Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Special Programme for Promotion of Millets in Tribal Areas - "Reviving Millets in Farms and on Plates"

"The nutritious millets traditionally occupied substantial part of the diets and crop systems in tribal areas of Odisha. Millets require less water and are more resilient to climate vulnerability. They can also be cultivated on the undulating and change and be cultivated even in undulating terrain. Reduction in millets resulted in nutrition deficiency. It led to unsustainable cropping systems increasing demand on water. In order to address growing crop failures and nutritional issues, millets need to be revived. To revive the millets, a flagship programme called "Special Programme for Promotion of Millets in Tribal Areas"has been launched by Department of Agriculture & Farmers Empowerment, Odisha. Programme intends to revive millets in rainfed farming systems and household consumption."

For more details please check: http://www.milletsodisha.com

Strengthening of Backyard poultry (BYP) for livelihood and nutritional security of women in Tribal Areas of Andhra Pradesh in India.

For more details: http://www.wassan.org/desipoultry.htm

Community Managed Livestock Insurance as an integral drought adaptation strategy for rainfed agriculture regions of Andhra Pradesh state in India.

For more details please check: https://www.wassan.org/assets/uploaded/publications/pdf/community_managed_livestock_insurance.pdf_09_15_56am_ocwzo8rnm4lwmaxoykv1.pdf

Reviving community managed tank-based fisheries in the rainfed regions of Andhra Pradesh, India.

For more details please click: http://www.wassan.org/assets/uploaded/publications/pdf/Reviving%20Communicity%20Managed%20Tank%20Based%20Fisheries.pdf_08_53_13am_a6r575datdo4a5sbrybe.pdf

Mainstreaming Community Managed Seed Systems - An experiment of People and Public Partnership for local production and supply of seeds in Ananthapuram District of Andhra Pradesh, India.

For more details please click: http://www.wassan.org/about_wassan/document/CMSS_WASSAN_Anantapur.pdf

Participatory groundwater management in rainfed areas - ground water sharing between farmers with borewells and farmers without borewells to ensure critical irrigation during dry spells in rainfed areas.

Please watch the youtube video for more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5BoRKYHRE

There is a fundamental conflict between maintaining soil macrofaunal biodiversity normally extant in naturally-functioning ecosystems, and implementing any type of agriculture requiring a wholesale replacement of the vegetation. I work with earthworms, and the general rule is that habitat conversion wipes out the indigenous species.  There are exceptions.  For example recent sampling in Terra Preta (aka Amazon Dark Earths) shows plenty of earthworms, most of which we believe to be local or regional species, rather than widely-distributed invasive and/or anthropochorous species.  However those sites sample are mostly under secondary forest and we may be seeing a long to medium term recovery of local diversity after site abandonment.  The sites are also embedded in larger areas of agriculturally-converted land, so it is difficult to judge. what the earthworm diversity would have been prior to the relatively recent (last 50 to 100 years) deforestation. 

Soil genesis is strongly affected by ecosystem engineer soil fauna, earthworms  among them.  The use of soils thus developed typically entails a dramatic reduction in the species richness and functional trait spectrum originally present in that soil.  So while we benefit from the legacy of soil bio-engineers, we do not presently have a good way to maintain those engineers in the soil.  The primary replacements are the widely distributed or invasive species mentioned above; these will be different in different climate regions.  There is a well-characterized tropical set of common replacment species, of which Pontoscolex corethrurus is the best known, and others for temperate zones including higher elevation tropical locations. 

It is easy to find cases of degradation of earthworm biodiversity, even including our best attempts at sustainable agricultural systems. The longer term question is how soils can be maintained under the new, simplified biotic regime characteristic of all agriculture.

Where a (sustainable) production system played a key role for the conservation of the biodiversity surrounding it?

At Go Organic East Africa, the focus has been on training for both farmers and under/postgraduate students on sustainable organic production with constant reflections on food systems in transition. Knowledge dissemination from multiple stakeholders has helped us pass the broader message of biodiversity conservation for agroecosystem health.

In our subsequent studies and analysis on certified organic agriculture and potential increase on agroecosystem health, we had interesting findings. Our hypothesis was that practicing certified organic agriculture would increase and balance agroecosystem health, including the ecological domain. Taking into account that the indicators in the ecological domain were mostly referring to agricultural practices rather than ecological preconditions, our findings did not support the hypothesis. This, however, does not explain why farms differed significantly in all domains of ecological health across the study sites. Rather, we attribute the difference to the fact that only farms in the ecology-driven cluster were applying key strategies of organic agroforestry: shading and mulching in an integrated cropping system.

Dear FSN Form members,

Please see the research result of home garden agrobiodiversity for food security.

https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/the-niche-of-tree-and-crop-in-traditional-home-garden-agroforestry-system-in-case-of-agrobiodiversity-conservation-at-farm-level-i-u1JS.php?article_id=7078

Galfato Gabiso

Even though some knowledge-gaps still exist in the area, a vast amount of useful information is already available on the current status of bio-diversity in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Further, there is a general agreement on its direct and indirect importance for human well-being in general and adequate nutrition and food security in particular. In spite of this, it is beyond dispute that global bio-diversity continues to diminish.

My contribution to the present effort to incorporate ensuring an adequate and sustainable bio-diversity into agricultural pursuits, fishing and forestry will be to suggest a pragmatic action template to achieve our objective, into which the relevant and appropriate information, technologies and procedures could seamlessly fit. Such a framework would be holistic by definition, and it will consists of two logically inseparable parts.

The first might be called the overall mechanism designed to achieve our purpose. It contains the familiar pathways of action like policy design, deciding on strategies needed to implement it, and finally the tactical methods one may use to implement those strategies. At this point, let me emphasise that while policy and strategy may have certain elements in common among the members of some group of countries, their tactical implementation may often require methods appropriate for a limited geographic area.

Before we take up the second part of our framework, I would like to underline the importance of coordinated action in achieving our aim. Sometimes, praiseworthy enthusiasm may drive groups to undertake independent local projects whose success is expected to inspire and motivate similar action elsewhere. However, it is uncertain whether the enhanced bio-diversity of an area could remain sustainable when surrounded by places where it remains threatened. Let us call such differences in bio-diversity  in contiguous areas their diversity deficits.

It will be agreed that enhanced and sustainable bio-diversity in our target areas implies that there would be minimal bio-diversity deficits among them and their contiguous surroundings. As far as I know, no research has been yet undertaken to ascertain the interaction between an area of adequate bio-diversity and its contiguous surroundings with  a diversity deficit as far as its effect on the overall bio-diversity of the whole area. Indeed, this is a complex task, nevertheless, its importance ought not to be under-estimated.

Let us now look at what is necessary to design the first part of our framework, and make it appropriate and relevant. Stating the obvious, a comprehensive description of the bio-diversity depletion of an area, its causes, optimal means of its prevention and regeneration are essential technical information here. However, there are two entirely different considerations which alone imparts to the first part of our framework and this information their high value, viz.,  their necessity for sustainable food security and adequate nutrition.

After this value justification of the pressing need to undertake a significant restoration of bio-diversity in our three target areas, we are now ready to put together the second part of our framework. In its turn, it consists of three parts:

1. Surveys to establish the qualitative (types of species) and the quantitative status of current bio-diversity in the target areas.
2. Ascertaining to the best of our ability the previous status of bio-diversity in those areas. Even though it may not be possible to gather precise data here, at least an informed approximation is necessary to restore any loss bio-diversity and to prevent its further reduction. It is vital to understand that unless this data is available, we cannot justifiably evaluate our success in restoring bio-diversity, and it is not sufficient only to prevent its further loss. Here, a sound understanding of the local food culture would be indispensable. This may often serve as the only scientifically justifiable benchmark in restoring the biodiversity of our three target areas.
3. Compilation of the known optimal methods of restoring bio-diversity and prevention of its reduction, and the design of more appropriate and relevant ways of achieving those objectives. It will be noticed that it is this aspect of our task that has received the greatest attention in the invitation to the present discussion. While these may be collected and/or developed in vitro so to speak, their successful use in the field depends on the appropriateness of the first part of our framework, for that depends on among other things, on a coordinated field work across the board.

Let me inject a sense of proportion to our discussion by underlining some often overlooked facts. Even in an area where volunteer or supported projects may have achieved a remarkable success in restoring biodiversity in all three areas, viz., crops, fisheries/animal husbandry and forestry, authorities may initiate there mining, factory construction, large-scale road building, or even re-introduction of a monoculture for export on the advice of some expert economist. Recent history of nearly all country teems with examples of this. Moreover, for economic reasons, authorities are still supporting activities we have long known to threaten biodiversity.

As sustainable food security and adequate nutrition depend on a sustained and adequate ecosystem services, the vital importance of biodiversity hardly needs justification, for the possibility of having such services entirely depends on the balance between its qualitative and quantitative dimensions. All too often, this qualitative aspect of biodiversity i.e., number of diverse species receives all the attention while the quantitative, i.e., size of each species population seems to remain neglected.

After these preliminaries, let us look at the requirements a potentially successful policy to achieve our objective ought to meet. As no policy at any level exists in isolation, no policy could succeed however appropriate it is for its purpose unless the other policies in its operating ambience are in harmony with it as far as its objective is concerned. An example of lacking this inter-policy harmony would be economic and development policies that advocate monoculture with a view to export. Perhaps, the greatest threat to biodiversity and the future quality  of human life is our consistent failure to acknowledge the untenability of our population growth.

Our next obstacle to success at the highest level is the internal lack of harmony in food and agriculture policy with respect to our goal. Unfortunately, examples of this lack of intra-policy harmony are legion. A non-exhaustive list of these disruptors of internal harmony are given below:

1. Strategies to increase food production based on introduction of ‘enhanced’ non-endemic crops cannot be sustained by locally available ecosystem services, hence call for intensive supplementation of them. This supplementation may include intensive use of fertilisers, biocides and irrigation whose adverse effects on bio-diversity are well-established.
2. Allowing extensive monoculture in agricultutre and animal husbandry either for economic gain by export, or for manufacture of industrial food by commercial food monopolies.
3. Permitting the use of compounds now known to be endocrine disruptors and the introduction of genetically modified species the effect of whose interaction with the environment are unknown.

I have already implied that intra-policy disharmony with its own objectives results from the use of unsuitable strategies to implement it. Obviously, such usage becomes the norm when policy and strategy decisions are made on a reductive basis while professing to promote a holistic approach. In the example used here, all it would have required is to define as the goal of food and agriculture policy as increased production of diverse, appropriate food stuffs in a way that entail no environmental degradation.

This brings us back to the issue of coordination I have mentioned earlier. Inter-policy harmony for our purpose calls for inter-departmental coordination which seems to be easier said than done. However, we have no choice but to keep on trying even though this may sometimes seem hopeless to some of us. This requirement applies with even greater force when it comes to achieving intra policy harmony.

For instance, where one is trained and in what, combined with eagerness to embrace the latest technology have driven many designers of policy implementation strategies which are not only inappropriate for practical reasons, but are also in conflict with an area’s own food culture. The latter is often enough to guarantee an inevitable loss of local biodiversity while in extreme cases, it would lead to irredeemable eco-disasters like that in Aral Sea basin.

Therefore, it is crucial that strategy planners receive some suitable training to acquire a sense of proportion vis a vis the local reality as a whole by talking to the local people involved in our target areas, and by a thorough visual inspection of them. This cannot be achieved by any other means however high-sounding or colourful they might be. I cannot envisage any other effective way to encourage any open-minded strategist to adapt his approach to real life as it obtains in fields, fisheries, animal husbandry and in forests.

Once we have achieved a real willingness and ability to coordinate their efforts among the policy makers and strategy planners,  we will be in a good position to undertake the next step, i.e., the second part of the action package as it were. It is concerned with defining the range and scope of actions required to prevent any further loss of biodiversity from our target areas, and to restore them as much as possible.

I have already refered to the importance of local food culture as the key benchmark in crops, animal husbandry and fisheries. Local folklore is often useful to ascertain the composition of flora and fauna in forests. Many older people still remember a larger number of local species and their approximate density while unhappily, younger local people are not as familiar with those as their elders. This is especially true in areas where there is large forest degtradation. No botanist or a zoologist however qualified can possess this locally valid empirical knowledge.

I do not suggest that policy and strategy formulation should wait until we have established locality-specific benchmarks of biodiversity restoration. The design of requisite policies and strategies can begin on the basis of what we already know of lost biodiversity by aiming to prevent its aggravation and restoration. However, part of its strategy should include simultaneous surveys to ascertain the following in order to revise those policies and strategies and to expand unified research on its prevention and restoration methods.

1. Expanded surveys to establish relevant local benchmarks.
2. Research into locally relevant prevention and restoration methods that would result in least possible deficits in biodiversity in contiguous areas. For instance, introduction of non-endemic species to re-forest a locale often reduces the real local biodiversity and may indeed adversely affect the flora and fauna (eg. pollinators) of contiguous areas.

Now, the results of the above two undertakings should be the basis of local actions to prevent the loss of local biodiversity and its restoration. In other words, how the strategies to implement the policy involved are implemented locally. Thus, a continued dialogue  between policy and strategy planners and the local authorities and the people is a necessary condition for our success.

Here, one may complain that I have not even touched upon how to secure the finances needed for such an endeavor, nor yet the legal instruments needed to enforce preventive measures. Being a realist, I can only make an oblique reply; there is an increasing tendency to seek funds for efforts like this from trade and industry motivated by gain. But ensuring gain entails reduction of costs, which inevitably requires mechanized food production, monoculture to increase yield …. I cannot see how entities embodying gain as their principal motive could really promote biodiversity regardless of their green guise.

As for the legal tools, it is not the lack of them that cripples us, rather the problem of their impartial and efficient enforcement. A carpenter may have world’s ‘cutting edge’ tools and finest seasoned wood. But if the man does not have the skill to use them well, or is not willing to do so, his mere possession of such splendid tools does not result in Chesterfield furniture.

With best wishes!

Lal Manavado.

The basic strategy of my research is to integrate research on microbial ecology and functional role of soil biodiversity in biogeochemical cycles across climate, land use and environment. The aim is to investigate response of soil biodiversity and their ecosystem services to climate change across temperate (Alps, Himalayas), Andean (Chile, Peru) and tropical (Western Ghats) mountain soils.

My research projects are focused on the effects of land use and climate change on soil biodiversity, and subsequently on the effects of changes in soil biodiversity on ecosystem processes. I am particularly interested in how plants and soil microbial communities interact under these changing circumstances, and how this influences ecosystem processes like nutrient and carbon cycling.

Specific current projects are:

1. Impact of climate change on Alpine soil biodiversity and greenhouse gas emission

2. Role of invasive plant species on below ground diversity and ecosystem services in tropical forests

3. Influence of precipitation gradient and clay type on microbial community structure of Andean soils

4. Land use intensification effects on matter flows in rural-urban cropping systems

5. Enabling farmers to assess the soil quality implications of agricultural management options, Farmer citizen science in Madhya Pradesh, India. 

6. Impact of traffic induced pollution on soil microbes and ecosystem processes across India.

7. Identifying main drivers of soil microbial stoichiometry in Andean range lands

Overall, it is important to Integrate of research on the functional role of soil biodiversity in biogeochemical cycles not only across climate and environments but at regional and farm level. 

 

We evaluated as different forest management practices influenced the quality of soil in terms of ecosystem functioning, individuating the sustainable practice for the improvement or the conservation of soil quality. investigated, in a Pinus laricio forest of south Italy, how systematic thinning of different intensities (intense thinning, T45; moderate thinning, T25; clear cut, CC; and no thinning, T0) affected soil biological properties, organic matter trend and carbon (C) storage in soil and plants.

The results  showed that soil carbon content and carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio were significantly higher in the T45 than in control, T25 and CC. Under T45, the soils had also the highest enzymatic activities, microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and colonies of fungi and bacteria. The humification parameters (humification ratio, HR; the degree of humification, DH; humification index, HI) indicated T45 as the best silvicultural practice-approach method to manage Pinus laricio forest for increasing soil carbon storage  ( Settineri et al., EJFR 2018). We are also working on the effects of different thinning on soil biodiversity evaluating EMI index,  species richness Shannon Wiener index and species Evenness index,  to identify what is the best practice that increase the soil biodiversity.  We evaluated also the influence of selective and traditional thinning on soil biodiversity in fagus sylvatica plantation in protected area. The results individuated the traditional thinning as the best forest practice able to maintain soil ecosystem functioning and at the same time able to increase forest natural regeneration and growth.

The results are submitted to Forestry and Applied Soil Ecology. We are also working on the effects of different compost addition on  biodiversity of agricultural soil to individuate a compost able to maintain soil biodiversity in respect to specific soil properties, with the aim of finding a specificity between the chemical-physical properties of compost, soil properties and biodiversity. 

Dear Members of the Forum,

Thank you for your contributions. You raise very important points in relation to mainstreaming of biodiversity in agriculture, fisheries and forestry for improved food security and better nutrition. Also, thank you for pointing to specific examples from India, Nigeria, French Polynesia, Tanzania, Nepal, USA, Benin, Iran, Colombia and others.               

Thank you also for pointing out that the mainstreaming of biodiversity across agricultural sectors will be only possible if the adoption of good practices across all agricultural sectors will support biodiversity conservation as well as increasing the productivity, stability and resilience of production systems. It is therefore fundamental to take advantage from lessons learned in raising awareness at the institutional level as well as involving all relevant stakeholders, including farming communities, to ensure effective practices in mainstreaming biodiversity.

Some contributions mention that biodiversity mainstreaming takes place in landscapes and seascapes and targets two groups of biodiversity, the ‘wild’ one that is used by fisheries and forestry, and the ‘domesticated’ that is used in crop and livestock agriculture”, and that management approaches and stakeholders differ between those groups. Others mention the importance of traditional knowledge of farming communities, but also the need for new knowledge and capacity development, in order to make practices more sustainable. Legislation and favourable market conditions are mentioned as supporting mechanisms.

The link between mainstreaming of biodiversity in agricultural sectors for food security and better nutrition is key. Here, we invite you to further reflect on what change/ type of coordination is needed to connect biodiversity with policies and legislation from different sectors (Education, Health, Agriculture, Gender) to enhance food security and nutrition. Also, how can food value chains prioritize biodiversity in different areas to diversified supply of domestic and exportable products contributing to food security and nutrition?

Ultimately, success will be associated with joining forces with other sectors (e.g. public health, education) and partners (e.g. UN agencies, NGOs etc.) with the ultimate objective of developing an alternative, transformational change towards sustainable food systems, including further guidance on the concept of “sustainability” in food and agriculture with regard to biodiversity.

I look forward to reading more of your contributions during the next week of this discussion.

Paulo Augusto and Irene

Habitat Protection the Precursor of Biodiversity conservation

Our inability to handle biodiversity partially stems from the inherent vagueness embodied therein.  We are yet to find a means to represent the 'variability among living organisms from all sources.' None of the indices of biodiversity that we are familiar with does justice. A poorly defined problem statement is central to the inertia in acknowledging the importance of biodiversity.  

An objective representation of biodiversity is pivotal to arrive at measurable policies and strategies.  This gap is widely seen in the inability to identify Tier I or II indicators of  Aichi biodiversity targets of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

We have moved from the Anthropocene to Diktyocene. The networked era wants innovative approaches to conserving biodiversity. It is important to realize that our goal should be to conserve life forms in their natural habitats.

The Nair's Measure of Biodiversity (NMB) and the holistic representation of biodiversity put forward by a team of researchers at the C V Raman Laboratory of Ecological Informatics is noteworthy.

We are currently involved in understanding the importance of physical attributes (of soil) in maintaining a healthy resource pool of diverse microorganisms. In short, our efforts are towards "Vibrant habitats for healthy diversity."  

Biodiversity is contributing in achieving food security and improved nutrition?

The overuse of biodiversity compromise food security and nutrition?

According to the last Human Development Report (UNDP 2016), 49.8% of all the children below the age of five are suffering from chronic malnutrition in Guatemala. To the present day, child malnutrition remains an issue of serious concern in the country, although this does not mean that the problem is being addressed properly by government authorities.

Even though there is no much information regarding the link between biodiversity and food security and nutrition in Guatemala, there are two possible scenarios. One scenario is that, if Guatemalan rural people would not have access to some forest products (food plants and bush meat) that enables to supplement their basic corn and beans diet, the percentage of malnourished children in the country would be even worse.  The second scenario is very related to the first one, because the chronic malnutrition epidemic in Guatemala might be being exacerbated by deforestation and land use change. According to the last forest cover analysis, Guatemala has an annual gross loss of 132,137 hectares of forest, which means that an area of 150,000 square meters of forest is lost every hour.