Agro-biodiversity and Food Security

Paper Presented at the UN/Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity and Ecosystems 28 October 2007 Trondheim Norway
Angeline Munzara Community Technology Development Trust Harare Zimbabwe angiem@ctdt.co.zw/angiem@justice.com

Background
Agro- biodiversity is a component of biodiversity which is the combination of life forms and their interactions with one another, and with the physical environment which has made the earth habitable for humans. Ecosystems provide the basic necessities of life, offer protection from natural disasters and disease, and are the foundation for human culture. Biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems provides for our food and the means to produce it. The variety of plants and animals that constitute the food we eat are obvious parts of agricultural biodiversity (Jarvis, Padoch and Cooper, 2007). It is important to take note that biodiversity in agricultural landscapes has powerful cultural significance, partly because of the interplay with historic landscapes associated with agriculture, and partly because many people come into contact with wild biodiversity in and around the farmland. Farmers especially in developing countries are responsible for managing agricultural biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems as a critical resource for providing them with food security, nutrition and sustenance of their livelihoods. It is only recently through the Convention on Biological Diversity that the world recognized the importance and significant contributions of agro-biodiversity in the functions of agro-ecosystems. Of particular importance is Article 15 which outlines the objectives of the CBD as that of encouraging sustainable use and ensuring equitable sharing of benefits arising out of its utilization.In the international policy arena, agricultural biodiversity was addressed for the first time in a comprehensive manner by the conference of parties of the CBD in 1996 (Jarvis, Padoch and Cooper, 2007). The CBD programme of work on agricultural biodiversity, which was subsequently developed and adopted in 2000, recognizes the multiple dimensions of agricultural biodiversity and the range of goods and services provided. Existing knowledge therefore warrants immediate action to promote the sustainable use of agro-biodiversity in food security and nutrition programmes, as a contribution to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), in particular goal number 1 on poverty eradication. Such

action would counteract the simplification of diets, agricultural systems and ecosystems, and the erosion of food cultures. Considering the difficulty in clearly identifying optimal diets, a diversity of foods from plants and animals remains the preferred choice for human health. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report of 2006 that was undertaken by over 1 300 experts working in 95 countries confirmed the overwhelming contributions made by natural ecosystems to human life and well being. However, with the rapid extinction of terrestrial ecosystems around the world, the natural habitats of wild relatives to our agricultural plant varieties are disappearing at a fast pace (Andersen, 2007). This provides a significant challenge to the future and sustainable contribution of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture to many farming communities whose livelihoods are derived from their use. The current international debate on agro-biodiversity and food security (FAO 1996) the link between agro-biodiversity and farm household livelihood has become a focus of significant interest both from the policy and livelihood perspectives. The tendency to look primarily at the major food crops therefore masks the importance of plant species diversity to the world food supply. The array of crop diversity maintained by farming communities of the world, especially in developing countries, is adaptive to a wide range of ecological regions, climatic zones, farming systems and provides food security and nutrition to millions of people. These farming communities conserve and maintain significant sources of genetic diversity. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) therefore encompasses the diversity of genetic material in traditional varieties and modern cultivars, as well as crop wild relatives and other wild plant species used as food , fodder for domestic animals, fibre, clothing and shelter according to the FAO definition (FAO 1998).

Agro-biodiversity and food security

Agro-biodiversity for food and agriculture is constituted by various biological diversity components that include crops, fish, livestock, pests, inter-acting species of pollinators, predators and competitors among others. Cultivated agro-biodiversity together with wild relatives provides humanity with genetic resources for food and agriculture. Infact, the global food supply rests essentially on the biological diversity developed and natured by indigenous communities, local farmers and farming communities residing in genetic resources centers of origin and diversity. Plants, fungi and animals have also provided the world with its medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry is based on these biological resources and related local knowledge. Many ailments are being treated and cured due to the availability of these bio-materials and the economic value is extremely high both in the food and pharmaceutical sectors. The economic, social and cultural value of these materials is still being discovered, but unfortunately, the ecosystems which host these bio-materials is continuously and systematically being destroyed rapidly. For example, fewer than 3% of the 220,000 flowering plant species of the world have been examined for alkaloids and that too in a limited and haphazard manner. The rosy periwinkle of Madagascar, it will be recalled, produced the two alkaloids, vinblastine and vincristine which cured the two most deadly of cancers (Nijar 1996). The same can be said of plants as a potential food

resource. Some 30,000 species of plants have edible parts. Throughout history a total of 7,000 plants have been grown or collected as food, of which 20 species provided 90% of the worlds food (Nijar 1996). Just three of these-wheat, maize and rice supply more than half of the worlds food requirements. Tens of thousands of unused plant species still exist and require strategies and concerted efforts in terms of conservation for present and future use. For most communities in developing countries, reliance on biological resources accounts for up to 90% of their livelihoods requirements .The careful nurturing and development of biodiversity is for them, in truth, a matter of life and death. Since the dawn of agriculture 12,000 years ago, humans have nurtured plants and animals to provide food. Careful selection of the traits, tastes and textures that make good food resulted in a myriad diversity of genetic resources, varieties, breeds and sub-species of the relatively few plants and animals humans use for food and agriculture. These diverse varieties, breeds and systems underpin food security and provide insurance against future threats, adversity and ecological changes. Agricultural biodiversity is the first link in the food chain, developed and safeguarded by indigenous peoples, and women and men farmers, forest dwellers, livestock keepers and fisher folk throughout the world. It has developed as result of the free-flow of genetic resources between food producers. Often, the diversity is itself employed in diverse ways and supports an integrated and holistic lifestyle and culture. In many developing countries, community livelihoods are provided through the combination of utilizing both forest and plant biodiversity as they all contribute to the food needs of the community. As the Indian environmentalist, Shiva (1996), wrote, seed is the first link in the food chain. It is the embodiment of lifes continuity and renewability; of lifes biological and cultural diversity. Seed for the farmer is not merely a source of future plants or food; it is the storage place of culture and history. Seed is the ultimate symbol of food security (Downes 2003). In this aspect, it is important to realize and recognize the critical value of local agro-biodiversity in the context of sustaining livelihoods and food provision at community level.

Challenges of conserving agro-biodiversity

The conceptual framework of agro-biodiversity includes cultural knowledge as aspects of agro-biodiversity and humans in different regions of the world have accumulated related knowledge with existing crop species. As a result, the CBD Conference of the Parties adopted a work programme that recognizes the contributions of farmers and indigenous and local communities to the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and the importance of agricultural diversity to their livelihoods (Article 8(j) and 10 of the CBD). The recognition and development of the work programme highlights global concerns to the continued rate of agro-biodiversity loss. The World Watch List of Domestic Animal Diversity note that 35% of mammalian breeds and 63% of avian breeds are at a risk of extinction and that one breed is lost every week. The State of the Worlds Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) of 1996 indicated that there is significant loss of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture including the disappearance of species, plant varieties, and gene complexes. The major drivers of biodiversity losses are land use changes, crop improvement programmes, over exploitation of wild resources, over fishing, high food consumptive societies, trade liberalization and agricultural subsidies. The consequences of these

losses disrupt the lifestyles mostly of the poor who depend upon local eco-systems for their livelihoods especially in terms of food security. These losses are also highlighted by the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment report (2006) that assessed 24 ecosystems and found out that 15 of them were on the decline. The second CBD Global Biodiversity Outlook states that the intensification of fishing has led to the decline in large high-value fishes, such as tuna, sea bass and swordfish, which are high up in the food chain. In addition, the number of large fish has declined by two thirds in the last 50 years in the North Atlantic (UNEP, 1995). With regard to biodiversity, the threats are on the increase as the rate and risk of alien species introductions are increasing significantly and are estimated to continue rising as a result of increased travel, trade and tourism. Another significant highlight of the report is that the demand for resources now exceeds the biological capacity of the Earth to renew these resources by 20%. This trend requires countries to review and develop new consumptive approaches and strategies that are sustainable as the current situation and levels of resource depletion are not sustainable. However, in 2002 at CBD COP6 the Conference of the Parties agreed to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the national, regional and international levels. The assumption was that such actions will conversely contribute towards poverty alleviation and benefit all life on earth. Though the biodiversity loss reduction strategies were adopted by the world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002 there is need to take stock and assess progress to date. The conceptual framework of agro-biodiversity as illustrated by Thrupp in 2000 includes such components as: Mixed agro-ecosystems Crop species and varieties Livestock and fish species Plant and animal germplasm Soil organisms in cultivated areas Insects and fungai that benefit crop production Wild species from off farm natural habitats Cultural and local knowledge of diversity The above aspects of biodiversity require concerted efforts and political commitment from all concerned to collectively conserve and sustainably use whilst ensuring that they will be available for use by future generations. On the other hand the CBD adopted a number of indicators to assist in the assessment of biodiversity in the long term and these include: Protecting components of biodiversity Promoting sustainable use Addressing threats to biodiversity Maintaining goods and services from biodiversity to support human wellbeing Ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources Ensuring provision of adequate resources

Protecting traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, though this was not adopted by the EU. The challenge is for all countries to report in specific terms how they are protecting biodiversity loss and highlighting measures that have been taken, implementation schedules and success realized to date if any. It would be critical to undertake studies that highlight the different levels of support provided to in-situ and ex-situ agrobiodiversity conservation. These data can be used to determine resource allocation trends, priorities and impacts. Such studies will facilitate further understanding of national, regional and international support mechanisms, linkages, processes, gaps and practices that are being provided for agro-biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The other aspects relate to assessing how farmers, agricultural communities and other societies have been and continue to manage agro-biodiversity in different farming systems. It is important to note that food production in most of Africa is through subsistence and traditional agriculture by small farmers who constitute over 70% of the population. The production environment is characterized by a complex socio-economic condition, insecure price structure and seed (planting material) is the cheapest factor of production accessible to the farmer. The table below summarizes the Household/Use Perspectives: Source: HardonBaars, 2000. ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY
Livelihood Food/Nutrition/Health (in) security of members

OUTPUT

Household Practices/strategies Acquisition/allocation of resources Decision making Food related activities o Production o Storage o Processing o Preparation o Consumption Other livelihood activities Household Actors Objectives Roles Soc/Ec.Position

ENVIRONMENT (facilitating/constraining) Biophysical factors * Societal factors => Biodiversity => Information => Markets => R&D (local/national/international) => Services/policies of in-situ/ex-situ conservation

Human * Labour * Time * Knowledge * Attitudes * Access/control

Resources Non Human * Land-use system * Technologies * Money * AGROBIODIVERSITY * Access/control

Threats to agro-biodiversity conservation

The outcomes of the concluded 8th COP of the CBD and the 3rd meeting of the Parties of the biosafety protocol clearly indicated lack of progress in achieving the overall objective of conserving, utilizing and equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity. The main contentious issues include the following: Agreeing on the contents and scope of an international regime on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS); Lack of consensus on the need for field trials on Genetic Use Restricted Technologies (GURTS); Agreeing on forms of intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources; Documentation of Living Modifies Organisms (LMOs) shipment for food, feed and processing, liability and redress mechanisms on LMOs. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) The TRIPS Agreement of the WTO seeks to globalize the dominant patent paradigm of the industrialized countries. These provisions guarantee ownership rights to products made in the laboratories of the north from the bio-materials and knowledge from the local communities of the south. These intergovernmental destruction of community rights, knowledge, innovations and traditional lifestyles and the non-recognition of traditional knowledge systems will ultimately lead to the destruction of biodiversity including the food base of the communities who nature and depend on it (IDRC, 1994). This trend only recognizes Northern based innovations, as they set the criteria and parameters for patent claims that are of an exclusive nature. This denies the opportunity for community technologies and innovations to be accorded the same recognition and protection. On the other hand, the knowledge system of these communities, their innovations in the intellectual commons, the societal and informed context on which they produce and innovate and the purpose for which they do so are all denied recognition. The globalization of patents and commoditization of products developed through modern biotechnological applications are leading to the loss of biodiversity worldwide. For the first time, IP is now tradable on the global market and this will lead towards marginalization of those who depend on these bio-materials and eventually food insecurity. Traditional peasant farming is based on existing knowledge of the rural people, especially on systems of optimal adaptation to the local environment. Many farmers depend on locally produced farmers varieties for seed. Food security is therefore linked to good and sufficient local seed supply and intrinsically associated with good biological diversity as well as sufficient soil and water management systems. According to the recently published Feeding Solutions of the Crucible Group, the loss of biological diversity is increasing despite the increasing awareness of its value. It states that, forests are falling, fisheries are collapsing, plant and animal genetic diversity is eroding all over the world. They estimate that domestic animal breeds are disappearing

at the rate of 5%, tropical forests at the rate of 1%, 70% of marine species are fully exploited and nearly 60% of the earths coral reefs are threatened by humans. They further state that, 34000 species of plants or 12.5% of the worlds flora are facing extinction. The advent of IPR and patents is leading to this loss as communities are no longer entitled to the ownership rights of these bio-materials. There are no incentives to keep and maintain these bio-materials by communities as private monopoly is taking over the custodianship of the biodiversity and this undermines food security (Christian Aid, 2007). However, the survival of many communities with these biological resources, which are disappearing, will also mean diminishing communities food sources and for many this will lead to food insecurity. Again the disappearance of agro-biodiversity will also lead to food insecurity of farmers as the destruction of their food base will definitely go with them in terms of increased poverty. The imposition of an IPR regime that ascribes ownership of seed to a private individual/company to the exclusion of the small farmer in Africa is therefore the best prescription for disaster and food insecurity. The use of patents on plant genetic resources in the developing world could jeopardize food security because with three quarters of the worlds population living below the poverty line are involved in agriculture, anything that increases the costs of agricultural seeds and other inputs could be damaging. Equally detrimental to poorer farmers could be restrictions on their rights to retain the seeds on which the following years harvest is dependent (Feyissa, 2006). For example, in South Africa, most farmers are already dependent on buying their seed on a yearly basis from a seed company (Farmers Weekly: 2006). There is need therefore to recognize that: Traditional knowledge, innovation and practices are of significant importance to the conservation of biological diversity and its sustainable utilization. Local communities have a close and traditional dependence on biological materials. Their livelihood and lifestyles often depend on the availability of the bio-materials. Traditional technologies, innovations and practices are responsible for the creation, development and dynamic maintenance of agro-biodiversity .These practices ensures ecological adaptability and food security in varied environments. The way forward is therefore to work with and all users of natural resources - farmers, livestock keepers, forest dwellers who are the principal managers of terrestrial ecosystems in developing sustainable agro ecological production systems that enhance diversity. In 1996 the CSO Forum at the World Food Summit agreed that Farmers' Rights should be the "fundamental pre-requisite to the conservation and sustainable utilization of agricultural biodiversity". Ways must be found for society to recognize the contribution of these producers and their communities to food security and ecosystem management, as well as to recognize their inalienable rights of access to and use of the resources. It is also important to note that food security is more than simply ensuring that there is an adequate amount of food cultivated or available on the market. There are three distinct factors in the achievement of adequate food security namely: food availability; access to available food and appropriate utilization to the available food. Therefore, for an intellectual property rights regime to adequately address the problem of food security, it must adequately address the tripartite issues of availability, access and appropriate

utilization. Existing IPRs are designed to promote technological development but not necessarily to take into account socio-economic concerns, such as, food security (Mushita & Thompson, 2007). The special situation of agriculture as a provider of basic food needs requires a special legal regime in developing countries to take into account the needs of local agriculture and more broadly of individual food security. To African farmers, seed diversity contributes to food security and seed is the first link in the food chain. Genetic Use Restriction Technologies/GMOs During COP 8 meeting in Brazil, the major campaigns and demonstrations from civil society organizations were on advocating for the cancellation of GURTs out of life sciences. This form of outcry has a meaning in biodiversity management and food security. The results are clear that such biotechnology inventions will be strongly protected by patents. The end result is that a farmer being the original custodian of genetic resources maybe sued for attempting to retain and modify terminator seeds on farm through crossbreeding. In any case it would be very difficult for farmers to retain sterile seeds for use in the next planting seasons. Agricultural biodiversity is already under threat form recurrent droughts and effects of climate change, which requires the CBD to focus on adaptive capacities among communities in managing biodiversity under these changing climatic conditions. Already food security is being threatened by these natural factors hence there is no need to introduce technologies that will further undermine the right to food. More than 90% of crop varieties have been lost from farmers' fields in the past century and livestock breeds are disappearing at the rate of 5% per year. Soil biodiversity including microbial diversity and the diversity of pollinators and predators are also under serious threat. Urgent actions are needed to reverse these trends in situ and ex-situ. Also there is a need to implement actions to promote both in-situ and ex-situ strategies as they complement each other. Threats to these resources, both in situ and ex situ also include pollution by genetically modified material and the increasing use of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to claim sole ownership over varieties, breeds and genes, which thereby restrict access for farmers and other food producers. This loss of diversity is accelerating the slide down the slippery slope of food insecurity that today sends more than 1.5 billion people to bed, hungry. The discourse on Access to Genetic Resources is thus wider than concerns at a genetic level. It should be widened to include all of agricultural biodiversity, for it is the whole interdependent complex, developed through human activity in natural resource management for food and agricultural, livestock and fisheries production, that is under threat. Decision V/5 section III of the COP 8 decisions should therefore be reaffirmed. Governments, relevant organizations and interested stakeholders should continue: a) respecting traditional knowledge and farmers rights to the preservation of seeds under traditional cultivation; b) to undertake research within the mandate of decision V/5 section III, on the impacts of genetic use restriction technologies, including their ecological, social, economic and cultural impacts, particularly on indigenous and local communities; and

c) to disseminate results of studies on the potential environmental (e.g., risk assessment, socio-economic and cultural impacts of GURTS on smallholder farmers , indigenous and local communities and make these studies available in a transparent manner through inter alia, the clearing house mechanism.

Conclusion
The importance of biodiversity as a primary source of food security can not be over emphasized. There is need to ensure that this diversity is protected from socio-cultural, economical, ecological, political and esthetically. Many peoples livelihoods in developing countries depend on these resources. The August 2001 World Forum on Food Sovereignty, a preparatory CSO and Farmers' meeting for the World Food Summit: concluded: "Genetic resources are the result of millennia of evolution and belong to all of humanity. Therefore, there should be a prohibition on biopiracy and patents on living organisms, including the development of sterile varieties through genetic engineering processes. Seeds are the patrimony of all of humanity. The monopolization by a number of transnational corporations of the technologies to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs) represents a grave threat to the peoples' food sovereignty." Continued access to genetic resources and conservation and development of agricultural biodiversity are therefore essential components in the fight for food sovereignty. The other critical aspect relates to ensuring the continued availability of biodiversity for present and future generations (Mamaty, 2002). This can not be ensured through monopoly rights and proprietary ownership of biodiversity by few people or institutions who are motivated by profit .The involvement and participation of those communities whose life depends on these bio-materials is essential as conservation through use enable nature to continue evolving and adapting to new environmental challenges. This also ensures continued creation of diversity by communities of the cultivated crops which will be important for crop improvement, pest and disease control and above all, facilitation of food security. It is therefore important for the CBD to harmonize its efforts with the ITPGRFA in involving farmers which is important for continued creation of diversity for purposes of continued crop improvement; pest and disease control, and facilitate food security. Continued non-recognition of Farmers Rights will cause further erosion of agro-biodiversity hence the CBD through collaboration with the Governing Body on the ITPGRFA should as a priority activity support the implementation of Article 9 on Farmers Rights implementation. Support to farmers from both national and international levels is therefore required as emphasized by all responsible. In a situation where genetic erosion of agricultural crops is increasing in all corners of the world, and would eventually affect humanity as a whole, protection of these resources is left to the poor farmers particularly of the centers of origin and diversity of plant genetic resources. If this situation continues, global targets for food security may not be achieved, mainly due to eroding sources of food and breeding materials. Support to these farmers should therefore not be provided as charity but as a means of meeting the survival needs of humankind today and in future. The need to conserve agro-biodiversity has never been more urgent than it is today in the face of global climate change.

References
Andersen, A.N., Parr, C.L., Lowe, L. and Mller, W. 2007. Contrasting fire-related resilience of ecologically dominant ants in tropical savannas of northern Australia. Diversity & Distributions Christian Aid 2007. Farmers left behind: How markets, governments and donors have failed Africas greatest resource. Christian Aid Report. Downes, G. 2003. Implications of TRIPS for Food Security in the Majority World. Comhlamh Action Network, October 2003. See also www.comhlamh.org/pdfs/220-TRIPS%20Research. FAO Report, 1996A Synthesis Report of the Africa Region: Women, Agriculture and Rural Development, FAO. FAO, 1998. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome. Farmers Weekly 2006. Seed Sovereignty and Food Security. Farmers Weekly 3 November 2006, Johannesburg. Feyissa, R. 2006. Farmers Rights in Ethiopia A Case study. FNI report7/2006, FNI, Lysaker, Norway. Hardon-Baars A. (2000). The role of agrobiodiversity in farm-household livelihood and food security: a conceptual analysis. In: Almekinders, C. (eds) Encouraging diversity, pp 3135. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd, London Helena, P. et al. 2003. Hungry Corporations: Transnational Biotech Companies Colonize the Food Chain. Zed Books, London. IDRC 1994. The Crucible Group, People, Plants and Patents; The impact of intellectual property on trade, plant biodiversity and rural society. IDRC, International Development Research Center, Canada. Jarvis, D.I. ,et al (eds). 2007. Managing biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems , New York : Columbia University Press : Bioversity International, c2007. See also http://addison.vt.edu/record=b2529513 Mamaty, I. 2002. African Countries and the Agreement on Agriculture; What Scope for Sustainable Development? ICTSD Resource Paper no 3, 48 pp. Mushita, A. & Thompson, C. 2007. Biopiracy of Biodiversity; Global Exchange as Enclosure. Nijar, Gurdial Singh, (1996a), In Defense of Local Community Knowledge and Biodiversity, Third World Network, Paper 1, Penang. Thrupp. L. N (2000) Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and Food Security: the Valuable RoleofAgrobiodiversity for Sustainable Agriculture International Affairs 76 (2). Shiva, V. 1996. Future of our Seeds, Future of our Farmers Agricultural Biodiversity, Intellectual Property Rights and Farmers Rights. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, New Delhi. UNEP 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP/Cambridge University Press.