeping.

Activities included:

Village seed banks: To conserve and increase local varieties of millet (finger-, little- proso and fox-tail millet); and further Amaranthus spp; Lablab, maize, mustard and beans. This to increase food security and biodiversity.

Development of nurseries: As a basis for growing coffee and other useful cash crop-species. Species identified by the villagers included silver oak, pepper, silk cotton, tamarind and lime. Individual villagers maintain the nursery in a common place in the village.

Soil and moisture conservation: These most important activities could only take place after much debate and an utmost reluctance of the villagers. They argued that agricultural work on steep mountain land was never done before. Moreover, deep-rooted practices of slash-and-burn were preferred, as hardly any effort is needed. Keystone had to convince them that slash-and-burn creates serious problems for their food security. Keystone also elaborated on the advantage of using many elements of their traditional knowledge system, favouring an organic approach. A few villagers accepted the ideas and started to work. Keystone initially had to put in ample financial and supervisory inputs. Following a watershed approach, trenches were dug, which were filled up with the first rains. Crop yields increased. Stone bunds were constructed on steep slopes with loose soil and vegetative bunding in less fragile hill areas. Non-perennial water sources were provided with gully plugs.

PRA land use pattern analysis: This participatory exercise is undertaken in the villages where land development work is going on. The lands of the village are marked; their status and land use established. Furthermore stories about village history, old land use, water sources, habitat details and trade practices are collected. The water table movement was followed and key features in settlements established, such as the extent of land in different settlements, acreage owned by individuals, crops grown, output per units of land, perennial and non-perennial sources, usage, whether for human consumption only, user profiles. This research helps to better define problems, and find solutions and approaches for the future.

Documentation of traditional practices: The project documents the traditions and beliefs followed by the Tribals in millet cultivation and the relation of the forest with agriculture. The reason for this documentation is that existing practices, with the exception of slash-and-burn, form the best entrance point for further improvement, as they are often related to organic agricultural approaches and techniques. They include mixed cropping, inter-cropping with vegetables, techniques of seed preservation/selection and rotational cropping.

Construction of a Village Resource Centre: In one of the villages, a resource centre has been completed. Built with local material and using the skills available in the village, it serves as a meeting place and training-centre for farmers from the villages in the project area. Moreover, a village seed bank and an apiary are situated here. One more centre has just been completed in another village. It will serve as a central meeting place, drying-yard for coffee and pepper and value addition activities like making pillows, cushions, bees wax, candles, etc.

Beekeeping and floriculture: The improvement of beekeeping had been the mainstay in Keystone’s long-term earlier interventions and has been integrated in the project.

Buy-back mechanisms: Although buy-back arrangements for cash crops are not specifically mentioned under the project, Keystone took this up in addition, as it was regarded as an important component. The buy-back facility is provided to support income options. It encourages the farmers and acts as an incentive. At the same time, it leaves farmers free to market their products elsewhere, if they can fetch a better price.

One of the key elements to this project that looks to be important to its success is the involvement of the tribals from the earliest stages, and through the vehicle of participatory analysis and planning (as the first step and in transition to each subsequent step).

Results

Documentation of traditional knowledge, mapping of areas and biodiversity transects of the villages.

The project has just entered its fifth semester and has one more to go. Documentation of traditional knowledge, mapping of areas and biodiversity transects of the villages have been completed. However, it is still to be worked out in a readable document.

Participation of farmers

Meetings and participation from farmers have gone up considerably as interest in working on the land has increased, to the detriment of working as wage labourer on the plantations. In 1999, the community contributed 20 percent to the costs of raising nurseries. This percentage increased to 60 percent in 2000. In the same year the contribution to the costs of land clearing amounted to 25 percent and increased to 50 percent by 2001.

Seed banks and nurseries

Seed banks have been installed in three villages. Twenty-five kg of seeds were distributed in 1999. This has increased to the present 150 kg per season. Nurseries were installed in four villages and produced over 75000 saplings in 1999-2000. In 2000-2001, when fewer saplings were needed, three nurseries in three villages produced over 40000 saplings. Seed banks and nurseries are not necessarily interlinked. They may be in different villages.

Soil and water conservation

Training on soil and water conservation has worked. In 1999, minor irrigation was established in four villages; live fencing and earthen check dams in one village; 644 trenches were dug and 583 m. of stone fencing constructed. This drastically increased to 2800 m of stone bunding, 6300 cubic feet of gully plugs, 30000 trenches and 14000 running feet for staggered trenches.

Buy-back mechanism and marketing

The buy-back mechanism has proved to be an important incentive for the farmers to remain “organic”. A buy-back is guaranteed for any quantities of honey and bees wax, collected. The present quantity is about 4-5 tons per annum.

The purchase price is about 50 percent higher than the local rates. The price is set at the beginning of the season, as per the custom. Honey is marketed at rates which are slightly lower than the market rates of companies like Dabur (one of the largest honey companies in India). This indicates the large margin for traders. Buy-back quantities for coffee and pepper are more limited so far, as Keystone has not fully explored the markets in order to absorb full production. The quantities are coffee: one ton and pepper: 700-800 kg. For these products a 10 percent premium is paid over the prevailing wholesale rates in the nearest market. As it is farm-gate price, no transportation costs have to be incurred by the farmers and thus the actual premium is higher. These products are sold in local markets at slightly higher prices than conventional products. As a matter of fact, more than 60 percent of all cash products are sold in the Nilgiris.

The Tamil Nadu case study is an excellent example of employment of the full range of ecosystem management principles as outlined in the CBD document-applying participatory methods to address issues related to soil fertility and water management, pollination, improving the diversity and quality of crop genetics, and attention to economic sustainability over the longer term.

Summary of activities in view of their relationship to key operational guidelines

(see Appendix A)

THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH AND LESSONS LEARNED IN THE CASE STUDIES

Refer to the Appendix for a full description of the 12 principles set forth in CBD Decision V/6

In applying the 12 Principles of the ecosystem approach, five points are proposed as Operational Guidance. We will use the five Operational Guidelines as reference points for discussion of “lessons learned” in the case studies abstracted above.

Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems

Principle #3. Consider the effects on adjacent and other ecosystems.

Principle #5. Conserve structure and function.

Principle #6. Manage within ecosystem limits.

Soil fertility management issues are at the centre of all of these case studies. Farmers managing soils are managing ecosystem processes. Soil ecology is a discipline only just now coming into focus, due to inherent problems in dealing with the size, diversity and complexity of soil systems. Nevertheless, farmers can manage soils, under most conditions, in a sustainable manner employing only a minimum understanding of functional relationships related to biodiversity, nutrient cycling and fertility management.

From the growing number of case studies being accumulated by many concerned organizations, a common pattern emerges of an ecologically fragile environment resulting from a combination of factors, including conversion of wetlands and forests, use of pesticides and excessive amounts of synthetic fertilizers, over-grazing, soil erosion and lack of organic material inputs. While the CBD laments the lack of environmental indicators in agricultural systems (referring to specific characteristics of soils, or animal or plant species assemblages) it certainly doesn’t take much imagination to look to certain suites of agricultural practices, like those mentioned, as indicators of a system that is most likely moving in a downward spiral towards ecological, economic and social decay or collapse.

As with other aspects of ecosystem management, optimal soil fertility management depends on many local-specific characteristics. This suggests that a management approach based on the conventional approach of research-station recommendations will inevitably be off the mark and incomplete, as no research and extension agency in any country has the resources to observe the multitude of local specific scenarios and then to then make recommendations for best management. Some suggestions have been made to set up soil testing laboratories in sufficient density that farmers can bring in samples to have analyzed. The case studies presented in this document demonstrate that this suggestion misses an important point: that the majority of problems faced by farmers in developing countries with regard to soil fertility management result from mismanagement of a relatively small set of key factors, the solution of which requires not fine-tuned knowledge of nutrient deficiencies but basic fundamental knowledge of the nature and importance of soil erosion, nutrient flows, the critical importance of recycled organic materials and the roles played by below-ground and above-ground biodiversity.

Soil health is linked in a direct relationship to the health of the plants, and indirectly to other important services in the system, including pest and disease suppression in the soil, on the soil, and above the soil surface. As indicated in the Thai organic rice example, farmers who begin to employ improved soil management and based on soil organic amendments frequently report a lowering of pest and disease problems.

Soil health is integrally tied to recycling crop residues, but this often leads into conflicting needs, leading farmers to have to make tough decisions. Residues in subsistence-level communities are often used for cooking fuel, for building construction, or for animal fodder. What is critical is that farmers understand the trade-offs in order that they are able to make informed decisions. It seems the case that farmers in developing countries, while appreciating that organic residues have a role as fertilizers, most often do not appreciate the extensive relationships that soil organic matter has with all aspects of the farming system. This is where NGOs and farmer training programmes, such as those presented in this document, have a critical role to play.

Enhance benefit-sharing

Principle #1: Management is a matter of societal choice

Here “choice” must mean informed choice; knowledge and the means of acquisition of knowledge is both a means to increased benefits, and inherently a benefit.

Principle #4: Manage the ecosystem in an economic context: (i) reduce market distortions that affect biological diversity; (ii) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; (iii) internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible)

In the Thai case studies, the project guaranteed a premium price for certified organic produce, which helped initially in buffering the ‘pioneer’ farmers from initial increased costs in equipment and in the transition from conventional to organic. Similarly, the Indian case study demonstrated that a project-derived “buy-back” scheme was important in helping farmers make the transition. While certain segments of society that see organic farming as a threat would undoubtedly decry the use of credits and buy-back schemes as ‘inefficiencies’ in a market-based system, they should remember that huge government subsidies for both pesticides and fertilizers-much larger (by orders of magnitude) than what can be found in support of organic agriculture-have been a part of the green revolution formula. One has to examine the size and time frame for these incentives, as well as how they support or detract from progress towards sustainable production systems. In the past the huge subsidies for pesticides and fertilizers moved systems away from both ecological and economic sustainability, often pushing the systems to the breaking point at which new sets of serious problems emerged, such as pest and disease outbreaks and soil-plant problems due to depleted soil fertility.

Use adaptive management practices

Principle #1: Management is a matter of societal choice.

Principle #9: Change is inevitable.

Principle #10: Seek a balance between conservation and use of biological diversity.

Principle #11: Consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific, indigenous and local knowledge.

Principle #12: involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

Adaptive management was first developed as a resource management tool in the 1970s (Holling, 1978). Various definitions of adaptive management are available in the literature (Walters, 1986,; Callicott et al., 1999), but the basic concepts are simple and appealing. Adaptive management tries to incorporate the views and knowledge of all interested parties. It accepts the fact that management must proceed even if we do not have all the information we would like, or we are not sure what all the effects of management might be. It views management and policy, not just as a means to achieve objectives, but also as a type of “experiment” or a process for exploring the ecosystem being managed. Thus, learning is an inherent objective of adaptive management. As we learn more, we can adapt our policies to improve management success and to be more responsive to future conditions (Johnson, 1999).

In all the case studies some form of participatory interaction was used in order to help farmers explore the nature of their ecological and economic systems, to help analyze problems and to plan future activities. In the Thai case study we saw an example of ‘learning by doing’ in the form of the Farmer Field School (FFS). The FFS and other participatory-based systems have emerged as the dominant educational and operational device among development agencies in the past 10 years. Many outstanding examples from the field exist to demonstrate that knowledge and, more importantly, the ability to acquire and to effectively communicate knowledge is a powerful tool in the empowerment of both rural and urban poor.

Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralization to the lowest level, as appropriate

Principle #2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

Principle #7: Ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

Principle #8: Management should be set for the long-term.

The most appropriate scale for management of small farming systems is at the level of the farmer. Although seemingly a truism, this fact is overlooked and undermined by past and often current administrative structures for national agricultural research and extension agencies. High heterogeneity, or the dominance of highly localized factors, is simply an unavoidable fact of life for ecological systems, and no more so than in developing countries. Rather than approaching this heterogeneity as a problem to be solved with uniform approaches to agricultural management, we have good reason to believe this high heterogeneity is a source of strength and resilience for agro-ecological systems. This realization should be cause for reflecting on the appropriateness of the conventional research-station approach to agricultural development. The latter promotes general recommendations to be superimposed on a heterogeneous landscape as if conditions were uniform (or should be uniform) from farm to farm. The result is highly inefficient application of resources. Heterogeneity in both systems has been the biggest casualty in the application of industrialized farming methods, leading to increased fragility in these systems. One of the key points to be reiterated by an examination of these case studies is that farmers are in the best position to observe, and have the greatest motivation to understand and to act to conserve and rejuvenate their own fields.

Ensure inter-sectoral cooperation

Principle #11: Consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific, indigenous and local knowledge.

Principle #12: Involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

The task of developing a sustainable, productive and equitable future for farming societies is a mighty challenge, and all relevant sectors must contribute to the best of their ability. As we can see-not just from these few case studies, but from the multitude of good work going on world-wide-NGOs play a critically important role in being able to operationalize small-scale programmes geared to specific communities. In many cases NGOs lack the technical resources to be able to address specific problems, or the resources to be able to scale-up successful results. To some extent this problem can be mitigated by developing networks of NGOs who share resources and information. The FAO has also a long history of close collaboration to help address these needs. Universities and international research organizations are showing increasing signs of becoming less-and-less ‘public domain’ institutions, and more-and-more in line with industry. This is an unsettling prospect as industry tends to have a too narrow perspective on priorities and methodologies. The time is past when we can dream that the problems of agricultural societies will be solved by supposedly “objective” research passed on to extension specialists who will transfer technologies to be executed by farmers. In the domain of agriculture and ecosystem management science needs to be seen in a much broader context as a self-critical, learning process engaged in not just by researchers, but also by policy makers and especially the vast numbers of small farmers in developing countries.

REFERENCES

Bardgett, R. D., J. M. Anderson, V. Behan-Pelletier, L. Brussaard, D. C. Coleman, C. Ettema, A. Moldenke, J. P. Schimel, and D. H. Wall., 2001. The Influence of Soil Biodiversity on Hydrological Pathways and the Transfer of Materials between Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. Ecosystems 4: 421–429.

Callicott, J. B., L. B. Crowder, and K. Mumford., 1999. Current normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology 13: 22-35.

Clark, T. W., and S. C. Minta., 1994. Greater Yellowstone's Future: Prospects for Ecosystem Science. Homestead Publishing, Moose, WY.

Ewel, K. C., C. Cressa, R. T. Kneib, P. S. Lake, L. A. Levin, M. A. Palmer, P. Snelgrove, and D. H. Wall., 2001. Managing critical transition zones. Ecosystems 4: 4552-460.

Funtowicz, S. O., J. Martinez-Alier, M. J., and J. R. Ravetz., 1999. Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity, pp. 34. European Environment Agency, Luxembourg.

Holling, C. S., 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley, New York, New York, USA.

Holling, C. S., 1995. What barriers? What bridges?, pp. 593, Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York.

Johnson, B. L., 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology 3: 8.

Shachak, M., M. Sachs, and I. Moshe., 1998. Ecosystem management of desertified shrublands in Israel. Ecosystems 1: 475-483.

Walters, C., 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Collier MacMillan, New York, London.

ANNEX 1

CBD COP Decision V/6
Ecosystem Approach

The Conference of the Parties,

1. Endorses the description of the ecosystem approach and operational guidance contained in sections A and C of the annex to the present decision, recommends the application of the principles contained in section B of the annex, as reflecting the present level of common understanding, and encourages further conceptual elaboration, and practical verification;

2. Calls upon Parties, other Governments, and international organizations to apply, as appropriate, the ecosystem approach, giving consideration to the principles and guidance contained in the annex to the present decision, and to develop practical expressions of the approach for national policies and legislation and for appropriate implementation activities, with adaptation to local, national, and, as appropriate, regional conditions, in particular in the context of activities developed within the thematic areas of the Convention;

3. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant bodies to identify case-studies and implement pilot projects, and to organize, as appropriate, regional, national and local workshops, and consultations aiming to enhance awareness, share experiences, including through the clearing-house mechanism, and strengthen regional, national and local capacities on the ecosystem approach;

4. Requests the Executive Secretary to collect, analyse and compare the case-studies referred to in paragraph 3 above, and prepare a synthesis of case-studies and lessons learned for presentation to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties;

5. Requests the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, at a meeting prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties, to review the principles and guidelines of the ecosystem approach, to prepare guidelines for its implementation, on the basis of case-studies and lessons learned, and to review the incorporation of the ecosystem approach into various programmes of work of the Convention;

6. Recognizes the need for support for capacity-building to implement the ecosystem approach, and invites Parties, Governments and relevant organizations to provide technical and financial support for this purpose;

7. Encourages Parties and Governments to promote regional cooperation, for example through the establishment of joint declarations or memoranda of understanding in applying the ecosystem approach across national borders.

Description of the ecosystem approach

1. The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Thus, the application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the three objectives of the Convention: conservation; sustainable use; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

2. An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.

3. This focus on structure, processes, functions and interactions is consistent with the definition of "ecosystem" provided in Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: "'Ecosystem' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit." This definition does not specify any particular spatial unit or scale, in contrast to the Convention definition of "habitat". Thus, the term "ecosystem" does not, necessarily, correspond to the terms "biome" or "ecological zone", but can refer to any functioning unit at any scale. Indeed, the scale of analysis and action should be determined by the problem being addressed. It could, for example, be a grain of soil, a pond, a forest, a biome or the entire biosphere.

4. The ecosystem approach requires adaptive management to deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and the absence of complete knowledge or understanding of their functioning. Ecosystem processes are often non-linear, and the outcome of such processes often shows time-lags. The result is discontinuities, leading to surprise and uncertainty. Management must be adaptive in order to be able to respond to such uncertainties and contain elements of "learning-by-doing" or research feedback. Measures may need to be taken even when some cause-and-effect relationships are not yet fully established scientifically.

5. The ecosystem approach does not preclude other management and conservation approaches, such as biosphere reserves, protected areas, and single-species conservation programmes, as well as other approaches carried out under existing national policy and legislative frameworks, but could, rather, integrate all these approaches and other methodologies to deal with complex situations. There is no single way to implement the ecosystem approach, as it depends on local, provincial, national, regional or global conditions. Indeed, there are many ways in which ecosystem approaches may be used as the framework for delivering the objectives of the Convention in practice.

Principles of the ecosystem approach

6. The following 12 principles are complementary and interlinked: Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice. Rationale: Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cultural and societal needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land are important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Both cultural and biological diversity are central components of the ecosystem approach, and management should take this into account. Societal choices should be expressed as clearly as possible. Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic values and for the tangible or intangible benefits for humans, in a fair and equitable way.

Principle 2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

Rationale: Decentralized systems may lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Management should involve all stakeholders and balance local interests with the wider public interest. The closer management is to the ecosystem, the greater the responsibility, ownership, accountability, participation, and use of local knowledge.

Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.

Rationale: Management interventions in ecosystems often have unknown or unpredictable effects on other ecosystems; therefore, possible impacts need careful consideration and analysis. This may require new arrangements or ways of organization for institutions involved in decision-making to make, if necessary, appropriate compromises.

Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:

1. Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;
2. Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;
3. Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

Rationale: The greatest threat to biological diversity lies in its replacement by alternative systems of land use. This often arises through market distortions, which undervalue natural systems and populations and provide perverse incentives and subsidies to favour the conversion of land to less diverse systems.

Often those who benefit from conservation do not pay the costs associated with conservation and, similarly, those who generate environmental costs (e.g. pollution) escape responsibility. Alignment of incentives allows those who control the resource to benefit and ensures that those who generate environmental costs will pay.

Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.

Rationale: Ecosystem functioning and resilience depends on a dynamic relationship within species, among species and between species and their abiotic environment, as well as the physical and chemical interactions within the environment. The conservation and, where appropriate, restoration of these interactions and processes is of greater significance for the long-term maintenance of biological diversity than simply protection of species.

Principle 6: Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.

Rationale: In considering the likelihood or ease of attaining the management objectives, attention should be given to the environmental conditions that limit natural productivity, ecosystem structure, functioning and diversity. The limits to ecosystem functioning may be affected to different degrees by temporary, unpredictable or artificially maintained conditions and, accordingly, management should be appropriately cautious.

Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

Rationale: The approach should be bounded by spatial and temporal scales that are appropriate to the objectives. Boundaries for management will be defined operationally by users, managers, scientists and indigenous and local peoples. Connectivity between areas should be promoted where necessary. The ecosystem approach is based upon the hierarchical nature of biological diversity characterized by the interaction and integration of genes, species and ecosystems.

Principle 8: Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

Rationale: Ecosystem processes are characterized by varying temporal scales and lag-effects. This inherently conflicts with the tendency of humans to favour short-term gains and immediate benefits over future ones.

Principle 9: Management must recognize that change is inevitable.

Rationale: Ecosystems change, including species composition and population abundance. Hence, management should adapt to the changes. Apart from their inherent dynamics of change, ecosystems are beset by a complex of uncertainties and potential "surprises" in the human, biological and environmental realms. Traditional disturbance regimes may be important for ecosystem structure and functioning, and may need to be maintained or restored. The ecosystem approach must utilize adaptive management in order to anticipate and cater for such changes and events and should be cautious in making any decision that may foreclose options, but, at the same time, consider mitigating actions to cope with long-term changes such as climate change

Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.

Rationale: Biological diversity is critical both for its intrinsic value and because of the key role it plays in providing the ecosystem and other services upon which we all ultimately depend. There has been a tendency in the past to manage components of biological diversity either as protected or non-protected. There is a need for a shift to more flexible situations, where conservation and use are seen in context and the full range of measures is applied in a continuum from strictly protected to human-made ecosystems.

Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

Rationale: Information from all sources is critical to arriving at effective ecosystem management strategies. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and the impact of human use is desirable. All relevant information from any concerned area should be shared with all stakeholders and actors, taking into account, inter alia, any decision to be taken under Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Assumptions behind proposed management decisions should be made explicit and checked against available knowledge and views of stakeholders.

Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

Rationale: Most problems of biological-diversity management are complex, with many interactions, side-effects and implications, and therefore should involve the necessary expertise and stakeholders at the local, national, regional and international level, as appropriate.

C. Operational guidance for application of the ecosystem approach

7. In applying the 12 principles of the ecosystem approach, the following five points are proposed as operational guidance.

Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems

8. The many components of biodiversity control the stores and flows of energy, water and nutrients within ecosystems, and provide resistance to major perturbations. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and structure, and the roles of the components of biological diversity in ecosystems, is required, especially to understand: (i) ecosystem resilience and the effects of biodiversity loss (species and genetic levels) and habitat fragmentation; (ii) underlying causes of biodiversity loss; and (iii) determinants of local biological diversity in management decisions. Functional biodiversity in ecosystems provides many goods and services of economic and social importance. While there is a need to accelerate efforts to gain new knowledge about functional biodiversity, ecosystem management has to be carried out even in the absence of such knowledge. The ecosystem approach can facilitate practical management by ecosystem managers (whether local communities or national policy makers).

Enhance benefit-sharing

9. Benefits that flow from the array of functions provided by biological diversity at the ecosystem level provide the basis of human environmental security and sustainability. The ecosystem approach seeks that the benefits derived from these functions are maintained or restored. In particular, these functions should benefit the stakeholders responsible for their production and management. This requires, inter alia: capacity-building, especially at the level of local communities managing biological diversity in ecosystems; the proper valuation of ecosystem goods and services; the removal of perverse incentives that devalue ecosystem goods and services; and, consistent with the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, where appropriate, their replacement with local incentives for good management practices.

Use adaptive management practices

10. Ecosystem processes and functions are complex and variable. Their level of uncertainty is increased by the interaction with social constructs, which need to be better understood. Therefore, ecosystem management must involve a learning process, which helps to adapt methodologies and practices to the ways in which these systems are being managed and monitored. Implementation programmes should be designed to adjust to the unexpected, rather than to act on the basis of a belief in certainties. Ecosystem management needs to recognize the diversity of social and cultural factors affecting natural-resource use. Similarly, there is a need for flexibility in policy-making and implementation. Long-term, inflexible decisions are likely to be inadequate or even destructive. Ecosystem management should be envisaged as a long-term experiment that builds on its results as it progresses. This "learning-by-doing" will also serve as an important source of information to gain knowledge of how best to monitor the results of management and evaluate whether established goals are being attained. In this respect, it would be desirable to establish or strengthen capacities of Parties for monitoring.

Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralization to lowest level, as appropriate

11. As noted in section A above, an ecosystem is a functioning unit that can operate at any scale, depending upon the problem or issue being addressed. This understanding should define the appropriate level for management decisions and actions. Often, this approach will imply decentralization to the level of local communities. Effective decentralization requires proper empowerment, which implies that the stakeholder both has the opportunity to assume responsibility and the capacity to carry out the appropriate action, and needs to be supported by enabling policy and legislative frameworks. Where common property resources are involved, the most appropriate scale for management decisions and actions would necessarily be large enough to encompass the effects of practices by all the relevant stakeholders. Appropriate institutions would be required for such decision-making and, where necessary, for conflict resolution. Some problems and issues may require action at still higher levels, through, for example, transboundary cooperation, or even cooperation at global levels.

Ensure intersectoral cooperation

12. As the primary framework of action to be taken under the Convention, the ecosystem approach should be fully taken into account in developing and reviewing national biodiversity strategies and action plans. There is also a need to integrate the ecosystem approach into agriculture, fisheries, forestry and other production systems that have an effect on biodiversity. Management of natural resources, according to the ecosystem approach, calls for increased intersectoral communication and cooperation at a range of levels (government ministries, management agencies, etc.). This might be promoted through, for example, the formation of inter-ministerial bodies within the Government or the creation of networks for sharing information and experience.