Top Banner
Sowing the seeds for sustainability Agriculture, Biodiversity, Economics and Society Edited by Rachel Wiseman and Liz Hopkins
134
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: 2001-049

Sowing the seeds for sustainabilityAgriculture, Biodiversity, Economics and Society

Edited by Rachel Wiseman and Liz Hopkins

Page 2: 2001-049

IUCN – European Regional Office (ERO)

The mandate of IUCN - ERO is to contribute to a sustainableEurope by influencing policy development and implementa-tion for biodiversity and landscape conservation, restorationand sustainable use inside and outside Europe.

The European Programme is active in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and,through its expert networks, protected areas and species conservation.

The Programme provides input to regional and global policy especially the EUenlargement to central Europe; the Pan-European Biological and LandscapeDiversity Strategy; trade and the range of multilateral environmental agreements.

Developing partnerships and networking activities with our 341 government andNGO members builds the knowledge and provides the authority for achieving theobjectives of the IUCN programme in Europe.

Page 3: 2001-049

Sowing the seeds for sustainabilityAgriculture, Biodiversity, Economics and Society

Proceedings of the Eighth Interactive Session

held at the Second IUCN World Conservation Congress

Amman, Jordan – 7 October 2000

Edited by Rachel Wiseman and Liz Hopkins

IUCN – The World Conservation Union

2001

Page 4: 2001-049

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN, the German Federal Agency for NatureConservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz - BfN), FAO, or the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, NatureManagement and Fisheries (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij - LNV) concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of itsfrontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, BfN, FAO or LNV.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

Copyright: © 2001 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes isauthorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided thesource is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Wiseman, R.E. and Hopkins, E.A. (eds). 2001. Sowing the Seeds of Sustainability:Agriculture, Biodiversity, Economics and Society. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK. 133 pp.

ISBN: 2-8317-0632-7

Cover design by: Robin Padian

Cover illus.: (Front, from top right) Geoff Doré/BBC Natural History Unit; M. Woods/NaturalImage; Jeremy Walker/BBC Natural History Unit; (left) Hugh Synge.

(Back cover, from top left) Bob Gibbons/Natural Image; William Osborn/BBCNatural History Unit; painting by Laura Pedrotti.

Produced by: Hugh Synge and IUCN European Regional Office

Printed by: Cigam Group, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England

Available from: IUCN European Regional Office IUCN Publications Services UnitBredaseweg 387, 5037 LD Tilburg, 219c Huntingdon Road The Netherlands Cambridge CB3 ODL, UKTel: +31 13 5900347, fax: +31 13 5900345 Tel: +44 1223 277894, fax: +44 1223 277175E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]://www.iucn-ero.nl http://www.iucn.org

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.

This book is printed on chlorine-free paper produced from sustainable managed forests.

Page 5: 2001-049

ContentsAcknowledgements 1

Foreword 3

Setting the Scene: An Introduction to the Session 5

Agriculture and Biodiversity: The Challenge for Conservationn 6

Results and Recommendations from the Debate 9

Chapter 1: Farming in Drylands11

Presentations

Sustainable Development and Desertification in African Drylands – Targeting desertification 11 caused by increased human pressure on dryland resources through community-based development programmes, by Walter Lusigi

Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agro-biodiversity in Jordan – Current Status, 22by Mohammad Ajlouni

Australian Rangelands: Managing for production and biodiversity, by John Benson 26

Discussion Points from the Session 31

Additional Contributions

Desertification, Biodiversity and Environmental Problems in the Agricultural and 32 Socio-economic Development of Nigeria – Causes, consequences and recommendations, by Adeniyi Olabasi Arimoro

Pasture Farming Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture and Reconstruction of 36Biodiversity in Deserted Territories, by Stanislav Pavlov and Tatiana Bakinova

Agriculture and Biodiversity in the Drylands of Africa, by Michael Darkoh 38

Chapter 2: Farming in Wetlands51

Presentations

Agriculture and Wetlands in the Mekong Basin, by Kosal Mam 51

The Macanas Wetland Reserve – Conservation and Agricultural Use Area, 58 by René Chang Marín

Discussion Points from the Session 61

Additional Contributions

Role of Biodiversity in the Conservation and Future Sustenance of the Rice Field 62Agro-ecosystem, by Channa Bambaradeniya and J.P. Edirisinghe

Dams in the Senegal Valley – a Case Study on Wetlands, Biodiversity and Local Communities, 64by Abdoulaye Ndiaye

Page 6: 2001-049

Chapter 3: Farming in Temperate Zones67

Biodiversity and the Effects of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, by Christopher Howe 67

and Richard Perkins

Agricultural Policy and Conservation in the United States, by Annie Kirschenmann 72

The Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture in CIS: Balancing on the wire, 74 by Alexander Karpov, Dmitry Cherniakhovsky and Julia Gorelova

Discussion Points from the Session 79

Additional Contributions

Biodiversity of Medicago sp. pl. – Rhizobium meliloti Symbiosis in Temperate Mediterranean 80 Zones (Sardinia, Italy), by Guiseppe Brundu, I. Camarda, M. Caredda, P. Deiana and S. Maltoni

Chapter 4: Business Influence in the Agricultural Sector83

Presentations

Vertical Integration within the Agricultural Sector: the European dimension, 83by Peter L. Nowicki

Discussion Points from the Session 99

Additional Contributions

Invasion of Alien Seeds: Alien Species and Genetic Erosion of Indonesian Native Crops, 100by Sri Indiyastuti

Chapter 5: The Trade Debate103

Presentations

Free Trade Versus Fair Trade: Summary of the presentation given by Vandana Shiva 103

Reconciling Agricultural Trade and Environmental Policy Goals, by Wilfrid Legg 104

Discussion Points from the Session 109

Chapter 6: GMOs – Potential Value and Impacts111

Presentations

Organic Farming Approaches to Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, by Bernward Geier 111

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Food Security: Summary of the presentation 113given by Zangliang Chen

Discussion Points from the Session 114

Additional Contributions

The Impact of Biotechnology on Sustainable Agriculture Development in Latin American 116and the Caribbean region: The Andean countries as a Model, by Rodrigo Artunduaga-Salas

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – Implications for Development Cooperation, 122by Frank Schmiedchen and Harmut Meyer

Nature’s Matchless Seeds – or Monsanto’s Colonised Crops?, by Evaggelos Vallianatos 127

List of Contributors 129

Acronyms 133

Page 7: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 1

Acknowledgements

The IUCN European Regional Office (ERO) wouldlike to thank the German Federal Agency forNature Conservation – BfN (with funds from theGerman Federal Ministry for the Environment,Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) andFAO for sponsoring the production of this publica-tion.

This activity has been carried out with supportfrom the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, NatureManagement and Fisheries – LNV.

We are extremely grateful to Dr Richard Smith,Professor Hardy Vogtmann, Dr Kalev Sepp and DrChris Howe for their assistance and time inAmman and to Professor Vogtmann and HE AnisMousher for chairing the Session.

Many thanks to those who gave a presentation inAmman and produced a paper for this publication,and to those who sent posters and web contribu-tions to be displayed in Amman.

Page 8: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 3

Agriculture is one of the most important influ-ences on biological diversity. Conventional agri-culture has heavily contributed to reducing thediversity of ecosystems, species and genes, butagriculture has also created new diversity, espe-cially in the cultural landscapes of Central Europe.

The interdependence between nature conserva-tion, agriculture, socio-economy and culture ishighly complex. This may be the reason why agri-culture has not been in the forefront of IUCN'swork. But the fact that about 50% of the EuropeanUnion's annual budget is used to maintain anunsustainable policy on agriculture illustrates theimportance of addressing this subject in the drivetowards sustainable development. One of the maintopics of the WTO conference is agricultural policy;decisions taken there will have a much greaterimpact on biological diversity than can beachieved by nature conservation instrumentsalone.

I am, therefore, very grateful to the EuropeanRegional Office of IUCN for having taken up thechallenge to strengthen IUCN´s contribution tothis policy field, one that will become ever moreimportant in the future. This resulting report is an

important contribution to the mission of IUCN – to"influence, encourage and assist societies toconserve the integrity and diversity of nature andto ensure that any use of natural resources is equi-table and ecologically sustainable".

The situation in which nature conservation andagriculture are competitive users of land mustchange. New models of integrated land manage-ment have to be developed to introduce biodiver-sity conservation into agricultural systems.

One example is to strengthen organic agricultureand its multifunctional benefits for society. I amparticularly delighted that the 2nd IUCN WorldConservation Congress adopted Resolution 2.32on organic agriculture and conservation of bio-diversity. I hope that through the measuresrequested from the Council and Director General,agricultural policy will be accorded the impor-tance it deserves in the IUCN Programme.

Finally, I wish to thank not only Liz Hopkins andRachel Wiseman from the IUCN EuropeanRegional Office for their efforts to make thissession possible, but also all the contributors andparticipants for their valuable input.

Professor Hardy VogtmannPresident

The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation(Bundesamt für Naturschutz)

Foreword

Page 9: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 5

IUCN and the Amman Congress

The Second IUCN World Conservation Congress,held in Amman during October 2000, broughttogether more than 2000 representatives of govern-ments, NGOs, institutes and experts from aroundthe world to address pressing issues andchallenges in conservation that we are facing in thenew millennium.

Two days of the congress were set aside for twelveInteractive Sessions or workshops. Since the rela-tionship between agriculture and biodiversity con-sititues a major part of the IUCN EuropeanRegional Office (ERO) programme, ERO co-ordi-nated a Session on agriculture entitled “Sowingthe Seeds for Sustainability: Agriculture,Biodiversity, Economy and Society”.

The Session – sowing the seeds

for sustainability

The decision was made in the planning of theSession to broadly cover a spectrum of agriculturalissues from around the world and examine thelinkages between biodiversity, economy andsociety. Although this limited the time available fortopical discussion, the approach brought forth awealth of wide-ranging views and opinions fromfarmers to Non-Governmental Organisations(NGOs) to government officials, leading to heated

and fruitful debate which covered both practiceand policy. This ‘fair’ of knowledge, perspectives,case studies and experiences attracted about 300people from over 100 organisations and institutes,representing over 50 countries.

Participation was not restricted to those attendingthe Session or making presentations in Amman.Input from others came in the form of e-mailedcontributions to a discussion forum, posters oncase studies, key papers on a subject, comments onthe feedback forms handed out at the Session or inthe discussions during the Session.

The Session served as a platform for building andintroducing networks of expertise. Many links andpartnerships were formed both in the run-up tothe Session and as a result of the Sessionprogramme, which will prove invaluable for thedevelopment of well-informed agricultureprojects. IUCN is now beginning a global project tocollate the work by IUCN on agriculture across theyears and to determine, with the IUCN membernetworks, gaps and priorities for future work. Welook forward to sharing the results and develop-ments of this project with you.

This publication represents the opinions andissues raised by those participating in the Sessionand is comprised of papers prepared by each of thepresenters and posters or web contributionsprepared by individuals who were unable toattend the congress in person.

Setting the Scene: An Introduction to the

Session

Page 10: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability6

Agriculture is the biggest user of land in the worldand frequently impacts on or is inextricably boundup with biodiversity. Excluding the polar ice caps,approximately 37% of the earth’s land area isutilised as crop and pasture land (WRI website,2001; FAO website, 2000). In the EU this figure isover 50% (FAO website, 2000) and of the $81billion EU budget, 47% is allocated to agriculture.Such expenditure on support to agriculture, in theform of subsidies and payments, means thatexports are frequently cheaper than they shouldbe. This gives European farmers an unfair compet-itive edge over farmers from developing countrieswho do not benefit from such levels of subsidiesand subsequently causes a drop in earnings indeveloping countries. In Latin America it has beenestimated that income losses are $3.4 billionannually, as a result of subsidies elsewhere.

Despite the fact that, on average, 24% more food isproduced per person than in 1961 (WRI website,2001), FAO has estimated that more than 800million people around the world do not have asecure supply of food. With the populationgrowing at a rate of 78 million people per year andglobal concerns about food security in the 21stcentury, the production of agricultural goods isexpected to increase. At the same time, in manyareas of the developing world between 5% and10% of agricultural land is lost each year throughsoil degradation, and over 10% of irrigated land ishighly salinised, decreasing productivity.

Sustainable agriculture and food

security

IUCN and its members are demanding more atten-tion to the conservation of biodiversity throughsustainable development. They view agriculture asbeing both a potentially harmful and a potentiallysupportive use of land. To maintain productivityin the long-term, it is essential that countries devel-op policies to move towards integrating food secu-rity measures with the conservation of biodiversityand natural resources. The objectives of conserving

biodiversity and achieving food security might atfirst seem to be contradictory. On the contrary,continuing agricultural production relies on themaintenance of resources (such as the soil), thecareful use of water supplies, and the conservationof a variety of wild and domestic crop species as asource of resistance to disease.

Historically, nature conservation has concentratedon the management of land preserved for nature,such as the wild plants and animals in thesesystems. Agricultural crops and domestic livestockhave rarely been considered part of the ‘naturalsystem’ and have frequently been neglected inconservation strategies. Yet, the variety of land-scapes and related biodiversity across the worldtoday has been shaped by hundreds, even thou-sands, of years of farming. For example, tradition-ally cultivated rice fields constitute one of the mostsustainable agro-ecosystems, supporting a hugediversity of life. Their rich array of natural biolog-ical control organisms and a diverse soil flora andfauna enhance and maintain soil fertility.Traditional rice fields can actually be perceived asmanaged wetlands outside natural protected areas(Channa and Edirisinghe, 2000).

Intensification of agriculture

Over the last two decades the area devoted tofarming has decreased in countries where agricul-tural technology has advanced and where intensi-fication has become possible. This has beenpromoted by some as a positive change since landhas been set aside and could possibly be convertedback to nature, while high levels of productionhave been maintained. Others expect biodiversitylosses on land that has been abandoned or set-aside by farmers. The Red Book lists 34 species ofbird in Ireland, for example, that are dependentupon particular sustainable agricultural practices.In the US, Western Europe and Oceania, "set-aside"schemes have meant that approximately 40 millionhectares of land have been taken out of agriculture(WRI website, 2001). However, while the heavyuse of fertilisers and other agro-chemicals have

Agriculture and Biodiversity: The Challenge for

Conservation

Page 11: 2001-049

7

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: THE CHALLENGE FOR CONSERVATION

allowed the land to be utilised more intensively,soil quality is declining and chemical run-off intosurrounding rivers, water bodies and seas ishaving a detrimental impact on water quality,ecosystem function and biodiversity.

What is needed is the development of practicesthat are sustainable both within the agriculturalenvironment and the land surrounding agricul-ture. These practices must take into account bothdirect and indirect impacts on biodiversity. Whenthey do not, the consequences can be serious. Thedevelopment of intensive irrigation systemsenables crops to be grown in areas previouslydeemed infertile. This, however, has commonlyresulted in the considerable drainage of wetlands,salination and water pollution. For example, theDiama Dam in Senegal has changed the quality ofthe water and caused extensive disturbance to thewildlife and natural values of the Djoudj NationalPark (Arimoro, 2000). The Park is a Ramsar andWorld Heritage site and its degradation hasimpacted on the social and economic well being ofthe surrounding villages.

In Europe the widespread removal of hedgerowshas made it easier to use large machinery andobtain economies of scale; but hedgerows are ahabitat for many plant and animal species and actas a buffer zone between agricultural land andnatural land. The loss of these habitats has resultedin rapid decline in species and populationnumbers (RSPB website, 2001).

Vertical control

There are further causes for concern. Agro-indus-tries who have no direct interest in local economic,environmental or social welfare tend to controlmarkets around the globe and are gaining greatercontrol of the production chain, from the seedssold to the products on supermarket shelves. Thishighlights the issue of free and fair trade. Ironicallyfree trade can generally represent anything butfreedom for the people at the bottom of the chain.Take for example bananas. In Latin America whereagro-industries control the agricultural land, wagerates are particularly low, social conditions ofworkers poor and there is little regard for environ-mental preservation. Not only is this of detrimentto the farmers and workers managed by thesecorporations and to the surrounding landscapesand ecosystems in which these farms exist, but italso threatens the persistence of locally ownedfarms frequently operating in a more sustainablemanner, as they simply cannot compete. Yet the

WTO disputes the EU procedure for favouringlocally-owned farms in the Caribbean region. On apositive note, certain multinationals such asUnilever (Unilever website, 2001) have developedpilot projects to review more sustainable ways offarming. In Europe, supermarket chains are begin-ning to respond to consumer demand for moreorganic food and more recently fairtrade food,which is generally grown in a more environmen-tally and socially sustainable manner.

Genetically modified organisms

(GMOs)

At the cutting edge of the biotechnology revolu-tion and also promoted by particular multination-als, are GMOs. They provide the potential toincrease production and reduce fertiliser use.However, genetic modification also provides theopportunity for crops to be grown in areas previ-ously deemed unsuitable for agriculture, raisingenvironmental concerns. In Western Europe,where consumers can afford to be concerned aboutthe possible negative effects of GMOs, labelling ofGMO products is obligatory. In poorer countriesthis is not the case. Concern about being leftbehind where biotechnological advance isconcerned, has meant that the PrecautionaryPrinciple is not adhered to and many countrieshave hastily planted GM crops without making athorough assessment of the impact on thesurrounding environment. It is also feared thatlimited access to such advanced technologies willcompound the negative impacts of global freetrade.

Prospects and challenges

One of the biggest challenges over the comingyears will be to maintain and develop sustainableagricultural systems which support a high level ofwild and agricultural biodiversity. Already this isbeing increasingly recognised, as illustrated by theintegration of agriculture into major environmentalagreements such as the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) and the incorporation of sustain-able measures into regional agriculture policies e.gEuropean Union Common Agriculture Policy (EUCAP). The awareness of extensive linkagesbetween agriculture and the environment isfurther emphasised by the instigation of IUCNResolutions on agricultural issues, including thoseon trade liberalisation, organic agriculture andGMOs.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 12: 2001-049

8

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY: THE CHALLENGE FOR CONSERVATION

Since agriculture now represents such an extensiveand intensive use of land where biotechnology,globalisation and food security are key issues,conservation at all levels can no longer afford todisregard agriculture.

ReferencesArimoro, A. (2000). Desertification, biodiversity and

environmental problems in the agricultural andsocio-economic development of Nigeria – causes,consequences and recommendations.

Channa, N.B., Edirisinghe, J.P. 2000. Role of bio-diversity in the conservation and future sustenanceof the rice field agroecosystem.

FAO website. 2000. Http://www.fao.org(Statistical Databases section)

RSPB website. 2001.Http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife.asp

Unilever website. 2001.Http://www.unilever.com (Environment andSociety section)

WRI website. 2001.Http://www.wri.org/press/goodsoil.html

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 13: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 9

The Session began by examining issues from abiome perspective, assessing the drivers behindthe negative impacts and discussing how topromote and implement sustainable practices andlivelihoods. Later on the focus moved to ‘gettingthe policy context right’. The issues raised werecross-cutting and emphasised the requirement forlinkages between policy and practice, and for co-operation between sectors at the local, nationaland international level.

Three overarching themes emerged, namely: TheImpacts of Modern Agriculture on Biodiversity;Agricultural Business Policy and Trade; andGMOs: Potential Value and Impact. The followingoutlines the key issues raised in the presentations,members of the audience, together with a summaryof the main suggestions and priorities for futurework.

The impacts of modern

agriculture on biodiversity

Problems

� Exotic species are introduced which mayreplace natural/indigenous species and lead toa loss of biodiversity associated with indige-nous species; examples include rice in SouthAmerica and European fruits in Indonesia.Exotics may also be maladapted for the envi-ronment, such as Merino sheep, which havereplaced the indigenous Kalmyk sheep inKalmykia.

� Cultural and ethical values are diminished.

� Dams and irrigation schemes are often builtwithout sufficient impact assessments, leadingto salinity problems as the water table is raised,and flooding and excessive draining of majorwater sources, as has happened in the MekongDelta and the Senegal River.

� Intensive use of land, which can lead to degra-dation of the soil. In arid and semi-arid areasthis frequently results in desertification.

� Change from small-holdings to large farmingunits and agro-industrial developments are

frequently the cause of problems including:

a) The enhanced use of fertilisers andpesticides affecting on-farm and off-farmbiodiversity, as reported in Sri Lankan riceplantations.

b) The plantation of large monoculture cropsand therefore a decrease in crop diversityand associated genetic biodiversity.

Suggestions

� Management plans for food production andsustainable rural development, including bio-diversity conservation and restoration shouldbe prepared, and applied at varying levels ofscale, i.e. farm to landscape to country, and toregional and even global. In each case, the levelof participation from different stakeholdersshould be carefully identified if a positive out-come is to be obtained, and plans shouldrespect cultural and ethical values. Specificplans could include:

� Assessment of the multifunctionality of agricul-ture and its role in supporting sustainable ruraldevelopment and biodiversity conservation.

� Local activities and field projects to developindicators and devices for monitoring bio-diversity and to test sustainable farming prac-tices.

� Facilitation of networking between agricultur-alists, environmentalists, governments andother groups at local, regional and global levels.

� Involving users and polluters of land in restora-tion.

� Training farmers to apply practices whichsupport the sustainable use of natural resources(e.g. organic farming).

Agricultural business, policy and

trade

Problems

� The full costs of agriculture are not paid for by

Results and Recommendations from the Debate

Page 14: 2001-049

10

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEBATE

the producer, such as the impacts of down-stream agrochemical run-off.

� The added value (e.g. profit) from agriculture isnot put back into the farm or the region.

� In general ‘free trade’ market prices do notreflect the social and environmental costs andare, therefore, not really free. For example, inthe Macanas Reserve in Panama, rice is grownby a multinational corporation. The rice is soldinternationally, at a profit to the multinational,and yet the costs such as pollution from pesti-cides and the loss of natural biodiversity, arefelt only by the surrounding communities.

� Farmers are working increasingly under theumbrella of agro-industries. Such direct andindirect control over the production chain(from the seeds sold – and therefore the prod-ucts produced – to the fertilisers and pesticidesrequired to obtain a good harvest), is decreas-ing the access farmers have to biodiversity, andpractices are commonly unsustainable.

� Subsidies or payments can undermine sustain-able rural development and biodiversity. Pay-ments to farmers in the EU has typically lead tointensive production and a high level of pesti-cide use. In Brazil, deforestation on agriculturalland is subsidised.

� Regional and local differences are not respectedenough, and turned to advantage far too little.

Suggestions

� Demonstrate the importance of incorporatingsocial, cultural and environmental values intotrade rules and policies for long term sustain-ability. Specific examples of what is takingplace on the ground, and the relation this has topolicy and trade rules, should be made anddisseminated.

� Facilitate dialogue between the public andprivate sectors to assess the opportunities forsustainable agriculture within the agro-industrysector.

� Improve consumer awareness.

� Assess the ‘polluter pays’ principle, and atwhat level the principle should be applied, i.e.at the level of the producer/manufacturer/farmer.

� Assess the role of current incentives and tradepolicies in providing biodiversity and ruraldevelopment benefits. Facilitate the develop-

ment of tools, methods and indicators for theassessment of trade impacts.

GMOs: potential value and

impacts

Problems

� The debate on GMOs has become polarised, soit is difficult to determine whether, on balance,GMOs will benefit or harm livelihoods, healthand the environment.

� The costs and capacity to test or regulate therelease of GMOs are generally lacking, andGMOs are released without adequate assess-ment of risks.

� The use of GMOs implies that farmers willbecome further dependent on agro-industries,who control the technology.

� There is a relative lack of public investment inalternative farming methods or funding forresearch compared to the investment inresearch on pesticides, fertilisers and GMOs.

� Gene transfer raises ethical and healthconcerns.

Suggestions

� Identify an independent and neutral convenorof all interest groups for examining the scientif-ic, social and economic evidence for andagainst GMOs.

� Support and implement capacity buildingprogrammes to enable institution to implementthe CBD Biosafety Protocol and provide guide-lines for the integration of the Protocol intoagricultural practice.

� Facilitate the dissemination of balanced infor-mation to consumers and to farmers.

� Provide equal support and research funds foralternative farming practices that match thoseprovided for industrialized agriculture.

With thanks to Hardy Vogtmann and RichardSmith for helping to compile these recommenda-tions. Rachel Wiseman.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 15: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 11

Abstract

This paper examines the causes and possible reme-dies for resource degradation and desertificationin African drylands. Agricultural production fromtraditional farming systems is stagnating orfalling, while the population is growing fast. Theenvironmental impacts of population expansionare reduction of fallow periods, soil exhaustionand overexploitation of forest and range areas,leading to degradation and erosion. In many areasof the drylands the result for local populations isincreasing poverty and food insecurity. Standarddryland technologies are rarely successful underthese conditions. Instead, a community-based inte-grated approach to natural resource managementis proposed, in which a menu of possible treat-ments form the basis for discussions with localfarmers. Major issues in implementing the strategyare: the responsibilities to be entrusted to localcommunities; interactive planning; common prop-erty resources management; the mobilisation oflocal resources; and the organisation of communityactivities. A joint task force of African and interna-tional institutions concerned with dryland devel-opment in Africa may be needed to review theproblems, identify development prospects, drawup treatment menus, establish priorities, and fol-low up the international implications of integrateddevelopment and sustainable natural resourcesmanagement.

Introduction

Recurrent famines and persistent human sufferingcoupled with resource degradation (desertifica-tion) have continued to focus international atten-tion on the problems of dryland management inAfrica and the utilisation of the semi-arid and aridparts of sub-Saharan Africa, in particular the Sahel.The result has been an overwhelming flow ofinitiatives, conferences and studies which havefailed to resolve the problem over the last threedecades. The purpose of this paper is to examinewhat is known about the problems, the causes andpossible remedies, and reflect on emergingthoughts about a sustainable development strate-gy. In spite of recent efforts there are considerableuncertainties both in the diagnosis of the problemsand the suggested treatments, and the aim is alsoto identify key areas which require furtherattention. This paper examines the Sahel (whichcomprises the 10 countries south of the Saharafrom Senegal in the west to Somalia in the east),but the discussion applies to similar semi-aridsituations in, for example, Kenya and southernAfrica. Problems vary significantly within thisbroad area, and there is a need to recognise differ-ent land management systems (reflecting varia-tions in agro-ecological conditions, vulnerability todegradation and managerial arrangements) andreflect on their sustainability in both the short- andlong- term.

CHAPTER 1

FARMING IN DRYLANDS

Sustainable Development and Desertification in

African Drylands – Targeting desertification caused by

increased human pressure on dryland resources through community-

based development programmes

Walter LusigiGlobal Environment Facility, World Bank, Washington DC, USA

Page 16: 2001-049

12

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

The state of African drylands

Physical and biological features

Drylands may be defined as areas with less than800 mm of annual rainfall. In the eastern part of theSahel, which includes Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya,and Somalia, rainfall is bimodal. But in all cases itis extremely variable, patchy and often of highintensity. IUCN data suggest a natural grouping ofcountries on the basis of their rainfall deficitsduring the recent droughts. The most affectedcountries were in the west and include Senegal,Mauritania, Niger and Mali. Deficits have beenless pronounced in the central parts of the Sahel –Burkina Faso, Chad and Sudan.

Soils are mostly light and frequently crust forming.Most soils are of low fertility, particularly poor inphosphates and nitrogen, and structurally fragilewith low humus content and water retentioncapacity. Hydromorphology, hard clay pans, later-isation, and wind and water erosion are commonproblems. Research and experience over the last 20years in agriculture and forestry confirm that lowfertility and vulnerability to erosion are as impor-tant a constraint to plant productivity as variationin climate.

The vegetation of the Sahel is remarkably variedgiven the generally sparse and impoverishednature of much of the region’s vegetative cover.Out of a total area of 9.7 million km2, predominantvegetation types include 1.3 million km2 of wood-land, 1 million km2 of wooded grassland/shrub-land and 370,000 km2 of various forms of edaphicgrassland (grassland determined primarily by soilfactors). In addition, Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudanencompass 850,000 km2 of another major vegeta-tion type, Somalia-Masai bushland, which extendsinto Kenya.

Human population and production trends

Population growth in the 10 countries in the Sahel,although somewhat less than for sub-SaharanAfrica as a whole (3.1%), has been unprecedentedand accelerating at 2.9% annually during the peri-od 1980–95 (WRI 1999). The total population in thearea increased from 61 million in 1954 to about 186million in 1994 and is expected to reach 209 millionby 2010. The density of population is still relativelylow and varies from 36 people per km2 in Ethiopiato one person per km2 in Mauritania. The agricul-tural population per km2 of arable land is lowest inSenegal and Sudan (lower than 100) and highest inMauritania (633). The proportion of the activepopulation employed in agriculture has decreasedfrom 85% in 1970 to 75% in 1994, but the absolute

number has decreased by at least 1.5% annually.And although a major part of urban growth hasbeen self-generated, migration of both a perma-nent and seasonal nature has also contributed. Inmany cases (usually more than 30%) it has leftwomen in charge of the agricultural operationsand has, together with increasing school atten-dance, created severe labour constraints in farm-ing. A move from low potential to higher potentialfarm areas is also taking place in West Africawhere, in spite of disease problems, such opportu-nities still exist. In some countries, like Ethiopiaand Kenya, where the high potential areas arealready overcrowded, migration is in the otherdirection, toward more marginal farming areas.Family planning (birth spacing) is not well estab-lished in the drylands.

Although reliable statistics on agricultural produc-tion are lacking, available information seems toshow increases in production over the last threedecades. In the western Sahel (Senegal, Mauri-tania, Niger, Mali) and eastern Sahel (Ethiopia,Somalia, Djibouti) the World Bank reportedgrowth in the period 1980–1988 to be of the orderof 35%, while in the central part (Burkina Faso,Chad, Sudan) growth has been more than doublethat. Population growth over the same periodamounted to approximately 70%. In the westernpart most of this increase was due to area expan-sion, while in other regions yield increases werealso reported. Fertiliser use is very low but hasincreased from approximately one to five kilo-grams per hectare. Agricultural production percapita has decreased significantly in this period,except in the central region where it has remainedstagnant. All states in the region have changedfrom being net food exporters to major importers.

Land use trends

The main farming systems include pastoral live-stock rearing, agro-pastoral systems (in which partof the family grow crops while livestock are stillherded on communal rangelands, althoughranging less widely), and settled farming with orwithout livestock. Groundwater for irrigation isscarce and often saline.

Agro-pastoralism

Under the low and unreliable rainfall conditions ofthe drylands, farmers adopt various practices tominimise risks. Adjustments may be made before(ex ante), during (interactive) and after (ex post)the growing season. Among the ex ante practicesto reduce risks are diversification, i.e. the growingof crops that perform differently under varyingrainfall situations, and intercropping, i.e. growinga combination of crops that draw moisture and

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 17: 2001-049

13

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND DESERTIFICATION IN AFRICAN DRYLANDS

nutrients from different parts of the soil profile; ifone crop fails the other may take over. Farmersmay also select varieties with different maturationrates, stagger the planting and select varieties withgood storage properties to allow stocks to becarried over from good to bad years. They willattempt to find at least a smaller plot of bottomland with better moisture retention properties, andmay originally plant a relatively large area, part ofwhich may have to be abandoned in a year of goodrainfall. The combination of crops and livestockprovides further stability of income and subsis-tence flows. Depending on how the seasonprogresses (improved weather forecasting maybecome an important tool), farmers may decide touse fertiliser, or re-seed some area, with shortduration varieties or crops, or adjust the plantdensity (sequential decision making). If the cropfails, farmers may try to supplement their incomethrough outside employment, trading or craft-work, sale of livestock, or food aid.

Pastoralism

Livestock grazing is a productive land use in areasunsuited to agricultural cropping. It is generallypractised in arid or semi-arid lands, where rainfallis sparse and unpredictable in time and space.Extensive livestock production, particularlypastoralism, is an appropriate and sustainableform of land use that is much less risky than crop-ping. Grazing and rangeland vegetation are co-adapted; both undergrazing and overgrazingresult in the growth of woody plants and large,unpalatable grasses which reduce the productivepotential of an area. Dung from the livestock helpsto maintain soil fertility and physical soil charac-teristics, and the germination of certain plants isenhanced or made possible when seed is passedthrough the digestive tract of animals.

Livestock production, therefore, represents asystem of land management that can maximisefood production in marginal areas with minimalinput, while maintaining the productivity of theecosystem. Negative environmental impacts oflivestock grazing arise from excessive concentra-tion around water points and settlements.Nomadism is a biological necessity for survival inareas with scant rainfall, and pastoralists have alsodiversified their livelihoods through the keepingof mixed herds of livestock like cattle, sheep, goatsand donkeys.

Institutional trends

Drylands face a number of institutional and politi-cal constraints. As part of nation-building efforts,central governments have taken over the owner-ship of natural resources (land, trees and water)

which were formerly under local community con-trol. Usufructuary rights are granted to individualcultivators, and although traditional managementpractices continue to prevail in many rangelandareas they are denied legitimacy if there are anyconflicts of interest. Central governments have notbeen able to establish any effective alternativemanagement systems, and different users there-fore tend to have open access to such commonproperty for grazing, water and fuelwood.Governments find it difficult, even in forestreserves, to protect against encroachment, andinfluential people close to the decision-makingpowers are frequently able to obtain rights in, andencroach upon, the common lands.

Traditional society has undergone other funda-mental changes as well. Leaders have been co-opted by the state for administration, tax collectionand law enforcement, and may now be morealigned with national powers and associated indi-vidual benefits than with local interests. As a resultof these centralisation policies, local motivationand initiatives have been sharply reduced andreplaced by a dependency on central government.The virtue of decentralisation is being extolled bymany governments, but so far, with the possibleexception of Kenya, there has been little realaction; the fear of reinforcing tribal divisions maypossibly act as a deterrent. The distribution ofwealth (e.g. livestock) seems to have become moreskewed, which will tend to further erode localcohesion.

Given the low population densities, large distancesand poor road conditions, government services arerelatively weak and, in pastoral situations, difficultto deliver. Research has mainly emphasised highpotential areas and provides little guidance fordryland development. Public interventions inwater supply have proven very difficult to sustainin the absence of effective cost recovery, trainedtechnicians and the absence of spare parts, whichhave to be imported. IUCN reports some 4,500development projects in the Sahel supported by180 different donors. Despite such impressivenumbers, though, successes are relatively few,scattered and difficult to generalise. In addition,war and internal unrest have caused major set-backs in development efforts in several countries.

Poverty and resource

degradation

The present crisis in large areas of sub-SaharanAfrica can be related to four mutually reinforcingtrends: explosive population growth, stagnatingagriculture, degrading natural resources and

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 18: 2001-049

14

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

increasing poverty and food insecurity.Prophylactic health care has greatly increasedinfant survival and prolonged life. However, so farthere is little adjustment of family size as childrenare considered as an asset in the struggle forsurvival and as a security during their parents’ oldage. Agricultural growth is still mainly based onarea expansion; intensification through the appli-cation of new technology, cash inputs, or adjust-ments in farming systems is low. The environmentalconsequences of population expansion thus tendto be a reduction of fallow periods and soil exhaus-tion, cultivation of shallow soils and steep slopes,followed by accelerating erosion, over-exploitationof forest and range areas around settlements, con-sequent denudation and erosion and worseningprospects for future agricultural growth.

The failure of agriculture to keep pace with popu-lation growth, in a situation in which the non-farmsector is only able to absorb a fraction of the addedlabour force, has resulted in decreased per capitaincome and in some areas chronic food insecurity.This in turn may imply less interest in family plan-ning measures. In large parts of the drylands thepopulation now faces a situation where the percapita access to resources in the form of land andlivestock is dwindling. The exploitation of moremarginal areas also implies that the risk of cropfailure is enhanced and food relief is required withincreasing frequency.

Livestock numbers

Livestock numbers are commonly reported togreatly exceed the carrying capacity of the range-lands. Under the pressure of such overgrazing,vegetation is expected to deteriorate in quality andquantity. As the population increases the averageherd size is diminishing, and pastoralists find itdifficult to maintain a living purely on livestockproduction. Some families take up crop productionif they have the opportunity, while others attemptto sell livestock in exchange for grain. The desirefor schooling and other social amenities reinforcesthe move towards agro-pastoralism. Althoughavailability of feed remains an overall constraint tothe number of livestock that can be carried, thecontinuous grazing of areas around settlementsmay result in degradation. The loss of mobilityappears to have made agro-pastoralism morevulnerable during a drought.

Water resources

Obviously, lack of water is also a limiting factor,which prevents the use of certain areas during thedry season. The amount of labour available formanual watering restricts livestock numberswhere water has to be drawn from dug wells.

Public intervention to relieve such restrictions arethe subject of much concern and a reputed sourceof excessive concentration of livestock and of asso-ciated degradation. Apart from the difficulties ofsustaining these interventions, do additional waterpoints spread destruction or increase production?By removing the labour constraint or opening-upareas for dry season grazing, livestock numberswill tend to increase. More serious degradationoften occurs around settlements where thedemand for fodder and fuelwood or charcoal maylead to denudation of vegetative coverage. Suchdepletion in ancient Ethiopia forced a relocation ofsettlements which could be avoided only after thedevelopment of individual plantations of fastgrowing eucalyptus species.

Agricultural expansion

Clearing of land for crop production can be expect-ed to result in higher biomass and productionvalue in the short-term and, with appropriateprecautions, it may often be possible to preventsoil degradation and gradual loss of productivity.But appropriate technology is frequently missingor has not found favour with farmers. There islittle traditional experience of maintenance of soilfertility where fallow periods have to be short-ened, or of soil conservation where more marginaland arid areas are brought under cultivation.Problems of erosion (wind and water), nutrientdepletion, acidity and deteriorating soil structure(compaction, crust formation, laterisation) may beencountered and require new approaches. Some ofthese problems are obvious even to the casualobserver, while others will require careful analysis.There is very little scientific work on what ishappening to the soil, the extent of damage, theimpact on yields, and the effectiveness of possibletreatments.

Some possible causes of the

current crisis

Several reasons for the failure to speed up agricul-tural production, reduce population growth andprevent land degradation may be noted:

� Lack of confidence in the political system dueto continued tribalism and unrest (incompletenation-building);

� Power frequently being abused to promotepersonal rather than national interests;

� A dual-value legal structure (traditional andWestern) which allows much room for manipu-lation;

� Limited accountability (both in the political

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 19: 2001-049

15

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND DESERTIFICATION IN AFRICAN DRYLANDS

system and in the civil service) and a conse-quent low level of performance, and leaks;

� Insufficient government attention to landdegradation, agricultural development andsubsistence farming;

� Deficient infrastructure, which slows adjust-ments and prevents specialisation;

� Insufficient adaptation of recommendations tothe large agro-ecological variability over timeand space, and deficiencies with respect toproven technology, extension, input distribu-tion, credit, etc. outside the more promisingsituation;

� Inefficiencies arising from institutional weak-nesses and particularly the over-emphasis ofthe public sector and centralised decisionmaking;

� Central ownership of natural resources inconjunction with the breakdown of traditionalleadership and consequent lack of security forindividuals using fallow land; open access torange and woodlands; inability to protect andmanage public forest reserves and parks;

� Inappropriate development strategies, includ-ing:

i) a prescriptive rather than interactiveapproach with insufficient understandingof the problems, priorities, resources situa-tions and strategies of individualproducers; insufficient understanding ofvillage dynamics (i.e. interactions amongfarmers and landless, cultivators andherders, men and women, wealthy anddestitute)

ii) dealing with population, agriculture (crop,livestock and forestry) and conservationissues in isolation; pursuing complexproblems with single factor treatments andprojects

iii) an uncoordinated approach in which gov-ernment strategy is frequently insufficientlyarticulated, donors pursue their own objec-tives and approaches, and there is littleinstitutional memory or learning fromexperience;

Drought is often blamed for increasing povertyand desertification. It is clear that countries in thewestern and central parts of the Sahel in particularhave over the last 20 years experienced anunprecedented series of below average rainfallyears, while the other countries have suffered fromshorter periods of severe drought. To what extentthese facts represent a worsening climatic trend or

a cyclical event and whether they have beeninfluenced by human abuse of the environmentwill require a much longer series of observations todetermine. What is important here is to establishthe effects on production, income and naturalresources. That drought can have an adverseimpact on production is not disputed, althoughthis label is often used to hide the failure of gov-ernment policy to create an incentive frameworkwhich allows production to keep pace with popu-lation growth. Such man-made ‘drought’ occurswith increasing frequency even in average rainfallyears.

Among the inhibiting factors, much attention hasalready been given to the importance of incentivesand efficient marketing, credit, and input distribu-tion. Instead, this paper concentrates on technologyissues and the need for a community-based inte-grated approach to the conservation and develop-ment of natural resources, which has beenperceived in many recent programmes and pro-jects (Tropical Forestry Action Plan, social forestry,watershed development, wildlife conservation,natural resource management). To what extentcould such a strategy accelerate adjustment andachieve or retain sustainability? How effectivewould it be in improving management of range-lands and forests; in improving the planning andthe adjustment of recommendations to the localagro-ecological situation, the resources and thepriorities of different segments of the community;in reducing the dependency on government andpromoting local initiatives and increasing self-reliance; in integrating development efforts, partic-ularly those concerning conservation and invest-ment in crop range and forest lands; and inimproving accountability in the use of local andcentral funds? What government and donorsupport would be needed and how could it beorganised? A few thoughts on non-farm opportu-nities and some dryland specific policy issues arepresented.

Development prospects

Technology

Dryland technologies

The success of any development effort will dependlargely on the availability of attractive interven-tions. Any attempt to take stock of available tech-nology will need to distinguish agro-ecologicalvariations and the associated constraints in theform of moisture stress, nutrient deficiencies, soilstructure and erosion, and weed, pest and diseaseproblems. It will also need to review the different

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 20: 2001-049

16

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

land management systems (e.g. pastoral, agro-pastoral, settled crop production, with or withoutlivestock), and the interrelation between differententerprises, seasonal labour shortages, and riskaversion strategies that characterise each system.Such stocktaking would need to assess not onlythe technical but also the financial and risk impli-cations of each intervention, and how it fits intothe existing farming system.

There has, of course, been a fair amount of successin different parts of the world, with an essentiallytop-down approach to generating and disseminat-ing technology. The emphasis has been on produc-tion and good results have emerged, particularlyin relatively homogenous high-potential areas.Results have been less spectacular in areas of largevariability, and where integrated productionsystems and risk management have a higherprofile. In the drylands there are few practiceswhich can be taken off the shelf and prescribed tofarmers. There are a number of successes of a scat-tered nature from which it is hard to generalise –by no means surprising under the diverse condi-tions of the drylands. Some practices will simplynot be applicable until a certain stage in the devel-opment process has been reached. For example,intensification may not become feasible until landis considered the constraining resource, i.e. thetransition from shifting cultivation has beencompleted. Lack of security of tenure may preventlong-term investments in land, and a farmer’swork situation may prohibit accepting an other-wise attractive proposition. Treatments that arerisk-reducing, low in labour demand at peakperiods, have short payoff periods, and do notmean foregoing much existing production wouldfind relatively ready acceptance.

Traditional approaches

Ecologists emphasise the resource-conservingnature of traditional farming systems, and theneed to marry those systems to advances in mod-ern technology and biology. The reputed sound-ness of traditional systems was no doubt correct atone time, but since then pastoralists have, forexample, been forced to take up crop cultivation ofwhich they have little experience, and they are alsono longer in full control even of their grazingareas. Migrants similarly may have little know-ledge of their new surroundings, shifting cultiva-tion is in a phase of rapid transition and marginallands are being brought into cultivation. It maytherefore, at this stage, be misleading to assumethat existing systems do not cause degradation. Inview of the diverse nature of dryland farming, asdiscussed in the previous paragraph, it will never-theless be extremely important to interact with

farmers on opportunities and constraints from theperspective of their present farming system ratherthan to prescribe particular treatments. If farmersare made aware of the options to overcomeconstraints and exploit opportunities, they canselect the treatment that best fits their situationand interests. This assumes that existing researchand development experience are used to compile a‘menu’ of promising treatments on which to basediscussions with local groups of farmers. Themenu approach being tried in some ongoingUNSO projects is an integral part of the IndiaIntegrated Watershed Development Projects. It isproposed for the preparation of a number ofresource management projects in West Africa andis being advocated in the Long-Term PerspectiveStudy (LTPS) for sub-Saharan Africa as well as inthe Asia region review of watershed developmentstrategies. This more interactive mode of extensionassumes staff can grasp the overall system of farm-ing and analyse the consequences of differentinterventions and relate it to farmers. The compila-tion of an initial menu must be supplemented by avigorous adaptive and operational research pro-gramme (systematic testing of the proposed treat-ments under varying conditions and studyingtheir impacts and constraints to adoption in thefield).

Gaps and priorities

The compilation of a treatment menu may alsohelp identify priority gaps in our knowledge andstimulate more interest in dryland problems: anarea of research which has so far been given littleemphasis. The following subjects appear todeserve particular attention:

� Drought resistant crops and varieties

The work of the Negev Institute in Israel illus-trates the scope for developing crops andgenetic material which perform well under aridand semi-arid conditions. Present breedingwork in sub-Saharan Africa does not emphasisethe moisture stress, short growing periods, lowsoil fertility status and intercropping that char-acterise the drylands. In spite of 40 years ofsorghum breeding it is, therefore, not surpris-ing that less than 5% of the area is planted withso-called ‘improved’ varieties.

� Land husbandry

This heading embraces a large spectrum ofactivities to enhance production through soiland moisture conservation and preserving soilstructure and fertility. It includes contour culti-vation, strip cropping, intercropping, rotationalpractices, vegetative barriers for soil andmoisture conservation, integration of crop,

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 21: 2001-049

17

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND DESERTIFICATION IN AFRICAN DRYLANDS

livestock and forestry, adjusting land use to soildepth and slope conditions, etc. Priorityresearch gaps include: the identification oflegume crops or fallows to facilitate the transi-tion from shifting cultivation; agro-forestry(present research mainly refers to more humidconditions); and fodder cultivation.

� Irrigation

In spite of past failures one can ill afford to passup opportunities for irrigation development.The central issue will be how the problemsexperienced in the past can be overcome. Thetype of crops and the utilisation of saline waterwill need attention.

A community-based integrated approach to

natural resource management

Disillusionment with the ability of central govern-ment to manage common property, assess localconditions and priorities, and design and imple-ment a successful conservation and developmentprogramme has led to growing appreciation of theneed to decentralise ownership of land. It alsohighlights the need to mobilise local initiatives andenergies through a more participatory and inte-grated way of working. Such a community-basedintegrated conservation and development strategyis being promoted in the most recent efforts in rela-tion to natural resources, but effective means ofimplementation are still being sought. The impor-tance of public participation was realised long ago,but progress in implementing it has been verylimited. Previous integrated rural developmentprojects are of particular relevance and it is time toreconsider this experience. The management ofnatural resources is frequently complex and callsfor simultaneous action through well coordinatedplanning and implementation. Some majorconcerns in implementing the strategy, which willbe reviewed in the following paragraphs, refer tothe degree of integration (the responsibilities thatshould be entrusted to the local community), inter-active planning, common property resources man-agement (CPRM), mobilisation of local resources,and organisation of community activities.

Degree of integration

The local community can obviously be encouragedto play an active role in the planning, executionand maintenance of investments: it can manageand help protect public forests and parks; it canbecome a conduit in the dissemination of newtechnology and provision of veterinary services;and it can organise itself to take part in marketing,input distribution, savings and credit. The range ofactivities depend on the analysis of local condi-

tions and priorities. To the extent external supportis needed to achieve these priorities they wouldneed to fall within the ‘menu’ of eligible activities,which could be defined more or less narrowlydepending on government objectives and the per-ceived need for integration. Eligible investmentscould range from soil and moisture conservation,afforestation, range improvement, horticulture,drainage and irrigation, livestock improvementand deer farming, water supply and roads, educa-tion, health, family planning, sanitation, etc. Abalance between local priorities and central objec-tives can also be maintained by prescribing acertain relation between different types of invest-ment – or by varying the proportion of centralgovernment funding – and the range of communityactivities could be allowed to grow in somesequential fashion as managerial competenceincreases. The degree of integrating a range ofactivities became a major concern in rural devel-opment projects because of the difficulties experi-enced in their coordination and management.There is, however, a difference between the execu-tion of a centrally-planned integrated project andwhat is now being contemplated, i.e. the supportof a set of locally-generated activities.

Interactive planning

With the objective of improved livelihoods, villagemembers would need to work with governmentstaff on an analysis of opportunities andconstraints, or the performance of existing landmanagement systems, the identification of areaswhich are particularly vulnerable to degradation,the scope for infusion of new technology andimproved management, and the need for invest-ment. The resulting plan would reflect local agro-ecological conditions, resources and priorities. Itwould embrace both individual and communityactions and could provide the basis for a writtenagreement between the government and the com-munity. The plan would need to provide not onlyan investment programme (selections from menusof eligible treatments) and a review of the arrange-ments for management of common land, but alsosuggest ways and means to mobilise the requiredresources and indicate what training would berequired for members to take charge of its execu-tion. The plan would need to be simple. The initialaim should not be to elaborate data collection andland use planning, but to focus on observationsand interaction in the field. A large number ofmodels for this kind of interactive planning (alsocalled ‘rapid rural appraisal’) exist. The main diffi-culties lie in the analytical capacity of staff andtheir ability to change from a prescriptive to aninteractive mode of operation. The introduction of

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 22: 2001-049

18

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

this kind of local planning would necessitate somechanges in sectoral planning. The main concern atthe national level would be with the overall strate-gy for agriculture and rural development, with thegeneration of a favourable policy and institutionalenvironment (marketing, pricing, credit, etc.) andwith central services, such as research and agricul-tural education.

The district planning will need to: take note ofphysical resources (natural as well as infrastruc-tural); identify opportunities and constraints;generate a menu of treatments to deal with theseconstraints and exploit these opportunities; identifypriority locations for treatment; review and adjustongoing projects; and generate new investmentproposals (for example, strengthening of the maininfrastructure and capacity to support villageinitiatives).

Common property resource management

The degradation of rangelands and woodlandswill be a major concern in village planning. Someareas may give a higher return in crop productionand, if yields can be sustained, there should be noobjection. There are, however, many exampleswhere expanding cultivation has resulted inserious erosion and loss of fertility. In any furtherprivatisation both land capability and methods ofcultivation of such marginal lands require seriousattention. The viability of private ranches forextensive livestock production is often question-able in view of the patchy rainfall, the scarcity ofwater and the need for seasonal movements. Theprivate ranch would need to be of a size to be hard-ly sustainable at present population densities. Themain opportunity for enhanced rangeland produc-tion centres on the prospect for improved manage-ment by local groups. A precondition for manage-ment is the exclusion of other users, which meansmoving away from open access. This assumes alegal right to exclude non-members of the groupand a capacity to enforce this right and protect theboundaries.

The group ranches in Kenya, for example, becamepopular as a way of protecting land from appro-priation by others. The control over land by thepastoral associations in West Africa derives itslegitimacy from the projects under which they areestablished, a control which may not be sustain-able unless legislation to confirm local ownershipis introduced. Having the right to protect bound-aries, though, does not necessarily imply a will-ingness to do so. In view of the uneven geograph-ical distribution of rainfall, the group ranches inKenya did not choose to enforce exclusion of othergroups, and consequently never introduced anyimproved management practices. Under such

circumstances a system of selling and buying graz-ing rights or fodder would need to be (but wasnot) introduced. Even if this hurdle is overcome,the outcome will still depend on the internal abili-ty of the local group to regulate stocking, arrangerotational grazing, rest areas when needed, planttrees for fuelwood and improve water availability.This task becomes more difficult when ownershipof livestock is unequally distributed and a fewpeople own most of the herd. If so, it will benecessary to contemplate some sort of grazing feeor tradable grazing quotas to compensate familieswith fewer livestock.

There are few examples of successful introductionof such improved management arrangements.Improved management of rangelands, especiallyin areas occupied by pastoralists, is still an elusivegoal which requires further experimentation andtesting. A partnership between government andsurrounding communities in the management ofdryland public forests and parks is being proposedto make protection a mutual interest. This willrequire: the definition of the area of influence ofeach community; a review of the fodder, fuelwood, income and employment needs of thecommunity; and the extent to which these can bemet through rehabilitation of the forest/park inquestion and agreements on cost and benefitsharing and on the community responsibilities forprotection and management.

Mobilisation of local resources

Local initiatives and a decreased dependency oncentral government will require a higher degree ofself-reliance and mobilisation of local resources.Communities are often said to be willing to taxthemselves if funds are used locally for prioritypurposes. Initially such resource mobilisation(which often would be in the form of labour) couldbe encouraged by central government matchingthe amount raised locally. This would have partic-ular merit in the case of conservation treatments,which frequently have benefits outside the com-munity in question. In the case of dryland forestryit may be possible to cover some of the govern-ment contribution by prescribing some form ofbenefit sharing. Private investments should usuallybe funded through credit, but in situations whichare subject to a high degree of variability andwhere the technology is insufficiently tested anddemonstrated, this will be difficult. The communi-ty may be empowered to raise various types ofuser fees (e.g. grazing fees) or impose penalties.Community investments may also be fundedthrough locally-generated savings and repaid withthe help of user fees.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 23: 2001-049

19

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND DESERTIFICATION IN AFRICAN DRYLANDS

Organisation of community activities

The village, being a relatively small, homogeneousand cohesive group, probably provides the bestorganisational basis for implementing the abovetasks. Nevertheless, the average village containspeople with very diverse interests, resources,competence and ambitions (such as farmers andlandless, herd-owners and people without live-stock, wealthy and destitute, educated and illiter-ate, politically-active and indifferent, men andwomen) and it may be necessary to form sub-groups and to guard against dominance by anyone group or person. There is need for betterunderstanding of village dynamics: how villagedecisions are taken; how minority views areprotected; what type of planning and resourcegeneration presently prevails or used to prevail,etc. The legal status of a village organisation tocarry out the above tasks must be considered(informal or registered under societies or coopera-tive acts). Its relation to the local administration(e.g. in Lesotho it constitutes the lowest level of theadministrative hierarchy) and to traditional lead-ers needs attention; some tasks (e.g. marketing andcredit) may need a separate organisational struc-ture. Rules will need to be established for: takingdecisions and for electing or appointing membersto take charge of various managerial and technicaltasks; for rewarding and training these members;for collecting, keeping and disbursing funds; andfor maintaining records. Arrangements for auditand for providing maximum public insight mustbe put in place. The promotion, guidance, andsupervision of a vast number of village organisa-tions and training of their elected or appointedofficials is a matter of social engineering for whichgovernment agencies have very little aptitude andprevious experience. This task is often entrusted toa suitable NGO, where available.

Non-farm opportunities

In many dryland areas a substantial part of familyincome comes from non-farm activities. Some ofthis constitutes remittances by family membersthat have left the area permanently or seasonally.But some has its origins in trading and crafts,which we need to understand better before we canidentify the limitations and opportunitiesinvolved. The investment priorities of localcommunities are frequently for improvements ininfrastructure (water supply and roads) and socialservices (education and health), which are of pro-found importance both for production and livingconditions and also may promote specialisation,mobility, and migration. The big problem in defin-ing the local responsibilities for such investmentswill be to match sectoral development priorities, in

terms of the use of national resources, with localinitiatives and funds, and to ensure the sustain-ability of whatever facilities are created.Arrangements for cost recovery will be needed toensure maintenance and operation (e.g. watersupply), but even so the task may be complicatedby the lack of skills and imported spare parts.Recent studies point to opportunities for localcommunities to engage in wildlife managementand tourism. Establishment of such activitieswould face many of the same problems encoun-tered when establishing control over rangelandmanagement areas for livestock production, butwould also have to deal with poaching and themigration of wildlife.

Some specific dryland policy issues

Price policy can have a substantial impact on theuse of natural resources, but it is hard to generaliseabout these effects. A general price increase (struc-tural adjustment) will tend to increase the demandfor basic factors of production such as land, labourand capital, the supply of which are relativelyfixed in the short-term. Although both future andpresent benefits are enhanced by such a generalincrease, it may result in land ‘mining’ if thepermanency of the change is questioned or iffuture returns are heavily discounted by farmers.Open access to rangelands may encourage over-exploitation. A border price policy may similarlyresult in undesirable resource allocation if inputsare not valued at world market prices. Large-scalemechanised farming may develop as a result, andencroach onto fragile rangelands. A general priceincrease will also affect export crops more thanfood crops since the impact will be related to thedegree of market orientation. The consequentchange in the production mix may be good or badfrom an environmental point of view, dependingon the type of export crops that are encouraged. Ifthe production of tree crops, such as tea or coffee,or nitrogen-fixing crops, such as groundnut, isexpanded, this may contribute to the preservationof natural resources. The government may wish toconsider the pros and cons of deviating fromborder pricing principles to promote crops with apositive impact on the environment by an increasein their relative price. If the price of fuelwood isincreased in relation to competing products, thiswill lower demand and encourage planting.Changing factor prices may similarly have envi-ronmental effects. Promoting cost-recovery forwater may diminish overgrazing in the vicinity ofboreholes.

One of the big problems in pastoral livestock pro-duction is the distress sales in times of drought,which result in sharply depressed prices and

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 24: 2001-049

20

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

deteriorating terms of trade with other food items.It may be possible to stabilise prices in localisedevents, but no way has been found to deal withcountrywide stress. The only way to limit distresssales will be through the promotion of a morecommercial type of pastoralism under which thebreeding herd is restricted to what can besustained under ‘normal’ conditions, and market-ing of non-breeding stock is a continuous process.This will require both incentives (e.g. availabilityof consumer goods) and efficient marketingarrangements, as well as alternative and attractivemeans of keeping wealth (banking) or, in otherwords, assets which can be utilised to surviveduring emergencies and subsequently to rebuildthe breeding herd.

Apart from the devolution of ownership of com-mon land to local groups advocated earlier, thereare other land tenure constraints. If user rights areacquired simply by taking-up crop cultivation,there is an incentive to exhaust the soil and moveon. This is particularly the case when the fallow inshifting cultivation reverts to cultivated legumefallow or conservation structures. Rules need to beintroduced to protect the rights of farmers who areprepared to undertake such investment. The exis-tence of such rules would be a powerful conserva-tion incentive.

International collaboration in

dryland management

The suggestions highlighted above regarding theformulation of a strategy for drylands develop-ment in Africa should not be interpreted as aprescription. Each government must obviouslyformulate its own strategies in the best interest ofits drylands people. In the absence of clearly artic-ulated government strategies, however, ongoingprojects now tend to reflect a series of donorperceptions and resulting efforts are oftenconfused and contradictory, ineffective anddiscontinuous, detracting from, rather thanenhancing, the prospects of building a long-termdevelopment capacity. A joint task force of bothAfrican and international institutions concernedwith drylands development in Africa may beneeded. It would review the problems of povertyand drylands resources degradation and clearlyidentify development prospects and generatetreatment menus. Its aim would be to establishpriorities and pursue the institutional and organi-sational implications of community-based inte-grated development and sustainable naturalresources management strategies. Following sucha review, international development partnerswould need to co-finance various community

development approaches within the strategy toachieve harmonised and more effective develop-ment.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is such apartner currently giving support to developingcountries for sustainable environmental manage-ment. As a relative newcomer within the interna-tional development community, the GEF is proba-bly best placed to assist in the coordination of suchan effort with its governmental and non-govern-mental partners. The GEF currently providesgrants of approximately USD 250 million andleverages a further USD 250 million in support ofdryland management and land degradationcontrol activities in African drylands. The GEFrecently announced a new African land and waterinitiative to support integrated land and watermanagement at the community level. This initia-tive will be one of the beneficiaries of the USD 500million earmarked by GEF for land and watermanagement activities in the five years beginningin 2000. Through this effort, the GEF could act ascatalyst to bring together the various actors toelaborate the strategies and approaches needed tomake a difference on the ground.

The short-term nature of development interven-tions in drylands so far constitutes another majorconstraint in achieving the desired developmentobjectives. Drylands development should be along-term learning process in which failure byitself does not constitute a sufficient reason fordiscontinuing the efforts, as long as something isbeing learned from the experience. A partnershipwill need to be forged to pursue dryland develop-ment while testing the various approaches under-lying strategy through careful monitoring of theimpacts on production, incomes and resourcesdegradation as well as institutional performanceand distribution of benefits.

A last but difficult question concerns the relativepriority of investments in Africa’s marginal dry-lands. There is, on the one hand, a legitimateconcern about the human suffering of the peopleliving in these areas and the continued resourcedegradation. On the other hand is a catalogue ofpossible and relatively successful approaches andtechnologies to come to terms with these prob-lems. Development partners in the area of drylandmanagement must continually seek the appropri-ate balance that will bring about the desired resultswithin reasonable time limits. There will, however,be a continuing need for short-term relief in peri-ods of adverse weather conditions, which couldalso be used for increasing productive capacity.Some further degradation of natural resourcesmay be unavoidable in the short-term, but a

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 25: 2001-049

21

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND DESERTIFICATION IN AFRICAN DRYLANDS

consistent application of best practices and lessonslearned from previous experiences should be ableto reverse the downward trends and introducesustainable development and livelihoods.

References

Lusigi W.J., Nekby B.A. 1991. Dryland manage-ment in Africa: the search for sustainable devel-

opment options. AFTEN working paper.Washington DC: World Bank.

Trupp L.A., Megateli N. 1999. Critical links: foodsecurity and the environment in the GreaterHorn of Africa. WRI Project Report.Washington DC: WRI.

World Bank. 1990. Sub-Saharan Africa, from crisisto sustainable growth (long term perspectivestudy). Washington DC: World Bank.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 26: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability22

Abstract

Jordan’s geographical location and climatologicaland geological formations supports biodiversity ofglobal importance, with species related to differentbiota present within a relatively small area. Agro-biodiversity forms a significant component ofJordan’s biodiversity. It has been accumulatedduring long periods of interaction between culturaland management systems and natural ecosystemsand species. At the same time, Jordan suffers fromthe combined pressures of human populationgrowth, excessive resource demands, exoticspecies introduction and atmospheric pollution,which have led to significant losses of biodiversity.Further loss of habitat must be stopped and asubstantial fraction restored. This will requirestudy of the causes of agro-biodiversity degrada-tion, alternative land uses, raising awareness of theimportance of agro-biodiversity, training and in-situ demonstration of the sustainable use andconservation of biodiversity. Measures at thenational and international level are proposed tosupport this.

Introduction

The Near East is an area of enormous diversity ofimportant food crops and pasture species. It is oneof the few nuclear centres where numerous species(notably wheat, barley, lentil, pea and vetch) oftemperate-zone agriculture originated 10,000 yearsago, and where wild relatives and landraces ofenormous genetic diversity are still found. Manyfruit trees, such as almond, olive and pistachio,also originated from this region and have domi-nated its traditional agricultural systems; they arepresent as a diverse range of wild relatives andlocal varieties. Cultivated olive, for example, existsas fifty different clones in the region, whilealmond, one of the most widely cultivated fruittrees in the Mediterranean, exist as more than

fifteen local clones with distinct variations in fruitsize, inflorescence, hairiness and flower colour.

Jordan comprises a sizeable part of the Near East.The global importance of Jordan’s biodiversity liesin its geographical location and climatological andgeological formations. The country has three maintopographical features: the Jordan Rift Valley,including the Dead Sea Basin, the Highlands,which are covered mainly by forests, and theEastern Desert (Badia). These unique geographicalfeatures provide a tremendous diversity of habi-tats, including some of the most peculiar distribu-tion of species, communities and coral reefs. It islocated at the crossroads of three continents andhas been the bridge for an extensive exchange ofcultural and natural resources. Nestled, so tospeak, between Europe, Asia and Africa, Jordanstraddles four distinct biogeographical zones:Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian, Afro-Subtropicaland Saharo-Arabian.

As the global conservation community becomesincreasingly concerned with dryland biodiversityand the consequence of its conservation andmanagement, Jordan is the only country that hasmaintained and continued to maintain speciesrelated to different biota in a small, semi-land-locked country.

Agro-biodiversity components

Biodiversity is defined as the variability of livingorganisms and ecological complexes in which theyoccur, the number of different items and their rela-tive frequency. It encompasses different ecosys-tems, species, genes and their abundance. Theimportance of conserving and making sustainableuse of biodiversity is stressed at international,regional and national levels. Agro-biodiversity canbe defined as biodiversity in an agriculturalcontext, and can be described as the variety andvariability of living organisms (of animals, plantsand micro-organisms) that are important to food

Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland

Agro-biodiversity in Jordan – Current Status

Mohammad AjlouniNational Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer, Baqa, Jordan

Page 27: 2001-049

23

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF DRYLAND AGRO-BIODIVERSITY IN JORDAN – CURRENT STATUS

and agriculture in the broad sense and are associ-ated with cultivating crops and rearing animalsand the ecological complexes of which they form apart. It is not just a subset of biodiversity, but anextension of it because it embraces units (such ascultivars, pure lines and strains) and habitats thatare not normally considered or even accepted asproper parts of biological diversity. In other words,agro-biodiversity includes all those species and thecrop varieties, animal breeds and races, and micro-organism strains derived from them, that are useddirectly or indirectly for food and agriculture, bothas human nutrition and as feed (including grazing)for domesticated and semi-domesticated animals,and the range of environments in which agricul-ture is practised. It also includes habitats andspecies outside farming systems that benefitagriculture and enhance ecosystem functions.

Agro-biodiversity can be considered at three mainlevels: those of ecological diversity, organismaldiversity and genetic diversity, including thehuman interaction with all these levels. It is theresult of the deliberate interaction betweenhumans and natural ecosystems and the speciesthat they contain, which often leads to major mod-ifications or transformations. Agro-ecosystems,therefore, are the product of not just the physicalelements of the environment and biologicalresources, but vary according to the cultural andmanagement systems to which they are subjected.Agro-biodiversity thus includes a series of social,cultural, ethical and spiritual variables that aredetermined by local farmers at the local communitylevel. These factors are often overlooked, but mustbe taken into account as part of the process ofselection and introduction of new or underdevel-oped crops.

Reasons for biodiversity loss

There is virtually no place on earth where bio-diversity is not under siege from the combinedpressure of human growth, excessive resourcedemands, exotic species introduction and atmos-pheric pollutants. Jordan is affected by thesefactors, too.

Combined pressure of human population growth

Jordan is a small country and 90% of its landarea consists of desert. The total population ofJordan is approximately 4.5 million and is esti-mated to be growing at an annual rate of 3.4% –one of the highest growth rates in the region.Most people in Jordan live in the highlandregion, which also contains most of the agro-

biodiversity. Due to the pressure of populationgrowth, urban areas have expanded at theexpense of the forest and rangeland areas. Thefelling of trees and ploughing land for the culti-vation of new and highly productive varietiescause most of the loss and degradation of theagro-biodiversity in the country.

Excessive resource demands

As the population in Jordan has grown rapidly,plant cover in the country has been under increas-ing pressure from the need to produce more foodand animal feed. The vegetation has been subjectedto the following activities:

i) Illegal felling of trees to be used in furnituremanufacturing or as fuel during the winter inurban areas.

ii) Overgrazing: sheep and goats have been rearedin the area for generations and uncontrolledgrazing has destroyed the plant cover in manyareas. In some areas, forest regeneration isbeing prevented because tree seedlings areeaten by livestock.

iii) Illegal collection of medicinal and ornamentalplants: many plant species of medicinal andornamental use are collected every year with-out any control.

Introduction of exotic species

This is considered to be the most important factorbehind the loss of agro-biodiversity. Many plantspecies have been introduced to the country. Thesehighly productive genotypes are replacing thelandraces, which are adapted to local environmen-tal conditions and can survive under the adverseconditions of drought. This has led to soil erosion,especially during the last few years in which thedry seasons have been very long.

Natural disasters and atmospheric pollution

Natural disasters and pollution have causedsignificant destruction to the plant cover in Jordan.It is estimated that each year fires destroy about30,000 trees and about 500–1,000 dunums (about50–100 hectares) of rangeland. The climate ischanging; lower rainfall and drought are causingdesertification and a decrease in plant cover. Inaddition, industry and urbanisation are sources ofchemical and biological pollution.

Examination of these processes reveals that themagnitude of the problem is overwhelming.Therefore, the question that has to be raised is,

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 28: 2001-049

24

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

‘How can we stop this loss of biodiversity?’ Toanswer this question, we have to take into consid-eration the extinctions caused by habitat destruc-tion over the centuries. We should first stop habi-tat loss immediately and try to restore a substantialfraction of the habitat that has already been lost,bearing in mind the growing population, the con-sequent increase in the consumption of resources,and the social costs of these practices. Under thesecircumstances, our plans for the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity should meet thesocial and economic needs of society.

Action to be taken for the

conservation and sustainable

use of Jordan’s biodiversity

� Study the causes of agro-biodiversity degradation

Many plant species in Jordan are under a directthreat of extinction and some have alreadybecome extinct during the last century. Plantdiversity in Jordan has declined dramatically asa result. Many reasons have been identified forthis loss of plant species, but they do not affectall ecosystems and their importance differsfrom one ecosystem to another. Therefore, wehave to study the causes of agro-biodiversitydegradation in each ecosystem and determinetheir effects in order to find suitable ways ofstopping these factors and rehabilitating theecological system. The socio-economic situa-tion influencing the utilisation of these plantspecies has to be studied, too.

� Find alternative uses for land that ensure the con-servation and sustainability of the ecosystem

To ensure the conservation and sustainable useof the agro-biodiversity of ecosystems, the landuses and the cultural systems currently used byfarmers should be studied and evaluated.Appropriate land uses should be adopted andspread to other areas with similar eco-geographical characteristics, and damagingpractices corrected.

� Raise national awareness of the importance ofagro-biodiversity conservation and sustainableuse at all levels

Appropriate information should be preparedand presented to policy makers, technical staff,relevant institutions and local users of agricul-tural biodiversity, including producers and

consumers. Opportunities for relevant workshould be identified.

� Provide training on in situ and on-farmconservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity at various levels, includingindividual farmer and farming communities

Jordan, like many developing countries, lacksthe expertise needed to deal with these issues,especially now that it faces new obligationsunder international agreements, such as theConvention on Biological Diversity. Therefore,any new programme or project has to bescreened to ensure that first priority is given tobuilding local expertise and capacity in areassuch as resource management, technologytransfer, biological surveys, data management,environmental policy research, legal expertise,conservation biology, participatory methodsand biotechnology.

� Review and reform the existing national policiesand legislation in order to promote the conserva-tion and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity;reform land tenure arrangements to promote theuse of land for profitable and sustainable produc-tion; and introduce new conservation measures

Existing policies and legislation should berevised. These policies have to be evaluatedand good practices should be adopted by farm-ers and transferred to other areas.

Measures to be undertaken at

the national and international

levels to support these plans

At the national level

� Determination of the macro-policies that dealwith issues such as land ownership, thecreation of conservation areas, and access toand control of biological resources.

� Recognition of intellectual property rights andthe creation of incentives or deterrents toresource use in the public domain.

� Proper guidance for conducting and harmonis-ing assessments of resources and of relevantsectoral and cross-sectoral capacities andpriorities.

� Identification and enhancement of relevantlegal instruments and mechanisms.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 29: 2001-049

25

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF DRYLAND AGRO-BIODIVERSITY IN JORDAN – CURRENT STATUS

� Identification of areas of focus to determinepriorities for programmes and action plans.

� Encourage the different sectors to meet andagree on the need to collaborate and establishmechanisms to ensure that agricultural bio-diversity is properly incorporated into nationalinstruments.

� Make fundamental changes in society to slowthe loss of biodiversity.

At international level

� Stress the importance of creating a frameworkfor:

i) regulation of access to and control of biolog-ical resources;

ii) protection of intellectual property rights;

iii) environmental protection;

iv) commercial laws that promotes the develop-ment, conservation, and fair and equitablesharing of benefits derived from the sustain-able use of biological/genetic resources.

� Coordinate the identification, assessment anddevelopment of strategies and programmesbetween countries.

� Develop the agreed criteria and indicators tostrengthen cooperation on the conservation andsustainable use of agro-biodiversity.

� Take various initiatives through consultationand information exchange to develop a jointwork programme.

� Invite international organisations, such as theWorld Bank, UNEP, etc., to contribute to theconservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity.

� Encourage international cooperation and coor-dination among funding agencies to ensureadequate resourcing for the development andimplementation of the multi-year actionprogramme on agricultural biological diversity,and the mechanisms needed for its develop-ment.

� Integrate the concern for biodiversity conserva-tion with development needs.

ReferencesSittenfeld A., Artuso A. 1995. A framework for

biodiversity prospecting: the INBio experience.The Arid Lands Newsletter 37.

General Corporation for EnvironmentalProtection. 1998. Jordan country study onbiological diversity.

Mulvany P. 1997. ITDG technical workshop onfarming systems approaches for the sustainableuse and conservation of agricultural biodiversityand agro-ecosystems. FAO.

Reid W.V. 1995. Reversing the loss of biodiversity:an overview of international measures. The AridLands Newsletter 37.

World Resources Institute. 1992–1993. Worldresources: root causes of biodiversity loss. OxfordUniversity Press.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 30: 2001-049

26

Abstract

About 70% of Australia is composed of semi-aridor arid landscapes, commonly termed drylands,supporting a range of savannah and grasslands,Eucalyptus and Acacia woodland and shrublands.The predominant land use is grazing. Populationdensities are low, but since Europeans settled theseareas 150 years ago overgrazing, weed invasion,predation by introduced species and altered fireregimes have had a significant impact, causingdegradation and species loss. However, much ofthe biodiversity in the Australian rangelands stillremains. Its future survival, though, will requireadaptive management regimes that strike abalance between agricultural production and bio-diversity conservation. This should be based onmonitoring of appropriate species as surrogates fordetecting changes in biodiversity as a whole inrelation to changes in land use.

Introduction

We have heard about the impacts of human landuse in the drylands of Africa (Lusigi 2001) andJordan (Ajlouni 2001). I would like to comparetheir situations with that of the rangelands ofAustralia – a country with a first world economyand a low population density in its rangelands.And yet this low human population has had asignificant impact on the biodiversity of the range-lands over the last 150 years since Europeans firstsettled the heartland of the Australian continent.This paper summarises the major impacts ofEuropean land uses on the rangelands andsuggests ways of mitigating further loss of bio-diversity.

The rangelands

About 70% of Australia is composed of semi-aridor arid landscapes, commonly termed rangelands.

Rangelands generally receive less than 400 mmannual rainfall (with the exception of the tropicalsavannah that receives higher rainfall fromDecember to May), are prone to regular droughtand are predominately used for grazing. Most ofthe rangelands are composed of ancient, low fertil-ity soil that does not support intensive agriculture.

About 50 of the 80 broad climate/substrate bio-regions defined for Australia in Thackway andCresswell (1995) occur in the rangeland zone.These bioregions in turn contain a large array ofecological communities consisting of manythousands of plant and animal species. The plantcommunities have been coarsely mapped on acontinental scale by Carnahan (1990) and atregional scales in many papers and reports.

The main vegetation types include tropical savan-nah, Eucalyptus woodlands in the north, hummockgrasslands on sandplains in the more arid zones,mallee (multi-stemmed) eucalypts with hummockgrass and shrubs in the south and centre, a widerange of Acacia shrublands and woodlandsthroughout, heath and sclerophyllous shrublandson sandplains in the south, Callitris (native cypresspine) woodlands, Eucalyptus woodlands withtussock grass ground covers in the east and south,halophytic (chenopod) shrublands across thesouth, open grassy and herbaceous rangelands onrocky areas and on sandplains, riparian Eucalyptuswoodlands and forests, and a range of ephemeralwetlands on rivers, lakes and floodplains.

Land use

Grazing by cattle (all bioregions) and sheep(southern half of the continent) has been andremains the main use of the rangelands. Smallareas are mined for minerals and ore, and about7% of the rangeland zone is protected in conserva-tion reserves. Some of these reserves are focalpoints for tourism, including the World Heritagelisted Uluru National Park in central Australia and

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Australian Rangelands: Managing for production

and biodiversity

John BensonRoyal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, Australia

Page 31: 2001-049

27

AUSTRALIAN RANGELANDS: MANAGING FOR PRODUCTION AND BIODIVERSITY

Kakadu National Park in northern Australia.Cropping occurs on a small scale and where it doesoccur it often relies on irrigation from ground-water or intermittent river flows. The main crop-ping zone of Australia adjoins the rangeland zoneto the south-east, south and south-west in moretemperate and moister climates.

Causes of degradation and

species loss

Vegetation clearance

The most obvious and preventable cause of degra-dation is clearing of native vegetation. This isoccurring in the Eucalyptus woodlands and Acaciashrublands on the eastern edge of the rangelandzone – mainly in the States of Queensland andNew South Wales. Currently, about 500,000hectares are cleared annually in Australia. About400,000 hectares of this is in the State of

Queensland. About one third of this clearing is inthe rangeland zone – mainly in westernQueensland, but also around Darwin in theNorthern Territory and western New South Wales.Marginal crop growing areas are being clearedusing groundwater for irrigation, a practice whichis unsustainable because the groundwater isrunning out and the soils are often highly suscep-tible to erosion and lacking in fertility.

It is rather disappointing that a first world nationwith a well-educated population and strong envi-ronmental laws allows so much land clearance. Itdoes not set a good example to developing nations,including Australia’s northern neighbourIndonesia, which is destroying 1.7 million hectaresof tropical rainforest annually through logging,clearing and burning (Barber 2000).

Land clearing leads to species extinction throughthe direct destruction of populations and the habi-tats of plants and animals. It fragments remainingpopulations and habitats, changes predationpatterns, increases invasion by exotic species and

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Rangeland Area (ABARE)

IBRA Regions

1000 0 1000 2000 kilometres

Alice Springs

Perth

Darwin

Townsville

Brisbane

SydneyCanberra

Melbourne

Adelaide

IBRA Regions and Rangeland Area of Australia

Page 32: 2001-049

28

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

affects ecological processes such as water andnutrient cycles. In regions with saline water tables,which cover much of Australia, clearing the vege-tation leads to salinisation of the land. This is amassive problem on the margins of the rangelandsin Australia where crops are grown. It affects bothland and rivers. Models indicate that up to fivemillion hectares of agricultural land in the MurrayDarling Basin in eastern Australia will suffer fromsalinity in the next 50 years (Murray-Darling BasinMinisterial Council 1999) and up to one third ofthe Western Australian wheat belt may be similarlyaffected.

Impacts of overgrazing

Domestic stock and introduced species, such as therabbit and goat, have grazed most of the range-lands of inland Australia over the last 100 years. Aconsiderable body of research and monitoring ofthe impacts of stocking rates on soil erosion andvegetation (summarised in Landsberg et al. 1997)gives us a reasonable understanding of grazingimpacts. A substantial literature on this subject hasbeen published in journals such as the AustralianRangelands Journal.

Recent research on the impacts of grazing andtrampling within the vicinity of artesian waterbores on the flora and fauna shows that there is acorrelation of species loss and loss of vegetationstructure with proximity to the bores (Landsberg etal. 1999a, Landsberg et al. 1999b). In areas that havebeen heavily grazed many plant species have notrecruited seedlings to adult plants; the seedlingswere grazed before they could establish. This hasresulted in ageing cohorts of palatable plantspecies to a point where their eventual senescenceand death will lead to significant changes in thevegetation. In some regions, non-palatable, woodynative species are increasing in abundance andacting like weeds.

Impacts of introduced species

A major cause of loss of fauna in Australian range-lands has been the introduction of predators suchas fox and cat (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989,Dickman 1996). A large proportion of medium-sized native mammal species have disappearedover most of their original distribution or becomeextinct. Some species survive in pockets on themainland, where baiting keeps predators at bay.Other species only survive on oceanic islandswhere foxes and cats are absent. Introduced herbi-vores such as goats, donkeys, horses and camelshave adversely affected native flora and fauna

through increased grazing pressure, especiallywhen their grazing is combined with grazing bydomestic stock.

Altered fire regimes

Although much of the Australian flora was adaptedto drought and fire well before Aborigines arrivedmore than 40,000 years ago (Gill 1981), Aboriginalfire regimes would have impacted on the biota.However, the degree of these impacts remainsunclear and is currently vigorously debated(Flannery 1994, Kohen 1996, Benson and Redpath1997, Bowman 1998). Cessation of Aboriginal fireregimes may have led to decline in some speciesabundance. However, there are cases where firefrequency may have increased after Europeansettlement, leading to localised species extinction.

Mitigating biodiversity decline

Although a number of species have become extinctin the Australian rangelands since European settle-ment, a large number of species survive, and manyhabitats are in reasonable condition. Certainly therangelands are in better condition than the exten-sively cleared cropping and intensive pastoralzone of Australia. Ensuring sustainable grazingregimes while protecting biodiversity will requirethe following:

� Cease clearing native vegetation

� Establish a comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative (CAR) reserve system

� Control of feral animals, herbivores and preda-tors

� Control of weeds where they are a problem

� Destocking and removal of artificial wateringpoints from some areas

� Apply stocking rates that do not degrade theland, including during droughts

� Encourage and introduce alternative land uses,including ecotourism

� Monitor biodiversity over decades and applyadaptive management

It is likely that more farmers will look to alterna-tive income from their rangeland properties, par-ticularly if the prices of wool and meat continuetheir downward trend. It will be quite possible forAustralian governments to produce a CAR reservesystem over the rangelands because the land isrelatively cheap to purchase. However, this will

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 33: 2001-049

29

AUSTRALIAN RANGELANDS: MANAGING FOR PRODUCTION AND BIODIVERSITY

only account for about 10–15% of the area and, inany case, such damage as rabbit and goat grazing,weed invasion and predation of native animals bycats and foxes does not stop at reserve boundaries.

Increased appreciation of wildlife and ecotourismare changing the way rangeland properties can bevalued and managed. For example, over the lastthree years the non-governmental conservationorganisation Birds Australia purchased two range-land properties with a history of light grazing thatcontain populations of highly threatened birds,such as the Black-eared Minor and the NightParrot. These huge properties (the one in centralAustralia is 250,000 hectares) are to be destockedand managed for conservation using volunteermanagers. Interestingly, their high market valuewas determined by wildlife attributes, not theirpotential for pastoral production.

Monitoring biodiversity

The future survival of biodiversity in this vastarray of Australian rangelands will require adap-tive management based on the results of monitor-ing various management regimes. The AustralianGovernment is currently undertaking a land andwater audit of Australia (see web sitewww.nlwra.gov.au). Audit themes include: surfaceand groundwater, dryland salinity, vegetationcover, condition and use, agricultural productivityand sustainability, the capacity of and opportunityfor farmers and other resource managers to imple-ment change, and rangeland monitoring. TheTropical Savannahs Cooperative Research Centre(TSCRC), based in Darwin, has been commis-sioned to prepare a framework for monitoring bio-diversity in Australian rangelands (TSCRC 2000).

In order to produce this framework the TSCRC hascompiled a series of papers on the Australianrangelands and monitoring techniques. Theseinclude a review of the changes in status andthreatening processes across the bioregions of therangelands, a review of the Australian pastoralmonitoring programmes and their potential forcontributing to biodiversity monitoring, and areview of the Australian and world literature onmonitoring biodiversity. These show, in short, thatfew nations have undertaken long-term wide-ranging biological monitoring programmes (twoprogrammes operate in the United States).

TSCRC (2000) concluded that to answer questionsregarding biological diversity the following actionmust be taken:

� Use elements of the existing pastoral monitor-ing programmes

� Increase application of remote sensing andimprove linkage to both measures oflandscape function and direct monitoring ofbiodiversity

� Undertake wildlife surveys to repeat past‘landmark’ surveys and validate surrogates orindicators

� Maintain regular monitoring of populations ofa range of selected species, emphasising thosemost sensitive to prevailing adverse processesor otherwise identified as good indicatorspecies

� Link monitoring programmes for parks andreserves to their equivalents on lands used forprimary production

When the protection of biodiversity is the primaryreason for monitoring, species population changeis generally the main aspect studied. The challengeis to select appropriate species that act as surro-gates for detecting changes in biodiversity as awhole in relation to changes in land use.

After reviewing the literature and the cost of estab-lishing monitoring programmes, it was decided tobuild on the data collated from the existing 8000pastoral monitoring plots that had been regularlymonitored by various agencies over the last fewdecades (for example, Green et al. 1994). Becausethese plots are unevenly distributed across theecosystems in the rangelands it was recommendedthat extra plots be established in under-sampledecosystems. The indicators for assessing the statusof biological diversity in rangelands are:

� Progress toward a comprehensive, adequateand representative (CAR) reserve system

� Extent of clearance of woody vegetation

� Landscape function metrics

� Native perennial ground cover (includinggrasses and shrubs palatable to stock)

� Exotic plant species cover

� Status of fire-sensitive plant species andcommunities

� Status of grazing-sensitive plant species,including ageing perennials (‘living dead’)

� Status of susceptible mammal species

� Status of susceptible bird species

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 34: 2001-049

30

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

Conclusions

While there have been significant impacts on therangeland biota of Australia due to clearing, graz-ing, weed invasion and predation by feral animals,much of the pre-European biodiversity remains.The challenge for the future is to accommodatesustainable pastoral production without losingmore species. This will require setting stockingrates that do not lead to overgrazing and soilerosion, particularly during drought. Some keyareas should be destocked and artificial waterpoints removed. Land clearing should cease inwhat are marginal lands for cropping. It will bepossible to establish a comprehensive reservesystem to sample the variety of rangelandsecosystems but this will not necessarily preventspecies loss because some threatening processesextend onto reserves. A comprehensive, long-termmonitoring programme of selected species andenvironmental indices will allow assessments to bemade of the impact of land use on biodiversity. Theresults of monitoring should drive adaptive man-agement so that a balance can be struck betweenagricultural production and biodiversity conserva-tion.

ReferencesAjlouni M. 2001. Dryland agro-biodiversity

project, Jordan. In: Proceedings of IUCNSecond World Conservation Congress, Amman,Jordan; 2000. Interactive Session 8: Sowing theseeds of sustainability: agriculture, biodiversity,economy and society. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN.

Barber C.V. 2000. Flashpoint: Forest management,civil conflict, and environmental security inIndonesia. Draft paper prepared for IUCN-CEESP Environment and Security Task Force.

Benson J.S., Redpath P.A. 1997. The nature of pre-European native vegetation in south-easternAustralia: a critique of Ryan D.G., Ryan J.R. andStarr B.J. (1995) The Australian Landscape –Observations of Explorers and Early Settlers.Cunninghamia 5(2): 285–328.

Bowman D.M.J.S. 1998. The impact of Aboriginallandscape burning on the Australian biota.Tansley Review No. 101. New Phytologist 140:385–410.

Burbidge A.A., McKenzie N.L. 1989. Patterns inthe modern decline of Western Australia’svertebrate fauna: causes and conservationimplications. Biological Conservation 50: 143–198.

Carnahan J.A. 1990. Australia: natural vegetation.In: Atlas of Australian resources, volume 6Vegetation. Canberra: AUSLIG.

Dickman C.R. 1996. Overview of the impacts offeral cats on Australian native fauna. Canberra:Australian Nature Conservation Agency.

Flannery T. 1994. The future eaters. Melbourne:Reed Books.

Gill M.A. 1981. Adaptive responses of Australianvascular plant species to fire. In: Gill M.A.,Groves R.H., Noble, I.R., editors. Fire in theAustralian biota. Canberra: Australian Academyof Science.

Green D., Hart D., Prior J. 1994. Rangeland studysite manual: site selection and field measure-ment procedures. Condobolin, Australia: NewSouth Wales Department of Land and WaterConservation.

Kohen J.L. 1996. Aboriginal use of fire in south-eastern Australia. Proceedings of the LinneanSociety of New South Wales 116:19–26.

Landsberg J., James C.D., Morton S. R., Hobbs T.J.,Stol J., Drew A., Tongway H. 1999a. The Effectsof Artificial Sources of Water on Rangeland.

Landsberg J., Lavorel S., Stol J. 1999b. Grazingresponse groups among understorey plants inarid rangelands. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 683–696.

Landsberg J., James C.D., Morton S.R. 1997.Assessing the effects of grazing on biodiversityin Australia’s rangelands. Aust. Biol. 10:153–162.

Lusigi W. 2001. Desertification and sustainabledevelopment in African drylands. In:Proceedings of IUCN Second WorldConservation Congress, Amman, Jordan; 2000.Interactive Session 8: Sowing the seeds of sus-tainability: agriculture, biodiversity, economyand society. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. 1999.The Salinity Audit: a 100 year perspective.Canberra: Murray-Darling Ministerial Council.

Thackway R., Cresswell I.D. 1995. An interimbiogeographic regionalisation for Australia: aframework for establishing the national systemof reserves. Canberra: Australian NatureConservation Agency.

Tropical Savannas Cooperative Research Centre.2000. An adaptive framework for monitoringbiodiversity in rangelands. Australian Landand Water Audit. Canberra: CommonwealthGovernment.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 35: 2001-049

31

Maintaining biodiversity

� “Diversity within arid agriculture systems isvital. Drought stress causes the loss of varieties.Rangeland diversity is also vital for sustainableproduction. But many factors are causing lossof biodiversity.”

� “Bush fires and greenhouse gases are importantfactors to consider. Drylands apparently resistchange better than in humid areas. More atten-tion should be given to research in this field.”

� “Institutions need to assess how to restore andprotect diversity.”

“Institutions are not always weak, but ratherthe resources are lacking. There are experts andstrategies, but we need to look at implementingstrategies.”

� “To combat desertification we need internallegislation to protect ‘green’ areas, the develop-ment of protected areas and the establishmentof seed banks.”

Incorporating social

considerations and experience

into biodiversity conservation

� “We need to help communities to appropriatetheir own resources.”

� “Indigenous knowledge must be incorporatedinto dryland biodiversity conservation.”

� “It will be very important to help farmerssustain the diversity they have at the nationaland international level.”

� “To address the loss of biodiversity to agricul-ture we need to demonstrate that protection ofbiodiversity and agro-biodiversity providessocial and economic benefits to the populationand the farmer.”

“Yes it is essential that agro-biodiversity inte-grates socio-economic development.”

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Discussion Points from the Session – Drylands

Page 36: 2001-049

32

Introduction

Desertification is not a new environmental prob-lem, and yet it is only since the 1970s or 1980s thatserious attention has been given to the increasingrate and debilitating effects of desertification inNigeria. It is one of the main environmental prob-lems afflicting biological diversity, agriculture andother sectors of the nation’s economy, as humanactivities alter natural ecosystems in the directionof agro-ecosystems. Continuous degradation iscausing significant change, sometimes alteringecosystems completely. With further perturbation,and in the presence of acute climatic changes suchas drought, these ecosystems could collapsepermanently, laying them open to desertification.

Causes and consequences of the

problems

The United Nations Conference on Desertification(1997) defines desertification as the reduction anddestruction of the land’s biological potential,resulting in the appearance of desert conditions. Itis an aspect of the generalised degradation ofecosystems under the combined pressure ofadverse and uncertain climatic conditions andover-exploitation. The various forms of over-exploitation, misuse and mismanagement of limit-ed resources that have contributed to these majorchanges are largely non-sustainable. They includeovergrazing and bush-burning, over-cultivationand over-harvesting, poor farming practices (suchas soil tillage with heavy machinery and shiftingcultivation), over-use and wrong use of pesticidesand other chemicals, mismanagement of waterand poor irrigation techniques, poor managementof mineral and natural resources, and theconstruction of dams and other infrastructure onenvironmentally sensitive spots. Such activitieslead to a destructive chain of events, which includegenetic and soil erosion, nutrient and mineralleaching, land and habitat degradation, water and

atmospheric pollution, and biodiversity and soilfertility losses. The continuous removal of vegeta-tion-cover by deforestation, overgrazing by live-stock, over-cultivation and planting crops in eco-logically frail soils are the most devastating activi-ties.

These changes have occurred to satisfy people’simmediate needs and demands, to the detrimentof precious biodiversity. Biodiversity refers to thenumbers, varieties and variability of living organ-isms and the ecological complexity within the liv-ing world, expressed in three basic levels – genet-ic, species and ecosystem diversities (McNeely etal. 1990). The rate at which biological diversity isbeing lost to the activities mentioned above isunprecedented, and this is a clear indication thatall life forms, including man, are in jeopardy.

The process of desertification often starts with anunremarkable expansion of cropping activity intoecologically fragile areas. But eventually so manyother disturbances build-up in the environmentthat the natural system is disrupted and peoplesuffer. Ecologically, the environment is broadlydefined as the total sum of conditions and materi-als required to sustain all living things. In practice,the environment is virtually everything in theworld around us (Eedy, 1995). The untold damageto both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem compo-nents in turn lead to serious economic losses.Inhabitants of the African Sahara regions suffersevere hardship as a result of desertification. Themost devastating consequences for people are thesignificant losses of water and food shortages,famine and a depressed economy. More seriousand concerted efforts must be put in place toreduce and halt disturbing processes such as these(Arimoro 1998a).

The underlying hurdles which stand in the way ofimprovement include the failure of the authoritiesand agencies concerned to carry out the properenvironmental impact assessment (EIA) and envi-ronmental risk assessment (ERA) studies, and thefact that the general public still does not seem to

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Desertification, Biodiversity and Environmental Problems in

the Agricultural and Socio-economic Development of Nigeria

– Causes, consequences and recommendations

Adeniyi Olabasi ArimoroGeomatics Nigeria Limited, Ibadan, Nigeria

Page 37: 2001-049

33

DESERTIFICATION, BIODIVERSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN ... NIGERIA

know the long-term effects and dire consequencesof these types of environmental deterioration.Those with some knowledge may not know whatto do to safeguard the environment and contributeto its preservation, or may not know how to makeproper use of the available resources.

On top of that, in the past 25 years or so the agri-cultural sector has not been given the attention itneeded. It was pushed into the background whilemost attention was given to the oil (petroleum)sector – the ‘breadwinner’ of the nation. Thought-ful or efficient agricultural strategies were not inplace for implementing the appropriate agriculturalpractices and sustainable farming techniques.While some non-sustainable farming techniquesare gradually being phased out in recent years, alot of work is still needed for significant improve-ment. Moreover, much agricultural and horticul-tural produce, especially vegetables, fruits andgrains, is wasted. Each year hundreds of thou-sands of tons of fruit and grain from cultivated andnaturally growing fruit trees and shrubs are notharvested for human consumption or processing,but are left to rot or left for animals and insects.Mango (Mangifera indica), cashew (Anacardium occi-dentale), guava (Psidium guajava), citrus (Citrus sp.),banana (Musa sp.), papaw (Carica papaya), tomato(Solanum lycopersicum), chillies (Capsicum sp.) andmany other indigenous fruits are examples of suchcasualty crops. If appropriately harnessed andutilised, the agricultural sector, like the oil sector,has a huge potential and capability to contributesignificantly to the economic growth and progres-sive development of the nation.

Another notable factor is that agricultural researchprogrammes and other studies are often not giventhe attention and incentives they deserve.Research activities have been known to slowdown; they have limitations and sometimes proveto be inferior because of inadequate facilities andtechnology. Research reports often remain on theshelf. Research scientists and experimental fieldworkers are almost never given the opportunity toturn their research findings into workable solu-tions to problems. In short, enormous amounts ofenergy, time, money and other resources are beingwasted, contributing little or nothing to the growthand development of the country.

Proposed solution and

recommendations

In the tropics and subtropics, targeting environ-mentally destructive processes, such as desertifica-

tion and biodiversity loss, and addressing faultyand non-sustainable agricultural practices arelarge tasks. More research work should beproposed and executed to address some of theseissues and contribute to efforts to ameliorate suchenvironmental problems. This would improve theagricultural and socio-economic development ofNigeria and of other developing countries withsimilar problems.

To find a sound solution to these environmentaland biodiversity problems and to improve theagricultural sector in Nigeria, we must make aconcerted effort to highlight the ecological conse-quences of human actions. Some valued ecosystemcomponents should be selected to demonstrate thelevel of ecosystem degradation and biodiversityloss that may result from anthropogenic activities(Freedman 1995). Appropriate recommendationsthat may contribute to environmental protectionlaws should also be highlighted. This may lead tolegislation to help the appropriate authoritiesmake and enforce policies, and legislation toimprove and restore the ecosystems under threat(FEPA 1990). The result may also lead to the iden-tification of endangered species and of proceduresfor preserving them.

A genuine EIA study should be carried out forproposed projects and an environmental impactstatement (EIS) produced (Olokesusi 1984). A goodstudy can reveal the need for this. The studyshould emphasise the value of EIA as a process ofidentifying and evaluating the consequences ofhuman actions on the environment and, whenappropriate, mitigating those consequences(Erickson 1994). This will demonstrate the impor-tance of carrying out a thorough EIA beforeembarking on the project, and that the results of anEIA study should always be studied and consid-ered before proceeding to other aspects of the deci-sion-making process.

Such information should be directed primarily tothe government or appropriate authorities, scien-tists, regulators, consultants and stakeholdersdirectly responsible for and involved in decision-making processes, preparing proposals and imple-menting projects. Simulations and models of envi-ronmental problems and their resolution should bedesigned. This will help in predicting the outcomeof certain actions, thus serving as a useful tool infuture monitoring, evaluation and analysis ofsimilar environmental issues when they arise. Theresearch work should also make provision for thedesign of an efficient curriculum and taughtprogramme that will educate all on environmentalprotection and preservation procedures. This

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 38: 2001-049

34

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

should then be recommended for the educationalsystem (right from the primary level). The mediaand residents in the project location and its sur-roundings should be given adequate informationand the opportunity to exercise their moral andsocial welfare rights and opinions (Arimoro 2000).

The agricultural sector should be given undividedattention as it may bring in as much revenue asother leading sectors of the economy, thusaugmenting the growth and expansion of thecountry’s economy. An efficient programme toimplement appropriate agricultural practices, andfarming techniques should be put in place andutilised uncompromisingly. All should be made toappreciate and abide by the principles and regula-tions of the programme and strategy. Due to thefragile nature of tropical soils, agricultural prac-tices such as no tillage, crop rotation and the use ofenvironmentally-friendly, biological materials forpest management should be encouraged. Thesehave proved consistently viable and sustainableover the years.

If farming is to be done on forest floors and inother sensitive ecozones, the principles and meth-ods of agroforestry and alley cropping are highlyrecommended. These have not only proved to beprofitable but have also been effective technicaltools in restoration programmes. These methodsinvolve the systematic planting of a combinationof economic tree species with arable crop plants(Baumer 1990). To strengthen these tools, the artand science of planting trees (afforestation) such asEucalyptus sp., Gmelina sp., Acacia sp., Cassia sp.and many different types of fruit trees along,among and within plantation plots as shelter beltsare employed, instead of the indiscriminate fellingof trees (deforestation). These comprehensivetechniques have been used extensively to reclaimsensitive and degrading portions of forests in sub-humid and humid zones in Nigeria, as in manyparts of the Amazon rainforests of Brazil(Anonymous 2000).

Other combinations of bioremediation techniquescould also be effectively used to ameliorate,improve and restore deteriorating habitats andalready degraded ecosystems. Bioremediation isboth a principle and a technique whereby biologi-cal resources are utilised to restore a degraded areato its original state. For example, the Vetiver grass(Vetiveria zizaniodes) has been grown to check andrestore flood disaster zones and used to rehabili-tate communities that have been degraded by soilerosion (CE-RASE 2000). Adequate and efficienttraining should then be provided for subsistence

and large-scale farmers and foresters in all theworkable techniques and principles introduced.

Improved and efficient harvesting proceduresshould be put in place to prevent enormousamounts of fruit and grain being wasted, with theaim of storing and processing such produce forfuture use during the off-season periods of scarcity.Excess fruits could be locally and industriallyprocessed into a variety of products such as fruitjuices, drinks, jams, marmalades, jellies, flavours,spices, wine and other alcoholic and non-alcoholicbeverages. Many of these items, if processed andpackaged well, could be sold and exported to raisenational government income instead having toimport them at extra expense from other countries.

Whenever viable research programmes and scien-tific work activities are proposed and designed, itis important that scientists and others concernedshould be given all the necessary resources,including adequate finances and incentives, toimplement, execute and establish the project.Provision should be made to educate and trainothers to ensure continuity, multiplication andmaintenance of the work activity and research pro-gramme. The use of modern and sophisticatedequipment and technological know-how (e.g.supercomputers and GIS) and state-of-the-arttelecommunication systems (such as fax, email andinternet facilities) should be readily available andsufficient, and appropriately used to enhance andfacilitate research. This will boost and acceleratestudy and research work by providing ease ofinformation retrieval and dissemination betweendeveloping countries and the developed world.Indeed, the brilliant successes and achievementswe see in developed nations today are a result ofthe application and utilisation of all these forms oftechnological facilities for scientific research anddevelopment (Arimoro 1998b).

Conclusion

The conservation and sustainable utilisation ofbiological diversity and the protection and preser-vation of the environment are undeniably impor-tant aspects of our lives, and as such, issues relat-ing to these must not be underestimated orneglected. Our continued existence and that offuture generations largely depends on how wellwe treat and care for the things we depend on, andhow well we look after the things that depend onus. Since desertification and the activities that leadto it are a threat to man, his agricultural develop-ment and his socio-economic progress, it is high

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 39: 2001-049

35

DESERTIFICATION, BIODIVERSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN ... NIGERIA

time for all developing and underdeveloped coun-tries to sit up and contribute significantly to thecampaign and actual conservation of the earth’sbiological resources. Desertification, leading tobiodiversity losses, is one of the most importantenvironmental problems facing the world ingeneral. Embarking conscientiously on sustainableagricultural and environmental practices, there-fore, will go along way towards curbing thismenace.

The suggestions made in this paper are workableand may enhance the agricultural, environmentaland socio-economic development of present-dayNigeria, and contribute in no small way to sustain-able development for the benefit of future genera-tions.

ReferencesAnonymous. 2000. Greening the Amazon forests.

Awake!, November 22, p 24–27.

Arimoro A.O. 1998a. Desertification in Nigeria:causes and consequences. Unpublished M.Sc.research paper. Department of Crop Protectionand Environmental Biology, University ofIbadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Arimoro A.O. 1998b. Information and communica-tion: Vital tools for research. Unpublished M.Sc.research paper. Department of Crop Protectionand Environmental Biology, University ofIbadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Arimoro A.O. 2000. The environmental impactsand ecological consequences of dam construc-tion on selected valued ecosystem componentsin surrounding aquatic and terrestrial eco-systems: The contribution of my proposedresearch/skills to the social and economicdevelopment of my country. A Ph.D. proposalprepared for academic study and research inthe University of Guelph, Canada/Universityof Otago, New Zealand.

Baumer M. 1990. The potential role of agroforestryin combating desertification and environmentaldegradation with special reference to Africa.Technical Centre for Agricultural and RuralCooperation, ACP-EEC Lome Convention, P.OBox 380, 6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands.

CE-RASE Centre for Environmental Resources andSustainable Ecosystems. 2000. We have solutionto environmental degradation in Nigeria. TheHope Home and Environment Journal. November17 2000, p 12.

Eedy, W. 1995. The use of GIS in environmentalassessment. In. Impact Assessment. Inter-national association for impact assessment (IAIA)Vol. 13, No. 2, p.199.

Erickson P.A. 1994. A practical guide to environmen-tal impact assessment. Toronto: Academic Press.

FEPA 1990. The environment and sustainabledevelopment in Nigeria. In: Adegoke O.S.,editor. Proceedings of a workshop held at theNicon Noga Hilton Hotel, Abuja, FCT; 25–26April 1989. Federal Environmental ProtectionAgency (FEPA).

Freedman B. 1995. Environmental ecology: Theecological effects of pollution, disturbance, and otherstresses, 2nd edition. Toronto: Academic Press.p 452–454.

McNeely J.A., Miller K.R., Reid W.V., MittermeierR.A., Werner T.B. 1990. Conserving the World’sbiological diversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/ Washington DC:WRI, CI, WWF-US andWorld Bank.

Olokesusi A. 1984. The environmental assessmentprocess, initiating and making it work forNigeria. Proceeding of the NNPC seminar onthe petroleum industry and the Nigerianenvironment; 1984; NNPC, Lagos.

United Nations Conference on Desertification.1997. Status of desertification in hot aridregions. (maps plus explanatory notes)

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 40: 2001-049

36

Current situation of the pastures

The current condition of the pastures of theKalmyk steppe is poor and is a result of theirbarbaric exploitation during the period of theSoviet planned economy. About 80% of the pastureterritories have been destroyed to varying degrees,more than 30% of agricultural soils have sufferedwater and wind erosion, and 50% of the pastureterritories are saline. Air and water quality is poorand has an adverse effect on the health of thepopulation.

Desertification first became an extensive problemin the European part of the territory of theRepublic, where 25 villages and farms are buriedunder the sand, and 30 will soon be flooded byrising groundwater caused by soil improvementmeasures. The new Republic immediately faced aproblem requiring an urgent solution: ecologicalmigrators who have moved out of territories as aresult of ecological catastrophes, such as desertifi-cation and related problems.

The desperate ecological situation in Kalmykia notonly depresses the rural economy, it leaves thepopulation without livelihoods. This was predictedat the beginning of the 20th century by a numberof Russian scientists who were against cultivationof Merino sheep on vulnerable land, but no oneheeded their warnings. In the 1970s more than 3.5million Merino sheep were pastured there.Everyone was deaf to the problem, and now wehave 1 million hectares of desert and a great num-ber of ecological, social and economic problemscaused by the desert. The country is fighting for itsvery survival.

Reasons for desertification in

Kalmykia during the Soviet era

� Ignoring the ethnic, economic and social basis,and the traditional and national features, of

land use that put ecology, climate and naturalconditions at the forefront.

� Deportation of the population to Siberia in1943–57. Kalmyks lost practically all theiranimals, especially Kalmyk breeds adapted tothe climate and environment which can aid theprocess of biodiversity reconstruction, main-taining arid territories and never causing greatharm or destruction.

� Expansion of the area of arable land for cerealsand industrial crops. When 140,000 hectares oflight soiled pastures were ploughed up in the1960s, the action of the wind created a desertwithin the traditional and unique pasture areaof Tcherny Zemli (called the Black Landsbecause they are rarely covered with snow inwinter).

� Pressures on the steppe caused by the use ofmachinery and new technologies, which hasalso provoked destruction of pastures.

� Replacing traditional nomadic farming with asettled system, Kalmyk sheep have beenreplaced by Merinos that can degrade pastures,and the number of sheep increased to 3.5million as opposed to 1 million pastured tradi-tionally. This heaped additional pressures onthe pastures.

What the project proposes

During the last 20 years attempts have been madeto stop desert expansion in the area. By sowingseeds and planting, sands have been stabilised on100,000 hectares, and a further 200,000 hectareswill soon be ready for exploitation. But phyto-amelioration itself will produce no effect unlessappropriate livestock are pastured on the land.Merino sheep pastured on improved land willcause its destruction and the return of the desert.

The suggested project proposes the proper

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Pasture Farming Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable

Agriculture and Reconstruction of Biodiversity in Deserted

Territories

Stanislav Pavlov and Tatiana BakinovaFoundation for Sustainable Development of the Republic Kalmykia and YuzhNIIGiprozem - the SouthInstitute of Land Use Planning Foundation for Sustainable Development of the Republic of Kalmykia,Russia

Page 41: 2001-049

37

PASTURE FARMING STRATEGY FOR ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF BIODIVERSITY

exploitation of reconstructed, that is, of phyto-ameliorated, pastures to prevent them degradingto wasteland.

Proper management requires:

� Seasonal treatment of recovered pastures, inwhich animals are grazed on certain territoriesin the area during winter only, and never insummer, following a strict pasture circulationby season.

� Cultivation of traditional methods of pasturing,when all four Kalmyk livestock breeds werekept in certain proportions (about 1 millionsheep, 200,000 cattle, 100,000 horses and 20,000camels).

� Replacement of Merino sheep with Kalmykbreeds of sheep in the area of Cherny Zemliwith reconstructed pastures and transference ofMerino sheep to other parts of Kalmykia.

� No fodder storage (hay, technical cultures) onthe territory subjected to desertification. In thenomadic system animals are pastured day andnight, and only 25% of food needed for station-ary farming should be stored for an expectedsevere and snowy winter. There is no need tostore feed for mild winters. We wish to stressthat nomads have never fed their animalsconcentrates.

� Use of traditional methods based on a detailedknowledge of rural conditions affecting farm-ing.

All these measures are able to safeguard aridpastures and can be used for the reconstruction oftheir biodiversity, even though it seems a paradoxtrying to save pastures by grazing animals there.

The key principal is to pasture Kalmyk breeds incertain proportions within the herd, so that differ-ent animals can eat different plants. They do notgraze down to the root stem as Merino sheep do,allowing the plants to cluster. Clustering binds theupper, light soil layer, giving water and winderosion, and degradation no chance. Merino sheepremain in a compact group and move slowly,removing the plants down to the root stem andraising clouds of dust from the ruined areas they

leave behind them. In contrast, Kalmyk movequickly, spreading out more widely and do notbreak up the soil surface.

The Kalmyk breed of sheep has been lost in Russia,but has remained as a pure breed in China andMongolia, and, with partial loss of their character-istics, in Kazakhstan, according to an expedition ofKalmyk scientists several years ago.

To quickly realise the goals of restoring pasturebiodiversity in Kalmykia – to preserve unique pas-tures in the Cherny Zemli area, phyto-amelioratedespecially to develop ecologically sustainable agri-culture, and reintroduce Kalmyk sheep back to thesteppe – we have to buy 1,000 Kalmyk sheep inChina or Mongolia to set up a model agriculturalenterprise.

The required finance to buy and transport 1000sheep to Russia is USD 64,000.

Ecological, social and economic

effects are inevitable

The main goal of the project is the development ofan ecologically sustainable agriculture by restoringpasture biodiversity and reintroducing Kalmykbreeds of sheep. Additional effects are inevitableand expected:

Ecological effects of reintroducing appropriatenumbers of Kalmyk sheep to the steppe and thedevelopment of traditional nomadic method oflivestock pasturing. This provides the opportunityto restore ecological balances on pastures subject todesertification and degradation, enabling therestoration of their biodiversity and productivity.This will lead to more and greater effects.

Social effects, expressed as the opportunity tocreate many new jobs for the unemployed andprovide a solution to the problems of ecologicalmigrators, etc.

Additional economic effects from the increase inpasture productivity and avoidance of damagefrom degradation and desertification.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 42: 2001-049

38

Abstract

Conservation efforts in Africa have tended toemphasise the international, scientific values ofbiological diversity and focus on areas of highspecies richness and endemism, primarily lushtropical forests and coral reefs. Drylands have beenconsidered of limited interest for biodiversity. Thisperception is gradually changing as research isproving that drylands are home to unique specieswith special characteristics, the origin of manyimportant crops and a significant source of genes.

This paper provides a regional overview of theimpact of agriculture on biodiversity in thedrylands of Africa in northern Africa, the WestAfrican Sahel, East Africa and the Horn, andsouthern Africa. Agriculture accelerates loss ofbiodiversity in all these regions as farmers attemptto increase crop and animal production to feed thegrowing population and boost national economies.Traditional agricultural practices and naturalresource uses have caused little damage to bio-diversity, in part because of low population densitybut also because these societies fostered beliefsystems and social norms that encourage or evenenforced limits to exploitation. A pressing issue forAfrican nations is how to retain the best attributesof traditional systems under conditions of rapidurbanisation and modernisation.

The drylands of Africa have the potential to bemore productive, but they are fragile and must bewisely managed. A comprehensive landscapeplanning approach is required to avoid conflictsover resource use and loss of biological resources.Biodiversity conservation strategies must respectand incorporate African values, knowledgesystems and priorities. The planting of trees onand around farms, for example, is recommendedbecause these trees will serve as windbreaks andprovide fuel wood, timber, poles, fodder, fruitsand medicines. There is a need to assess nationalagricultural policies with a view to enhancing thesustainable use of arid and semi-arid ecosystems,

and research is needed to fill the gaps in ourknowledge of biodiversity across regions, coun-tries and local areas in the drylands of Africa.

The single most important way of promoting bio-diversity conservation in the medium- to long-term is to raise well-informed future generationsthat are strongly committed to the sustainablemanagement of natural resources and biodiversity.Biodiversity conservation should, therefore, be anintegral part of environmental education.

Introduction

Biodiversity is a concept used to describe thevariety of life forms. It encompasses biomes (e.g.tropical moist forests), ecosystems, species, andgenetic varieties (McNeely et al. 1990). It can alsobe defined as the variety and variability amongliving organisms and the ecological complexes inwhich they occur (OTA 1987, USAID 1993). Theinterdependent relationships that occur withinand between ecosystems, species and genetic vari-eties are complex, but it is important to rememberthat these are essentially different ways of lookingat the same thing. Biodiversity has captured theworld’s attention since the United NationsConference on Environment and Development(UNCED) in 1992.

The term ‘drylands’ is easily understood in a gen-eral sense, but it is not so easy to define in preciseterms. Although precise definitions of drylandareas vary, general agreement exists on a numberof characteristics. The principal defining character-istic is that mean precipitation is less than meanevapotranspiration for a significant part of thegrowing season (Hassan and Dregne 1997). Thismeans that rainfall is deficient for maximum plantproduction. In this paper, ‘drylands’ refers toregions where annual potential evaporation andplant transpiration exceed annual precipitation.The salient feature of dryland climates is the low

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Agriculture and Biodiversity in the Drylands of

Africa

Michael DarkohUniversity of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana

Page 43: 2001-049

39

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE DRYLANDS OF AFRICA

average rainfall and the variability in rainfallpatterns.

Characteristics of drylands

Geographically, drylands are divided into fourclimatic zones: hyper-arid, arid, semi-arid, and drysub-humid (UNEP 1992a, b). Hyper-arid areas arenatural deserts that are relatively uninhabited,with the exception of sparse tiny date palm oasesthat provide habitats where very ancient life stylesand traditional ways of managing naturalresources are still practised (Ghabbour 1997). Aridregions are almost exclusively used for extensivegrazing. Semi-arid lands are largely pastoral, butinclude extensive rain-fed cropping in the wetterparts. Dry sub-humid zones are woodlands andforested lands where intensive cropping is prac-tised, along with livestock production.

Water deficiency is the principal limiting factoraffecting soils and plant growth in all the fourclimatic zones. Dryland soils are generally charac-terised by low fertility associated with low levelsof moisture, organic matter and nitrogen. Plantgrowth is inhibited by lack of water, with vegeta-tive cover varying from forests, woodlands andgrasslands in the dry sub-humid and semi-aridzones to virtually nothing in the hyper-arid zones,except in oases and stream channels.

Dryland vegetation generally has been notable forits resilience, often recovering rapidly fromfrequent incidence of drought and fires. Because ofthis resilience, a re-thinking of ecology and man-agement of natural resources in Africa’s pastoraldrylands has taken place (Behnke et al. 1993,Scoones 1996). The new so-called ‘disequilibriumtheories for range ecology’ (DTRE) state that dry-land ecosystems do not follow equilibriumdynamics; instead such systems are characterisedby high levels of temporal and spatial variability inbiomass production. A basic assumption of thedisequilibrium theories is that livestock grazingcauses insignificant changes to arid and semi-aridlands with underlying highly variable climaticconditions. However, recent research seems topoint out that this situation may be the case forplant productivity in certain arid and extremelyvariable environments with limited grazingpressure, but not for floristic composition and veg-etation structure which are important aspects ofpastoral strategies (Lykke 2000). In most arid andsemi-arid areas, livestock-induced vegetationmodification and degradation have been describedduring past decades in scientific studies and localknowledge.

Drylands in Africa, including hyper-arid deserts,comprise 1,959 million hectares or 65% of the con-tinent, and about one-third of the world’s drylands(UNEP 1992a, b, Darkoh 1998). One-third of thisarea is hyper-arid desert (672 million hectares)while the remaining two-thirds – or 1,287 millionhectares – are made up of arid, semi-arid and drysub-humid areas, with a population of some 400million (two-thirds of all Africans).

Agricultural practices and

emerging threats to biodiversity

Discussion on biodiversity used to focus mainly onconserving natural habitats, preserving their vari-ety and preventing the extinction of species. Forsome time, biodiversity has been associated withlush, tropical forest and coral reefs, and drylandshave been considered as areas of limited interestfor biodiversity. This perception is now slowlychanging as research shows that drylands arehome to unique species with special characteris-tics, the origin of many important crops, particu-larly cereals and pulses, and a significant source ofgenes. Dryland ecosystems have provided manyof the plant and animal species that have shapedthe development of many cultures and civilisa-tions (Hassan and Dregne 1997). Crop species suchas wheat, barley, sorghum, millet and cotton alloriginate from dryland ecosystems, as do animalspecies such as the horse, the sheep, the goat, thecow and the camel. Drylands harbour manydrought-resistant species and varieties of plantsand animals.

Millions of people in Africa depend directly orindirectly on biological resources for basic subsis-tence needs, and commercial use of naturalresources makes an important contribution tomany national economies. However, Africa isundergoing unprecedented losses of biologicaldiversity as a result of habitat alteration, over-har-vesting, and other causes. Many forms of humanactivities, including agriculture, continue todeplete these resources, some to the point ofextinction. This trend in biodiversity loss has insome cases adversely affected ecosystem func-tions, increasingly posing a threat to the livelihoodand well-being of many Africans. Habitat changeis the greatest threat to biological diversity becauseplants and animals may fail to adjust to the newecological setting in the modified environment.

Africa is a diverse region with a predominantlyrural economy centred on agriculture. For severalgenerations rural economies have been adapted to

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 44: 2001-049

40

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

the dynamics of the biological and physical envi-ronment. One of the rudimentary forms of agricul-ture is gathering agro-pastoral societies. This prac-tice has been a response to drought and is commonin areas of marginal agricultural potential. A strik-ing feature of the drylands in Africa is that foodcollecting and agriculture still play a significantrole in the subsistence economy of several coun-tries. Dryland ecosystems have a wide range ofwild food plants. Grivetti (1979) for example notesthat the principal factor contributing to Tswananutritional success at the peak of the drought inthe Kalahari is a diversified food base with empha-sis on wild food plants. It is the removal of thetrees and the pressure of high human and animalpopulation densities that reduce biodiversity inthese areas, which are considered marginal.

Shifting cultivation is another widely-practisedtraditional form of agriculture in the drylands ofAfrica, and is an efficient way of manipulatingenvironments that would otherwise be unproduc-tive under arable farming. It is based on anintimate knowledge and understanding of theenvironment. According to Schusky (1989), thispractice is carried out by between 25% and 33% ofAfrican farmers. He identifies two kinds of shiftingcultivators: those that practise shifting cultivationto supplement other, more permanent croppingactivities; and those that have been forced out oftheir ‘traditional’ homes with little option but totry to gain a living by encroaching into forests andother environments. It is mainly the latter thathave disastrous effects on the natural resources.This is because they lack the accumulated knowl-edge of many generations of shifting cultivators;nor do they have access to sufficient land to allowfor long fallow periods.

In the past, the sparse population operated thesystem for subsistence needs. It was not intensive,which did little or no harm to the environment asthe long fallow periods restored soil fertility. Now,however, increased population density combinedwith intensive cultivation of cash crops as well assubsistence crops has led to a much more intensiveshifting, with very short fallow periods. Underthese conditions, shifting cultivation is unsustain-able as it leads to a disastrous decline in soil fertil-ity. As it is essentially suited to the maintenance ofa subsistence economy for sparse populations, it isclearly incapable of yielding adequate returns toprovide for the increasing population; the systemtends to break down when the populationbecomes too large to support. In a bid to producemore food crops, farmers encroach into the forests.Rapid population growth is pushing farmers toextend farming into areas that are agro-ecologically

unsuited to these forms of land use. The mostpressing problem is the high rate of deforestation,mainly as a result of conversion of forests andsavannah to croplands, which has led to loss ofbiodiversity in these ecosystems. The continueduse of fire under shifting cultivation also inhibitsrecolonisation and eventually leads to eradicationof woody species. Consequently, the ecosystem’sbiogeochemical cycles could be permanentlyaltered; the storage component in the biomass maybe considerably reduced and even the grassesthemselves may be slow to grow (Mannion 1995).

Pastoralism is another form of agriculture carriedout on land that cannot be readily cultivated toproduce crops, or from which it makes economicsense to generate animal products. Nomadic pas-toralism occurs in arid and semi-arid environ-ments, which necessitates the migration of animalsand herders on a regular basis from one area toanother. Like shifting cultivation, nomadic pas-toralism, when well managed, is ecologically bal-anced through the varying requirements of thelivestock components. This makes the agriculturalsystem stable in a fragile environment. Grazing,however, becomes a threat to biodiversity becauseit not only displaces wildlife but also disruptsplant-species composition. When the populationincreases, there tends to be permanent replace-ment of naturally occurring biota, with lastingchanges in the output, input and components ofthe system. This system is associated with a majorreduction in species diversity as just a few domes-ticated animals replace the wide range of wildspecies (Mannion 1995). Farmers often removetrees from grazing lands with the intention ofimproving grass growth by reducing competitionfor water and soil nutrients, but this has an effecton the biodiversity.

Like traditional pastoralism, modern animal rear-ing on private ranches in rangelands is also athreat to biodiversity. Many farmers in ecologicalzones rich in biodiversity see the wild animals as athreat to their domesticated livestock as well astheir own lives. As a result, fences are sometimeserected to keep wild animals away from the farms.These and other veterinary fences erected to con-trol the spread of diseases account for a consider-able loss of wildlife as the animals are deniedaccess to their grazing areas. An example can bedrawn from Botswana where, in response to theoutbreak of diseases, the semi-arid rangelands arecriss-crossed by veterinary cordon fences emanat-ing from the European Community’s (EC’s)precautionary measures to prevent meat importsfrom foot-and-mouth stricken areas. There aremany references in the literature on Botswana to

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 45: 2001-049

41

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE DRYLANDS OF AFRICA

the damaging effects of these fences on the capaci-ty of some highly mobile species (for example,wildebeest, hartebeest, buffalo, zebra and eland) tocope with drought and the loss of their range(Perkins and Ringrose 1996, Williamson andWilliamson 1983, Patterson 1987). Fence damage isin the form of barring of seasonal movement, trap-ping and high mortality of animals. Species likewildebeest and hartebeest, which form the bulk ofthe large herbivore biomass, have suffered asmuch as 90% mortality (Murray 1988, Patterson1987). Modern animal rearing has also taken landaway from other uses and marginalised indige-nous communities in rangelands by deprivingthem of their grazing and cultivation rights(Sporton et al. 1999).

The majority of farming enterprises that charac-terise Africa are subsistent mixed farms which alsosupport the majority of the population. Mixedfarming may be rain-fed or reliant on irrigation.Innovative methods of crop production involvethe use of more productive hybrids and the use ofcrop plants resistant to various diseases, whichrequires active crop breeding policies and institu-tions, improved irrigation and efficient use of arti-ficial fertilisers. In West Africa, approximately 80%of cattle are reared in crop–livestock systems orfully integrated systems (Jabbar 1993). This is caus-ing environmental change as forests are cut downto expand the area of crop production into whichlivestock are then introduced.

Government policies promoting agriculture alsoplay an important role in habitat change and theloss of biodiversity. This may be experienced incountries that are trying to promote export cropproduction, or to be self-sufficient in food produc-tion, with preferential support given to large-scalemonocropping systems that often use importedseeds. This has resulted in the abandonment ofindigenous plant varieties and species. In Sudan,for example, extension services and donor agen-cies have promoted sorghum monocultures anddiscouraged traditional methods, even thoughthey have proved far more resistant to pests anddrought and are more sustainable in the long-term(Bedigian 1991).

In the savannah lands of northern Ghana, promo-tion of alternative cash crops such as yams hasresulted in unanticipated deforestation. Farmersclear land for planting yams and also cut downtrees to obtain poles required to support the grow-ing yams. This promotion of cash crops as a strate-gy in many African countries has had adverseeffects on biodiversity. In areas such as centralTanzania where fuel is needed to cure tobacco, a

lot of wood is consumed every year. In one area,Isikizya village has long since exhausted its princi-pal source of wood supply, the natural Miombowoodland.

Unnecessarily high levels of fertiliser and pesticideuse have sometimes been stimulated throughinappropriate price subsidies (Repetto 1985, 1989).These have had adverse effects on biodiversity,killing other living organisms along with pests. AWorld Bank report states that the dependence onpesticides in the Gezira Province of central Sudanled to a massive and permanent reduction of ben-eficial invertebrates, and that an aid programmelinked to multinational chemical companies inhib-ited rational pest control (World Bank 1991).

The status of the environment is a crucial aspect ofthe development process in Africa. However, therich biodiversity, together with the time-tested,diversified indigenous systems of managing them,have recently come under increasing pressurefrom: population growth; social change; migrationof people in search for new agricultural land andthe degradation of former frontier regions; shifts incash cropping; and the impact of policies adoptedby post-colonial governments.

In Africa, about two-thirds of the land thatsupports habitats for wild plants and animals isnow used for other purposes (MacKinnon andMacKinnon 1986). Agriculture and other humanactivities are reducing biological diversity at a ratethat is unprecedented in the history of the conti-nent. It is not easy to assess, with our limitedknowledge, the consequences of the disappear-ance of species for the stability of the continent’senvironment or the economic value lost because ofextinction. McNeely (1995), citing Cary andMooney (1990), notes that since the beginning ofthis century alone about 75% of the genetic diver-sity of the most important crops has disappearedfrom farmers’ fields across the world. This hasincreased agricultural vulnerability and reducedthe essential variety of diets of rural people.

In Africa, traditional and local species, varietiesand breeds of domesticated plants and animalsvital for the nutrition of the poorest people areeither neglected or being displaced by exoticspecies. Modern farming technology is nowremoving innovation from the farm and placing itin the laboratory instead (McNeely 1995). Theuniform varieties produced at the research centres,with their dependence on fertilisers and pesticides,are fast displacing farm-bred varieties. Once thesetraditional varieties are gone, the knowledge oftheir cultivation and use is also lost. Traditionalagriculture is currently threatened by the new

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 46: 2001-049

42

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

global consumer culture that is spreading throughtelevision, trade and other means. Managementsystems that were effective for thousands of yearsin natural resource utilisation and conservationhave become obsolete in a few decades, replacedby systems of exploitation that bring short-termprofits for a few and long-term costs for many(McNeely 1995).

The dominant biome in Africa’s drylands is thesavannah. The term ‘savannah’ has been widelyapplied to plant communities in the tropics andsub-tropics characterised by various combinationsof trees and grasses. They are typified by a contin-uous ground layer, consisting mainly of grasses(hemicryptophytes) and a discontinuous woody treeor shrub overstorey of phanerophytes (Stock et al.1997, Meadows 2000). In West Africa three types ofsavannah are biogeographically identifiable. Theseare the Sahel savannah, Sudan savannah andGuinea savannah which are described in the sec-tion on West Africa in this paper. The savannahbiome has not only provided a home for the major-ity of humans, livestock and wildlife in the conti-nent, they have been the richest grasslands in theworld with a high incidence of indigenous plantsand animals and the world’s greatest concentra-tion of mammals (UNEP 1997).

For some time, large parts of these savannahs andadjoining arid and hyper-arid areas in Africa havebeen protected by their remoteness, their vastness,and their marginal direct usefulness for agricultureor other economic pursuits. This situation is rapidlychanging. Now these drylands are under siege.Their biological systems are under threat fromrecurrent droughts, population and migrationpressures, inappropriate agricultural methods andoverharvesting of natural resources.

Regional perspectives

Northern Africa

The drylands of North Africa occupy about 6million km2. They experience a Mediterraneanclimate that is characterised by warm-wet wintersand cool dry summers. The semi-arid to humidzones have a native vegetation dominated bysclerophyllous evergreen trees and shrubs.Commercial farming dominates. The drier areashave a steppe type of vegetation with perennialgrasses and/or dwarf shrubs. The dominant landuses are subsistence farming and grazing. In thehyper-arid zones in the Sahara, native vegetationis restricted to depressions in waterways. The

density of species, or ‘areal species richness’, whencalculated for the whole desert is of course verysmall (Ghabbour 1997). Date-palm agriculture ispractised in the oases. Irrigation is on the increase,causing major changes in the natural drylandshabitats.

Biological diversity varies in complex waysdepending on local moisture regimes, topographyand soil type. The number of flowering plants ofthe sub-region is approximately 6,000, with anendemism of about 25%, highest in the west andthe east of the sub-region (IPED 1994, Hassan andDregne 1997). There are presently about 200endangered species (3.3%) (ibid.). A few crops arethought to be native – the date palms, olives andprimitive wheat, barley from the oases – and someof these are known to have genetic traits of poten-tial use for breeding programmes around theworld.

Many large mammals have become extinct overthe past 150 years. The only common survivors arethe jackal, wild boar and fox. Others are on theverge of extinction: the cheetah, leopard, stripedhyena, mountain gazelle, Barbary sheep andbaboon. About 100 species of small mammals, 200resident species of birds and some 80 species ofreptiles remain.

The original breed of cattle, Atlas brown (Bostaurus), has been excessively crossed withEuropean and Indian cattle (Bos indicus) and it isdoubtful whether they now remain in their origi-nal state. Several major breeds of sheep haveretained their genetic identity and little breedingwork has been done with camels.

Increasing human population has led to clearanceof large areas previously covered by forest andscrubland, partly for cultivation and for stocking.Traditionally, livestock raising has been the majoragricultural activity in this region, sheep being themost important as a source of wool and meat. Thisis closely followed by cereal cropping, particularlywheat and barley in the more humid areas. Thishas been greatly encouraged by the introduction ofmechanised agriculture and exploitation of under-ground water sources. Aboriculture based on fruittrees such as olives, almonds, figs, citrus trees, datepalm (naturally linked with oases) and grapevinesare important along the Mediterranean coast andother suitable hinterland areas. In Libya andAlgeria, increased incomes from oil and naturalgas have enhanced the power to invest in capitaldevelopment and agriculture. This has had atelling impact on both grazing lands and woodyvegetation formations in the arid zones.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 47: 2001-049

43

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE DRYLANDS OF AFRICA

Generally, agriculture has encroached into alphaand steppe grasslands in the drylands of NorthAfrica with dire consequences for biodiversity. InEgypt, a major constraint to biodiversity is expan-sion of agriculture into more marginal areas andthe loss of fertile arable land to urban expansionand development (about 25,000 feddans, or 10,500hectares, are lost in this way each year). In the aridand semi arid zones of Algeria, Morocco andTunisia, rain-fed croplands have been degradedmainly through extension of cropping into dry,sandy soils and the use of inappropriate heavymachinery. A further constraint in all thesecountries is the conversion of agricultural land toother uses, which has had great impact on wholeecosystems by destroying the ecological equilibriumand accelerating wind and water erosion, thuscontributing to desertification and declines in bio-diversity. In Libya, degradation of land resources,and the consequent desert encroachment anderosion of biodiversity, are directly linked to over-grazing and conversion of grazing and otherrangelands to cultivation. Wind erosion is particu-larly serious in the cultivated areas of Jeffara plain(110,000 hectares) and the Gharian Plateau (92,000hectares) where dry farming is practised. Shiftingsand dunes and sand drifts are of particular con-cern. Irrigated agriculture is expanding and as aresult reducing the area available for grazing.

There has also been widespread destruction ofwoodlands by clearing for cultivation or grazingand by fires. In Morocco, between 1973 and 1983,bush fires destroyed an estimated annual averageof 3,000 hectares of forest and alpha grassland. In1980 more than 6,000 hectares were burned caus-ing an estimated loss of USD 1.4 million (UNEP1983). If present deforestation rates (0.5% to 1.0%per year) continue, it is unlikely that forests willstill exist in year 2050. This will have a strongimpact on total biodiversity.

Salinisation of irrigated lands is reported from allthese countries; in Egypt it is linked to inadequatedrainage. Much irrigated land is threatened byencroaching sand caused by heavy grazing or theabandonment of irrigated lands. This has had adiverse effect on biodiversity in the region.

The removal of perennial vegetative cover throughhuman mismanagement of land causes desertifica-tion, and the consequences have been particularlysevere on the fauna. The flora is likely to becomeseverely affected over the next 50 years unlesspreventive measures are taken. On the whole, bio-diversity is under severe threat in North Africa,largely because of changes in land use and humanmismanagement of land.

The West African Sahel

The ‘Sahel’ refers geographically to the narrowband of territory between the Sahara desert andthe Sudan and Guinea savannah lands to thesouth. It is characterised by a strong seasonalclimate, with a short rainy season and long dryseason. Ecologically, however, the countriescommonly referred to as the Sahel countries ofWest Africa straddle the different savannah typesmentioned above. As Table 1, on Mali’s situation,shows, there are six agroclimatic zones. Fromnorth to south, these are: Saharan, North Sahelian,South Sahelian, North Sudanian, South Sudanianand Guinean.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Table 1

Agroclimatic zones in the Republic of Mali

Zone Climate Rainfall Length of

agric. season

mm/year days/year

Saharan Arid <150 <25

North Sahelian Semi-arid 150–350 25–45

South Sahelian Semi-arid 350–550 45–90

North Sudanian Semi-humid 550–750 90–120

South Sudanian Semi-humid 750–1150 120–150

Guinean Humid 1150–1450 150–180

Source: Republic of Mali (1987, p15)

For about 25 years, rainfall has been substantiallylower than it was during the first seven decades ofthe last century in the West African Sahel(Nicholson 1978, Hulme and Kelly 1993, Kelly andHulme 1993). The climate of the Sahel has becomedrier over recent years with particularly severedroughts in 1972–73 and 1983–84. There have beennumerous and intermittent local droughts.

The Saharan Zone is characterised by highly irreg-ular haphazard precipitation amounting to lessthan 150 mm. Drought is a limiting factor to plantgrowth and its impact is strengthened by the wind,which increases evaporation. The soil is coveredwith a green herbaceous carpet upon which thenomadic herds and wild fauna feed. There are afew stunted bushes, especially in depressions.Surface water resources are limited to the NigerRiver at its bend, oases, temporary wadis and a

Page 48: 2001-049

44

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

few ponds; specially adapted wild fauna can befound in this zone (dorcas and dama gazelles inthe south, Barbary sheep in the mountains, andaddax) living off the meagre, ephemeral vegeta-tion.

The fundamental characteristic of the SahelianZones (North and South) is the long dry season,with a short rainy season of about three to fourmonths (June–July to August–September). Plantformations are very discontinuous in space andfleeting in time. The plant cover consists of small,stunted, often thorny trees, with spreading crownslike parasols. The herbaceous carpet is often sparseand grows rapidly with the first rains. The longdry season forces the plants to have an extendedperiod of dormancy every year, often characterisedby falling leaves. Acacia albida, whose cycle isreversed, is an exception. This zone is the normalhabitat for many animal species: dorcas, damas,red-fronted gazelles and some oryx. The Sahelianzone is a land of mostly transhumant shepherds.Herding is in fact the only way of life that ensurespermanent exploitation of these regions throughmobility from one pasture to another.

The Sudanian Zones (North and South) are bestdescribed as savannah woodlands. The zone dete-riorates progressively from south to north into asavannah that is still rather rich in woody perenni-als. The herbaceous carpet is made up of perennialsand annual grasses. Water resources are abundant:there are large rivers (Niger and Senegal), smallrivers and lakes and ponds. This Sudanian Zone isan area whose activities revolve around food andcash crops (cotton, groundnuts) and livestock,especially sedentary livestock. There are alsotranshumants coming from south to north.

The Guinean Zone is a mosaic of savannah wood-land and open woodland forest, but these twoformations are regularly exposed to bush fires. Theherbaceous vegetation contains many perennialspecies. The river valleys are fringed by densevegetation made up of gallery forests. This is thehome of the tsetse fly (which causes sleeping sick-ness) and filarial worms (which cause onchocerci-asis, or river blindness). This zone is characterisedby cereal growing, industrial plants (e.g. cotton)fruits, and tubers. There is traditional sedentarylivestock, mainly trypanotolerant races that aresmaller than Sahelian ones.

While the flora of the West African Sahel region asa whole has a relatively low species diversity (lessthan 1,800), these species are known to have a highgenetic diversity and considerable resilience to theperiodic droughts and fires that affect the region(Hassan and Dregne 1997). Nevertheless, increas-

ing population pressures and cyclical droughtstresses have led to serious reductions in regionalwildlife populations.

Approximately 100 million people in the WestAfrican Sahel rely largely on the primary produc-tion potential of the area. The population increasesvary from 2.2% to 2.8% per year with urbanisationrates at around 7% per year. Based on considera-tions of weather patterns alone, the vegetation ofthe Sahel adapts regularly to shifts in the climaticgradients, and species loss is, therefore, limited.However, the increase of the human and animalpopulation and clearing of land for agriculture hashad major impacts on biodiversity. Man is respon-sible here more than elsewhere for the alarmingdecline of species types and their numbers.Harmful agricultural practices intensify the degra-dation of the soil and vegetation. These include:overcultivation; overgrazing; selective grazing;bush fires, cultivation of marginal and easily erod-ed land; reduction of fallow lands which are notcompensated by organic fertiliser; total elimina-tion of trees from the open woodland forests (des-tumping) to introduce mechanisation on fields thatare often too large and bordering fragile lands; andlopping and leaf-thinning trees (AfricanRosewood, baobab) for fodder and leaves forsauces and fruit.

Longer wet periods have allowed cropping topenetrate into grazing areas, but reverses in pre-cipitation patterns have made these lands highlyvulnerable. Although it has often been assessedthat the heavy grazing pressure may lead tolowering of the biodiversity of Sahelian range-lands, recent evidence indicates that, for example,bush encroachment naturally follows. TheSahelian vegetation appears very unstable butresilient to pastoral stresses due to the strongdynamism of annual seed production, dispersionand germination cycles, and to the spatial equilib-rium between herbaceous and woody plants.

Animal populations appear to have been seriouslyreduced over the last few decades and many majormammals have largely disappeared, such asleopard, cheetah, elephant, Nile crocodile andhippopotamus. Birds of prey are less common.Animal reserves have not been very effective, andcivil strife has reduced the protection offered bylegislation and designated areas.

In recent years, considerable efforts have beenmounted to rescue the genetic diversity of nativecrops and of local varieties. The internationalresearch centre ICRISAT, with facilities in Nigerand Mali now has significant ex situ collections ofseed of sorghums millets and some pulses.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 49: 2001-049

45

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE DRYLANDS OF AFRICA

Limited work has been performed on identifyingand monitoring the types of biodiversity of theSahelian sub-region. There is a very serious needfor careful surveillance of the biodiversity of theregion, which seems particularly threatened due tosignificant increases in population pressure andlong spells of increasing unfavourable weatherconditions.

East Africa and the Horn

The dryland countries of Djibouti, Eritrea,Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Ugandaoccupy just under 5 million km2 around the Hornof Africa. Of these about 80% (4 million km2)receive on average less than 600 mm precipitationper year. The population is around 120 million,with an overall annual growth rate of 3.2%. Thedryland areas have slightly lower populationgrowth rates. The countries are all among theeconomically poorest of the world.

The drylands of this region are drought prone andthere have been severe droughts in recent years. Asa result, there have been significant variations incropping areas, in livestock productivity and innatural biomass available for harvesting.

Although there are few studies on the biodiversityof the region and monitoring of biodiversity is dif-ficult due to the strong variations in inter-annualrainfall, several authors have identified significantreductions in beta and gamma biodiversity overthe last thirty years. The expansion of croplands,particularly in the Sudan and Kenya, has alteredthe habitats of wild plants and animals significantly.In both Kenya and Tanzania, there are widespreadmovements of landless poor from the more humidand densely populated high potential areas to theadjoining peripheral dryland areas in search offarmland (Darkoh 1982, 1996a). This permanentimmigration, which is a recent phenomenon, hasbeen problematic in terms of land degradation asthese migrants often put the land under increasingpressure and import inappropriate technologies.Land mismanagement and land use conflict haveconsiderably eroded biodiversity in these dry-lands.

Over the sub-region as a whole, large human andanimal populations, with few alternatives foreconomic activities outside agriculture, are placingincreasing pressure on natural resources at timesof drought. Many countries of the sub-region havesuffered repeated breakdowns of law and order inrecent decades. The ensuing forced migration andconcentration of refugees at levels well beyondlocal capacities to provide land for farming and

fuelwood for cooking has exacerbated land degra-dation from overcultivation and overharvesting ofbiomass fuel. The availability of firearms has alsocontributed to severe reductions in wild animalpopulations. There is significant poaching of keyspecies and limited enforcement of internationalconventions, e.g. CITES.

Although East Africa has been intensively studiedecologically, little is still known about the biodi-versity of the area apart from the large mammals,and monitoring procedures have been difficult toundertake except in selected places. East Africa’slowlands are predominantly arid, within whichpockets of humid environments have formed inhighlands, wetlands and the rift valley. This hascreated a strong diversity of habitats in the region.These drylands have much to offer in terms ofplant resources, with possibilities for wider culti-vation and commercial exploitation. It is widelybelieved that long periods of dry years combinedwith mounting human and livestock pressure onland is putting a severe strain on the biodiversityof the countries around the Horn of Africa. Thereare, therefore, indications of links between drylanddegradation and biodiversity.

Southern Africa

The eleven countries of the southern Africa sub-region have been severely hit by drought at leastfive times in this century, including the latestdroughts in 1981–87 and 1991–92. Historical andgeological records indicate that incidents of below-normal precipitation in all parts of the sub-regionrecur at intervals. The effects of these droughtshave varied, but in general the vegetation coverhas been severely reduced and fauna put undersevere stress. The biodiversity of these drylands isseemingly in a state of flux. Southern Africa hasone of the fastest growing populations in theworld and faces the challenge of trying to increasefood production by 3% a year, which usuallyinvolves bringing more land into cultivation.

The vegetation of southern Africa has the highestspecies richness of any floral region in the world(Gibbs Russell 1987). Cowling and Hilton-Taylor(1994) have identified southern Africa’s eightcentres of plant diversity (hot spots), whichinclude about 3.5% of the world’s flora, on just0.2% of the earth’s surface area. The ‘hottest’ ofthese hot spots (Myers 1990) is the Cape FloristicRegion, where almost 9,000 species are squeezedinto just 90,000 km2 (Meadows 2000). Hot spots,according to Myers (1990), are areas with excep-tional concentrations of species with high levels ofendemism and which face exceptional threats of

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 50: 2001-049

46

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

destruction. The rich floral biodiversity could beattributed to its morphological evolution and con-temporary ecological conditions. The combinationof the region’s transitional location, relative to thesubtropical summer rainfall and temperate winterrainfall climates, and its varied topography areecological gradients along which many species canbe found.

Grazing is the most extensive form of land use inSouthern Africa, and about two-thirds of theregion is estimated to be suitable for grazing.Pastoralism has been practised for centuries over alarge proportion of the region, especially Tanzania.Nomadic pastoralism occurs in arid and semi-aridenvironments, which necessitates the migration ofanimals and herders on a regular basis from onearea to another. When nomadic pastoralism is wellmanaged the varying requirements of the livestockcomponents are ecologically balanced. This makesthis agricultural system highly stable in a fragileenvironment. Grazing, however, becomes a threatto biodiversity because it not only displaceswildlife but also disrupts plant-species composition.

In the South African karoo ecosystems of low anderratic rainfall, Tainton et al. (1989) have noted thatovergrazing, selective grazing and lack of fire havecaused major changes in the composition andstructure of the vegetation. While overgrazing andselective grazing lead to a sward dominated byunpalatable pioneer grasses such as Aristida con-gests subsp. barbicollis, Tragus racemosus, Sporobolusnitens and shrubs, overgrazing and the exclusionof fire have resulted in the dramatic encroachmentof karoo and savannah species into arid grasslands(Tainton et al. 1989)

The most important impacts of introduced plantson the biodiversity in the region are their effects onthe endemic flora. This invasion poses the mostserious threat to the survival of the numerousendangered plant species occurring in the bio-mass. Huntley (1984) states that an area of some66,000 km2 of former grassland has beenencroached on by species such as Chrysocomatenuifolia, Pentzia incana, Felicia muricata and F. fili-folia. The replacement of grassveld by karoo isundesirable because it is accompanied by reducedcover, increased runoff, and erosion (Snyman andVan Rensburg 1986). In some cases, areas invadedby karoo are so severely eroded that regenerationto productive grassland may not be possible,although Howell (1976) gives some hope of recla-mation being successful.

Overgrazing reduces the competitiveness of thegrass layer and produces a more favourable envi-ronment for the germination and establishment of

shrubs and trees. Acacia karro is the most wide-spread of the encroaching species, having spreadinto the arid and semi-arid grasslands of theTransvaal, central Orange Free State, eastern Capeand Natal (Acocks 1975).

In drier and more fragile zones, such as Kalahari,with persistent famine and drought, many peopleare living through a period of rapid and dramaticchanges in land use patterns, economic conditionsand natural environment. This pace of changeoften exceeds the capacity of local institutions todesign new land use practices that support boththe natural resources and people’s welfare. Withmore technological developments (e.g. dams andboreholes), more marginal areas have been openedup. Livestock numbers have now reached 45million cattle and 71 million sheep and goats(SARDC/ IUCN/ SADC 1994). The recent expan-sion of arable cultivation in the Kalahari has beenseen as one of the major causes of land degrada-tion in the region (Ringrose et al. 1997b), resultingin loss of biodiversity.

One of the most significant hotspots in theKalahari is the Okavango Delta, a large wetlandlocated in the Ngamiland district of NorthernBotswana. In this wetland, water is the primaryfactor controlling the environment and associatedplant and animal life. The Okavango is the habitatfor diverse species of plants, arachnids (spiders,scorpion, ticks and mites), large herbivores andbirds. Land use changes in the Okavango Delta arehaving tremendous impacts on the ecosystem ofthis wetland. While it is not known how many rareor threatened species of flora and fauna exist in theDelta, the wetland ecosystem as a whole is a criti-cally endangered environment of internationalsignificance. The growth of tourism in the areaoffers prospects for conservation but if not properlymanaged, this may exacerbate the threat tosustainable use of resources in this wetland area inthe long run.

Cultivation of crops in the drylands, too, has aneffect on biological diversity in the region.Unfortunately, cultivation is not only a majorfactor in reducing biodiversity in what would beconsidered legitimate arable land, but it takes uplarge tracts of land in semi-arid areas (that coverthe largest area of the subcontinent). There areunconfirmed reports that in the Namaqualandagricultural region (68,719 km2), for example, 2,449km2 had been cultivated by 1983 and only 180 km2

was under irrigation (Macdonald 1989). In Karooagricultural region (290,600 km2), 1,920 km2 iscultivated whereas a mere 200 km2 is consideredsuitable for rain-fed crop cultivation (Schoeman

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 51: 2001-049

47

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE DRYLANDS OF AFRICA

and Scotney 1987). Such examples show that thereare some drylands that are being unwisely culti-vated under dry conditions. This has an effect onthe biological diversity in these areas because suchdrylands are unlikely to revert to the original plantcommunities characteristic of uncultivated sites.Probably the most important effect of cultivationon ecological processes in the sub-region is theeffect of soil erosion.

The loss of woodlands in particular is not only aloss of biodiversity in the drylands but also hasimplications for climate change. This is becausetrees act as sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide.The loss of trees induced during initial prepara-tions for land cultivation diminishes the flux ofcarbon dioxide from the soil via photosynthesisand reduces the storage capacity of the biospherefor carbon. Burning, a method used by farmers toclear land, releases stored carbon into the atmos-phere along with carbon from the litter and soil,which contributes to the enhanced greenhouseeffect.

Increase in agricultural activities can be attributedto government policies. In Botswana, the agricul-tural policy pursued by the post-independencegovernment encouraged people to go into arablefarming by providing agricultural extensionservices and other incentives, resulting in theabandonment of the indigenous plant varietiesand species. Government settlement policies havecurtailed the movement of the Basarwa in theKalahari, and the provision of permanent watersupplies at wells and boreholes has resulted inconcentrated settlements around the water points.This has had adverse effects on wild animals,which are denied access to these grazing landsbecause they are considered a threat to people’slives.

The future of Africa’s biodiversity

The economic and social forces driving the trans-formation of the natural habitats of Africa’s bio-diversity cannot easily be stopped as long as thestated goal of most people and their politicalrepresentatives is to increase production of foodfor the growing population.

It has been established that agriculture acceleratesthe loss of biodiversity in the drylands as farmersattempt to increase crop and animal production tofeed the growing population and to contribute tothe growth of the economy. To avoid a situation inwhich agricultural activity leads to conflicts overresource use and loss of biodiversity, and to ensure

environmental sustainability a broad landscapeplanning approach to conservation is required.Multiple-use areas that bring benefits to localpeople and combine conservation with sustainableland use need to be considered as practical andpossible alternatives to the establishment ofprotected areas and buffer zones; these often leadto conflicts with local people over rights of accessto land and other natural resources. It is crucialthat biodiversity conservation be extended beyondbuffer zones and protected areas to include all ele-ments of the landscape and all ecosystems (USAID1993). The drylands of Africa have the potential tobe more productive if wisely managed.

Successful biodiversity conservation strategiesmust respect and incorporate African values,knowledge systems and priorities. With regard toecological knowledge, the traditional people occu-pying the marginal environments such as semi-arid areas tend to possess much knowledge of howto conserve and use the resources sustainably(McNeely 1995, Darkoh 1996b). Any biodiversityconservation projects must involve local people inthe management and use of biological resources.This will encourage the local people to accept thebiological resources as their own and fight toprotect them against depletion. Successful conser-vation strategies take many forms, both traditionaland innovative. In Africa, the emphasis on formaleducation in general has been at the expense oftraditional knowledge systems; most schools usecurricula and teaching materials based on those ofEurope. The single most important activity thatwill enhance biodiversity conservation in themedium- to long-term is to raise well-informedfuture generations with a strong commitment tothe sustainable management of natural resourcesand biodiversity. Biodiversity conservation shouldbe an integral component of environmental educa-tion throughout formal education systems, andboth traditional and modern knowledge systems,and values need to be integrated into schoolcurricula.

There is a need to use agricultural productionsystems that are likely to intensify production andso reduce the rate at which land is cleared forcultivation. Such production systems need to beself-sustaining, allowing land to be used for a longtime without the need to shift to other places.Agroforestry, the planting of trees on and aroundthe farm, should be recommended because thesetrees will serve as windbreaks and shelterbelts.They also provide other needs like fuelwood,timber, poles, fodder, fruits and medicines. Thiswill cut down the rate at which trees are harvestedto meet these needs.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 52: 2001-049

48

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

The sustainable use of drylands depends upon thedevelopment projects that take into considerationthe fact that all the components of drylandssystems directly or indirectly affect all othercomponents. Development activities in drylandshave in the past not been very successful. Theirfailure may be attributed to the fact that pastprojects often did not consider the entire system –which includes the local people – in planning,implementing and following up projects.

There is a need to assess the agricultural potentialof the semi-arid environments and develop specif-ic agricultural policies or programmes to enhancethe sustainable utilisation of the ecosystem. Forsuch policies or programmes to succeed, they haveto be in line with the needs, aspirations and abili-ties of the users. In other words, they have to beformulated with the participation of the beneficia-ries.

So far, only limited research on biological diversity,species composition, characteristics and endemismhas been conducted in Africa’s drylands. Researchin only a few countries, such as Botswana, Kenya,Namibia, South Africa and Sudan, has yieldedresults that make a significant contribution to ourunderstanding of dryland ecology. For the majorityof African countries, drylands remain a largelyunknown domain. Knowledge of dryland ecosys-tems and their genetic characteristics is an impor-tant tool in efforts to mitigate the effects of droughtand combat desertification. Research is needed tofill the gaps in our knowledge of biodiversityacross regions, countries and local areas in the dry-lands of Africa. Efforts should be made to identifyand strengthen activities that transfer or dissemi-nate lessons learned, for example through regionalsharing of information. The transfer of ideas andtechnologies is an important aspect of thechallenge to strengthen the capacity of Africansocieties to take responsibility for the managementof biodiversity in the ways that are sustainable inthe long term.

There is also a serious lack of natural resourceinventories and other baseline data that are of fun-damental importance for monitoring biodiversitytrends. Inventories provide information on exist-ing levels and patterns of biodiversity. Baselineinventories can, if carefully carried out, providethe basis for ecological monitoring. Above all,there is an urgent need for regular ecological mon-itoring to identify both positive and negativetrends in biodiversity in the drylands of Africa.

ReferencesAcocks J.P.H. 1975. Veld types of South Africa, 2nd

edition. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of SouthAfrica 40: 1–128.

Bedigian D. 1991. Genetic diversity of traditionalsesame cultivators and cultural diversity inSudan. In: Oldfield M.L., Alcorn J.B., editors.Biodiversity: culture, conservation, and ecodevelop-ment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

Behnke R., Scoones R., Kerven C. 1993. Range ecol-ogy at disequilibrium: new models of natural vari-ability and pastoral adaptation in African savannah.London: Overseas Development Institute.

Cowling R.M., Hilton-Taylor C. 1994. Patterns ofplant diversity and endemism in SouthernAfrica: an overview. In: Huntley, B.J., editor.Botanical diversity in Southern Africa. Pretoria:National Botanical Institute.

Darkoh M.B.K. 1982. Population expansion anddesertification in Tanzania. DesertificationControl Bulletin 6: 28–33.

Darkoh M.B.K. 1996a. Environmental problems inKenya’s arid and semi-arid lands. In: Eden M.J.,Parry J.T., editors. Land degradation in the tropics.London: Cassell.

Darkoh M.B.K. 1996b. Towards an adaptive andcommunity-based approach to the manage-ment of natural resources in the drylands ofsub-Saharan Africa. In: Hjort-af-Ornas A., edi-tor. Approaching Nature from Local Communities.EPOS, Linkoping University, Sweden.

Darkoh M.B.K. 1998. The nature, causes andconsequences of desertification in the drylandsof Africa. Land Degradation and Development 9:1–20.

Ghabbour S.I. 1997. Threats to biodiversity in Arabcountries. In: Barakat H.N., Hegazy A.K.,editors. Reviews in ecology desert conservation anddevelopment. Cairo: Metropole

Gibbs Russell G. E. 1987. Preliminary floristicanalysis of the major biomes in southern Africa.Bothalia 17: 213–327.

Grivetti L.E. 1979. Kalahari agro-pastoral hunter-gatherers: the Tswana example. Ecology of Foodand Nutrition 7: 235–256.

Hassan H., Dregne H.E. 1997. Natural habitats andecosystems management in drylands: anoverview. Washington DC: World Bank. WorldBank Environment Department Papers No. 51.

Howell D. 1976. Observations of the role of grazingin revegetating problem patches of Veld.Proceedings of the Grassland Society of SouthernAfrica 11: 59–64.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 53: 2001-049

49

AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE DRYLANDS OF AFRICA

Hulme M., Kelly M. 1993. Exploring the linksbetween desertification and climate change.Environment 35(6): 1–11, 39–45.

Huntley B.J. 1984. Characteristics of South Africanbiomes. In: Booysen P. de V., Tainton, N.M.,editors. Ecological effect of fire in South Africanecosystems. Berlin: Springer.

IPED 1994. Effects of desertification and droughton the biodiversity of the drylands. Geneva:United Nations. International Panel of Expertson Desertification. Preliminary ExecutiveSummary Report.

Jabbar M.A. 1993. Evolving crop livestock farmingsystems in the humid zone of west Africa:potential and research needs. Outlook onAgriculture 22: 13–21.

Kelly M., Hulme M. 1993. Desertification andclimate change. Tiempo 8: 1–7.

Lykke A.M. 2000. Refining the ecological aspects ofdisequilibrium theories for Africa’s pastoraldrylands. Desertification Control Bulletin 36:23–33.

Mannion A.M. 1995. Agriculture and environmentalchange: temporal and spatial Dimensions.Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Mcdonald I.A.W. 1989. Man’s role in changing theface of Southern Africa. In: Huntley B.J., editor.Biotic diversity in Southern Africa: concepts andConservation. Cape Town: Oxford UniversityPress.

MacKinnon J., MacKinnon K. 1986. Review of theprotected area system in the Afrotropical realm.Gland: IUCN.

McNeely J.A. 1995. Biodiversity conservation andtradition agrosystems. In: Saunier R.E.,Meganck R.A., editors. Conservation of biodiver-sity and the new regional planning. Gland: IUCN

McNeely J.A., Miller K.R., Reid W.V., MittermeierR.A., Werner T.B. 1990. Conserving the world’sbiological diversity. Gland: IUCN.

Meadows M.E. 2000. The ecological resource base:biodiversity and conservation. In: Fox R.,Rowntree K., editors. The geography of SouthAfrica in a changing world. Cape Town: OxfordUniversity Press Southern Africa.

Murray M. 1988. Management plan for CentralKalahari and Khutse Game Reserve. KalahariConservation Society, Gaborone, Botswana.

Myers N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge:expanded hot spot analysis. TheEnvironmentalist 10: 243–256.

Nicholson S.E. 1978. Climatic variation in the Saheland other African regions during the past fivecenturies. Journal of Arid Environments 1: 3–24.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1987.Technologies to maintain biological diversity.Washington DC: US Government PrintingOffice.

Patterson L. 1987. Cordon fences. KalahariConservation Newsletter 18: 10–11.

Perkins J.S., Ringrose S. 1996. Development coop-eration objectives and the beef protocol: thecase of Botswana: a study of livestock/wildlife/ tourism/ degradation linkages.Gaborone: University of Botswana.

Repetto R. 1985. Environmental ethics and globalimperatives. In: Repetto R., editor. The globalpossible: resources, development and the new centu-ry. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Repetto R. 1989. Wasting assets: natural resources inthe national income accounts. Washington DC:World Resource Institute.

Republic of Mali. 1987. National plan of action tocombat desertification. Bamako: Ministry ofNatural Resources and Livestock.

Ringrose S., Vander Post C., Matheson W. 1997.The use of image processing and GIS tech-niques to determine the extent and possiblecauses of land management. Fenceline induceddegradation problems in the Okavango area,Northern Botswana. International Journal ofRemote Sensing p 35.

SARDC/ IUCN/ SADC. 1994. State of the environ-ment in Southern Africa. Johannesburg: ThePenrose Press.

Schoeman J.L., Scotney D.M. 1987. Agriculturepotential as determined by soil, terrain andclimate. South African Journal of Science 83:260–268.

Schusky E.L. 1989. Culture and agriculture. NewYork: Bergin and Garvey Publishers.

Scoones I. 1996. Living with uncertainty: new direc-tions in pastoral development in Africa. London:Intermediate Technology Publications.

Snyman H.A., Van Rensburg W.L.J. 1986. Effect ofslope and cover on run-off, soil loss and wateruse efficiency of natural veld. Journal of theGrassland Society of Southern Africa 3(4): 117–121.

Sporton D., Thomas D.S.G., Morrison J. 1999.Outcomes of social and environmental changesin the Kalahari of Botswana: the role of migra-tion. Journal of Southern African Studies 25(3):441–459.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 54: 2001-049

50

CHAPTER 1: FARMING IN DRYLANDS

Stock W.D., Allsopp N., van der Heyden F.,Witkowski E.T.F. 1997. Plant form and function.In: Cowling R.M., Richardson D.M., PierceS.M., editors. Vegetation of Southern Africa.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stuart S.N., Adams R.J., Jenkins M.D. 1990.Biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa and its islands:conservation, management and sustainable use.Gland: IUCN. Occasional paper of the IUCNSpecies Survival Commission no. 6.

Tainton N.M., Zacharias P.J.K., Hardy M.B. 1989.The contribution of diversity to the agriculturaleconomy. In: Huntley B.J., editor. Biotic diversityin Southern Africa: concepts and conservation.Cape Town Oxford University Press.

UNEP. 1983. Promotion of exchange of informationand expertise on desertification control and technol-ogy in Africa, Volume 1: Actions. Nairobi:Desertification Branch of UNEP.

UNEP. 1992a. World atlas of desertification. London:Arnold.

UNEP. 1992b. Status of desertification and implemen-tation of the United Nations plan of action to combatdesertification. Nairobi: United NationsEnvironment Programme.

UNEP. 1997. Global environment outlook. New York:Oxford University Press.

USAID. 1993. African biodiversity: foundation forthe future. Beltsville, Maryland: ProfessionalPrinting Inc.,

Williamson D.T., Williamson J.E. 1983. An assess-ment of the impact of fences on large herbivorebiomass in the Kalahari. Botswana Notes andRecords 13: 107–110.

World Bank. 1991. World development report 1991.Washington DC: Oxford University Press.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 55: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 51

Abstract

Over 60 million people live in the Mekong Basin,where the natural biodiversity is immense andhighly significant internationally for biodiversityconservation. But of the initial 4 million hectares ofthe delta, only 1.3% now remains in a natural orsemi-natural state. Expanding agriculture poses anumber of threats to the wetlands, their resourcesand biodiversity, as well as to local communities.These include the conversion of wetland habitatsfor farming, particularly intensively cultivated ricefields, irrigation schemes and water pollution byagrochemicals. The construction of dams forhydroelectric power schemes is altering the hydro-logical regime, causing further wetland degrada-tion in the Lower Mekong. Regional coordinationand cooperation is required for integrated andharmonious development in the region, andgovernments need assistance with decision mak-ing and regional cooperation. Recommendationsfor improving the situation are made.

Introduction

The Mekong is one of the world’s great riversystems. Rising from the Tibetan Plateau anddischarging into the South China Sea some 4,800kilometres later, it is the twelfth longest of theworld’s rivers. It drains a catchment area of795,000 km2 extending across parts of six coun-tries – China, Myanmar, Thailand, Lao PDR,Cambodia and Vietnam. Each year, the Mekongdischarges 475,000 million cubic metres of water,making it the eighth largest river in the world. Theseasonal variation in water level is the source ofthe productivity of the system: wet season riverlevels are up to 8–10 metres higher than dry seasonones, creating a rich and extensive series of wet-lands in the four countries of the Lower MekongBasin and the 4 million hectare delta.

The natural biodiversity of the Mekong RiverBasin is immense and of truly exceptional signifi-cance to international biodiversity conservation,even in comparison with other parts of tropicalAsia. The river and its numerous tributaries, back-waters, lakes, and swamps support many uniqueecosystems and a wide variety of globally-threat-ened species, such as the Irrawaddy Dolphin,Siamese Crocodile, Giant Catfish and birds such asthe Giant Ibis and Sarus Crane. The diversity of theriver fauna itself is only surpassed by that of theAmazon and the Congo, with between 500 and1,300 species of fish in the main channels, tribu-taries, and associated wetlands.

Over 60 million people live in the Mekong Basin,more than 90% of them in the Lower MekongBasin, including about one third of the total popu-lations of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand andVietnam. Population growth remains high in theLower Mekong countries: 2.6% in Cambodia andLao PDR and 1.7% in Vietnam (the EastAsia/Pacific regional average is 1.6%). Despite therapid economic advances made over the lastdecade, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam areclassified as low income countries with a per capitaGDP of USD 280–360 (compared with an EastAsia/Pacific region average GDP of USD 990). It isestimated that some 36% of the population inCambodia, 36% in Lao PDR, 13% in Thailand and37% in Vietnam live below the poverty line.

With the exception of Thailand, a middle incomecountry with a per capita GDP of USD 2,200, andto a lesser extent Vietnam, the national economiesof the Lower Mekong states are based primarily onagriculture and natural resources. Agriculture isthe main sector of Cambodia’s economy, account-ing for nearly 45% of the GDP and supporting 85%of the labour force. Rice is the predominant agri-cultural crop and forms 80% of crop output,although rice yields are among the lowest in theworld. Fish constitutes about 70% of animal

CHAPTER 2

FARMING IN WETLANDS

Agriculture and Wetlands in the Mekong Basin

Kosal MamLower Mekong Basin Programme, Wetlands International–Asia Pacific, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Page 56: 2001-049

52

CHAPTER 2: FARMING IN WETLANDS

protein consumed in the country. Other importantcrops are rubber, corn, mung beans, vegetables,tobacco, soybean and sesame. In the Mekong Basinarea of Thailand about 90% of the population relieson agriculture. This area has a relatively low levelof industrialisation and service sector develop-ment compared with the rest of the country.

Over three-quarters of each of the populations ofCambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Vietnam livein rural areas and rely almost entirely on subsis-tence farming, fisheries, wildlife, forest productsand plant resource utilisation. Scarcity of fertileagricultural land, or lack of access to it, coupledwith rising needs for income and subsistence, areplacing increasing pressure on wetlands and theirbiodiversity. Such high levels of human popula-tion and usage have led to increasing developmentpressures within the basin, which present directthreats to many of the endangered species andimportant ecosystems for which the region isrenowned. Only 1.3% of the Mekong Delta, once sorich in biodiversity is in a natural or semi-naturalstate, with the few remaining wetland specieswholly reliant on these remnant patches. Similarly,in Esarn, a Thai portion of the Lower MekongBasin, infrastructure development has reducednatural wetlands to a small fraction of their origi-nal area.

Extent of the Mekong Wetlands

The Mekong Basin wetlands are complex systemswith a variety of physical, hydrological and vege-tative characteristics. Simple categorisation ofthese systems is difficult. The structure and func-tion of wetlands in the Lower Mekong Basin areinextricably linked to the seasonal hydrologicalpattern of the Mekong River, involving a wetseason rise in water levels of up to 10 metres abovethat of the dry season. However, the wetlands ofthe Lower Mekong Basin could be considered toencompass the following descriptive units:

� Upland tributaries and related systems, includ-ing streams, reservoirs and headwaters;

� Lowland river channels of the Mekong and itslarger low-gradient tributaries;

� Permanently and seasonally inundated wet-lands associated with seasonal rainfall and theannual inundation of the Lower Mekong Basin;

� The Mekong Delta from south-easternCambodia through to the estuarine associationsin the delta in Vietnam.

Lowland river channels include the main channels

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Table 1

Extent of known wetlands in the countries in

Lower Mekong Basin

Country National International

No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha)

Cambodia 4 3,650,000

Laos 30 434,275 4 222,000

Thailand 42 2,510,000

Vietnam 25 5,810,000

Source: Global Review of Wetlands Resources 1999

0 100 200 300 km

PHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHHO CHI MINHHO CHI MINH

Sien ReaSien ReapStung Stung Trengeng

PakseakseUbonUbon

Koratorat

Chau DocChau Doc

Chiang KhamChiang Kham

Muang NanaMuang Nana

LuangLuangBrabangBrabang

SaSavannakhetvannakhet

Nong KhaiNong Khai

KratieKratie

BANGKOK

VENTIANEVENTIANE

HANOIHANOI

Legend

International boundaries

Mekong River

Watershed boundary

PHNOM PENHHO CHI MINH

Sien ReapStung Treng

PakseUbon

Korat

Chau Doc

Chiang Kham

Muang Nana

LuangBrabang

Savannakhet

Nong Khai

Kratie

BANGKOK

VENTIANE

HANOI

MYANMAR

THAILAND

CAMBODIA

CHINA

VIETNAMMYANMAR

THAILAND

CAMBODIA

CHINA

VIETNAM

Gulf of Thailand

South China Sea

Gulf of Tonkin

Figure 1

Mekong Basin, its main and tributaries waterways

(Source: MRCS, Environmental Unit)

Page 57: 2001-049

53

AGRICULTURE AND WETLANDS IN THE MEKONG BASIN

of the Mekong and its major tributaries, the NamNgum, Songkram, Pak Mun, Xe Kong, Se San andSrepok. These are permanent rivers that flow rela-tively slowly in the dry season and form a series ofdeep pools interspersed by rapids and islands.

Important wetland ecosystems in the MekongBasin are found particularly along the main riverchannel and its tributaries; in the permanently andseasonally inundated riparian forests, such as thearea around the Tonle Sap lake of Cambodia and inmarshes and small pools in the wetland plains, aswell as the vast delta plain. The Plain of Reeds inthe delta area of Vietnam was once a large wetlanddepression of about 1.3 million hectares, encom-passing the provinces of Dong Thap, Tien Giangand Lang Sen. The Plain of Reeds also encom-passed parts of Svay Reang province in Cambodia.Except for areas of relatively high ground near theCambodian border and the river levees along themain branches of the Mekong, the plain lies in aflat lowland region subject to seasonal floodingfrom July to January. At its peak between lateSeptember and the end of October, the plain virtu-ally becomes a vast lake, with some areas floodedto a depth of nearly four metres. During the dryseason, the plain all but dries out except forscattered ponds and swamps.

Main threatened habitats

As there is no single standard definition and clas-sification of wetlands and no complete wetlandsinventory, the actual extent and categories of wet-lands have not been yet established. In many cases,wetlands areas are estimated according to theirvarious levels of importance, the incomplete infor-mation available and national definitions. Theinformation on the extent and distribution of wet-lands also depends considerably on the objectivesof the inventory. Due to a lack of knowledge ofwetlands and wetland ecosystems in the Mekong,it is not known what proportions of the originalecosystems have been degraded and/or lost. Sincethe definition of wetlands in the Ramsar conven-tion is broad and national boundaries are unclear,most wetland ecosystems are considered to bealtered, e.g. from flooded forest to rice paddies,rather than lost; wetlands are considered to be lostonly when their ecosystems cannot be restorednaturally. In many cases, loss and/or changes ofwetlands ecosystems are presented in terms of lossof production. Wetlands International–Asia Pacificis currently in the process of developing an AsianWetlands Inventory programme to comprehen-sively update the 1989 version. Further details of

the proposal can be requested from Matt Wheelerat Wetlands International in Malaysia via [email protected].

This is illustrated by some examples of the lossesand changes in some prominent wetland ecosys-tems in selected countries in the Mekong Delta. InCambodia, the expanse of flooded forest (vegeta-tion) around the Tonle Sap lake has been reducedby about 60% since the 1960s (Woodsworth 1995):

pre 1930s 1,000,000 ha

late 1960s 614,000 ha – 386,000 ha lost tocharcoal, firewood, populationpressure

1970 564,000 ha – 50,000 ha convertedto rice paddies during the Pol Potregime

1990 460,000 ha – 104,000 ha convertedto agriculture

In the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, the original plainwas covered by dense vegetation with small nat-ural streams. However, agricultural expansionover the past 40 years has led to most natural areasbeing converted to rice production. Of the initial 4million hectares of the Delta, only 1.3% nowremains in a natural or semi-natural state.Melaleuca once covered 220,000 ha (World Bank1995) to 250,000 ha (Duc and Hufsschmidt 1993) ofthe Mekong Delta, but now only about 120,000 haremain, of which only 10,000 ha are intact. By 197523% of the original melaleuca vegetation had beenlost to drainage and clearance for rice farming anddestruction during the Vietnam War from 1964 to1975.

There has been a general increase in area of ricefields in the Mekong, where rice production is acrucial element in the regional (see Table 2). Otherchanges include an increase in the number of dams

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Table 2

Area changes of rice paddies in Asia

(FAOSTAT 1998)

Country 1988 1997 1998

Cambodia 1,735,000 1,928,689 1,928,689

Laos 524,828 572,000 572,000

Thailand 9,905,932 9,932,160 9,210,000

Vietnam 5,726,380 7,091,200 7,091,200

Total 130,092,618 133,811,958 133,608,448

Page 58: 2001-049

54

CHAPTER 2: FARMING IN WETLANDS

and reservoirs for hydroelectric power generationand irrigation schemes. Often these reservoirshave limited seasonal variation in water heightand possess a uniform underwater landscape.

Threats posed by agricultural

developments

There are a number of agriculture-related threatsto wetlands, their resources and biodiversity, aswell as to local communities. They include theconversion of wetland habitats for farming, theconstruction of infrastructure, such as large damsand irrigation schemes, and water pollution result-ing from the use of agrochemicals. As a result ofthe Doi Moi policy, a thousand hectares ofmangrove forest in the southern part of the CaMau peninsula have been reclaimed for the culti-vation of rice and soya bean. As the soil wasinitially rich in humus content and rainfall is high(2300–2500 mm/year) and concentrated in a 3–4month period, production was good. But with along dry season and strong sunlight, water evapo-rates quickly and the soil oxidises rapidly andbecomes saline and acid. Another consequence ofthe policy was large-scale immigration into theMekong Delta.

The expansion of agriculture land is frequentlyaccompanied by the extension of irrigationschemes, particularly if the aim is to obtain highyields. This entails the construction of infrastruc-ture for water diversion and distribution. Forexample, the Department of Energy Developmentand Promotion (DEDP) released a plan in 1995 toconstruct a dam at the mouth of the SongkramRiver, together with 47 pumping stations, toprovide water to 90,400 ha of farmland in the threeprovinces. The proposed plan would permanentlyinundate 13,900 ha of currently seasonal wetlands,including flooded forests and farmland, whileremoving flooding from another 4,700 ha ofseasonal wetlands. The remaining seasonally inun-dated area will remain under water for a longerperiod during the drawdown period of irrigationoperations. The project is currently stalled afterrejection of the EIA by the National EnvironmentalBoard, pending additional EIA studies.

Since 1995, there has been well-organised opposi-tion to the planned dam by the primary stakehold-ers of Lower Songkram River, supported by localenvironmental NGOs. Lessons learned from else-where, particularly the effects of the recent PakMun dam on the Nam Mun (the largest tributaryof the Mekong in Thailand) raise serious concerns

about maintaining the livelihood of the Songkramuser community. A Thai NGO, Project forEcological Recovery, which has been working inthe area for many years, has disseminated infor-mation widely about the proposed dam. In 1996,local people formed a network called ‘VillagePeople to Conserve the Songkram River Basin’.This active network, with members from 30villages, is campaigning for the cancellation of theSongkram Irrigation Project and is pushing for therecovery and conservation of the Mekong Basin.Fish and forest reserves have been established inseveral villages under village rules and regula-tions. To enhance their bargaining power thenetwork has also joined the Forum of the Poor, anationwide network of organisations of localpeople affected adversely by government develop-ment projects.

Fertilisers and pesticides are intensively used innorthern Thailand and in the Vietnamese part ofthe Mekong delta. Increasing quantities of agro-chemicals are used owing to economic reforms andvarious incentives to increase productivity. At leastfour types of environmental problems occur as aresult of pesticide use. These include health effectsin people and the accumulation of toxic residues inthe water, soil and in the food web, ruining crucialsources of protein and income. Overuse can alsolead to pesticide resistance and, in response, anincrease in the dose applied.

The main occupation of the local people in theVietnamese Mekong delta is dry season rice culti-vation, which takes up 83% of community labour.As elsewhere in the delta, rice production is basedon an intensive model of production geared toexport. This requires high capital inputs, such ashigh doses of fertiliser and various insecticides, toincrease yield. The average agricultural land hold-ing is 2 ha per family, on which typically two ricecrops are produced each year, each having an aver-age yield of 4 tonnes/ha. This means that a familycan produce about 16 tonnes of rice per year witha value of USD 1,750. However, two-thirds of thisamount is needed to cover the costs of farm inputs,including chemicals, fuel for water pumps, andlabour.

In Laos, the provincial authorities are promotingdry season rice cultivation in line with the nation-al development priority of overcoming food short-ages. Irrigated dry season rice production wasintroduced into the province in 1997, with theconstruction of dams and systems supporting irri-gation to an area of 1,000 ha. Traditionally, localpeople planted rice in the wet season only and areyet to be convinced of the merits of dry season

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 59: 2001-049

55

AGRICULTURE AND WETLANDS IN THE MEKONG BASIN

cultivation. In 1997–1998 the authorities were aim-ing for the planting of 1,000 ha of dry season rice,but achieved only 400 ha, and by 1999 the areaplanted had dropped to 200 ha, despite a strongprovincial campaign. The intensive management,high production cost, high pumping costs andpossible increases in the price of oil present a riskthat many farmers do not want to take.

Communities living on the lowland plains culti-vate rain-fed rice. The average land holding is 1 haper family for rice production and 1 ha for agarden around the house used for growing maize,chillies, pumpkins, cucumbers and other produce.About one third of farmers have no draughtanimals for ploughing, so tilling the soil is donemanually. This significantly limits the area of landcultivated each year. The rice yield is around 2tonnes/ha.

In Thailand, the average land holding in the area is2–3 ha/family, of which a large portion is for dryseason rice dependent on small irrigation schemesusing water from village reservoirs. The averageyield for dry season rice is 4 tonnes/ha producinga total yield of 8–12 tonnes/family/year with avalue of around USD 865–1,296. However, in theLower Songkram Basin, local people’s incomefrom fishing and the harvest of wetland productsis equal to, or greater than, that of rice farming.Project for Ecological Recovery conducted adetailed study of the products from wetlands inDong San Village. In this village in 1996 the totalcatch of aquatic animals including fish, shrimpsand crabs was 81 tonnes, or 788 kg/family/year,with a value of USD 1,432/family/year. The har-vest of plant products from the wetlands and inun-dated forest, e.g. edible leaves, bamboo shoots andmushrooms, was 26.2 tonnes for the village or 688kg/family/year with a value of USD 216/fami-ly/year. The average income for communities inthe demonstration site is USD 2,500–2,950/fami-ly/year, two thirds of which comes from directharvesting in wetlands and only one-third fromrice cultivation.

Underlying causes of wetland

degradation in the Lower

Mekong / Recommendations

Alteration of the hydrological regime

The wetland systems of the Lower Mekong Basindepend on the annual inundation of the wetseason water flow, their productivity reflecting the

height and duration of inundation. The Tonle Sapsystem is a critical example that depends on theannual pulse of water from the Mekong to reversethe flow of the Tonle Sap River from June untilOctober or November. This reverse flow floods thelake, increasing its area from 250,000 ha to 1.3million ha and its average depth from 1–2 m to8–10 m. This flooding inundates the forest aroundthe lake, releasing nutrients and creating excep-tionally productive nursery grounds for numerousfish species. Changes to flood height and durationmay result in some seasonal wetlands not flood-ing, or in previously permanent wetlands dryingout, thereby diminishing wetland productivity.Reliable quantifiable data on these impacts areunavailable, but a current reduction of 15% onpeak flows resulting from dam construction andwater management structures has been suggestedas likely to cause severe reductions in productivity.There are a number of existing and proposeddevelopments that may result in reduced peakflows and increases in dry season flow. The cumu-lative effects of these on the biodiversity of theLower Mekong Basin wetlands are unknown.Regardless of the agreement between participatingcountries in the Mekong River Commission(MRC), many hydropower projects have beendesigned and built without sufficient consultationor studies of downstream impacts, especially inareas outside the country’s administrativeauthority.

Hydroelectric power dams

The Mekong River is viewed widely as a greatpotential source of hydroelectric power. TheManwan power station in China is already in oper-ation and another 13 are at various stages of plan-ning and construction. Lao PDR has 22 plannedhydropower dams with a total expected output of7,500 MW, mainly on the Mekong tributaries, andin Cambodia several dams are planned for thetributaries and one on the main channel of theMekong near Kratie. Vietnam is currentlyconstructing the Yali Falls Dam on the Se San. Noimpact assessment has been carried out on thisscheme and so likely impacts in Cambodia areunknown. Vietnam is also planning to constructdams on the upstream reaches of the Srepok River.Thailand has dams on all tributaries of the Mekongexcept the Songkram River. The Laos PDR govern-ment looks to hydroelectric power development asthe primary source of income for the country infuture and hydroelectric power generation isexpected to reach 1,500 MW by the end of this year.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 60: 2001-049

56

CHAPTER 2: FARMING IN WETLANDS

Recommendations

� Avoid large scale dam constructions.

� Promote existing small reservoirs for waterstorage and irrigation.

� Reduce demand for water by providing eco-nomic incentives, farming techniques and mar-ket support for agricultural crops that requiringless water.

� Avoid inter-basin transfers of water.

Irrigation

Dams built for electricity generation and irrigationin the past few decades in the north and north-eastof Thailand have not performed as well as expect-ed; the reservoirs have not reached the predictedwater levels as a result of low rainfall and high rateof sedimentation. Soil quality in north-eastThailand is generally poor, with a low clay contentand salinity problems. The expansion of irrigationand construction of reservoirs will worsen thesalinity problems by raising the water table. It isestimated that saline soils and unsuitable topo-graphy affect about 75% of the land which is poor-ly suited to suitable for reservoir development(Natural Resource Management in the MekongRiver Basin: Perspectives for AustralianDevelopment Cooperation, 1996). Dams built inthe past two decades for power generation andirrigation in the north and north-east do notperform well because rainfall is low.

The construction of canals in Cambodia during thePol Pot regime of 1975–79 was part of an extensiveand expensive irrigation programme that failedbecause of poor hydraulic design. Cambodia is stillsuffering the negative impacts of these often stag-nant canals; some of them have been converted foraquaculture. Many areas in the delta now growtwo or three rice crops per year with an annualyield of up to 10 tonnes/ha, while in Cambodiamany areas produce only one crop per year with atypical yield of less than 2.5 tonnes/ha. It is expect-ed that Cambodia and Lao will invest heavily overthe next few years in irrigation infrastructure toincrease rice production, and so raise the demandfor water from the Mekong River.

A large area (368,000 ha) of the plain in Vietnam(known as Dong Thap Muoi) is composed of acid-sulphate soils. Recent water management efforts,including canals and dikes, have increased the areaof land available for agriculture and have also ledto increased settlement of people in the flood plain.However, these areas are still subject to periodicflooding and more plans are being developed tomodify the river flow and ensure that these peri-odic events do not affect crops and settlements.The expansion into the delta of both the canalnetwork and rice cultivation has resulted in thedisturbance and oxidation of sulphate-rich soilswhich, on exposure to air, produce acid. On occa-sions, particularly in the dry season, water in thedelta becomes highly acidic; a pH of 3.5 has beenrecorded.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

0 100 200 300 km

Legend

International boundaries

Mekong River

Watershed boundary

Hydropower Project site

2510

27

26

9

2220

17

1618

15

12

6511

4

3

21

7 1413

19

21 8

2324

1

MYANMAR

THAILAND

CAMBODIA

CHINA

VIETNAMMYANMAR

THAILAND

CAMBODIA

YUNNANPROVINCE

PRC

VIETNAM

Gulf of Thailand

South China Sea

Gulf of Tonkin

Figure 2

Selected hydroelectric power projects in Lower

Mekong Basin (After MRB Diagnostic Study 1996)

Page 61: 2001-049

57

AGRICULTURE AND WETLANDS IN THE MEKONG BASIN

Recommendations

� Promote crop production requiring less water.

� Integrate habitat protection into agriculturalpolicy through land use planning and inter-sectoral coordination.

Pollution

Increasing use of fertiliser is causing high nutrientrun-off leading to eutrophication and oxygendepletion, raising the potential for toxic algalblooms. The use of herbicides and pesticides is alsoincreasing throughout the Lower Mekong Basin.Lack of understanding and a desire to increasecrop production often lead to applications ofexcessive doses of these toxins, which run off intowater bodies and are absorbed by aquatic organ-isms. Accumulation of these toxins in manyhigher-level animals means high concentrations oftoxins in animal products, making them unsafe forhuman consumption. They may cause death andsub-lethal effects such as reduced reproductivecapability.

In Cambodia, at least 168 pesticides are availableunder various trade names, and 66 pesticidesunder various common names. According to theWorld Health Organisation (WHO) 83% of allpesticides used in Cambodia are listed in WHOclass Ia or Ib and include hazardous and notoriouschemicals such as Endrin, Chlordane and Methyl-Parathion. Pesticides are also used as preventivemeasures and use is often not targeted due to igno-rance of the action and effects of pesticides. Thereis a lack of understanding of the roles of naturalenemies of pests, and of the effects of pesticides onhuman health. Sixty per cent of farmers use pesti-cide on dry season crops and 20% on wet seasoncrops.

Recommendations

� Regulate the trade in agrochemicals.

� Ensure appropriate labelling and instructionsfor use.

� Apply alternative pest management methods,such as biological control, farming techniquesand soil management.

� Promote integrated pollution management(IPM) and the application of green manures.

� Raise awareness of the appropriate use of agro-chemicals.

� Encourage agrochemical producers and tradersto share their responsibilities for the use of theirproducts.

� Promote the market for green products.

Institutional and political implications

The sustainable use and management of wetlandsrequires strong and coordinated multi-sectoralnational institutions and policies. Many countriesin the Lower Mekong Basin not only have weakpolicy frameworks and an economic environmentnot conducive to the sustainable use of wetlands,but also lack adequate capable human resources.Strengthening national capacity and policy, there-fore, is the foremost priority in creating afavourable policy and commitment.

Decisions on the development of the MekongBasin are also influenced by regional initiativessuch as the MRC and investment and technicalassistant from external institutions and bilateralagreements. The MRC secretariat plays a very sig-nificant role in coordinating the member countries,especially in reaching the 1995 agreement betweenthe Mekong countries on cooperation for thesustainable development of the Mekong RiverBasin. But the countries still face great challengesin making use of the Mekong for national devel-opment. For instance, there are bilateral agree-ments on direct assistance from donor countriesthat are not necessarily coordinated with the MRC.A number of financial institutions, such as AsianDevelopment Bank and World Bank, also play asignificant role in development in the region.

Although coordination has been recognised as animportant issue, and a lot of effort has been putinto improving coordination for development inthe Mekong, coordination and information sharinghave proved to be a major constraint, not onlyamong government institutions but also betweendonor agencies. Regional coordination and cooper-ation is necessary for integrated and harmoniousdevelopment in the region, and the governmentsbadly need assistance with informed decisionmaking and regional cooperation.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 62: 2001-049

58

Abstract

The Macanas Reserve in Panama lies in Parita Bay,a wide coastal-marine wetland important formigratory and local birds and a potential Ramsarsite. Rice is grown on an industrial scale on 12,000hectares within the boundary of the waterfowlarea. This, and encroaching cattle ranching, horti-culture and shrimp farms are causing habitat andenvironmental damage. Irrigation is placing agreat strain on the freshwater reserves in the wet-land, and aerial spraying of pesticides is seriouslyaffecting the health of the local population. Theseexpanding land uses are exerting increasingprivate control over the use of the wetland andthreatening traditional fishing and forest croppingsystems. CECA is working with local communitygroups to prepare a natural resource strategy forthe wetland.

Introduction

The Circulo de Estudios Cientificos Aplicados(CECA), an NGO established in 1978, has madestrenuous efforts to make wetlands management amain target for local communities and NGOs,governments and the private sector in the Pacificcoastal region of Panama. The ‘AlexanderHumboldt’ field station near the Parita Bay coast-line is an environmental education centre, spon-sored initially by the Germany Embassy inPanama, and is the CECA headquarters.

CECA is a member of BirdLife International. Itcooperated in l983–1985 in the development of aninternational wetlands inventory, preparing the‘database’ for an international programme for theadequate management of wetlands and the con-servation of birds with the International WaterfowlResearch Bureau. This allowed the CECA to iden-tify the Macanas as the most important wetland inthe region for the conservation of local andmigrant birds and important sources of water. The

local El Rincón de Santa María community andothers in the region use the wetland to obtainfirewood, fruit and fish, and more recently as anecotourism resource. El Rincón de Santa Maria wasfounded by the Spaniards in the 17th century toprovide housing for slaves working on a farm runby the Catholic Church called ‘Virgen del Carmen’.Since then the wetland has been used as a grass-land for grazing thousand of cows, sheep, horsesand pigs and as a source of water for crops such ascorn, sugar cane and rice, and for horticulture.

In 1986 CECA, with the support of the local munic-ipal authority of Santa Maria district in HerreraProvince, achieved an important goal when thelegislation was adopted establishing MacanasReserve. Later, the national government designat-ed the Macanas Reserve as a Multiple Use Areawithin the National Parks and Wildlife pro-gramme. The CECA promotes the Reserve in a listof Wetlands of International Importance. TheMacanas lies in a corner of Parita Bay, a widecoastal-marine wetland where a half millionmigrant birds (Sandpiper, Herons) come fromCanada and USA to forage in the winter season.Parita Bay is included in the Ramsar Conventionas a potential future reserve.

Land use problems

A number of agricultural and other activities takeplace within the boundary of the waterfowl area(including other wetlands along the Parita Baycoastline) and these lead to problems.

Rice plantations

Rice is grown on an industrial scale, with 12,000 haunder rice in the basin of the Macanas wetland.The rice cultivation is controlled by a big nationalcompany which grows other crops in the region aswell. The most critical issues relate to the pesti-cides used to control pests, insects, fungi, etc.Pesticides are applied from the air. But problems

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

The Macanas Wetland – Conservation and

Agricultural Use Area

René Chang MarínCirculo de Estudios Cientificos Aplicados (CECA), Herrera, Panama

Page 63: 2001-049

59

THE MACANAS WETLAND – CONSERVATION AND AGRICULTURAL USE AREA

occur when the wind transports some of the pesti-cide over long distances to areas of human habita-tion. People in Rincón de Santa Maria sufferbronchial, dermal, stomach and cerebral damage,as do agricultural workers and their families. Thehealth ministry have evidence of the existence ofpesticide residues in maternal milk, groundwatercontamination and the mortality of thousands ofbirds year after year. A major constraint is thelower resistance of the varieties used in the riceplantations to local agricultural diseases. InPanama a local institute is working to producenew varieties of rice with adequate resistance tothese diseases. The companies consider IntegratedPest Management (using biological and naturalpesticides, organic control) very expensive anddifficult to apply and consequently progress withintroducing these techniques has been slow.

Expansion of the area of plantations means thatfresh water has to be pumped from the wetland.Near Las Macanas over 15,000 hectares are undercrops, fed by water from the Santa Maria river andthe Macanas wetland. The irrigation systemprovides fresh water for five months of the year.During the El Niño effect in l996, water reservesfell by 80%. The felling of forest near the wetlandis a critical factor encouraging the continuingexpansion of agriculture in spite of the conserva-tion proposal for the area.

Cattle ranching and horticulture

A group of small farmers who form the local coop-erative ‘Asentamientos campesinos’ have 1,500hectares of land. On 30% of this land they growrice and horticultural crops (in summer) usingsimilar technologies as the big companies. Another2,500 hectares are held by private individuals forrice growing, cattle rearing and horticulture. Themain risk lies in the proximity of these rice andhorticulture plantations to the wetland. Fish killsand dead aquatic plants are reported each year, butthe water in the wetland provides drinking waterfor livestock owned by the Asentamiento coopera-tive and private individuals. Their livestock areprobably contaminated by the pesticides, but thereis not a single report on this. The cost of carryingout the required analysis is very expensive forPanama.

Fishing and forest cropping

Fishing has been a natural activity since theNeolithic period. Scientific studies in the SantaMaria basin (the Cerro Mangote Cave) close to theLas Macanas lake have revealed that Neolithic

hunters used the wetland as a fishing and huntingarea. Many poor people come from the Azueromountains (80 km to the west) each year to fishand hunt in the traditional way to obtain proteinduring the long dry season (from December toApril). The most important fish in the wetland isnamed the ‘Macana’, a long fish similar to theAnguilla, and the wildfowl hunted includeWhistling ducks, doves, parrots, rails and herons.There is a risk in consuming the meat of theseanimals because many of them feed on insects andworms in the rice plantations, where excessiveamounts of lethal pesticides are applied.

The wetland is in a dry forest region typical of thedry and semi-dry regions in the tropics. The mostimportant characteristic is the presence of spinycassias common in dry areas. The forests on themargins of the wetland are used to obtain wood,resins, fruits, charcoal, forage material and woodfor building houses. Existing control over forestextractive activities is inadequate.

Mariculture

Shrimp farming in ponds is a new commercialactivity and takes up long stretches of wetland andcoastal marshes. The construction of these pondsinvolves removing large quantities of mangrovesand aquatic vegetation. The companies involvedare exerting an increasingly ‘private’ control overlocal resources, restricting common rights and freeaccess for everybody.

Municipal waste

Another problem is caused by the dumping ofdomestic waste on a site just a few metres from thewetland. CECA is now working with a local insti-tute to promote recycling and closure of the site.

Natural resource use strategy

CECA is cooperating with local comities in ElRincón de Santa Maria and other coastal commu-nities in Parita Bay to prepare a strategy for the useof the natural resources in the wetland. This willinclude the following proposals:

� Establish a ‘buffer’ zone along the edge of thewetland to permit reforestation with nativespecies of trees and shrubs;

� Research into the recovery of ancient seeds ofnative corn, beans and rice to increase resis-tance;

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 64: 2001-049

60

CHAPTER 2: FARMING IN WETLANDS

� A broad public educational programme in theParita Bay area to promote ecological principlesfrom primary school on;

� A campaign with the women in El Rincon andthe surrounding area to help prevent contami-nation of foods, clothes, maternal milk, etc.;

� Research to identify the potential importance ofwildlife for economic activities such as fishing,management of crocodiles, ducks, freshwaterturtles, etc.;

� An ecotourism project to develop facilities forvisitors to the wetlands and expand the localeconomy;

� A project with the agriculture ministry, healthauthorities and universities to promote the useof biological pest control, adequate manage-ment of equipment and pesticides, safety ofworkers, etc.

In the Parita Bay coastal zone, including theMacanas, we have an opportunity to improve thealternatives needed to develop a sustainable agri-cultural model. The challenge is to use education-al campaigns, training, research, wetland protec-tion and all cooperative activities to demonstratethe viability of agriculture and conservation in wetecosystems in the tropics. CECA is seeking helpfrom the international scientific community inachieving this goal.

Acknowledgements

We thank the IUCN European Regional Office, theInternational Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements, the FAO and the Wetland Program inCentral America (ORMA Regional Office) for theopportunity to present our paper.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 65: 2001-049

61

Linking across sectors

� “We have heard less about solutions than prob-lems here. What partnerships among differentactors can develop to assist institutions inaddressing problems in the long term?”

“Yes, cross-sector cooperation is essential but inMekong Basin is driven by an internationalsystem as well as a local. There is no clear gov-ernment policy and for this and advice andhelp is needed from many bodies. Thegovernments have many other priorities, suchas poverty alleviation, so long-term concernsare low priority.”

� “Who does the water belong to? It should bethe people. There has to be comanagement by

people and the government. In South Americawe are working towards democratisation interms of wetland management. With the newopenness internationally, the people on theground are the ones who have the greatestimpact.”

Future work

� “In Argentina we have developed protocols formonitoring pesticide impacts in agriculture.Such work needs to be applied in the field.”

� “Although a multilateral agreement on theMekong was signed in 1995 there are still manypoints that need addressing, especially main-taining dry season flow.”

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Discussion Points from the Session – Wetlands

Page 66: 2001-049

62

Among the vast array of agricultural systems inthe world, rice fields can be considered as agro-nomically-managed temporary wetlands. About150 million hectares of land throughout the worldare devoted to rice cultivation, 90% of which is inAsia. In Sri Lanka, rice is the predominant crop, interms of both land use and dietary importance.Rice is cultivated on approximately 780,000 ha, orabout 12% of the total land area, under irrigated,rain-fed, upland and tidal wetland conditions.Until the advent of modern rice cultivation prac-tices, rice fields remained one of the most sustain-able agro-ecosystems.

This presentation forms a part of a larger study on theecology and biodiversity of rice fields, funded by theNSF Sri Lanka and supervised by several investigators.

Rice field biodiversity

In order to assess the biodiversity in a rice field,and its role in the conservation and sustenance ofthe rice agro-ecosystem, an ecological study wascarried out in two irrigated rice fields atBathalagoda in the Kurunegala district over fiveconsecutive rice cultivation cycles.

The overall biodiversity documented during thestudy consisted of:

� 494 species of invertebrates, of which 82% werearthropods (see Figure 1);

� 103 species of vertebrates, of which most werevisitors;

� 89 species of macrophytes, representing ricefield weeds;

� 39 genera of microphytes.

The contribution of arthropod biodiversitytowards natural biological control in the rice agro-ecosystem was evident from the ratio of rice pestspecies to natural enemy species, 1:3.5. Pest–preda-tor relationships can be seen in Figure 3. Using

terrestrial arthropods as a surrogate group, thestudy was able to document temporal and spatialvariations in rice field biodiversity, in relation tothe progress of each rice cultivation cycle and theagronomic practices carried out (see Figure 2).

Multifunctional role

The rich biodiversity associated with this uniqueman-made habitat clearly indicates that the ricefield agro-ecosystem could be compatible withconservation objectives, and meets the require-ments, interests and preferences of agro-ecologistsand conservation biologists. The rich array of nat-ural biological control organisms of rice pests, aswell as the diverse soil benthos which enhance andmaintain soil fertility, are important functionalaspects which meet the preferences of agro-ecolo-gists.

Rice fields are ecotones between land and waterand provide an important feeding habitat forwaterfowl and other wildlife. Therefore, conserva-tion biologists can view rice fields as managedwetlands that sustain a rich biodiversity outsidenatural protected areas.

Furthermore, the rich photosynthetic aquatic bio-mass contributes to a high primary and secondaryproductivity in rice fields, enabling them to func-tion as sources of nutrients for less productive,contiguous aquatic systems.

Management

The following are recommended as means of con-serving and sustaining the rice field agro-ecosys-tem through its rich biodiversity.

� Maintenance of refuges for natural enemies(especially the embankments covered withweeds).

� Minimal use of pesticides.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Role of Biodiversity in the Conservation and Future

Sustenance of the Rice Field Agro-ecosystem

Channa Bambaradeniya1 and J.P. Edirisinghe2

1: IUCN, Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2: Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Page 67: 2001-049

63

ROLE OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE CONSERVATION AND FUTURE SUSTENANCE OF THE RICE FIELD AGRO-ECOSYSTEM

� Landscape planning and manage-ment strategies aimed at harbour-ing this rich biodiversity.

� Development of an efficient systemof extension to educate rice farmerson integrated pest management(IPM) strategies, with emphasis onnatural biological control of insectpests.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Acari

Araneae

Phasmatoidea

Blattoidea

Isoptera

Neuroptera

Dermaptera

Thysanoptera

Mantodea

Strepsiptera

Collembola

Orthoptera

Homoptera

Odonata

Diptera

Heteroptera

Coleoptera

Lepidoptera

Hymenoptera

Art

hro

pod

Ord

ers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90No. of spp./families

Key

species

families

Figure 1

Number of terrestrial arthropod

taxa (species and families) in

each order

12 28 48 69 83 97 111 125 138 152 DAT

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spec

ies

Ric

hnes

s(N

)

Maha 1997 Season

Spec

ies

Ric

hnes

s (H

')

H'

N

7 21 35 51 69 83 97 112 126DAT

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spec

ies

Ric

hnes

s (N

)

Yala 1997 Season

Spec

ies

Ric

hnes

s (H

')

H'

N

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

HIW

H

Figure 2

Temporal fluctuation pattern of arthropodspecies richness (N) and diversity (H') in therice habitat, during the Yala 1997 and Maha1997 seasons (Data-Blower-Vac sampling).

DAT - Days after transplanting; I - Insecticide application;

W - Weedicide application; H - Crop harvest)

12 28 48 69 83 97 111 125 138 152 DAT

Maha 1997

No.

/0.2

sq.

m.

7 21 35 51 69 83 97 112 126DAT

Yala 1997

No.

/0.2

sq.

m.

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

IW

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

H

ParasitoidsPredatorsPests

Figure 3

Temporal abundance patterns of pest phyto-phages, predators and parasitoids in the ricehabitat, during the Yala and Maha seasons of1997 (data - Blower-vac samples).

(DAT - Days after transplanting, W - Weedicide applica-

tion, I - Insecticidae application, H - Crop harvest)

Page 68: 2001-049

64

While dams can provide socio-economic benefitsfor developing countries, it is very important thatfull consideration is given to all the consequences.Non-sustainable impacts on the environment willsoon become new economic and social issues. Theproblems associated with dams throughout Africaare similar.

Introduction

Senegal has an area of 196,720 km2 and a popula-tion of 10 million. It is bounded by Mauritania tothe north, Mali to the east, Guinea and GuineaBissau to the south and the Atlantic Ocean to thewest.

In 1972 the OMVS (Organisation pour la Mise enValeur du Fleuve Senegal) was created to managethe water system shared by Mali, Mauritania andSenegal. The first objective was to develop watermanagement policies and projects. Two of theseproposals were to dam the Bafin river at Manantaliin Mali, 1,200 km upstream, and the Senegal Riverat Diama, 27 km upstream from Saint Louis, themain city of the northern province of Senegal.

The Diama dam, completed in 1985, was built toprevent salt water intrusion and to control thewater levels in the main valley. Since then, it haschanged the quality of the water considerably andcaused much disturbance in the Djoudj NationalPark (a Ramsar and World Heritage site), itssurroundings and villages and other landscapesthroughout the region.

Ecological effects

Before the dams were built, the water was salineduring the dry season and brackish during a cer-tain period of the year (rainy season) when thewater is more than 200 km inland from the ocean.Recently, there have been many changes in thisarea. Landowners have increased crop yields,

mainly rice, by using high irrigation systems.Fishing and cattle herding are two of the mainactivities of the local communities. The introduc-tion of modern agricultural methods has forced thepopulation to make their own management provi-sions in the rice fields by building artificial canals,drains, small dams, etc. The modification of thearea as a result of all of these constructions hascaused real disturbance, affecting biodiversity andcausing an explosive growth of aquatic plantspecies (in particular the free floating species Pistiastratoites, Salvinia molesta and other importantvegetation like Typha australis, Phragmites australis,etc.).

Problems

The human impacts are very important becauseagriculture is practised everywhere and there areno pastures. Some species of fish have been lostand fish populations are declining in some areas.

Rice is the main crop grown in the region, butfarmers face high competition from rice fromabroad (Taiwan, Thailand, China, etc.) and themarket for the local product is shrinking.

Floating aquatic plants occur on a large scale insome places and their numbers have grown tonuisance proportions. The plants disturb or alterthe environment by:

Reducing the dissolved oxygen content in thewater, resulting in reduction in water quality –symptoms being taints and odours;

Altering the fauna of aquatic ecosystems throughthe creation of new habitats, and the decline ofsome existing habitats caused by changes in theamount of light penetrating the water.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Dams in the Senegal Valley – a Case Study on

Wetlands, Biodiversity and Local Communities

Abdoulaye NdiayeWetlands International-AEME, Dakar, Senegal

Page 69: 2001-049

65

DAMS IN THE SENEGAL VALLEY – A CASE STUDY ON WETLANDS, BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Solutions

Much effort has gone into the awarenessprogramme for the local communities to help themshift towards sustainable development instead ofhigh production for no clear market. People livingaround the main areas such as the national parkhave been very well organised by the parkmanagers to help increase income through thevillage banks, ecotourism and cottage industries.The five year management plan is one of the keyelements to help achieve good results.

Mechanical methods of controlling invasive

species and scientific methods have been appliedin many places to stop or reduce danger andthreats in the Senegal valley.

Conclusion

Although dams are surely needed in Africa fordevelopment, the drawbacks are considerable.Where dams are built, scientists, decision-makersfor protected areas and all stakeholders will haveto adapt management plans to the realities in thefield to achieve their conservation goals and toreduce poverty, which is always present – evenwhere agricultural land is plentiful.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 70: 2001-049

67

Abstract

Just over 50% of the land area of the EuropeanUnion is farmed. The EU provides support tofarmers through a range of different mechanismsaccording to the commodity in question. Much ofthe biodiversity-rich land of the EU depends onlow intensity farming, but there has been a rapidprogression in the more accessible areas towardsintensification, coupled with abandonment inmore remote areas. Price support mechanismshave exacerbated intensification in accessible areasand prevented abandonment in remote areas,thereby damaging biodiversity in some areas andmaintaining it in others. Recent reforms of theprice support mechanisms have signalled a shift insupport to sustainable rural development and theintroduction of specific environmental measures.WWF targets its work at further reform of the pricesupport mechanisms, as well as pursuing market-driven approaches to reducing the environmentalimpact of agriculture.

Introduction

The Treaty of Rome (1957) set out the mainelements of a common agricultural policy whichaimed to increase agricultural productivity, secureEurope’s food supplies and ensure a fair standardof living for Europe’s farmers. The main approachadopted by the EU to achieve these aims isproduction support, which is applied using avariety of mechanisms according to the specificcommodity sector.

Half of the territory of the European Union isfarmed. Since 1945 agriculture in Europe hasbecome more polarised as accessible areas are

farmed with greater capital intensity while remoteareas tend to be abandoned. There has been adecline in farming employment by 10% – 2 millionpeople – in the last 20 years, and a gradual loss ofagricultural land to built development.

About 40% of EU farmland is farmed at low inten-sity (Brouwer and Lowe 2000) and this land can behighly significant for nature conservation (Beaufoyet al. 1994). This general pattern of change, whichis reflected at all scales from local to European,results in changes within farming systems thatlead to a loss of conservation value. The abandon-ment of remote areas in Europe that have beenfarmed at low intensity for centuries leads tochanges that can seriously affect the plant and ani-mal communities living there. In accessible areas,intensification leads to similar losses of communi-ties. In parallel, social and cultural diversity inthese areas can decline and be lost.

Changes in agriculture in Europe

and the role of the Common

Agriculture Policy (CAP)

Brouwer and Lowe (1988) identify three mainareas of concern about the direct effects of the CAPon the environment: the level and efficiency ofinput use; farm size and structure; and mainte-nance and encouragement of farming in remoteareas. The continuing changes in agriculture inEurope, both positive and negative, are dependenton the form of the CAP.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

CHAPTER 3

FARMING IN TEMPERATE ZONES

Biodiversity and the Effects of the EU Common

Agriculture Policy

Christopher Howe and Richard PerkinsWWF-UK, Godalming, UK

Page 71: 2001-049

68

CHAPTER 3: FARMING IN TEMPERATE ZONES

The Common Agriculture Policy and its

significance for nature conservation

The CAP provides direct grants for capitalimprovement of farms and direct financial supportfor production. It has accelerated intensification inaccessible areas and held back the abandonment ofland in remote areas. It has, therefore, played asignificant role in both maintaining farmland bio-diversity in remote areas and damaging it in acces-sible areas.

Examples of areas where nature conservationvalue is high and depends on continuing lowintensity farming include:

� Low intensity livestock areas in France, includ-ing 1.25 million hectares of InternationallyImportant Bird Areas (IBAs), playing host to50% of Europe’s population of Hen harrier(Circus cyaneus) and 30% of Europe’s popula-tion of Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus);

� Traditional upland pastures in Portugal, whichare key habitats for the wolf and lynx

� 9.5 million hectares of IBA in Spain, includingthe world famous species-rich grasslands (dehe-sas), the Cantabrian/Pyrenean mountains,Mediterranean mountains, wooded Mediter-ranean plains, and steppe, providing homes forlarge carnivores such as the bear and lynx

� 500,000 hectares of traditionally managedgrasslands in Hungary, including 200,000hectares of tanyas – small mixed farms, provid-ing habitat for the White fronted goose (Ansererythropus), Lesser mole rat (Micropalaxeucodon), Tawny pipit (Anthus campestris), andthe rare Ursini’s viper (Vipera ursini rakosiensis)(Baldock et al. 1996)

The significance of the CAP in maintaining areasof high nature conservation value is great. Around98% of low intensity farming systems are withinLess Favoured Areas (LFAs) designed to preventabandonment. The value of LFAs in maintainingthe nature conservation resource is reinforced by astudy that shows that the coincidence of LFAs withareas of high nature conservation value is veryhigh (Dax and Hellegers 2000).

The external costs of agriculture to the

environment

The full costs of agriculture in both accessible andremote areas are not paid for directly by thosebuying the products of farming: the costs are notinternalised. The downstream effects of pesticides,

herbicides and fertilisers on water quality, loss ofnatural flood storage, unsustainable abstraction ofwater for irrigation, and loss of biodiversity-richhabitats incur costs that are either paid for throughtaxation, paid to water providers for increasedwater treatment costs, or cause disadvantage toparts of society that cannot choose or pay to avoidthem. Conversely, those practising agriculture thatis beneficial to society are not consistently reward-ed: the benefits are not internalised. This de-coupling of society from the benefits that an eco-logically functioning landscape can provide hasbeen exacerbated by the market support affordedby the CAP.

In the United Kingdom alone, the external costs ofagriculture are high. Pretty et al. (2000) provide thefollowing estimates of costs which, they state, areat best conservative:

Contamination of drinking water: Pesticides: USD 156m/yearNitrates: USD 21m/yearPhosphate/soil: USD 72m/yearDamage to wildlife: USD 163m/yearGas emissions: USD 1,500m/yearSoil erosion and carbon loss:USD 138m/yearFood poisoning/BSE: USD 1,008m/year

Total: USD 3,045m/year

Recent developments in the CAP

� Pre-1992: Price support with initial supplycontrol and environmental measures

Up to 1992, price support was maintained in theform of direct payments for products. Initialsupply control measures were introduced, e.g.milk quotas, and state-initiated environmentalmeasures were allowed under Article 19 (specialnational schemes to subsidise farming practicesfavourable to the environment).

In the UK, Article 19 measures included theEnvironmentally Sensitive Area schemes, wherefarmers could choose to participate and receivepayments per hectare on a sliding scale, accordingto their agreement to implement schemes ofmanagement. Base rates are payable for the ‘donothing’ option, but guaranteeing that no damagewill be done, with higher rates available forenhancement of the land for the environment.There were also options to receive one-off pay-ments to carry out capital works, such as fencing,scrub clearance and access creation. The success ofthese schemes was, and still is, varied, usually

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 72: 2001-049

69

BIODIVERSITY AND THE EFFECTS OF THE EU COMMON AGRICULTURE POLICY

depending on local characteristics and, in somecases, local personnel.

� 1992–1999: Shifting the support to direct pay-ments for production, together with specificenvironmental, forestry and early retirementschemes.

A limited reform of the CAP took place in 1992, ledby the then agriculture commissioner, RayMacSharry. The reform acknowledged environ-mental protection as an objective for the CAP forthe first time and started to address the internali-sation of costs and benefits described above. Themain element of these reforms was a shift to directsupport payments for crop and animal production.This change made the extent of support more visi-ble and the recipient more accountable, allowingthe possibility that the support might be madeconditional on prescribed actions in the future.

The reforms also included, under Regulation2078/92, specific measures to promote environ-mentally beneficial farming, including the reduc-tion of agro-chemical inputs, assistance withorganic farming, facilitation of shifts to extensiveforms of crop production or grassland manage-ment, and direct payments to farmers for externalbenefits in the form of wildlife habitat conserva-tion and management. Regulation 2078/92 builton initiatives started in the late 1980s that includedthe establishment of Environmentally SensitiveAreas, and made the introduction of such schemesmandatory across the European Union. Somemember states introduced new schemes inresponse, while others adapted or simply main-tained existing schemes. Forestry and early retire-ment schemes were included for the first time, andsome steps were taken in some member states tointegrate other EU environmental policy, includingthe Habitats and Nitrates Directives.

� 1999 reform of the CAP: Some mandatory con-ditions placed on farmers, and options madeavailable for regulation, introduction of agri-environment schemes, and withholding directpayments

In 1994 and 1999 limited reforms introduced theoption for European Union states to penalise farm-ers for carrying out damaging activities by with-holding CAP financial support. Member states arerequired to ensure that application of the marketregimes are not ecologically damaging, and theyare offered the choice of regulation, agri-environ-ment schemes and withholding of direct paymentsto achieve this. The last of these is known as cross-compliance. The debate about cross-compliancehas been taking place for many years, and its

implementation is the subject of much discussionamong EU member states and NGOs. A usefulreview of the options for cross compliance is pre-sented in Dwyer et al. (2000). There has as yet beenvery little action by European Union states toimplement these measures.

An option was also introduced to allow EU mem-ber states to ‘modulate’ direct support payments tofund rural development (including agri-environ-ment schemes and organic farming). This optionallows member states to cap payments to farmerswithin overall limits set by the EuropeanCommission. It is up to member states to establishappropriate schemes within their own territories.Member states can either hold back a fixedproportion of direct payments from all farmers, orthey can construct a sliding scale, withholdingproportionally more from farmers who receivelarger direct payments. Member states must iden-tify within their rural development plans orObjective 1 plans where these modulated fundsare to be spent.

The role of environmental

organisations

Reform of the CAP

Reform of the CAP, and by implication other pricesupport mechanisms, can bring significant social,environmental and economic benefits. Sustainableagriculture can be defined as ‘agricultural tech-nologies and practices that maximise the produc-tivity of the land while seeking to minimisedamage both to valued natural assets (soils, water,air, and biodiversity) and to human health (farm-ers and other rural people, and consumers’ (Pretty1995). The best use of renewable resources is a keypart of sustainable agriculture, and the integrationof ‘free’ processes such as nutrient cycling, nitro-gen fixation, soil regeneration and natural pestpredators plays an important role in makingagriculture less environmentally damaging.

Practical examples of sustainable agriculture arenow being developed worldwide. The role thatbusiness plays in developing sustainable agricul-ture is demonstrated by the way in which Unileveris piloting schemes for five major crops, with theaim of ensuring long-term supply of their rawmaterials. This shows that the corporate sector isstarting to see sustainability as not only good forthe environment, but good for business (Unileverundated). Such agriculture can be achievedthrough a combination of positive promotion of

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 73: 2001-049

70

CHAPTER 3: FARMING IN TEMPERATE ZONES

sustainable activities, e.g. rural developmentsupport from the CAP, taxation or penalisation forenvironmentally damaging activities, and volun-tary initiatives related to consumers. The contin-ued reform of the CAP can bring significant social,environmental and economic benefits by makingthe true costs of intensive agriculture more appar-ent, and supporting farmers who deliver thosebenefits.

WWF’s public policy priority in the EU:

further reform of the CAP

The CAP will continue to be important for both theeconomies and the environment in the current andfuture EU (‘accession’) countries. Particularlyimportant for WWF are the commodity regimesand rural development measures that apply insouthern Europe, including the dry regions ofsouthern Spain and Portugal and the Pyreneanmountains, the mountain systems of the Alps andthe Carpathians, and in the states bordering theRiver Danube and its delta. These areas have beenidentified by WWF as some of the most valuablefor nature around the globe. They are part ofWWF’s ‘Global 200’ ecoregions – large areas withconsistent characteristics and high value for biodi-versity.

WWF is allocating resources to campaign forreform of the CAP. WWF’s priority is to be positiveand build a constituency of support for sustainablerural development as a replacement for agriculturalproduction support. A major initiative in thiscampaign is a project called ‘The Nature of RuralDevelopment’. Seven EU, three ‘accession’, andone non-EU country will work together to findgood examples of sustainable rural development,build new policies together, and lobby for changeduring the key period of 2002–2004, preparing theground for the new CAP regime which starts in2006/2007.

Certification: organic products and FSC

timber as examples of non-public policy

initiatives

We recognise that agricultural support mecha-nisms, such as a reformed CAP, cannot deliversustainable agriculture on their own. ThereforeWWF is also directing resources to the develop-ment and promotion of food products that have atleast a reduced negative impact on the environ-ment, and preferably a positive impact. WWFbelieves that such work has an important part toplay in delivering sustainable agriculture. Theforestry sector has achieved notable success with

the Forest Stewardship Council in reducing theenvironmental impact of forestry. The organicmovement has succeeded in achieving the adop-tion of pesticide- and herbicide-free agriculture,and global sales of both these sets of certifiedproducts are rising.

WTO agreements

The importance of WTO settlements is relevanthere, as they must not prevent states fromsupporting sustainable development, taxing orpenalising damaging activities, and encouragingvoluntary initiatives. A key task for environmentalorganisations should be to ensure that WTO settle-ments do not promote further polarisation of agri-culture and prevent the internalisation of costs andthe externalisation of benefits. Much of the bio-diversity of extensively farmed areas in Europe ismaintained by direct support to farmers thoughfinancial mechanisms. Without this support manyextensively farmed areas would be abandoned,and there would be a consequent loss of bothbiodiversity values as well as social and culturalvalues. A WTO settlement that prevents statesfrom providing support to farmers at appropriatelevels would therefore be very damaging for bio-diversity.

The way forward

WWF believes that working with business part-ners to address sustainable agriculture throughaccreditation is a critical activity for the NGOsector. In this way a wider range of environmentalconcerns associated with food production wouldbe addressed, and substantial substantial benefitswould arise for both people and nature. WWFtherefore supports the engagement of IUCN withthe organic movement through the Vignola decla-ration, and urges active support for agriculturalcertification as a means of promoting sustainableagriculture and rural development. This will bene-fit of people and nature.

In order to ensure success in development of certi-fication there is a clear need to involve businesspartners, NGOs, IFOAM and governments.Certification must address not only pesticides andherbicides, but also water consumption, energyuse, land redeployment and agricultural biodiver-sity.

WWF supports IUCN 2nd World ConservationCongress (Amman 2000) resolution CGR.PRG039,but urges inclusion of ‘other environmental issues

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 74: 2001-049

71

BIODIVERSITY AND THE EFFECTS OF THE EU COMMON AGRICULTURE POLICY

such as water consumption and energy use’ inclause (b) and ‘NGOs and governments’ in clause(c).

ReferencesBaldock D., Beaufoy G., Brouwer F., Godeschalk F.

1996. Farming at the margins: abandonment orredeployment of agricultural land in Europe.Institute for European Environmental Policy,London and the Netherlands; AgriculturalResearch Centre, The Hague.

Beaufoy G., Baldock D., Clark J. 1994. The natureof farming: low intensity farming systems innine European countries. London: IEEP/WWF.

Brouwer F., Lowe P. 2000. CAP and the environ-ment: policy development and the state ofresearch. In: Brouwer, F., P. Lowe, editors. 2000.CAP regimes and the European countryside.Oxford: CABI Publishing.

Brouwer F., Lowe P. 1998. CAP reform and theenvironment. In: Brouwer, F., Lowe P., editors.CAP and the rural environment in transition: apanorama of national perspectives. Wageningen:Wageningen Pers.

Dax T., Hellegers P. 2000. Policies for LessFavoured Areas In: Brouwer F., Lowe P., edi-tors. 2000. CAP regimes and the European coun-tryside. Oxford: CABI Publishing.

Dwyer J., Baldock D., Einschütz S. 2000. Crosscompliance under the Common AgriculturalPolicy. London: IEEP.

Pretty J.N. 1995. Regenerating agriculture: policiesand practice for sustainability and self-reliance.London: Earthscan.

Pretty J.N., Brett C., Gee D., Hine R.E., Mason C.F.,Morrison J.I.L., Raven H., Rayment M.D., vander Bijl G. 2000. An assessment of the totalexternal costs of UK agriculture. AgriculturalSystems 65: 113–136.

Unilever (undated). Growing for the Future.Rotterdam: Unilever.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 75: 2001-049

72

Abstract

In the USA there are a number of agencies involvedin environmental conservation and management,but there is little coordination between pro-grammes. The USDA employs a range of policytools to encourage or compel the adoption of con-servation measures. Most of its schemes are volun-tary, making uptake patchy across the country anddependent on support from farmers. There is arecognition that conservation programmes areunderfunded. Expected and proposed changes inagricultural policy and conservation are listed.

Introduction

In the United States of America a number of agen-cies are involved in conservation issues and man-agement:

� Department of the Interior, with a primaryfocus on national parks, fisheries and wildlife;

� Environmental Protection Agency, with a pri-mary focus on science, hazardous substancesand environmental programmes;

� Corps of Engineers, with a primary focus onwaterway management and restoration (thisagency carries out construction works, such asdams);

� Department of Agriculture, with a primaryfocus on agriculture.

Many of the conservation and managementprogrammes operated by these agencies affect agri-culture and vice versa. But how well do these agen-cies communicate and work with each other?Apparently, not very well; in fact, the programmesoften conflict with each other. It is also worth notingthat states, native American tribes and local govern-ments can enact their own agriculture and conser-vation laws and they also work with agricultureand conservation policy and programmes. Thisadds to the complexity of conservation programmes.

Short background on USDA

agriculture policy and

conservation

Although the US Department of Agriculture(USDA) deals primarily with agriculture, it has arange of policy tools available to encourage orcompel adoption of conservation and environmen-tal practices. These instruments have evolved andexpanded over the years. Present programmesrelating to conservation and include the following:

� Conservation Compliance Programs e.g. HighlyErodible Land Conservation Compliance andWetlands Conservation;

� Subsidies for Conservation Investment and PublicWorks e.g. Small Watershed Program;

� Education, Data and Research Programmes e.g.Pesticide Record Keeping;

� Cost Sharing and Technical Assistance Programse.g. Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program,Conservation Technical Assistance, ForestryIncentive Program and Conservation of PrivateGrazing Lands Initiative.

In some of these conservation programmes theUSDA has historically focused on policy instru-ments intended to benefit natural resources andthe environment affected by agriculture. Theemphasis on different policy tools or instrumentsin the USDA’s programmes has also shifted overtime and is often associated with commoditypolicy and the overall health of the agriculturaleconomy.

There are both voluntary and compulsory USDAconservation programmes. Most of theprogrammes are voluntary and incentive based.An example of incentive-based programmes is theConservation Farm Option (CFO), a pilotprogramme directed at wheat, feed grains, cottonand rice producers. The programme purposes are:

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Agricultural Policy and Conservation in the

United States

Annie KirschenmannIFOAM, Medina, USA

Page 76: 2001-049

73

AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND CONSERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES

� conservation of soil, water and relatedresources;

� water quality protection and improvement;

� wetland restoration, protection and creation;

� wildlife habitat development and protection.

To be eligible the farmer must have contractacreage in Agricultural Market. Transition ActProgram and must develop and implement aconservation farm plan. This plan becomes part of10-year CFO contract. The incentive is annualpayments for implementing the plan, provided thefarmer agrees to forego payments under otherincentive plans in exchange for consolidatedpayments.

What does the future hold for

agriculture policy and

conservation in the US?

With reference to what might be coming in termsof agriculture policy and conservation, three possi-bilities are outlined below.

� The former agriculture secretary, DanGlickman, recognises that the conservationprogrammes are underfunded. He also believesthat technological development and risingmobility in the US has helped to divorce theaverage American from a deep attachment to orconnection with the land, and that it is time to‘revisit our conservation commitment’.

� Prior to the elections, former Vice-PresidentGore announced that the Administrationwould be seeking approximately USD 1.3billion in the 2001 budget for conservationprogrammes that help family farmers takesteps to protect water quality and the environ-ment, as well as preserve farmland.

� Bob Stallman, president of the American FarmBureau, highlighted that one of the ideas beingproposed informally ‘is to pay family farmersfor extraordinary land, air and water conserva-tion efforts’. Such farmers would be rewardedfor going beyond existing standards, and it wassuggested that farmers be offered added incen-tives to create extra wide buffer strips to bene-fit wildlife and further improve water quality.

Proposed further changes

� Analysis of, or programme focus on, reducingthe impact of the use of agri-chemicals and

industrial farming practices in relationship towildlife, forests, water and soils/erosion.

� Analysis of the impacts on the environmentand conservation of the decrease in the numberof farmers and increase in farm size, and of thefarming techniques necessary to support suchlarge operations.

� Analysis of, programme focus on or discussionabout the impact of genetic engineering onagriculture and biodiversity.

� Increased dialogue between agencies and pro-grammes.

� Support for or sponsorship of environmentalfarming practices that have emerged during thelast few decades, e.g. organic farming.

Conclusions

The USDA has a myriad of conservation-orientedprogrammes. However, there seems to be a lack ofcohesive or overarching policy for agriculture, theenvironment and conservation.

The voluntary nature of most of the programmesmakes them patchy across the country and depen-dent on individual farmers perceiving the benefitsof any given programme and signing up.Moreover, most of the conservation programmesare for a fixed period only; once the incentivestops, the conservation practice may stop too.

Finally, the farm crisis in the US may present anopportunity to marry good farming practices withgood conservation practices. Family farmers arelooking for alternatives to conventional agricultureto ensure their survival.

Informative websites

International Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements (IFOAM): www.IFOAM.org

USDA Agricultural Resources and EnvironmentalIndicators:

www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arei/newarei/ AREI6_1consoverview.pdf

www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arei/newarei/

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Servicewww.ers.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA Announcements and speecheswww.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/12/0479www.usda.gov/news/speeches/wh01

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 77: 2001-049

74

Abstract

After a period of dramatic decline following thefall of the Soviet Union, agriculture in the CIS is ata crossroads. If a new, sustainable agriculturalsector is to be created, regional strategies are need-ed that take into account the complexity and diver-sity of each sub-region. They should be based onenvironmentally-friendly but economically-prof-itable farming. This will require a combination ofmarket incentives and state-supported strategies.Economic efficiency is to be achieved by alleviat-ing resource degradation and reducing environ-mental and social risks.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention tothe exceptional situation in the agricultural sectorof the countries of the former Soviet Union(Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS). Itwas important for the authors to establish a frame-work for the socio-ecological vision of develop-ment. The countries of the region have many obvi-ously common problems as well as historicalconnections. At the same time, the diversity of theregion is striking, even within one country. For thisreason we have tried not to go into too much detailand present a more general overview.

Possible agricultural futures in

the CIS

With the decline of the Soviet Union the agricul-tural sector deteriorated dramatically. Agriculturein the CIS is at a crossroads and can develop indifferent ways depending on state policies andavailable resources. Possible options are:

� Development of the agricultural market with aview to obtaining a quick profit, strong verticalintegration in the world economy, development

of monocultures and exhaustion of agriculturalresources;

� Development of sustainable agriculture;

� Final decline and fall and replacement byimports.

Definitions are crucial as far as they drive goal-oriented policy making. As might be expected,there are many approaches to the definition ofsustainability in the sector. Apart from the obviousmisunderstanding of sustainability as sustainabilityof growth, we also reject the view that it meanssustainable yields. An environmental view ofsustainability should go beyond economic goals.Sustainable agriculture is perceived as a form ofdevelopment that sustains the general usefulnessof a landscape during the life of successive gener-ations and allows the maintenance of a balancebetween natural, human and technological capitalin the course of development. General usefulnessin turn is a multi-factor criterion, which includeseconomic, social and ecological benefits fromliving in and using a landscape.

The shift towards sustainable agriculture requiresthe elaboration of regional strategies which takeinto account the complexity and diversity of eachsub-region. Economic, environmental and socialcomplexity should be taken into account.

Characteristics of the transitional

period

The sustainability of the agro-industrial sector inthe CIS is a cause for growing concern. In the post-Soviet period the market economy was set upmainly by political declarations, combined with adrastic decrease – and in some regions a completesuspension – of investments in the agro-industrialsector. That resulted in a deep economic break-down, aggravated by the collapse of social policy.Despite many differences, the region displays thefollowing common features:

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

The Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture in

CIS: Balancing on the wire

Alexander Karpov1,3, Dmitry Cherniakhovsky2 and Julia Gorelova1,2

1: Leadership for Environment and Development, CIS Cohort 8, Moscow, Russia; 2: IUCN RepresentativeOffice for CIS Countries, Moscow, Russia; 3: St Petersburg Society of Naturalists, St Petersburg, Russia

Page 78: 2001-049

75

THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN CIS: BALANCING ON THE WIRE

� The current changes in the agriculturalsector are part of the transition fromthe state economy to a market econo-my and from centralised to decen-tralised planning. However, not all thecountries are planning to give up theirstate-dominated agricultural systems;

� State-owned agricultural lands arebeing privatised. The process is slowand sometimes hidden – in most coun-tries arable land may not officially besold;

� The food processing and supply indus-tries are highly monopolised (inheritedfrom the Soviet state);

� There is inadequate enforcement ofenvironmental legislation;

� There is a lack of commercial creditsand leasing and the sector is sub-sidised by the state;

� Sharp structural changes followed thedisintegration, with a retreat fromregional specialisation;

� There is a mixture of large estates (former stateand collective farms), small- and medium-sizedfarms and small private plots.

In general the productivity of the sector is poorcompared with western countries. Productivity isbetter on the small plots (Figure 1) due to the shortproductive cycles and ‘free labour’: the ownerworks for himself and his family. Small privateplots do not contribute much to the market,though. They are not united and do not tend tocooperate in marketing produce. According to offi-cial estimates, farmers are not active marketparticipants, but this may be because they tend tosell their produce on the black market, aboutwhich there is little information.

In other ways, the countries and sub-regions aremore diverse, and regional specificity may bedetermined by a combination of the availablesocial, financial and environmental capital. Somefeatures are of primary importance when sustain-able development of the sector is under considera-tion:

� Alcohol use among a significant part of thepopulation in rural areas is the main obstacle toinnovation (Figure 2 – in this and subsequentfigures Canada, South Africa and theNetherlands are included for comparative pur-poses). The pattern of alcohol consumption dif-fers significantly through the region, but whereit exists it contributes much to the further exclu-sion and deteriorating health of the populationand decline in the economy.

� A decrease in the quality of life and social andeconomic instability have also resulted in adecline in the health of the population. Life

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

10.2

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Per

cent

Land(million hectares)

Production(billion USD)

Private plots Large farms Farms

10.5

7.2

0.381.3

163.5

Figure 1

Farm size and productivity in the CIS

countries

Canad

a

Sout

h Afri

ca

Uzbek

istan

Turk

menist

an

Tadji

kistan

Kyrg

yzsta

n

Kazak

hstan

Georg

ia

Armen

ia

Azerb

aijan

Ukrain

e

Moldov

a

Belor

ussia

Russia

Nether

lands

10

8

6

4

2

0

6.2

4.9

0.51.2

0.3

21.6

3.2

1.1

0.3

1.6 1.7

6.7

9.3

8

Figure 2

Alcohol consumption (litres per capita)

Page 79: 2001-049

76

CHAPTER 3: FARMING IN TEMPERATE ZONES

expectancy in the majority of the countries ofthe CIS is now about 65 years, and fallingfurther in rural populations.

� Rural populations tend to be isolated from thewider community and have restricted access toinformation. Public transport services and tele-phone connections are well below nationalaverages. In general, communications are muchpoorer than in Western European countries.

These features make the rural population anunlikely agent of change. The history of the coun-tryside and its current position do not encouragedevelopment and leave the people few opportuni-ties. Most observers agree that the rural popula-tions are passive and take a short-term viewbecause simply maintaining a livelihood requires agreat effort. On the other hand, there are somefeatures which hold potential and will help shapefuture development:

� The level of education and the scientific andeducational potential of the population is var-ied, but mostly average to high (Figure 3);

� High levels of agricultural mechanisation,mostly within the large farms (Figure 4).

Environmental responsibility and

sustainable agriculture

The region still possesses a huge natural capacity,but the resource-oriented and extensive agricultur-al policy has brought the environment to adangerous state. The most severe problems facingregions rich in arable lands are:

� A drop in soil fertility to a critical level, endan-gering long-term prospects

� Degradation of the steppes due to ploughing,salinisation of soils resulting from intensiveagricultural practices, soil pollution

� Exclusion of arable and other productive landfrom agriculture by environmental disastersand (to a lesser degree) urban sprawl. Thelargest degradation zones are the area ofradioactive contamination around Chernobyl,the Aral and Kaspiy regions, and the deserts ofSouthern and Middle Ural. Environmentaldisasters affect the most populated and produc-tive areas.

Extensive agricultural development, coupled withthe policy of ‘conquering nature’, has made agri-culture (excluding forestry) a major land andwater user. When the economic system crashed, itbecame evident that in many parts of the regionecosystems are no longer self-sustaining. Manyspecies have become parts of agro-ecosystems andmany crucial biotopes are dependent on human

activities. Examples include sturgeonand salmon, which cannot reproducenaturally, and migrating birds such asgeese that rely on agricultural meadowsto feed.

In the face of growing economic instabil-ity people tend to rely more on agricul-tural activities or other ways of exploit-ing nature to feed themselves. The risk ofan environmental catastrophe resultingfrom overuse of the agricultural land-scapes depends directly on the numberof people living in the countryside andtheir well-being. In the regions where ahigh percentage of the population relyon natural resources to sustain their(worsening) livelihoods, routine agricul-tural activities may be expected to pre-sent a risk of causing environmental dis-asters, while in other areas technologicalcrises might be the largest source of risk.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Canad

a

Sout

h Afri

ca

Uzbek

istan

Turk

menist

an

Tadji

kistan

Kyrg

yzsta

n

Kazak

hstan

Georg

ia

Armen

ia

Azerb

aijan

Ukrain

e

Moldov

a

Belor

ussia

Russia

Nether

lands

10 1014 16

20

9

47

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

103

16

811

22

13

23

49

Figure 3

Educational potential of the CIS countries:

graduates per 10,000 of population

Page 80: 2001-049

77

THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN CIS: BALANCING ON THE WIRE

Strategies for achieving

sustainable agriculture

The CIS countries on average use much lessaggressive agrarian technologies than countrieswith a developed agricultural sector. Nevertheless,in most of the territory of the CIS production percapita of basic products remains rather high. Cropand meat production is not a problem at a nationallevel in most CIS countries; the spectre of foodinsecurity arises mainly from the redistribution ofproduction capacity. Despite this, the existingmode of agricultural development cannot beconsidered sustainable. The price of extensive landuse is too high, both in socio-economic and, in anumber of cases, in ecological terms.

The situation has to be changed, with due consid-eration to positive and negative experiences ofland use in different countries. Neither the market-oriented goal of ‘raising productivity’ nor theclosed-society goal of ‘achieving national foodsecurity’ should receive the highest priority underthe concept of sustainable agriculture. Sustainableagriculture strategies aim to maximise the overallusefulness of the landscape for the community andmaximise the conservation of biodiversity.Agrarian market development, in essence, shouldbe based on environmentally-friendlyand, at the same time, economically-profitable farming. This mode ofdevelopment needs a proper combina-tion of market incentives and state-supported strategies.

The attraction of this type of develop-ment to investors and shareholders ofagricultural enterprises would be adecrease in economic risks throughenvironmental and social planning.Environmental risks now comprise asignificant part of the general instabil-ity that deters investors from enteringthe sector. Significant support to shiftthe development mode and reducerisks for both investors and communi-ties might be provided through thepreparation of regional developmentstrategies. Management of develop-ment is the key to the implementationof sustainability. The ultimate aim is tomake the strategy correspond to theresources of the territory.Sustainability cannot be achieved ifthe territory is too dependent on exter-

nal factors for its development, whether these aremarkets or knowledge.

The strategies could be divided into two cate-gories: ‘simple’ and ‘complex’. ‘Simple’ strategieswould be based on restructuring the activities ofexisting small private farms and households thatdo not need large arable fields, such as vegetableand small livestock units. These farms do not needlarge investments, are economically sustainableand produce a large share of total national yield.Their development into intensive small-scaleenterprises and their orientation towards localmarkets will increase their competitiveness andcost-effectiveness. This mode of development doesnot depend on external scientific knowledge orlarge investments, an important consideration inregions with low human capital or where biologi-cal productivity cannot be increased significantlywithout environmental damage. ‘Complex’ strate-gies would be based on using technological andmanagerial innovations. Such strategies shouldreflect the complexity of the landscape and thecommunity. The main features of any complexstrategy are:

� Adaptive land use, new agricultural technolo-gies;

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Canad

a

Sout

h Afri

ca

Uzbek

istan

Turk

menist

an

Tadji

kistan

Kyrg

yzsta

n

Kazak

hstan

Georg

ia

Armen

ia

Azerb

aijan

Ukrain

e

Moldov

a

Belor

ussia

Russia

Nether

lands

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

740

130170

50 30 24

170

16.617.4 29

411

50

116

1052

182

Figure 4

Agricultural mechanisation in the CIS countries: Tractors

(in thousands)

Page 81: 2001-049

78

CHAPTER 3: FARMING IN TEMPERATE ZONES

� Monitoring of environmental and socialdynamics;

� Modern organisational structures, financialinstruments.

It is evident that this kind of strategy needs botheconomic investments and growth in local humancapital. The investments could be repaid by higherproduction or by the combined use of the land-scape for agricultural and recreational purposes.

Sustainable strategies should enhance and supportprocesses that are relevant for the given landscape.Economic efficiency is to be achieved by alleviat-ing resource degradation, thus reducing environ-mental and social risks. The current situationpresents good opportunities to make a reasonable

choice for future development. Environmentalistsshould take the opportunity to prevent the unsus-tainable development of one of the most environ-mentally significant regions of the world.

Acknowledgements

We express our sincere gratitude to our colleaguesfrom the Cohort 8 Leadership for Environmentand Development programme in the CIS whoshared the data and visions, collected facts,provided contacts within their countries andhelped to polish the presentation. The work couldnot be completed without advice and technicalassistance from the Moscow IUCN office staff.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 82: 2001-049

79

The next steps in agricultural

policy reform

� “Frameworks that support agriculture anddeforestation and fail to protect nature havebeen analysed. Agriculture is the most impor-tant challenge for the environment and particu-larly for conservation in Brazil. Agriculturalreform in Brazil actually penalises those whokeep forest on land.”

� “In the EU we have a comprehensive strategyto implement the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) within the CAP, such as reduc-ing pollution and optimising biodiversity bene-fits. But first, what are biodiversity indicators?

Hopefully the EC will soon adopt action plansto integrate biodiversity into agriculture. Weknow there are some negative impacts of CAPon biodiversity. We want to work together toprovide real integration of concerns.”

� “In general there is a great need to look at theexperiences of countries on agricultural policyand their drawbacks in relation to the environ-ment.”

� “Agriculture in relation to polices in andaround protected areas must be addressed.Agriculture development projects aroundprotected areas are often small and badlyimplemented, resolving problems for a smallminority. Families living on the outskirts ofprotected areas, and within, need agriculturefor survival.”

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Discussion Points from the Session – Temperate

Zones

Page 83: 2001-049

80

Introduction

This presentation summarises the first results ofthe laboratory isolation of Medicago-Rhizobiumgermplasm collected in Sardinia in 1998/99 andthe first description of microbial strains, analysis ofsoil samples and determination of Medicagospecies.

Medicago L. comprises a large number of species,annual herbs, herbaceous perennials and shrubs,many of which are markedly polymorphic.Recently, Small and Jomphe (1) have divided thegenus into 12 sections and eight subsectionscomposed of 85 species and 18 infraspecific taxa.

Many species of the genus (‘medics’) have signifi-cant and wide-ranging agricultural applications,e.g. alfalfa (M. sativa L.). Moreover, annual medicsare of great importance in Mediterranean pastures,as well as in south-western Australian and SouthAmerican rangelands. Biological nitrogen fixationmay reduce the use of nitrogen fertilisers, thusproviding a suitable tool for ‘biological’ farmingand for reducing environmental nitrogen pollu-tion. The ‘self-resowing’ capability of annualmedics is another feature that leads to low inputagricultural techniques, but also explains theirbehaviour as invasive aliens outside their naturalrange. The most important aspects of Medicago sp.pl. variability, as far as agricultural/ environmen-tal applications are concerned, are mainlymorphological, physiological and phenological,whereas Rhizobium meliloti variability relevant toagricultural/environmental applications is mainlyrelated to its nodulating capability, effectiveness(N2 fixing potential) and adaptability to a widerange of soil conditions (mainly pH andcompetition with native soil micro-organisms).

Sardinian Medicago/Rhizobium germplasm hasalready been taken into account in previouscollecting surveys since 1977 (2, 3, 4, 5). Thepresent research differs from previous studiesbecause (i) the germplasm collected does not referto a single Medicago species but to most of the

annual/perennial medics present on the island,(ii) the collection avoided sites where there wasmore or less strong evidence of human habitatmodification/degradation, and (iii) the collectionaimed to investigate the ecological behaviour ofsingle species and their symbiosis, and was nottherefore concerned with a specific agriculturalpurpose.

Materials and methods

The Medicago/Rhizobium germplasm collection wascarried out in Sardinia, Italy (6). It was followed bylaboratory isolation of microbial strains, analysisof soil samples and determination of herbariumspecimens of Medicago sp. pl., according to Smalland Jomphe’s monograph (1). The network of siteswas distributed all over the main island (and in thesurrounding islets) in order to collect the highestnumber of native (and non-cultivated) Medicagospecies.

The main ecological characteristics of the samplingsites were taken into account in an attempt tocollect samples from very different habitats/sitesin terms of altitude, climatic parameters, parentmaterials and soil types, land use and vegetationphysiognomy. The sites were located mainly innatural or semi-natural habitats (no roadsides orcultivated fields were sampled). The Regional SoilMap (1:250,000 – USDA Soil Taxonomy standards)was used as the main reference for planning thefield activities at the landscape scale. The soilsamples collected were analysed for pH, totalorganic matter and humic fractions (fulvic acids,humic acids and non-humified compounds) (7).

The microbiological analysis involved the isolationof microbial strains from the root nodules of theplants of Medicago and the purification of theisolates (8). Only isolates confirmed as belongingto Rhyzobium were included in the microbialcollection and stored at -80°C in an ultrafreezer.Confirmation consisted of demonstration of

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Biodiversity of Medicago sp. pl. – Rhizobium meliloti

Symbiosis in Temperate Mediterranean Zones (Sardinia, Italy)

Giuseppe Brundu1, I. Camarda1, M. Caredda2, P. Deiana2 and S. Maltoni21: Department of Botany and Plant Ecology, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; 2: Department of Agro-Environmental Sciences and Agro-Food Biotechnology, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy

Page 84: 2001-049

81

BIODIVERSITY OF MEDICAGO SP. PL – RHIZOBIUM MELILOTI SYMBIOSIS IN TEMPERATE MEDITERRANEAN ZONES (SARDINIA, ITALY)

nodule forming ability on a test host legume underenvironmental (bacteriologically) controlledconditions (9). Rhizobium strains were physiologi-cally characterised by analysing growth curvescarried out in different environmental conditions:pH (4.5–5, 6.8–9), NaCl (2.5%), MnSO4 (8.45 mg/l).

uses. They spread even in degraded habitats dueto their greater adaptability to the presence ofspiny coils and to human intervention (e.g. M.polymorpha L., M. arabica (L.) Hudson). In contrast,other species are heavily site/habitat dependentand, consequently, more vulnerable to humaninfluences, overgrazing, habitat fragmentation anddegradation: e.g. M. marina L., M. intertexta (L.)Miller, M. ciliaris (L.) All. and M. rugosa Desr. M.marina L. grow exclusively on seashores, usually inloose sand; it is the only Medicago that has suchhabitat requirements, although seashore soils ofmore solid consistency may be colonised by otherspecies. It is, therefore, endangered by tourism,cleaning of seashores, competition with exoticspecies (e.g. Carpobrotus sp. pl.), trampling and,sometimes, even by grazing. Many species presenta high degree of morphological and phenologicaldiversity, which is often related to different perfor-mances in terms of biomass and seed production,root systems, suitability for and resilience to graz-ing and browsing, and pest resistance.

One hundred and twenty-five Rhizobium strainswere isolated from plant nodules sampled in the46 sites. Seventy-four per cent of the strains wereisolated from four plant species: M. litoralis(13.6%), M. murex (21.6%), M. polymorpha (23.2%)and M. truncatula (16%). Confirmation tests carriedout on the isolated strains permitted characterisa-tion of 29 strains capable of inducing nodulation inthe host plants. The physiological assays demon-strated that strain biodiversity could be related toneither the site nor the plant species.

The high variability of the materials examinedmust be a warning that the introduction of exoticMedicago/Rhizobium germplasm may lead to aharmful reduction of biodiversity. Native materialsshould always be used in rangeland improve-ments planned in sensitive environmental areassuch as Natural Parks or Special Areas ofConservation (Habitats Directive n. 92/43/ EEC).The use of selected competitive autochthonousmaterials rather than genetically modified organ-isms is desirable.

The introduction of exotic materials in rangelandecosystems or in habitat restoration interventionsmay be harmful if not carefully assessed, and maylead to an impoverishment of the natural biodiver-sity of the site. The conservation of plant andmicrobial genetic resources is one of the mainobjectives of Regulation n. 94/1467/EU. Its firstarticle stresses the importance of genetic plantresources, particularly forage plants, plantsbelonging to native flora with possible farmingapplications, and micro-organisms. The coordina-

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

SPA1 SPA2MAS1 CAP1

ASI1ASI3

ASI4

BAR1FER2

PIC1

VIL1

BON1MNO1

MUD1 NUR1

SAL2CAN1

FRA2FRA3

TIM2ELI1

ARE1DUC1

GIN1BOT1

CRL1

CRL2

DRU1 DRU2DRU3 DRU4

CHI1

SAR1 SAR2

GIA4

GIA2

GIA3

GIA1

TIM3TIM1

FRA4

FRA1

SAL1

FER1

ASI2

0 10km

G o l f o d i C a g l i a r i

Ma

rT

i rr e

no

Ma

re

Me

di t

er

ra

ne

o

G o l f o d e l l A s i na r a

Golfodi Oristano

Golfodi Olbia

Golfo

di

Orosei

Figure 1

Distribution of the collection sites in Sardinia

Results and conclusions

Forty-six collecting sites, widely distributed in themost representative areas of Sardinia, from sealevel to above 1,000 m, were sampled (see Figure1). Nodules were collected from 15 species (13annuals) out of the total of 22 Medicago species pre-sent in Sardinia. More precisely, 14 species out ofthe 19 native Medicago species were sampled (M.arborea L., M. soleirolii Duby and M. sativa L. subsp.sativa are considered to be alien to the nativeSardinian flora). Many species of the genus easilyadapt to different soil types (in terms of pH, organ-ic matter content, soil water storage) and land

Page 85: 2001-049

82

CHAPTER 3: FARMING IN TEMPERATE ZONES

tion and promotion of collecting activities and theconservation, evaluation and use of plant andmicrobial genetic resources are essential aids toachieving the main priorities of European agricul-tural and environmental policies.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Claudia Pistiddafor carrying out the laboratory analysis of all thesoil samples collected.

References(1) Small E. and Jomphe M. 1989. A synopsis of

the genus Medicago (Leguminosae). Can. J.Bot., 67: 3260-3294.

(2) Bullitta P., Bullitta S., Meloni C., Piluzza G.1998. Risorse genetiche foraggere sull’isoladell’Asinara (Distribuzione, conservazione emoltiplicazione in situ). In: Gutierrez, M.,Mattone, A., Valsecchi, F. (editors). L’isoladell’Asinara. L’ambiente, la storia, il parco. pp223-229. Poliedro, Nuoro. Italy.

(3) Loi A., Porqueddu C., Veronesi F., Cocks P.S.1995. Distribution, diversity and potentialagronomic value of Medicago polymorpha inSardinia. Journ. of Agr. Sc. 124: 419-426.Cambridge.

(4) Howieson J.G., Loi, A. 1994. The distributionand preliminary evaluation of alternative

pasture legumes and their associated root-nodule bacteria collected from acid soils ofGreece (Serifos), Morocco, Sardinia andCorsica. Agr. Med., vol. 124: 170-186.

(5) Francis C.M., Gillespie D.J. 1977. Ecology anddistribution of subterranean clover andMedicago species in Sardinia. A report basedon seed collection tour 1997. WesternAustralian Department of Agriculture. 9 pp.

(6) Meloni S., Brundu G., Caredda M., CamardaI., Deiana P. 1999. Collezione e valutazione digermoplasma sardo di Rhizobium meliloti eMedicago sp. pl. In: Agabbio, M. (editor).Biodiversità – Germoplasma locale e sua valoriz-zazione. Atti del 4° Convegno Nazionale,Alghero, 8-11 settembre 1998; pp. 957-960.Carlo Delfino Editore, Sassari. Italy.

(7) Ciavatta C., Govi M., Antisari V., Sequi P. 1990.Characterization of humified compounds byextraction and fractionation on solidpolyvinylpyrrolidone. Chromatographia 22:141-146.

(8) AA.VV., 1986. Secciones de Microbiologia desuelo de los programas de pastos tropicales yFrijol-Centro Internacional de AgricolturaTropical. CalÏ, Colombia. Manual para la eval-uacion, seleccion y manejo de la simbiosisleguminosa-rizobio para aumentar la fijacionde nitrogeno.

(9) Beck D.P., Materon L.A., Afand, F. 1993.Practical Rhizobium-Legume TechnologyManual. International Center for AgriculturalResearch in the Dry Areas.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 86: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 83

Abstract

This paper provides a basic understanding of theissue of vertical integration within the agriculturalsector, and the influence this has on prospects formaintaining a harmonious relationship betweenagriculture and biodiversity. It examines what ismeant by vertical integration and demonstrates alink between corporate strategies for vertical inte-gration and the development of biotechnology. Itraises the issue of political independence andpolicy control over the agri-food industry andaddresses the relationship between verticalintegration and trade patterns. Examples showhow local problems elsewhere in the world arelinked to the European dimension of vertical inte-gration. Three core issues are: the relationshipbetween government and the private sector; theconsequences of oligopoly in the agro-industry;and the location of statutory control over the globaldynamics of trade in seed, feed and primary agri-cultural commodities.

Introduction

Although there is considerable interest in agricul-ture as a means for promoting biodiversity andsustainable rural development, this multiple func-tionality of agriculture may increasingly dependon actors who have no direct interest in localeconomic welfare and who are not necessarilyinfluenced by national land use and social devel-opment policies. These actors are the ones control-ling markets and technology worldwide. In fact,when considering the role of governmentalauthorities in guiding the direction of agriculturalpractice within the recent historical period (Potter1998), it is possible to deduce that government

policy is reacting to, not leading, the evolution ofagricultural markets and technology.

Government policy is designed as if the farmerwere the principal agent in the agriculturalproduction system, and certainly farmers respondto signals from government when this will givethem a degree of freedom from the other influenceson their production practices. But the reality offarming is that prices for agricultural commoditiesare low, and in order to secure financial resourcesthe farmer is committing himself to his futureproduction strategy through forward contracting:he sells in advance a certain quantity of an agricul-tural commodity at a fixed price. There is verylittle difference between a farmer and hired labourin the definition of production strategy when theagent on the land – the ‘farmer’ – is operatingunder contract or simply taking orders from anindustrial manager.

What are ‘the other influences’ referred to above?Except in the case of ‘hobby’ farmers, a farmer isan economic agent, who seeks to identify a partic-ular production range that he has an adequateknowledge – and interest – to pursue, and forwhich he can recognise adequate market outlets.In principle, he will seek to maximise his netrevenue by controlling the relationship betweenthe primary factors of production (seed, land andits quality, machinery) and the variable factors ofthe production process (inputs and labour). To theextent that he loses control over any of the prima-ry or variable factors of his production process, heloses independence in his agricultural productionstrategy; and to the extent that he has no marketoutlet to choose from, he equally loses his autono-my of action.

It would only be through ignorance that theimportance of ‘the other influences’ on the primary

CHAPTER 4

BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Vertical Integration within the Agricultural

Sector: the European dimension

Peter NowickiHonorary Research Fellow, Imperial College at Wye, University of London, UK

Page 87: 2001-049

84

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

and variable factors of agricultural productioncould be discounted, as well as the crucial matterof market outlets. This is why taking into accountthe issue of the vertical integration of agri-indus-trial food production systems has to be the criticalfocus of a strategy to promote biodiversitythrough agriculture. Taking wheat and bread as anexample, if the seed stock, fertilisers and pesti-cides, grain elevators and bulk transport facilities,bakeries and distribution systems to the supermar-kets are all part of one multinational firm, where inthis chain can an individual farmer try to exertsome influence on the price of what he buys andwhat he sells, and where can an individualgovernment try to have some initiative in regulat-ing production standards and product quality?The margin for manoeuvre is tight indeed.

Whether the interest is biotechnology and geneticmanipulation of seed stock, or food quality, andtherefore the production chain as a whole, thesource of influence on decisions made by farmersis shifting from the farmstead to the corporateboardroom. This situation has already been docu-mented (see Heffernan 1999) and the conclusioncan only be that there is little point in trying toexercise a regulating influence on agriculture andbiodiversity through public policy with leverageover the individual farmer if it does not at thesame time have leverage over the other sources ofinfluence. The dilemma is that public policy, at thepresent time, has little or no real fulcrum for lever-age over multinational organisations which domi-nate the agricultural production system.

This is why, strange as it may seem at first, that themission of an organisation founded to further thesafeguard of nature and natural resources at theinternational level has to include in its scope ofintervention those activities which will be likely tocontribute to the proper operation of multinationalagri-food industries. The context is global, andthere are many stakeholders. IUCN is perhapsamong the best suited organisations to encouragea common effort by all stakeholders to examine awide range of possible measures, and to adoptthose measures which are called for, so that agri-cultural production systems can both ensure socialwelfare and be ‘biodiversity friendly’. Not allstakeholders have the same power in economicand political circles, so the role of IUCN can beboth that of mediator and porte-parole.

Several pathways exist. The first is to examine thefood production chain from human health andanimal welfare perspective: How many years ofresearch are necessary to decisively demonstratehow safe for the human organism genetically

modified crop material is? What is the toxicity ofplant material modified to contain moleculeswhich have pesticide qualities, that is, are com-posed of molecules which are toxins? What is theimplication for human immune systems whenantibiotics are systematically incorporated inanimal feed? How do stress factors associated withclosed livestock sheds affect animals? What is theimplication for fertility of all species ingestingcrop-related material when a terminator gene hasbecome introduced into the DNA structure of aplant?

A second pathway is consumer awarenessraising. What is the value to the producer of anagricultural commodity, compared – for example –with the shelf price of the delivered commodity(fruit) or a processed food derivative (coffee)?What is the nutritional status of organicallyproduced food or of fresh products compared withthose with a long delivery channel (and what is theenergy balance of produce delivered from nearbycompared with produce delivered across a conti-nent or even the globe)?

A third pathway is political and economic. Howcan a government assure the welfare of its citizenswhen global commerce is regulated according tostandards in which environmental norms are notconsidered as an explicit regulatory feature? Howcan an individual government promote sustain-able development when a substantial part of thevalue of agricultural produce does not circulate inthe same locality, but is siphoned off to the corpo-rate centres of the multinational companiesinvolved with an entire agricultural productionchain from seed to shelf? What are the implicationsfor democratic decision-making processes whenthere is lack of transparency in corporate affairsdue to an the absence of full disclosure, and whenpublic reporting of actuarial data regarding corpo-rate structures and markets is not required?

A fourth pathway is technological. What is thedifference to soil quality (organic structure andtilth) according to the way the soil is cultivated?What is the impact of irrigation systems on localand regional aquifers, and what are appropriatecrops and agricultural practices for dry climates?How do different types of machinery design differin environmental impact: soil compaction, noise,operating pollution?

These several pathways of analysis indicate that anintegrated approach to comprehending agriculturalproduction will shift the interest of an internationalorganisation such as IUCN from looking at piece-meal aspects of a complex reality. What is theadvantage of advocating individual government

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 88: 2001-049

85

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

financial support for a cluster of extensive live-stock farms in an outlying rural area without at thesame time advocating a European Union policy onthe location of agricultural commodity productionthat will avoid intensive irrigation in climaticallydry regions or the draining of wetlands in climati-cally temperate zones?

Why should governments concentrate only onglobal free trade without addressing the regulationof environmental externalities (which exist,according to economic theory, because of allegedmarket dysfunction), when the real issue is thatmarkets are not adequate mirrors of environmentalconsiderations (as the existence of aquatic andatmospheric pollution control regulations amplyattest)? How do governments intend to treat theissue of sovereign rights, not with inter-govern-mental institutions but with regard to thepervasive influence of multinational corporatestructures on national and local affairs?

Many issues are generated because of intellectualparadigms, and it is these which may be the moststrongly entrenched enemy of the rational use ofnatural resources (Gray 1998). In this regard, IUCNhas the intellectual reputation both necessary andsufficient to the task to examine, and contest whenappropriate, a received knowledge that is mostvigorously defended by those whose interests areserved best by invoking liberal economic conceptsto hide oligopolistic hegemony in the marketplace. True efficiency of markets is undoubtedlydesirable; but then let them function correctly.Oligopolistic influence in market operations is initself counter to liberal tenants, and contrary to theinterest of individual governments – and farmers.

If in a market the true value for nature conserva-tion can be integrated into agricultural produce,then this is the type of market situation IUCNshould encourage; labelling schemes and primaryproduce price indications, etc., will all be usefulinstruments. If the market, on the other hand,encourages practices which have a negative bal-ance sheet in terms of the overall use of naturalresources, then regulation and land use planningare necessary to orient market response of individ-ual farmers. When markets are controlled by finan-cial structures that are outside the influence ofboth individual farmer and government alike, thenan international governmental response is calledfor. Finally, when no market exists for an environ-mental good, such as the conservation of a naturalarea, then publicly or privately financed incentivesmay encourage the individual response necessaryto maintain it … and then again, maybe not. Someelement of change in natural conditions is

inevitable, for such is the historical reality ofnature itself.

The future of biodiversity within an agriculturalcontext depends on a combined effort by govern-ments and non-governmental organisations, withrepresentatives of farmers and food processors, toaddress at the international level the need for amix of financial incentives for land agents – thefarmers – and financial controls, along the lines ofanti-trust measures when necessary. This willallow markets to operate correctly and govern-ments to intervene when markets do not providean adequate financial reward for maintaining andenhancing biodiversity in the countryside.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basicunderstanding of the issue of vertical integrationwithin the agricultural sector, and the influencethis has on prospects for maintaining a harmo-nious relationship between agriculture and bio-diversity. The schema to be followed is to:

� present what is meant by vertical integration;

� demonstrate the link between corporate strate-gies for vertical integration and the develop-ment of biotechnology;

� raise the question of political independenceand policy control of the agri-food industry;

� address the relationship between vertical inte-gration and trade patterns;

� give examples about how local problems else-where in the world are linked to the Europeandimension of the vertical integration issue;

� draw ‘conclusions’ which may be used as thebasis for discussion within IUCN fora.

Vertical integration

In order to grasp the issue of vertical integrationwithin the agricultural sector, it is necessary toappreciate how two strands of the market economyare spun together. The first is the subsumption ofagriculture to capital and the second is the inter-connectedness between political and economicforces within the market economy. Our first task isto give flesh to these seemingly dry concepts. As askeleton, let us first look at what uniquely charac-terises the relationship of agriculture to biodiversity,which can be summarised in two words: localityand heterogeneity.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 89: 2001-049

86

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Locality and heterogeneity

The surface of the earth is composed of an enor-mous variety of physical attributes concerning thebasic substrate on which agriculture depends, thesoil. So each locality where agriculture is practisedpresents a unique potentiality and a unique set ofconstraints for farming. Therefore, within theessence of agricultural practice there has been theassociation of locality and heterogeneity (Van derPloeg 1992). If one further examines the implica-tion of this association, it becomes apparent thatthe nature of commerce of agricultural products isin opposition to this association of locality and het-erogeneity: at larger scales of economic activity, itis homogeneity which is required in channels ofcollection, processing and distribution of agricul-tural products. The requirement of homogeneity isa denial of the inherent essence of farming that hasbeen typically associated with the evolution of bio-diversity within Europe.

The stranglehold of huge supermarket chains isdriving uniformity and wiping out local vari-eties of fruits and crops with long histories(New Scientist, 18.12.1999).

Agriculture in the European continent has been aprogressive adaptation since 8500 BC of know-how developed in the Near East. This progressivespread of agriculture, from east to west and south

to north, has favoured adaptations in farming sys-tems that correspond to regional environmentaldifferences, both in climate, soil structure andtopography (Nowicki 1996). The historical evolu-tion of agricultural land use has resulted in aphenomenon quite specific to Europe (Nowicki etal. 1999), in which biodiversity related to agricul-tural practice at first increased and now is inmarked decline (see Figure 1).

There is also a second trend visible in shifts of landuse: agriculture becomes both more productive perhectare and, with relative market saturation,requires less space: there has been some shift topasture and meadow; a greater shift to woodland;and the most significant shift has been tourbanised land (Eurostat 1995). The changes inland use – both through increasing ‘intensity’ ofagricultural practice and through the amount ofland involved – are accompanied by modificationof landscape: field sizes are bigger, hedgerowshave been removed, small woods and ponds havedisappeared. This combined modification of land-scape and land use is detrimental to biodiversity.What is apparent in the diagram above is that bio-diversity has increased according to the develop-ment of niches, or biological ‘windows of opportu-nity’, associated with the advent and transforma-tion of Neolithic agrarian technology over millen-nia. This diversity has begun to collapse relativelyrapidly. The variety and geographical particularityof agrarian systems are disappearing, and so is thevariety and geographical particularity of land-scapes and the biodiversity associated with them.

The expansion of arable land use in the past hasalso been at the expense of some types of landcover. Forests have been cleared, for pasture,meadows and arable or permanent crops. Therehave been several cycles of increasing and decreas-ing arable land use, linked to human populationfluctuations, agricultural trade possibilities andthe market for timber. The current phase is that ofintensification of arable land on a smaller area,accompanied by an increase in the area devoted toa more extensive livestock management. It ispossible that this intensification of arable land useis linked to the regulated agricultural commoditymarket existing in one form or another throughoutEurope. The extensification of livestock manage-ment may be linked to financial incentives alsocoming from public policies to support rural areasunder economic hardship because of natural con-straints on more intensive forms of agriculturalland use.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

2000 AD

1000 AD

0

1000 BC

2000 BC

3000 BC

4000 BC

5000 BC

Cultivated (pre-industrial) landscape

Early Middle Ages

Roman period

Neolithic period

Primeval landscape

Floristic diversity

Figure 1

Floristic diversity of the European landscape

over time

Source: Stanners and Bordeau 1995

Page 90: 2001-049

87

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

Subsumption of agriculture to

capital

What is also apparent is that the increasing impor-tance of capital investment in agriculture hasresulted in a negative impact on biodiversity andlandscape values. This is linked directly to greaterhomogeneity in agrarian commodity productionthrough an increasingly standardised productionsystem, and it is also associated with an enlarge-ment and conditioning of fields for the use ofspecialised machinery and soil amendments. Theeconomist speaks of ‘subsumption of agricultureto capital’ as a way of expressing that all the vari-able factors of agricultural production are made aspredictable as possible – in cost, quality and deliv-ery – so that the production of crops can becontrolled as an integral part of various produc-tion chains. This is not restricted to the food indus-try; rape-seed oil, for example, has an industrialuse, and flax is a primary material for clothing.

Farming has become a business as in any othercommercial and industrial sector, relying forsurvival on the capacity to generate a net revenuefrom the costs of production (capitalisation in landand machinery, and the regular use of inputs:seeds, fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides) andthe income from the sale of the agriculturalcommodities on the market. Already in the pastcentury there has been a considerable replacementof labour costs through capitalisation in machin-ery, and the result is an increasing level of loanstaken out by the individual farm units to obtainthe required capital. In this sense, capital pene-trates into the organisation of farming enterprises,and the need to raise output to reimburse theborrowed capital increases the dependence offarmers on upgrading the technological support totheir farming enterprises (therefore reinforcing thecycle of borrowing and repayment of capital). Thissituation is figuratively referred to as a financialand technological treadmill ... and the conse-quence is the implicit transfer of farm manage-ment decision making to those who control theexternal capitals, in terms of both of machineryand financial resources offered to the farmer(Goodman and Redclift 1985, Marsden et al. 1987).

Indebted farmers or those under some otherform of pressure are more dependent uponrelations with both finance capital and, byvirtue of higher levels of farming intensity, withagricultural input firms. But few farmers haveyet been reduced to the role of the propertiedlabourer akin to that of a manager or worker ofa productive process completely subsumed tooutside capital (Winter 1986, p 253).

In terms of agricultural and biodiversity, theincreasingly industrial character of agriculturemeans that the specificity of locality and the poten-tial for heterogeneity are no longer relevant con-siderations within farm management strategies.This is why European governments have sought toprotect or promote specific agricultural practicesfavourable to local contexts through policies of aregulatory nature.

The possibilities and limitations

of a regulatory approach within

Europe

A significant shift in agricultural production hasoccurred over the past 25 years, and the features ofthis shift are well documented in a recently issuedcompendium of information on agriculture pub-lished by the European Commission (‘Agriculture,Environment and Rural Development: Facts andFigures’). Considering the effect of this shift uponrural areas, in terms of employment and environ-ment (in particular, with regard to biodiversity andlandscape), a renewal of policy instrumentsconcerning agriculture and rural development isalready taking place, both at the European andnational levels.

Even if the economic horizons of the rural econo-my extend further than the immediately perceivedpresence of agricultural activity, the ‘green’economic sectors (agriculture and forestry takentogether) cover 76% of the EU terrestrial territory:permanent crops 4%, arable land 24%, permanentgrassland 16% and wooded areas 32%. Manyregistered farmers are also involved in woodlandmanagement, and the separation of the agricultur-al and forestry sectors is no longer critical for anunderstanding of the driving forces behind ruralland use change, the influence of the agriculturalsector in this process, and the implications forbiodiversity and landscape.

The financial mechanisms of the CommonAgricultural Policy have encouraged the produc-tion of cereals, oil seed and protein crops throughthe establishment of intervention prices in themarket for theses commodities that guaranteed aminimum price for sales. The establishment ofquotas, particularly for milk, encouraged the meet-ing of maximum authorised delivery levels at theminimum possible expense. The conjugation ofthese two factors alone explains the decline inpermanent pasture across the EU in those areaswhere it has been possible to increase the output of

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 91: 2001-049

88

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

product (milk) per unit of production (the cow)through genetic selection and protein enrichmentof the diet. The latter leads to an increase in cerealproduction for feed and the conversion of grass-land to high-protein maize silage.

When coupled with the increasing demand formeat, fertile areas have been increasingly devotedto the production of feed grains and silage, encour-aging the seed selection making possible the exten-sion north of the 45th parallel of both wheat andmaize, localised in the fertile and temperate valleyand plateau areas of the EU. In the handicappedregions a shift from pasture has not been possible,but the demand for grain and silage has alsofollowed the same tendency as elsewhere. Thisleads to improved internal markets for grains aswell as to the local practice of grass silage, usingthe plastic-cover technology, even in the valleys ofthe mountain areas where before only hay wastaken off the fields.

While permanent grassland has decreased by 12%in the past 25 years, arable land has increased bythe same amount. The process has not been a one-to-one phenomenon, but rather a complex patternof specialisation in which many agricultural com-modities have become localised in the particularregions best suited for them. The ‘mixed arable’and ‘mixed livestock’ categories of farms havedecreased (in number and surface area), marginalpermanent crops have been removed (in particularvineyards producing low-quality wine, wherevines have been grubbed up for other uses orreturned to fallow), and the land under fodder hasextended northwards.

Genetic selection and mechanisation have bothplayed their part, and with the increasingcommodity specialisation has come the trend foran increasing economy of scale in operations,meaning larger fields per crop and larger farmingunits. This reflects a financial necessity to lowercosts per unit of output in order to successfullycover the depreciation costs of the sophisticatedmachinery, allowing both savings in productioncosts and the possibility to increase output perhectare. To the extent that machinery specialisationis correlated with basing a farm plan on a restrict-ed range of commodities, there is also a tendencyfor repeating crops in the same field: a survey inFrance noted that for 1995 the successive coverunder maize was 47%, wheat 14%, sunflowers 11%and potatoes 8%.

Translating these trends into straight-forwardobservations is simple: the variety of field sizesand crop types has disappeared, where ecologicallyrich permanent grasslands and field borders, along

with the availability of labour that went into main-taining agricultural features (such as hedgerows)which create the habitat structures associated withbiodiversity richness and landscape character inmany parts of Europe. The rural economy haschanged, and so have the landscape featureswhich are a reflection of it. Not only have land-scape features disappeared, but there is a long listof ecologically disruptive consequences, rangingfrom depleted soil organic material and mineralsto depressed and/or polluted water tables; thesealso have direct consequences on the food chainand habitat conditions for innumerable species.The loss of local cultivars and ‘rustic’ species ofdomestic livestock in the process of increasing uni-formity should not be forgotten either. Successivecover rather than rotation of crops accounts forincreasing problems with pests, requiring everlarger doses of pesticides.

The recognition of the relationship between ruraleconomy and non-agricultural vegetation struc-ture is not new; indeed the CAP reforms of 1992were intended to palliate the ‘missing market’forces that had under previous economic circum-stances been associated with ecologically benefi-cial land use practices on the farm. CertainlyCouncil Regulation No (EEC) 2078/92, the agri-environmental regulation, has been successful inraising awareness. One in seven farmers areenrolled in an agri-environmental programme,which in one form or another covers 20% of farm-land (in comparison with the 15% targeted for theyear 2000 under the 5th Environmental ActionPlan). As of the end of 1999, there have been 133agri-environmental programmes submitted bymember states, and in the same period there havebeen 218 modifications of approved programmes,suggesting that the complexity of the relationshipbetween agriculture and the environment shouldnot be underestimated.

Rather than dwell upon the shortcomings whichthe initial experience with agri-environmentalmeasures has highlighted, it is interesting toobserve the move by the Commission to adopt ahorizontal approach for dealing with environmen-tal considerations within the context of ruraldevelopment, in which the agricultural sectorremains a primary but not an exclusive actor. Thiscontinues the timid experiment made underCouncil Regulation No (EEC) 2080/92 (theCommunity aid scheme for forestry measures inagriculture) in which landowners other than farm-ers are eligible to receive assistance with environ-mentally valuable forestry practice. But the farm-ing community remains the principal target forenlistment in rural development initiatives under

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 92: 2001-049

89

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

Community financial incentives, as seen in Article22 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17May 1999 (on support for rural development fromthe EAGGF and amending and repealing certainRegulations).

At the same time as the new Rural DevelopmentRegulation was being developed, national reflec-tion on the integration of the agricultural commu-nity in rural development also matured. A goodexample can be seen in the Land Contracts whichhave replaced the agri-environmental agreementswithin France from January 1st, 2000. Although thespecific measures for less-favoured areas continueto be employed, the general measures of an agri-environmental nature are now formulated within awhole-farm plan that addresses both economicand environmental objectives. In addition, theseobjectives are organised in regionally-specific‘menus’ so that local community authorities andsocial forces can also participate in designating arange of objectives likely to reflect a global percep-tion of the natural features meriting priority atten-tion as well as the gaps in economic services whichneed to be filled.

These Land Management Contracts are estab-lished in the first part of the new Law onAgricultural Policy, voted on 9 July 1999. What isinteresting is that the supporting documentationmakes specific reference to the Community regula-tion on rural development being developed at thesame time. This sort of tight relationship demon-strates a synergy which is possible in a situationwhere subsidiarity plays a complementary role toCommunity initiative. Another noteworthy featureis the association of multifunctionality with mar-ket added value. So a new dogma is taking shape:incentives to the agricultural community will bebiased in favour of enabling market penetrationfor those goods and services which favour alabour-intensive relationship between the farmerand his use of natural resources. Furthermore,these goods and services are intended to give thefarmer market leverage in the present in order tolessen his dependence on financial assistance inthe future.

Because public policy is oriented to maintaininggrazing enterprises, then it is logical that some sortof internal market preference would be given tocompensate for the lack of economies of scale thatare possible in lowland grazing situations.Although headage payments may not be recom-mendable, a premium on live-weight delivered tomarket could perhaps be a simple way to make upfor the drop in prices at the market.

The matter is more complex, however, for some of

the responsibility lies within the monopoly thatlarge food distribution chains enjoy within thefood commodity market structure, and thus ontheir control of the prices offered to suppliers. Asan example, in some countries the distributionchains have horizontally organised meat deliveryto the consumer, through ownership of slaughter-houses and transportation facilities to the retailoutlets. There is no parallel pathway to theconsumer, and no choice of market entry for theproducer.

When power and wealth join

hands …

The principle of good governance is to protect theinterests of the governed, so that they canmaximise their opportunities of choice and action.For this reason, the interconnectedness betweenpolitical and economic forces will always remain asubject for civic concern, as the desire for wealthincites powerful ambitions to control the politicalprocesses which have an influence on its distribu-tion. Although the ‘invisible hand’ of the market isin theory the ultimate determinant of how themeans of production circulate and wealth accumu-lates in society, the more visible joining of handswhere power and wealth are concerned has beenamply attested to by various examples which havecome to public attention of subversion of publicmoneys or of conflicts of interest between politi-cians and corporate managers. Indeed, the politicalnature of market structures has to be recognised,and the fact that political orientations will be influ-enced by economic interests.

If the principal focus of political conflict, ateither domestic or international levels, concernswho gets what, when, and how, and setting outthe rules and framework of the market in largepart determines just this, then political interac-tion is the means by which economic struc-tures, in particular the structures of the market,are established and in turn transformed.(Underhill, 2000, p. 4). Understanding theglobal political economy therefore involvesovercoming orthodoxy and understandingmarkets and political authorities as part of thesame, integrated ensemble of governance, notas contrasting principles of social organisation.

It is in this context that the issue of vertical inte-gration of the agricultural sector must be placed,and therefore the phenomenon of subsumption ofagriculture to capital. For control of the agriculturalsector is control over basic human needs for food

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 93: 2001-049

90

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

and clothing, and when the tendency of capital isnot only monopolistic but oligopolistic, this entailsboth a conscious curtailing of competition and theintegration of the factors of production through aninfluence over governmental processes. Verticalintegration of the agricultural sector from seed toshelf also has, it must be noted in passing, a signif-icant advantage in establishing a competitivehegemony, for there is a reduction of transactioncosts at each step in the production process.

The issue of the interconnectedness between polit-ical and economic forces becomes particularlyacute when examining the issue of biotechnologyand its impact upon biodiversity when associatedwith farming practices. But first, it is now appro-priate to give a more detailed description of what‘vertical integration’ within the agriculturalsection means.

Vertical integration in the

agricultural sector

Within a market economy, there are ‘five basiccontrol problems of capitalistic production andaccumulation: control over labour, supplies, tech-nology, capital, and distribution/consumption’(Ruigrok 2000, p. 326). The response, dating to the1920s in large corporations such as Ford, has tobeen to integrate all these production attributesunder the control of a unique management struc-ture, the ‘in-house’ solution. But the globalisationof competition between firms means that manage-ment of these attributes must be more flexible totake advantage of economies available throughincreased competition at each level of the produc-tion process, and to provide greater strategicchoice of which components of the productionattributes should remain under direct companymanagement control. This explains the simultane-ous selling off of certain activities to create inde-pendent firms and the buying up of others, whichhas been common in the 1990s.

With regard to agriculture, the requirement forfood product distribution companies has been toensure a standard level of quality, respecting bothconsumer preference and regulatory measures, thelatter in particular with regard to human health.The production of broiler chicken in the US, forinstance, will normally be entirely controlled with-in one company, with only the pullets being‘farmed out’ to agricultural enterprises specialisedin rearing the fowl from chicks to birds for slaugh-ter 90 days later. The laying hens and egg incuba-tion systems, the shipping and the meat processing

will be all under single ownership, and the provi-sion of medical supplies will be provided to thefarmer along with specifications as to when to usewhich treatments.

This type of industrial relationship between capitaland labour has begun to be extended to otherdomains. It is already prevalent through both ver-tical integration and forward contracting arrange-ments for many commodities: eggs, meat (chicken,turkey and hogs), milk, and speciality crops(Coleman and Skogstad 2000). The move by largecorporations to strategically choose complemen-tary enterprises to exercise integrated control hasbrought a new variant of this relationship, involv-ing biotechnology. It is not only the production ofseed and the processing of maize in several indus-trial products – ranging from flour to starch –which is under unified corporate managementcontrol (see Figure 2), but the types of plant treat-ment products required.

Strategic association of complementary enterprisesoccurs in two ways: alliances and other forms ofnegotiated agreements for a specific period oftime, and out-right purchase. The latter is far moreevident than the former, and the associationbetween chemical products and seed production iswell known from examples such as Monsanto,Dupont and Dow Jones. When a company such asMonsanto moves into life sciences and acquirespatents in genetically modified seed stock, the goalis to extend the value of its investment in a propri-etary herbicide such as Roundup, for which theRoundup Ready canola, cotton and soybean seedstock had been specifically adapted.

The planned merger between Monsanto andAmerican Home Products would have created aUSD 96 billion ‘life sciences’ company, accordingto the information on Monsanto’s web site in 1998,combining pharmaceutical (human and animalhealth) products with nutritional/food ingredientsand agricultural products. In any case, Monsantohas continued with an acquisition campaign aimedat seed producing companies, as witnessed by thefollowing news brief from the Economist of 18 July1998:

Monsanto, an American biotech firm, will pay$525m to buy Plant Breeding International,Cambridge, a crop-breeding group, fromUnilever, an Anglo-Dutch multinational.

Other examples of the complex internationalcorporate strategy of this multinational giant comefrom Monsanto’s web site under the heading‘Recent Transactions’:

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 94: 2001-049

91

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Figure 2: The industrialisation of maize

Source: OECD 1979

Paper Pulp, Artificial Silk

Furfurol, Fuel, Abrasives,Pharmaceuticals Filler, FloorCoverings, Humus, WoodChip Panels

Antibiotics

Cattle Feeds

Cattle Feeds

Varnishes, Manmade Fibres,Records, Pharmaceuticals

Animal Feed

Smelting, Soap, Pharmaceuticals

Cooking Oil, Margarine

Animal Feeds

Textiles, Adhesives

Brewing, Sweets, Bakery,Pork Products

Soaps, Sauces, Desserts,Baby Foods

Mining, Smelting, Oil Drilling

Adhesives, Smelting, TextileSizing

Brewing, Confectionery,Biscuits, Tanning

Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals, Energy Foods

Plastifiers, Textiles, CorkPaper, Foodstuffs

Concentration

Zein

Crude Oil

Refining

Oilseed

Industrial Starch

Edible Starch

Refined EdibleStarch

Dextrines

Glucose

Dextrose

Sorbital

Cornflakes

Semolina, Flour

Corn Gritz, Brewing

Oilcake, Cattle Feed

Germ OIl

Bran By-products,Cattle Feed

Whisky, Gin, Bourbon

ChemicalProcessing

Extraction

Drying

Washing

Refining

Cooking

Roasting

Sweetening

Purification

Evaporation

Crystalisation

Hydrogenation

Grain Milling

SolubleSubstances

Bran

Gluten

Germ

Starch

TIL

L-G

DIS

TIL

L-I

NG

CO

B

STA

LKS

GR

AIN

STA

RC

H IN

DU

STR

YSE

MO

LIN

AIN

DU

STR

Y

Page 95: 2001-049

92

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Spun off Monsanto’s former chemical businessto existing shareholders as a new companycalled Solutia with revenues of $3 billion; spent$1.4 billion to acquire seed companies Holder’sFoundation Seeds (US), Corn States HybridServices (US) and Sementes Agroceres (Brazil;other smaller acquisitions in Brazil (pharma-ceuticals), Argentina (pharmaceuticals);launched joint ventures with local partners inArgentina (cotton seeds), India (geneticallyenhanced cotton), and Russia (pharmaceuti-cals).

The major European and North American multi-national companies involved in the food marketattempt to create synergies among chemical, phar-maceutical, and animal and plant processing enter-prises. The range of elements include not only theproduction of fertilisers, herbicides, antibiotics,hormones, vaccines and seed stock, but also silos,livestock feed lots, terrestrial and maritime trans-portation facilities, slaughterhouses and meat-packing units, grain mills and ‘food processing’factories.

All of these demonstrate a systematic vertical inte-gration in both the plant and animal markets tocreate production chains from seed or chick to thebread or broiler which appears on the supermarketshelf; perhaps, more appropriately, one can talk ofa production chain ‘from gene to jello’, as the newindustry is that of food manufacturing. Takingbiotechnology as applied to plants as an example,the matter is well stated by the Guardian (24August 2000):

Biotech crops are ubiquitous, yet few con-sumers realise it. Here are a few examples ofwhere you can find GMO products: soft drinks(GMO corn to make corn syrup), salad (GMOtomato, soy oil in dressing), hamburgers (engi-neered yeast in bun, rennet, soy isolates incheese, delayed-softening tomato in ketchup,soybeans in mayonnaise, genetically alteredtomato).

Why such an interest for investment in the foodchain? Le Monde Diplomatique, May 1998, gives agood explanation:

Les firmes Pioneer, Novartis, Monsanto,Hoescst Schering-Agro, Rhône-Polenc-Rorer, selivrent en effet, depuis deux ans, à des jeuxd’alliances et de rachats, tant du côté dessociétés de biotechnologie que sur le versantagroalimentaire. An cadenassant aussi bien lesgènes-clés et les variétés performantes que lesdébouchés alimentaires, elles sont devenuesmaîtresses des champs… et des assiettes.

The key factor is that costs are internalised, and theonly point of ‘price discovery’ is at the point offinal sale, as there are no transfer of ownership andresultant transaction costs along the productionchain, and all the added value accumulated at eachpoint of transfer in the production cycle is a sourceof profit to the agro-industrial company. There isan additional issue of monopoly in the foodmarket, and the inherent social blackmail of ‘paymy price if you wish to eat.’

The potential for economic disequilibrium thatcould be generated by the multinationals of thefood industry is highlighted in an article (TheGuardian, 19 June 2000) on the implications of GMseeds for developing countries, in which there is apassage presenting the views of Professor PushpaBhatrgava, head of the Centre for Cellular andMolecular Biology:

Thanks largely to him, India has some of thebest biotechnologists in the developing world,and many of its public agricultural institutesare working on applications for India. Hethinks GM will change society, dramaticallyimproving drugs, vaccines, plastics, foodpreservation, alcohol energy and agriculture.

Where Europeans are concerned about the safe-ty, environmental and consumer implicationsof GM foods, the debate in India mostly centreson neo-colonialism – who owns and controlsthe technology – economic dependency and“food security”. The best reason for Indiadeveloping biotech, he says, is that, if it doesn’t,“the country will be exploited by others in away that history has not known before”. He haswarned for years of the consequences of Indiabecoming “dependent on other countries forideas, know-how and products”.

And that, he believes, is happening now. “Howdo you dominate a country where 700 millionpeople are directly dependent on farming? Youinfiltrate its agriculture. Who controls a coun-try’s food security controls that country”.

In this context, the furore in India caused by therevelation of the existence of a patented ‘termina-tor gene’ is easily understandable, for it is the rad-ical means by which seed firms impose a restric-tion on replanting seeds derived from GM plantsthat have been saved from a preceding harvest.

India has a quarter of the world’s farmers, and85% of the 700 million people who live off thesoil rely on home-grown seed, stored afterevery harvest. About 575 million barelymanage to scrap a living, tilling less that a

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 96: 2001-049

93

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

hectare of land, and would quite simply starveif they had to buy seed every planting season(The Guardian, 6 October 1999).

Even if most of the farmers in India are too poor touse GM seed stock supplied by the major multina-tionals, an ecological and economic catastrophe isnevertheless a possibility with the arrival of the‘terminator gene’, for

… scientists fear that the terminator gene couldmake other crops sterile by inadvertent cross-pollination, and threaten the diversity of seedstocks in India, making its farmers slaves to afew strains of imported seed (The Guardian, 6October 1999).

From the point of view of the farming community,market presence in Europe and North America isoften assured through cooperatives; and eventhese enter into the structure of alliances whichform the agro-industrial clusters operating at theinternational level. One of the major agro-industrialclusters is Novartis (genetics, seed stocks andchemicals) and ADM (grain handling and process-ing). ADM has a major stake in A. C. Toepfer, oneof the leading grain trading firms in the worldmarket, and thereby via corporate agreements canclaim to have EU partners that are among the 12 ofthe largest farmer’ cooperatives in the world,allowing ‘ADM to process 45% of the commoditiesentering Eastern Europe from the West in 1993’(Heffernan 1999). Biotechnology is the keystone toa relationship having global dimensions:

The Novartis/ADM connection is … importantbecause Novartis – while truly a global andpowerful company with substantial sales inchemical, seed, animal health and human nutri-tion products [including Gerber baby food] –lacked access to further processing in eithergrain commodities of food products. Novartiswill need ADM’s grain handling and process-ing web to be able to guarantee producersusing their seed stock a downstream market.ADM, on the other hand, lacked access tobiotech and needs Novartis’ genetics, seedstocks and chemicals (Heffernan 1999).

ADM also has a major stake in IBP, the largest beefpacker and the second largest pork packer in theUS, and through joint ventures has operations infood processing throughout the world; in 1997 IBPeven started up a fully integrated pork productionand processing facility in China. ADM is also afinancial player in the world grain market throughits US brokerage firm specialised in currency andgrain futures trading.

Biotechnology and trade

There are several multinational clusters followingthe same logic as that of Novartis and ADM (suchas Monsanto and Cargill); the common denomina-tor is consolidation of food industry interests with-in global trade patterns. As suggested above withregard to India, such leverage over national agri-cultural products can be cause for concern, asdemonstrated by the recent legal troubles of ADMin both the EU and the US concerning the market-ing of lysine and citric acid, and ADM’s increasingmarket share in ‘new products as Vitamin E andsoy isoflavones’ (Heffernan 1999). The reach ofsuch multinational clusters onto the supermarketshelf completes their strategy, illustrated by thefact that the Gerber baby food brand belongs toNovartis, Haldane of the UK belongs to ADM, andFoodBrands Inc. belongs to IBP.

The trade issue is therefore both about (brand-name) products and about market shares of rawand processed agricultural commodities in thehuman food chain and within an extended marketfor a wide variety of industrial products (such asthose using oils and fibres from derived fromplants and animals). To the extent that biotechnol-ogy enhances the place of agricultural commodi-ties in the production and trade of an increasinglywide variety of items, biotechnology and trade aretogether an integral element when considering theextent of vertical integration within the agriculturalsector.

Turning to the European dimension of the tradeissue, which is also an introduction to later consid-eration of the relationship between vertical inte-gration and politics, two well-known examplesconcern the ‘banana war’ and the ‘beef hormonedispute’. An excellent résumé by The Guardian alsobrings us to the increasingly broader issue of thebiotechnology component of the trade issuethrough the production and marketing of GMcommodities:

In the banana complaint, the US argued that theEU was treating its banana growers unfairlybecause of preferential treatment for exportersin the Windward Islands. Why the US launcheda complaint on a product it does not grow maybe explained by the half-million dollar dona-tions made to US political parties by ChiquitaFruit, a US firm that is one of the largest CentralAmerican banana producers. The WTO latergranted authority for the US to impose $200mof trade sanctions against European exporters.Chiquita’s victory could lead to 200,000 smallfarmers in some of the world’s poorestcountries losing their livelihood.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 97: 2001-049

94

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

The row over the EU’s refusal to import beefcontaining growth-promoting hormones showshow international trade law can challengepublic health standards. A WTO ruling againstthe EU’s assessment of the health risks of cattlehormone treatments suggests that even publicsafety is under threat from corporate muscle.And now the US accuses the EU of using spuri-ous scientific arguments to slow down theproliferation of GM products (17 August 1999).

The contention that the EU is using ‘spurious’scientific arguments has been belied by a publica-tion in Nature (vol. 399, p 14, 20 May 1999) demon-strating the decline of Monarch butterflies feedingon the pollen of maize into which a toxoid Bacillusthruingiensis (Bt) has been genetically placed inorder to a produce a ‘pest resistant’ crop. The sameBt toxin will enter the human food chain when themaize is harvested and processed, albeit normallythrough an intermediate stage as animal feed. Thequestion remains, however, if bio-accumulation ofa molecule having the effect of a pesticide willoccur. Research has demonstrated that two out ofthree green lacewing larvae, natural predators ofthe targeted European corn borer, died after ingest-ing European corn borer which had fed upontransgenic maize containing the Bt toxin(Environmental Entomology, April 1998). And whatwill be the consequences for farmers seeking tosafeguard their crop by using GM seeds – or fortheir neighbours employing conventional Btphyto-sanitary products as authorised under‘organic’ produce labelling legislation – when Btresistant strains of targeted pest species develop?A foreshadowing of the extent of damage is theoutbreak of the bollworm which developed a resis-tance to Bollgard® Cotton, destroying a large partof the cotton crop in the Southwest of the US in1996 (Lappé and Bailey 1999).

Although the different types of risk associatedwith GM plant and animal production is outsidethe scope of the vertical integration issue, it isworthwhile to note that caution has been requestedby statutory agencies, such as English Nature,concerned about the wildlife implications of genet-ically modified organisms in agriculture, in partic-ular with regard to two major potential effects:gene introgression (the accidental or deliberateintroduction of novel genes into native species)and changes in crop management (resulting fromthe widespread commercial use of GMOs) (Reportto the House of Lords, UK, European Commun-ities Committee, enquiry into the regulation ofgenetic modification in agriculture, June 1998). Thechanges in agricultural practices which biotechnol-ogy encourages is no minor concern, for intensive

agriculture and the loss of grassland (and heaths)with the generalisation of silage has brought oneout of eight European butterfly species to the vergeof extinction; the risk is that ‘the situation wouldworsen as the countries of central and easternEurope joined the EU and abandoned their tradi-tional agricultural practices’ (The Times, 9December 1999).

The fact that there may be a risk of unknownproportions involved, as biotechnology becomesintegrated into the food chain, has fully enteredthe debate on liberating trade in agricultural prod-ucts; and it has taken five years to negotiate theBiosafety Protocol to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD), agreed to on 30 January 2000. Theissue has been whether the ‘precautionary princi-ple’ advocated by the CBD could be used as amethod of trade protectionism. In order to protecttrading rights the WTO had up to this timerequired that safety bans be backed by ‘sufficientscientific evidence’. There remains the issue oflabelling, which the Protocol does not touch upon:

Farmers and traders won’t have to segregateproducts containing GMOs. The US argued thatsegregation would cost billions of dollarsbecause GM varieties make up half of thenation’s soybean and a third of its maize crops(New Scientist, 6 Feb 2000).

In response to this situation, the EU has regulatedthat agricultural commodities containing morethan 1% of GM material must be labelled as such(Council Decision of 25 June 1999). Another deci-sion, from 1990, regulates the introduction of GMseed stock within the EU. Yet both of these legalinstruments are becoming increasingly difficult toregulate and to monitor because of the omnipres-ence of GM material within the trade cycle. Interms of maize seed, the EU obtains two-thirds ofits seed stock from the US, and the refusal of USauthorities to impose labelling on GM exportsmeans that GM seed can enter the EU agriculturalsystem without importers being aware of the situ-ation. This has already occurred with regard to GMrape, which has been planted on 4,700 ha in theUK, 600 in France, 500 in Sweden and 400 inGermany (The Guardian, 18 May 2000).

GM labelling itself has become a causus bellibetween the EU and the US, precisely because ofthe implications for trade:

Washington has warned the EU that it is con-sidering making a formal complaint to theWorld Trade Organisation in Geneva on thegrounds that labelling GM products is unfairdiscrimination against US goods and therefore

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 98: 2001-049

95

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

a restraint of trade. The US says it will ask theWTO to impose sanctions against EU exports ifGM labels are not removed from supermarketshelves. …

A spokeswoman for the US food and drugadministration, which insists that only nutri-tional information should be on the label, said:“This is getting extremely serious. We regardrequiring GM labelling as economic fraud. Ourview is that we would not have allowed theseproducts on the market if they were not safe,they are the same as non-GM food, so they donot require a label. In fact, to label them is tradediscrimination and therefore wrong.” (TheGuardian, 31 July 2000).

If GM food was as anodyne as the spokespersonfor the US food and drug administration claims,then it would be unreasonable for ScientificAmerican to specifically address the issue ‘Do therisks of genetically modified crops outweigh thebenefits?’ (5 July 1999). No conclusion is given,and the opposing arguments are set out. But thefact is recognised that:

In Britain, for example, a recent study showedthat 30 of the leading food processors hadeither stopped, or were going to stop, usinggenetically modified ingredients. The latestamong them is Northern Foods, one of thelargest producers of fresh food products in theUK. Meanwhile, Paris-based Groupe Danone,the third biggest food producer in Europe,announced that it wouldn’t use geneticallymodified ingredients. And both Unilever, theAnglo-Dutch company, and Switzerland’sNestle stated that they would limit or ban theuse of genetically modified ingredients inselected countries (Scientific American, 5 July1999).

This situation of strong dichotomy between theagro-industrial push for GM products in the worldmarket and the European withdrawal from the useof GMOs will create tensions within trade thatmay result in commercial conflict among richercountries, but will also leave its mark in the rela-tionship between the richer and the poorer coun-tries. The major multinationals that are committedto promoting GMOs, along with the other deriva-tives of biotechnology, will concentrate theirefforts of market penetration on societies less ableto construct the social defence mechanisms as havebeen established within Europe (how many peoplein the world have access to a web site such aswww.greenpeace.fr in which there is a download-able PDF file listing food products which containand do not contain GM material?).

Trade and bio-piracy

It is one matter to control seed stocks: a problem inresource availability could eventually be handledby creating parallel systems of provision – even ifit would take several years, however, to free theEU from its dependence on importing maize seedsfrom the US. It is another matter to control thegenetic structure encapsulated within seeds, for todefy legal proprietary rights would result in sabo-taging the international structure of legal agree-ments in all domains (including trade, of course).Therefore there is some cause for concern thatexisting laws in the EU and the US allow thepatenting of genetic structures, now that novelforms are made possible by biotechnology, as wellas the possibility to accurately map genomes. Thelink between trade and what has become referredto as ‘bio-piracy’ is well illustrated in the followingpassage, written during the period leading up tothe aborted WTO trade negotiations in Seattle:

The US and Europe insist that corporationsshould be allowed to patent all plants andanimals despite existing international laws andunderstandings which provide for protection ofnatural resources.

India, Malaysia, Zimbabwe and other Africanand Latin American countries have accused theUS and Europe of ‘bio-piracy’. The Indians areparticularly worried because US and Europeancorporations have started to patent their tradi-tional herbal medicines.

In heated backroom talks in Geneva designedto iron out differences before the inter-govern-mental meeting, Mike Moore, the head of theorganisation responsible for setting the world’strading laws, is reported to have dismisseddeveloping countries’ objections by saying thatthe WTO overrides all other internationaltreaties.

The US/EU proposals would force all countriesto broaden their patenting laws, but the devel-oping countries are resisting strongly. They saythat patents on all life forms should be exclud-ed from the negotiations of the Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)agreement which is scheduled for renegotiationin the talks. …

The problem which the US must overcome isthat the patenting proposals clash with otherinternational laws [notably the CBD]. Anothersticking point is agriculture, with the rich coun-tries trying to force a further opening up of

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 99: 2001-049

96

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

markets to their goods. The developing world,say India and others, must be allowed to protectand support their farmers up to the point of self-sufficiency. (The Guardian, 22 November 1999)

Bringing the double issue of trade and bio-piracyback into the focus of the European dimension ofvertical integration within the agricultural sector israther straightforward: what would happen to thecommercialisation of Roquefort cheese if the bacte-ria responsible for the proper fermentation ofsheep milk were to be patented by a European – oreven US – agro-industrial multinational company?Where would control over this very culturallyidentifiable product lie? What would be the rightsof the cooperatives in southern France currentlyproducing the primary product? In whose interestwould marketing decisions, that effect the compe-tition between different sorts of speciality cheeses,be made?

It is hard to argue that this could not happen, if oneconsiders the following passage from a commu-niqué jointly released by RAFI, the BerneDeclaration and the Gene Campaign in January2000:

In September 1997 a Texas-based company,RiceTec Inc., won a controversial US patent(No. 5,663,484) on Basmati rice lines and grain.RiceTec’s Basmati patent has become widelyknown as a classic case of ‘biopiracy.’ Not onlydoes the patent usurp the Basmati name, it alsocapitalises on the genius of South Asian farmerswho have for centuries selected and main-tained Basmati rice varieties that are recognisedworldwide for their fragrant aroma, long andslender grain, and distinctive taste (RAFICommuniqué Issue #65, www.rafi.org).

Biotechnology and politics

The relationship between the commercial interestsbehind biotechnology and politics is not only of anindirect nature when major multinational corpora-tions make contributions to the political cam-paigns in democratic countries. There is a directrelationship between decisions regarding the pub-lic financing of research in biotechnology and thecommercial application of such research. When on16 May 2000, the UK multinational AstraZenecareached agreement with the inventors on the com-mercial control of a Vitamin-A fortified rice strain,it pocketed the total public sector investment thatwent into the production of this strain (RAFINews, 20 June 2000). The same issue came up inthe United States with the patenting of the

‘Terminator Gene’, as related in an article by TheChristian Science Monitor (31 July 1998), entitled‘Terminator Seeds Threaten 10,000 Years ofFarming History’:

Terminator seeds generated particular contro-versy because the US Department ofAgriculture (USDA) contributed to the break-through.

‘Here we are using taxpayers’ money for acompany that can afford to do the research,’complains Henry Shands, assistant administra-tor for genetic resources at USDA’s AgriculturalResearch Service. Because Congress has keptthe service’s research budget essentially flat inrecent years, government researchers arescrambling for funding.

‘We see more and more of our scientists go outand compete for grants and try to get moneyfrom industry,’ Shands says. ‘And that makesus more beholden to industry.’ One of thebiggest dangers is that as corporations pourincreasing amounts of money into geneticresearch, public funding could dry up.

There are three interconnected threads in the prob-lematic posed by the relationship between publicand private funding in agricultural research. First,to what extent does public research money con-tribute to private profit making? Second, to whatextent are public science research agendas set bythe research interests of private companies, accord-ing to their commercial strategies? Third, to whatextent does the presence of private money forresearch dissuade public policy masters to reduceboth public research budgets and, thereby, theguarantee of the intellectual independence of theirresearch staff?

It has been the public investment in agriculturalresearch which has provided the major break-throughs in hybridisation of maize, for example,and so has contributed to the prosperity of theagricultural community, both in the US and inEurope. The independent yeoman farmer, so muchvalued in Europe along with the tradition of thefamily farm, has in fact benefited enormously fromthe work of public agricultural research stations.Although perhaps the mechanisms are different,there may be a double pressure for the collapse ofthe independent farmer: intellectual propertyrights on plant and animal genetics, and therebycontrol over the entire food processing chain byprivate corporate interests, through vertical inte-gration within the agricultural sector. This situa-tion might also herald the demise of the personalrelationship with the countryside which hassafeguarded Europe’s natural heritage.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 100: 2001-049

97

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

Looking to the future

Vertical integration within the agricultural sector isa phenomenon which has been taking shape foralmost half a century, and the European dimensionis not that much different from the realityconfronting agricultural communities elsewhere.The mechanisms are technical, scientific, financialand political. Loss of control over agricultural isloss of control over the countryside.

What, then, remains to be debated? First and fore-most, the relationship between government andthe private sector:

� Who has control over the research agenda relat-ing to agriculture?

� What is the justification, in terms of social utili-ty, for establishing private property rights overgenetic structures?

Second, the consequences of oligopoly in the agro-industry:

� When does it become justified to consider anti-trust measures to regulate the influence ofprivate interests within the food productionchain?

Third, the location of statutory control over theglobal dynamics of trade in seed, feed and prima-ry agricultural commodities (both plant andanimal):

� Are individual governments able to regulatethe impacts of multinational strategies?

� If an inter-governmental seat for the regulationof global trade exists (the WTO), should it alsohave responsibility for affairs related to lifesciences; or should a superior jurisdiction –perhaps under UN auspices – be established?

These issues are not purely scientific, nor are theypurely economic, nor are they purely social. Thefact that they are intimately interrelated meansthat if the IUCN is to be a proponent in the debate,which must occur, it has to be willing to take posi-tions which are based in all three domains. In themodern world, science and policy go hand inhand.

Finally, the European dimension of vertical inte-gration in the agricultural sector must be under-stood as having a global influence.

Bibliography

Coleman, William; Skogstad, Grace. 2000.Agricultural policy: regionalisation and inter-nationalisation. In: Stubbs R., Underhill, G.,editors. 2000. Political economy and the changingglobal order, 2nd edition. Oxford UniversityPress.

European Commission. 1999. Agriculture, environ-ment, rural development: facts and figures. Officefor Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.

Eurostat. 1995. Statistical compendium for the Dobrísassessment – Europe’s environment. Office forOfficial Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.

Goodman, David; Redclift, Michael. 1985.Capitalism, petty commodity production andthe farm enterprise. Sociologia Ruralis 25:231–247.

Goodman, David; Sorj, Bernard; Wilkinson, John.1987. From farming to biotechnology. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Gray, John. 1998. False dawn. London: GrantaBooks.

Heffernan, William. 1999. Consolidation in thefood and agricultural system, a report to theNational Farmers Union. www.FarmCrisis.net.

Lappé, Marc; Bailey, Britt. 1999. Against the grain:the genetic transformation of global agriculture.London: Earthscan.

Marsden, Terry; Whatmore, Sara; Munton,Richard. 1987. Uneven development and therestructuring process in British agriculture: apreliminary exploration. Journal of Rural Studies3(4): 297–308.

Nowicki, Peter L. 1996. Environmental benefitsfrom agriculture in Europe. In: Environmentalbenefits from agriculture: issues and policies. TheHelsinki Seminar. OECD.

Nowicki, Peter L. et al. 1999. Background study forthe development of an IUCN policy on agricul-ture and biodiversity. IUCN ERO.

Potter, Clive. 1998. Against the grain. Wallingford(UK) and New York: CAB International.

Ruigrok, Winifred: International corporate strate-gies and restructuring. In: Political economy andthe changing global order, 2nd edition. OxfordUniversity Press.

Stanners, David; Bordeau, Philippe, editors. 1995.Europe’s environment – the Dobrís assessment.European Environment Agency.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 101: 2001-049

98

CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS INFLUENCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Stubbs, Richard; Underhill, Geoffrey, editors. 2000.Political economy and the changing global order,2nd edition. Oxford University Press.

Underhill, Geoffrey. 2000. Conceptualising thechanging global order. In: Political economy andthe changing global order, 2nd edition. OxfordUniversity Press.

Van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe. 1992. The reconstruc-tion of loclity: technology and labour in

modern agriculture. In: Marsden, Terry; Lowe,Philip; Whatmore, Sarah, editors. Labour andlocality. Uneven development and the rural labourprocess.

Winter, David M. 1986. The survival and re-emer-gence of family farming: a study of theHolsworth area of West Devon. Doctoral thesis,the Open University.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 102: 2001-049

99

Vertical control – questions,

concerns and future directions

� “We have cheaper and cheaper food, yet greaterenvironmental demands on agriculture. Whatwas possible before, when prices were higher,is no longer possible. Something must give.”

� “How we can we redirect the global system sothat we get the benefits of biotechnology whileeliminating the negatives?”

“It is a global scale issue and concerns the rele-vant research agendas. Products must be devel-oped using public money so that no return oninvestment is needed.”

� “Agro-industry has direct and indirect controlover the farm. Can this change?”

“Presently, niche marketing is the only way, forexample, organic agriculture. But organic farm-ing is not the complete solution as it is good forsoil, but not a complete solution for biodiversity.”

“The ability for farmers to get out of the multi-national grasp will depend on capacity build-ing of farmers – social and community levelwork.”

“Yes capacity building is vital as multinationalcorporations have a huge advantage in infor-mation provision and lobbying and this balanceneeds to be corrected.”

“Dialogue with large corporations is needed toshow them they have a responsibility and towork towards solutions, otherwise a regulatoryapproach is needed.”

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Discussion Points from the Session – Business

Influence in the Agricultural Sector

Page 103: 2001-049

100

Abstract

Due to multinational advertising, a centralist agri-culture policy, a lack of promotion of native cropsand a lack of control on imports, many Indonesianpeople are now consuming alien food species.Consequently, local farmers are forced to plantalien species and native crops are becomingextinct.

About 80% of the food sold in Indonesian super-markets and even traditional markets, especially inWest Java, come from alien species. This demon-strates the wide gap between Indonesia’s nativerichness of biodiversity and the actual condition ofthe market.

Many Indonesian people now consume foodcoming mainly from alien species. For example theSundanese, one ethnic population living in thewest of Java, have a traditional dish called lalab,made of fresh leaves and other part of plants suchas fruits, nuts, and even flowers that are eaten withthe main course/rice. Until ten to fifteen years ago,lalabs were prepared out of native cultivatedplants, or picked directly from wild plants.However, eating habits soon changed, and nowa-days lalabs are mostly composed of alien specieswith little variety. Many of the plants that were for-merly used for lalab have become extinct.Suriawirya in his book titled ‘Lalab’ (1987), wrotethat ‘not one species used for lalab in the past isincluded in those consumed today’. As a conse-quence, Indonesian farmers are forced to plantalien species.

The concept of organic farming or ecofarming doesnot yet include enough indication on the use anddevelopment of native species, a case all the moreimportant as it is related to the sustainability andconservation of native species and the environ-ment they are part of. If organic farmers mainlygrow alien species because of market demand,native species would be lost to the community.

Fewer and fewer native plant seeds are sown inIndonesian farms, and as a consequence manynative plants have been lost. Just to quote a fewdocumented cases; 1,500 varieties of native rice,about 30 varieties of mango and about 30 varietiesof banana are reported to be extinct.

Why is this happening ?

1. The development of new lifestyles in whichpeople see produce coming from outsideIndonesia as better than their own resources.This phenomenon is more evident in big cities.Just by looking at vegetables and fruit in super-markets, it is easy to find that most of them arealien species. Native species are seen as secondrate, although they are cheaper than alienfruits. This attitude is spreading also to tradi-tional markets, especially in big cities.

2. Centralistic agriculture policy.

3. Lack of promotion of Indonesia’s native foodcrops due to the lack of local entrepreneurs andto the overwhelming promotional power ofmultinationals. The case of bananas in WestJava is a good example of this trend. West Javais the largest producer of bananas in Indonesia.Many species of banana are planted here bylocals, but one alien variety of banana wasimported and sold in some of supermarkets.Within one year the high promotion of thisbanana by the producer influenced theconsumers choice to the extent that consumerspractically stopped buying native varieties ofbanana. Now, a smaller quantity and variety ofnative bananas are being sold in supermarketsbecause of insufficient consumer demand.

4. Lack of control on plant and animal imports.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Invasion of Alien Seeds: Alien Species andGenetic Erosion of Indonesian Native Food Crops

Sri IndiyastutiBioscience and Biotechnology for Sustainable Development Foundation (YPBB), Indonesia

Page 104: 2001-049

101

INVASION OF ALIEN SEEDS: ALIEN SPECIES AND GENETIC EROSION OF INDONESIAN NATIVE FOOD CROPS

What does YPBB want to do?

1. Research:

a) Research on the impact of alien species onnative ecosystems. A small amount ofresearch is taking place on Passiflora sp. inthe region of Gede Pangrango NationalPark, West Java.

b) Research on the human activities that haveresulted in the promotion and spread ofalien species.

c) Research on the status of alien speciesspread in Indonesia.

d) Policy research related to the invasion ofalien species and devaluation of nativespecies.

e) Research on people’s perception aboutnative versus alien species, to understandways for promoting native species products.

2. Education, campaign and action:

a) Promotion of native products, such as shortmessages on radio programmes about theuses of native species and the problems withalien species.

b) Environmental education at city parks.

c) Planting native species in city parks and inschools, or in private gardens.

d) Promoting local resource-based develop-ment and entrepreneurship.

3. Developing a database of native species prod-ucts and a programme to assist in the develop-ment of community-based native speciesproduction.

4. Policy dialogue and advocacy to promoteproper policy framework and implementation,supporting alien species alleviation and thepromotion of native species.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 105: 2001-049

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability 103

The liberalisation and globalisation of exports,imports and investment patterns all impinge ondomestic production. Working in combinationwith current agriculture policies, trade liberalisa-tion is forcing farmers in developing countries tostop growing local food for domestic use, butinstead grow alien crops for an internationalmarket. Both cultural and environmental diversityare being lost as a result and large rural areas havebeen devastated during the last decade. Thehuman cost has been estimated at 750 millionpresent and future refugees. These trade policiesand laws are a recipe for non-sustainability.

Trade liberalisation also cripples the ability ofcountries to make their own decisions and has nomethod for internalising costs. In India, shrimpfarming in the mangrove forests has been carriedout sustainably for many years before industrialfarming systems were introduced in the 1990s.Local coastal communities campaigned againstthis, but to little effect. Now that the shrimp farm-ing is part of a larger business operation for aninternational market, the mangrove forests arebeing destroyed at an increasing rate. They used toact as a protective shield against cyclones, butevents like Hurricane Orissa in 1999 have a greaterimpact on shrimp farming areas. Every hectare ofmangrove destroyed for industrial shrimp farmingled to the loss of 200 hectares when HurricaneOrissa hit the area. Every 10 dollars worth of tradeis matched by 10 dollars worth of destruction.

Companies from the developed world often dumptheir agriculturally destructive commodities onthird world countries, leading to environmentaldamage and social and cultural losses. Until

recently, India was the largest producer of a diver-sity of oil seed crops such as groundnut, coconut,sesame and mustard, which formed an integralpart of sustainable food production in India.Within a year, cheap modified soybean oil from theUS flooded the market. Production of this soybeanoil is subsidised, a practice the World TradeOrganisation is not stopping. The decline indemand for Indian oil seed crops has reduced theincome of Indian oil seed farmers by about 20–30%and their profits are now too little to survive on.What must these farmers do?

A single business decision can lead to a major agri-cultural or environmental disaster in a sort of‘quantum jump’. Free imports of Nestlé milk trig-gered the collapse of the buffalo market, whichcould not be sustained without the sale of the milk,and many buffalo species have been lost as aresult. India possesses a rich diversity of agricul-tural livestock, but trade liberalisation will soonwipe this out.

Trade liberalisation does not create more foodwhere it is needed, and it is generally the poorestwho lose out – in India people are even sellingtheir kidneys to cope with the crisis that tradeliberalisation has brought about. When all costs areconsidered, such as water and soil sustainability,industrial farms are not more productive: engi-neered crops can use up to ten times the level ofwater required by native species, but this is notaccounted for in audits.

The globalisation of agriculture is not the solution.Biodiversity-rich agriculture is what createsresilience and productivity in the long-term.

CHAPTER 5

THE TRADE DEBATE

Free Trade Versus Fair Trade

Summary of the presentation given by Vandana ShivaResearch Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi, India

Page 106: 2001-049

104

Abstract

The main policy challenge facing agriculture in theOECD countries is to improve environmentalperformance and rural viability while meetingfood demands in ways that are economically effi-cient, socially acceptable and compatible withtrade and multilateral environmental agreements.Work on agriculture, trade and the environment inthe OECD is ongoing and the intention is toprovide more empirical evidence on the basis ofin-depth studies on specific agricultural sectors.Preliminary conclusions are that further agricul-tural trade liberalisation is compatible withimproved domestic environmental performance ifcomplemented by domestic policy measures andactions to address market failure. Multilateralmechanisms and internationally tradable permitsare also required to improve agriculture’s perfor-mance on global environmental issues such as bio-diversity conservation, greenhouse gas emissionsand storage, and water resources.

Introduction

In recent years, in particular following the conclu-sion of the Uruguay Round multilateral tradeagreement in 1994, there has been a vigorousdebate about the effects of agricultural trade liber-alisation on the environment, and the impacts ofagri-environmental measures on trade.

That debate centres around such questions as: Isagricultural trade liberalisation on balance benefi-cial or harmful to the environment? Do differentagri-environmental measures affect the interna-tional competitiveness of agriculture sectors?Which mix of agricultural, environmental andtrade policies can best achieve sustainable devel-opment – economic growth, improved environ-mental performance and social equity?

Work in the OECD on agriculture and the environ-ment has been addressing these questions in three

main ways: examining the conceptual issues toclarify the linkages involved and develop a frame-work for policy analysis; reviewing the empiricalevidence; and analysing the characteristics ofappropriate policies and market approaches thatcan best achieve sustainable development. Theoverall goal is to use objective analysis to informand advise policy makers to develop and imple-ment policies that will contribute to improvingglobal welfare.

The challenges facing agriculture

The primary role of agriculture and the agri-foodsector is to provide safe and sufficient food andfibre as efficiently as possible. It has a very goodrecord in producing sufficient quantities of food,as over time global food production has exceededpopulation growth, with some – albeit modest –increases in food consumption per head. However,those trends have sometimes been at the expenseof the environment, and then have not been expe-rienced in all countries and regions. Assuming thatthere will be 3 billion more people in the world inthe next half century, who will also be richer,increasing production will present a majorchallenge to the agri-food sector as there are grow-ing concerns about the safety of food and the envi-ronmental consequences of some agriculturalpractices.

Agriculture also has a role in contributing tobalanced rural economic and social development.In most OECD countries primary agricultureaccounts for a very small part of the overall econo-my in terms of output and employment, althoughwhen the ancillary industries dependent on agri-culture are also taken into account, the importanceof agriculture is much greater. But that is not thecase in many non-OECD countries, or in someregions in OECD countries. With agriculturalsectors across the world becoming more closelyintegrated into the domestic and internationaleconomy, and with rapid technological and

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Reconciling Agricultural Trade and Environmental

Policy Goals

Wilfrid LeggOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Agriculture Directorate, France

Page 107: 2001-049

105

RECONCILING AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GOALS

structural changes in the whole agri-food system,there are concerns in some countries about thefuture of agriculture in their rural areas.

Increasingly, public opinion in OECD countries isdemanding more from agriculture than justeconomically efficient production of enough food.The sector is required to respect environmentalquality, and provide environmental benefits andservices. Consumers are demanding to know theorigin of their food, the methods used in itsproduction and the associated environmentalimpacts. That agriculture is expected to produce awider range of environmental and social outputsthan simply food is encompassed within the con-cepts of ‘sustainability’ and ‘multifunctionality’.

The main policy question can be summarised asfollows: What role is there for policy so that agri-culture can contribute to the improvement in envi-ronmental performance and rural viability, whilemeeting food demands in ways that are economi-cally efficient, socially acceptable and compatiblewith trade and multilateral environmental agree-ments?

Developments in agriculture and

policy

Agriculture (with forestry) is the major user ofscarce land and water resources. There is littlespare capacity, but increasing demands are madenot only for agricultural but also for non-agricul-tural uses. This in turn is leading to upward pres-sure on the costs of these resources and on the costof improving the quality of environment, althoughthere are wide variations across and within coun-tries. But improvements in technology andresource management are offsetting these costincreases and offering the possibility to useresources in more economically efficient ways.

Historically, as part of the process of economicgrowth, the real price of food relative to the priceof other commodities has steadily fallen, whileoutput has risen over the long-term. For example,the real price of wheat has fallen by roughly 2%annually (with wide year-on-year variations) sincethe mid 1980s. Overall, in the OECD area agricul-tural output has risen by 15%, using 8% less farmlabour and 1% less land, but with 5% more waterover the same period. This increasing intensifica-tion of agricultural production has put pressure onthe environment. An OECD report published inFebruary 2001 on tracking the environmentalperformance of agriculture, ‘Environmental

Indicators for Agriculture – Volume 3: Methodsand Results’, shows a very wide range of environ-mental effects from agriculture across OECD coun-tries and mixed trends in performance over the lasttwo decades.

One of the most important facts that have exerteda major influence on agriculture is governmentintervention in domestic OECD agriculturalmarkets, and in international trade. The OECDannually monitors and evaluates agricultural policydevelopments, using estimates of the support pro-vided to agriculture in its 30 member countries.The latest estimates show that total support toOECD agricultural sectors reached around USD360 billion in 1999, which represented about 1.4%of overall GDP. Over three-quarters of this amountwas support to agricultural producers (asmeasured by the Producer Support Estimate – thePSE), which accounted for 40% of farm receipts,the same level as in 1986–88. The other quarter wassupport to services provided to the sector as awhole.

The gradual decline in support until 1997 wasreversed in 1998. There has been a decrease overthe last decade in ‘production-linked support’ andan increase in measures designed to improve theenvironment (including those for organic produc-tion methods), but over three quarters of supportto producers remains linked to production. Thepolluter pays principle has been only weaklyimplemented in many countries in agriculture, butthe impact of environmental regulations is increas-ing, as are food safety regulations, which oftenhave implications for methods of production andenvironmental outcomes.

There are great variations on the composition andlevel of support across countries: for example, thepercentage PSE in the European Union is currentlyaround 47% while it is about 24% in the UnitedStates. Support is low in New Zealand andAustralia, and high in Japan, Korea, Norway andSwitzerland.

OECD countries have been committed to reform-ing agricultural policies – to reduce support, shiftto less market distorting policies, and reduce tradeprotection – since 1987. The conclusion of theUruguay Round trade negotiations in 1994 under-pinned reform efforts, in particular those related totrade (import access, export subsidies and produc-tion and trade-linked domestic support).Nevertheless, domestic policy reforms are onlygradually being implemented, and trade barriersremain pervasive for agricultural commodities.Negotiations on further agricultural trade liberali-

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 108: 2001-049

106

CHAPTER 5: THE TRADE DEBATE

sation are now underway in the WTO, but anysubstantial progress is unlikely in the near future.

Agriculture and environment

A substantial amount of research – including thatby the OECD – has analysed the effects of agricul-tural production and policies on the environment.One of the characteristics of agriculture (which isalso shared in particular by forestry) is that agri-culture generates both environmental harm andenvironmental benefits. The harm includes farm-ing on environmentally marginal areas, soilerosion, excessive use of scarce land and waterresources, and excessive chemical use (fertilisers,pesticides), water pollution, and degradation ofbiodiversity and wildlife habitats. The benefitsinclude farming practices and systems that pro-vide attractive landscape, protect wildlife habitatsand biodiversity, contribute to flood control, andare a source of greenhouse gas sinks. Both thedirections of harmful or beneficial changes (asmeasured by agri-environmental indicators, forexample) and changing public preferences andpriorities will influence standards and targets as towhat is considered harmful and beneficial in eachcountry.

It is evident that agricultural and environmentalpolicies play an important role in determining theenvironmental impacts of agriculture. The envi-ronmental effects – pollution, resource depletionand amenities – are often closely linked to agricul-tural production and practices, which are affectedby government policies. Markets are often lacking(public goods) or poorly functioning (externalities)for some environmental outputs, resulting in toomuch pollution and not enough environmentalbenefits from agriculture. And achieving the ‘best’agri-environmental and trade outcomes to max-imise welfare in one country can be at the expenseof welfare in other countries. For example, wherecountries use protectionist measures (reducingimports and subsidising exports) to achieve theirown environmental objectives, this imposes costson potential exporting countries who thereby havefewer financial resources to achieve their ownenvironmental goals.

Environmental consequences of

agricultural trade liberalisation

Much work has been undertaken in the OECD onanalysing the linkages between trade liberalisation

and the environment. In the context of the agricul-tural policy reform, two studies have been recentlycompleted in relation to agriculture. Their mainconclusions are summarised below.1

Domestic and International Environmental Impacts of

Agricultural Trade Liberalisation [Unclassified

Document COM/AGR/ENV (2000)75/FINAL]

Agricultural trade liberalisation has the potentialto contribute to overall improvements in the envi-ronmental performance of agriculture. Furtherreductions of barriers to agricultural trade (ascenario assuming an extension of the UruguayRound commitments until 2004) will have bothpositive and negative impacts on the environment.The direction and magnitude of these effects willdepend on the changes trade liberalisation inducesin agricultural production patterns, the state of theenvironment, and the environmental regulationsand policies in place to preserve and improveenvironmental quality. Given the considerablediversity of agricultural production systems,natural conditions and regulatory approaches inOECD countries, the environmental impacts willvary between countries, regions and locations.Indeed, many environmental effects are site specific.

A reduction of trade barriers will influence theoverall scale of agricultural activities, the structureof agricultural production in different countries,the mix of inputs and outputs, the production tech-nology and the regulatory framework. Theseadjustments, in turn, will impact on the interna-tional and domestic environment by increasing orreducing environmental harm and creating ordestroying environmental amenities. Internationalenvironmental impacts include greenhouse gasemissions, changes in international transport flowsand the potential introduction of non-nativespecies alongside agricultural products. Domesticenvironmental effects include water pollutionfrom fertiliser and pesticide run-off, and changesin land use that affect landscape appearance, floodprotection, and biodiversity.

This study illustrates the direction and magnitudeof some of the environmental impacts by combin-ing preliminary results on the commodity marketimpacts of agricultural trade liberalisation withagri-environmental indicators. The international

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

1. These studies follow on from a conceptualscoping study, Agriculture, Trade and theEnvironment: Anticipating the Policy Challengesprepared by Professor David Ervin and pub-lished by the OECD in 1997.

Page 109: 2001-049

107

RECONCILING AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GOALS

environmental impacts indicate that projectedmedium-term increases in ruminant livestocknumbers could lead to substantial increases inmethane emissions in some OECD countries. Thiswarrants the attention of policy makers in thecontext of existing Kyoto Protocol commitmentson greenhouse gas emissions.

With respect to domestic environmental impacts,the quantitative analysis suggests that agriculturalprices and production intensity would decrease incountries that have had historically high levels offertiliser and pesticide application, so that environ-mental stress in these countries would be relieved.Countries where increases in production intensityoccur might be able to accommodate increasedapplication rates of agrochemicals relatively easily,as their historical levels of fertiliser and pesticideuse tend to be low. Projections on the effects offurther agricultural trade liberalisation on land usedo not suggest substantial changes in agriculturalland. Yet the analysis does not allow us to derivefirm conclusions on prospective changes in land-scape appearance, soil and flood protection, andbiodiversity, since the projections did not explicit-ly consider pastures and marginal agriculturalland.

Under the assumptions of the scenario analysis,the environmental impacts of general economicdevelopments are more important than those offurther agricultural trade liberalisation, so thatagri-environmental policies will need to be devel-oped independently of trade policy reform.Environmental effects from changes in agriculturalactivities will most effectively be addressedthrough targeted policy measures that distort agri-cultural production and trade to the least possibleextent. As far as transboundary effects on the envi-ronment are concerned, international cooperation,for example in the form of international environ-mental agreements, might be necessary to over-come the free-rider problem.

Production Effects of Agri-environmental Policy

Measures: Reconciling Trade and Environmental

Objectives2

This study discusses linkages between agri-envi-ronmental policies and trade with a view toinforming the policy debates on the impacts ofagri-environmental standards on farm competi-tiveness, and the effects of agri-environmental pro-grammes and payments on international agricul-tural trade. The two debates are closely related.

The first is primarily concerned with policy mea-sures that aim to reduce environmental pollutionfrom farming activities, while the second centresaround remuneration payments to farmers for theprovision of agri-environmental services. The dis-cussion in the paper is based on general economicwelfare analysis complemented by issue-specificconceptual and empirical investigations.

Like many other policies, agri-environmental poli-cies have direct and indirect effects on farmers’production decisions. But not every effect fromagri-environmental policies on trade will be dis-torting. A policy to internalise previously unad-dressed externalities, for example, will increaseenvironmental quality and societal welfare domes-tically, and possibly alter domestic productionlevels and international trade flows with positiveand negative welfare effects for other countries.But if the overall global effect is welfare-improv-ing, the changes in international production andtrade patterns could overall be beneficial. On theother hand, if there is domestic or internationalpolicy failure, the trade effects from agri-environ-mental policies can be globally welfare-reducing,in particular if the welfare losses in other countriesdue to changes in trade flows and world pricesoutweigh the domestic welfare gain from higherenvironmental quality.

Agri-environmental regulations impose costs onfarmers, and differences in process standardsacross countries are at the core of competitivenessconcerns. Yet, a number of empirical studies havefound that the impact of agri-environmental stan-dards on farming costs is relatively small, account-ing generally for less than 5 per cent of totalproduction costs. Moreover, some standards thatinflated production costs considerably in somesub-sectors (e.g. livestock production), regions orcountries were found to be of little relevance inothers. Given the generally limited importance ofagri-environmental compliance costs and thediversity of socio-political preferences and naturalconditions across countries, it seems questionablewhether a general harmonisation of agri-environ-mental standards on a global scale would bewelfare-improving. However, harmonisationseems desirable where transboundary environ-mental effects are concerned.

In the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculturea considerable number of policy measures wereexempted from reduction commitments fordomestic support because they were deemed non-or only minimally trade-distorting. The agreementdid not provide a definition for what constitutes atrade distortion, but specifies criteria that eligible

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

2. Unclassified Document COM/AGR/ENV(2000)133/FINAL

Page 110: 2001-049

108

CHAPTER 5: THE TRADE DEBATE

policies have to satisfy. In order to qualify for theWTO ‘green box’, policies should be financedentirely from the government budget and not pro-vide price support to producers. In addition, spe-cific conditions applied to agri-environmentalpolicies require that payments do not exceed thecompliance costs or income losses of farmers andare dependent on the fulfilment of specific condi-tions under government programmes, includingconditions relating to production methods andinputs.

Can agricultural trade and

environmental policy goals be

reconciled?

The work in the OECD on agriculture, trade andthe environment is ongoing. In the future we willattempt to provide more empirical evidence on thebasis of in-depth studies in specific agriculturalsectors, and perform analyses of the characteristicsof policies and market approaches that mightcontribute to a better definition of the WTO ‘greenbox’. More attention will also be paid to the link-ages and environmental effects between policydevelopments in OECD and non-OECD countries.The preliminary conclusions of the work to date isthat further agricultural trade liberalisation is com-patible with improved environmental perfor-mance. But this means that agricultural supportneeds to be further reduced and decoupled fromcommodity production, that policy measures are‘recoupled’ to targeted outcomes, including envi-ronmental performance, and that there is greaterapplication of economy-wide environmentalmeasures (in particular the “polluter pays” princi-ple) in the agricultural sector.

In brief, this means that trade liberalisation andagricultural policy reform will improve agricul-ture’s domestic environmental performance ifcomplemented with domestic policy measures andactions to address any market failure. This wouldmean that farmers would be liable for environ-mental damage caused, and have incentives toprovide environmental public goods that wouldotherwise not be produced. But it also requires a‘multilateral’ approach, in that trade liberalisationand agricultural policy reform will improve agri-culture’s contribution to transboundary environ-mental performance – biodiversity, greenhousegases and sinks, water resources – if complement-ed with multilateral mechanisms, such as MEAsand internationally tradable permits.

Policies should lead to a demonstrated overallimprovement in domestic welfare – economic,environmental, social – without imposing uncom-pensated welfare costs on other countries, orimpeding structural adjustment and the search forcost-effective alternative approaches. In manycases appropriate policies should be implementedat the local rather than the national level, whichmeans that attention needs to be paid to the insti-tutional structure.

While trade liberalisation will tend to improve theenvironmental performance of agriculture, provid-ed that complementary agri-environmental andenvironmental policies are in place, the resultingeconomic growth provides the means to financethe appropriate investments and actions. Whetheror not the latter are undertaken is another ques-tion.

The author is responsible for all views expressed in thisarticle, which are not necessarily those of the OECD orits member countries.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 111: 2001-049

109

‘Free’ trade?

� “Free trade today is not true free trade. It isonly true if market costs reflect opportunitycosts, but this isn’t the case. Biodiversity lossand ecological integrity are not accounted for;for example, irrigation is subsidised. Hence, theway we are reorganising our resources is nothelping redistribution, even for environment.Trade moderation which takes into account allcosts is vital.”

� “Free trade only benefits rich countries andlittle attention to loss of biodiversity is seen inwestern research.”

“Yes, OECD represents one sixth of world – therich. But more and more, impacts are beingexamined in poorer countries of OECD (China,India, Brazil etc.) and beyond. OECD is callingfor a cut in subsidies, internalisation of costsand changes in taxation to take account of envi-ronmental effects.”

In a world of inequality

� “One of the major challenges in reforming tradeliberalisation will be to see what so-called equalrules equate to in a world of inequality. The tinyamount of support to India farmers has beencut, while the West carries on. Protecting thelivelihoods of farmers must come before multi-national corporations. We must try again tomake people recognise that agriculture is amulti-factor activity and not just for produc-tion.”

� “It is not just in developing countries wherethere are problems. In Britain multinationals donot employ fair pricing mechanisms, whichcaused the collapse of lamb prices in the UK,

for example. If there is market control there isno liberalisation.”

� “When looking at trade, inequality is a validpoint, but trade is just one of the problems.”

Extrapolating situations from

country to country

� “In North America, areas are at pesticide satu-ration, and so lower inputs of herbicides mayseem vital; but in a tiny field in India, wherefarmers have a different system of pest control,this isn’t nearly so relevant.”

“Yes, there is no one-size fit for policy and thisis also the case for OECD, which includesTurkey and Mexico. Separating OECD coun-tries from LDCs is not helpful as there are manycommon problems. We must also rememberthat, in general, open markets are better thanclosed markets. Take North and South Koreafor example.”

Re-assessing trade rules

� “It is time to re-examine global instruments ontrade.”

� “Trade rules should provide for and supportcultural and environmental diversity?”

� “We need to look for win-win solutions. Wemust be cautious when addressing trade liber-alisation, as we need to use tools such as fullcost accounting. IUCN should look at corporateglobalisation and intervene at the UN tooppose trade liberalisation measures that couldimpact negatively on the poor.”

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Discussion Points from the Session – The Trade

Debate

Page 112: 2001-049

111

GMOs are contrary to the philosophy of organicagriculture, which respects the inherent nature ofplants and animals and seeks to stabilise produc-tion systems using natural means. Organic agricul-ture is based on closed-cycle concepts, offers flexi-bility, is more energy efficient and less dependenton chemical inputs, and there is overwhelmingevidence that it enhances biodiversity. Geneticallymodified plants generally require more chemicalinputs and represent a direct threat to traditionalbreeding and biodiversity, with negative effects onorganic as well as conventional agriculture.

Genetic engineering runs

counter to the holistic principle

of organic agriculture

It is a fundamental principle and reality of organicagriculture to optimise the production system as awhole by intensifying the power and creativity ofnature. Genetic engineering, a reductionistapproach, does not fit at all into the philosophyand principles of organic agriculture. The follow-ing short characteristics and brief reflections aboutthe impacts of genetic engineering leave no doubtthat this approach has no place – and never will –in organic agriculture.

Genetically engineered breeds and varieties tendto rely on a high input system of agriculture.Genetic engineering will result in more industrial-isation and globalisation of agriculture, whichconflicts with the objective of organic agriculturalproduction and processing, as well as predomi-nately regional marketing. Genetic engineeringintroduces a new and ultimate level of risk that isno longer limited in time or space. This is contraryto the philosophy of organic agriculture, whichseeks instead to stabilise the production systemwith natural means.

Genetic engineering does not contribute to anoverall reduction of chemical inputs. If we look atall these ‘round-up ready’ plants, we actually seean increase in chemical inputs. The required large-scale sale of genetic engineered varieties andbreeds will further destroy what remains of bio-diversity. Diseases and hereditary biases willspread much more quickly. ‘Patenting of life’which accompanies genetic engineering representsa direct threat to traditional breeding and willtherefore bring very negative consequences toorganic farming. And finally, genetic engineeringdoes not respect the inherent nature of plants andanimals, since it treats living things as mere factorsof production, to be reconstructed as if they weremachines.

What organic agriculture has to

offer ‘instead’

The principles of organic agriculture by naturefoster decentralisation and are based on closed-cycle concepts. Besides ecological aspects, theholistic ‘nature’ of organic agriculture includeseconomic, social, cultural and gender considera-tions. Organic agriculture offers flexibility, such as7 to 12 year crop rotations instead of monocultures.Organic agriculture is also more energy efficientand thus less dependent on ‘chemical’ inputs (e.g.mineral fertiliser), and it maintains a balancebetween livestock and the land – cows on organicfarms are fed, by and large, from what grows onthe farm instead of mainly imported feed. There isoverwhelming scientific evidence that organicagriculture enhances biodiversity, creating diverseand beautiful landscapes.

Organic agriculture does not further contribute tothe ongoing pollution of the environment. As a

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

CHAPTER 6

GMOS: POTENTIAL VALUE AND IMPACTS

Organic Farming Approaches to Genetic

Engineering and Biotechnology

Bernward GeierInternational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Tholey, Germany

Page 113: 2001-049

112

CHAPTER 6: GMOS: POTENTIAL VALUE AND IMPACTS

matter of fact, it offers a profound environmentalrisk reduction. As our societies look for solutionsin this context, organic agriculture can offer 100%pesticide and GMO risk reduction! No form andpractice of agriculture is more defined, controlledand certified (green label schemes) and organicagriculture is also economically more profitable forthe farmer.

This short profile of the contributions of organicagriculture should give sufficient substance to ourclaim that ‘organic agriculture is sustainable agri-culture put into practice’.

Sustainable biotechnology?

Under the name ‘sustainable biotechnology’, thebiotechnology industry has tried to sell a packageof modern biotechnology products to countries inthe South. Examples include ‘bio’ fertilisers suchas Azolla, ‘bio’ pesticides such as pyrethrum,herbal veterinary products, etc. However, these so-called ‘sustainable biotechnology’ products aremerely examples of existing non-manipulatedorganisms that are used within traditional agricul-ture.

Transnational corporations are now very interestedin exploiting these resources and traditionalknowledge. This offers the possibility of bringing

local, indigenous knowledge under industrialcontrol through patents and the use of seed andgene banks. Production of analogous, syntheticproducts will be industrially organised, controlledand sold worldwide. These genetically engineeredproducts are often sold as ‘sustainable’ products,although such a description is highly misleading.

Conclusions

Genetic engineering is not compatible with organ-ic farming, and runs contrary to the fundamentalprinciples of organic agriculture. Its applicationoutside organic agriculture will also have negativeeffects on organic agriculture itself. That is whyour movement generally opposes geneticallymanipulated organisms in food and agriculture.

So far there is no reason to presume that genetical-ly engineered products contribute to a moresustainable agriculture. Indeed, the evidence leadsto the opposite conclusion. It will lead to a wors-ening of existing problems, rather than offering asolution to any of them. Albert Einstein said: ‘Youcannot solve the problem with the same kind ofthinking that has created the problem.’ And that iswhy we do not need GMO technologies, but theradical paradigm shift that accompanies organicagriculture.

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 114: 2001-049

113Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and

Food Security

Summary of the presentation given by Zhangliang ChenUniversity of Peking, China

1983 saw the advent of gene transfer into a singleplant cell. In 1996 the first field trials of geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) took place. Between1996 and 1999 there was a great increase in theplantation of GM crops, but recently the percent-age increase of GM crops has significantly declinedas a consequence of concerns about environmentalimpact and food safety. At this stage, only themultinational corporations producing GM seedscan really profit from GMOs.

China now faces major GM crop import and exportproblems. For instance, EC countries will notaccept GM soy sauce produced in China using GMsoy beans grown in the United States. Obtainingpermission to plant GM soy crops in China is alsobecoming increasingly difficult.

China already hosts 22% of the world’s populationand by 2025, 1.5 billion people are expected to beliving in China. Over the last 50 years, grain pro-ductivity has increased from 100 million tons to500 million tons a year. Existing farming methodswould make it possible to feed 1.2 billion peopleby 2025 without dramatically increasing the arablearea, which currently occupies 8% of the total landarea. However, given the current rate in popula-tion growth, the increasing cost of pesticides andthe decrease in farmers’ income, other optionssuch as GMOs need to be explored to feed theexpected population without dramatically increas-ing the farmed area.

Crop resistance to insects is a major problem inChina, particularly in rural areas. Cotton wormsthat destroy cotton plantations have developedresistance to pesticides. Children are often kepthome from school to pick worms from cottonplants; the worms are then fed to chicken thatoften die from pesticide poisoning. Transgeniccrops could help alleviate the problems posed bycrop pests. Several GM crops including cotton (Bt– Monsanto), tomato, sweet pepper and petuniaare currently undergoing trials. Trial plantations ofGM cotton are unpalatable for worms and do notrequire the use of pesticides.

Health concerns on GMOs arose following labora-tory tests, such as a test in 1997 in which the inter-nal organs of rats, fed on GM potato, wereimpaired. This brought about doubts on the safetyof GMOs. In spite of the fact that other tests report-ed no side effects, the hype surrounding GMOs ledto a lack in public knowledge and awareness abouttheir potential benefits, particularly in countrieswhere food security is an issue.

GM crops already account for 50% of China’scotton plantations, which have been grown for thelast two and a half years. Yet, cotton cannot becommercially harvested. 15 years ago the sameconcerns surrounded the use of E. coli for vaccineproduction – now we see its immense value.Perhaps in ten years time GM crops will be accept-ed.

Page 115: 2001-049

114 Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

� “I never thought I would support GMOs. Iagree mostly with organic agriculture, but I donot find there is a principle that makes meoppose this technology as a whole. Thesimplest way to have disease resistance andeliminate spraying, is to remove one gene froma resistant wild variety to cultivated variety.This can’t be wrong. Legitimate concerns mustbe evaluated, but must we now dismiss wholetechnology which has great potential? Iwelcome IUCN’s involvement.”

Concerns over gene transfer

� “What about gene transfer from animal toplant?”

“This needs investigation, and I respect theobjections, but there is massive homologybetween humans and plants.”

Nutritional value

� “All your GM crops look machine made. Arethey nutritionally equivalent, especially inmicronutrients? This is important.”

“If a gene is not related to content then there isno change to quality. I cannot say whether it istotally safe – nothing is. But over five years,more than 300 million people have been eatingmany types of GM food and there are no prob-lems yet.”

Precautionary Principle

� “There are legal factors, which must be consid-ered. The Precautionary Principle says weshould ere on the side of safety.”

� “Yes, the Precautionary Principle is important,and in motion.”

� “The EU has spent four years negotiating under

the CBD Biosafety Protocol to bring together allinterests under the Precautionary Principle.Can this protocol be ratified and be implement-ed practically? This will be a major challenge.There is a need for proper risk assessment. TheIUCN family should really help us build thiscapacity, to help small developing countries tomake risk assessments.”

Rationale for GMOs

� “The big issue is the rationale for GMOs. InBotswana we produce enough but don’tdistribute. With western technology, we cannoteven provide for our tiny population.”

“I agree that aim should not just be to producemore food.”

� “The real key would be to look at the root ofproblems, not symptoms. GMOs are mainlyabout solving the symptoms of hunger, notaddressing the causes.”

The right to know

� “There are two combined legal agendas: envi-ronmental law and consumer law. Both say wehave the right to know. Industry is currentlydenying consumers information.”

� “There are many rights suppressing rights toknow, even EU law. For example geneticallymodified soya occurs in 30,000 different foodproducts sold in the supermarkets.”

� “How can we trust industries any more? Theyhave misled us so many times and this is sodangerous.”

� “Yes, I am not against technology as such, butwe have been against Monsanto and the soyabean and Roundup.”

Discussion Points from the Session – GMOs:

Potential Value and Impacts

Page 116: 2001-049

115Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

GMO Research

� “We need an even playing field in the area ofGMO research. In Germany, 98% of research isspent on GMO development.”

“Yes, 50% of funds should stay with GMOs andthe other 50% should be put into alternatives.”

A dialogue for discussion is

needed

� “GMOs are very, very significant, thereforeIUCN should look at the scientific evidence forand against GMOs. Can IUCN provide thisforum? IUCN should not call for a ban out-right.”

� “The introduction of any technology shouldinvolve social criteria. If it is difficult to explaingenes to peasants, the same is true or policymakers and decision-makers. A certain know-ledge and skill level is needed. Can IUCNhelp?”

DISCUSSION POINTS FROM THE SESSION – THE TRADE DEBATE

Page 117: 2001-049

116 Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Abstract

This paper outlines the wealth of biodiversity inthe Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region (aglobal centre of genetic diversity), and presents anoverview of current biosafety regulations in theregion. The adoption of biotechnology hasincreased in recent years and the demand in theregion for transgenic cultivars is expected to rise.The countries of the LAC region must take advan-tage of these technologies if they want to movetowards food security and sustainable agriculturaldevelopment. However, they need to make objec-tive technical evaluations of the possible risks tohuman health, the environment and agriculturalproduction, and must continue developing andperfecting their existing regulatory instruments tobring them into line with international biosafetyagreements. The competent national institutionsneed to develop the capacity required to manageand evaluate field trials.

Introduction

Since the beginning of the 20th century the wealthof biodiversity in the Latin American andCaribbean (LAC) region has been universallyrecognised and is of great strategic value for reduc-ing the deficit in agriculture production in theregion. Sustainable use of these resources requiresan institutional capacity that will enable the coun-tries to conserve, manage and use this resourceappropriately.

The concept of sustainable agriculture develop-ment is based on the conviction that it is possibleto increase agricultural production without unnec-essarily depleting the world’s finite naturalresources. If yields per hectare cannot be increasedsignificantly over current levels, then more wilder-ness areas, which are only marginally suitable foragriculture but are rich in biodiversity, will beutilised for food production.

The characteristics of modern biotechnologyprovide both opportunities and challenges. If LACcountries are able to build capacity in their nationalresearch systems, biotechnology has the potentialto support national efforts to achieve food security,raise export potential and move towards sustain-able development in the region.

The countries of the region require appropriateinfrastructure to acquire, absorb, develop and effi-ciently manage biotechnologies. The creation ofenabling conditions must be addressed to obtainthe potential benefits of these new technologiesand to minimise any possible adverse effects onthe environment, on human health or on the agri-cultural productive systems.

The first step for a government in creating a suit-able environment to harness the potential ofbiotechnology, improve agricultural productivityand mitigate concerns about potential adverseeffects is to provide a regulatory framework thatensures safe use of biotechnology products in anopportune and effective manner.

This paper outlines the wealth of biodiversity inthe LAC region and presents an overview ofcurrent biosafety regulations in the region.

Agriculture and biodiversity in

the LAC region

The Latin American and Caribbean Region ismade up of 30 countries: Antigua and Barbuda,Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic,Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala,Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico,Nicaragua, Organisation of the Eastern CaribbeanStates-OECS, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St Kits andNevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines,Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay andVenezuela.

The Impact of Biotechnology on Sustainable Agriculture

Development in Latin American and the Caribbean Region:

The Andean Countries as a Model

Rodrigo Artunduaga-SalasColombian Agricultural Institute (ICA), Bogota, Colombia

Page 118: 2001-049

117

THE IMPACT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN REGION

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

The region has an average per capita income ofnearly USD 4,000 a year, the highest of all thedeveloping world, and has large natural resourcesand great diversity of ecosystems. The region alsocontinues to display extreme economic inequali-ties between rich and poor: in the wealthiest coun-try of the region the average income is almost USD9,000 a year, in the poorest it is just under USD 400(World Bank 1999).

LAC countries are of strategic importance for glob-al food security because they include three of the12 global centres of origin of crops of major socio-economic importance and because of their enor-mous biodiversity (Leon 1987). Although repre-senting only 7% of the earth’s surface, the LACregion contains approximately 90% of the planet’sbiodiversity, which is concentrated primarily in 18countries, nine of which are in the American hemi-sphere (Alarcón 1998).

The region’s population is expected to increasefrom 490 million to nearly 680 million by 2025. It ispossible that more than 30% of LAC cerealconsumption will be imported by 2020.

Since 1950 25% of the world’s topsoil has been lostand continued erosion at the present rate willresult in the further irreversible loss of at least 30%by the year 2050. A similar percentage may be lostto land degradation. The Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO) has projected that over thenext 20 years arable land in developing countriescould be expanded by 12% at acceptable economicand environmental costs (although such expansionwould inflict damage on the remaining biodiversi-ty). The increase in demand for food that is expect-ed to occur in these countries during the sameperiod is 61%. The only large tracts of land in theLAC that have the potential for conversion toarable land are the Brazilian Cerrados and theLlanos of Colombia and Venezuela (Kendall et al.1997).

According to some theories, human beingsappeared in America about 30,000 years ago.Agriculture began about 7,000 to 10,000 years agoin different parts of the hemisphere, where threecentres of plant domestication have been recog-nised: Mesoamerica, the Andes and the Amazon.More than 45 groups of cultivated species originat-ed in the Andean region, 12 were domesticated inthe Amazon and 100 were domesticated inMesoamerica.

Human beings have used about 5,000 of the250,000 existing plant species. Today, no more than500 are of economic importance, and only 15 areresponsible for the production of about 80% of the

calories produced by modern cultivars. In thisregard, the Americas stand-out for the many cropsthey have contributed to world agriculture.

Genetic resources have been utilised intensely inagriculture. Genetic diversity has always been theraw material for both the food and pharmaceuticalindustries. Biodiversity is an indispensableresource for farmers to select and grow cultivarsadapted to ecological, cultural and economicneeds.

The challenges and opportunities for LAC arelarge, given the high participation of the agricul-tural sector in the region’s gross domestic product.In addition, the LAC region possesses a rich floraand fauna, including micro-organisms essential toobtaining new products for the pharmaceuticaland food industries.

Agricultural systems throughout the region are nothomogeneous. Those in the temperate zones of thenorth and south differ from the those of the highmountain plains or those of the wet and dry tropi-cal lowlands and medium-elevation hillsides, suchas those in Central America, the Andean countriesand some Caribbean nations.

Application of agricultural technologies is better inthe temperate ecosystems than in the tropicalareas. This is the case with soybean and wheat,where results achieved in other areas have beenused, including the recent import of transgenicssuch as ‘RR soybean’. In tropical areas, with theexception of rice, there is no available technologi-cal counterpart for the region. However, the tech-nological gap with the world’s leading countries iswidening with respect to many crops (Table 1).

Table 1

Current yields of basic cereal crops in the LAC

region and world leaders

Products Av. current Current yields Annual growth

yield in LAC of world leaders rate in LAC

(tonnes/ha) (tonnes/ha) 1985–1997 (%)

Rice 3.2 6.2 2.9

Beans (dry) 0.6 1.8 0.6

Maize 2.7 7.7 2.9

Wheat 2.4 6.7 1.8

Source: IICA, Technical Management, Area II.Supported data from FAO STAT.

Page 119: 2001-049

118

CHAPTER 6: GMOS: POTENTIAL VALUE AND IMPACTS

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

In the years to come global, regional, and nationaldevelopment will undoubtedly be influenced bythe rise of new biotechnologies. The commerciali-sation of genetically modified products by biotech-nological techniques not only has the potential toincrease production and productivity but will alsoalter the characteristics of the supply of agriculturalproducts. The significant impacts on productionand productivity caused by commercially avail-able transgenic crops are widely recognised, butstrong controversies have arisen over possibleadverse impacts on natural resources, the environ-ment, agricultural productivity and human health.

The Andean region comprises five countries:Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela,with a total area of 4,104,816 km2 and a totalpopulation of 103 million. As mentioned above,three of the 12 centres of origin and domesticationof species are located in the LAC region.Numerous plants that have provided food forhumanity came from the Andean Region, includ-ing potato (Solanum tuberosum), sweet potato(Ipomoea batatas), maize (Zea mays), tomato(Lycopersicon esculentum), beans (Phaseolusvulgaris), cassava (Manihot esculenta), peanut(Arachis hypogea), pineapple (Ananas comosus),cocoa (Theobroma cacao), peppers (Capsicum annum,C. pubescens & C. frutescens), papaya (Caricapapaya), la mora de castilla (Rubus glaucus), cotton(Gossypium hirsutum & G. barbadense) and tobacco(Nicotiana tabacum).

The full nutritional and medicinal value of manyother plants of LAC origin has not yet been deter-mined. These include cereals such as quinua(Chenopodium quinoa), kañiwa (Chenopodium pallidi-caule) and amaranthus (Amaranthus caudatus);tubers such as bitter potato (Solanum juzepczukii),oca or ibia (Oxalis tuberosa), ulluco (Ullucus tubero-sus), mashwa or cubio (Tropaeolum tuberosum);roots such as arracacha (Arracacia xanthorrhiza),achira (Canna edulis), jicama (Pachyrhisus tubero-sus), yacón (Polymnia sonchifolia), mauca or chago(Mirabilis expansa), maca (Lepidium meyenii) andajipa (Pachyrhisus ahipa); legumes such as cacha(Phaseolus polyanthus), tarwi (Lupinus mutabilis),torta (Phaseolus lunatus), pajuro (Eritrina edulis) andpacay (Inga feuillei); vegetables such as zapallo(Cucurbita maxima) and achokcha (Cyclanthera peda-ta); and fruits such as pitaya (Acanthocereus sp),pepino (Solanun variegatum), uchuva (Physalis peru-viana), tomato tree (Solanum betacea), granadilla(Passiflora ligularis), curuba (Passiflora mollisima),curuba de indio (Passiflora mixta), tin-tin (Passiflorapinnastistipula), curuba antioqueña (Passiflora antio-quiensis), badea (Passiflora quadrangularis), cheri-moya (Annona cherimolia), and ciruela de fraile(Bunchosia armeniaca).

The potential contribution of biotechnology tosustainable agriculture is truly great, but the intro-duction of new transgenic varieties in tropicalecosystems deserves careful oversight and moni-toring. In the LAC region progress in biotechnologyresearch on some of the most valuable crops of theregion has been particularly rapid. Scientists hopethat the development of transgenic plants will helpto alleviate both the heavy use of pesticides andthe susceptibility of traditional cultivars to anumber of pest and a biotic stresses.

Another important fact that needs to be consideredis that the LAC region, and in particular theAndean region, is the centre of genetic diversity.For a large number of the species mentionedabove, however, an issue directly referred to in theConvention of Biological Diversity is that theAndean region must respond to questions aboutthe likelihood of genes spreading from transgeniccrops to wild relatives and uncertainty about thepossible impacts on genetic crop diversity.

Regional status

The adoption and expansion of biotechnology inthe LAC region has increased in recent years. Oneindicator used to measure the progress in thebiotechnology sector is the number of field tests oftransgenic crops, which is estimated to be near 870in the region since 1997. Nevertheless, with veryfew exceptions, transgenic crops tested in the agro-ecosystems of the LAC region have been devel-oped in northern industrialised countries.

If we take into account the fact that the cultivatedarea for the majority of conventional crops isgreater in the developing countries than in theindustrialised countries (14.5 times greater for rice,3 times greater for cotton, 2 times greater for maizeand almost all cassava and sweet potato) we canassume that the demand for transgenic cultivarswill increase in developing countries.

The countries of the LAC region must take advan-tage of these technologies if they want to moveforward in agricultural development. However,the region must also make an objective, technicalevaluation of possible risks for human health, theenvironment and the agricultural and cattleproduction that could result from the introductionof these technologies into tropical ecosystems.

In line with the global trend, national seed compa-nies are being acquired by multinational compa-nies. This is accentuated by the weakness of LACgovernmental institutions dedicated to scientific

Page 120: 2001-049

119

THE IMPACT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN REGION

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

and technological development in the agriculturalsector, which makes national capacities to generatevalue from indigenous crops more vulnerable. Forthis reason it is necessary to develop specific trans-genic crop varieties for the LAC countries. Since1987, applications for experimental tests withtransgenic crops in laboratory or greenhouseconditions have been approved in the region.

Experiments in countries or regions that arecentres of origin and diversity are importantowing to the presence of natural pests of the cropsbeing field tested and to the great environmentaldiversity in these regions. The demand forresearch on small plots and in different ecosystems(especially tropical and moderate) indicates theimportance that research centres and multinationalcompanies place on the experimental informationobtained in these areas.

Cotton and some types of maize are of greateconomic importance in the LAC region. In certainareas of Mexico transgenic varieties of cotton resis-tant to insects or herbicides are grown commer-cially and more than 100,000 hectares have beenplanted in Mexican cotton regions since 1995. Thisexperience is of great importance, allowing othercountries in the region to determine the level ofmonitoring needed, especially with respect to thebehaviour of insect populations and to the devel-opment of resistance by insect pests.

As for the incorporation of these technologicaladvances in production systems, Argentina andMexico are noted for their rate of adoption oftransgenic soybean resistant to glyphosate(Roundup). Relative to the total soybean produc-tion, transgenic soybean has increased rapidlyfrom 6% (36,735 hectares) in 1996 to 25% (1,756,000hectares) in 1997, 60% (4,800,000 hectares) in 1998and 80% (5,760,000) in 1999. In 1999, Bt-Cotton andBt-Maize in Argentina were grown in 15,000 and192,000 hectares respectively (Asosiación deSemilleros Argentinos 1999).

It is necessary to conduct research that furthers ourknowledge of ecosystems, the expression andstability of incorporated genes, the botany andgeographical distribution of those species forwhich the LAC region is the centre of origin, andthe technical basis for risk assessment and riskmanagement for human health, the environmentand agriculture production. This will allow fieldtrials, production, and commercialisation of trans-genic crops to develop more smoothly. Thesestrategies require infrastructures, trained person-nel and monitoring to identify early potentialproblems.

National regulations

While some countries in the LAC region havebiosafety regulations, the majority do not. What iseven more critical is that many do not have the sortof multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary personnelneeded to carry out risk analyses and risk man-agement within a methodological framework asstipulated by modern regulations. This means thattheir potential advantages cannot be utilised toguarantee the necessary biosafety requirements toprotect the environment, human health, agricul-tural production and the equitable distribution ofthe benefits for the welfare of their inhabitants.

The LAC region represents close to 6% of the totalfield trials now taking place in developing coun-tries worldwide. The largest number of trials havetaken place in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico,and these have been increasing steadily since 1987when the first field trial took place in Chile (Table 2).

Table 2

Total number of transgenic crop fields trials in

the LAC region (1987–1998)

Country Crops Total no. of field trials

Argentina Canola, Maize, Cotton, 170 Potato, Sugar beet, Sunflower, Wheat

Belize Wheat, Cotton, Soybean 8

Bolivia Cotton, Soybean 18

Brazil Cotton, Cassava, Maize, 115Sugar cane, Soybean Tobacco, Tomato, Bananas, Sunflower, Cabbage, Carrots, Rice, Eucalyptus

Chile Canola, Maize, Soybean, 47Sugar Beet, Tobacco,Tomato, Wheat

Colombia Carnation, Cotton, Rice, 8Cassava, Forage Grasses

Costa Rica Bananas, Maize, Cotton, 17Soybean

Cuba Cauliflower, Canola 78Potato, Sugar Beet, Tobacco

Guatemala Cabbage, Tomato 8

Mexico Maize, Cotton, Cucumber, 138Melon, Potato, Rice, Cabbage, Tobacco, Tomato, Soybean, Canola, Papaya, Cooking Bananas

Total 607

Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (1996) Global review of the fieldtesting of transgenic plants, and personal communica-tions

Page 121: 2001-049

120

CHAPTER 6: GMOS: POTENTIAL VALUE AND IMPACTS

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Fifty-two countries in the world, including some ofthe LAC countries, have biosafety legislation. Thebiosafety legislation adopted by these LAC coun-tries differs in scope. Some have a wide scope andwith legal coverage for transgenic plants, animalsand micro-organisms, as is the case in Argentina(Resolution 124/91), Brazil (Law 8974/95), Cuba,Mexico (Official Mexican Norm 056-FITO/95),Peru (Law 27104) and Bolivia. In others the scopeonly covers plants: Costa Rica, Colombia(Resolution 3492/98), Chile (Resolution 1027/93),Paraguay and Uruguay. The Chilean, Costa Ricanand Uruguayan legislation alludes to ‘WinterNurseries’: transgenic seed production for export.

With the exception of Colombia and Uruguay, thelegislation of all these countries covers researchand development for greenhouse and field trials,and regulations for commercialisation. Bolivia,Brazil, Colombia, Cuba and Peru have establishedbiosafety legislation under the Convention onBiological Diversity. Chile, Costa Rica andUruguay have adapted existing legislation forseeds and plant health inspection services.

The biosafety legislation and regulations in theregion vary in status from laws (Brazil, Costa Rica,Chile, and Cuba) to decrees (Argentina andBolivia) to resolutions (Colombia and Uruguay).

LAC biosafety commissions or councils are advi-sory in character, with the exception of Brazil’sTechnical Commission for Biosafety, which canmake recommendations to the Ministry ofAgriculture, which in turn has the final decision onissues regarding crop commercialisation. The agri-culture ministry, though, cannot authorise anyfield trial without the agreement of the TechnicalCommission for Biosafety.

Different agencies have been involved in formingbiosafety committees in the region, includingrepresentatives of the agriculture, health, environ-ment, commerce and foreign affairs ministries andrelated bodies, such as the scientific community,civil society, agriculture producers, non-govern-mental organisations, consumers, environmental-ists and the private sector.

The Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama,Venezuela, and the majority of the Caribbeancountries have no biosafety legislation.

It is clear that the LAC countries must continue todevelop and perfect their existing regulatoryinstruments to bring them up to par with relatedinternational agreements to prevent or minimisepossible risks derived from the use and handling

of transgenic products. To do this the competentnational institutions must develop the institution-al capacity required to manage and evaluate fieldtrials. Only then will countries in the region be ableto take full advantage of transgenic crops capableof enhancing agricultural production and improv-ing food security.

References

Alarcon E., Gonzales L.J., Carls Y.J. 1998. Situacióninstitucional de los recursos fitogenéticos enAmérica Latina y el Caribe. IICA-GTZ, Serie dedocumentos de discusión no. 6 (ISSN 1027-2623).

Alston J.M., Pardey P.G., Roseboom J. 1998.Financing agricultural research: internationalinvestment patterns and policy perspectives.World Development 26(6): 1057–1071.

Anonymous. 1995. Biosafety, report to the panel ofexperts on biosafety. Cairo, Egypt. 25p.

Anonymous. 1995. Son las plantas transgénicasuna amenaza a la biodiversidad. Leticia,Amazonas. Instituto Sinchi. 75 p.

Anonymous. 1998. Las inversiones futuras enbiotecnología, su mercado mundial. Bogotá:Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). 35p.

Anonymous. 1999 Los elementos centrales de lanegociación del Protocolo de Bioseguridad.Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario.27p.

Artunduaga S.R. 1998 AGRO en el siglo XXI. El rolde las plantas transgénicas en el desarrollo delsector. Bogotá: Instituto ColombianoAgropecuario (ICA).

Atsaf E.V. 1994. Biotechnologies and developingcountries. Council for tropical and subtropicalagricultural research. Report on research workof institutes in Germany, USA, EuropeanUnion. Bohn. 57 p.

Bongaarts J. 1998. Global population growth:demographic consequences of declining fertility.Science 282: 419–420.

CID (Centre for International Development). 1999.Agricultural research in Africa: technologicalopportunities and institutional challenges:report of a seminar. Centre for InternationalDevelopment, Harvard University.

Doyle D., Persley G. 1996. Enabling the safe use ofbiotechnology: principles and practice.Washington DC: The World BankEnvironmentally Sustainable DevelopmentStudies and Monographs Series No 10. 74 p.

Page 122: 2001-049

121Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Fielding L.M. et al. 1992. Pesticides in ground anddrinking water. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities Water Pollution Research Report.27p.

Greenpeace. 1994. A selection of transgenic plantpatent applications from three database searchesusing the world patents index. Databasepatents online 1991, 1992, 1994.

Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion Para LaAgricultura (IICA). 2000. Regional forum foragricultural research and technology develop-ment – Foragro – in LAC. Its role for regionaland global cooperation. San Jose, Costa Rica.37p.

Jaffe W. 1992. Armonización de la bioseguridad enlas Américas. Construyendo CapacidadesInstitucionales. Memoria. IICA. Serie ponenciasy recomendaciones de eventos técnicos (ISSN0253–4746).

James C., Krattiger A. 1997. Global review of thefield testing and commercialisation of trans-genic plants. ISAAA (International Service forthe Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications).31p.

Anonymous. 1997. Insect Resistance in crops: Acase Study of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and itstransfer to developing countries. ISAAA(International Service for the Acquisition ofAgri-Biotech applications). 42 p.

Kaveira P., Parker I. 1994. Environmental risk ofgenetically engineered organisms and keyregulatory issues.

Kendall H., Beachy R., Eisner T., Gould F., HerdtR., Raven P., Schell J., Swaminathan S. 1997.Bioengineering of crops: report of the WorldBank Panel on Transgenic Crops. WashingtonDC.

Koziel M.G., Beland G.L., Bowman C., CarozziN.B., Crenshaw R., Crossland L., Dawson J.,Desai N., Hill M., Kadwell S., Launis K., LewisK., Maddox D., Mcpherson K., Meghji M.R.,Merlin E., Rhodes R., Warren G.W., Wright M.,Evola S.V. 1993. Field performance of elitetransgenic maize plants expressing an insecti-cide protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis.Bio/Technology 4(11): 194–200.

Leon J. 1987. Botanica de los cultivos tropicales.San Jose, Costa Rica: IICA. 445p.

Mihm J.A., editor. 1997. Insect resistant maize:Recent advances and utilisation. Proceedings ofan international Symposium held at theInternational Maize and Wheat ImprovementCentre CIMMYT, Mexico D.F. 302p.

NCB (Nuffield Council on Bioethics). 1999.Genetically modified crops: the ethical andsocial issues. Nuffield Foundation, London.

OECD. 1994. Field releases of transgenic plants.1986–1992 analysis. 85 p.

Presidencia de la República de México. 1999.Organismos vivos modificados en la agricul-tura Mexicana: desarrollo biotecnológico y con-servación de la diversidad biológica. Mexico:Conacyt y Conabio. 32p.

UNEP/CBD/BSWG. 1996–1998. Informes y docu-mentos relacionados con cada una de lasreuniones de trabajo respectivas.

UNDP. 1999. Human Development Report 1999.Globalisation with a human face. New York:UNDP.

UNESCO. 1998. World Science Report. UnitedNations Scientific, Educational, Scientific andCultural Organisation.

THE IMPACT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN REGION

Page 123: 2001-049

122 Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Abstract

The industrialised countries that have signed theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety are under anobligation to help developing countries meet theinstitutional and technical requirements for imple-menting the Protocol. Development cooperationprogrammes for capacity building on biosafetyshould be coordinated by the bilateral (e.g. EUmember states and the Commission) and multi-lateral (e.g. GEF) governmental organisations. Thecapacity building instruments to be used fall intofour main categories: provision of policy advice;institution building for administration and imple-mentation of the protocol; basic and further train-ing of decision makers and experts; and publicawareness raising, education and public participa-tion.

Introduction

The effective implementation of the CartagenaProtocol on Biosafety (CPB) requires a whole rangeof institutional and technical preconditions.Developing countries as a rule find it difficult oreven impossible to meet these under their ownsteam. This means that those industrial countriesthat have negotiated and signed the treaty areunder the obligation to support developing coun-tries within the framework of their developmentcooperation. This should not wait until the entryinto force of the CPB, but start immediately byidentifying the needs of the developing countriesfor further capacity building on biosafety, andencouraging effective efforts to prepare for theentry into force of the CPB.

By signing the CPB, governments express theirwill to create the basis for the following rights andobligations:

� Take the necessary and appropriate legal,administrative and other measures to imple-ment the Protocol (Art. 2.1).

� Ensure that the development, handling, trans-port, use, transfer and release of living modi-fied organisms (LMOs) are undertaken in amanner that prevents or reduces the risks tobiological diversity, also taking risks to humanhealth into account (Art. 2.2).

� Obtain the general right to take measures thatare more protective than those envisaged by theProtocol, provided such actions are consistentwith the Protocol and other international oblig-ations (Art. 2.4).

� Establish and maintain appropriate mecha-nisms, measures and strategies to regulate,manage and control risks identified in the riskassessment provisions of the Protocol associatedwith the use, handling and transboundarymovement of LMOs (Art. 16.1).

� Endeavour to ensure that any LMO, whetherimported or nationally developed, has under-gone an appropriate observation before it is putto its intended use (Art. 16.4).

� Create notification and institution of properemergency measures for unintentional trans-boundary movements of LMOs (Art. 17).

� Fulfil obligations relating to the effectiveadministration of the Protocol (Art. 19 andothers).

� Promote and facilitate public awareness, educa-tion and participation, including access toinformation on LMOs, identified in accordancewith the Protocol, that may be imported (Art.23).

� Prevent, and if appropriate, penalise illegaltransboundary movements of LMOs (Art. 25).

Development cooperation aims to provide effec-tive support to developing countries in establish-ing the necessary environment for implementingthe CPB at the national level. This should enablethem to guarantee their own national biologicalsafety and avoid the negative impacts on man andthe environment of the transboundary transport

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety:

Implications for Development Cooperation

Frank Schmiedchen1 and Hartmut Meyer2

1. Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Bonn, Germany2. Biosafety Consultant, Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany

Page 124: 2001-049

123

THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

and use of biotechnology products, consistent withthe CBD, national priorities and sustainable devel-opment.

Inadequate manpower and institutional compe-tence and a lack of pertinent legislation and partic-ipation by the public in decision-making processesoften hamper the development of a suitable con-text for biological safety in developing countries.This is precisely the point where developmentcooperation comes in, especially technical cooper-ation with its instruments of capacity building.These mainly consists of:

� Policy advice;

� Institution building;

� Basic and further training of decision makersand experts;

� Public awareness raising, education and pro-motion of public participation.

In the context of implementing the CPB any capac-ity building effort has to guarantee that it enablesdeveloping countries to deal with following legaland administrative aspects:

� The right to regulate the transport of LMOsthrough a Party’s territory, and obligation tocommunicate such transport to the BiosafetyClearing House (Art. 6.1).

� The right to set out standards for all containeduse within a Party’s jurisdiction (Art. 6.2).

� The application of the advanced informedagreement (AIA) procedure for intentionaltransboundary movements of LMOs for intro-duction into the environment of the importingParty, including such elements as notification,acknowledgement of receipt and decision-taking within the required timeframes andreview of decisions (Art. 7-10, 12).

� The notification of any final decisions regard-ing domestic use, including placing on themarket, of an LMO that may be subject to trans-boundary movements for direct use as food,feed or for processing (LMO-FFP) (Art. 11.1).

� The notification of decisions on domestic regu-latory or administrative measures in relation tothe domestic use or placing on the market ofLMO-FFP, or notification of the use of theProtocol provisions for intentional transbound-ary movements of LMO-FFPs, as appropriate(Art. 11.4 – 11.6).

� The assessment of risks pursuant to theProtocol in a scientifically sound manner in

accordance with the provisions in the Protocoland its Annexes (Art. 15).

� The formulation of risk management decisionsbased on the risk assessments (Art. 16).

� The right to take a decision without scientificcertainty due to insufficient relevant scientificinformation and knowledge regarding theextent of the potential adverse effects of anLMO on the conservation and sustainable useof biological diversity in the Party of import,taking the risks to human health also intoaccount (Art. 10.6, 11.8).

� The identification and analysis of options foremploying risk management strategies to theextent necessary to prevent adverse effects (Art.16).

� The implementation of the risk managementdecisions (Art. 16.1).

� The application of appropriate measures to pre-vent unintentional transboundary movementof LMOs (Art. 16.3).

� The application of necessary measures torequire that LMOs that are subject to intentionaltransboundary movement within the scope ofthe Protocol are handled, packaged and trans-ported under conditions of safety, taking intoconsideration relevant international rules andstandards (Art. 18.1).

� The sharing of information and ensuring theaccuracy of information, including mandatoryrequirements in relation to the BiosafetyClearing House (Art. 20 and others).

� The notification of, and protection of, confiden-tial information (Art. 21).

� The inclusion of socio-economic considerationsarising from the impact of LMOs on the conser-vation and sustainable use of biodiversity in arisk assessment and decision-making process(Art. 26).

Capacity building is to be understood as a contin-uous and interdisciplinary process which will onlysucceed if the developing countries do their verybest to ensure sustainability of the measuresimplemented. All measures must take adequateaccount of the prevailing social, economic, ecolog-ical and political environment in the developingcountries where measures are jointly carried out,with great importance being attached totransparency and the effective participation of civilsociety.

Development cooperation programmes and pro-jects on biosafety should be coordinated by the

Page 125: 2001-049

124

CHAPTER 6: GMOS: POTENTIAL VALUE AND IMPACTS

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

bilateral (especially EU Member States and theEuropean Commission) and multilateral (especial-ly GEF) governmental organisations, and possiblepartnerships between such organisations shouldbe explored.

Instruments of capacity building

Policy advice

A process of ratification is required to put the CPBinto effect nationally. As a rule, the CPB becomesnational law when relevant legislation is adoptedby parliament. Moreover, regulatory instructionsmust be issued which govern the administrativeimplementation of the CPB.

During the first phase of the implementation of theCPB, in which capacity building can play a crucialrole, developing countries will examine whetherand to what extent existing national regulations(laws, decrees, guidelines) already fulfil therequirements set out in the CPB, and where thesemust be supplemented in accordance with theCPB. Such efforts were undertaken in severalcountries during the UNEP/GEF Pilot Programmewhen a National Biosafety Framework was elabo-rated.

During the next steps of implementing theProtocol, national capacities have to be built upthat allow a Party to undertake risk assessments,develop risk management strategies and introducean effective surveillance system. In the light ofseveral innovative legal elements which the CPBintroduces into international law, the followingdevelopment cooperation priorities have to beestablished:

� Strengthen existing capacities in the field ofenvironmental and health protection, andestablish new capacities where needed, toassess the presented risk assessment docu-ments and, if necessary, to perform or to com-mission independent risk assessments;

� Establish decision mechanisms and structuresresponsible for the AIA procedures concerningLMOs and LMO-FFPs independent of thosepublic and private institutions which promoteand apply modern biotechnology, to avoid con-flicts of interest and to lay the basis for publicconfidence in governmental decisions;

� Base governmental decisions regarding theimport of LMOs and LMO-FFPs on the precau-

tionary principle as laid down in the Protocol,where necessary;

� Facilitate public participation in the establish-ment of biosafety frameworks and regulations,in the AIA procedure and in the decision proce-dure;

� Include socio-economic considerations intodecision-making.

In cases where no national regulations exist for thehandling of GMOs, developing countries can besupported in preparing bills in conformity withthe CPB. The following instruments might be ofuse here:

� Short-term secondment of experts (national orexternal) to give advice to the respective bodiesof the legislative and executive branches intheir work;

� Political education measures on politically andlegally relevant aspects of the CPB for decisionmakers in parliament, government and admin-istration; representatives from civil societyshould take part in further training measures sothat they can participate at an early stage innational policy formation.

Institution building

Public administration

According to Article 19 of the CPB, each memberstate is obliged to nominate at least one authoritywhich is responsible for the implementation of thefunctions required under the Protocol (e.g. evalu-ate and perform risk assessments, observe the pre-cautionary principle, ensure public participation)and which takes on the necessary administrativework. Moreover, the states are also obliged to nom-inate a Focal Point for the CPB. This is the officialinternational contact for the implementation of theCPB and it liases with the Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Bothfunctions may be fulfilled by one governmentalbody.

Developing countries can be supported whentaking the measures required for the establishmentand/or development of the administrative unitsneeded for CPB implementation. Here, the focusshould be on measures strengthening the provi-sion of the necessary expert knowledge on riskassessment, risk management and monitoringalong the lines of the CPB, and on evaluating infor-mation received from the Clearing House

Page 126: 2001-049

125

THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Mechanism. In line with a holistic approach, com-petence must be developed in the areas of envi-ronment, health, agriculture and life sciences, withthe aforementioned principles (precautionaryprinciple, public participation and considerationof socio-economic aspects) again playing a promi-nent role.

The following instruments might be of use here:

� Long-term secondment of experts to advise onthe establishment and further development ofthe administrative units needed for CPB imple-mentation;

� Support from the partner country for the devel-opment of effective instruments which includethe participation of the civil society;

� Further training measures for the administra-tive unit entrusted with CPB implementationand representatives of the civil society.

Biosafety Clearing House Mechanism

The CPB requires the member states to set up theBiosafety Clearing House Mechanism (Biosafety-CHM). National Focal Points of the worldwideinformation network are to be set up in eachProtocol member state. Information along the linesof the ‘prior informed consent’ principle are to bemade available worldwide through the Biosafety-CHM.

National approvals of LMOs for food, feed, andprocessing in the Parties of the CPB will be madeknown via the Biosafety-CHM. Furthermore,information on national legislation and guidelinesof member states on biosafety, pertinent authori-ties and national and international experts is to berendered transparent (Article 20 of the Protocol).The Biosafety-CHM is to be used especially topublish violations of the CPB regulations.

The following instruments might be of use here:

� Secondment of short-term experts to accompany,and advise on, the setting up and further devel-opment of the Biosafety-CHM;

� Technical and financial support in the establish-ment and equipment of the Biosafety-CHM;

� Further training measures for the Biosafety-CHM Focal Point and representatives of civilsociety in the use of EDP tools, especially theinternet;

� Advisory support in fulfilling the nationalobligation to report to the CBD Secretariat.

Monitoring, evaluation and inspection

services

The Member States must either establish nationallaboratory capacities or have secure access toregional laboratory facilities to ensure ongoingsupervisory activities within the framework of aregular monitoring and inspection, and for therequired evaluations. Member States must haveaccess to the relevant technologies needed forestablishing an inspection and monitoring system.

Development cooperation can support thedialogue between policy/administration andscience/industry and can be of help in the devel-opment of the necessary monitoring and inspec-tion infrastructure. In countries where no monitor-ing or inspection infrastructure is to be established,development cooperation can also providesupport in setting up the necessary contacts withtrustworthy, regionally active scientific institu-tions.

The following instruments might be of use here:

� Short-term secondment of experts to advise onthe establishment and further development ofthe pertinent monitoring facilities;

� Technical and financial support for establishingand equipping the required laboratories;

� Further training measures for institutionsentrusted with monitoring or inspection;

� Support for the establishment and furtherdevelopment of regional network structures.

Basic and further training of

decision makers and experts

The national authorities responsible for CPBimplementation must be adequately and compe-tently staffed. In addition to the head of the admin-istrative unit responsible for the CPB – and itwould be expedient if this were also the FocalPoint – another two or, better still, three staff mem-bers should be recruited. They must have under-gone the comprehensive training needed for thetechnical assessment of an import request, i.e. forthe assessment of potential risks of LMOs. Suchtraining must deliver the expertise needed for theapplication of the AIA procedure:

� Risk assessment;

� Application of the precautionary principle;

� Labelling responsibility;

Page 127: 2001-049

126 Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

� Consideration of socio-economic aspects.

Under the last item, particular consideration mustbe given to aspects of maintaining and developingagro-biodiversity (e.g. protection of land varietiesas well as of regionally adapted varieties for sus-tainable food security). Of special importance issupport for small-scale farming and organic agri-culture.

Incoming requests must be properly assessed and,if necessary, additional investigations carried outby independent experts. This requires technicalknow-how in natural science disciplines (environ-mental impact, ecological risk management, iden-tification of LMOs), in the socio-economic field(consideration of these aspects in legislation,approvals procedures etc.), in public relationswork and participatory approaches. Further, train-ing along these lines will combine these aspects inthe form of an interdisciplinary concept.Enhancement of institutional competence is alsorequired for the establishment of the Biosafety-CHM.

Public awareness raising,

education and promotion of

public participation

An essential element in ensuring acceptance ofmodern biotechnology is an open discourse withcivil society. The open dialogue with non-governmental organisations in the field of envi-ronment and consumer policy plays a prominentrole in this connection. Only an honest debateinvolving critical voices and minority opinions insociety will ensure the necessary acceptance in thelong-term. This should not be limited to the nationallevel, but include the promotion of regional andsub-regional cooperation and exchange of infor-mation and experience.

CHAPTER 6: GMOS: POTENTIAL VALUE AND IMPACTS

Page 128: 2001-049

127Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Cash-cropping in developing countries and theuse of bioengineered varieties – a system that isaccompanied by widespread poverty and hunger –should be abandoned in favour of indigenouscrops. These do not require expensive foreignfertilisers, pesticides and heavy machinery.Moreover, the genetic diversity of native crops is avaluable resource for the rest of the world.

In essence, biotechnology is the shuffling of genesfrom one species to another. The primary businessidea behind such a hazardous manipulation andcolonisation of life is to create (invent) a valuableproduct – for instance, by adding foreign genes tosoybeans in order to make them behave in acertain desired and profitable manner. Its ownerthen reaps a harvest of money and power.

Global corporations and

biotechnology

Monsanto is one of a handful of global corpora-tions pushing biotechnology to its limits, especiallyin agriculture where it has bioengineered certainfood crops to tolerate the killing power of its owntoxins or to resist certain diseases or insects.Monsanto has been selling its bioengineered seedsaggressively in the United States and throughoutthe world, including the tropics, arguing that itsmodified crops are great weapons to fight hunger.This is a dubious claim. First, because hunger isprimarily a political problem, and second, becausenature has always been unmatched in its exquisitedesign of seeds to fit the limitations and potentialsof land, climate and human culture.

Consider Africa, a hungry continent with an extra-ordinary legacy of agricultural biological diversity.Monsanto is trying to gain a foothold in Africa forits food engineering. But does Africa needMonsanto? Growing luxury crops like tea, cocoaand coffee for export in sub-Saharan Africa isprobably the strongest legacy of European colo-nialism – a legacy that in the dawn of the 21st cen-tury translates into hunger for about 200 millionpeople. Africans do not need coffee, tea and cocoa.They grow them entirely for the gastronomicpleasures of Europe and North America. Africansneed more food. Gambians, for example, producepeanuts which they export for money to importfood, and this is by no means exceptional.

Cash-cropping

The cash-cropping road to development condemnsAfrica to impoverishment and hunger, and ispushing Africa’s extraordinary variety of indige-nous food crops to the verge of extinction. Africanseat less of their own food and eat more importedwheat, rice and corn. Why Africans eat less andless of their own food goes to the very heart oftheir hunger and dependency on others.Europeans heaped scorn on the fantastic variety ofAfrica’s cereals and Western scientists classifiedAfrican grains as cattle feed. That is why many ofthe more than 2,000 varieties of indigenous grains,roots, fruits and other food plants have been lost –at least from the daily diet of most Africans.

But these foods still exist in Africa, and they are theanswer to the tremendous food insecurity of somany millions of human beings in Africa and else-where in the world. In a 1996 study called ‘TheLost Crops of Africa’ the US National Academy ofSciences says that Africa’s native cereals like rice,finger millet, fonio, pearl millet, sorghum, tef,guinea millet and dozens of wild cereals present a‘local legacy of genetic wealth upon which a soundfood future might be built’.

Nature’s Matchless Seeds – or Monsanto’s

Colonised Crops?

Evaggelos Vallianatos1

Alexandria, Virginia, USA

1. E.G. Vallianatos, author of Fear in theCountryside and Harvest of Devastation, was anadvisor to the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme on sustainable development theoryand African food security during 1995–1996.

Page 129: 2001-049

Lost crops of Africa

Resurrecting Africa’s food plants would heal theecological wounds of the continent. Africa’s cerealsare tolerant of heat, cold, drought, and water-logged or infertile land. And they are also nutri-tious and tasty. The Academy study says thatAfrica’s ‘lost’ plants may benefit more than Africabecause ‘they represent an exceptional cluster ofcereal biodiversity with particular promise forsolving some of the food production problems thatwill arise in the twenty-first century’.

The lost crops of Africa present Africa, the rest ofthe world and the international developmentcommunity with a great opportunity to practiceapplied sustainable development and join theAfrican peasants, who still use many of theseindigenous food plants, in building Africa’s foodsecurity around these overlooked resources.

This is also a challenge for the United States. TheUS Agency for International Development (AID)funded ‘The Lost Crops of Africa’. Under properleadership, AID can move decisively in Africa tosupport the resurrection of Africa’s own crops. It isalmost certain that such a strategy would havelasting implications for the relations betweenAfrica and the United States.

More food from Africa’s own crops for Africa’sown people will be the best medicine and solutionto local hunger. It will probably be the best

antidote to the surviving cash cropping planta-tions, which occupy the choice land to satisfy thethirst of Europeans and North Americans whileAfricans starve. An Africa without hunger will bea grateful Africa, thankful to the American peoplefor their support. An Africa without hunger will bebetter prepared to promote democracy, interna-tional trade and sustainable development.

Genetic riches

Undoing the cash cropping of colonialism bybringing back from obscurity Africa’s own crops –instead of the precarious bioengineered crops ofMonsanto – is bound to sow a plentiful harvest forAfrica, without the expensive and hazardousforeign fertilisers, pesticides and heavy machinery.These native crops are also valuable to the rest ofthe world because of their genetic richness. Theycould be useful in broadening the dangerouslynarrow path of agricultural biodiversity in theUnited States and other industrial countries.

So Monsanto is barking up the wrong tree in Africaand the tropics. It failed to convince the GrameenBank of Bangladesh (the lender of last resort forimpoverished Asian women) and the Americanrelief organisation CARE to make its farm biotech-nologies accessible to the peasants of Asia, Africaand Latin America. This is a signal that the worldis not ready to abandon its food security toMonsanto – or anybody else for that matter.

CHAPTER 6: GMOS: POTENTIAL VALUE AND IMPACTS

128 Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 130: 2001-049

129

Dr Mohammed M. AjlouniAgrobiodiversity Project ManagerNational Centre for Agricultural Research andTechnology TransferUNDPP.O.Box 639 Baqa 19381 JordanTel: +962 (0)6 4726897Fax: +962 (0)6 [email protected]

Adeniyi Olabisi ArimoroEnvironmental BiologistGeomatics Nigeria LimitedP.O. Box 36528Dugbe P.O.IbadanNigeriaFax: +234 (0)2 8105623Tel: +234 (0)2 8105577 [email protected]

Rodrigo ArtunduagaUnit HeadBiosafety & Plant Genetic ResourcesColombian Agricultural Institute (ICA)Calle 37 Number 8-43 Office 507Bogota,ColombiaTel: +57 (0)571 2884427Fax: +57 (0)571 [email protected]

Dr Tatiana BakinovaSouth Institute of Land Use Planning Foundationfor Sustainable Development of the Republic ofKalmykiaElista Republic of Kalmykia,Russia

Dr Channa N.B. BambaradeniyaHead - Biodiversity UnitIUCN Sri Lanka Country OfficeNo: 53, Horton Place, Colombo 07

Sri Lanka Tel: +94 (0)1 694094 Fax: + 94 (0)1 [email protected]

John BensonSenior Plant EcologistRoyal Botanic Gardens Sydney Mrs Macquaries Road Sydney,New South Wales, AustraliaTel +61 (0)2 92318149Fax: +61 (0)2 [email protected]

Dr Giuseppe BrunduDepartment of Botany and Plant EcologyUniversity of SassariVia F. Muroni, 25 - 07100 SassariItalyTel: + 39 079 228611Fax: + 39 079 [email protected]

Professor Ignazio CamardaDepartment of Botany and Plant EcologyUniversity of SassariVia F. Muroni, 25 - 07100 SassariItalyTel: + 39 079 228611Fax: + 39 079 233600

Dr Marco CareddaDepartment of Agro-Environmental Sciences andAgro-Food BiotechnologyUniversity of SassariVia E. de Nicola, 1 - 07100 [email protected]

Professor Zhangliang ChenDirectorNational Laboratory of Plant Genetic Engineering

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

List of Contributors

Page 131: 2001-049

130

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Beijing UniversityBeijingChinaTel: +86 (0)10 62751199Fax: +86 (0)10 [email protected]

Dr Dmitry CherniakovskyProject OfficerIUCN Representative Office for CIS Marshal Vasilevsky Str. 17123182 MoscowRussia Tel. +7 (0)95 190 7077 Fax. +7 (0)95 490 [email protected]

Professor Michael Bernard Kwesi DarkohHead of Department of Environmental ScienceUniversity of BotswanaPrivate Bag 0022, Gaborone, BotswanaTel: +267 (0)355 2526/27 Fax: + 267 (0)[email protected]

Professor Pietro DeianaDepartment of Agro-Environmental Sciences andAgro-Food BiotechnologyUniversity of SassariVia E. de Nicola, 1 - 07100 SassariItaly

Jayanthi P. EdirisingheProfessor Senior Lecturer in ZoologyDepartment of Zoology, University of PeradeniyaFaculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, SriLanka Tel: +94 (0)8 [email protected]

Bernward GeierExecutive Director International Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements (IFOAM)Ökozentrum Imsbach , 66636 Tholey-Theley,Germany Tel: +49 (0)6853 919890 Fax: +49 (0)6853 919899 [email protected]

Julia GorelovaMembership Relations and Programme OfficerIUCN Representative Office for CIS Marshal Vasilevsky Str. 17123182 Moscow

Russia Tel. +7 095 190 7077 Fax. +7 095 490 [email protected]

Liz HopkinsDirectorIUCN European Regional Office (ERO)Bredaseweg 3875037 LDTilburgNetherlandsTel: +31 (0)13 5900 347Fax: +31 (0)13 5900 [email protected]

Chris HoweHead of Future Landscapes,World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) -UKPanda House, Weyside ParkGodalming, Surrey, GU7 1XRUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0)1483 412525Fax: +44 (0)1483 [email protected]

Sri IndiyastutiBioscience and Biotechnology for SustainableDevelopment Foundation (YPBB)Jl. Awiligar Ria II No. 1 Bandung 40191Indonesia Tel : +62 (0)22 2505881 Fax : +62 (0)22 [email protected]

Dr Alexander S. KarpovProgram ManagerSt.Petersburg Society of NaturalistsUniversitetskaya nab., 7/9199034 St.PetersburgRussiaFax: +7 (0)812 324 0885 [email protected]

Annie KirschenmannIFOAM World Board MemberInternational Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements (IFOAM)5449 45th St. SEMedina, ND 58467 USATel: + 1 (0)701 4863578Fax: + 1 (0)701 486 [email protected]

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 132: 2001-049

131

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Wilfrid LeggHead of Policies and EnvironmentAgriculture DirectorateOrganisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD)2 rue Andre Pascal75775 Paris Cedex 16FranceTel: +33 (0)1 45 24 95 36Fax: +33 (0)1 44 30 61 [email protected]

Walter Jami LusigiProgram Manager, BiodiversityGlobal Environment FacilityWorld Bank1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433USATel: +1 (0)202 473 4798Fax: +1 (0)202 522 [email protected]

Dr Sara MaltoniDepartment of Agro-Environmental Sciences andAgro-Food BiotechnologyUniversity of SassariVia E. de Nicola, 1 - 07100 SassariItaly

Kosal MamProgramme Co-ordinatorWetlands International–Asia PacificNumber 21 Boeng Keng Kang 1ChamkarmonPhnom Penh,CambodiaTel: +855 (0)23 214910Fax: +855 (0)23 [email protected]

Rene A. Chang R. MarinExecutive Project Coordinator Circle for Scientific and Applied Studies (CECA)Chitre, Playa el AgallitoEstacion Ecologica HumboltHerreraPanamaTel/Fax: +507 (0)261 8441 [email protected]

Dr Hartmut MeyerConsultantFederal Ministry of Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (GTZ)Kleine Wiese 6,

38116 BraunschweigGermanyTel: +49 (0)531 5168746Fax: +49 (0)531 [email protected]

Abdoulaye NdiayeTraining OfficerWetlands International-AEMEWest Africa ProgrammePO Box 8060407, Cite Djily Mbaye, YoffDakar - YoffSenegal Tel: +221 (0)8 206478Fax: +221 (0)8 [email protected]

Peter NowickiHonorary Research FellowImperial College at WyeFons v.d. Heydenstraat 57, NL-5534 AT NeterselNetherlandsTel: +31 (0)497 682574Fax: +31 (0)497 [email protected]

Stanislav PavlovFoundation for Sustainable Development of theRepublic of Kalmykia and YuzhNIIGiprozemRepublic of KalmykiaRussia

Richard PerkinsAgriculture and Rural Development, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) -UKPanda House, Weyside ParkGodalming, Surrey, GU7 1XRUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0)1483 412529Fax: +44 (0)1483 [email protected]

Frank SchmiedchenSenior Administrative OfficerFederal Ministry of Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (GTZ)Postfach 12 03 22,53045 BonnGermanyTel: +49 (0)228 535 3762Fax: +49 (0)228 535 [email protected]

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 133: 2001-049

132

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Dr Vandana ShivaDirectorResearch Foundation for Science, Technology andEcologyA - 60, Hauz KhasNew Delhi, 110016IndiaTel: +91 (0)11 696 8077Fax: +91 (0)11 685 [email protected]

Dr Richard D SmithDevelopment OfficerBioNET-INTERNATIONAL Technical SecretariatBakeham LaneEghamSurrey TW20 9TYUKTel: ++44 (0)1491 829037Fax: ++44 (0)1491 829082 [email protected]

Dr Evaggelos VallianatosWriter5336 Thayer AvenueAlexandria, VA 22304

USATel: + 1 (0)703 370 [email protected]

Professor Hardy VogtmannPresidentGerman Federal Agency for Nature Conservation(BfN)Konstantinstrasse 11053179 BonnGermanyTel: +49 (0)228 84 910Fax: +49 (0)228 849 [email protected]

Rachel WisemanAgriculture Projects ManagerIUCN European Regional Office (ERO)Bredaseweg 3875037 LDTilburgNetherlandsTel: +31 (0)13 5900 347Fax: +31 (0)13 5900 [email protected]

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Page 134: 2001-049

133

AIA Advanced Informed AgreementBSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

(‘mad cow disease’)CAP Common Agriculture Policy (EU)CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CECA Circulo de Estudios Cientificos

Aplicados (Panama)CFO Conservation Farm Option (US)CIS Commonwealth of Independent

StatesCHM Clearing House MechanismCITES Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora

CPB Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety(CBD)

CPRM Common Property ResourcesManagement

DTRE Disequilibrium Theories for RangeEcology

EC European CommunityEEC European Economic CommunityEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS Environmental Impact StatementERA Environmental Risk AssessmentERO European Regional Office (IUCN)EU European UnionFAO United Nations Food and

Agriculture OrganizationFSC Forest Stewardship CouncilGDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environment FacilityGIS Geographic Information SystemsGM Genetically ModifiedGMO Genetically-Modified OrganismIBA Important Bird AreaICRISAT International Crop Research Institute

for the Semi-arid tropics

IFOAM International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements

IPM Integrated Pollution ManagementOR Integrated Pest Management

IUCN The World Conservation UnionLAC Latin American and CaribbeanLDCs Least Developed CountriesLFA Less Favoured AreaLMO-FFPs LMO for direct use as food, feed or

processingLMO Living Modified OrganismLTPS Long-Term Perspective StudyMEA Multilateral Environmental

AgreementMRC Mekong River CommissionNGO Non-governmental organisationOECD Organisation for Economic Co-opera-

tion and DevelopmentPSE Producer Support EstimateRSPB Royal Society for the Protection of

BirdsTRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property RightsUNCED United Nations Conference on

Environment and DevelopmentUNEP United Nations Environment

ProgrammeUNSO United Nations Office to Combat

Desertification and DroughtUSD US dollarsUSDA United States Department of

AgricultureWHO World Health OrganizationWRI World Resources InstituteWTO World Trade OrganizationWWF Worldwide Fund for Nature

Sowing the Seeds for Sustainability

Acronyms