MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT BRIEF - IPGRI
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT IDENTIFIERS
1. Project name:
Community-based management of on-farm plant
genetic resources in arid and semi-arid areas of
Sub-Saharan Africa
3. Country or countries in which the project is
being implemented:
Bénin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali,
Uganda, Zimbabwe
2. GEF Implementing Agency:
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
4. Country eligibility:
Countries ratified CBD as follows:
Bénin - 30.6.94; Burkina Faso - 2.9.93; Ghana 29.8.94; Kenya - 26.7.94; Malawi - 2.2.94; Mali 29.3.95; Uganda - 8.9.93; and Zimbabwe - 11.11.94
5. GEF focal area (s)
6. Operational program/Short-term measure:
Biodiversity
This proposal falls under Operational Programme
number 1: Arid and Semi Arid Zone ecosystems.
7. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans and programs
Traditional farming systems and conservation of local cultivars and associated indigenous knowledge (that
are an essential component of sustainable crop production, household income and human nutrition for many
of the poor farmers found in fragile semi-arid ecosystems of Sub-Saharan Africa) is under threat and
growing pressure resulting in genetic erosion of crop diversity. In situ strategies are an important and
complementary component of the overall agrobiodiversity conservation efforts that aim to conserve not only
crop genetic resources but also crop evolutionary processes. With the signing of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992, in situ conservation for crops and their related genetic resources has
been given prominence in global and national policies for biodiversity conservation. However,
implementation programmes towards policy support of the science and practice of in situ conservation, and
in particular on-farm conservation, lag behind CBD commitment in most countries in SSA.
The need to develop activities on in situ conservation of plant genetic resources is emphasized in the CBD
and in agenda 21. Article 2 of the convention, defining in situ conservation, specifically includes reference to
domesticated or cultivated species (and by inference, to on-farm conservation). This is also anticipated in
article 8, which requires signatory nations to “preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices
of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity …”. Agenda 21 reflects this commitment to in situ conservation as an
essential component of sustainable agriculture, and in Ch 14, notes the need for establishing programmes
and policies to strengthen in situ conservation. In its second meeting, the Conference of the Parties to the
CBD (COP2) identified implementation of Article 8 of the CBD as a high priority and reaffirmed the
importance of regional and international cooperation for the implementation of this Article. It also stressed
the importance of the exchange of relevant information and experience among all stakeholders on measures
taken for its implementation (Decision II/7 of COP 2). All the participating countries have ratified the CBD
as indicated above in section 4, and the national GEF focal points for Bénin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya,
Malawi, Uganda and Zimbabwe have already endorsed this proposal. Letters of support for the proposal
from the PGR focal point and the Minister of Lands have also been received from Ghana, and from the
secretary general in the Ministry of Environment in Mali. Confirmation of endorsement by the GEF focal
points of Mali is expected shortly. Letters of support and endorsement are attached.
The National biodiversity strategy and action plan for Bénin recognises the importance of conservation
activities within agro-ecosystems. It states that the conservation of landraces and indigenous knowledge are
a national priority. In Burkina Faso, In situ conservation of agro-biodiversity has been part of the national
research and development strategic plans since 1995.However, the national biodiversity strategy recognizes
that farmer’s varieties are under great threat from recent trends in agriculture that result in their
abandonment. It states that legislation should be developed to support their conservation. Kenya's National
Biodiversity Strategy notes among its main objectives the need for adopting appropriate agricultural
practices, which will include efficient farming techniques. Its National Report notes that while the
government promotes improved varieties, there are cases where the farmer traditional varieties are superior
7. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans and programs cont.:
for one reason or another. It further notes that gaps exist in the legal framework concerning indigenous
knowledge and that further gaps exist in the rights for material that is being cultivated on a limited scale by
local communities. Conservation of reservoirs of genes resistant to biotic stresses is noted as a national
priority and given the importance of landraces in crop resistance, this project would be of importance to
achieving this objective. Malawi's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan states as one of its main
objectives the need to "ensure that indigenous knowledge systems are documented and accounted for in line
with Intellectual Property Rights to achieve fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from use of
biological resources in the country:" Mali’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan recognises the
socio-economic significance of sustainable conservation of biodiversity that has direct implications to food
security. It also recognises the pressures posed by “unsuitable” legislation to the conservation of pant
varieties that local communities depend on. Uganda's National Report to the CBD notes that there is
increased concern over the impact that reliance on ''modern'' agriculture is having on loss of traditional
knowledge on crop varieties on-farm. One of its objectives to address this issue is to conserve farmer
varieties on-farm and subsequently develop guidelines for sharing of benefits from genetic resources and.
This project would contribute to the fulfilment of these objectives by increasing understanding of the
contribution of farmer maintained landraces on-farm to this issue.1
The countries also expressed interest in the theme of this project in their Country Reports written as input to
the Global Plan of Action (GPA) on Plant Genetic Resources (PGR). Countries expressed a need for in situ
conservation on-farm during the regional meetings that were held as part of the International Conference
and Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ICPPGR) process, which culminated in the development of the
GPA. This interest is reflected in the GPA chapters 1 and 2, sections 1- 4. Interest was also expressed during
the GPA implementation follow-up meetings held in Cotonou and in Gabarone. On-farm conservation
(section 2) is by far the aspect of in situ conservation for which IPGRI most often receives requests for
assistance from national programmes. A major emphasis is on “local cultivars” as defined by Harlan
(1975), i.e., morphologically identifiable populations of a crop which have a degree of genetic integrity
maintained in part by natural selection and in part by human selection. Specific statements from each country
that address the projects linkages to each country’s national priorities are attached (Annex 3).
Many National PGR programmes in SSA are unable to meet their obligations towards in situ (more
specifically on-farm) conservation as stated in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Global
Plan of Action (GPA) because of ineffective enabling national policy environments that do not support
traditional farming systems and in situ conservation on-farm. To address these problems, this project
proposal, lays out an approach that builds on on-going projects to strengthen the scientific base of in situ
conservation on-farm. The on-going projects have a research focus in understanding and supporting farmer
decision-making processes on the maintenance of landrace diversity. Through case studies, this project will
synthesizes existing knowledge of on-farm maintenance of local cultivars including their distribution and use
in Bénin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Uganda and Zimbabwe. The project will be primarily
concerned with the enhancement of community and farmer-based approaches to on-farm conservation and
will be used to draw best practices and lessons learnt, that will in turn, be useful in National decision making
processes on conservation and use of plant genetic resources.
These strategies and the approaches through which governments can incorporate traditional knowledge and
other best practices on farmers’ varieties into their agricultural sectors will be documented and extended,
and the capacities of national plant genetic resources programmes to enhance the support of in situ
conservation on-farm by farming communities will be strengthened. The lessons learnt will be used to
develop models to begin to integrate and incorporate the approaches into national decision making strategies
on PGR at the policy level. This is in accordance with article 6b of the CBD of which the COP of the CBD
has requested the GEF to take action. This project therefore contributes towards assisting national
programmes to meet their obligations in the CBD and GPA, thereby advancing global efforts to safeguard
the world’s plant genetic resources.
1
http://www.biodiv.org/natrep
2
8.
Status of national operational focal point review (dates):
Country:
Name, title, location of focal point:
Date of endorsement:
Bénin
Dr B.Dossou, La Directrice de l’environment, GEF focal point
23/11/98
Burkina Faso Dr J. B. Kambou, GEF focal point, Ministere de l’environnement et de l’eau, 18/12/98
Ghana
Dr C. Amoako-Nuama, Minister, Ministry of Lands,
13/10/99
Kenya
Dr.D.N.Kiyanjui, d/Director, Min.of Environ. Conservation, GEF focal point 3/12/98
Malawi
Dr Z.M Vokiwa, Director Environmental affairs, GEF focal point
14/10/99
Mali
Dr Kalilou Traore, Le Secretaire Général, Le Ministre de l’environnement
15/03/99
Uganda
Dr.Chris Kassami, Director, Min. of the Environment, GEF focal point
10/12/98
Zimbabwe
Dr C Chipato, PS for Mines, Environment and Tourism, GEF focal point
19/6/2000
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES:
9. Project rational and objectives:
Goal:
To improve the effectiveness of traditional farming
systems for conservation of crop landraces of local
and global importance.
Purpose:
To develop models for enabling environments for an
effective contribution of traditional farming systems
in biodiversity conservation and measures to
maintain and promote wider adoption of viable
systems.
Objectives:
1) . To develop a framework that links best
practices’ for conservation of crop landraces
on-farm to decision-making and policy
Indicators:
(a) Effective traditional farming systems for
conservation of crop landraces of local and
global importance in at least four of the
participating countries.
(b) Enhanced enabling policy environments and
harmonization of national policies that support
sustainable on-farm conservation of agricultural
biodiversity in at least four of the participating
countries.
2) . To build capacity in the application of both
frameworks in influencing policies that impact
on on-farm conservation of landraces
10. Project outcomes:
Indicators:
1) An inter-disciplinary scientific base of
conservation theory, methods and applications
available to the global community, for on-farm
conservation of agricultural biodiversity
particularly focusing on landraces.
a.
Utilization by policy makers, PGR programmes
and farmers, of the outputs of this project to
improve effectiveness of traditional farming
systems for conservation of crop landraces of
local and global importance.
b.
Minimum of 8 status reports on numbers, scale
and extent of genetic erosion of local crop
cultivars in selected areas in all partner
countries and distribution maps for local
cultivars
c.
Reports on the status of on-farm conservation in
selected areas in 8 partner countries.
d.
Minimum of 2 case study reports for integrating
indigenous knowledge on traditional local
cultivars into national agricultural policies and
plans;
2) Viable management strategies for the on-farm
conservation of farmers’ varieties
NB
The co-financing will largely be applied towards
achieving outcomes 1 and 2).
3) Knowledge of numbers, scale and extent of
genetic erosion of local crop cultivars in
selected areas in partner countries and
distribution maps for local cultivars
4) Analysis of effectiveness of community based
practices with global applicability that address
3
the conservation of agro biodiversity on-farm
5) Best practices identified and lessons learnt
documented and disseminated, with a view to
promoting their uptake into national strategies,
plans and policies in the participating countries
6) Best practices extended and implemented at
local level. These may include organisation of
community genebanks and seed fairs, improved
national genebank/farmer interaction, farmerled domestication of wild plants and
participatory plant breeding, etc.;
7) Framework that links best practices’ for
conservation of crop landraces on-farm to
decision-making and policy.
8) The capacities of national plant genetic
resources programmes to enhance their support
of on-farm conservation strengthened
e.
Framework for analysis of ‘best practices’ for
conservation of crop landraces on-farm.
f.
Identification, documentation and extension or
implementation of best practices of traditional
farming systems for conservation of crop
landraces of local and global importance in at
least 3 sites.
g.
Strategic framework for integrating in situ
conservation into national plans or policies
h.
Best practices manual published.
i.
Farmer communities, decision makers and
national PGR programmes capacities
strengthened to support on-farm conservation of
agrobiodiversity.
9) Decision maker’s analysis capacity strengthened
in the application of both frameworks in
influencing policies that positively impact on onfarm conservation of landraces.
10) Farmer communities with increased capacity to
use available agricultural diversity as part of
local and national development strategies
11) Process for placing national policies on
integrating traditional knowledge on landraces
initiated.
NB.
GEF financing will largely be used to achieve
outcomes 3 to 10.
11. Project activities to achieve outcomes:
(a) Enhanced communication channels between
projects, farmers, decision makers, formal and
informal institutions with regular updates and
exchange of information.
On-going IPGRI projects with a research focus in
understanding and supporting farmer decisionmaking processes on the maintenance of landrace
diversity will be entirely funded through co-financing.
GEF funding will help finance the following activities
to promote the integration of traditional knowledge
into national policies and plans on conservation of
agrobiodiversity based on lessons learnt. .
1)
Indicators:
(b) Present state of knowledge of on-farm
conservation in partner countries synthesized
and best practices analysed and made accessible
to all stakeholders.
Create project management framework in
partner countries, with links and interfaces to
relevant projects, formal and informal
institutions and farmers, through consultations,
meetings and establishment of required
partnerships and memoranda of understanding.
(c) Best approaches/models for integration of
traditional knowledge into national agricultural
polices/plans/strategies made available.
(d) The application of best practices carried out in
4
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
As part of this process a stakeholder analysis
and public involvement plan will be refined as a
first step to ensure a bottom up participatory
process. Annex 4 provides the format that will
be used for the detailed analysis.
Hold series of in-country public awareness
meetings
Recruit consultants to develop and draft
initial proposed methodology and framework for
conducting case studies through wide
consultation with partners. (Project
development)
Organise National consultations in case
study countries to discuss draft and further
develop methodologies descriptors and
indicators for conducting case studies.
Organise a regional workshop for all
participating project countries to harmonise
methodologies for conducting case studies.
Conduct surveys to determine the status of
on-farm conservation, the players involved, and
interventions proposed, but focusing primarily
on identifying best practices for on-farm
conservation of traditional varieties, and the
policies that impact on in situ conservation onfarm.
Initiate and/or support actions by
communities and farmers to enhance
performance of local cultivars for improved
livelihood of farmers through use of local crop
cultivars, including reintroduction of ‘lost’
cultivars from genebanks, where appropriate
and possible
Hold wide consultations with policymakers
and stakeholders, particularly the farming
communities, to evaluate the current situation
regarding policy related to traditional
knowledge and systems and their impact on
landraces and agrobiodiversity.
Analyse country situations and results of
pilot activities to identify best practices for
conservation and use of farmers’ varieties in
agricultural production systems.
Convene international meeting to present
and debate best practices (to be held in
conjunction with IPGRI2’s global project on in
situ conservation).
Hold policy level meetings to sensitise
policy makers and to identify and detail
approaches to supporting the integration of
traditional knowledge into national policies and
plans.
Recruit consultants to develop and test
all the participating countries
(e) Framework for the analysis of best practices
published.
(f) Framework that links best practices’ for
conservation of crop landraces on-farm to
decision-making and policy published.
(g) Status reports on numbers, scale and extent of
genetic erosion of local crop cultivars in
selected areas in partner countries and
distribution maps for local cultivars
(h) National management frameworks for the
implementation of on-farm conservation
strategies strengthened
The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org
2
5
framework that links best practices’ for
conservation of crop landraces on-farm to
decision-making and policy.
13)
Develop national capacity through training
in use of frameworks, and strengthen
appropriate institutional arrangements to ensure
sustainability of these systems:
12. Estimated budget (in US$ ):
GEF:
750,000
Co-financing:
IFAD
500,000
Netherlands
500,000
SDC (Switzerland) 300,000
Partner Country contributions: in kind through provision of infrastructure, staff time, etc.
TOTAL:
2,050,000 (cash) + in kind contribution
INFORMATION ON INSTITUTION SUBMITTING PROJECT BRIEF
13. Information on Project proposer:
The project is proposed and will be coordinated by the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI). IPGRI was established in 1991 as an autonomous International Research Institute under the aegis
of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and has the mandate of
advancing the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for the benefit of present and future
generations. The institute’s mission is to encourage, support and engage in activities to strengthen the
conservation and use of plant genetic resources worldwide, undertake research and training, and provide
scientific and technical advice and information. IPGRI is an institute that stimulates and supports
programmes conducted by other organizations. IPGRI’s mode of operation is perhaps unique in the CGIAR
system and in the field of international research and development. IPGRI does not have its own research
facilities but operates primarily as a catalyst and facilitator, contracting most of its research to partner
organizations. In this way, IPGRI works to enhance strategic and adaptive research aimed at solving key
genetic resources problems. IPGRI is also a specialized development agency that provides direct technical
support to national plant genetic resources programmes. Its way of working is based on strong linkages with
many partners, a pro-active bottom-up approach and needs-driven objectives. IPGRI responds to the need
and aspirations of its partners as collaboration with them develops. The flexibility of this approach allows the
institute to respond to changing needs and circumstances and to take a broad view of biodiversity issues in
general and the conservation and use of plant genetic resources in particular. IPGRI has an annual budget of
about $16 million. The funding consists of restricted and non-restricted grants from UN agencies,
governments and development agencies. The IPGRI Establishment Agreement has been signed and ratified
by 49 governments, including Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Bénin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece,
Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco,
Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Sudan,
Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine.
14. Information on proposed executing agencies:
The project will be executed in collaboration with the Institut Nationale de Recherché Agricoles du Bénin
(INRAB), Institut d’Études et de Recherché Agricoles (INERA) Burkina Faso, the Crop Research Institute
(PGRU), Ghana, the National Genebank of Kenya (NGBK), the National Plant Genetic Resources Centre in
Chitedze, Malawi, (NPGRC), Institut d’Économie Rurale (IER) in Mali, the National Agricultural Research
Organisation (NARO) Uganda and the Dept. of Research and Specialist Services (DRandSS), Zimbabwe.


Agricultural research in Bénin falls under the Institut Nationale de Recherché Agricoles du Bénin
(INRAB), which was create by decree n° 92-182 in July 6, 1992. INRAB’s mandate is to contribute to
the development of the national research policy in all the fields that fall under its responsibility,
including conservation of plant genetic resources.
The national coordinator for PGR in Burkina Faso is the Director of the Institut d’Études et de
Recherché Agricoles (INERA). INERA is the coordinating department for PGR activities in Burkina
Faso and all the PGR collections that exist in the country are held as working collections of INERA
6





breeders. INERA has already initiated in situ conservation projects within the national research
programme for PGR
The Plant Genetic Resources Centre (PGRC) in Ghana falls under the Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), which was established by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
Act, 1996, Act 521. The mandate of PGRC is to organize plant genetic resources activities in support of
the modernisation and diversification of agriculture in Ghana. The centre is mandated to work on all
crops except cocoa, coffee, cola, shea nut (which are the responsibility of the Cocoa Research Institute)
and oil palm and coconut (which are the responsibility of the Oil Palm Research Institute).
The National Genebank of Kenya (NGBK) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the Kenya
Agricultural Institute (KARI). Its mission is to protect, conserve and improve the basic resources on
which Kenya depends for agricultural development.
A genetic resources unit operating under the aegis of the Institut d’Économie Rurale (IER) in Mali is
currently coordinating the activities on plant genetic resources according to the National PGR plan.
The National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) in Uganda was established by statute in 1992.
Its mandate is to undertake, promote and co-ordinate research in all aspects of crops, fisheries, forestry
and livestock; integrate research, where needed, to avoid wasteful overlapping and duplication of
research; and make the most efficient use of available research resources.
The National focal points for PGR in Malawi and Zimbabwe are located within the National Plant
Genetic Resources Centre in Chitedze, Malawi (NPGRC) and the Department of Research and Specialist
Services (DRandSS) in Zimbabwe. Both these fall under the Southern Africa Development Conference
(SADC) Plant Genetic Resources Programme, coordinated by the SADC PGR Centre (SPGRC) in
Chalimbana, Zambia. SPGRC was established in 1988 by the SADC Member States as a non-profit
inter-governmental institution with the responsibilities of keeping the SADC base collection, and the coordination of PGR work within the region
15. Date of initial submission of project concept:
January 12th 1998
INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:
16. Project identification number:
Tbd
17. Implementing Agency contact person:
Ahmed Djoghlaf,
Executive Co-ordinator, UNEP GEF Co-ordination Office
18. Project linkage to implementing Agency program(s):
UNEP is the agency within the United Nations system with a mandate for catalysing the assessment of major
environmental problems and disseminating the resulting information for assisting decision-making. UNEP has
a primary role in the GEF in catalysing the development of scientific and technical analysis and in
advancing environmental management in GEF-financed activities. UNEP also provides guidance on
relating the GEF-financed activities to global, regional and national environmental assessments, policy
frameworks and plans and to international environmental agreements, conventions and policies. Of
particular interest to this project are UNEP's project on wild plant species:
The UNEP GEF PDF B proposal on "In-situ Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives Through Enhanced
Information Management and Field Application". The project will develop an information system and
utilize this information to determine priorities for conservation for wild crop relatives in Armenia, Bolivia,
Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan. Since IPGRI is one of the lead agencies behind this project, data
7
generated from this medium sized project will feed into the information system that is to be developed.
Another UNEP GEF PDF proposal under development is " Identification, Testing and Evaluation of Best
Practices for in situ Conservation of Economically Important Wild Plant Species". A consortium of
agencies including FAO, DIVERSITAS, IPGRI and IUCN will execute this project. The project will develop
methodologies for in situ conservation of wild plant species.
In situ conservation covers:
 conservation of ecosystems or agroecosystems;
 conservation of target species within ecosystems/agroecosystems;
 conservation of semi-domesticates or pre-domesticates in home gardens or traditional farming
systems; and
 on-farm conservation of landraces.
The projects noted above are concerned with (I) the conservation of ecosystems or agroecosystems; (ii) the
conservation of target species within ecosystems and (iii) the conservation of semi-domesticates or predomesticates in home gardens or traditional farming systems. The GEF medium-sized project focuses
primarily, on-farm conservation of landraces.
In addition, the UNEP GEF funded "People, Land Management and Environmental Change (PLEC)" is
under implementation and its participatory approach towards research has important lessons that this
medium sized project can benefit from. The project’s chief goal is to develop sustainable and participatory
approaches to biodiversity conservation within agricultural systems. To reach this goal, the project engages
local villagers and scientists in establishing demonstration sites in diverse types of ecosystems and areas of
globally significant biodiversity, such as forest, mountain, semiarid, freshwater, and wetland habitats in
Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas. Specific objectives are to:
 Establish historical and baseline comparative information on agrodiversity and biodiversity at the
landscape level in representative diverse regions
 Develop participatory and sustainable models of biodiversity management based on farmers’
technologies and knowledge within agricultural systems at the community and landscape levels
It will recommend policies and approaches to sustainable agrodiversity management to key government
decision-makers, farmers, and field practitioners. The approaches used in this project will feed into those
used in this medium sized project. To ensure this cross-fertilization of lessons learned, a member of the
PLEC management team will participate on IPGRI's project management team for the medium sized project.
8
Community-based management of on-farm plant genetic resources in
arid and semi-arid areas of Sub-Saharan Africa
Project Rational and Objectives:
1. In marginal agricultural areas where modern crop varieties and inputs are less
available and less effective for resource-poor farmers, the continuing use of local
cultivars contributes to stable food production and income. Increased population,
poverty, land degradation, environmental change and the introduction of modern crop
varieties have all contributed to the erosion of genetic resources in crops.
2. In the last few decades, agricultural scientists have responded to the threat of genetic
erosion by developing a world-wide network of genebanks and botanical gardens for
conserving useful genetic resources ex situ. These facilities cannot conserve the
dynamic processes of crop evolution and farmer’s knowledge of crop selection and
maintenance inherent in the development of local cultivars. These facilities also tend
to be isolated from the communities and resource users that originally provided the
material for ex situ conservation. Farmer communities depend on a wide range of
agro-biodiversity, including semi-domesticates in home gardens and other forms of
traditional agriculture, farmed habitats especially for trees, wild-gathered fruits, fibre,
fuel, medicines, etc., as well as cultivation of traditional land races of crops and
advanced cultivars of staple foods
3. This project focuses on traditional local cultivars or farmers’ varieties, embodying
substantial diversity that continue to provide an essential component of sustainable
crop production, household income and human nutrition for many of the worlds poor.
The specific crops selected for study in this project will be species that have their
primary centre of origin in the semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa or those that
have developed distinctive traits over time in SSA3. The extent of diversity within
these species today should be as a result of many centuries of interaction with the
peoples of the region. Less than 10 percent of land managed by smallholders in subSaharan Africa is used for the production of modern varieties. While wild gathered
biodiversity and pastures provide an important contribution, the local cultivars or
farmers’ varieties continue to provide the core component of sustainable crop
production, household income and human nutrition for many of the world’s poor.
This linkage between diversity and food security provides the rationale for enhancing
the availability and use of local crop varieties in the fragile ecosystems of arid and
semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa.
4. But in order to mitigate on-farm genetic erosion and reduce pressure on fragile arid
and semi-arid ecosystems, policy impacting on conservation of agrobiodiversity
needs to be changed (influenced) at all relevant levels impacting on conservation of
3
Ref. Site selection criteria Annex 3.
9
agrobiodiversity, and the integration of the formulated strategies into national PGR
plans and policies encouraged.
5. The long-term goal of this project is to improve the effectiveness of traditional
farming systems for conservation of biodiversity of local and global importance. The
purpose is to develop models for enabling environments for an effective contribution
of traditional farming systems in biodiversity conservation and measures to maintain
and promote wider adoption of viable systems.
6. The partner countries involved in this project are Bénin, Burkina Faso, Ghana,
Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Through case studies, the project
will analyse and synthesize viable farming systems in arid and semi-arid ecosystems
in these countries and how these systems support the conservation of biodiversity of
local and global significance. The project will draw out the best practices 4 and lessons
learnt on how landraces have been incorporated into farming systems and/or national
agricultural policies and biodiversity conservation strategies, and will disseminate the
best practices for doing so. In particular, the project would draw up the lessons learnt
for integrating traditional knowledge on farmers’ varieties and its use in the
maintenance of traditional agro-ecosystems. The project will focus on community and
farmer-based approaches, taking a broad view to on-farm conservation that includes
the role of participatory plant breeding, domestication processes and indigenous
knowledge of crops and wild relatives on the maintenance of on-farm diversity.
7. The lessons learnt will be used to develop models to begin to integrate and
incorporate the approaches into national decision making strategies on PGR at policy
level. This is in accordance with article 6b of the CBD of which the COP of the CBD
has requested the GEF to take action.
Current Situation:
10. Traditional local cultivars or farmers’ varieties embody substantial diversity, and
continue to provide an essential component of sustainable crop production for many
of the world’s poor. This linkage between diversity and food security provides the
rationale for enhancing the availability and use of local crop varieties in the fragile
ecosystems of arid and semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa. The loss of genetic
diversity in agricultural systems may be attributed to a number of factors. These
include both natural and human selection pressures on the agro-ecosystem, which
affects the genetic diversity of plant genetic resources. It could be argued that high
variability in terms of inter-annual variations in environmental factors results in
dramatic changes in selection pressures from year to year hence favouring high
4
On the one hand, the farmer or resource user determines what makes the practice the ‘best one’, and s/he
will most likely base his/her choices from a survival strategy point of view. On the other hand, the
scientists on the project primarily judge how effective the practices are in conserving agrobiodiversity at
different levels. The project will attempt to reconcile the two views in developing frameworks for the
determination of ‘best practice’.
10
adaptability and reproductive capacity and hence genetic diversity. Farmers in subSaharan Africa maintain much of this diversity in situ on-farm.
11. The farming systems where farmer’s varieties are maintained are dynamic and
inherently complex, and a major challenge for in situ conservation is the development
of the knowledge needed in national programmes to understand the system, and
determine where, when and how in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm will
be effective.
12. National partners together with IPGRI have formulated a number of research projects
that are focusing on building a sound scientific and information base on in situ
conservation of agrobiodiversity (on-farm)5. All of the participating countries in this
GEF financed project are partners one or more of these on-going or recently
concluded research projects on the conservation of agrobiodiversity. The projects are
addressing key technical and methodological questions in order to understand and
enhance the mechanisms of in situ conservation on-farm. These projects include but are
not limited to the following:







"Strengthening the Scientific Basis of In Situ Conservation of Agricultural
Biodiversity”, (Burkina Faso, Uganda, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal,
Peru, Turkey and Vietnam)
“Monitoring Genetic Diversity through Ethnobotanic and Genetic Erosion Studies for
Effective Conservation Strategies of Crop Genetic Resources”, (Malawi, Ghana,
Uganda)
“Development of Strategies for In Situ Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic
Resources in Desert Prone Areas of Africa”, (Mali, Zimbabwe)
“Conservation of Gramineae and Associated Arthropods for Sustainable Agricultural
Development in Africa”, (Kenya, Mali + Ethiopia)
“Farmers practice of domestication and their contribution to improvement of Yam in
West Africa”, (Bénin and Nigeria).
Home gardens project (Cuba, Ghana, Guatemala, Venezuela, Vietnam)
In-situ Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives through Enhanced Information
Management and Field Application (Armenia, Bolivia, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and
Uzbekistan)
NB Some of the other non-IPGRI, GEF funded projects that this project will specifically
link into where there is conceptual and geographic overlap include:

“People, Land Management and Environmental Change (PLEC) project” (Brazil,
China, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania and Uganda).
5
Jarvis, D.I., Hodgkin, T. (eds.), 1998: Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural
biodiversity on-farm. Options for data collecting and analysis. Proceedings of a workshop to develop tools
and procedures for in situ conservation on-farm, 25-29 August, 1997, Rome, Italy
11



“Management of Agrobiodiversity for Sustainable Land Use and Global
Environmental Benefits” (Brazil, Cote d’Ivoire, India Kenya, Mexico and
Uganda).
“Desert Margins Programme” (Botswana Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mali, Namibia,
Niger, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe)
Identification, Testing and Evaluation of Best Practices for in-situ Conservation
of Economically Important Wild Plant Species (under development - focus on
Arab states).
13. As stated earlier in paragraph 4, in order to mitigate on-farm genetic erosion and
reduce pressure on fragile arid and semi-arid ecosystems, policy has to be changed
(influenced) at all relevant levels impacting on conservation of agrobiodiversity, and
the integration of the formulated strategies into national PGR plans and policies must
be encouraged. There are well known difficulties associated with transmitting and
translating scientific information and knowledge into policy and decisions6. These
difficulties underscore the need for a rigorous decision framework as a foundation for
robust policy formulation, and this is where this project proposal comes in.
14. By taking advantage of on-going research, this GEF project proposal offers an
opportunity to develop these frameworks and begin the process of bridging the
science/policy gap in arid and semi-arid areas of sub-Saharan Africa where many
efforts on the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity are currently underway. GEF
funding for this project will be used for the specific aspects that relate to the best
practices and lessons learnt on how landraces have been incorporated into farming
systems and/or national agricultural policies and biodiversity conservation strategies.
It is not the intention of this proposal to extrapolate the results of on-going projects,
but rather to take the opportunity afforded by on-going projects to bolster and add
rigour to their policy research and comparative analysis dimensions.
15. In order to achieve project objectives, a number of separate but complementary
activities will be implemented. The project consists of 2 main parts, namely:
i)
An assessment part to review the status of in situ conservation on-farm
conservation in on-going projects and selected areas in 8 partner countries, with
particular focus on best practices.
ii)
The development of analysis and decision making tools or frameworks, for analysis
of best practices and for linking and integrating in situ conservation on-farm to
national plans or policies.
16. The lessons learnt from the experiences of case study countries, will be used to
reinforce the validation of the analysis and decision making tools to be developed under
this project.
6
Kevin Rogers. 1998. "Managing science/management partnerships: a challenge of adaptive management".
Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2): R1. Available from the Internet. URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/resp1
12
Expected Project Outcomes:
17. The on-going IPGRI projects being carried out in the participating countries today are
experimenting with different approaches to community-based management of plant
genetic resources, always with a focus on a very limited number of sites. GEF
involvement would facilitate the exchange of information, comparison among
countries, development of tools or a framework to determine best practices for
conservation of crop landraces on-farm and how they can be linked to decisionmaking and policy. Without GEF involvement, the global impact of these projects
will not be felt for a considerable time, due to the restricted emphasis on rigorous
policy research and comparative analysis in on-going projects.
18. This project will focus on arid and semi-arid ecosystems, and will draw on the
experiences of farmers, community based groups, non-governmental organisations,
universities, government bodies and international research centres to assess the
activities and impact of interventions in the area of community-based management of
farmers varieties. The project will review IPGRI, GEF and other non-GEF funded
activities underway or completed in case study countries, that have been instrumental
in integrating traditional knowledge into national agricultural systems with a view to
identifying additional lessons learnt and generating best practice in support of Article
8j and 6b of the CBD. It will be primarily concerned with the enhancement of
community and farmer-based approaches. The case studies will be used to identify
best practices and lessons learnt for integrating traditional knowledge on plant genetic
resources that will in turn, be incorporated into national decision making strategies on
PGR at governmental level and into National plans and policies for the conservation
of agrobiodiversity.
19. These strategies and the ways in which governments can incorporate traditional
knowledge and other best practices on farmers’ varieties into their agricultural sectors
will be documented and supported. The capacities of national plant genetic resources
programmes to enhance their support of on-farm conservation by farming
communities will be strengthened. Based on the analysis of the case studies, activities
will then be designed to test the application of best practices in participating
countries, and to disseminate the best practices and lessons learnt. These activities
will promote the uptake of best practices into national policies and strategies for the
conservation of agrobiodiversity.
20. This project will create globally applicable frameworks and decision analysis tools and
approaches, based on best practices for the conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm.
Major outcomes of this project will be i) availability of best approaches/models for
integration of traditional knowledge on agrobiodiversity into national agricultural
polices/plans/strategies; ii) the application of the output in i) actually carried out for
all the participating countries. Ultimately, the project will contribute to raising the
level of awareness, particularly in formal sector agencies, of the significance of in situ
and particularly on-farm conservation and the contribution that it can make to
biodiversity maintenance and to the provision of useful germplasm as a contribution
13
to development. These outputs, indeed, the entire project, will enable and catalyse the
capacity building needed in both developing and developed countries to better address
the threat of genetic erosion of agrobiodiversity.
21. The project activities will be carried out over a period of three years at the end of
which the following specific outputs are expected:
a) Enhanced communication channels between projects, farmers, decision makers,
formal and informal institutions with regular updates and exchange of
information.
b) Present state of knowledge of on-farm conservation in partner countries
synthesized and best practices analysed and made accessible to all stakeholders.
c) Best approaches/models for integration of traditional knowledge into national
agricultural polices/plans/strategies made available.
d) The application of best practices extended in the participating countries
e) Framework for the analysis of best practices published.
f) Framework that links best practices’ for conservation of crop landraces on-farm to
decision-making and policy published.
g) Status reports on numbers, scale and extent of genetic erosion of local crop
cultivars in selected areas in partner countries and distribution maps for local
cultivars
h) National management frameworks for the implementation of on-farm
conservation strategies strengthened
i) Process for placing national policies on integrating traditional knowledge on
landraces initiated.
Activities and Financial Inputs7:
22. In order to achieve the objectives of this project, the following activities will be
implemented:
a) Recruit project coordinator.
b) Recruit consultants to develop and draft initial proposed methodology and
framework for conducting case studies through wide consultation with partners.
This will include development of an even more detailed stakeholder analysis and
a detailed stakeholder involvement plan for each site per country as per the format
in Annex 4.
c) Hold series of in-country public awareness meetings.
d) Create project management framework in partner countries where required, with
links and interfaces to relevant projects, formal and informal institutions and
farmers, through consultations, meetings and establishment of required
partnerships and memoranda of understanding
7
GEF financing will go towards the complementary project activities listed in this section and detailed in
paragraph 41 and annex 1 problem 2. Co-financed activities are largely towards building the scientific
information base on in-situ conservation on-farm, and those activities are attached in annex 1 as problem 1
in the problem analysis table.
14
e) Organise National consultations in case study countries to discuss draft and
further develop methodologies descriptors and indicators for conducting case
studies.
f) Organise a regional workshop for all project countries to harmonise
methodologies for conducting case studies among countries.
g) Conduct surveys to determine the status of on-farm conservation, the players
involved, and interventions proposed, but focusing primarily on identifying best
practices for on-farm conservation of traditional varieties, and the policies that
impact on in situ conservation on-farm.
h) Initiate and/or support actions by communities and farmers to enhance
performance of local cultivars for improved livelihood of farmers through use of
local crop cultivars, including reintroduction of ‘lost’ cultivars from genebanks,
where appropriate and possible.
i) Identify relevant policy issues that impact on traditional knowledge and
conservation of landraces, and evaluate current relevant substantive and
conceptual issues (WWF's recently developed methodology on Root Cause
Analysis will be considered for this purpose).
j) Hold wide consultations with policymakers and stakeholders to evaluate the
current situation regarding policy related to traditional knowledge and systems
and their impact on landraces and agrobiodiversity.
k) Analyse country situations and results of pilot activities to identify best practices
for conservation and use of farmers’ varieties in agricultural production systems.
l) Convene international meeting to present and debate best practices (to be held in
conjunction with IPGRI’s global project on in situ conservation).
m) Hold policy level meetings to sensitise policy makers and to identify and detail
approaches to supporting the integration of traditional knowledge into national
policies and plans.
n) Recruit consultants to develop and test framework that links best practices’ for
conservation of crop landraces on-farm to decision-making and policy.
o) Develop national capacity through training in use of frameworks, and strengthen
appropriate institutional arrangements to ensure sustainability of these systems:
p) Produce publications in suitable formats for various audiences at local level.
23. These activities will be designed in conjunction and in close partnership with
farmers/resource users and other IPGRI projects mentioned previously but will
complement and build upon the activities within these projects particularly focusing
on ‘best practices’ identified for the integration of traditional knowledge into National
PGR policies and strategies. Workable and durable interfaces will be established in
this project to ensure that linkages are established between all the different partners,
resource users, IPGRI and non-IPGRI implemented projects.
Sustainability Analysis and Risk Assessment:
24. To achieve sustainability, National programmes interested in in situ conservation of
crop diversity must achieve the objectives of both conserving processes that promote
genetic diversity of crop resources, and ensuring that these resources are competitive
15
enough to improve the living standards of the farmer. In the case of agrobiodiversity,
a particularly important assumption is that the countries proposed approach to taking
advantage of new opportunities in agrobiodiversity is fully achievable, economically
viable, and socially acceptable within the overall policy, trade, and regulatory
framework of the country.
25. Since the final project designs and implementation are to be done by the stakeholders
in the respective case study countries, the process will be fully consultative. The
consultation process will allow the stakeholders an opportunity to take ownership of
the project, fully understand the project and make informed commitments to it.
26. As in all projects, it is assumed that the baseline activities on which the project would
build (or the funding and/or in kind support for activities for which the project would
substitute) will have been committed by collaborating institutions before the start of
the project.
Stakeholder Involvement and Social Assessment:
27. Stakeholders in in situ conservation on-farm are many, as are projects to address
different aspects of development of methodology for and implementation of on-farm
conservation strategies. The stakeholders are individuals, groups, communities or
institutions.
28. Farmers are the ultimate stakeholders of the project and principal beneficiaries
through better availability of plant genetic resources leading to increased and/or
stable food production and security. The farmer is the most important subject in this
project, and his/her intellectual property is the central theme of this whole proposal
i.e. his/her knowledge and management of landraces that s/he has maintained in an
environment and improved over centuries.
29. Other stakeholders include community-based organisations, national plant genetic
resources programmes comprising NGOs, PGR centres and National Agricultural
Research Institutes, policy makers on PGR and others.
30. It is intended to hold a series of stakeholders meetings prior to the start of project
implementation to provide a forum in which outstanding issues may be resolved.
These meetings will afford all partners of the project an opportunity to understand the
purpose of the project, as well as each team member’s specific responsibilities and
commitments.
31. Currently, none of the participating countries have a comprehensive national
legislative or single policy framework for the conservation of agrobiodiversity.
Neither do they have a single national institutional arrangement mandated for the
purpose. There are many government ministries and departments whose mandates
cover certain aspects of conservation of plant genetic resources, all of which are in a
16
position to impact national policy and decision making on conservation of
agrobiodiversity.
32. The executing agencies identified as partners for this project currently have the
broadest mandates for on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity. The project
executing agencies will, in consultation with IPGRI, identify through consultations
and meetings, all the institutions and stakeholders in this project. Consultations and
meetings with identified stakeholders will be held to discuss their roles in the project,
and an assessment of all their interests will be made.
33. Good working relationships with these stakeholders will be cultivated to ensure an
effective coalition of support for the project. The partnerships built with the
stakeholders will focus on fostering their existing strengths and comparative
advantages and avoiding duplication and overlap of efforts. Public awareness and
training will be provided in an early phase of the project to sensitise stakeholders on
the project and to enable useful alliances and partnerships.
Incremental cost assessment:
34. A basic premise of this project is that global environmental benefits can be achieved
only through a combination of appropriate land-use practices and supportive national
and global policies. This project will bring policy issues and operational lessons
related to on-farm conservation of landraces in sub-Saharan Africa to a wider
audience.
35. Most of the governments in the case study countries are outlining and beginning to
implement national biodiversity strategies. From a global perspective, the baseline
position is that, while the commitment to conserve biodiversity exists in all the
countries as signified in their ratification of the CBD and the GPA, most of the
countries of SSA have more immediate priorities, and the continued genetic erosion
of agrobiodiversity as a direct result of unfavourable policy environments is to be
expected. The funds available for the conservation of agrobiodiversity tend to be
insignificant and sporadic, and aimed primarily at surveying and inventorying the
existing resources.
36. The alternative is the development of tools and frameworks as proposed under this
project, to determine the best practices for the on-farm conservation of
agrobiodiversity and for deriving lessons learnt and linking them to national policies
and plans and disseminating the same, by building on on-going projects with a
primarily conservation and scientific perspective. This project adds rigour to their
policy research and comparative analysis dimensions in order to simultaneously
influence the policy environment to enable robust policy formulation to support in
situ conservation on-farm.
37. The benefits of more sustainable agricultural practices that adequately conserve and
use agrobiodiversity are largely appropriated at local, national and possibly regional
17
levels. The results of best practice analysis would, at best, only be applicable to
similar crops in similar physical, climatic, socio-economic and cultural environments
and hence would not be ‘globally applicable’.
38. But, the benefits of biodiversity conservation are largely global. The genetic
variability of landraces and wild relatives of domesticated crops are essential
breeding sources8. Some of the crops that will be included in this study have their
centres of origin or have developed distinctive traits in the selected countries e.g.
sorghum, cowpea and millet. They are of global importance, and it is in global
interest to maintain their diversity because of their importance to agriculture in other
regions of the globe.
39. A major outcome of this project will be the availability of best approaches/models for
integration of traditional knowledge on agrobiodiversity into national agricultural
polices/plans/strategies. Global benefits that will result from the successful
implementation of this programme can be assessed in terms of globally applicable
frameworks and decision analysis tools and approaches, based on best practices for the
conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm. These tools will have immediate application
in sub-Saharan Africa, but with potential application to other regions of the globe,
particularly in the developing world.
40. The incremental cost requested from GEF is US$ 750,000. In addition to this, cofinancing from IFAD, DGIS and SDC estimated at US$ 1,300,000 will complement
the GEF grant to bring about the objectives of this project. This does not include inkind contributions from partner countries and institutions. The in-kind and direct
contributions from the partners and co-financing from other donors will cover costs
related to local and/or national benefits.
Budget:
41. GEF funding would help to build on activities that have already been initiated in each
of these countries, to help expand programmes to identify and extend those practices
that best conserve agrobiodiversity. Additional commitments required from the
government personnel and infrastructure is minimal. The total cost of this 3-year
proposal is estimated at US$2,050,000, of which US$ 750,000 is being requested
from GEF. Co-financing has already been secured through other projects already ongoing in Burkina Faso, Uganda, Mali and Zimbabwe. Some preliminary surveys
have already been completed in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda.
GEF council document: “A framework for GEF activities concerning conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity important to agriculture”.
8
18
Summary Breakdown of Costs by budgetary component (US$)
(Please see detailed budget on attached excel worksheet)
Components
GEF
Project Coordination and
Management
Development of Methodologies
Action Research (Case Studies)
Implementation of Best Practices
Capacity Building
337780.00
National
Counterparts
In kind
171000.00
127200.00
70000.00
44000.00
In kind
In kind
In kind
In kind
TOTAL
749980.00
IPGRI
IFAD/NEDA/SDC
Total
220020.00
557800.00
1080000.00
-
171000.00
1207200.00
70000.00
44000.00
1300020.00
2050000.00
Estimated budget (in US$):
GEF:
750,000
Co-financing: IFAD
500,000
DGIS Netherlands
500,000
SDC (Switzerland) 300,000
Partner country contributions: in kind through provision of infrastructure, staff time,
etc.
TOTAL:
US$ 2,050,000.00 (cash) + in kind contribution
19
Project Implementation Plan:
42. The management and administrative structure of such a project is inherently complex,
and project implementation presupposes that an integrated framework at central and
local levels already exists within the countries national programme. In some of the
countries, this is not the case and the creation of such a framework is a prerequisite to
formulating comprehensive on-farm conservation strategies.
The first step is to support the formation of such a framework and integrated
multidisciplinary, multi-institutional teams. In the eight participating countries, IPGRI
will assist in the establishment of a multidisciplinary National project advisory
committee, headed by a National project coordinator and including members from formal
institutions, NGO’s and the informal sector.
43. In all the participating countries but Kenya and Bénin, there are pre-existing project
management structures used for implementing on-going IPGRI projects, that this
project will build on. In Kenya and Bénin, interfaces with other GEF funded projects
will be created to set up a project management structure for this project. This
structure will include and/or consult with the task managers for the other GEF funded
projects. The National advisory committee will serve as the lead institution in
coordinating and monitoring project activities, providing technical backstopping,
assuring integration of the project into National programmes and approving plans and
reports for the regional and other management levels.
44. In addition, technical-working groups will be established in biological and social
sciences, policy research and analysis and in extension and training. Technical
support will be supplied by the project Technical Advisory Panel already established
for IPGRI’s global in situ conservation project. To ensure linkages with other relevant
projects, a member of the PLEC project will be requested to serve on the Technical
Advisory Panel. The project structure at the local (site) level will take into account
the already existing structures, and will be designed locally, and questions of who
takes on what function will be decided by the communities themselves.
45. Once a project management framework is in place, regions within each country will
be selected to conduct the surveys. The actual selection of project sites and farmers’
will be an interactive process between researchers, agricultural extension workers and
the farming community. Multidisciplinary teams are a prerequisite to specific site
selection and the National project advisory committee will determine the actual
composition of these teams. Links to agricultural extension work and the involvement
of local communities are especially important and efforts will be made to build these
partnerships.
DURATION OF PROJECT (IN MONTHS):
ACTIVITIES
Completion of project activities
i. Finalise project document
0
6
12
18
PROJECT-MONTHS
------20
24
30
36
DURATION OF PROJECT (IN MONTHS):
ii. Stakeholder identification and analysis
iii. Hold series of in-country public awareness meetings
iv. Setting up of project management and implementation
structure
v. Recruit consultants to develop and draft initial proposed
methodology and framework for conducting case studies.
vi. Organise National consultations in case study countries to
discuss draft and further develop methodologies
descriptors and indicators for conducting case studies.
vii. Organise a regional workshop for all project countries to
harmonise methodologies for conducting case studies
among countries.
viii. Conduct surveys to determine the status of on-farm
conservation.
ix. Initiate and/or support actions by communities and
farmers.
x. Identify relevant policy issues that impact on traditional
knowledge and conservation of landraces.
xi. Hold wide consultations with policymakers and
stakeholders.
xii. Analyse country situations and results of pilot activities
to identify best practices for conservation and use of
farmers’ varieties in agricultural production systems.
xiii. Convene international meeting to present and debate
best practices (to be held in conjunction with IPGRI’s
global project on in situ conservation).
xiv. Hold policy level meetings to sensitise policy makers
and to identify and detail approaches to supporting the
integration of traditional knowledge into national policies
and plans.
xv. Recruit consultants to develop and test framework that
links best practices’ for conservation of crop landraces
on-farm to decision-making and policy.
xvi. Develop national capacity through training in use of
frameworks, and strengthen appropriate institutional
arrangements to ensure sustainability of these systems.
xvii. Produce publications in formats suitable for various
audiences at the local level.
0
6
12
------------------------------
18
24
30
-----------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
---------
---------
---------
----------
-----------
---------------------------------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN:
Stakeholder Identification:
46. As stated earlier in paragraphs 27 and 28, stakeholders in on-farm conservation
projects are numerous. Farmers are the ultimate and principal beneficiaries of the
project through better availability of plant genetic resources leading to increased food
production and security. Other stakeholders include community-based organisations,
national plant genetic resources programmes that include NGOs, PGR centres and
National Agricultural Research Institutes, policy makers on PGR and others. The first
21
36
phase of the project will undertake a detailed stakeholder analysis and further develop
the stakeholder involvement plan using the format in Annex 4. It is intended to hold
a series of stakeholders meetings prior to the start of project implementation to
provide a forum in which outstanding issues may be resolved. This meeting will
afford all partners of the project (especially the farmers) an opportunity to understand
the purpose of the project, as well as each team member’s specific responsibilities and
commitments.
Information Dissemination and Consultation:
47. Holding frequent within country meetings and conducting regular regional and
international meetings will facilitate information exchange, co-ordination and
consultations of project teams, as will regular exchange of documents and
information by electronic and hard copy formats. Stakeholders in each country will
come together in a series of in-country project planning workshops to set priorities
and plan for the project implementation and monitoring.
48. The main output of these workshops will be a project-planning matrix, which
stakeholders build together, and commit themselves to specific activities within the
project plan over the life of the project. Data on specific aspects of on-farm
conservation will be shared, as will technical reports from the different case studies.
Scientists will be encouraged to publish the results in refereed journals, and to ensure
that the information is accessible at the local level, particular emphasis will be placed
on producing publications in formats suitable for various audiences at the local level.
Social and Participation Issues:
49. The anticipated social issues are (a) intellectual property rights, (b) access to PGR of
crops conserved in situ. (c) gender roles in the conservation of agrobiodiversity. (d)
how and why farmers choose to maintain crop diversity on-farm (e) market and nonmarket incentives to the maintenance of agrobiodiversity. Because the project is
largely community based, time must be devoted to building or creating rapport with
the farmers in whose fields much of the work will be undertaken, and on whose
experiences we will draw on heavily. For the project to succeed, time must be given
to stakeholders to ensure that the project objectives address the needs of local
communities. The farmers and communities must also be educated and given
considerable time to understand the project objectives and evaluate their ability to
commit their time and other resources to the project.
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan:
50. Monitoring of the project will be continuously undertaken by the national project
advisory committee and by UNEP and IPGRI. There will be a mid-term review
scheduled a year and a half after the beginning of project implementation, and a
review scheduled at the end of the project. Independent reviewers will be contracted
to conduct the reviews. Technical backstopping by the technical working groups
22
attached to each project coordinating mechanism within each country, UNEP and
IPGRI as well as the technical advisory panel for the global in situ project will
provide for continuous technical review and backstopping for the project.
PROJECT CHECKLIST (optional):
23
Annex 1
Problem analysis: Problem
1. Traditional farming systems
and conservation of local
cultivars and associated
indigenous knowledge
(that are an essential
component of sustainable
crop production, household
income and human
nutrition for many of the
poor farmers found in
fragile semi-arid
ecosystems of SSA) is
under threat and growing
pressure resulting in
genetic erosion of crop
diversity.
Root cause 9
increased human and animal
population,
land degradation,
adverse climatic conditions
‘modernisation’ of agriculture
including the introduction of
modern varieties,
loss of indigenous knowledge
on farmers varieties
lack of knowledge by scientists
of scientific basis of in situ
conservation on-farm
lack of methodology to study in
situ conservation on-farm.
lack of national and local
institutional frameworks and
capacity to support in situ
conservation on-farm.
lack of awareness or
appreciation at national and
local levels of the importance of
in situ conservation on-farm.
lack of supporting policies
etc
Activity












Develop standardised terms and definitions
and common research protocols for in situ
conservation on-farm
Develop guidelines for research and
practice of in situ conservation on-farm
Conduct surveys (participatory and
empirical studies) on-farm and in research
stations
Measure the extent and distribution of the
genetic diversity of selected crops
maintained on-farm over space and time
Measure processes used to maintain genetic
diversity on-farm
Identify key or limiting factors to in situ
conservation on-farm
Develop tools to identify priority crops and
regions for in situ conservation on-farm.
Investigate the effect of market
development to the maintenance of on-farm
diversity
Describe farmers’ access and use of formal
and informal seed supply systems
Investigate geneflow between crops and
their wild relatives into agricultural
production systems
Create, support or improve communitybased structures for sustainable in situ
conservation on-farm. These structures
will build on traditional and existing local
experiences and practices.
Create, support or improve national
structures for sustainable in situ
conservation on-farm
The underlying causes of genetic erosion are extremely complex. They are closely related to increased food
production needs, growing market pressures, conventional patterns and policies of economic and
agricultural development, as well as demographic, economic and social trends. The on-going projects that
this project builds on are trying to address the highlighted causes of genetic erosion.
9
24















G
R
M
d
B
l
c
S
N
a
i
M
p
D
c
E
a
I
a
T
g
I
n
s
A
b
t
b
C
s
c
A
c
a
t
c
Problem
2. Many National programmes
in SSA are unable to meet
their obligations towards in
situ (on-farm) conservation
stated in the CBD and the
GPA because of ineffective
enabling national policy
environments that do not
support traditional farming
systems and in situ
conservation on-farm.
Root cause
Policy commitments and
support to implementation of
the CBD and GPA lag behind
the practice and science of in
situ conservation.
Lack of consistent coherent
policies to support in situ
conservation on-farm
Presence of policies and laws
that adversely impact on in situ
conservation on-farm
Lack of awareness by policy
makers of the importance of in
situ conservation on-farm
Lack of a framework or model
for identifying best practices of
in situ conservation.
Lack of a framework or model
for integrating in situ
conservation into national plans
or policies.
Insufficient capacity to develop
and enforce environmental
policies and legal frameworks
Activity













25
Identify relevant policies issues that impact
on traditional knowledge and conservation
of landraces, and evaluate current relevant
substantive and conceptual issues.
Draft initial proposed methodology for
conducting case studies.
Organise National consultations in case
study countries to further develop
methodologies descriptors and indicators
for conducting case studies
Organise a regional project planning
workshops for case study countries to
harmonise methodologies for conducting
case studies.
Conduct surveys to determine the status of
in situ conservation on-farm, the players
involved, and interventions proposed, but
focusing primarily on identifying best
practices for on-farm conservation of
traditional varieties, and the policies that
impact on in situ conservation on-farm.
Initiate and/or support actions by
communities and farmers to enhance
performance of local cultivars for improved
livelihood of farmers through use of local
crop cultivars, including reintroduction of
‘lost’ cultivars from genebanks, where
appropriate and possible
Intensive awareness raising programme for
policy makers and at grassroots level.
Hold wide consultations with policymakers
and stakeholders to evaluate the current
situation regarding policy related to
traditional knowledge and systems and their
impact on landraces and agrobiodiversity.
Produce synthesis and analysis of results of
case studies on best practices.
Design and test framework for analysis of
best practices for in situ conservation onfarm.
Convene international meeting to present
framework and debate best practices for
conservation and use of farmers’ varieties in
agricultural production systems (to be held
in conjunction with IPGRI’s global project
on in situ conservation).
Hold policy level meetings to sensitise
policy makers and to identify and detail
approaches to supporting the integration of
traditional knowledge into national policies
and plans.
Design framework for integrating in situ
conservation into national plans or policies.










S
e
c
c
c
B
R
c
c
I
l
t
l
i
B
i
o
a
g
d
p
P
i
I
r
F
p
f
S
s
p
P
i
l
Problem
Root cause
Activity


26
Implementation of policy for in situ
conservation on-farm initiated.
Develop capacity and strengthen
appropriate institutional arrangements to
ensure sustainability of these systems
Annex 2
Site selection criteria:
i. Semi-arid agro-ecosystems of sub-Saharan Africa are dominated by indigenous
biodiversity with particular adaptation to the marginal conditions found in large parts
of the region. Recent trends in climate change have demonstrated the importance of
maintaining diversity in these systems to retain their ability to adapt to new situations
(unpublished data, 2000).
ii. This diversity includes crops such as sorghum, millet, cowpea, bambara groundnut,
hausa or frafra potato, some species of yam, several species of Cucurbitaceae, etc. as
well as agroforestry species and fruit trees such as shea butter (Vitellaria paradoxa),
Faidherbia albida, Baobab (Adansonia digitata), etc. All the above species have
their origin and/or have developed distinctive traits in the semi-arid region of subSaharan Africa and the extent of diversity within these species today is the result of
many centuries of interaction with the peoples of the region.
iii. Site selection will be based on the presence of high levels of unique diversity of these
indigenous crops in the farming systems. Consideration will be given to the presence
of wild relatives in the area and possible interactions with the cultivated plants. The
spread of the countries participating in the project facilitates the selection of sites with
distinct diversity and the possibility of good representation of the overall diversity of
each species.
iv. Priority will be given to areas where traditional farming systems have been
maintained over many years. Diverse viable farming systems will be selected to
capture the existing ecological differences within the chosen areas.
v. The presence of existing collaborative projects involving multiple stakeholders in onfarm conservation will be essential to the nature of the project with its emphasis on
evaluating and selecting best practices.
A summary of criteria to be used for site selection follows: Ecosystems
 General magnitude of diversity at agro-ecosystem, species and variety levels
 Local diversity in specific agro-ecological variables (soil, altitude, precipitation, etc.)
Crops
 Richness of intra-specific diversity within target species
 Presence and diversity of wild or weedy relatives, and possibility of
introgression/hybridization
 Likely presence of specific adaptations
 Genetic erosion and presence of landraces under threat in target species
27
Farmers and communities
 Socio-cultural and economic diversity
 Diversity of livelihoods, and importance of target crops for various ways of life
 Farmers’ knowledge and skills in seed selection
 Market opportunities
Partners
 Community interest and cooperation
 Previous conservation interventions (if any)
 Presence and capacity of local institutions, especially for research
Logistics
 Site accessibility throughout the year
 Availability of resources
28
Annex 3
Project Linkage to National Priorities, Action Plans and Programs
Specific Country Statements10:
Bénin:
Chapitre 5.1 Conservation traditionnelle pg.26
C’est la conservation la plus populaire au niveau des paysans et des producteurs.
Chapitre 8 Contraintes sur les ressources phytogénétiques au Bénin pg.30
‘L’exécution d’un programme national sur les ressources phytogénétiques nécessite la
résolution des contraintes que les sélectionneurs, les systématiciens ……………….. ’.
Les contraintes majeurs sont : érosion des ressources phytogénétiques ; faiblesse dans la
connaissance du matériel existant ; difficultés rencontrées dans la conservation et le
stockage de la biodiversité ; manque de la législation en la matière ; manque de structure
national s’occupant exclusivement des ressources phytogénétiques.’
Burkina Faso:
Chapitre 6.1 pg. 34
Contraintes liées à la conservation et à l’utilisation des ressources phytogénétiques au
Burkina Faso
‘Il est nécessaire dans le cas du Burkina Faso, de procéder à la création d’unités de
conservation in situ, qui s’explique par le fait que bon nombre de cultures sont mieux
conservées dans leurs aires d’origines où elles jouent un rôle très significatif dans la vie
des populations, sans oublier que l’important réservoir de gènes de résistance s’évalue
mieux dans l’écologie d’origine ; Le Burkina Faso a déjà élaboré un certain nombre de
stratégies pour une gestion durable de ses ressources phytogénétiques. Il s’agit : De
promouvoir la création d’une banque nationale de gènes (ex situ et in situ) à vocation
pluridisciplinaire ;’
Chapitre 6.2.2. Participation paysannes à la gestion des ressources phytogénétiques
pg.35
‘A l ‘aide des paysans expérimentés et en collaboration avec le MET, l’IRBET,
répertorier les «aires élites » reconnues jadis abriter des espèces rares utiles à
l’agriculture ou riches en biodiversité. Déterminer les causes de l’érosion génétique, la
dégradation biologique de ces aires écologiquement exceptionnelles. Y a-t-il une
possibilité de restauration ou de les créer ailleurs ?’
Ghana:
Ch 1 Introduction pg.6
The bulk of farmers are small holders who account for about 80% of agricultural
production.
Drawn from country reports to the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic
Resources (Leipzig, 1996)
10
29
Ch 2.4 Landraces and old cultivars pg. 13
Landraces are the main sources of planting materials available to most farmers; very few
farmers have access to improved varieties. In most cases, farmers have no other choice.
In a few crops in which improved varieties exist, the government encourages their use.
Local farmers like genetic diversity in their crops as an insurance against pests and
diseases and adverse conditions. Landraces of crop plants are preferred by local people
for their taste and other culinary qualities.”
Kenya:
Ch 5.4 National Legislation pg. 40
“Efforts are underway to prepare a comprehensive and coherent national policy and
legislation on environmental management and protection to guide all concerned in a
holistic way about proper management of the environment. Existing policies are
fragmented and sectoral.”
Ch 5.6 Other policies pg.43
“The governments policy as laid out in Sessional Paper No.2 of 1994 on National Food
Policy is to increase food production. The previous policy on subsidies when it existed
tended to promote the use of the improved varieties at the expense of traditional varieties
of crops. The main aim of the policy ….. is to ensure adequate supplies of high quality
seed of improved varieties of a wide range of crops. However, this policy may also have
a negative impact on conservation of PGR due to neglect of traditional varieties.”
Malawi:
Ch 3.1 In Situ Conservation Activities pg.16
For field crop species, though farmers are holding a vast diversity of the traditional
varieties, no organised or active programme is in place for encouragement of the on-farm
conservation
Ch 2.3 Landraces (farmers varieties) pg. 14
“Although traditional varieties are conserved by farmers, recent trends show that these
plant materials can easily disappear because of introduction of high yielding varieties and
changing food consumption habits. The popular argument that on-farm conservation can
be encouraged and be relied upon and that traditional varieties will continue to be kept as
they have been kept ever since is quite misleading. It must be pointed out that most of
these traditional varieties did not survive on the farm by chance but out of necessity.”
Ch 5.4 Other Policies pg. 35
“It is quite apparent that it is necessary to take a multidisciplinary approach in the
planning of major agricultural development projects. Some people have a notion that
conservation of the local germplasm can be done by farmers out of a habit or necessity
even without an active input by policy makers.”
Mali:
30
Chapitre 2.2.7 Les cultures fruitières et maraîchères pg 21
‘Des actions urgentes de conservation in situ et ex situ de ces espèces vitales doivent être
entreprises, de même que des actions importantes de recherche scientifique doivent être
menées pour une meilleure connaissance de ces espèces.’
Chapitre 2.3. Techniques de conservation pg 24
‘La sauvegarde des matériels doit être assurée soit par la conservation in situ des formes
sauvages dans leurs milieux naturels, et de formes cultivées dans les zones d’agriculture
traditionnelle, soit par la conservation des deux types dans des centres spécialisés.’
Chapitre 5.2 Besoins et perspectives pg. 30
‘Nécessité d’avoir des stratégies et programmes participatifs impliquant fortement les
populations notamment pour la conservation in situ d’espèces sauvages dans leur terroir
villageois.’
Chapitre 6 Proposition pour un plan d’action mondial pg.31
‘Développement d’un réseau mondial de conservation et d’utilisation durable des
ressources phytogénétiques (Programmes nationaux, Instituts internationaux, ONG,
système des Nations Unies) ; création / renforcement de banques de gènes et d’autres
structures de conservation in situ et ex situ’
Uganda:
Ch 5.2 National Policies and Legislations pg. 26
“The need to sensitise policy makers in the country, to recognize the importance of the
role played by PGR in the future of the country cannot therefore be over emphasized.
There is also a need to sensitise farmers to conserve on-farm PGR for the future. There is
urgent need for the plans of the committee on PGR to be translated into functional
programmes with adequate funding and facilitation; before any effective conservation of
PHGR in Uganda can take place.”
Zimbabwe:
Ch 2.7 Landraces and Old cultivars: pg.15
“ At present the government policies do not encourage the use of these materials
(landraces) by farmers. Government extension workers promote only the use of improved
varieties. …………… The inevitable result is that traditional varieties get marginalized.
This generally has led to severe genetic erosion in landrace material. There is a need to
find out what traditional varieties are still available in rural areas. This information needs
to be documented alongside with the tradition conservation methods (in situ and / or
traditional seed storage techniques). In order to achieve this, there is need to develop
institutional capacity that encourages farmers to both use and conserve their traditional
varieties. This could be done in collaboration with Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU).
The ZFU is in a good position to encourage farmers to treasure their landraces as they
have field officers at both provincial and district levels....”
Ch 5.1 National Goals: pg. 33
“To formulate and promote some in situ or of-farm conservation strategies”
31
Annex 4
General Format for Stakeholder Analysis
In order to develop the strategic framework for integrating in situ conservation into national plans or policies, a stakeholder
analysis and public involvement plan will be developed in detail as a first step to ensure a bottom up participatory process.
The matrix below is the general format that will be followed for the stakeholder analysis for each site per country and will form
the basis for comprehensive stakeholder involvement plans:
Participants/their
characteristics
Problems/needs
Expectations/
interests
Weaknesses/
constraints
Farmer
Communities
and
community-based
organisations
National Agricultural
Research Institutes
NGOs
PGR centres
National policy and
decision-makers
Task managers of
relating project
activities including
GEF projects
CBD SBSTTA and
other international
bodies
33
PotentialsConsequences for a project
Stakeholder
analysis