농업생물다양성을 위한 씨앗

Several controversial issues have emerged in the current public debate on the management of genetic resources in agriculture. These include genetic modification, patenting and the loss of agrobiodiversity. This Newsletter focuses primarily on biodiversity in crop production but not without looking at the other two issues as well. As an introduction to the subject, Conny Almekinders (guest editor for this issue) and Walter de Boef discuss the institutional setting of plant genetic resource management and the new developments taking place.

LEISA Magazine • 15 nº 3/4 • December 1999

Seeds for agrobiodiversity

Several controversial issues have emerged in the current public debate on the management of genetic resources in agriculture. These include genetic modification, patenting and the loss of agrobiodiversity. This Newsletter focuses primarily on biodiversity in crop production but not without looking at the other two issues as well. As an introduction to the subject, Conny Almekinders (guest editor for this issue) and Walter de Boef (p5) discuss the institutional setting of plant genetic resource management and the new developments taking place.

In market agriculture there is an enormous loss of biodiversity both on-farm and in the wider environment. In more favourable conditions, traditional agriculture, highly diverse in functions, crops and varieties (Altieri p14), has evolved into agrarian systems dependent on a few commercial crops and uniform varieties with a narrow genetic base. This development started with the introduction of the Green Revolution but continues today as the market economy encourages farmers to adopt the most economically profitable crops and varieties. New developments such as genetic modification threaten to limit the choice between varieties still further (GRAIN p8).

Organic market farmers in the Netherlands are now complaining that conventional seeds are increasingly difficult to get as seed merchants move into the lucrative market of gen-tech seeds (Minderhoud p11). The need for varieties that are not genetically modified and are less uniform has lead the organic movement to initiate its own breeding programme.

Small farmers affected

Small, market-orientated farmers in regions where conditions are less favourable are most affected by these developments. They are unable to compete with farmers in more favourable conditions who can afford the use of expensive improved seeds and they lack improved varieties adapted to their diverse agroecological conditions. Soil degradation often exacerbates the situation making farmers particularly vulnerable to calamities such as drought (Singh p12).

As subsistence agriculture is less affected by the market economy, the loss of agrobiodiversity is much slower in agroecologically complex and isolated regions. Here, much traditional biodiversity and indigenous knowledge can still be found as indigenous culture and biodiversity are strongly interdependent (COMPAS Newsletter Vol.1-2 and Ramprasad p13). However, where indigenous cultures are disintegrating, biodiversity and the indigenous knowledge concerning its use and management are disappearing as well.

International action

In this context small farmers in many countries have organised themselves to conserve what is left of their rich traditional agrobiodiversity and are campaigning against genetic modification, patenting and the dominance of international corporations. They see these developments as a threat to their survival base, a risk to food safety and in conflict with their spiritual values. They are not alone in their opposition. There is growing international disquiet over the implications of genetic modification, resulting in political actions (Minderhoud p10).

In-situ conservation

In this issue you will find examples of initiatives to conserve and develop agrobiodiversity, especially in regions with less favourable agricultural conditions. Several articles deal with such initiatives and related indigenous knowledge (Boncodin p23), seed fairs (Neuendorf p24 and Scurrah p26), a biodiversity register (Utkarsh p28) and community seed banks (Demissie p30). Still, as Boncondin and Vega (p30) rightly argue, farmers will only conserve genetic resources if they attach value to them. Adding economic value to (agro)biodiversity, as in the cases presented by Terrazas et al (p32) and Gerrits (p34) will contribute to its sustainable use.

Crop development

However, conservation of agrobiodiversity is not enough. Seeds degrade and conditions and opportunities for agriculture change. This means that genetic resources have to be adapted and constantly improved. Seed selection and breeding for crop improvement are traditional practices but farmers do not always have enough skill and knowledge to keep up with changing needs. The scientific insights and breeding techniques of the formal sector could help farmers improve their efforts.

However, the formal sector is mainly interested in commercial agriculture. The varieties developed by the formal sector are often unsuitable for the diverse agroecological conditions and needs of small farmers. To improve genetic resource management in less favourable conditions, much can be gained by strengthening collaboration between the informal and formal sector (Almekinders et al p5).

Farmers and scientists collaborate

Scientists try to understand how traditional farmers manage their genetic resources (see Mekbib p15; Longley p16; Soleri p18 and Song p20). Participatory development approaches build on these indigenous skills. The experiences gained with participatory seed selection and participatory breeding (Ceccarelli p36; Wright p38; Sthapit p40; CBDC p48 & Yap p47) demonstrate this potential.

Towards integrated systems

Seed conservation and crop improvement are important in maintaining and broadening farmers’ choice as far as crops and varieties are concerned but to really increase and make functional use of biodiversity farmers have to reconstruct and develop (traditional) integrated agriculture. As Altieri (p14) indicates, integrated agriculture (agroecology/LEISA) is the best option for subsistence farmers who intermittently produce for market and who wish to increase biodiversity and the resilience, productivity and sustainability of their farming system.

This can also be an effective approach in commercial agriculture. But, farmers who become fully involved in commercial farming not only loose their seeds but also their knowledge about integrated farming. As scientists have little experience with integrated agriculture, collaboration between the informal and the formal sector becomes crucial to its regeneration and development as the case of the ‘Eco-Papas’ project in Ecuador shows (Frolich et al p44).

However, where labour costs are too high, integrated agriculture may not be a viable option. Where this is the case, what approach should be followed to increase biodiversity in commercial agriculture? The articles do not provide many indications on how to resolve this fundamental problem nor on how much and what type of biodiversity is really needed in particular situations. Apparently the last word on agrobiodiversity has not yet been said!