1.2 The evolution of community biodiversity management as a methodology for implementing in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity in Nepal

Transcription

1 1.2 The evolution of community biodiversity management as a methodology for implementing in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity in Nepal Abishkar Subedi, Pitambar Shrestha, Madhusudan Upadhyay and Bhuwon Sthapit Participation in a global programme: initial steps The recognition of in situ conservation as a strategy by the Convention on Biological Diversity inspired a number of global programmes. In 1995, Bioversity International (then known as the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute), together with partners in nine countries Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Peru, Turkey and Vietnam began to implement a global programme entitled Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The programme aimed to contribute to achieving a better understanding on where, when and how in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity can be successful; what factors influence in situ conservation; and how this information both directly and indirectly adds value to diversity in terms of social, economic, environmental and genetic benefits (Sthapit and Jarvis, 2005). The Nepal component of the global programme was jointly implemented between 1997 and 2006 by the Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC), Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD) and Bioversity International, and was funded by the Directorate General for International Cooperation in the Netherlands, the Swiss Development Cooperation, and the International Development Research Centre in Canada. In the current chapter, we share how this agrobiodiversity project gradually evolved through several phases, from a single component within a global scientific programme, to one that can be considered individually as a global reference (FAO, 2011) for the development of the methodology referred to as community biodiversity management (CBM). The agrobiodiversity project started in 1997, in three ecosites representing high-hill (Jumla district), mid-hill (Kaski district) and terai or lowland ecosystems (Bara district); these agro-ecosystems were selected in order to cover the variation required to study in situ conservation. Figure indicates the locations of these sites in Nepal.

2 12 Abishkar Subedi et al. Nepal Jumla Kaski China Bara Kathmandu India Figure Location of the agrobiodiversity ecosites in Nepal. Phase 1: Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation on-farm ( ) In order to create institutional innovation, we managed the Nepal project in such a manner that governmental, non-governmental and international organizations worked together with local communities. We established multi-stakeholder platforms in which we used participatory methodologies to study the in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm. We consider this phase to have been important for the development and implementation of a number of practices, which were later consolidated in the CBM methodology. These practices include: (i) sensitizing local communities, and strengthening their capacity, with regards to agrobiodiversity conservation and use; (ii) locating and documenting genetic diversity and associated traditional knowledge; (iii) characterizing local varieties; (iv) understanding the value of plant genetic resources (PGR); and (v) designing options for enhancing the benefits of PGR, creating conditions to sustain in situ conservation on-farm. Phase 2: Redirecting the project to meet the actual demands of the community ( ) The agrobiodiversity project was successful in creating awareness, influencing policies and achieving a better understanding on the scientific basis of where, when and how in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity can be managed successfully. However, in discussions with community representatives, we gradually realized that the success stories had not been adequately translated at community levels. We further noted that farmers participation in the project activities over the years had begun to decline. We used a mode of participation that in hindsight we consider to have been overly consultative; community members had provided services to researchers

3 Community biodiversity management in Nepal 13 without seeing the benefits from those interactions themselves. Our actions in communities had served our interest in generating knowledge and understanding, furthering our academic career and publications, but they also responded to globally set research objectives. Community members challenged us on this, indicating that they had gained little from all their work. This reflection came as a shock to us, as we realized that we had been implementing participatory methodologies that directly served our and not the community s interest. We realized that in order to truly contribute to the implementation of in situ conservation on-farm, we needed to change the type of collaborative or participatory interactions, with the ultimate aim of reaching a mode of participation that is referred to as self-mobilization (Pretty, 1995). This response of the community to scientist-driven research should be placed within the context of the political transformation in which Nepal has been engaged over the past decade. In practical terms, the lead researchers engaged in the project, particularly from the government sector, had to devolve decision-making to farming communities and community-based organizations. It was not safe for any government-employed researcher to travel to villages and this diminished their capacity to be directly engaged in local research and development activities. A more direct implication that motivated the response of the local community to research-driven interventions in their community, as described above, was that local leaders questioned the relevance of any external development agency project to the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. In response to this political but also professional context, we recognized that, through our original scientific- and conservation-guided approach, we had created institutional modalities that only functioned with project support. The actions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and national partners, but also those of the communities, were dependent on the availability of project resources. The modalities we had used had created limited ownership of the community institutions over the conservation actions. Based on these reflections, we decided to conduct a joint project review. In order to respond adequately to the critique, the design of the review was interactive, meaning that all participating farmers groups, nodal farmers, project staff members and local stakeholders joined in the process (Subedi et al., 2005a). Through the review, the following series of major gaps were identified in the modalities we had up until that time been using: We did not adequately integrate livelihood priorities, or the interests of the communities and their institutions, into the design and implementation of the project. We followed a common design for achieving externally formulated objectives, which had serious implications, leading to restricted local ownership. We used and designed several new participatory methodologies that primarily served our own scientific agenda; farmers and their communities were consulted in our research process, but they did not have the benefit of setting their own agenda and developing their own institutions. We organized the capacity-building of local institutions on an ad hoc basis, or on the basis of project needs, without considering the agenda and needs of the community.

4 14 Abishkar Subedi et al. We applied mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation that complied with a scientific agenda, but which did not facilitate learning among local institutions and partners, as a result of which they pulled out of the network or reduced their involvement. We developed complex practices such as for participatory crop improvement and for the design of community biodiversity registers without building a proper foundation in the community, among farmers and their community institutions; as a consequence, they did not see the immediate benefits of those complex and long-term processes. The joint review of the agrobiodiversity project resulted in the significant reorganization and restructuring of the project. The lessons learned through this review were of vital importance to LI-BIRD, for transforming the capabilities gained through scientific research into a community-based methodology. Phase 3: Learning with community-based conservation actions ( ) The critical feedback obtained during the review exercise led to a rethinking of the whole modality of the agrobiodiversity project. In addition, we carried out an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT), and conducted sustainable livelihood analysis. We translated these lessons from tools into actions and the agrobiodiversity project continued in two ecosites, in Kaski and Bara. Ongoing conflict in Nepal disrupted travel to the project sites, and as such researchers were unable to carry out all the monitoring visits, particularly in the Jumla ecosite. Mainly because of this conflict, which caused fieldwork restrictions, LI-BIRD had to discontinue its activities in the Jumla ecosite in In the Kaski ecosite, supported by a grant from the Small Grant Programme of the United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment Facility in Nepal, we integrated different participatory methods into livelihood-based agrobiodiversity management. We moved beyond our original focus, which was solely on crops, integrating wetland and forest resources in our approach. This wider approach, coupled with the reflection of the communities, challenged us to seek methods and tools to address biodiversity in a broader sense. We aimed towards social organization and autonomy at local level, fostering the interest of community members and their institutions in biological resources. To ensure follow-up and sustainability we teamed up with local government agencies. Our focus on strengthening community-based organizations (CBOs) in Kaski resulted in the establishment of Pratigya Cooperative, Rupa Fisheries Cooperative and the Kishna Dekhi Kishan Samma (KIDEKI). Each of these has taken on a leadership role in managing various resources: agriculture and horticulture (Pratigya Cooperative); wetlands (Rupa Fisheries Cooperative); and forest diversity (KIDEKI). The establishment of these CBOs led to enhancing the capacities of local farmers and their groups (Subedi et al., 2005b). Many of the practices that we had previously been implementing as single activities, such as the diversity fair, diversity blocks and value addition activities, have now become an integral part of livelihood-based community action plans, and as such are

5 Community biodiversity management in Nepal 15 part of a larger process. An example of this can be seen in the participatory genetic enhancement of the Jethobudho local rice variety, a process that contributed to its conservation but also created opportunities for income generation by farmers and their local institutions. This experience is further described by Silwal et al. (Chapter 5.5). In close collaboration with these local organizations in Kaski, we were successful in introducing, experimenting with, and refining the modalities of the CBM fund, which are described in more detail by Shrestha et al. (Chapter 2.9). The CBM fund, as a mechanism for local financing, emerged as a mandatory step for sustaining conservation-oriented community action plans. It stimulated immediate interest among the farmers groups and a number of local biodiversity-based farmer entrepreneurs. These groups were quick to take out loans from the CBM fund, from which they were able to reap economic benefits, while providing services to the community and society through the conservation of agrobiodiversity. Even though the agrobiodiversity project was active in the Bara ecosite, a study carried out there following its first phase showed that farmers in Bara continued to lose local crops and varieties at an alarming rate (Chaudhary et al., 2004). Based on the awareness raised by the outcomes of the study, several farmers groups reorganized themselves into a registered local institution, which they called the Agriculture, Development and Conservation Society (ADCS). Its first intervention, the establishment of a community seed bank, responded to the most immediate challenge (i.e. the loss of local varieties, which is associated with aspects of seed security) (Shrestha et al., 2005). The community seed bank activities of the ADCS were instrumental in bringing together whole farming communities on topics related to the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity. The ADCS linked other practices to the community seed bank. The diversity fair was used as a mechanism to collect and share local varieties and associated knowledge. The diversity kit was effective for distributing the seed of rare but appreciated varieties; while the diversity block was crucial for recycling, multiplying and measuring the varietal performance of local varieties. Shrestha et al. (Chapter 2.2) elaborate on how these practices contribute to raising awareness and enhancing the understanding of communities on agrobiodiversity. The ADCS used the community biodiversity register, which is further described by Subedi et al. (Chapter 2.4), to locate custodians and to document the traditional knowledge associated with local crops and varieties. Plant breeders associated with LI-BIRD teamed up with the ADCS to engage in participatory plant breeding. A CBM fund was first set up by the ADCS in Bara to sustain the community seed bank operations, but it gradually evolved, like the CBM fund in Kaski, to promote livelihood- and agrobiodiversity-based enterprises, while also meeting conservation goals. Shrestha et al. (Chapter 2.9) describe how the maintenance of local varieties was included as a precondition to allow farmers to access the fund. Conservation goals have in such a way become embedded in the livelihood development strategies of local institutions. Phase 4: Emerging CBM methodology ( ) After our continuous efforts and experiences with pilot projects in two ecosites, we synthesized the whole process of CBM evolution. We began to understand which key

6 16 Abishkar Subedi et al. CBM steps: 1. enhance community awareness 2. understand local biodiversity, social networks and institutions 3. build capacity of community institutions 4. set up institutional working modalities 5. consolidate community roles in planning and implementation 6. establish a community trust fund 7. facilitate social learning and scale up for community collective action CBM practices: diversity fair rural poetry and drama diversity block diversity kit community seed bank community biodiversity register several methods of participatory crop improvement value addition and value chain development Figure Steps and practices of the methodology for community biodiversity management (CBM), as developed in Nepal. Participatory crop improvement in the context of CBM in Nepal includes the following methods: grassroots breeding, participatory enhancement of local varieties, participatory genetic enhancement of local varieties, participatory varietal selection and participatory plant breeding. steps the farming communities followed in the two ecosites; and which practices they employed to obtain social, economic and environment benefits. We at LI-BIRD, and among partners such as NARC, as well as our development partners, also began to reflect on lessons learned over the process of the evolution towards establishing CBM, and contributing to community empowerment. During this process of reflection and learning, we identified the seven steps of the process that we had developed, supported by a set of practices. Figure shares the steps and accompanying practices. The learning process and reflection laid the foundation to developing an overarching methodology that is today recognized as CBM (Subedi et al., 2005a). From these experiences, we defined CBM as a community-based and participatory methodology for strengthening the capacity of farmers and farming communities to manage their biodiversity for the benefit of the household and the community. The CBM methodology facilitates the identification, conservation, management, exchange and value addition of agrobiodiversity, through community actions. It aims to build the capacity of local communities to make their own decisions on the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity. It results in autonomy in decision-making on agrobiodiversity conservation and use at the community level; stimulates ownership; and supports community-based conservation and sustainable livelihood options, with minimal external inputs and risks. The processes of consolidation resulted in the publication of a manual on the CBM methodology with its practices (Sthapit et al., 2006). Phase 5: Scaling-up CBM at national, regional and global levels ( ) Once CBM had matured as a methodology, LI-BIRD was able link up with the Nepalese Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) in out- and upscaling CBM in locations beyond the two original ecosites. Several ministries took on individual CBM practices: the community biodiversity register was adopted by the Ministry of

7 Community biodiversity management in Nepal 17 Forestry and Soil Conservation; and the community seed bank was incorporated by the MOAC into their development programmes. Various stakeholders use the CBM methodology for contributing to conservation and livelihood development in 16 districts of Nepal. The MOAC uses the methodology in ten districts, supported by LI- BIRD. LI-BIRD began to encourage other NGOs in South Asia (Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka) to use the methodology, through the CBM South Asia programme, with financial support from the Development Fund, Norway. A number of international organizations became interested in CBM. Bioversity International and partners embraced the methodology in a regional project on cultivated and wild tropical fruit tree species. The project is being implemented in 36 communities in India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, with financial support from the United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment Facility. Ramesh et al. (Chapter 3.7) describe how the CBM methodology and its practices faced new challenges in the interface between the natural forest ecosystem, home gardens and semi-commercial orchards in the Western Ghats of India. The Centre for Development Innovation (CDI), at Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands, incorporated the CBM methodology as a key strategy for implementing in situ conservation in its annual global and regional training programmes, and in national training programmes that it conducted in Brazil, Ethiopia, Ecuador, India and Thailand. In 2009, CDI, in collaboration with LI-BIRD, Bioversity International and partners in Brazil, Ethiopia, India and Nepal, launched a global study on CBM and empowerment to compare different practices and realities at 15 selected sites. The global study addressed in detail the assumption that CBM is a methodology for achieving in situ conservation; it must also contribute to the empowerment of communities in managing their genetic resources. The study further shaped conditions for the establishment of a global network of organizations engaged in CBM. This informal platform includes CBM nodes made up of CBOs, NGOs and local universities. CBM nodes operate in 12 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. LI-BIRD, with support from Bioversity International and CDI, developed a joint project for exploring mechanisms through which CBM as a methodology can support the on-farm management of agrobiodiversity and enhance community resilience in the context of adaptation to climate change. The project, which is currently being implemented with financial support from the Benefit-Sharing Fund of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITP- GRFA), aims to develop a number of regional and national strategic action plans to further mainstream CBM in the context of on-farm management and community resilience. The future of CBM: building resilience in dynamic agrobiodiversity hot spots More than a decade of continuous involvement and experiences has enriched our knowledge and insights on how communities can effectively assess, monitor, add value to and manage agrobiodiversity. Furthermore, it shows that agrobiodiversity is a major source of livelihood for rural communities in developing countries like Nepal,

8 18 Abishkar Subedi et al. but also in developed countries like France. Our experiences in Nepal, but also those of our partners in Brazil, Ethiopia, India and many other countries, show that the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity are components of the livelihood development of farming communities in parts of the world that are also considered to be the centre of origin or diversity of our crops. Global and national priorities concerning long-term in situ conservation are still largely focused on wild or natural biodiversity, which covers 10 15% of the land of this planet on a permanent basis (Soutullo, 2010). Such priorities have not yet been translated into ways to manage agrobiodiversity in a sustainable way, and to reach a credible number of farming communities, in areas that are consistent in size with the potential value of the resources maintained. Therefore, we consider the logical next step to be that of consolidating the CBM methodology to identify and recognize agrobiodiversity-rich landscapes as permanent sites for the in situ conservation of local crops and varieties. With the CBM methodology we have the instruments in our hands to enhance the capacities of communities responsible for the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity. The development of conservation frameworks that recognize those communities as custodians of those landscapes is now required. We know that there are key differences in approaches and methods to managing rhinos and rice. However, through the evolution of CBM, we have gained an increasing body of empirical evidence on how we can better manage and sustain these dynamic and evolving productive landscapes. The dynamic management of agrobiodiversity in those hot spots that link local processes to global priorities is an investment towards sustaining agrobiodiversity for use by future generations.