LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature

7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature

1/36Farming with nature

december2004volume20no.4

Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture


2/36

Address:PO Box 2067, 3800 CB Amersfoort, The Netherlands

Visitors address:Zuidsingel 16, 3811 HA Amersfoort

Tel: +31 (0)33 467 38 70, Fax: +31 (0)33 463 24 10

Email: [email protected]

Editorial team

This issue has been compiled by: Electra van Campen,John Hollands, Anita Ingevall, Marilyn Minderhoud-Jones

and Wilma Roem.

Regional editionsLEISA Revista de AgroecologaThe Latin American edition in Spanish can be ordered

from LEISA Revista Peru, A.P. 18-0745, Lima 18, Peru.

Contact: Teresa Gianella-Estrems.


LEISA IndiaThe Indian edition in English can be ordered from AME,

No. 1583,17th Main Road, JP Nagar II Phase,

Bangalore 560 078, India. Contact: K.V.S. Prasad.


SalamThe Indonesian edition in Bahasa Indonesia can be

ordered from Veco Indonesia, JL Letda Kajeng 22,

Den Pasar 80234, Bali, Indonesia. Contact: Rik Thijssen.Email: [email protected]

AGRIDAPEThe West African edition in French can be ordered from

IIED, PO Box 5579, Dakar, Senegal. Contact: Awa Faly Ba.

Email: ag [email protected]

Revista AgriculturasThe Brazilian edition in Portuguese can be ordered

from AS-PTA, Rua Candelria, No. 9, 6 andar Centro,

Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil 20091-020.

Contact: Paulo Petersen. Email: [email protected]

AdministrationLila Felipie, Marlies Marbus and Natasha Leetion.

SubscriptionsSubscription rate for one year (4 issues): Northern

institutions and international organizations: US$ 45.00

(Euro 45), others US$ 25.00 (Euro 25). Local organiza-tions and individuals in the South can receive the

magazine free of charge on request. To subscribe: write

to ILEIA or send an email to: [email protected]

Back issues are available on the ILEIA website or can

be ordered from ILEIA.

ILEIA websitehttp://www.leisa.info

Design & layoutJan Hiensch, Leusden.

PrintingKoninklijke BDU Grafisch Bedrijf B.V., Barneveld.

FundingThe ILEIA programme is funded by Sida and DGIS.

Cover photoAn elk and her calf on farmland in Northern Sweden.

Photo: Bror Johansson, Windh.

The editors have taken every care to ensure that the

contents of this magazine are as accurate as possible.

The authors have ultimate responsibility, however,

for the content of individual articles.

ISSN: 1569-8424

LEISAMagazine on Low External Input and

Sustainable AgricultureDecember 2004 Volume 20 No. 4

LEISA Magazine is published quarterly by ILEIA

LEISA is about Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. It is about the technical and social options

open to farmers who seek to improve productivity and income in an ecologically sound way. LEISA is about

the optimal use of local resources and natural processes and, if necessary, the safe and efficient use of

external inputs. It is about the empowerment of male and female farmers and the communities who seek to

build their future on the basis of their own knowledge, skills, values, culture and institutions. LEISA is also

about participatory methodologies to strengthen the capacity of farmers and other actors to improve

agriculture and adapt it to changing needs and conditions. LEISA seeks to combine indigenous and

scientific knowledge, and to influence policy formulation in creating an environment conducive for its

further development. LEISA is a concept, an approach and a political message.

ILEIAis the Centre for Information on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture. ILEIA seeks topromote the adoption of LEISA through the LEISA magazines and other publications. It also maintains a

specialized information database and an informative and interactive website on LEISA (www.leisa.info).

The website provides access to many other sources of information on the development of sustainable

agriculture.

Readers are welcome to photocopy and circulate articles.

Please acknowledge the LEISA Magazine, however, and send us a copy of your publication.

14 The Talamanca Initiative

Diego Lynch

The Talamanca region in the south of

Costa Rica is the countrys poorest

region in socio-economic terms, butthe richest in terms of biodiversity

and tropical forest ecosystems. To

preserve this biodiversity, the

Amistad International Peace Park has

been established, covering parts of

Costa-Rica as well as Panama. Cacao

production was a major source of

income in the area and farmers were

hard hit when the devastating cacao

pod rot struck in 1979, forcing them

to abandon cacao production and

revert to tree felling, short-term

cropping and selling their land. Toreverse this situation a local NGO,

Asociacin ANAI, encouraged

farmers to diversify their farming

systems based on perennial crops and

ecological principles. They also

encouraged farmer organization and

developed a marketing cooperative

which introduced and developed the

growing and marketing of certified

organic products. In addition, locally-

owned ecotourism initiatives are now

being developed to conserve the

environment and protect livelihoods.

18 Cultivating wetlandsin Bangladesh

A.H. M. Rezaul Haq, Tapan Kumar Ghosal

and Pritam Ghosh

Bangladesh has the highest wetland to total land

ratio in the world. Cultivation on floating beds,

called soil-less agriculture or hydroponics, is an

indigenous practice in the south-western part of

Bangladesh. This practice is now receiving

renewed interest as a potential solution forfarmers whose lands have been waterlogged, and

also for landless people. In addition to being

highly productive, this system of cultivation

makes use of local resources, in particular the

masses of rapidly growing water hyacinths that

choke the waterways. It is also an

environmentally sustainable way to make use of

wetland areas.
http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/


3/36

4 Editorial

7 Farming with the wildDaniel Imhoff and Jo Ann Baumgartner

10 Community management of Afroalpine highlands in EthiopiaZelealem Tefera

12 Indigenous honeybees: allies for mountain farmers

Farooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung

14 The Talamanca InitiativeDiego Lynch

17 Harmonizing production and biodiversityMiguel A. Altieri, Angela Maria Burgos Herrera,Heiber Yovanny Armero Zambrano and Juan Martinez

18 Cultivating wetlands in BangladeshA. H. M. Rezaul Haq, Tapan Kumar Ghosal and Pritam Ghosh

21 A buffer zone for Sinharaja forest?Ajith Tennekoon

22 Pangalengan farmers: friends of the forestSamwel Wandera

24 Saving the forest through livestock intensificationPeter Spierenburg, Karma Tshering and D.S. Rai

26 Holistic management of African rangelandsConstance L. Neely and Jody Butterfield

29 Tell us your story!

29 Themes for 2005

30 Field notes

31 New books

32 Sources

34 Networking

36 Organic farming supports biodiversityAndy Evans and Ian Alexander

7 Farming with the wild

Daniel Imhoff and Jo Ann Baumgartner

D E A R R E A D E R S

In North America, present day agriculture plays a major role

in the rapid reduction of wild animal and bird populations.

Agriculture has converted more and more natural habitatsinto land suitable for highly intensive, large-scale crop and

livestock production. With the loss of habitats comes the loss

of species, and with the intensive production comes the

pollution of land, air and water, further reducing the

possibilities for wild life. A movement is now under way to

counter these effects, which can be described as conservation

based agriculture, agroecology, permaculture or farming

with the wild. The different expressions of this movement

have one aim in common: to combine the goals of

agriculture and conservation.

The Guassa area of Menz in the central

highlands of Ethiopia is one the very few

areas in Ethiopia where a community-

based natural resource management

system is operating. Known as the

Qero system, this system has ancient

roots but has managed to adapt to

radically changing conditions. Over the

years, it has enabled the sustainableutilization of this biodiversity-rich alpine

ecosystem, which is home to many

endemic species. Today theEthiopian

Wolf Conservation Programme is

assisting the communities to ensure the

future viability of this system.

10 Community managementof Afroalpine highlands in Ethiopia

Zelealem Tefera

In earlier issues we have focused on the importance of maintaining and enhancing

biodiversity on farm. Attempts to conserve wild biodiversity, on the other hand, have mainly

focused on establishing wildlife reserves. Today, however, agriculture and human settlements

have expanded to impact on every corner of the earth and reserves are far from enough tomanage the biodiversity crisis. The way we manage agriculture will have a major impact on the

conservation of biodiversity, both on and off the farm. In this issue, we have tried to highlight

some of the attempts that are taking place to achieve food production while preserving or

enhancing wild biodiversity. We are grateful for the collaboration ofEcoagriculture Partners

on this issue, in particular Sara Scherr, and also for the information and support provided by the

Equator Initiative (see Networking, p. 34).

In this magazine you will find a poster enclosed. We hope you like it and that you will display it

where it can attract many new subscribers to theLEISA Magazine and thereby increase the

growing network of LEISA readers all over the world. We would like to take the opportunity to

thank those who have let us use their photos for the poster: Will Critchley, James Jayaraj

and Anita Ingevall; and also Teresa Gianella, Jorge Chvez Tafur and Gaby Matsumoto of the

LEISA Revista de Agroecologa team in Peru, for revising their original poster design for our use.

We would also like to thank all the readers that have replied to the Readers Survey. To date, we

have received 1150 replies. Most of those that have replied have been kind enough to write long

comments and it is really encouraging to read about all the initiatives that our readers are

involved in.

The Editors


4/36

Editorial

As human beings, we exist as part of a web of life that includes

plants, animals, and microorganisms, as well as the physical

environment. This web is constantly changing and adapting,

but we need to ensure that it stays more or less in balance. Animportant factor in this balance is the diversity of life or

biodiversity (see box).

Biodiversity refers to the variability of all organisms, including

their genetic diversity and the diversity of ecosystems in which

they live. Diversity is important for two main reasons to

maintain healthy, balanced ecosystems in the wide range of

environmental conditions present on earth at many different

scales, and to provide resilience to change.

A range of organisms help to maintain healthy ecosystems

through the processes of which they are a part. Together, these

processes contribute to the ecosystem services which continue

to enable life on earth. For example, the protection andmaintenance of productive soil and water resources through

processes such as maintenance of water quality, reduction of

runoff, improved water infiltration, and maintenance of soil

fertility through organic matter decomposition and erosion

control. Plants and animals also contribute to carbon

sequestration, pollination, dispersal of seeds and the provision of

habitats for all the organisms that help maintain healthy

ecosystems. On a global scale, a diversity of ecosystems is

important to regulate climate and the water cycle, and to provide

resilience to global climatic change.

Ecosystem services like clean water, fresh air and fertile soils are

usually taken for granted and regarded as free resources: we donot pay any attention to them as long as they continue to function.

However, when they start breaking down, we are faced with

serious problems. Short-term economic goals, increasing

emphasis on ownership of land and decreasing responsibility for

communal and global resources result in the degradation of those

resources. And yet, ecosystem degradation on a wider scale

means less water for people, crops and livestock; lower crop,

livestock and tree production; and greater risk of natural disasters.

For rural people, managing biodiversity has always been a central

part of their livelihood strategies. Biodiversity contributes in

different ways to agriculture and rural livelihoods either directly,

by providing food, medicines, timber, fuel, fodder, organic

fertilizer, or cash income or indirectly by providing ecosystemservices such as biological pest control, pollination or organic

matter decomposition. However, some organisms such as weeds,

parasites, pests or invasive species can also reduce agricultural

production or negatively affect ecosystem services. Wild relatives

of domesticated crop and animal species are also important

resources for the genetic improvement of domestic species. Wild

species that are not directly important to agriculture can

sometimes cause problems for farmers. However, these species

can be important for the balance of the wider ecosystem.

Biodiversity provides an important safety net, helping farmers

to cope with the risks posed by pests and diseases, as well as

environmental and social changes. It also forms a part ofcultural identity. In a world where more and more geographical

barriers are being broken, not only plants and animals, but also

humans are subject to increasing pressure from outside their

usual ecosystem. It is becoming more and more important to

4

maintain the cultural identities that have developed together with

a particular environment.

For over two decades, ILEIA has considered Farming with

nature to mean farming in a way that builds on natural

processes, maintains a healthy environment and supports

livelihoods at the local level. This issue ofLEISA Magazine

takes one step further: it looks at the contribution farming can

make to the sustainability of life on earth on a broader scale

and the importance of wild biodiversity for the maintenance of

the healthy landscapes and watersheds we all need to survive.

Biodiversity or agricultural development?Agricultural development has in most cases been pursued

without considering its effect on biodiversity. Likewise, efforts

to conserve biodiversity and protect watersheds and other keyecosystem services have typically relied on the establishment of

protected areas that officially exclude agriculture. This

segregation of farming and environmental conservation is

no longer viable in many parts of the world. At least half the

worlds temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forest ecosystems

are dominated by crop and pasture production, mostly in low-

productivity systems. Most of the over 100 000 areas that have

been set aside to preserve wildlife and ecosystems contain

significant amounts of land used for agriculture, while many

more are islands in a sea of farms, pastures and production

forests that are managed in ways that are incompatible with the

long-term survival of species and ecosystems.

In addition, pressure on agricultural land is increasing. Globaldemand for food and fibre is expected to grow by at least

50 percent in the next few decades, and much more in low-income

developing countries. Nearly 40 percent of the earths total land

area is already used for agriculture, and there is very little land left

that is considered potentially suitable for agricultural production.

To make matters worse, productivity is declining substantially on

many agricultural lands and each year, some 5 to 10 million

hectares of cropland is taken out of production because of soil

erosion, nutrient depletion, salinization and waterlogging.

Conserving biodiversity in agricultural landscapesLEISA farming practices contribute to the maintenance of

ecosystem services on a local scale. In addition, small-scalefarms are in general more biodiverse than larger farms, as they

are often more ecologically and intensively managed (see Altieri

et al., p. 17). However, to effectively conserve wild biodiversity

in agriculture-dominated ecosystems, we need to move beyondLEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004

Farming with nature

Biological diversity or Biodiversity refers to the variety, distribution

and abundance of the different plants, animals and microorganisms,

the genetic diversity they contain and the ecological functions and

processes they perform at local, regional or landscape levels.

An Ecosystem is a system of living organisms (e.g. plants, animals,

and microorganisms) together with their physical environment and

the interacting processes between them. Ecosystems do not have

fixed boundaries in time or space, since their components can change

rapidly or slowly, depending on many different environmental factors.

A Habitat refers to the specific environmental conditions required for

a particular species to thrive.


5/36

Movements (IFOAM) has now begun an initiative to more

systematically identify criteria for organic farmers to achieve

wild biodiversity conservation as well as sustainable production.

Healthy agricultural systems support ecosystem functions and

contribute positively to the health of the surrounding

environment. Tennekoon, for example (p. 21), describes the

efforts of an NGO in Sri Lanka to improve cultivation methods

for tea in the buffer zone of the countrys last viable remnant ofvirgin tropical lowland rainforest. By introducing more

sustainable agricultural practices and controlling erosion, they

have effectively created a new buffer zone for the forest, and this

has slowly helped reduce the siltation of the Sinharaja watershed.

At the same time, they have also increased sustainability and

productivity of tea production on already cultivated lands.

Leaving space for wild speciesProtecting and restoring wildlife habitats across the landscape can

be achieved through linking protected natural areas by using in-

between spaces to provide corridors and networks. Non-

cultivated areas on and off farms can be used effectively, for

example by allowing natural vegetation to grow along riverbanks,

irrigation canals and natural waterways; on uncultivated stripsbetween crop fields; on roadsides; or as windbreaks or live fences.

Other areas such as forests, woodlots and parks can also harbour

significant biodiversity if they are managed appropriately.

Communities are often willing to protect these areas when they

have a say in their development and management, and where

they are designed to provide local benefits as well as broader

conservation goals. Practical examples of farmers and herders or

ranchers deliberately making space for wild biodiversity are not

yet commonplace, but do exist. Imhoff and Baumgartner (p. 7)

present a number of examples from the United States where

farmers are using organic methods, while at the same timedeveloping habitat networks for wildlife throughout farming

landscapes. In Zimbabwe, holistic resource management

approaches are regenerating grazing areas while also allowing

for the presence of wildlife (Neely and Butterfield, p. 26).

5

Photo:JohnHollands

Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) strolling over a recently sown

potato field in Kanglung, East Bhutan.

farm level and consider the effects of management practices on

both humans and wildlife, on a landscape scale. A landscape

is a mosaic of land uses with a particular pattern of topography,

vegetation, land use and settlement, usually kilometres-wide.

Ecosystems must be managed as a whole with protected areas as

reservoirs of wild biodiversity within a matrix of land that is

managed to protect its habitat value, while also providing food

and income to people.

Over half of the worlds most species-rich areas contain large

human populations whose livelihoods depend on farming,

forestry, herding or fisheries, many plagued by chronic poverty

and hunger. In these areas, the potential for conflict between

demands for food, ecosystem services and rural livelihoods

reaches a peak. Managing landscapes for both agricultural

production and biodiversity conservation is therefore particularly

important in and around protected areas of high biodiversity

value. It is also of paramount importance in biologically degraded

landscapes, where ecosystem services essential for sustainable

agriculture and local livelihoods need urgent rehabilitation.

Managing entire ecosystems or entire landscapes with the goals

to both feed people and protect wild biodiversity can provide along-term approach to securing the livelihoods of local people

and be a cost-effective approach to biodiversity conservation.

There are two interrelated approaches to achieving these goals.

The first is to maintain healthy and diverse agricultural

production systems that produce the goods we need while still

maintaining important ecosystem services for example

through LEISA practices. The second is to leave space and

habitats for wildlife in unused areas of the farm and

surrounding areas. This is important for the wildlife itself and

the balance of wider ecosystems, but it can also benefit farmers

by providing habitats for beneficial organisms such as

pollinators and other beneficial insects.

Maintaining ecologically healthy agriculturalproduction systemsConventional agricultural development and intensification has

contributed to the decline of biodiversity in agricultural production

systems. These agroecosystems have been dramatically simplified

in order to bring them under full human control by clearing

native vegetation; modifying hydrological systems and water

sources; by radically simplifying the types of vegetative cover; and

by replacing natural processes with chemical inputs. To make

agricultural production systems more friendly to biodiversity

requires a change of management practices in order to work with

nature as far as possible, instead of attempting to simply control it.

This includes a reduction in the use of chemical inputs, changes inthe management of vegetation, soil and water resources; and an

increase in the diversity of domestic species grown on the farm,

particularly perennial crops, grasses and trees whose production

does not require repeated cultivation.

Reducing the use of chemical inputs can help improve farmland

habitats for wildlife. This can also be very important for

productivity: important pollinators like bees, for example, are

very susceptible to chemical pesticides. In the United Kingdom,

a study on biodiversity in organic and conventional farms

demonstrated clear benefits of organic systems to biodiversity

throughout the whole food chain. This was thought to be mainly

due to the absence of inorganic pesticides or fertilizers, as wellas the mix of livestock and crop production and better boundary

infrastructure, especially hedgerows, resulting from the

livestock element of organic farms (see Evans and Alexander,

p. 36). The International Federation of Organic Agricultural

LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM

BER2004

>>


6/36

Nature areas, even if they are unsuitable for regular use,

can provide an important resource bank for surrounding

communities. In the Afroalpine highlands in Ethiopia,

communities have been protecting the Guassa area for centuries in

order to periodically and sustainably use the resources it provides

grass for thatch, grazing and fuelwood (Tefera, p. 10). In the

United States, a similar strategy is used by the Malpai Borderlands

Group on ranchlands although in this case the land is owned not

by the communities but by a benevolent rancher (p. 9).

One strategy for leaving space can be to intensify production

in one area, in order to reduce pressure on another. Spierenburg

et al. (p. 24) provide an example of how park management staff

and the government extension agency in Bhutan are joining

together to relieve grazing pressure on old growth forest by

assisting farmers to intensify livestock production in the area.

Farming communities as stewards of biodiversityIt is often necessary to combine many different elements of land

use and management to achieve healthy ecosystems at a

landscape scale. This requires action by farmers, communities

and broader land use initiatives. The Talamanca Initiative in

Costa Rica, for example, is helping farmers to maintain a very

biodiverse farming system based on ecological production

methods and diverse products (Lynch, p. 14). In this way, the

farmers are helping to preserve the Mesoamerican Biological

Corridor which links many smaller reserves with theAmistad

park, thereby linking a wide network of habitats in this

extremely biodiversity-rich area. Ecotourism has now become

an important source of additional income for the farmers.

There are also other examples from around the world where

local communities play a critical role in conserving biodiversity.

A recent review found that forest communities conserve over

400 million hectares more than the total land area of public

protected areas. In Indonesia, displaced farmers have revitalizeda farmers organization and are now working together with the

Department of Forestry to gain their livelihoods from the forest

in an environmentally friendly way and at the same time acting

as guardians of the forest.

6

LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004

>>

Skylark.

Photo:ChrisGomersall/rspb-images.com

New management practices and technologies may sometimes be

needed to develop systems that enhance both production and

conservation, particularly in more intensively managed farming

systems. But in many cases, the source of good solutions lies

embedded in traditional knowledge and technologies. Haq et al.

(p. 18) describe a story from Bangladesh that shows how an

adaptation of the traditional practice of cultivating on floating

beds has helped a community to deal with an environmental

change. Traditional practices have also proven an especially richsource of modern innovation in pastoral systems, as illustrated

in Zimbabwe (Neely and Butterfield), in agroforest systems

(Altieri), and in mountainous regions (Ahmad et al., p. 12).

Thinking long termRealistically, landscape management that successfully combines

the goals of biodiversity conservation and agricultural production

will require the support of many different stakeholders.

Integrated approaches to participatory landscape planning and

stakeholder negotiation can provide a good foundation for this

work. Yet, a range of incentives for agricultural development still

work against the small-scale farmer and promote agrochemical-

based intensification and the destruction of biodiversity and

ecosystem functions. Change on a global scale will not bepossible without major changes in policy, trade and economic

systems. Here, organizations likeEcoagriculture Partners may

be able to play a significant role by facilitating dialogue and

collaboration among farmer and community organizations,

conservation organizations, agricultural researchers, the food

industry, municipalities and public agencies to help coordinate

their efforts and to mobilize policy reform.

Much can be also done at local level to improve the synergy

between peoples livelihoods and maintaining healthy

ecosystems that include wildlife. Where people have lived for

centuries they have usually developed a successful system for

living with the environment in a sustainable way. This isbecoming increasingly rare, as people everywhere are subject to

migration and many different kinds of upheavals. In many cases

there is a need to rebuild livelihood security, social capital, and

an understanding of the importance of maintaining the

environment in the long term.

Farmers and rural communities can become leaders in

environmental stewardship and demonstrate their continuing

central role in national development. It is important to

strengthen the capacity of farming communities to play this role,

by re-orienting conservation, technical assistance, research and

other institutions to support them. Education and training

programmes need to explicitly link production and biodiversity

perspectives, objectives and strategies. Farming communitiesneed to be actively involved in designing and championing

national conservation policies. They can advocate for a more

enabling policy environment for small-scale, ecologically-based

farming a policy environment that rewards and enables

farming communities to be effective environmental stewards at

the same time as meeting their own needs, in a way that

maintains the health of the wider ecosystem.

Acknowledgements

This editorial has been developed together with Sara Scherr ofEcoagriculture

Partners (see Networking, p. 34).

References

- McNeely, J. and S. Scherr, 2003. Ecoagriculture: strategies to feed the world andsave wild biodiversity. Island Press, London, UK.

- Hodgkin, T.; K. Atta-Krah; J. Thompson; D. Jarvis; C. Hoogendoorn and

S. Padulosi, 2004. Managing genetic diversity in agroecosystems:state of the art

and implications for Ecoagriculture. Invited paper for International Ecoagriculture

Conference and PractitionersFair, September 27- October 1, 2004, Nairobi, Kenya.


7/36

diverted for irrigated agriculture. Around the world those

irrigation systems remain remarkably inefficient, wasting

precious water resources. Because of many factors including

dams, agricultural pollution, and the draining of wetlands for

agriculture about one-third of the worlds freshwater fish are

now extinct, threatened, or endangered.

Here are some other alarming statistics about industrial

agricultures impacts on the North American aquatic habitats:

On average, twenty-five percent of groundwater that is

used for agriculture in the United States is not recharged or

filtered back into the underground reservoir;

Ninety-eight percent of U.S. rivers have been dammed.

This severely impacts the ecological function of river

systems, the seasonal flows and abundance, and affects the

diversity of species that depend on river habitats;

Sixty percent of U.S. rivers are polluted by agricultural

sedimentation, excessive nutrients and pesticides.

The increasing large-scale production of animals in massive

confined animal feeding operations also creates devastating

ecological impacts. The concentration of thousands of pigs

stacked in cages on top of one another, or dairy cows in

operations as large as small cities, generates toxic gasses and

groundwater pollution, raises ethical questions and threatens

human health. There are other negative impacts as well:

Converting grasslands to millions of hectares of maize and

soybean monocultures to feed confined animals leads to

groundwater contamination, loss of topsoil and the

widespread decline of many grassland songbird species;

Excess nitrogen and nutrients flowing into the MississippiRiver mainly from fertilizer runoff and animal manure from

feed farms in the Upper Midwest of the USA contribute to

an approximately 13 500 square kilometre dead zone of

oxygen depletion in the Gulf of Mexico.

Daniel Imhoff and Jo Ann Baumgartner

In the world of sustainable agriculture, we hear a lot about the

term biodiversity. This might refer positively to the protection

of soil organisms such as earthworms or mycorrhyzal fungi. Or it

could refer negatively to the devastating loss of traditional cropdiversity and the dwindling numbers of plant and animal

varieties and breeds that are maintained and used by humans.

It is less often, however, that we hear people speaking about

wild biodiversity in dialogues about sustainable agriculture,

or about the healthy living spaces or habitats needed to

support native flora and fauna in the areas where agriculture

takes place. In some ways this is understandable. After all,

agriculture at its very root involves the domestication of the

wild. Agricultural operations commonly reduce complex

landscapes into zones of intensive production for just a handful

of crops, or more often, a single monoculture.

What has become particularly apparent in North America,however, is modern agricultures role in the biodiversity

crisis. Over the past two centuries, agriculture production has

converted more and more native areas to agricultural lands

from river valleys to grasslands, to wetlands, uplands and

woodlands. In order to compete in global markets, to pay for

expensive machinery and inputs, or simply to create clean

farms without weeds, more and more natural vegetation has

been erased from farmlands. With the clearing of natural

vegetation comes the loss of plant and animal species. The

result is that wild biodiversity has been pushed further and

further into isolated pockets in the landscape. Agriculture has

become the leading cause of species endangerment on the North

American continent and the situation is not that different inother regions throughout the world.

Consider agricultures unquenchable thirst for water. More than

two-thirds of the worlds available fresh water supplies are now

7

LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM

BER2004

Farming with the wild

This photo shows the Animas Valley in southwest New Mexico. This is part of the Gray Ranch, owned by one of approximately twenty landownerswho belong to the Malpai Borderlands Group.

Photo:D.Imhoff


8/36

Today, roughly two-thirds of public, private, and tribal lands in

the USA are used for agriculture, either in grazing, haying or

row cropping. This spread of agriculture, primarily to support

the grain-fed livestock industry, has had follow-on effects across

the whole landscape. Half of the wetlands in the lower 48 states

of the USA have been lost in the last century. Each year, some

670 million birds are exposed to pesticides in the United States,

and 10 percent die as a result. In order to protect livestock from

predators, an estimated 100 000 coyotes, bobcats, bears, wolves,and mountain lions are killed each year by U.S. Department of

Agricultures Wildlife Services. It is not surprising, then, that

farming contributes to 42 percent of the endangered species

listed in the United States, and ranching to 26 percent. At best,

only 9 percent of U.S. lands have been protected as natural areas.

The protection of biodiversity therefore depends on the

protection, restoration, and expansion of wildlife habitat in

existing agricultural lands.

Conservation-based agricultureThe good news is that efforts have been underway for some time

to combine agriculture and biodiversity conservation. This

movement can be described by a number of terms: conservation-

based agriculture, agroecology, agroforestry, ecoagriculture,permaculture, orfarming with the wild. In fact, the idea of

integrating farming and conservation has deep roots in the North

American environmental movement. Defining what he called

biotic farming in 1939, ecologist Aldo Leopold wrote:

A good farm must be one where the wild flora and fauna has

lost acreage without losing its existence.

In the past decade, a growing number of farmers, ranchers, land

trusts, government agencies and consumers are finding that

local agricultural operations can not only provide essential

sources of nutritious food, but also critical habitat for wild

species. Native plant specialists are seeking out remnants ofprairies and woodlands and are using local seeds and plants to

bring farm edges, riparian areas, and marginally productive

fields back to life. In the Sky Islands region of the south-western

United States, community organizers, conservationists, ranchers

and farmers have been working for over a decade to build the

public will and develop strategic plans to connect protected

wilderness through corridors that provide stepping stones for

pollinators, allow lightning-ignited wildfire to travel through

selected grasslands, and offer safe passage for large

carnivores such as jaguars and Mexican wolves. Grass farming

is becoming a preferred method of raising dairy and meat cattle

in areas with year-round rainfall, an alternative to massive

confined animal feeding operations that house tens or even

hundreds of thousands of animals on a single farm. Croppingsystems are being tailored toward specific climate

characteristics or the needs of threatened species. Predator

friendly ranchers are learning to coexist with large carnivores

by emphasizing careful breed selection, improved fencing,

guard animals, and more hands-on management techniques.

Following are three case studies:

Audubon Californias Yolo County LandownerStewardship ProgramIn an industrial agricultural region of Californias Central Valley,

a county-wide movement is underway to reverse decades of

conventional clean farming practices. Yolo Countys farming

with the wild movement began like many initiatives around thecountry, with the efforts of a few brave individuals. Twenty years

ago, unsatisfied with a landscape void of any native habitat along

ditch banks, between fields, and along roads, John and Marsha

Anderson began bringing the edges of their 200 hectare property

Hedgerow Farms back to life. A weed-free farmscape doesnt

have to mean vegetation free, explains Anderson.

Anderson studied Californias original oak savanna ecosystems

to create hedgerows and buffer strips of native grasses, shrubs,

and trees between f ields. Vegetation was re-established along the

irrigation canal that runs through the farm. Seasonal wetlands

were restored in low-lying areas. Ponds were built at the bottom

of furrow-irrigated fields to filter water and runoff and provideyear-round wetland habitats. Eventually, over 50 species of native

perennial grasses, forbs, rushes, shrubs, and trees were planted

around field borders, roadsides, riverbanks, and other unused

strips of the farm. Two decades later, beavers, carnivores, dozens

of bird species including three types of owls, and up to ten

threatened or endangered species f ind haven at Hedgerow Farms.

Research scientists from the University of California found that

the hedgerows provided a year-round supply of nectar and

pollen sources for beneficial insects and pollinators, thereby

contributing positively to the farms output. The Yolo County

Resource Conservation District also took notice of the important

habitat restoration underway and began developing both

expertise and cost-share funds to support regional landowners.

Inspired by the efforts at Hedgerow Farms, more of the countys

farmers and ranchers initiated restoration projects on their

properties. Planting of perennial grasses, prescribed burns for

weed and vegetation control, the installation of corridors along

waterways, tailwater ponds and stock ponds, as well as therevegetation of irrigation canals and waterways, are becoming

standard practices throughout the region. Partnering with

landowners, local agencies and other groups, the county now has

an ambitious plan to create habitat linkages on both public and

8


This photo shows intensive grazing in a pasture at Enchanted Meadows

dairy farm in southeastern Minnesota. By carefully rotating the

lightweight, climate-adapted Ayrshire dairy cattle to rested pastures,farmer Art Thicke runs a profitable operation free of antibiotics or

hormones (for the animals) and free of herbicides, pesticides, or

fertilizers on the pastures. More importantly, Thicke keeps cattle away

from important edge habitat near the woods until after the late spring

nesting season, in an attempt to protect grassland bird species greatly

at risk from habitat loss.

Photo:D.

Imhoff


9/36

Grass-based pasture systemsIn the Blufflands region of southeastern Minnesota, a few

kilometres from the Mississippi River, lives a farming family

that cares almost as much about resident prairie birds as they do

about their modest herd of carefully bred Ayrshire dairy cows.

Owners Art and Jean Thicke prefer the Ayrshires because they

are hardier, lighter in weight, and longer-lived than conventional

Holsteins. By frequently rotating the herd between pastures,

they can also maintain critical breeding habitat for many at-risksongbird species, such as meadowlarks, bobolinks, dickcissels,

and savanna and vesper sparrows.

The Thickes intensive rotational management system is based

on maintaining a balance between activity and rest. The

approximately 40 hectares of hilly pastures on Enchanted

Acres have been divided into 42 grazing units, just under a

hectare in size. The 90-plus dairy herd is usually moved twice

per day. By carefully responding to changing conditions on the

land, as well as to the seasonal behaviour of local wildlife, the

Thickes have created a stable ecosystem within which to make

their living as productive farmers. No chemical fertilizers or

herbicides have been applied to the pastures for 25 years, and

the land hasnt been ploughed in 15 years. And while alfalfa,corn, and soybean farms throughout the Midwest lose topsoil to

erosion on an annual basis, living pastures such as these keep

soil from washing away and help maintain a healthy water cycle.

In fact, they have much in common with the prairie ecosystems

that previously existed on this regions fragile soils.

The Thickes have been operating their grass-fed dairy long

before management-intensive rotational grazing systems

became fashionable. Their approach is based largely on intuition

rather than prescribed management techniques, and the results

are healthy cattle sharing the land with other species in the

biological community.

ConclusionIt is becoming increasingly obvious to leading practitioners of

sustainable agriculture in the USA that we must view our farms

as natural habitats, not just as production units. Experience also

shows that incorporating natural habitats into agricultural areas

has measurable benefits, including the increase of soil

organisms that create healthy growing environments; the

increase of pollinators and beneficial insects that help increase

yields and control pests; and stable waterways that protect water

quality, prevent erosion and help comply with federal and state

regulations. Beyond these direct agricultural benefits, however,

lie essential contributions to society and the biological

community in general. To the extent we agriculturalists succeed

at protecting wild biodiversity, we also profoundly deepen whatwe mean by sustainability.

Daniel Imhoff. Watershed Media, 451 Hudson Street, Healdsburg, California,

95448 USA. Email: [email protected]

Jo Ann Baumgartner.Wild Farm Alliance, P.O. Box 2570, Watsonville, California,

95077 USA. Email: [email protected] ; website: http://wildfarmalliance.org

References

- Stein, Bruce; Lynn. Kutner and Jonathan Adams, 2000. Precious heritage:

the status of biodiversity in the United States.New York, NY. Oxford University

Press.

- Foreman, Dave, 2004. Rewilding North America:a vision for conservation in the

21st century. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2004.

- Imhoff, Daniel, 2003. Farming with the wild: enhancing biodiversity on farmsand ranches. San Francisco. Sierra Club Books/Watershed Media.

- Jackson, Dana and Laura Jackson, 2002. The farm as natural habitat:

reconnecting food systems with ecosystems. Washington D.C. Island Press.

- U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1996. Americas private land: a geography of hope.

USDA, Washington D.C, USA. http://209.234.81.2/product.asp?ID=17

private lands on the boundaries of urban expansion throughout

this largely rural area. These efforts will protect riparian areas and

link critical upper rangeland habitats, an essential strategy to

maximize the protection of native species, such as native

pollinators.

Throughout the county, these programmes also use restoration

projects as opportunities for field visits and hands-on learning

for students with limited access to rural areas. The Student andLandowner Educational Watershed Stewardship Project, for

example, brings students from regional schools to participate in

habitat plantings and monitoring efforts up to 50 days per year.

The Malpai Borderlands GroupIdentified as one of the pioneering organizations in the

conservation ranching movement, the Malpai Borderlands Group

consists of approximately two dozen landowners whose ranches

collectively span nearly 400 000 hectares in South Western New

Mexico, South Eastern Arizona, and Northern Mexico. The

Group was formed in the early 1990s by ranchers concerned

about the long-term effects of fire suppression and overgrazing,

which had caused critical invasions of brush and woody species

into what had formerly been luxuriant grasslands. At a time whenanti-grazing activism became politically contentious, the

founders of the Malpai Borderlands Group forged an alliance

based on the common appreciation for the open space that un-

fragmented ranch lands provide. Another unifying concern was

that their activism should be guided by sound science.

Fires have always been a significant natural process in

maintaining the natural grassland ecosystem. Among the first

concrete efforts of the Malpai Borderlands Group was the

establishment of theBootheel Fire Management Plan. Based on

five years of scientific research, as well as consultation with

state and federal agencies and private landowners, the plan

identified landowners within the region who were willing toallow lightning-ignited and prescribed wildfires to burn on their

properties as a means to reduce shrub encroachment and

rejuvenate grasslands. A simple, colour-coded fire map was

compiled including owner names, boundary lines, and contact

numbers. The colour coding explained whether fires should be

left to burn, put out as soon as possible or if the landowner

would like the opportunity to decide. Today, as a result of this

initiative, tens of thousands of hectares of grasslands now

benefit from the restorative effects of occasional burning.

Another important community initiative developed by the Malpai

Borderlands Group is the grassbank. With neighbouring

ranchers experiencing a number of consecutive years of serious

drought conditions, Malpai Borderlands Group co-founder DrumHadley offered grazing allotments on his extensive Gray Ranch

as a regional safety valve. These short-term arrangements

permitted neighbouring ranchers to move their cattle to the

abundant grasslands of the Gray Ranch, while restoring their own

pastures from the ill effects of overgrazing. In return for the

grazing privileges, grassbank participants enrolled selected lands

in permanent conservation easements legal agreements to

protect against subdivision. With an emphasis on protecting un-

fragmented habitats, the Malpai Borderlands Group grassbank

programme has allowed tens of thousands of grasslands to be

reseeded and rejuvenated by fire, and has registered

approximately 18 000 hectares in permanent conservation

easements. This model has been replicated as a regionalconservation tool in various communities, but it needs to be

carefully studied with the objective to optimize grassland

restoration, rather than simply to maximize grazing in arid

regions.

9

LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM

BER2004


10/36

10

Zelealem Tefera

Environmental conservation has often been characterized by atop-down approach that includes the establishment of protected

areas, enforcement of legislation and the assumption of

ownership of biodiversity by the State. This approach reflects

the suspicion of governments that local communities are

incapable of managing their own resources. Thus, while these

approaches have ensured the survival of a few populations of

certain species and ecosystems and contributed to foreign

exchange earnings, they have been slow to integrate local people

into resource management and decision-making activities. Local

communities who live near protected areas and whose

populations have invariably grown, are instead faced with a

rapidly diminishing natural resource base, often resulting in

conflicts between local communities and environmental

conservation authorities.

There are exceptions, however including ancient examples of

local communities establishing natural resource management

systems that are essential to the peoples livelihoods and also to

the persistence of biodiversity. These examples not only need to

be closely examined to reveal how they work, but they also

deserve our full support in a changing and threatened natural

world. Following is an experience from Ethiopia, a country which

has suffered untold environmental disasters and biodiversity loss.

Community-based natural resource managementIn the Central Highlands of Ethiopia, there is a small (111 km2)

patch of land which has persisted in its current, relatively pristinestate for the past four hundred years. The area, called Guassa by

the local Menzi people, ranges from 3200 to 3700 metres above

sea level. It is part of the Amhara Regional State of North Shoa,

265 km northeast of the national capital Addis Ababa.

The natural resource management system of the Guassa area

dates back to the 17th Century. Given that it still persists, this

makes it one of the oldest conservation areas in sub-Saharan

Africa. The area was set aside as a resource for the community,

who use it for harvesting the Guassa grass (Festuca sp.) for

thatch, for grazing livestock, and for harvesting shrubs for

fuelwood. In essence, the use of these resources was restricted to

a limited number of users during a limited period of time. The

right to use the resources of the Guassa area depended on theprevailing land rights and tenure system, which was based on

ancestry and controlled by the Ethiopian Coptic Church.

As with any restricted system, it required regulation and

enforcement. The local people developed an indigenous institution,

known as Qero. This entailed each of the two user communitiesin the area democratically electing an elder as a headman, called

the Abba Qera. The Abba Qera was then responsible for protecting

and regulating the use of the Guassa area.

The Qero system could entail the closure of the Guassa area

from any type of use by the community for as long as three to

five consecutive years. The length of closure depended largely

upon the growth of the Guassa grass. When both of the Abba

Qeras felt that the grass was ready for harvest, they would

announce the date of the opening to the community. This usually

took place at public gatherings such as church ceremonies,

market places, or burial ceremonies.

The area was usually only open for use at the height of the dryseason around February or March each year. There was also a

sequence to its use: only once the grass cutting was over were

livestock allowed to graze the Guassa area. When the wet season

started the use of the area was once again prohibited, giving the

resources time to regenerate. The traditional date of closing each

year was the 12th of July, the date for breaking the second most

important fasting season of the Coptic Church.

While the area was closed, the prohibition of its use was strictly

enforced by the users themselves. Under the leadership of the

Abba Qera, household heads regularly patrolled the area. Every

able male household head was obliged to take part. Failure to

participate would result in severe punishment in someinstances, punishment could even result in the burning of the

absentees house.

Drastic changesIn 1974 a popular uprising, a revolution, swept the country.

On March 4th 1975, the new revolutionary government

proclaimed the nationalization of all rural land. Over large parts

of Ethiopia, the relationship between tenant and landlord was

dissolved. The proclamation abolished private and community

ownership of land and gave all farmers the same right to

cultivate land within the framework of state ownership. It also

established peasant associations to distribute and regulate the

use of land. As a result, the Qero system was abolished, together

with its mechanisms of natural resource management. Thechanges also gave people who had earlier been excluded from

resource use, uncontrolled access to the Guassa area.


Community management ofAfroalpine highlands in Ethiopia

Photo:StuartWilliams

An Ethiopian wolf seeking rats among giant lobelias in the Afroalpine

ecosystem of Guassa-Menz.


11/36

These include the most endangered canid in the world, the

Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), also known as the Simien fox.

With an estimated 530 individuals in the world, Guassa - Menz

protects one of the major populations. The Afroalpine ecosystem

also harbours astonishing densities of rodents, on which the wolf

preys. The other important species of the area is the endemic

gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada). It is the only surviving

member of a once widespread genus Theropithecus. These

magnificent animals with their lion-like manes are the onlygrazing primates in the world. They aggregate into huge herds of

up to 400 animals. They too deserve the protection afforded to

them by the Guassa area. Bird species have also benefited from

the Qero system and 111 species have been recorded in the area.

One striking feature of the birdlife in the Guassa area is the

abundance of birds of prey that feast, with the wolves, on

abundant rats.

Rain that falls in the Guassa area starts a long journey to the

Mediterranean through the Nile river. Indeed, 26 rivers, springs

and streams have their origin in the area. The ecological service

provided by the protection of the vegetation by the local

community is invaluable to all the downstream users all the way

to Cairo! Finally, among the local communities, the area isrenowned for medicinal plants for human and livestock uses.

Now, through the partnership with theEthiopian Wolf

Conservation Programme, the communities are seeking to

broaden the benefits accrued from the protection of the area and

its unique fauna and flora. Tourists are welcome to enjoy the

area, and the people wish to accrue benefits from the visitors.

ConclusionThe contribution made by the Qero system to the conservation

of highland biodiversity in Ethiopia is comparable with areas

protected under the more formal conservation system of the

country. However, unlike other protected areas, the Guassa areacommunity-based natural resource management system also

provides the community with valuable resources in times of

stress.

In general, indigenous communities have developed ways of life

remarkably tuned to their local environment. Their long

association with their territories has resulted in developing

strong ties to their lands, expressed in customary laws, complex

religious ceremonies, symbolic activities and extremely detailed

knowledge of their resources. Such knowledge may be deeply

coded within traditional lore, handed down and refined from

generation to generation.

The long association with their environment and commitment toremaining there in the future equips indigenous communities for

prudent management of natural resources even by present day

standards. Indigenous communities have held resource

management systems under complex, often overlapping tenure

rights, which share benefits across their community and exclude

non community members. Traditional systems are in effect a

partnership between individuals and their community, where

rules and regulations enshrined within the traditions of the

society ensure the smooth functioning of the system. Indigenous

systems of communal land use may therefore offer greater

promise for sustainable conservation than Western systems.

However, indigenous resource management systems are

undergoing rapid change and it is not clear to what extent theycan be maintained during changing circumstances.

Zelealem Tefera. EWCP, P.O. Box 101426, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.


11

LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM

BER2004

One of the strengths of community-based institutions is their

resilience their capacity to cope with change. When the Qero

system was abolished, the community adapted to the condition

set by the new regime. They brought their case to the new local

administration, and a new Guassa Committee was formed

through the eight peasant associations. To some extent this

replaced the former Abba Qeras, with the aim of overseeing the

activities of the peasant associations for the protection of the

Guassa area. The main function of the Guassa Committee was toenforce agreed by-laws, particularly to control illegal uses of the

Guassa area during the closed season. The system was enforced

by local militia from the peasant associations. Illegal users were

prosecuted in the local courts, while repeated offenders were

taken to the woreda (district) court.

Despite the apparent adaptability and resilience of the system to

the new regime, it was less efficient than before and the area

started to show signs of overuse and degradation. Indeed, by the

mid-1990s, the system was collapsing under the strain.

However, the Guassa area was not brought under crop

cultivation despite the general craving for land. Its saving

feature was the altitude: the Guassa area is above the tree line,

which makes cultivation very difficult, and there is therefore nopermanent human settlement in the area. The area continues to

play an important role in the livelihoods of the Guassa

communities and it is therefore not surprising that they have a

vested interest in safeguarding the area.

TheEthiopian Wolf Conservation Programme (EWCP) had been

concerned with the conservation of the area because of the

important population of Ethiopian wolves that lives there. Thus,

in November 2003, the EWCP facilitated a discussion among

community leaders, elders and concerned individuals in all the

eight peasant associations about the future of the area. This

resulted in the formation of a new committee and new by-laws.

Today the Guassa area is managed by a committee comprisingof five elected elders from each of the eight peasant

associations. They form the Guassa committee, which oversees

the use of the area, guards it and prosecutes illegal users.

The first meeting of the Guassa committee, in view of the

decline of the area in recent years, resulted in the closure of the

area for three years starting from June 2003. It will be open

again for a few months (March - June) in 2006. The EWCP

continues to be involved by monitoring the effectiveness of the

community management and assisting in bringing together all

stakeholders for workshops and conferences.

On top of this, the people decided there was a need for a

management plan which would be recognized by the regionalgovernment. In effect, this would mean the classification of the

area as a community-based and managed protected area the

first of its kind in Ethiopia. Such a classification would secure

the traditional form of land-use and the livelihoods of the local

community. Recently, a draft management plan was reviewed by

all stakeholders. It is anticipated that the management plan will

be approved by the regional Environmental Protection and Land

Use Authority, thereby giving an ownership certificate of the

Guassa area to the communities.

Biodiversity benefitsBy regulating the exploitation of the area, the ancient system

has also protected the unique and diverse fauna and flora of thearea. The Guassa area harbours many of the endemic species

of fauna and flora associated with the Afroalpine ecosystem.

For example, there are 22 mammal species found in the area,

27% of which are endemic to Ethiopia.


12/36

12


Photo:S.R.Joshi/ICIMOD

A mountain village in Nepal.

Indigenous honeybees:allies for

mountain farmersFarooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung

In mountain agriculture, f ield crops, fruits, vegetables, livestock

and honeybees combine to provide self-sufficiency for farmers.

Together, they help provide the resilience necessary to live with

the hardships and extremes of mountain environments.

Indigenous honeybees play an important role in mountain

ecosystems. They are the natural pollinators for a wide variety of

mountain crops as well as indigenous plants. While visiting

flowers to collect nectar, the bees transfer pollen from one

flower to another. Three quarters of the worlds cultivated crops

are pollinated by different species of bees, and honeybees are

the most effective and reliable pollinators. They also play anoften unrecognized role in maintaining the vegetation cover:

more pollination means more seed, more young plants and

eventually more biomass, providing food and habitats for birds,

insects and other animals.

There are very few areas in the world where indigenous species

of honeybees other thanApis mellifera still exist, and even fewer

where the indigenous honeybees can be kept in hives and

managed by farmers.

In the Hindu Kush Himalayas, indigenous honeybees include

Apis dorsata, Apis florea, Apis laboriosa (bees whose products

can be collected but which cannot be kept in hives) andApiscerana. In addition to their importance for pollination, these

bees contribute directly to the livelihoods of mountain people by

providing honey and other bee products.Apis cerana, the Asian

hive bee, is particularly important to mountain farmers as a

source of cash income. This species is well suited both to the

climatic conditions in the region and to the farming practices

that are typical of these marginal, mountainous areas. It has the

ideal characteristics to ensure the pollination of mountain crops,

having adapted its foraging patterns to suit the changing

flowering and nectar production rhythms that result from the

uncertain and variable climatic conditions in mountain areas. It

can work under cool conditions up to an altitude of 3000 metres

and is ideally suited as a pollinator of early flowering crops like

almonds, peaches and plums. Kept in hives in the backyards,these bees pollinate kitchen garden crops, usually the main

source of vegetables. The indigenous bee offers a further

advantage in that it keeps going even under adverse conditions;

if the situation becomes really difficult the colonies may migrate

temporarily, but the bees come back to their hives when

conditions allow them to do so.

Decline in native pollinatorsDespite an increasing recognition of their important role in

pollination, the population and diversity of native bees is

declining in the region. Factors causing the decline include

habitat loss through land use changes, increasing monoculture

and negative impacts of pesticides and herbicides. In addition,the well-intended introduction of the European honey bee,

Apis mellifera, to the Himalayas has brought difficulties for

indigenous bee species, partly because of competition for nectar

in some areas, but more importantly through the introduction of

different types of contagious bee diseases and harmful mites.

AlthoughApis melliferapotentially produces more honey than

the indigenous honeybees, it is not as well adapted to the local

climatic conditions and the indigenous vegetation, making it aless effective pollinator. The introduction has therefore

adversely affected the livelihoods of mountain farmers. In spite

of these developments,Apis ceranabeekeepers with backyard

bees are still being confronted by development extensionists

trying to encourage introduction ofApis mellifera in the areas

of origin ofApis cerana.

In isolated mountain areas like Jumla and Humla in Nepal and in

many parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, subsistence

farmers are totally dependent on their own resources for their

survival. Due to environmental degradation as well as poor

pollination, the quantity and quality of many life-saving

mountain crops is declining signif icantly, making survival

increasingly difficult and forcing people to migrate to the plains.The situation is similar in many other areas of Nepal and

Afghanistan.

Decline in fruit and seed productionAgriculture in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region is in a stage of

transition from traditional cereal crop farming to high-value

cash crops such as fruits and vegetables. This ongoing

transformation from subsistence to cash crop farming poses a

number of new challenges, including low production or crop

failures due to inadequate pollination. This emerging problem

has been documented in a series of f ield studies carried out by

ICIMOD across the region. Findings suggest that the decline in

pollinator intensity presents a serious threat to agriculturalproduction and maintenance of biodiversity. The negative impact

of declining pollinator intensity is visible in Himachal Pradesh

of India, Azad Jammu and Kashmir of Pakistan as well as in

mountain areas of Afghanistan and China.


13/36

Despite increasing agronomic inputs, there is a clear decline in

the production and quality of fruit crops such as apples, pears

and almonds, and seed crops such as buckwheat. In fact, the

negative effects of these agronomic inputs on pollinators is one

of the major causes of pollination failure and hence the observed

declines in productivity. For example, apple cultivation in

Himachal Pradesh in India, though it initially gave significant

economic gains, has resulted in a loss of agriculturalbiodiversity and a decline in natural insect pollinators. In this

area, farmers are now compelled to rent colonies of honeybees

for pollinating their apple orchards. At present, it is mostly the

Department of Horticulture and a few private beekeepers that

rent out bee colonies to apple farmers. The current rate for

renting anApis cerana orApis mellifera colony for apple

pollination is US$20 per colony. Only a few farmers keep their

own colonies for pollination. A heavy demand for honeybees for

pollination has been created, and there are not enough bee

colonies to meet this demand. Hence, in the apple growing areas

of Himachal Pradesh, there is a tremendous scope for

entrepreneurial beekeeping for pollination.

In Maoxian County, Sichuan, China, farmers have resorted tohand pollination of their apples and pears, as there are not

enough natural insect pollinators to ensure a proper fruit setting.

Awareness about the use and function of honeybees is lacking,

and the beekeepers in this area hesitate to let their bees into this

fruit-producing valley because of the serious overuse of

pesticides in apple orchards. In Pakistan, disappointed farmers

are cutting down their apple trees and recently ICIMOD found

evidence of cutting down almond orchards in the Bamiyan

valley of Afghanistan due to low yields caused by insufficient

pollination.

A major reason for this development is the lack of awareness on

the importance of pollinators for crop production, as well as lackof knowledge about the habits and management of bees. The

promotion of beekeeping has focused only on honey production,

neglecting the more valuable role of bees in pollination. Farmers

13

are therefore usually unaware of the role of bees as well as of the

need for suitable polliniser varieties in the pollination process: In

order to pollinate fruit such as apples, for example, the bees first

need to take pollen from a compatible variety of apple and bring

this pollen to the tree being pollinated (see box).

New focus in beekeeping

ICIMOD is working to address the pollination issue inpartnership with local people and grassroots networks and more

than 25 institutions of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China,

India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan. ICIMOD is engaged from

policy to action level in promoting the importance of pollination

for mountain agriculture. The programme is focusing on the

conservation and sustainable management of wild bees,Apis

dorsata andApis laboriosa, and on promotion and sustainable

management of the Asian hive bee,Apis cerana, through

selection and breeding in collaboration with local communities.

This programme

intends to improve

livelihoods by

increasing pollinator

intensity withoutdisturbing local

biodiversity.

A selection and

multiplication

programme on

indigenousApis

cerana in India,

Nepal and Pakistan

is being implemented through action research. Farmers are

involved in recording selection data and identifying better

colonies for multiplication. Mass queen rearing from these

colonies helps in increasing pollinator intensity and honey yield.

Databases on the cliff sites and nesting habitats of wild

honeybees are also being developed to monitor the trends in

their population with the help of local communities. Honey

gathering communities have been sensitized to protect and

conserve the nesting habitats of the wild bees, which provide

them with additional income, thereby contributing to the

conservation of biodiversity.

In addition to playing a crucial role in pollination and thereby

improving crop yields, honeybees contribute in a balanced way

to rural development efforts leading to secure and sustainable

livelihoods.

Farooq Ahmad,Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi,and M.B.Gurung. ICIMOD,

P.O. Box 3226, Jawalakhel, Kathmandu, Nepal. Email: [email protected]

References

- Ahmad F; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2003. The Himalayan cliff beeApis

laboriosa and the honey hunters of Kaski. Indigenous honeybees of the Himalayas

(Volume I). ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 52p.

- Ahmad F. U. Partap; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2002. Please do not steal our

honey. Bees for Development Journal 64: 9.

- Gurung, M.B.; F. Ahmad; S.R. Joshi and C.R. Bhatta, 2003. The value ofApis

cerana beekeeping for mountain farmers in Nepal. Bees for Development Journal

69: 13.

- Partap, U., 2003. Improving agricultural productivity and livelihoods through

pollination:some issues and challenges. In: F. Waliyar, L. Collette and P.E.

Kenmore (eds). Beyond the Gene Horizon. pp.24-26. ICRISAT, India and FAO,

Rome.

- Partap U. and T. Partap, 2003. Warning signals from the apple valleys of theHindu Kush-Himalayas: productivity concerns and pollination problems.

ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 104 p.

LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM

BER2004

The importance of polliniser trees

In Himachal Pradesh in India, farmers used to plant many varieties of

apples. However, due to the better market value farmers have been

planting only Royal Delicious and uprooting other varieties. Royal

Delicious is self-sterile and requires cross-pollination from other

compatible varieties for fruit setting. Some farmers do not have even a

single polliniser tree in their orchards. So, wherever the orchards haveRoyal Delicious only, there are serious pollination problems.

Some farmers are now including polliniser trees in their orchards.

These are grafted on to commercially premium varieties for fast results.

Farmers have even devised short-term solutions to bridge the gap until

the grafted branches or newly-planted polliniser trees begin flowering:

Bunches of small flowering branches of the pollinisers called bouquets

are put in plastic bags filled with water. These bouquets are hung in the

branches of commercially premium varieties. This type of pollination

method is locally referred to as bouquet pollination. The large-scale use

of plastic bags has increased the price of plastic bags in the local market

from US$0.75 per kg to US$2.10 per kg.

Adapted from the article Declining apple production and worried Himalayan

farmers: promotion of honeybees for pollination issues in mountain development

2001/1, by Uma Partap and Tei Partap.

Photo:U.Pratap/ICIMOD

Hand pollination by human bees in China.


14/36

Diego Lynch

Talamanca is the region in the south of Costa Rica that stretches

from the Caribbean to the continental divide in the central

mountains, and borders on the southeast with Panama. It is the

countrys poorest region in socio-economic terms, but therichest in terms of biodiversity and tropical forest ecosystems.

It harbours almost three percent of the worlds known plant and

animal species, many of which are found only in this area.

Stretching from the highest point in the country to sea level,

Talamancas natural features include cloud forests, steep

mountainsides, rich alluvial plains, mid-altitude and lowland

rainforests, large expanses of wetlands, and offshore, a variety

of marine ecosystems including Costa Ricas only coral reef.

The Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves, covering over

500 000 ha and including the seven national parks in the area,

were declared a UNESCO World Heritage Biosphere Reserve in

1982.

Talamanca is home to more than half of Costa Ricas indigenous

population, including peoples of the Bribri and Cabecar tribes,

each with their own language and customs. The

Hispanic/Mestizo population is also unusually diverse, due to

historic and continuing immigration from various parts of Costa

Rica and Central America. Along the coast the dominant group

is English-speaking West Indians of African origin. Smaller

numbers of immigrants from elsewhere have also established

themselves there.

Traditionally, cacao was grown extensively in the region with

very few inputs and little effort. It formed a component of the

very diverse indigenous systems. In the late 19

th

century, bananagrowers invaded Talamanca and drove the indigenous people off

much of their land. Talamanca was one of the f irst parts of the

world where bananas were grown for international commerce.

Eventually, the banana companies abandoned Talamanca in the

14

late 1930s due to Panama disease, declining soil fertility and a

huge flood that destroyed most of their infrastructure. They tried

to maintain ownership and control over their land by planting

cacao plantations, managed by a small number of ex-banana

workers in exchange for the harvest. The indigenous people who

returned from their high mountain retreats to settle again plantedcacao along with subsistence crops in their traditional way.

Other settlers managed parts of the old plantations more

intensively.

In 1978, the area was devastated by the appearance of the fast-

spreading moniliapod rot (Monilia roreri). As a result, most

cacao plantations were cut down or abandoned and many were

transformed into cattle pastures and short-term cropping

systems.

To help local people address the economic and social crisis

brought on by the appearance of moniliapod rot, a local NGO,

Asociacin ANAI, and later two other organizations, the

Association of Small Producers of Talamanca (APPTA) and theTalamanca Caribbean Biological Corridor (CBTC) started an

initiative to encourage farmers to put into practice methods that

both conserved the environment and generated income. This

local initiative encouraged diversification based on perennial

crops and ecological principles. It also encouraged farmer

organization and ownership of a marketing cooperative,

introduced and helped develop the marketing of certified

organic products and developed ecotourism. The success of this

initiative has now been internationally recognized.

The Talamanca InitiativeKnown as the Talamanca Initiative, these three partner

organizations, each with its own programme and specificobjectives, share the common goal of improving the quality of

life in Talamanca through the preservation and environmentally

ethical use of its outstanding biodiversity and unique

ecosystems. A common core belief is that the key to

conservation and sustainable development is the successful

management of these issues by the local people. It is based on

five core principles:

1. No inherent contradiction exists between economic

development and environmental conservation. If

communities and nations are to thrive, development and

conservation must take place together.

2. The best stewards of the tropical lowlands are the campesinos

(small-scale farmers) and Indian farmers who have dedicatedtheir lives to these lands.

3. All natural tropical areas that are not protected will be

radically altered during our lifetime. We must work to protect

these areas and preserve their biodiversity for future

generations to enjoy.

4. The natural forest and other unique primary ecosystems are

Talamancas most economically valuable asset in the long

term.

5. A successful strategy to address these issues must

successfully integrate environmental, social, economic and

organizational needs.

Finding suitable farming methodsThe first step was to f ind an alternative to cacao as a source ofincome. Talamancan farmers knew that diversification was the

answer to sustaining their livelihoods, as it would protect their

crops from disease and provide year-round food and income.LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004

The Talamanca Initiative

Photo:APPTA

The Talamanca region stretches from the highest point in Costa Rica

down to the Carribean Sea.


15/36

Between 1985 and 1990, more than two million seedlings of

cash crops, food crops and trees for timber were planted on the

regions family farms, creating a larger and much more diverseresource base. The variety of plants and trees mimicked the

variety in natural forests and so helped to support biological

diversity a key to thriving human and natural communities.

Commercializing crop diversificationTo make crop diversification economically viable APPTA

developed a local processing infrastructure and marketing

strategies. ANAI identified the potential for growing and

marketing organically grown crops, and used this information to

find and develop markets, locally and worldwide. Receiving fair

trade and organic certification from internationally recognized

organizations was an instrumental step that made it possible to

pursue these new markets. Together, ANAI and APPTAestablished one of the first organic certif ication programmes for

small farmers in Costa Rica, certifying the first 500 farms, and

subsequently helping to facilitate the creation of ANAO, the

national organic agriculture association. This has now developed

into a national certif ication agency, Eco-Logica, a key element

in Costa Ricas growing organic agriculture movement. The

price premium farmers are receiving for their certified organic

products ranges from 15 to 50 percent.

Today, over 1500 Talamancan farmers have established organic

agro-ecosystems, combining commercial crops with food

security strategies in a multi-story planting system that mimics

the structure and function of the rainforest.

Talamanca has become the largest volume producer and exporter

of organic products in Central America, generating an annual

income of US$500 000, which is channelled into the local

economy through a large number of family farmers. Current

sales of organic banana generate more than US$12 000 per

week. Demand for organic cacao has outgrown supply, so the

programme is being expanded to neighbouring countries to meet

demand. Smaller volumes of many of the other perennial crops

introduced during the nursery project are now being marketed

by APPTA to Costa Ricas biggest chain of food stores, thereby

distributing the farmers income more evenly over the year. This

distribution of income is perhaps even more important than the

amounts involved, since it improves social stability and allowsfarmers to stay on their farm with their family all year, instead of

having to migrate seasonally in search of paid work.

>>

The problem was, how? The region is characterized by a humid

tropical climate with frequent torrential rainfall, steep slopes and

limited infrastructure.

ANAIs vision was to minimize destructive agricultural practices

by establishing diversified agroforestry systems. These agro-ecosystems would mimic the natural forest and complement the

conservation of biodiversity in the natural forest areas that exist

in patches throughout the region and as a large block in the

national park area. Because tropical rainforests maintain almost

all their nutrients in the trees and other plants, when a forest is

cleared almost all the nutrients are lost and the original forests

cannot be regenerated. This combination of agroforestry and

natural forest would not only preserve the biodiversity of the

region, it would protect the watersheds and provide

opportunities for tourism and local recreation. It would also

allow the sustainable harvesting of wood and other products,

such as medicinal plants.

ANAI began by planting organic crops on their experimentalfarm in 1980, eventually planting more than 150 species of fruit,

nut and spice crops that had been identif ied from the worlds

lowland rainforest areas as having the potential for integration

into Talamancas small farm systems. This included local

varieties of bananas and many types of less known fruit trees,

such as araza,sapoti and jackfruit. Using the information

gathered during the crop trials, ANAI helped local farmers

establish tree nurseries in every community of Talamanca, an

innovative approach that allowed the distribution of the new

crops and new varieties of cacao to communities far from the

nearest road.

These community nurseries were developed not only as a meansof producing seedlings locally, but also as community training

centres and focal points for community organization.

Galvanizing community movementANAI learned early in the process that most people and

communities had little experience of coming together in groups

to make decisions and solve problems. The nurseries became

meeting places where people could learn about crops and come

together to organize community work. Large numbers of people

became engaged because participation resulted in both tangible

and intangible benefits for them and their families.

ANAIs leadership helped catalyse the formation of multiple

grassroots organizations. Over four years (1985-1989), ANAImet weekly with farmers from each community,

Date post:	24-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	loznjakovic-nebojsa
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature

Documents