Module 3

LEARNING
AgriCultures
Insights from sustainable small-scale farming
Module 3 (interim version)
Cropping systems
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Published by ileia, This publication forms part of the Learning

Amersfoort, the AgriCultures series for educators, providing
Netherlands insights on sustainable small-scale agriculture.
Ileia uses the Attribution-Noncommercial-

ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Creative
Commons Licence. In brief,
users are free to copy, distribute
and transmit the contents of this module but the
source must be acknowledged. The contents of this
module may however not be used for commercial
purposes. If you alter or translate any sections, the
resulting work must only be distributed under the
same or a similar license to this one. For details,
please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-sa/3.0.
One exception is video R4.6 which falls under
copyright.
Authors: Mundie Salm, ileia

Illustrator: Fred Geven, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the
Netherlands
Language and Copy-editor: Nick Parrott,
TextualHealing.nl, Wageningen
Design & Layout: Frivista, Amersfoort, the
Netherlands
Funding: SIDA and DGIS
Cover photo: Flemming Nielsen, mixed sorghum
field in Central Mozambique
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the
contributions of the following people:
Frank van Steenbergen (MetaMeta) and Willem

Stoop and Edith Lammerts van Bueren, members
of our ‘sounding board’ for very helpful input,
comments and suggestions for improvements on
Please note: technical details in the first two blocks. Frank van
This module is an Schoubroeck for suggestions for Learning Block 3.
interim version. Nick Parrott whose clean-up of the final draft
We welcome went beyond language and copy-editing. Fred
comments and Geven, our patient illustrator who made much
suggestions for creative input. Matilda Rizopulos who compiled the
improvement. photographs and references and Maud Radema
who compiled the exercises and videos.
2 Learning AgriCultures
Foreword to Learning AgriCultures series
Foreword to Learning
AgriCultures series
Why Learning AgriCultures?
Over the years, the readers of ileia’s magazines, as well as our international partner network, have asked for support
material explaining the principles behind sustainable small-scale farming. With 25 years of publishing practical cases
from around the world, ileia has a wealth of material for exploring this subject. The Learning AgriCultures series is
our response to this request. Sustainability translates differently under specific local conditions so this series does not
intend to offer solutions to all the problems. Its objective is to stimulate a culture of learning about sustainable small-
scale farming. Through probing questions, and a variety of educational resources, we hope that this material helps feed
into and provoke discussions and deeper reflections on the important contributions of small-scale farming, and what
sustainability means in different contexts faced by students. The series is not intended as a field guide and does not
focus on technical details about farming methods. It does however suggest further references for digging deeper into
technical questions.
Who is it for?
Learning AgriCultures is a learning resource particularly aimed at educators seeking support material for explaining
about sustainable agriculture in their courses, at a university or college level, in special NGO training courses or
other professional environments. Courses in which this series could be useful include agriculture, rural development,
environmental studies, research & extension, agricultural policy-making. The likely target group will be students who
primarily, but not exclusively, (will be) working in developing countries.
What is in it and how can it be used?

The Learning AgriCultures series has seven modules. It explores small-scale (family) farming and how it can become
more sustainable. Each module has three learning blocks, looking at its theme from the perspective of: 1) the farm, 2)
issues in the wider context that affect farming, and lastly 3) sustainability and governance issues. These learning blocks
are followed by a section giving details of educational support materials. Here educators can find and choose from
practical cases (mostly drawn from 25 years of articles in ileia’s archive), exercises, games, photos, videos, checklists
for farm visits as well as further references (free books and websites) that they can use to supplement their courses. A
separate glossary of difficult terms, drawings and diagrams explains concepts from throughout the series. It is hoped
that the suggested questions, practical examples from around the world, and different kinds of resource material, will
enable educators to make their own lesson plans, drawing on what is relevant to their own regional context and student
group.
Learning AgriCultures: Insights from sustainable small-scale farming
Module 1 • Sustainable small-scale farming

Module 2 • Soil and water systems
Module 3 • Cropping systems
Module 4 • Livestock systems
Module 5 • Labour and energy in farming
Module 6 • Markets and finance for small-scale farmers
Module 7 • Knowledge for small-scale farming
Learning AgriCultures 3
Summary
of this module
This module introduces different aspects of small-scale farmers’ cropping systems,
focusing on three viewpoints - the farm, wider contextual issues and governance.
Small-scale cropping systems are often mixed and highly productive, making use
of interactions with other elements on the farm, such as between different crops,
and with livestock. Small-scale farming is the source of valuable crop diversity
in terms of species as well as varieties. It supplies many crops that would not
otherwise be produced, such as those that are important to local food security
and markets, such as with underutilised crops. In seeking greater sustainability
in cropping systems, one general theme keeps recurring: the need to make use
of, conserve and integrate greater diversity into farming systems and the wider
landscape. For farmers, increasing diversity provides many advantages and
opportunities, although it also presents a number of practical challenges. The
advantages include greater adaptability, minimising risk and making use of
interactions with different organisms and sub-systems on and around the farm.
The challenges of diversity management involve the need to find a good balance
between many different elements and high labour and knowledge requirements.
This module describes different aspects of mixed cropping practices. It also

looks at how to sustainably intensify cropping systems, through better knowledge
and observance of location-specific ecological interactions. It describes
recent advances in the development of crop biotechnologies, such as genetic
engineering and formal seed systems, which have had a tremendous impact on
cropping practices around the world. More and more farmers have access to
improved seed as part of a package of chemical inputs and better irrigation. This
has increased production of many important crops. However, these developments
have also meant that the genetic base for agricultural biodiversity in crop
species, varieties, as well as ecosystems, has become narrower. Technological
developments and the introduction of intellectual property rights over plant
varieties also bring the danger of small-scale farmers having less control over their
seed systems. The importance of engaging farmers in land-use planning, crop
breeding and conservation, and in implementing policies that value and support
the unique characteristics of small-scale farms is highlighted.
Table of contents
Table of Contents
FOREWORD TO LEARNING AGRICULTURES SERIES 3
Summary of this module 4
Guide to educators 8
Purposes of Module 3 8
How to teach Module 3 8
What is in Module 3 8
Glossary for the whole series 9
Making lesson plans from this module 10
Example of a Lesson Plan 10

LEARNING BLOCK 1: CROPPING SYSTEMS 13
ON THE FARM
1.1 Introduction 14
1.2 Distinguishing aspects of crops 14
1.2.1 Crop products 15
1.2.2 Scientific classification 16
1.2.3 Reproductive strategies and genetics 17
1.3 Crops as part of a system of interactions 18
1.3.1 Crop interactions with organisms in the soil 19
1.3.2 Crop interactions with other plants 20
1.3.3 Crop interactions with animals 21
1.3.4 Crops and farmers 22
1.4 Farm management and cropping systems 23
1.4.1 Farmers’ selection processes and agrobiodiversity 23
1.4.2 Using crop diversity as a buffer 25
1.5 Sources for this learning block 29
LEARNING BLOCK 2: CROPPING ISSUES IN 31

THE WIDER CONTEXT
2.1 Introduction 32
2.2 Landscape approach to cropping systems 32
2.2.1 Forest ecosystems and small-scale cropping 33
2.3 Access to plant genetic resources 35
2.3.1 Traditional local PGR systems 37
2.3.2 Formal PGR systems 38
2.3.3 Conservation of crop genetic diversity 41
2.4 Management of weeds, pests and diseases 42

2.4.1 The use of chemical pesticides 43
2.4.2 Integrated pest (and weed) management 44
2.5 Intensification of crop management 45
LEARNING BLOCK 3: GOVERNANCE 49

AND SUSTAINABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
3.1 Introduction 50
3.2 Governance issues 51
3.2.1 Involving farmers in rural planning 51
3.2.2 Intellectual property rights, crops and small-scale farmers 52
3.2.3 Including farmers in formal research, breeding 54
and conservation programmes
3.3 Policies supporting sustainable cropping systems 55
3.3.1 Research and development priorities 55
3.3.2 Regulations on inputs: hazardous pesticides and GM organisms 55
3.3.3 Protecting farmer-centred local PGR systems 56
3.3.4 Pricing policies 57
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR MODULE 3 59

R1. Exercises and Games 60
R1.1 Planning a field layout for mixed cropping 60
R1.2 Realising the value of underutilised crops 61
R1.3 Role play on insecticide resistance 62
R1.4 Reforestation and policy measures 64
R2 Articles about practical experiences 66

R2.1 Are polycultures always more sustainable? 66
R2.2 Crop rotation 66
R2.3 Agroforestry (4 articles) 67
R2.4 Home gardens 68
R2.5 Underutilised crops (2 articles) 69
R2.6 Cropping systems and forest ecosystems (3 articles) 69
R2.7 Local PGR systems: Seed fairs 71
R2.8 Formal seed systems: Genetically modified organisms 71
R2.9 Local PGR systems: Community seed banks (2 articles) 72
R2.10 Pesticide use and beneficial insects 72
R2.11 Different view on weeds 73
R2.12 Integrated pest (and weed) management (3 articles) 73
R2.13 Sustainable intensification practices (2 articles) 74
R2.14 Governance issues: Protecting the sustainable of ecosystems 75
R2.15 Governance issues: Participatory plant breeding 76
R2.16 Policy support: Regulations on inputs 76
Table of contents
R3. Photo gallery 77
R4. Videos 80
R4.1 Agroforesty: A sustainable tropical island land use system 80
R4.2 Dalit food systems: a new discourse in food and farming 80
R4.3 Nature Farmer 81
R4.4 Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: a three year fraud 81
R4.5 Biotech pear is a singular tree 82
R4.6 The Transcontainer Project – GM crop containment in the EU 82
R5. Farmer visit and field exercises 84

R5.1 Farmer interview checklist 84
R5.2 Field observations 85
R6. Further references for Module 3 86

R6.1 Books and field guides 86
R6.2 Interesting websites 88
Appendix 95
R2 Articles 96
R3 Photos 134
Guide to educators
Purposes of Module 3
For educators:
• to learn about a systems approach to teaching about sustainable crop
production as part of small-scale farming systems.
For students:
• to understand about crop production dynamics in small-scale farming;
• to learn about how to make cropping practices in small-scale farming more
sustainable - and how to support the efforts of small farmers.
Figure 1: Educators, the target
group of Learning AgriCultures
How to teach Module 3
About 16 contact hours will be needed to teach this entire module. This does not
include time for conducting interviews with farmers, or the time that students
will spend on assignments. Educators will need to decide for themselves whether
to use the entire module or parts of it when making their lesson plans.
At the end of this section, an example is given of how to make a lesson plan from
the material included in this module. The total time required and duration of
each lesson will vary depending on the level of the students, the knowledge of
the educator and how many games and assignments you choose to include in the
course. A very important component of the module is to visit and interview at
least one farmer – so that students can better understand the practical realities of
farming systems in their area.
What is in Module 3?
This module is the third one in the Learning AgriCultures series. As with the
other modules, it includes three learning blocks with theoretical information
and a section with support material as Educational Resources. Specifically, the
content of this module is as follows:
Guide to educators
Learning Block 1:
Cropping systems on the farm
This block provides an overview of different kinds of interactions crops have with
organisms in the soil, other plants (including trees), predatory and beneficial
animals, and farmers. Farmers’ management practices are introduced, together
with the concept of agrobiodiversity and different ways crop diversity can become
a buffer on the farm.
Learning Block 2:
Cropping issues in the wider context
Four issues are analysed that have a great impact on cropping systems around the
world: activities affecting crops at a landscape or ecosystem level, access to seed
and other plant genetic resources, the management of weeds, pests and disease
and the sustainable intensification of cropping practices.
Learning Block 3:
Toward more sustainable cropping systems
This block describes how governance influences small-scale cropping systems
and focuses on three major issues: including farmers in wider land-use planning,
intellectual property rights and participatory plant breeding. The module
concludes with examples of policies that enable and support sustainable small-
scale cropping systems.
Educational resources:
Different kinds of support material are provided for educators to stimulate deeper Figure 2: Symbol to indicate
insights and discussions in class or as assignments. Throughout the main texts, link to suggested questions
boxes suggest links to resources (see the list below) and to probing questions that
are indicated by the symbols found in Figures 2 and 3.
• Exercises and games: for in-class and as assignments, to help deepen
understanding of cropping systems.
• Cases: suggestions for further reading and assignments based on articles from
ileia’s magazine archive, to expose students to different practical examples of
methods farmers use and to stimulate discussion.
• Photographs: for in-class, these can help start discussions with students on
the practical implications of different issues raised in the module.
• Videos: for in-class, to complement the teachings with visual examples from
around the world.
• Farmer interview(s): suggested visit with small-scale farmers, checklist and
further on-farm exercises for students.
• Further references: suggestions for freely available books and interesting Figure 3: Symbol to indicate
websites. link to educational resources
Glossary for the whole series

This is separate from the module and includes definitions for difficult terms for
the whole Learning AgriCultures series.
Making a lesson plan

Three basic questions need to be asked when preparing a lesson plan:
• What do you want your students to learn?
• How are they going to learn it?
• How will you know if they have learned it?
A lesson plan therefore needs to reflect these questions by setting out the learning
objectives, aims, or goals of the unit, and how it relates to the whole course. The
lesson plan should also include a list of the materials needed and the learning
aids and references that you will use. See the example on the next page:
Example of a Lesson Plan
Lesson The implications of mixing crops in small-scale farming
Time 3 hours
Objectives After completion of this session participants are able to:

• demonstrate an understanding of these concepts: crop agrobiodiversity, polycropping,
monocropping, complementarity, synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling
• Recognise different methods of multiple cropping
• Realise some of the practical benefits and limitations of mixed cropping practices in
small-scale farming.
Prerequisite Introduction to cropping systems’ ecological interactions
Time Content Teaching method Teaching aid
15 Central question: What is Introduction: agrobiodiversity Blackboard,

min agrobiodiversity and how and link with the last session on chalk
does it relate to crops? cropping systems and ecological
interactions.
Elaborate on definition from FAO
Plenary discussion: (Box 3)
Ask students what they understand
by agrobiodiversity
Educational Resources
Guide to
foreducators
Module 3
Time Content Teaching method Teaching aid
45 Central question: How can different Introduction: mixed cropping Blackboard,

kinds of crops grow together and be chalk
productive? Plenary discussion:
• What are the different ways that crops Use Figure 7
Important points: can compete for and share light, space, (Crops as part of
• Crops’ ecological interrelationships nutrients and water? wider system)
• What do we mean by polycultures and • Compare interactions in monocultures
monocultures? and polycultures (build on previous
• Define concepts of complementarity, lesson about ecological interactions) Option:
synergy, multi-purpose functions and Article R2.1
recycling In defence of
• Distinguish between simultaneous and monocultures
sequential mixes
10 BREAK
80 Central question: What different ways are Brainstorm: Blackboard,

there for mixing crops? • What could be potential benefits and chalk
limitations of mixing crops when
Important points: thinking of interactions?
• Crop rotation • What about for social or economic Video R4.1
• Multi-cropping factors e.g. labour demands, marketing, (21 minutes):
• Agroforestry food security, nutrition? Agroforestry in
• Home gardens Guam
• Underutilised crops Watch a video e.g. on agroforestry in
• Diversity at edges Guam. Discuss the questions it raises and Computer,
how they relate to your region beamer
10 Concluding remarks about small-scale Wrap up and explain group exercise.

farming and multiple cropping practices Respond to questions.
20 Central question: Based on the lesson, Exercise in small groups: Design a farm’s Exercise R1.1
can students make a mixed cropping cropping system based on 10-15 crops
design? (start the exercise in class, but complete as
homework)
learning block
Cropping systems on the
1
farm
Mohanty Adivasi woman harvesting millet in India, photo from ORRISSAA
How do small-scale farmers around the world

manage crops (including trees) in order to get
productive livelihoods? In what ways do crops
interact with different systems on the farm? What are
the different roles that crops play in the farm and how
do they contribute to livelihoods? What do we mean
by agrobiodiversity? What do we need to consider
in order to increase the agrobiodiversity of cropping
systems? What different practices do farmers use to
maintain diversity in their farms?
1.1 Introduction
The cultivation of crops on arable land is the very foundation of agriculture. How
crops are cultivated varies in countless ways around the world, depending on
many factors such as the climate and weather patterns, the resource base, soil and
water constraints, and the knowledge and access rights of the farmers. Cropping
systems vary from extensive and mobile systems such as shifting cultivation, to
mixed systems that integrate many elements in the farm, to highly intensive
industrial farming, in which large stands of single crops are grown continuously.
All of these cropping systems are practised in tropical climates, although in semi-
arid and arid environments rainfall (and access to irrigation) limits the timing and
extent of agriculture. In (sub) tropical climates mixed cropping, which includes
perennial crops and agroforestry (crops together with trees), predominate. In
more temperate parts of the world, arable farming is more often based on highly
productive and modern input-intensive annual crops, such as cereals.
Regardless of where they are, farmers aim to balance the different ecological
needs of the crops that grow in their environment, so as to develop strategies
to make their farms more productive. This learning block sets the stage by
first describing distinguishing aspects of crops, followed by a look at different
ecological interactions between crops and other organisms and processes at
the level of the farm. It then focuses on small-scale farmers’ crop management
practices, and how a diversity-based approach based on multiple cropping can
enhance the sustainable productivity of their systems.
1.2 Distinguishing aspects of crops
It is very difficult to make generalisations about crops because of their extreme

diversity. They not only look different, offering hugely diverse products from
different parts (leaves, roots, tubers, stems, flowers, etc.), with different properties:
from foods, medicines, fodder, fibres, fuels, wood, and so on. They also provide
a variety of services: the release of oxygen, habitats for beneficial predators, root
networks that give stability and structure to the soil and help water permeation.
Some crops fix nitrogen or draw nutrients from deep in the soil. Trees and bushes
can provide wind breaks, protection from grazing cattle and shelter from the sun.
Plants add vitality to even the most barren places, and farmers’ cropping systems
play a role in shaping landscapes around the world. This section provides an
overview of the importance of crops from different vantage points - classification
in terms of main products, scientific classes, and according to reproductive
strategies and genetics.
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
1.2.1 Crop products

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has developed a simple
classification system for crops according to the main product type and whether
they are a “temporary” or “permanent” (i.e. perennial) crop (see Sub-section
1.2.3). FAO (2010) now classifies all crops according to nine types, as follows:
• Cereals: The main cereal crops are (in order of hectares planted globally)
wheat, rice, maize, barley, oats, rye and sorghum. Cereal crops or grains are
used for food, feed for livestock and in industrial processes producing items
such as alcohols and oils. Cereal grains are considered to be “staple crops;”
they are grown in greater quantities and provide more calorific energy than any
other type of crop. Over half of the global requirement for proteins and calories
is met by just three cereals: maize, wheat and rice. There are also many other
cereals that are locally extremely important for food security, such as fonio
in West and Central Africa, quinoa (technically a “pseudo cereal”) in Latin
America and teff in Ethiopia (all from Bioversity, 2010).
• Vegetables and melons: These are further subdivided into leafy or stem
vegetables (e.g. cabbages and artichokes); fruit-bearing vegetables (e.g.
cucumbers and pumpkins), root, bulb or tuberous vegetables (e.g. carrots and
onions); and mushrooms.
• Fruit and nuts: These are further subdivided into (sub) tropical fruits (e.g.
bananas, mangoes and avocadoes) and citrus fruits; grapes; berries; pome
and stone fruits (e.g. apples, apricots); nuts and “others”. Plantain is included
here, although it is an important staple crop in some African and Caribbean
countries.
• Oilseed crops: soyabeans; groundnuts; other temporary oilseed crops (e.g.
castor bean, sesame); permanent oilseed crops (coconuts, oil palms).
• Root/tuber crops with high starch or inulin content: These differ from
those classified as vegetables because of their starch/inulin content. These
are also considered to be staple crops. This category includes potatoes; sweet
potatoes; cassava; yams and others.
• Beverage and spice crops: beverage crops are permanent crops such
as coffee, cocoa and maté; spice crops include temporary (e.g. chillies and
peppers) and permanent crops (e.g. cinnamon, vanilla and ginger).
• Leguminous crops: these include beans, peas and lentils etc. Legumes
provide the important service of enhancing the availability of nitrogen in the
soil. This is elaborated upon in the next section.
• Sugar crops: examples include sugar beet, sugar cane and sweet sorghum.
• Other crops: including grasses and fodder crops; fibre crops, medicinal,
aromatic, pesticidal crops; rubber; flower crops; tobacco; and others.
It is important to remember that many crops have multiple purposes, which are
not reflected in this classification, as they are classified according to their main What is (are) the staple crop(s)
commercial use. For example, soyabeans are categorised under oilseeds because in your area? Do these crops
this is the principle product; although they are also leguminous and as such can fullfill other functions as well?
provide an important service to soil fertility. Another example is cotton, which is What other types of products
categorised as a fibre crop, but which also produces oil as well as contributing to do small-scale farmers grow
fodder. there?
1.2.2 Scientific classification

While FAO bases its system on crop-product types, scientists and farmers around
the world have long found different ways to classify plants according to common
ecological characteristics and appearance. As more is learnt about genetic
variability (see next section), scientific classification systems of all organisms will
change because they show more clearly whether organisms are (closely) related
or not, according to how similar their gene sequences are. Four different classes
are introduced here, as they will be referred to the most in this module: “family”,
“genus”, “species” and “variety”.
• Family: this is a group of plants that has many common botanical features
that are often easy to recognise. The characteristics of different families can be
important for sustainability and can be used as the basis for farmers’ strategies
What are examples of legumes in combining crops through inter-cropping (planting different types of crops in
in your area? Do farmers plant the same bed or field) or crop rotation (rotating different crops in the same bed
them in combination with or the same field over time). A very important family of plants for farmers is the
other crops to benefit crop Leguminosae (or legume) family. These plants form symbiotic relationships
interactions? with rhizobia, which belong to the family of bacteria called Rhizobiaceae.
When legumes (e.g. beans, peas, soyabeans, groundnuts, lentils, alfalfa, clover,
or trees such as Leucaena or Gliricidia, etc.) are planted in inter-crops, green
manures or in crop rotation, the rhizobia make nitrogen from the air directly
available to other plants.
Box 1: How does symbiosis between legumes and rhizobia work?
Approximately 16 500 species of legumes exist, though not all are able to form an association with nitrogen-fixing
bacteria. Rhizobia are single-celled bacteria, approximately one thousandth of a millimetre in length. These
bacteria form a mutually beneficial association, or symbiosis, with legume plants. The rhizobia enter into the roots
of legume plants which respond by producing a round and visible structure called a root nodule. Taking nitrogen
from the air the rhizobia then convert the nitrogen into a form that plants can use, called ammonium. This is
known as “nitrogen fixation”. Most plants need specific kinds of rhizobia to form nodules. For example, the rhizo-
bia that form nodules on soyabeans cannot form nodules on clover. For nodulation to take place the right plant-
rhizobia combination needs to be present. It also requires a healthy soil environment that is not too acid (i.e. has
a low pH), or suffer from aluminium toxicity, nutrient deficiencies, salinity, water-logging or the presence of root
parasites, such as nematodes. Sometimes it is necessary to inoculate legumes with the correct rhizobia to ensure
that nitrogen-fixation will take place.
• Genus: This is the “generic” or common name given to a specific group of

plants within a family – e.g. Brassica is one of the genera within the family of
Brassicaceae or Cruciferae. (The members of this genus are collectively known
as cabbages).
• Species: This is the more “specific” name of a group of plants within a genus.
Together, the genus and species name define one particular plant (with the
whole name italicised, the genus capitalised, and the species in lower case –
e.g. Leucaena leucocephala). For example, the family of Brassicaceae contains
well-known species such as Brassica oleracea (cabbage, cauliflower, etc.),

Brassica rapa (turnip, Chinese cabbage, etc.), Brassica napus (rapeseed, etc.),
Raphanus sativus (common radish), etc.
• Variety: Within species, there can further be different varieties or “cultivars”
(i.e., cultivated varieties) containing different traits in terms of adaptation to
different conditions such as dryness, soil acidity, pest and disease resistance, but
also in plant height, maturity cycle, etc.
more likely to have a combination of desired traits.
In recent times, the study of genetics has led to a greater understanding of

genes and how specific traits are passed from generation to generation of all
living organisms. For example, children usually look like their parents because
they have inherited their parents’ genes. Genes are units of heredity in a living
organism and consist of a long molecule called DNA, which is copied and
inherited across generations. DNA is made of simple units that line up in a
particular sequence within this large molecule. The order of these units carries
genetic information, a set of “instructions” for how each living organism develops
and operates.
“Plant genetic resources” (PGR) is a term used to refer to seeds and planting
material of all varieties – traditional, modern cultivars, wild relatives of crops and
other wild plant species (PGR systems will be discussed further in Section 2.3).
The term “genetic variability” describes how different plant characteristics are
represented in different varieties within one species, or even within one variety.
Figure 6: A DNA molecule is Genetic variability in a population is important for biodiversity, to enable a
composed of simple units lined population to adapt to varying environmental conditions (e.g. soil, climate, etc.).
up in a sequence that looks like a The diversity within crop species is at least as important as diversity between
long coil.
species. We will discuss biodiversity further in Section 1.4.
1.3 Crops as part of a system of interactions
To understand issues of sustainability and small-scale farming it is helpful to

look at crops as being part of a wider system of interactions with different kinds
of organisms. Crops interact with other plants and organisms in several ways
that critically determine how they grow. In a balanced cropping system, the
positive interactions (i.e. those that help the crop grow well) are strengthened,
and the negative interactions are minimised through management practices.
Understanding these different kinds of interactions is important in understanding
the sustainability of crop production. Figure 7 presents a model of some of the
major interactions between crops and their wider environment. Two crops,
maize and beans are used as an example, but the different kinds of elements that
interact with crops form a general pattern. This model provides a simplified view
and does not show for example, the negative interactions of trees, other crops,
weeds and (soil-borne) pathogens. The rest of this section reflects on ways in
which crops interact with different elements and sub-systems that can promote or
detract from their growth.
Figure 7: Crops as part of a

wider system of ecological
1.3.1 C
rop interactions with organisms in interactions that need to be
kept in balance through farmers’
the soil practices.
Module 2 focused on the importance of the soil and water system; this section
examines interactions between crops and the soil system. Several factors drive
interactions within the soil: soil structure, the availability of nutrients and
moisture, space and interactions with the root system of the crop and the activities
of the soil’s micro-organisms. These all have an important influence on crop
growth. Soil systems include nutrient cycling through plants. Nutrients come
from a variety of sources and their availability depends on a number of favourable
conditions. Even if desired nutrients exist in the soil, they may not be accessible
to the crops, for example they may be physically out of reach of the roots.
Moreover, they need to be chemically available: nutrients need to be mineralised
(oxidised) and be in solution (i.e. mixed with water) in order for plant roots to be
able to take them up. Also, the soil’s pH must be neither too alkaline nor too acid.
Root systems are composed of long thick roots, that provide structural support,
and shorter, fine roots that are important in the uptake of nutrients and water.
A good soil structure allows roots to penetrate and spread in the soil. Plant roots
provide a special, highly energised habitat for micro-organisms living in the area
around them, called the “rhizosphere”. The activities of different organisms in
the soil greatly aid the process of nutrient uptake by plants, as explained below.
The soil is home to a tremendous number of micro-organisms that make up a

special system, known as the “soil food web”. The vast majority of organisms
living in the rhizosphere are “decomposers” that feed on root-derived compounds
and organic matter in the soil. In most cases, their presence is highly beneficial
to plant growth, particularly when their activities release mineral nutrients
that plants can subsequently take up. Also, some organisms, such as nitrogen-
fixing rhizobial bacteria (see Box 1) and mycorrhizal fungi (see Box 2), form
associations with plants that allow them to get access to more nutrients. Both
the micro-organisms and the plants benefit from this association (microbes get
energy and carbon from the plant while plants get greater access to nutrients
Figure 8: Micro-organisms form and increase their water uptake). These are known as mutualistic or symbiotic
part of a “soil food web” which associations. But the soil food web also includes pests that can harm the
influences plant growth in both
productivity of plants, including below-ground herbivores, plant-parasitic
positive and negative ways.
nematodes and pathogenic fungi that feed directly on living root tissues. In a
“normal” situation, the micro-organisms are in delicate balance with one another.
If the equilibrium is disturbed, a specific organism may multiply excessively and
become a pest problem.
Box 2: Mycorrhizal fungi and crops (modified from Habte, 2006)
One of the most common mutualistic associations that plants form with soil microbes is with mycorrhizal fungi.
These improve access to limited nutrients, improve soil properties and the plant’s capacity to absorb water. The
most important of the seven known types of mycorrhizal fungi is arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) which influences
over 80 percent of known plant species. How does it work? The AM penetrates roots, forms arbuscules, coils or
vesicles in the roots that allow for hyphae (hair-like structures) to form. These hyphae have a smaller diameter than
roots, can reach a greater surface area and are able to reach into the soil, transferring nutrients and water to the
plant roots very efficiently. In this way, the hyphae access nutrients that the plant normally cannot, including less
mobile pools of phosphorus, the lack of which is often a very important constraint on plant growth. Furthermore,
greater access to phosphorus (and other limited nutrients such as copper, calcium and zinc) stimulates nodulation
and nitrogen fixation by other microbes such as rhizobia (see Box 1 above).
1.3.2 Crop interactions with other plants

The interactions of crops with other plants, that include weeds, other crops
and trees is largely based on competition for light, nutrients, water and space.
However, there are also many cases in which plants complement one another’s
growth, through differences in tolerance to light levels, having different root
depth and, some specific cases where crop growth is enhanced by interactions
with other plants. For example, in Figure 7, maize benefits from the nutrients
fixed by the root nodules in beans, a leguminous crop.
Different crops have different rooting structures that can compete with, or
complement, each other in accessing nutrients and moisture from the soil. The
spacing of individual plants ensuring that they develop strong root systems able
to withstand the invasion of weeds are a critical part of planting. Plants are either
deep-rooting or shallow-rooting, which means that they access nutrients and water
from different layers of the soil.
Some plants produce toxic substances from their roots that inhibit growth of other
plants, even to the point of making it impossible for some other plants to become Figure 9: Plants have different
established. This is known as “allelopathy”. For example, root parasite weeds such root depths, that access water
as witch wood (Striga spp) in cereals and legumes, and broomrape (Orobanche) and nutrients from different
in crops such as vegetables and sunflowers, cause great problems for farmers places in the soil.
in areas with low soil fertility and low annual rainfall. Other examples include
black walnut trees that inhibit the growth of vegetables such as tomatoes, peas
and potatoes. The mechanisms behind these allelopathic associations are still not
fully understood, although they do cause great harm.
Sunlight and shade

In general, crops need sunlight to be productive. Plants are primary producers
and are able to capture their energy needs from the sun in their leaves and send
it to their roots. Competition for sunlight is an important interaction between Can you think of different kinds
different plants. Little sunlight means that less energy is available, limiting the of weeds that are problematic
growth of crops. While water can be a limiting factor to growth and survival in dry in your area? Why have they
and sunny environments, energy (in the form of sunlight) is usually the limiting become a problem, and what
factor in shady environments. are farmers doing about it?
Some plants, such as those in a forest’s under-story, have adapted to very low
light levels. They are known as “shade tolerant” and are highly efficient energy-
users. Examples include cocoa and coffee. In general, these plants grow broader,
thinner leaves, to catch more sunlight. Shade tolerant plants are also usually
adapted to make better use of soil nutrients than shade intolerant plants. As shown
in Figure 9, shade trees can also provide services such as accessing nutrients from
deeper layers of the soil (and depositing them on the surface through leaf-fall).
Trees can also benefit from the soil cover provided by low-lying plants which
increase levels of soil moisture and organic matter.
1.3.3 Crop interactions with animals

Figure 10: Understanding
The term “animals” here includes domestic livestock as well as wild mammals,
differing light needs helps
birds, and insects and other invertebrates. The browsing activities of different farmers plan the best relative
kinds of animals influence the growth of crops and these interactions can be positioning of crops.
beneficial or detrimental. Examples of harmful interactions are larger animals
such as birds, rodents or ungulates feeding on plants – whether the leaves, stems,
bark, fruit, grain or roots - as well as insects and other invertebrates that are
considered to be pests, getting to the harvest before the farmers, causing disease or
killing the plant.
Examples of interactions that are beneficial for crops are the activities of
pollinators, the addition of nutrients to the soil through faecal deposits (or as
manure) as well as the feeding habits of the predators of pests that feed on plants.
What are examples of As indicated in Sub-section 1.2.3, pollination - which involves the transfer of
pollinators and other beneficial pollen between plants for fertilisation - is an essential part of plant reproduction.
animals, as well as of animals The activities of pollinators are clearly important for most plants. Approximately
that cause problems in the 80 percent of all flowering plant species are adapted for pollination by animals
main crops in your area? and insects. Pollinators include insects such as bees (over 25 000 bee species
identified), wasps, ants, beetles, moths and butterflies, as well as vertebrates
such as birds, bats, squirrels and some primates. Many other plants that do not
need pollinators are pollinated by the wind (e.g. grasses, coniferous, and many
deciduous, trees).
Animals that prey on browsers of crops are also known as “natural enemies”, and
they help farmers to control pests and disease. Their role will be discussed more
under Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Learning Block 2. In some cases,
animals are also important to safeguard the growth of vegetation. For example
grass lands and heaths require regular grazing to stop the succession of larger
woody plants.
1.3.4 Crops and farmers

The activities and management practices of farmers (and in some cases other
people, such as herders, hunters and gatherers) strongly influence the growth
of their crops. The choices they make, and how well they manage the many
interactions described above, are fundamental to the productivity of their
cropping systems. They need to constantly adapt their practices to nurture
the beneficial interactions while minimising problems from competition and
destruction by pests. In the next section, we look more deeply at how farming
practices affect the growth and development of cropping systems.
1.4 Farm management and cropping systems

This section examines the management of small-scale cropping systems: cropping
patterns involve polycultures (multiple crops in the same space), monocultures
(large stands of single crops), agroforestry (trees integrated into cropping systems),
as well as combinations of crops with livestock, with forest systems, aquaculture,
rangelands, pastures and fallow lands. Farmers have developed diverse cropping
patterns and thousands of different crop varieties and animal breeds during the
12 000 years that agriculture has existed (FAO, 2010). This section gives
particular attention to the dynamics of multiple cropping.
Small-scale farmers generally engage in mixed systems including multiple Figure 11: Farmers’ practices
cropping to meet their food and livelihood needs. In developing their farm favour the growth and
systems, farmers continuously adapt their practices in order to enhance the development of certain crops,
growth of their crops. They make the most of local conditions, adapting practices while seeking to minimise the
to maintain or enhance soil fertility and moisture and to protect crops against effects of weeds, pests and
diseases.
pests, disease and other harmful effects. Module 2 discussed farming practices
that improve soil fertility and water processes, such as improving the quality (and
quantity) of the soil’s organic matter. The management practices discussed in that
module are essential for good crop growth and provide an essential background to
the cropping practices discussed here.
Two major management issues for farmers are dealing with the persistence of
weeds and with pests and disease. Weeds can compete with crops for space,
nutrients, water and light; and if not managed properly, can greatly interfere
with the productivity of cropping systems and pasture land. Some crops have
greater resistance to weed interference, especially those that are larger and faster
growing. It is important to understand the growth patterns of both crops and
weeds in order to time when to prepare beds, sow crops and remove weeds, to
give their crops a head start before weeds establish strong root systems, grow tall
and start flowering. Keeping ahead of pests and pathogens before they become a
major problem for their crops is also crucial. There are many similarities between
pest and weed problems and the measures used to control them - from clearing
practices, to removing weeds or pests mechanically, through indirect measures,
or through applying herbicides and pesticides. Learning Block 2 discusses these
and other practices in greater detail in a section on integrated pest (and weed)
management.
1.4.1 F
armers’ selection processes and
agrobiodiversity
Small-scale farmers’ selection processes lead to crop (and animal) varieties that
are well adapted to the location-specific conditions of their farm (see “landraces”
and “heirloom” varieties in Box 5 in Learning Block 2). Farmers might, for
example, favour seeds from plant varieties that have proven to be tolerant to
drought conditions and/or resistant to particular pests and diseases. Or they might
select according to fruit size, shape or colour, plant height, early or late-maturing
varieties, or because of a special taste or cooking characteristics, according to
local traditions.
Farmers’ selection, seed-saving and exchange activities have allowed them to

develop tremendous genetic diversity in local landraces over the millennia. A key
characteristic of landraces is that genetic diversity is maintained, through natural
processes (e.g. open-pollination), seed selection and adaptation processes. When
fields are planted close together, there is a constant gene flow between landraces.
This diversity allows for natural protection against pests and diseases and buffers
against environmental fluctuations. In this way, small-scale farming systems aim
for harvest security and sustainability of production over time.
These selection activities have not only produced great diversity in crop varieties,
Is it clear in your region that but have also built up detailed knowledge about “agrobiodiversity” (see Box 3)
men and women have different which goes beyond on-farm crops and includes many plants, animals and micro-
kinds of knowledge about organisms in their farms’ specific ecological conditions, how they can be actively
(different) crops? How are conserved and used sustainably. In general, women and men farmers have
gender roles divided regarding different priorities and knowledge about their cropping systems. Especially in
cropping systems on farms in traditional societies, a major priority for women is food and in particular the food
your region? security of their families. Women therefore have specific, traditional knowledge
of seeds, harvesting and storage techniques for food crops. Men in these societies
tend to be more concerned with cash crops, grown to meet household expenses.
Their knowledge is therefore often focused on how agrobiodiversity and farming
practices relate to cash crops. In many places, however, these roles are shifting
and becoming less clearly defined, as family members are increasingly getting
involved in off-farm and migrant employment to earn additional cash.
Box 3: What is Agrobiodiversity?
Agricultural diversity (or agrobiodiversity) is the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms
that are used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture, including crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries. It
comprises the diversity of genetic resources (varieties, breeds) and species used for food, fodder, fibre, fuel and
pharmaceuticals. It also includes the diversity of non-harvested species that support production (soil micro-
organisms, predators, pollinators), and those in the wider environment that support agro-ecosystems (agricultural,
pastoral, forest and aquatic) as well as the diversity of the agro-ecosystems themselves (Definition from FAO, 1999)
Despite ongoing development of crop diversity by farmers, overall crop genetic

diversity has become increasingly narrower throughout the world over the last
sixty years. The FAO estimates that of the 250 000 to 300 000 known edible
plant varieties available to agriculture, about 7 000 (or less than 3 percent) are
currently used by people. Today, 75 percent of the world’s food is generated
from only twelve crop and five animal species. Three crops – rice, maize and
wheat – contribute nearly 60 percent of plant-based calories and proteins
obtained by people. The development of “improved” varieties (see glossary)
has led to tremendous positive benefits – in particular higher food production

to meet the needs of a growing population. Yet, it has also caused losses in
agrobiodiversity as multiple “traditional” or local varieties are being replaced with
few, improved, varieties that are grown over large areas. Along with the losses in
agrobiodiversity, farmers’ knowledge about specific local crops, and their selection
and management practices disappear. Modern technological developments have
had a great impact on farmers’ seed-saving practices. Learning Block 2 goes more Do you know about crop
deeply into the issue of farmers’ access to seed and other planting materials, and diversity in your region? Are
how agricultural diversity has been affected by this. farmers growing improved
varieties? If yes, how do they
Looking at the interrelationships between crops and other organisms (see use them? Are local varieties
Figure 7 above), it becomes clear that losses in crop varieties can also affect being replaced?
many other organisms. The importance of pollinators in plant reproduction was
discussed above. Pollinators also need a variety of plants to be able to feed well.
Some plant species rely on a particular set of pollinators to provide pollination
services. Pollinators have suffered pressure on their habitats because of activities
such as land clearing for agricultural purposes, pesticide use, tourism and the
introduction of exotic species. All of these losses have had tremendous impacts
on the sustainability of cropping systems. The next section discusses cropping
systems that are based on building up biodiversity and improving sustainability.
1.4.2 Using crop diversity as a buffer Figure 12: Losses in crop species
and varieties can affect the
survival of many other organisms
Diversity typifies small-scale farming, where farmers depend on several crops as such as pollinators, particularly
well as mixed systems to meet their food and livelihood needs. Through their if they are specialists rather than
practices, farmers seek a balance between favourable conditions of fertility, water generalists.
and light, while also keeping weeds and pests under control. When managed
carefully, having a mix of crops offers a number of advantages. It can offer a
kind of buffer to farmers by spreading risks in case of crop failure, unpredictable
weather, falling market prices, etc. It also gives farmers more room to adapt
to changes. Systems based on diversity can provide more options for recycling
nutrients and better regulation of soil moisture processes. However it does take
great effort to learn how to manage these mixed systems.
Small-scale multiple cropping systems tend to have higher productivity in terms

of harvestable products per unit of land area and of energy use than large-scale
intensive monoculture systems, though the productivity of each crop itself may
be lower than when grown as a sole crop. When planned well, mixed systems
can regulate undesirable organisms such as pests, weeds and pathogens. For
example, planting cover crops and well timed inter-crops can suppress weeds;
and providing nectar-producing plants and alternate “hosts” (such as specific Go to R2.1 to discuss an article
weeds) in and around fields can lead to the build-up of predator populations and that asks the challenging
increase the biological control of pests. Nevertheless, systems with a mix of crops question of whether
are more complex and require more careful management. Patience is needed for polycultures are always more
trial and error and careful observation to be able to adapt knowledge and skills sustainable than monocultures.
about growth patterns and crop interactions, as well as constant fine-tuning of the
timing and sequence of crops.
Mixed cropping systems require planning, in terms of time and space. For this, a
good understanding of the crops’ needs is necessary: i.e. planting date, rotation
and timing of fertilisation and optimal plant densities and spatial arrangements.
In managing polycultures, farmers also need to understand relationships of
complementarity and synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling within their
whole farm.
• Complementarity: describes how different elements in the system help
others to grow better (e.g. when one crop provides protection against pests, or
increases the availability of nutrients, for another crop - these can be planted
close together to enhance the beneficial elements).
• Synergy: when elements co-operate and build on each other, thus increasing
the farm’s output, (e.g. crops with different root depths growing in the same
place; combining an early maturing crop with a late maturing one, for example
maize with pearl millet in West Africa).
• Multi-purpose functions: describes how a single element in the system may
perform several different functions (e.g. a tree providing different products such
as food, fibre, nuts, medicines, etc.), shade, live fencing, leaves for fodder, etc.).
• Recycling: when the end-product of one system becomes an input and
resource for another (e.g. manure from livestock becoming a nutrient resource
for crops; crop residues being used for mulching to replenish nutrients, or for
fodder for livestock).
A number of practices can be used to build up the kind of biodiversity that will
help promote more sustainable ecological functioning on the farm. Some of the
practices mentioned in Module 2 not only build up organic matter but also help
increase the diversity in a farm’s cropping system: mixing crops and crop varieties
over space and time through cover crops and green manures, intercrops and crop
rotation. Besides the ecological benefits that this diversity can bring to the farm, it
also brings dietary benefits – through providing multiple food sources. It can serve
as a buffer against economic risks, giving more options for selling or exchanging
products in the marketplace. The following paragraphs provide short descriptions
of different cropping practices that farmers use to increase biodiversity and
enhance the sustainability of their farms.
Crop rotation
This practice involves growing a sequence of different crops over time
on the same plot. The logic of crop rotation is to build up synergies and
See R2.2 for an article from complementarities through cropping sequences. By rotating crops farmers avoid
Zambia where farmers have a build-up of pathogens, pests, and weeds, that often occurs when a single species
modified the “Mambwe (or crops from the same family) is continuously cropped. For this reason crops
mound” shifting cultivation that are directly related should not be planted in the same bed for about three
systems by introducing a cereal- seasons. Another strategy is to alternate deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants
legume crop rotation together to improve the soil structure and to utilise nutrients at different levels in the soil.
with mulching on mounds. Rotation also improves the efficiency of nutrient use, avoiding excessive depletion
of particular soil nutrients by sequentially planting crops that have different
fertility demands and contributions (e.g. replenishing nitrogen by planting

leguminous crops prior to and following nitrogen-hungry crops such as cereals).
For example, in Zambia, a traditional shifting cultivation system was improved
and intensified through use of compost and cereal-legume rotation on mounds.
Multi-cropping
This set of practices mixes two or more crops in the same space (horizontally
or vertically) during a single season. In this way, large stands of single crops, or Go to R1.1 to design a farm’s
monocultures, are avoided. Multi-cropping practices include: cropping system based on
• Inter-cropping or companion planting: planting of different crops close food crops, staple crops,
together at the same time and in the same bed; also the integration of trees with underutilised crops, market
crops (see agroforestry below). crops and trees. Think about
• Double-cropping: a second crop is planted after the first has been harvested. examples of complementarity,
• Relay cropping: a second crop is started amidst the first crop before it has synergy, multi-functionality and
been harvested. recycling.
• Cover cropping: growing an additional low-lying crop for the purposes of
keeping the ground covered to: avoid soil erosion; increase soil fertility (usually Go to video R4.3 to hear
through the use of “green manures” which are in most cases legumes that fix a small-scale farmer in Sri
nitrogen) and control weeds. The selection of the type of a cover crop also Lanka’s views on mixed
includes considerations of whether the crop provides food, fodder or a cash crop. farming.
The principles for these different types of multi-cropping are the same:
integrating different crops that allow for complementary synergies in nutrient
uptake, attracting natural enemies, buffering against or even repelling pests or
weeds, while avoiding competition for nutrients, water and light that harms the
productivity of, at least, the main crop. It takes some experimentation to find the
right combinations, and to be sure that productivity is not lost due to competition.
Agroforestry
This involves combining arable crops with trees. It is also sometimes referred to
as agro-silviculture or multi-storey cropping. Agroforestry has long been a normal
practice of small-scale farmers, particularly in the humid tropics. When managed
well, trees offer many services that can be advantageous for cropping systems;
however as seen in the previous section, it is important to take care that the
addition of trees do not cause harm to crops because of competition for water and
nutrients and that crops do not become shaded out. The following issues should
be considered in relation to trees.
The deep-rooting system of trees can help prevent erosion and allow trees to
tap into water and nutrients that are unattainable to annual crops. Yet before
combining woody perennials with crops the relationships between rooting
structures need to be well understood. For example, where there is low rainfall,
trees may develop horizontal roots to reach rain water and can present unwanted Figure 13: Agroforestry
competition for water and nutrients in semi-arid areas. Also, care must be taken combines both crops and trees in
one system.
that there are no toxic elements in the trees’ foliage or roots that may inhibit
growth of other crops through allelopathy.
Adding leguminous trees and bushes is advantageous as they can fix nitrogen that
annual crops can benefit from. Trees improve the micro-climate by moderating
ground temperatures, moisture levels, providing shade and windbreaks.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand the light needs of lower crops and
be sure they can still grow well under a canopy. Trees offer a wide variety of
products: wood for fuel and building purposes, food, fibre, natural pesticides
or medicines, fruit, nuts, oils, nectar, dyes, gums, waxes, resins, as holders of
hives for honey production, etc. as well as production of fodder for livestock or
Go to R2.3 and discuss several fish. Being perennial, trees require little labour. On the other hand, trees are a
articles describing different long-term investment, and most of these products cannot be harvested until a
experiences with introducing number of seasons have passed. Because of the time involved in growing woody
agroforestry in Brazil (analog perennials, farmers usually need to have secure access to land tenure before they
agroforestry and cocoa), are willing to make such an investment. Another constraint to consider is that
Central America (shade trees can affect grain harvests as they attract birds that are potential pests.
trees and coffee), Sri Lanka
(living fences) and Ghana Agroforestry principles can help to rehabilitate land to allow for higher
(introducing leguminous productivity. One way is found in “analog agroforestry” (or “succession farming”).
varieties into farms). This refers to the principle of imitating the species’ succession found in natural
forests in an area, mixing annuals and perennials, in such a way that over the
Go to R4.1 and watch a video years, a multiple storey system can be established. Sometimes farmers are
about agroforestry in Guam. resistant to the idea of agroforestry: because of the time it takes to reap the
benefits, a lack of land tenure, risks in trying something new and unknown and
the new skills and knowledge required to experiment with tree growing and
management.
Home gardens
These small-scale systems are found close to people’s homes in (sub) humid
areas, in both rural and urban zones. They tend to be managed by women. In
some places, home gardens are also considered to be agroforestry systems, and are
sometimes known as “forest gardens” when they have multiple storeys, consisting
of crops, middle and high canopy trees. However, trees are not always part of this
system. Home gardens are used to supplement food, medicines and household
income. They are typified by a wide diversity of species, including local varieties,
Go to R2.4 to find an article and sometimes include livestock on the same piece of land.
from Bangladesh, where home
gardens are an important Underutilised crops
source of food security. At least 7,000 cultivated species continue to be used today around the world,
mostly integrated in small-scale farming systems (including home gardens).
These crops are often referred to as “neglected” or “underutilised” species. These
species are a potentially important resource, for biodiversity and for household
food security, since they contribute to improved nutrition and can act as buffers
in times of emergency or change. They also provide many medicinal plants.
However, they are often less used than other more common crops because they
often require more work to prepare, due to often being smaller in size, more
difficult to peel, etc. A lack of attention to these crops by research and extension
institutions means that they may disappear before their potentially multiple values
are known. Underutilised crops can be brought into production in many ways
and can open up new possibilities for small-scale integrated farming systems as
well as processing and marketing opportunities.
Diversity at the crop-field boundaries

Farmers can improve biodiversity by planting woody perennials along the edges of
their farms, as hedgerows, for example. If managed well, these can offer different
kinds of (food and market) products as well as services, such as living fences,
fodder banks, shelterbelts or windbreaks. Woody perennials can help to regulate Go to R2.5 to find two articles
the micro-climate, cooling it through providing shade and as a barrier against on underutilised crops in Africa
wind. and the Pacific.
Hedgerows can also encourage more biodiversity on the farm in providing habitat Go to R1.2 to find an exercise
for insects, birds and other animals. However, they can also bring unwanted pests to research about underutilised
and weeds into the farm, if not carefully managed. Different methods to manage crops in your region.
pests and disease are discussed in Section 2.4.
Go to 4.2 to watch a video on
underutilised crops India.
1.5 Sources for this learning block

• Almekinders, D.J.M., L.O. Fresco and P.C. Struik. 1995. The need to study
and manage variation in agro-ecosystems. Netherlands Journal of
Agricultural Science 43: 127-142.
• Altieri, Miguel A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in

agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 19-31.
• Ashworth, Suzanne. 2002. Seed to seed: Seed saving and growing

techniques for vegetable gardeners. Seed Savers Exchange, Iowa, US.
• Boddey, R. M., Runo J.R. Alves, Veronica M. Reis and Segundo Urquiaga.
2006. Biological nitrogen fixation in agroecosystems and in plant
roots. In: Uphoff, Norman, Andrew S. Ball, Erick Fernandes, Hans Herren,
Olivier Husson, Mark Lang, Cheryl Palm, Jules Pretty, Pedro Sanchez,
Nteranya Sanginga and Janice Thies (eds). Biological approaches to sustainable
soil systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, USA. pp 177-
189.
• Bioversity International. 2010 Why biodiversity matters; Cereals.

Bioversity website. Link to: www.bioversityinternational.org.
• Brookfield, Harold, Helen Parsons and Muriel Brookfield (eds). 2003.

Agrodiversity: Learning from farmers across the world. The United
Nations University, New York.
• FAO. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity, multifunctional character of

agriculture and land conference. Background paper 1. Maastricht,
Netherlands.
• FAO. 2005. Classification of crops. Appendix 3 in: A system of integrated

agricultural censuses and surveys: World Programme for the Census of
Agriculture 2010. Statistical Development Series no. 11. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. pp 142-146.
• FAO. 2010. Core themes on crop production. Website of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Link to: www.fao.
org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/en/.
• Habte, Mitiku. 2006. The roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant

and soil health. In: Uphoff, Norman et al. (eds). Biological approaches to
sustainable soil systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton,
U.S.A. pp 129-147.
• Ileia editorial team. 2006. Ecological processes at work. LEISA Magazine

Vol. 22 (4): 4-5.
• Kew Royal Botanic Gardens. 2000. Kew information sheet: Studying

plant diversity – classification. Board of Trustees, Kew Gardens,
London, U.K.
• Pimbert, Michel. 2009. Theme overview: Women and food

sovereignty. LEISA Magazine. Vol.25(3): 6-9.
• Reijntjes, Coen, Bertus Haverkort and Ann Waters-Bayer. 1992. Farming for
the future: An introduction to low-external-input and sustainable
agriculture. MacMillan Education Ltd. London and Oxford, U.K.
• Römheld, Volker and Neumann, Günter. 2006. The rhizosphere:

Contributions of the soil-root interface to sustainable soil systems.
In: Uphoff, Norman et al. (eds). Biological approaches to sustainable soil
systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, U.S.A. pp 91-108.
• Thies, Janice E. and Grossman, Julie M. 2006. The soil habitat and soil
ecology. In: Uphoff, Norman et al. (eds). Biological approaches to sustainable
soil systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, U.S.A. pp 59-78.
• Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.com.
learning block
Cropping issues in the
2
wider context
IPM exercise in a rice field in Bangladesh, Photo by Hein Bijlmakers
What influence do broader contextual issues have on

the cropping practices of small-scale farmers? How
can these be managed? What opportunities do they
open up and what limitations do they impose? How
do farmers’ cropping practices affect biodiversity
outside their farms and vice versa? And why is this
important? How has farmers’ access to seeds and
other plant genetic resources changed in recent
decades, and what does this mean for small-scale
farmers? How can farmers intensify their cropping
systems to improve their livelihoods through more
sustainable integrated “ecosystems” approaches?
2.1 Introduction
In the previous learning block, small-scale cropping systems were discussed at
the farm level. It described a number of multiple cropping methods that are part
of a strategy of diversity found in small-scale farming. A diverse approach calls
for complex management practices, knowledge and skills that build up positive
location-specific ecological interactions while keeping negative ones in check.
Managed well, these practices can make cropping systems more productive and
resilient, while providing more options for adapting the farm to meet the many
changes that come up in risky, variable and marginal conditions. A sustainable
approach to diversity however extends beyond farm boundaries. In this second
learning block, we will look at the wider context of cropping systems so as to
better understand the sustainability of small-scale farming. The important
contribution of small-scale farming to building up genetic diversity in crop
species and varieties is highlighted. This is followed by a description of how
large-scale developments in the production of plant genetic resources have had
a tremendous impact on farmers’ control over their seed systems, their access to
seed as well as on the sustainability of their cropping systems.
Two context-level concepts are also introduced in this learning block, that relate
to cropping systems’ sustainability: “landscapes” and “ecosystems”. The example
of forests receives special focus as a natural ecosystem that is feeling the effects
Go to R3 to find the photo of the expansion of activities including farming. This replacement of complex
gallery to help stimulate natural systems leads to their fragmentation, losses in diversity as well as the
discussion about different increased release of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
cropping issues. Cropping systems can benefit from adopting more of an “ecosystems” approach
to intensification, building biodiversity so as to enhance sustainability. Integrated
pest (and weed) management is a prime example of this kind of approach.
2.2 Landscape approach to cropping systems

This section looks at the landscape level to show how different kinds of land uses
(including small-scale farming and natural ecosystems) influence each other’s
functioning and sustainability. A landscape can be described as a mosaic of local
ecosystems with a particular pattern of topography, vegetation, land use and
settlement, over a kilometres-wide area. Ecosystems are a dynamic complex of
plants, animals and micro-organism communities and their physical environment
interacting as a functional unit in a certain place. Ecosystems make up big
natural systems such as grasslands, mangroves, coral reefs and tropical forests; but
even farms are often referred to as “agro-ecosystems”.
Landscapes constantly evolve under all sorts of pressures and these changes
introduce new opportunities or impose restrictions on farms. For example, the
development of infrastructure can offer new marketing opportunities. A farm will
Figure 14: A landscape is
composed of a mosaic of also be influenced by whether there are “wild” ecosystems close by. From there,
different land uses that influence they can access different resources for their cropping systems, such as planting
each other. material or ecological fertiliser. These can also be home to beneficial as well
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
as parasitic organisms that affect farms in the vicinity. On the other hand, if there
are industrial areas around the farm, including large-scale agro-ecosystems using
modern technologies such as chemical pesticides or genetically modified crops (see
Sub-sections 2.4.1 and 2.3.2) these can reduce the ability of neighbouring farms to
maintain their (agro) biodiversity and sustainability.
Agro-ecosystems currently use about 40 percent of the Earth’s total land base and
they continue to expand because of pressures to meet growing demand for food,
fodder and fibre. Such expansion means that agriculture is taking land from other
ecosystems and the management practices of farms greatly affect the sustainability
of these ecosystems. Land-use developments over the last fifty years have changed What kinds of different land
ecosystems more rapidly than in any comparable period of time in human history uses can be found in a typical
(MEA, 2005). Biodiversity on and around farms has declined through the use of rural landscape in your
fewer crop varieties, greater specialisation, and the use of chemical pesticides. area? What different kinds of
Globally more than 100 000 areas have some degree of protection to preserve ecosystems can be found there?
wildlife and ecosystems, yet these contain significant amounts of land used for How do small-scale farmers
agriculture (ileia, 2004). At the same time, many more of these conservation areas interact with these ecosystems
are “islands in a sea of farms, pastures and production forests” that are managed in to enhance their cropping
ways that threaten the long-term survival of species and ecosystems. For example, systems?
at least half of the world’s temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forest ecosystems are
dominated by crop and pasture production.
A balance is needed so that farmers can gain meaningful livelihoods in ways that
do not lead to a decline in biodiversity at the landscape level. Just as farmers can
adapt their methods to nurture the sustainability of their cropping systems through
increasing diversity in their farms, they can also make a contribution to protecting
biodiversity in the wider landscape. Measures that they might adopt include
ensuring that their practices do not cause widespread erosion, pollute water systems,
or poison the wider environment through indiscriminate use of chemical inputs.
Many people work in, and depend upon landscapes for their livelihoods, including
small-scale farmers. This can create pressures and improving the sustainability
of cropping systems might often involve adopting a “landscape approach.” This
involves close collaboration between farmers, herders and other land users in order
to agree on how to manage common resources. Section 3.2.1 will discuss these
kinds of consultation processes further. The next sub-section, takes a close look at
the example of interactions between agro-ecosystems and the forest ecosystem, to
illustrate wider issues of sustainability.
2.2.1 F
orest ecosystems and
small-scale cropping
Sub-section 1.4.2 describes how agroforestry systems that mix woody perennials and
crops can improve the sustainable productivity of farming. These systems can vary
from intercropping to using trees in hedges or woodlots. Forest ecosystems have
Figure 15: Forests offer many
long been important to farmers and other people living close to them: for hunting products and services to farmers
and for gathering food such as fruits, berries, honey, mushrooms, leafy vegetables, and others.
as well as firewood, medicines, fibres and construction materials. Forests can

also provide a source of various kinds of plants and other genetic resources that
contribute to farmers’ cropping systems.
Forests in the vicinity of farms provide other benefits to farmers’ cropping

systems as well. At the local level, forest cover has different buffering effects that
influence the landscape, modifying the local climate by providing shade and
absorbing heat energy; during cold seasons, they can act as a windbreak, reducing
wind chill. The barrier effect of forests also reduces losses from evaporation and
reduces wind erosion. Forests also provide stability to sloping land through their
root structure and by intercepting water, protecting the soil from the effects
of sheet erosion. By regulating the flow of water, they reduce surface erosion,
sedimentation and down-stream flooding and, by filtering water pollutants, forests
also protect water resources.
On a global level, forests help to mitigate the effects of climate change. As

explained in Module 2, an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is considered to be one of the principle causes of climate change.
Because of plants’ important role in photosynthesis, they are a key factor in the
carbon cycle. Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, combining it
with water, then “storing” the carbon in the form of vegetation and, in the case
of trees, in wood. This is known as “carbon sequestration.” As about 20 percent of
tree weight is made up of carbon, forests can sequester a great deal of it. In total,
according to the FAO (2006), the world’s forests and forest soils currently store
Figure 16: Forests help to more than one trillion tonnes of carbon -- twice the amount found floating freely
mitigate the effects of climate
in the atmosphere.
change.
Clearing forests, particularly through burning, releases a great deal of carbon

into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the effects of climate change. Reducing
deforestation (and burning) can play an important role in reducing CO2
emissions into the atmosphere. In the same way encouraging forest growth
(through agroforestry or plantations) can add to carbon sequestration. Box 4
provides some information about the state of forests in the world today and the
extent to which they are currently being cleared. Logging and mining companies
and large-scale agriculturists establishing ranches and plantations are the most
serious threat to forests. But small-scale farmers are also part of the problem,
as they continue to clear forests in search of new land, often due to population
Go to R2.6 and discuss the pressure. Farmers practising shifting cultivation in marginal areas of the humid
article about using dom palm tropics, such as those in Southeast Asia, are finding that they need to think of
forest products in Eritrea, and more sustainable ways to use forests as their shrinking land base can no longer
two articles about communities maintain productivity. In semi-arid Niger and other countries in the Sahel region
in Indonesia and Niger finding of Africa, millions of hectares have been reforested by small-scale farmers through
more sustainable ways to use a method called Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR). It is clear that
and regenerate forests. farmers need to be part of a wider approach to reduce deforestation and increase
forest regrowth.
Box 4: The state of the world’s forests: Figures from the third Global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO, 2005).
Forests now cover nearly 4 billion hectares or 30 percent of the world’s land area, with ten countries accounting
for two-thirds of all forest area: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India,
Indonesia, Peru, the Russian Federation and the United States. Seven countries or territories have no forest at all,
and an additional 57 have less than 10 percent forest cover.
Yet, the destruction of forests continues to take place at an alarmingly high rate, due to many activities.
Deforestation (mainly resulting from the conversion of forests to agricultural land), between the years 2000 and
2005 was occurring at a rate of about 13 million hectares per year. Replanting and natural forest expansion partially
offset some of this, bringing the net loss down to about 7.3 million hectares per year, an area that is equivalent to
the size of Sierra Leone or Panama.
During this period Africa and South America continued to have the largest net loss of forests, while Oceania and
North and Central America also experienced a net loss of forests. The forest area in Europe continued to expand,
although at a slower rate. Asia, which had a net loss in the 1990s, reported a net gain of forests in this period,
primarily due to large-scale afforestation in China.
Primary forests (i.e., forests with no visible signs of past or present human activities) account for 36 percent of total
forest area, but are being lost or modified at a rate of 6 million hectares a year, through deforestation or selective
logging. Eleven percent of the world’s forests are designated for the conservation of biological diversity. Plantations
are increasing, but account for less than 5 percent of forest area.
The FAO’s assessment is based on information from 229 countries and territories - collected in 1990, 2000 and 2005
- and covering all types of forests (including undisturbed primary forest as well as managed plantation forests) in all
zones.
2.3 A
ccess to plant genetic resources
Access to seed and other plant genetic resources is a crucial issue for farming.
This section describes different transformations that have taken place in the
production and dissemination of these resources and how they affect small-scale
farming sustainability. “Plant genetic resources” (PGR) refer to all the different
types of planting material, such as seeds and stem cuttings, of existing plant
species. These include wild plants as well as crops developed by farmers and by
way of modern biotechnologies.
Sub-section 1.4.1 briefly described how small-scale farmers have developed a di-
versity of species and varieties to thrive under specific conditions in their farming
systems. Farmers have always needed to exchange seed with one another in order Figure 17: Seeds form a
to bring genetic diversity into the farm. This revitalises the genetic makeup of major part of “plant genetic
resources” (or PGR).
crops and keeps cropping systems resilient. This diversity is not only necessary
at the crop level, but also at the level of crop varieties and contributes to plants
being adaptable and remaining “robust”. However, in the last sixty years, modern
developments in plant breeding have completely transformed the issue of crop
biodiversity and how farmers access them. Box 5 provides a brief overview of four
types of crop varieties that reflect traditional and modern breeding processes.
Box 5: Some basic terminology reflecting different processes for developing seed varieties
Landrace: domesticated plants (or animals), adapted to the natural and cultural environment in which they live (or
originated) and have co-evolved over generations. Landrace populations are often highly variable in appearance,
but they are each identifiable morphologically and have a certain genetic “integrity”. Landraces can have particular
properties or characteristics, for example being early or late maturing. They might be especially well adapted to
particular soil types. The terms “landrace” and “traditional variety” are sometimes used interchangeably.
Heirloom/conservation variety: a cultivated variety of plant that was commonly grown during earlier periods in
human history in a certain region, but which is not used in modern agriculture. Many heirloom vegetable varieties
have kept their traits through open pollination, while fruit varieties, such as apples, have been multiplied over the
centuries through grafts and cuttings.
Hybrid seed: the first generation (“F1”) seed produced from controlled cross-pollination between two different
parent lines. Hybrid varieties are bred to improve the yield of the resulting plants by combining greater uniformity
with other improvements, such as disease resistance. As hybrid seeds are F1s, their characteristics will segregate in
the next generations and their yield goes down if seed collected from the first year is used in the second year. For
this reason, the seeds of hybrid varieties are not suitable for re-use and this means farmers should buy new seeds
every year. The extra costs and dependency on commercial seed production adds an extra burden to poor farmers.
Improved seed: seed that is bred in formal PGR systems for particularly desired characteristics (e.g. drought
tolerance, high yielding or early maturing). Improved seed can be either hybrid or open-pollinating; the latter
can be derived by selecting certain plant types from landrace populations or by crossing landraces with modern
varieties. Such improved seeds are used more widely than traditional and locally adapted seeds and require some
inputs to produce optimally in different environments. More farmers are using these seeds to replace the large
diversity of local varieties, which means that the use of traditional landraces is decreasing, thereby increasing the
chances of reducing the agrobiodiversity base.
Recent innovations in plant breeding have altered how seed and other planting
materials are developed. The supply and conservation of plant genetic resour-
ces are moving away from many “local” farmer-managed PGR systems to a few
“formal” institution-managed research and development systems. These systems
vary from place to place and from crop to crop, but some general trends can be
seen. Figure 18 provides a simplified model of local and formal PGR systems,
to help visualise the important differences between them. The model shows two
Looking at a major crop in
intentional points of contact between these parallel, yet separate, systems. One is
your country, do you know
where institution-based gene banks go out to collect traditional varieties and wild
of examples of landraces,
relatives from areas where they are available. This allows for greater genetic vari-
hybrid and improved seed
ability to be conserved and improved upon. The second point of contact occurs
varieties? What advantages and
when improved seed is distributed from the formal system as an input into the
disadvantages do you know for
farmers’ system. This is occurring more and more, as farmers seek higher yields to
each type?
improve their livelihoods. These two systems are explored below.
Figure 18: The differences and interactions between two kinds of plant genetic resources (PGR) management
systems, representing “local” farmer-centred systems and “formal” institution-based systems (adapted from
Almekinders and de Boef, 1999).
2.3.1 Traditional local PGR systems

In local PGR systems, seed breeding, selection, production and conservation are
all part of one integrated management cycle in which farmers play the central
role. Farmers’ crop selection, combined with processes such as crossing between
varieties and wild relatives and exchanges with other farmers, form a system of
continuous crop evolution. Every year, farmers decide which crops to use for
home consumption, for market, for next season’s seed and for exchanging with
other farmers. Over time, farmers have developed local varieties and breeds
which are most suited to their specific context and preferences. As a result,
there are thousands of rice varieties in South East Asia alone. Similarly, it is
still common for a farmer in the Andes in South America to know more than a Figure 19: Farmers play a central
hundred different varieties of potatoes and other tubers by name. role in local PGR systems.
In developing countries, seed produced on-farm or obtained from relatives,

friends or other informal channels is still by far the most important seed source
for small-scale farmers. In areas where subsistence farming dominates almost
all seed is produced on-farm. This proportion varies strongly from crop to crop
and from region to region. On-farm seed production tends to be high for crops
such as barley (which is self-pollinating and whose seed stores relatively well)
and lower for crops such as beans (for which diseases and local storage are more
problematic). For other crops that are cross-pollinating, such as maize, that have
both improved open-pollinating and hybrid varieties, the use made of traditional
varieties from local PGRs may depend on how accessible the commercial
varieties are to small-scale farmers. Farmers specialising in horticulture crops for
the market, for example, tend to buy improved seed.
Farmers need mechanisms to feed the local gene pool with new materials and
characteristics in order to keep their genetic resources robust and adaptable to
changing conditions. Seed exchanges between farmers and spontaneous crossings
between varieties and wild and cultivated relatives are the most important
mechanisms for this. In some areas, seed fairs have been established to facilitate
Go to R2.7 to discuss the seed exchange between farmers and communities and improve access to a
article about seed fairs in diversity of genetic material. These kinds of exchanges create new opportunities
Mozambique. for reducing risk and increasing productivity on farms. Seed fairs have become
one way of ensuring that local varieties (and knowledge about them) continue
to be valued, improved upon and exchanged. For many small-scale farmers, it
is however not always possible to save enough seed for the next season. They
may face food shortages caused by weather variability including droughts or
floods, problems from pests and disease, lack of access to land, low soil fertility or
labour shortages. All these kinds of problems can have a negative effect on local
mechanisms such as seed exchanges. Institution-based PGR systems, which are
analysed in the next section, present different kinds of options to farmers.
2.3.2 Formal PGR systems

The institutions involved in crop improvement (breeding programmes),
seed supply (institutional production, quality control and distribution) and
conservation (e.g. gene banks) form a PGR system that functions alongside
farmers’ systems (see Figure 18). This “formal” PGR system started developing
when plant breeding became a science, accelerating after genes were discovered
and knowledge about the possibility of improving plant characteristics through
crossings increased. Breeding became a specialised activity with breeder-
researchers working at research institutes and stations. Gene banks were set up in
Figure 20: In formal PGR order to conserve and provide access to valuable collections of local varieties and
systems, different processes in
landraces, some of which have been in danger of disappearing completely.
seed development have been
taken over by institutions.
Formal breeding programmes

Breeding is a lengthy and labour-intensive process. Formal breeding programmes
are highly dependent on modern technologies. While farmers have traditionally
bred crops by selecting plant types originating from crosses that occur through
natural pollination, formal breeding programmes develop new, “improved”
varieties through planned and controlled crosses. One important aspect of the
Green Revolution was the creation of hybrid varieties, resulting from crossing two
genetically different lines or varieties. These hybrid varieties gave farmers higher
yields but they are not useful for seed saving as the seed does not stay true to the
improved characteristics. In this way, farmers are obliged to buy new seed every
season. However, not all improved seed is hybrid and many farmers use improved
open-pollinating varieties among their crops.
A general issue with improved varieties is that they only reach their productive
potential if applied as part of a package - together with chemical fertilisers,
pesticides and sufficient irrigation. The private sector and governments have In your country, what
actively promoted these packages as a way of achieving national food security. percentage of PGR systems
Originally, many farmers saw high-yielding varieties with options for dealing are formal or local systems?
with pest outbreaks or drought tolerance, for example, as the way out of chronic Do small farmers get access
food shortage and poverty. As a result, an organised production chain emerged in to formal PGR? Discuss the
many developing countries based on the blueprint of agricultural development opportunities in, and barriers
from Europe and North America. There is no doubt that formal PGR packages to, their buying improved seed.
have helped substantially increase food production and food security in several
countries, especially in Asia and Latin America. However, they raise a number
of other issues for small-scale farmers, which are discussed below and in Section
3.2. One major issue is that formal PGR packages mean that farmers lose control
over selection and breeding processes. Their location-specific breeding priorities
are often not reflected in formal breeding programmes, which are often more
focused on agriculture under “optimal” general conditions. Another major issue
is the narrowing of genetic diversity as many local varieties become replaced by
few improved varieties.
Genetic engineering
In recent decades, modern breeding programmes have come to include plant
tissue culture and processes coming from genetic “engineering”. Although
scientists have known about the existence of genes and DNA for some time, it
was not until the 1970s that gene sequences were discovered, together with the
possibility of splitting genes into segments. These discoveries suddenly made
it possible to break through natural reproductive barriers, by moving genes
from one species to another. Scientists can now transfer DNA molecules from
different sources into one organism, thereby creating modified or new genes in
a “genetically modified organism” (or GMO). The major GM crops in use at Figure 21: Genetic engineering
present are maize, soyabean, rapeseed and cotton (for more, see Box 6). modifies plant traits by moving
genes from one species to
another.
Formal breeding programmes would like to use these modern lab-based
techniques to address problems in agricultural production, such as improving
plants’ resistance to pests and diseases, as well as to stresses such as drought and
cold; and to enhance the nutritional content of foods. The ability to change the
hereditary material of living organisms in such a fundamentally different way
than traditional breeding has opened up many opportunities - but has also created
unpredictable risks and affected farmers in terms of social and political factors.
Box 6: Where are we at with genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?
According to the report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application (ISAAA) released
on February 23rd 2010, the number of countries growing GM crops increased from six in 1996 when they were
first commercialised, to 25 in 2009. Around 134 million hectares worldwide are now planted with GM crops. The
United States tops the list of countries growing GM crops, followed by Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China,
Paraguay and South Africa. Almost half of global GM crops are now planted in 16 developing countries, involving
13 million farmers. This indicates that more farmers are accepting GM crops although, according to Friends of the
Earth International (FOEI), GM crops still occupy less than three percent of global agricultural land,
It is often argued that GM crops will help increase food security, yet 99 percent of GM crops are grown for animal
feed and biofuels - rather than food. Of all agriculture using GM crops, 99 percent consists of only four crops
(soyabean, maize, canola or rapeseed and cotton) which have been modified for two traits: herbicide-tolerance
(soyabean, maize, canola) and/or insect-resistance (Bt cotton, Bt maize). These last two varieties contain a gene
from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which makes crops resistant to the shoot borer pest. After
fourteen years since GM crops were commercialised, there is still a good deal of opposition to them.
There is a great deal of controversy about GMOs which has led to a number of
countries imposing a moratorium on their use, until the risks become clearer.
These controversies mainly centre around three issues:
nvironmental and health risks: there is concern about risks of unforeseen

• E
local and global effects as a result of GMOs spreading into the wider environ-
ment. Pollen from open-pollinating GM varieties can be dispersed over large
areas by wind, animals and insects and there is concern over the possible
consequences of a herbicide-resistance trait crossing into a wild relative of a
crop plant, for example. The possibility of GM crops contaminating other
Have a debate about the crops also raises questions about biodiversity conservation, although this is
positive and negative aspects of a general issue for all formal programmes that mass produce seed. Many
farmers using GMOs and other consumers are concerned about the potential health effects of eating GMOs
biotechnologies. (such as those containing natural pesticides like Bt). In a recent development
(on the 9th February 2010), India placed a moratorium on plans to plant its
o to R2.8 to read an article
G first GM food crop (Bt brinjal – otherwise known as eggplant or aubergine).
on GMOs At the same time, seed companies are resisting pressure for food and other
products to be labelled as containing GM ingredients, which increases
Go to R4.4, R4.5 and R4.6 to consumers’ unease.
select a video about different
GM crop issues ad viewpoints ho benefits from and who controls GMOs: The global food, seed and
• W
from India, U.S.A. and Europe. agrochemical markets are becoming increasingly dominated by a few large-
scale and vertically and horizontally integrated companies. There is much
concern about these large-scale, virtual monopolies having so much control
over the development of these genetic resources and the socio-economic
effects of this. Developing countries have limited influence in setting priorities
on breeding programmes, because of the high costs of modern equipment
and unfair conditions on intellectual property rights (or IPR - see Sub-section
3.2.2). In addition, investments and research priorities set by large PGR
companies and rich countries mean that crops that are important to some parts
of the developing world (e.g. teff, millet, cow peas) receive little investment.
GM technology is also criticised because (as with hybrid seeds) it needs to be

used as part of a package of inputs, and therefore creates dependence on inputs
provided by the large seed/agrochemical companies. Farmers cannot save the
seed themselves, and many poor farmers cannot afford the seed without going
into debt. Besides this, the use of patents on seeds creates a situation in which
farmers have problems because of legalities surrounding intellectual property
rights and ownership of the materials.
• Conflicting values: Some people find the generation and use of GM

technologies as an intolerable interference with natural biological processes
and a violation of the integrity of life. Proponents of GM crops do not agree
and do not accept that this provides sufficient grounds for restricting GM
developments.
2.3.3 Conservation of crop genetic diversity

The two types of PGR systems in Figure 17 not only show different ways to
breed and supply seed. Although it is not explicitly shown in the model, these
two systems also reflect different approaches to the conservation of plant genetic
diversity. Conservation is a natural part of the selection and production process
of the local farmer-centred system, in which genetic resources are conserved on
farms. This is known as “in situ” conservation. In the institution-based formal
system, plant genetic resources are conserved in gene banks, which is referred
to as “ex situ” conservation. The crucial difference between the two types of
conservation is that in situ conservation allows the evolutionary process to Figure 22: Gene banks maintain
continue, whereas ex situ conservation represents a frozen and static situation. plant genetic resources through
“ex situ” conservation (ie, away
There are advantages and disadvantages to both types of conservation.
from their natural environment).
In situ conservation of plants in a dynamic system, ideally, allows ongoing

host-parasite co-evolution. This is likely to provide materials that are resistant
to diseases and pests. However, in situ conservation is not wholly adequate for
maintaining planting materials or genes. First, farmers may discontinue planting
particular varieties or crops if better varieties become available and these varieties
will then become lost. Second, the genetic makeup of materials can change
when farmers change their production practices. In addition, it is more difficult
for breeders, who like to use specific materials for their breeding programmes, to
access in situ diversity.
At the global level, off-farm ex situ gene banks have been established to counter
genetic erosion and conserve plant genetic resources (both seeds -see Box 7-
and living plants). Gene banks cannot conserve all plant materials as they are Are there gene banks in your
limited in what they can store and have limited resources. In addition they are country? If yes, what kinds of
at risk from power cuts and delayed regeneration. Also, only a fraction of the crops do they store there? If
existing genetic diversity has been collected with the size of the sample collected possible, go and visit one.
depending on the crop type. International agricultural research centres around
the world (CGIARs) have relatively large collections of the major food crops,
such as rice, wheat, barley, maize and potato. In contrast, minor food crops have
hardly been collected for ex situ conservation, even though the genetic diversity
in these crops is more at threat due to their replacement by the principal crops.
Material in gene banks, located far from farmers’ communities is not very acces-
Go to R2.9 to read articles sible to farmers. Such material also goes into deep-freeze and stops naturally
about farmer-run community evolving. However, small-scale initiatives (around the world) are establishing
seed banks in Honduras and community-based gene banks to counter these problems and allow small-scale
India. farmers greater access to locally important planting materials. Farmers can
become members of the seed bank and help maintain quality by replenishing
seeds at the end of each season.
Box 7: Svaldbard Global Seed Vault: 100 million seeds from around the world
An ambitious global ex situ conservation system has recently been dug deep into the rock of a frozen Arctic
mountain on the island of Svalbard, in Norway, near the North Pole. This global initiative, coordinated by the
Global Crop Diversity Trust and Nordic Genetic Resource Centre (NordGen), aims to safeguard the biodiversity
of plant genetic materials from around the world. The seed vault will provide a safe storage space for centuries, or
even longer, for hundreds of millions of seeds, representing every available crop variety conserved in the world’s
gene banks today. In the event of a global environmental disaster, the diversity conserved in this vault could be used
to restart agriculture. Twenty-one institutes, including the international agricultural research centres of the CGIAR,
national gene banks and non-governmental organisations started by shipping samples of more than 268 000
varieties for the opening in February, 2008.
2.4 Management of weeds, pests and disease

All farmers face the critical challenge of how to deal with weeds, pests and
diseases, which can greatly harm the productivity of their cropping systems. This
section describes the impact of using chemical pesticides to deal with these pro-
blems, contrasted with the “ecosystems” approach of integrated pest (and weed)
management practices.
Pests include rodents, insects or birds, fungi and also micro-organisms such as
bacteria and viruses. Weeds are unwanted plants that invade cropping systems.
Until the technological advances of modern agriculture in the last century,
farmers used various, simple methods to restrict the damage caused by pests
and weeds. These included mechanical controls such as weeding, burning and
trapping, and the application of natural pesticides. However, when chemical
measures to control pests and weeds started to be developed, more and more
farmers chose them as a quick and easy way to rid themselves of these nuisances.
The term “pesticides” is often used to include all chemically based insecticides,
fungicides, microbiocides, rodenticides, herbicides and other substances used to
Figure 23: Pests can keep
destroying crops if not control pests and weeds. Applying pesticides to cropping systems has very quick
kept in check through good and effective results and in many cases leads to higher yields. Use of herbicides
management practices. also offers a way to save labour, as they eliminate the need for weeding. However,
some time after chemical pesticides were first introduced, a range of problems
emerged, reflecting the harmful effects of these chemicals on human health and
on the wider ecological environment. This situation is analysed further below.
2.4.1 The use of chemical pesticides

Chemical pesticides were introduced as part of the package of modern
agricultural inputs that also include high-yielding improved seed and chemical
fertilisers. This “package” approach led to two substantial changes in farming
practices. Firstly it resulted in a reliance on a much narrower genetic base. For
example, when rice farmers in Southeast Asia witnessed greater yields from the
Green Revolution varieties, the uptake of these varieties increased and many
rice-producing areas effectively became monocropped. Secondly, at least in Go to R2.10 and discuss the
the early years, it led to an indiscriminate use of chemical inputs. By 1985, article about the decline
more than 90 percent of farmers of irrigated rice in Southeast Asia were using in native honeybees in the
(subsidised) insecticides (Kenmore, 1997). However, use of these pesticides was Himalayas due to pesticides
not without problems: they not only affect the targeted pests but also beneficial and other problems.
organisms, such as pollinators and the natural enemies that feed on crop pests.
The combination of losing these organisms, together with widespread reliance Go to R1.3 and follow the
on single varieties, made crops much more vulnerable to pest attacks and led role play on the risk of pests
to serious insect, viral and fungal attacks on many crops. This was dramatically building up resistance against
illustrated in the Philippines, where rice harvests were devastated by the brown chemical pesticides.
planthopper in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, experience of using
chemical pesticides led to long-term increases in insect populations because the
targeted pests quickly became resistant to the insecticides. In response to these
problems, farmers were urged to apply pesticides more frequently and at higher
dosages. This is often referred to as being caught on a “pesticide treadmill” with
farmers forced to keep responding to stronger and stronger pest outbreaks.
Pesticides can also have significant impacts on human health, on the farmers
who use them directly, their families and communities and, sometimes, on those
who eat the crops if the residue levels are too high. These effects have long
been recognised, although they are not immediately obvious. As well as causing
poisoning pesticides can also attack the nervous system and create mental health
problems. A range of protective measures have been introduced to address
these issues. The most toxic chemicals have often been banned or can only be
used in prescribed situations. Labelling requirements, detailing frequency and
concentration of application and the need to wear protective clothing, including
gloves and face masks, have been increased. However for many illiterate farmers
such instructions are of limited value. It is still common to see small-scale farmers
ignoring warnings to protect themselves from harmful effects of pesticides since
protective clothing is both expensive and extremely uncomfortable to wear in hot
climates. The storage and disposal of pesticides (and their packaging) represents
another potential hazard. The chemicals need to be stored in sealed containers,
out of the reach of children and their packaging needs to be disposed of rather
than used for other purposes.
Such experiences led scientists and policy makers to become aware of unexpected
consequences of unrestrained or poorly controlled pesticide use and since
the 1970s scientists and farmers have been experimenting with alternatives to
chemicals. Various practices for dealing with weeds, pests and disease have been
brought together as an integrated approach to the management (rather than the
control) of these problems.
2.4.2 I ntegrated pest (and weed)

management
Integrated pest management (or IPM) involves a collection of different options

that are based on a number of principles. An integrated approach to weed
management largely follows the same principles, and so these two issues are
brought together here. IPM was developed in response to the increasing problems
Go to R2.11 and discuss the stemming from pesticide use. It was first applied to rice systems in Southeast Asia,
article that provides a different but IPM principles can be applied to protect any kind of crop in any country. The
view from Kenya of the value principles of IPM became the core of more participatory approaches to extension
of weeds. developed in Farmer Field Schools, through which farmers learn about more
sustainable ways of managing their cropping systems. We will go in-depth into the
development of Farmer Field Schools in Module 7 (Knowledge for small-scale
farming).
IPM involves developing a better understanding of the crop ecosystem, which

includes crops, their pests and their natural enemies, weeds and the surrounding
environment. This ecosystems approach does not seek to eradicate pests, but
rather to manage them. It involves designing and developing cropping systems
using a number of the methods discussed in Sub-section 1.4.2 so as to suppress
harmful organisms and prevent them from becoming a nuisance. A major
What do farmers in your principle of IPM is the regular monitoring of cropping systems in order to observe
region do to manage pests and changes and to learn from them. It involves gaining an understanding of life
weeds? How do these methods cycles of crops, of pests, beneficial natural enemies and weeds. The strategies
match with the categories used to respond to pests and weeds differ according to the crop (and varieties
for IPM methods? Can you used), the pest, the location (country, region, or even the specific location), the
think of other examples for climate and local farming practices. IPM can never be used as an off-the-shelf
each category? Thinking of package, but needs to be developed and adapted to fit local requirements. It is
labour, costs, accessibility based on farmers making observations and continuously monitoring the growth
and knowledge involved, of their crops and changes around them. This allows them to make informed
come up with advantages and decisions on how to respond to any issues needing attention. The search for
disadvantages of each method. appropriate responses to pest problems means that pesticides are usually only ever
applied as a last resort, when there are no adequate non-chemical alternatives.
IPM uses a mixture of methods which can be categorised into four main types,
each of which have advantages and disadvantages:
• Mechanical methods: examples include tillage, weeding or hoeing, and
removing pests by hand.
• Cultural methods: examples include crop rotation, use of cover crops,
mulching, intercropping, manipulation of the sowing or planting date and use
of resistant crop varieties.
• Biological methods: examples include enhancing conditions so as to attract
natural enemies, introducing natural enemies and using natural pesticides to See R2.12 to discuss
suppress the growth of weeds or harmful pests. experiences with Push-Pull in
• Chemical methods: these should only be used if other methods do not work Kenya, as well as two articles
– and with safety precautions. describing other IPM methods
to manage different kinds of
A very interesting example of combining cultural methods to manage both pests pests - in Southwest U.S.A. and
and parasitic weeds is the Push-Pull method developed in East Africa. Push-Pull Tanzania.
uses a combination of leguminous “repellent” plants to deter, or “push”,
stemborer pests (these plants also have the benefit of deterring the parasitic weed
Striga hermonthica) together with trap crops to attract or “pull” these pests out of
their maize and sorghum systems.
2.5 Intensification of crop management

The use of chemical pesticides and plant genetic resources originating from
formal institutions and commercial companies are examples of the technological
approach of modern agriculture. These methods were developed to increase
production in more intensive farming systems and have been successful in this
aim in high potential areas, often creating new opportunities that farmers did not
previously have. Yet, these advances have also had unintended negative effects.
Small-scale (and particularly cash-strapped) farmers have benefitted less from
these changes than large-scale farmers, becoming dependent on external agents
for their resources and in some cases falling into deep debt. The abandonment
of traditional varieties and their replacement by a few improved varieties also Figure 24: Different aspects
diminishes biodiversity – as well as knowledge about these varieties. As discussed of technological intensification
above, a narrow genetic base planted over a large area leads to cropping systems within modern agriculture.
that are more vulnerable to pests and disease.
Nevertheless, it is possible to learn from and combine different aspects of

modern and traditional crop management in order to achieve more sustainable
intensification of small-scale cropping systems. For example, many farmers use
both improved and local varieties, thereby getting different kinds of benefits
from their cropping systems and spreading risks. This requires different kinds of
knowledge about and access to both formal and local resources and practices. Go to R2.13 to see an article
The previous section looked at an integrated “ecosystems” approach to pest and about intensification practices
weed management. IPM programmes are widely considered to be a successful combining local and improved
example of sustainable intensification of agro-ecosystems. They allow for a legume soyabean varieties in
considerable reduction in the use of pesticides without affecting yields or farmers’ Zimbabwe.
profits.
This module has described a number of methods that intensify cropping

practices through increasing diversity. Sub-section 1.4.2 discussed crop diversity
buffers and farm-level approaches that involved multiple cropping in order to
improve the efficient use and uptake of nutrients. All of these approaches require
building up relevant knowledge about ecological interactions and processes,
timing and management and how different elements on the farms interact. For
example, finding the best crops (including trees) to enhance biological nitrogen
fixation, and how and when to incorporate them (e.g. rotation, inter-cropping,
cover cropping) can be the cheapest and most effective way for a small-scale
farmer to maintain sustainable yields. In dryland soils, legumes can also improve
access to phosphorus, which is the second most limiting nutrient after nitrogen.
Mycorrhizal fungi which enhance lateral root development can play a decisive
role in increasing access to water and nutrients.
Other examples of sustainable intensification that have improved productivity

in small-scale cropping systems around the world include two approaches
See the article in R2.13 to mentioned in Module 2: Conservation Agriculture (CA) and the System of Rice
learn more about SRI. Intensification (SRI). These are based on the optimisation of soil, water and other
See Module 2 for more on CA ecological processes. The integration of animals to enhance nutrient efficiencies
and discuss the article about it. is yet another way of building up diversity while simultaneously intensifying
farming. This approach will be discussed more in Module 4, on livestock systems.
• Almekinders, Conny and de Boef, Walter. 1999. The challenge of

collaboration in the management of crop genetic diversity. ileia
Newsletter. Vol 15 (3/4): 5-7.
• Altieri, Miguel A. and Nicholls, Clara I. 2004. Biodiversity and pest

management in agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York, U.S.A.
• Bioversity International. 2010. www.bioversity.org. International Plant

Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) and the International Network for
Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP). Rome, Italy.
• Boland, Jeroen, Irene Koomen, Joep van Lidth de Jeude and Jan Oudejans.
2004. Pesticides: compounds, use and hazards. Agrodok 29. Agromisa,
Wageningen, Netherlands.
• FAO. 2010. Pests and pesticide management. FAO website. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
• FAO. 2008. Progress on farmer training in parasitic weed

management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.
• FAO. 2006. Forests and climate change: Better forest management has key
role to play in dealing with climate change. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
• FAO. 2005. Global forest resources assessment 2005: 15 key findings. GFRA,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
• Friends of the Earth International (FOEI). 2010. Who benefits from GM crops?.
FOE International, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
• Greenfacts. 2007. Scientific facts on forests. www.greenfacts.org. GreenFacts,

Belgium.
• Greenfacts. 2005. Scientific facts on genetically modified crops. www.greenfacts.

org. GreenFacts, Belgium.
• ileia editorial team. 2007. Editorial: securing seed supply. LEISA Magazine 23(2):
4-5.
• ileia editorial team, with Sarah Scherr. 2004. Editorial: farming with nature. LEISA
Magazine 20(4): 4-6.
• ileia editorial team. 2001. Genetic engineering: not the only option. LEISA
Magazine 17(4): 4-5.
• ISAAA. 2010. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: The first

fourteen years, 1996 to 2009. ISAAA Brief 41-2009 (Executive Summary).
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), Manila,
the Philippines.
• Kenmore, Peter. 1997. A perspective on IPM. LEISA Newsletter 13(4): 8-9.
• MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (International assessment

managed by the) United Nations Environment Programme. Washington D.C., U.S.A.
• Singh, Harminder Pal, Daizy Rani Batish and Ravinder Kumar Kohli (eds). 2006.
Handbook of sustainable weed management. Haworth Press, New York, U.S.A.
• Thomas, Richard J., Hanadi El-Dessougi and Ashraf Tubeileh. 2006. Soil system
management under arid and semi-arid conditions. In: Uphoff, Norman et al,
editors. Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. Tailor and Francis Group,
LLC, Boca Raton, USA. pp 41-55.
learning block
Governance and sustainable
3
cropping systems
Small-scale farmers demonstrating about the need to protect the right to use traditional
seeds (“seeds of passion”) in Paraíba, Brazil – photo by Adriana Galvão Freire
What governance issues influence the sustainability

of small-scale cropping systems? How can small-scale
farmers benefit from, and get more control over
where and how they access seeds and other
agricultural inputs? What kinds of policies could
promote and support more sustainable approaches to
cropping?
3.1 Introduction
Small-scale farming provides many examples of productive agro-ecosystems
based on integrating diverse elements, including multiple cropping. It is the
legacy of small-scale farming that tremendous agrobiodiversity exists in crop
species and varieties today. Making use of, integrating and building up of
diversity within and beyond farming systems is a fundamental aspect of cropping
systems’ sustainability. Yet many factors work against the continuing efforts of
maintaining this diversity, as well as undermining the sustainability of small-scale
cropping systems. For instance, the wider policy environment plays a large part in
determining whether small-scale farmers’ cropping systems remain dynamic and
profitable. Examples of policies affecting agriculture include a country’s research
and development (R&D) system, pricing policies and value chain development,
policies on the use of biotechnological inputs and pesticides, as well as policies
that determine how well local PGR systems are protected or nurtured.
What happens on the ground –whether such policies exist and are implemented
or whether small-scale farming systems are left in isolation– requires a good look
at the role of government, market enterprises and other institutions. What these
powerful forces choose to support has a great impact on the sustainability of
small-scale farming. For example, the government line on particular approaches
–such as modern input packages or integrated approaches such as IPM– affects
priorities and advice of research and extension. Likewise, the priorities of formal
PGR systems as well as agrochemical companies determine their investments in
research and development. Another example is how the perception of governing
bodies on the right of farmers to freely exchange local seed can determine
whether these activities are encouraged or instead frustrated.
The sustainability of small-scale cropping systems therefore hinges on governance

mechanisms and the policy environment recognising their value and potential.
Supportive governance and policy concerns are discussed respectively in Sections
3.2 and 3.3. In the former section, three governance issues discuss the extent
to which small-scale farmers have leverage in political processes but also in
intellectual property rights. Section 3.3 provides examples of policies that can
support small-scale farmers’ cropping systems and promote their diversity and
sustainability.
Learning Block 3 : GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
3.2 Governance issues
While farmers can make many efforts to enhance the sustainability of their
cropping systems, their ability and capacity to do so are also strongly influenced
by the governance conditions and the policies pursued by national and regional
governments and other institutions. Governance refers to all levels of decision-
making, including who is involved in making and implementing decisions.
“Good” governance mechanisms are generally considered to allow, or encourage,
people affected by decisions to be involved in the process of making them. This
also includes small-scale farmers, who should be able to organise themselves so
that they can voice their needs and have their rights respected. When governance
mechanisms are weak, people with little power, such as small-scale farmers
will most likely lose out to more powerful players. Often such situations can
lead to poorer or marginalised groups losing access to valuable resources. A Figure 28: Governance
lack of consultation can also often lead to short-term financial benefits taking mechanisms determine whether
precedence over longer term sustainability concerns, such as protecting (agro-) farmers can participate in
biodiversity, the health of those using hazardous pesticides, or the control that decision-making processes that
affect their crop management.
farming communities have over genetic materials.
In the rest of this section, three governance issues that influence the sustainability
of small-scale farmers’ cropping systems are briefly described. The first of these
is the importance of consulting farmers and coming to agreements over issues
that affect sustainability at the landscape or ecosystem level. The second is the
need to respect farmers’ rights to control their own seeds and other plant genetic
resources and be able to exchange them within the existing intellectual property
right (IPR) regimes. The third issue introduces participatory plant breeding, an
approach in which small-scale farmers are involved in plant breeding, research
and extension processes.
3.2.1 I nvolving farmers in rural planning

In Sub-section 2.2, we discussed the need for a landscape-level approach for
enhancing sustainability beyond the farm gate. Such an approach might involve
getting people living in an area to agree to follow particular rules on using,
sharing and conserving resources in a forest, waterway or park in the vicinity.
In terms of biodiversity issues this might involve getting agreements on using
Figure 29: Landscape-level
communal land, reforesting an area, protecting certain species, reducing the agreements on land use can,
use of particular pesticides, or for example creating a landscape-level network of for example, maintain or create
corridors of vegetation (e.g. hedgerows, live fences or windbreaks) between crop corridors of natural vegetation,
fields, along riverbanks, irrigation canals, natural waterways and on roadsides. such as hedgerows and trees,
between farms.
Different organisations around the world (e.g. IUCN and Ecoagriculture - see
Further References) concentrate on finding ways to conserve nature while
improving rural livelihoods. Their experience shows that good planning which
is widely acceptable to the local population, needs to involve (representatives
of) all of the many different people living in, and using the resources of, an
area, (i.e. local “stakeholders”). However, it is not always to arrive at binding
agreements as there are often competing interests and much time may need to
be invested to get different stakeholders to agree to their changing behaviour. In
many cases, differences in power and influence as well as market forces make it
Go to R1.4 for an exercise almost impossible to predict what decisions will be arrived at. In countries where
for students in developing institutions and governance mechanisms are weaker, landscape-level negotiations
a landscape approach to can be more difficult and often necessitate embarking on a process of “building
reforestation in your region. constituencies, negotiating deals and muddling through” (Sayer and Dudley
2008). Landscape scale interventions in such situations particularly need to be
Go to R2.14 to read the article flexible and locally adapted.
about a community-based
and managed protected area
in Ethiopia. Compare this
initiative with one in Indonesia 3.2.2 I ntellectual property rights, crops and
(R2.6.2).
small-scale farmers
In farmer-centred PGR systems, exchanges of seed between farmers have always
been based on free and unrestricted access. Because seed varieties have evolved
through the efforts of generations of farmers, seed exchanges are seen as a way of
mutually sharing the benefits. Until formal institutions started developing new
crops and varieties, the idea of owning seed was not even something to consider.
All this changed in 1961 when, for the first time, patent protection was
introduced to living organisms with the international convention from the Union
for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Until then, the extension
of “intellectual property rights” (or IPRs – see Box 8) had only been applied to
new, industrial products. IPRs, such as patents, are intended to stimulate (and
reward) innovation. In what was called the “farmers’ privilege”, seed and other
Figure 30: IPR regimes need to
safeguard small-scale farmers’ plant genetic resources were consciously excluded from patent protection, so
rights to re-use and exchange that seed re-use and exchange could go on unrestricted. However, the scientific
plant genetic resources, as part breakthroughs in genetic engineering and related techniques have changed this
of the “farmers’ privilege”. situation. The crop varieties produced by modern techniques are considered to
be so “new”, time-consuming and costly, that the UPOV convention considered
patent protection on these varieties to be justifiable. Holding IPRs over genetic
resources allows plant breeders to prohibit others from using them, or to ask for
payment for their use over a certain period of time. It can take 7-10 years to get
from the first cross to the marketable variety (Almekinders and Hardon, 2006).
Through IPRs, breeders can take time to research and experiment to develop new
genetic resources, knowing that they will be rewarded through exclusive rights
to sell them. In recent years a number of international treaties have been signed,
with mixed results for small-scale farmers (see Box 9). Patents on plant varieties
Box 8: What is an “intellectual property right” (IPR)?
Intellectual property is the term used to refer to a group of legal regimes, such as patents, trademarks and copyright,
that provide legal protection to creators and inventors (and in the case of agriculture, breeders), from others copying
or using their work or invention (or genetic resources) without permission.
(and even on genes) now provide much stronger protection to the breeder and do
not take into account the customary rights of farmers. Although there continue
to be many efforts to safeguard the farmers’ privilege (see CBD and ITPGRFA in
Box 9), breeders’ rights have gradually been strengthened in recent decades, to
the detriment of farmers. For this reason, many developing countries refused to
sign the 1991 revision of the UPOV. There is now a very confusing situation as
IPRs are based on national laws and so protection granted in one country may not Find out whether your country
be valid in other countries. has signed any of the treaties in
Box 9. Do you know whether
The extension of intellectual property rights on plant materials is a major they have affected small-scale
governance issue for the sustainability of cropping systems. Farmers were not farmers’ access to seed? Are
involved in the decision to extend the patent system to plant breeding. IPRs on there examples in your area
plant varieties conflict with the values of farming communities which have always of farmers benefiting from
relied on the free exchange of materials. Such protection should not be granted breeders using their seeds?
to new varieties that make use of farmers’ varieties without the consent of the
community that developed them. And such communities should be rewarded for
the contribution that their work has made to making a new variety possible. Also,
if IPRs must be extended, ways need to be found for the people of these regions,
who are in effect custodians of local agrobiodiversity, to share in the benefits.
By excluding farmers from the debates about IPRs for plant varieties, it will be
problematic to enforce these rights.
Box 9: Main international agreements, treaties and conventions regarding IPR
• UPOV (Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants): started with a convention in 1961, in which
signatories agreed to introduce patent protection on plants and other living material. Basically, UPOV requires
member states to provide for the registration and protection of plant breeders’ rights over new varieties in
their national jurisdictions. It was revised in 1978 and 1991. The first revision allowed farmers to save, use and
exchange farm-saved seed since this was not considered to be commercial exploitation (referred to as the farmers’
privilege). “Breeders’ rights” became the priority in the 1991 revision, negating the farmers’ privilege. For this
reason, many developing countries have only signed the 1978 version.
• WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation): specialised agency of the United Nations, and the leading
organisation in increasing IP norm-setting since 1970. It has a controversial history, and many call for its reform
as it does not adequately consider development concerns such as biodiversity and food security.
• TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property): this agreement was part of the Uruguay Round that established
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1986. It obliges all WTO members to set certain minimum
requirements for protection of intellectual property (IP); however, developing countries are given some flexibility
to adapt their IP regimes to their own specific circumstances.
• CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) is the principle multilateral framework to address the issue of
agrobiodiversity. Signed by 192 countries in 1993, it supports “farmers’ privilege” and sustainable small-scale
farming. CBD sets out certain basic principles but leaves it up to individual states to implement them in the way
they choose. It has no binding standards of behaviour.
• ITPGRFA (International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture) was initiated by the FAO
in 2001 and provides a general framework for conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. It aims to establish
a common pool of resources, and for breeders to be transparent about and share benefits farmers. It has similar
objectives as the CBD, recognising “farmers’ rights” but applied to a narrower scope of plant genetic resources for
a limited number of crop and forage species. It introduces binding rules and institutional mechanisms to facilitate
access to, and show benefits from research and plant breeding.
3.2.3 I ncluding farmers in formal research,

breeding and conservation
programmes
Formal plant breeding institutions develop improved seed for a particular

range of crops and for environments whose productive conditions justify
investments. These seeds are mostly bred for high yields but also for other
general improvements such as drought tolerance. By being able to control the
Figure 31: Farmer breeders
ecological environment through irrigation and applications of fertiliser and
often have different priorities
when selecting crops and pesticides, farmers often enjoy success with these genetic materials. However,
varieties, than formal PGR modern varieties do not always fit with the priorities, needs or preferences of
breeding programmes. small-scale farmers. For example, farmers may prefer varieties that grow well
under the specific conditions on their farm. They may select varieties that are
early maturing, for the amount of by-products they yield for feeding livestock,
or because of their taste, cooking or storage properties. In formal breeding
programmes, selections are generally on the basis of the conditions (i.e. soil
fertility, water and climate) that prevail on-station, which may differ from those
found on farms.
In response to these issues, experiments were initiated in the 1990s by formal

breeding research institutions and NGOs to involve farmers more in the
Do you know of any PPB process of developing improved varieties. Small-scale and especially low-capital
programmes in your area? How farmers were the main target group for Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB)
successful are they in including programmes. Such farmers were seen as benefiting the least from conventional
farmers and in coming up with breeding programmes and also were recognised as having more knowledge about
materials they like to use? If adapting varieties in marginal and complex environments. It was hoped these
there are no programmes, why programmes could not only improve productivity for major food crops, but also
do you think that is the case? for minor crops that play an important role in local food security. NGOs had a
further interest in giving farmers more control over the process and emphasised
the value of local landraces. A study that looked at eleven pilot projects from
around the world shows that PPB has indeed led to better materials being
developed in a relatively short time and being rapidly distributed through farmer
seed systems (see Almekinders & Hardon, 2006). However, while formal PPB
programmes often involved farmers in the process of selecting varieties, the
breeders often retained control over decisions about selection and breeding. The
study concluded that PPB leads to successful development of crops that are not
included in formal PGR systems, but has not moved beyond that. Successful
programmes have led to farmers taking charge of breeding and production
activities. PPB is not easy to initiate and requires the flexibility and willingness of
professionals in governmental and non-government organisations to cooperate
with farmers and other institutional actors.
Go to R2.15 to discuss the
article about a PPB programme
with bean farmers in
Nicaragua.
3.3 Policies supporting sustainable cropping

Throughout this module, many examples have been given of how small-scale
farmers can improve the sustainability of their (diversity-based) cropping systems,
as well as how important it is they participate in decision-making. This section
gives examples of policies that support the sustainability of cropping systems.
3.3.1 Research & Development priorities

Figure 32: Policies that support
Investment and research priorities are often determined by a few large formal
sustainable cropping practices
PGR and agrochemical companies – basically because they have enough should also consider the needs
resources and ability to turn research outcomes into marketable products. This of small-scale farming.
has resulted in little investment in crops that are important in different parts of
the developing world, such as underutilised crops, but also “minor” staple crops
like millet and teff. Even when research is done by large agrochemical and
seed companies it is often not made available to farming systems in developed
countries. Policies that support the development of infrastructure (e.g. research,
processing and marketing) of certain minor crops important to local/regional food
security, or for example of organic or other “niche” markets for crops, can open
up new possibilities for small-scale farming. At the same time, pressure is needed
on companies to make improved plant genetic resources available to areas that
are the least developed.
3.3.2 R
egulations on inputs: hazardous
pesticides and GM organisms
Many efforts have been made to limit the use of chemical pesticides, especially
those that are hazardous to the health of farmers and their families, as well
as those that contaminate the environment. Policies that relate to pesticide
use include: all-out bans on particularly dangerous pesticides; and restrictions Go to R2.16 for the article to
on the use of pesticides that have potentially harmful impacts on public help start a discussion about
resources such as water quality. The FAO has written a Code of conduct on banning highly hazardous
the distribution and use of pesticides, which suggests minimum standards (see pesticides.
Section 3.4 for reference). As shown Sub-section 2.4.2, there are alternatives to
the use of pesticides that involve more integrated approaches to pest and weed
management. Some possible policies that can be introduced include supporting
training on IPM practices and the safe use of chemicals (e.g. through Farmer
Field Schools). A special type of programme concerns the safe disposal of unused
stocks of obsolete pesticides (e.g. the FAO’s Africa Stockpiles programme).
A related issue is the restriction by several countries on the development and use
of genetically modified organisms. The European Union (EU) for instance held
a ban on the import of GM products but had to withdraw it under pressure of the
World Trade Organization. The preliminary ruling found that the ban unfairly
protected the EU’s internal agricultural market against competition from outside.
Other countries have also banned the practice of GM in seed improvement.
However the bans sometimes only exist on paper and agrochemical companies
often violate them to be able to maintain their competitive position.
There needs to be more open debate about the costs and benefits of different
aspects of GMOs. In particular the use of “terminator” and “traitor” seeds has
been very controversial. These technologies modify seeds so as to lose their
reproductive capacities, and in the second case to require the application of
Do these kinds of policies exist a particular chemical in order to activate a desired engineered trait. Public
in your country? In general, commotion when they were first introduced by large biotech companies caused
do your country’s agricultural them to shelve the development of this technologies. More extensive research
policies support or undermine and public debate on the repercussions of these technologies on human health
the sustainability of diversity- and on the ecological environment is required before they can be considered safe
based small-scale cropping enough to enter into the market. The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (see Box 10)
systems? In what ways? is an example of an international agreement that gives signatory countries more
control over the movement of GM organisms within their borders.
Box 10: What is the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol?
This Protocol is an international agreement on biosafety, that supplements the Convention on Biological Diversity
(see Box 9). It seeks to protect biodiversity from the potential risks posed by the release of living modified organisms
resulting from modern biotechnology. The Biosafety Protocol requires products from new technologies to be
based on the “precautionary principle” and allows developing nations to balance public health against economic
benefits. It will for example let countries ban imports of a living modified organism if they feel there is not enough
scientific evidence that the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered
commodities such as maize or cotton. The UN Protocol has been signed by 150 countries thus far and came into
force in 2003.
3.3.3 P
rotecting farmer-centred local PGR
systems
Governments of countries in which farmer-centred seed systems dominate

must take care to find ways for the people of these regions, who are in effect
custodians of local agrobiodiversity, to share in the benefits of IP. Their policies
need therefore protect the “farmers’ privilege” and ensure a transparent system
in which communities are rewarded for the genetic diversity they contribute
to breeding programmes. In addition policies should support the safeguarding
of local agrobiodiversity through seed banks (formal and local); support for
knowledge-intensive approaches to cropping systems such as Farmer Field
Schools; more farmer-centred breeding programmes, and the stimulation of seed
exchange and seed fairs to keep local knowledge and genetic resources from
disappearing.
3.3.4 Pricing policies
Pricing policies influence the viability of small-scale farmers’ cropping systems.

The general pattern has been for pricing support to be extended to a limited
number of major crops in the shape of guaranteed minimum prices. These could
include rice, wheat, oil seeds, sugarcane or cotton, for example. The objective
behind this kind of pricing support has been to improve national food security
or to reduce the import of major crops. Such general pricing support has meant
that large-scale monoculture systems were encouraged, while by-passing the
more diverse small-scale cropping systems. In recent years, however, a movement
towards supporting small-scale farmers’ crops has emerged, through the
development of “value chains”. By connecting different actors in the supply chain
this support aims to regulate the transactions and guarantee the procurement of a
range of crops – including small-scale farmers’ “niche” crops at secure prices. In
this way, farmers get more certainty that the crops they include in more mixed,
sustainable systems will find a way to the market. These issues will be discussed
more in Module 6 (Markets and finance for small-scale farmers).

• Almekinders, Conny and Hardon, Jaap (eds). 2006. Bringing farmers back
into breeding: Experiences with participatory plant breeding and
challenges for institutionalisation. AgroSpecial 5. Agromisa Foundation,
Wageningen, Netherlands.
• Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. CBD Fact Sheets. www.cbd.int.
• FAO. 2010. Code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides.

Go to http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4544e/y4544e00.htm.
• Hardon, Jaap J. 2004. Plant patents beyond control: Biotechnology,

farmer seed systems and Intellectual Property Rights. Agrospecial 2.
Agromisa Foundation, Wageningen, Netherlands.
• Ileia. 2003. Editorial: Access to and control over resources. LEISA

Magazine Vol.19(3): pp 4-5.
• Lockie, Stewart and Carpenter, David. 2010. Agriculture, biodiversity and

markets. Livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective.
Earthscan, London, U.K.
• Louwaars, Niels, Rob Tripp and Derek Eaton. 2006. Intellectual property
rights in the breeding industry: farmers’ interests. Agriculture & Rural
Development Notes 14 (June). World Bank, Washington, D.C.
• Sayer, Jeff and Dudley, Nigel. 2008. What is a landscape approach?.
Arborvitae special: Learning from Landscapes. International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Ecoagriculture Partners/Cornell
University, Geneva, Switzerland, p.3.
• Tansey, Geoff and Rajotte, Tasmin (eds). 2008. The future control of food.
A guide to international negotiations and rules on intellectual
property, biodiversity and food security. Earthscan, U.K. and U.S.A.
Educational Resources
for Module 3
How can students develop a deeper understanding

about small-scale farming and sustainable cropping
practices? Throughout the three learning blocks,
different educational resources have been highlighted
that can be used to stimulate discussions and as
material for assignments. These include exercises,
games, articles, photos, videos, a farmer interview
checklist and field exercises, as well as references for
further reading. They are brought together in this
section.
R1. Exercises and Games

This section includes three exercises and one role play to support different lessons
from the three learning blocks.
R1.1 Planning a field layout for mixed

cropping
Objective of the exercise: to better understand about positive and

negative interactions between crops in a mixed cropping system.
Figure 33: Exercises and games Time involved: half a day (the field visit will require additional time)
can help students understand Suggested use: Learning Block 1 (1.4.2: Using crop diversity as a buffer)
issues better.
Number of participants: divide the students into groups of 5-6
Materials: large sheets of paper and coloured markers
Methodology:
• Think of a typical selection of about 10-15 crops in small farms in your area.
Consider staple crops, fruit, vegetables, legumes and crops with high market
value. Be sure to also include trees and underutilised crops.
• Use the information in Sub-section 1.4.2 to discuss different relationships of
complementarity, synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling. Also discuss
different ways to grow multiple crops together simultaneously or sequentially
over time.
• Reflecting on the selection of crops you have made, consider their characteristics
and the different kinds of relationships between them. List the characteristics on
poster paper. Examples of characteristics include:
1. Nutrients: are there any legumes or crops that need more nutrients?
2. Timing: which crops are fast-growing and which slow-growing?
3. Roots: which crops have shallow root systems and which are deep-rooted?
4. Natural repellents: are there crops (e.g. onion family) that can natural repel
insects?
5. Length and light: how tall do the crops get? Which crops can and cannot
tolerate shade?
6. Which crops could form a favourable rotation (e.g. five-year cycle)
• Present a design indicating intercropping over one season, as well as a five-
year cycle. Discuss the logic behind the design, and present the kinds of
relationships (i.e. complementarity, synergy, multi-purpose functions and
recycling) you are exploiting.
Discussion:
• Compare different presentations. Which systems would give the most benefit to
farmers and why? Which fit the best with typical soil and water conditions?
Educational Resources for Module 3
• Think about the benefits and drawbacks of such a complex system, in terms of
the labour needed, productivity and timing of production throughout the year.
Extra follow-up activity (see R5 Farmer visit and

field exercises):
Arrange a field visit to farmers and take time to ask them whether they intercrop
and use rotations.
R1.2 Realising the value of underutilised

crops
Objective of the exercise: to become aware of the many locally available

but under-used crops that can be used to supplement cropping systems.
Time involved: about 3 hours
Suggested use: Learning Block 1 (to support lesson on Underutilised
crops in Sub-section 1.4.2)
Number of participants: divide the students into groups of 4-6 people
Materials: Internet or library access, large sheets of paper, pens and pencils
Methodology:
• Use the information in Sub-section 1.4.2 on Underutilised crops and ask
students to read at least one of the two articles on this subject – see R2.5, to
discuss how crops that used to be used by farmers are becoming forgotten
and are now only marginally used. Identify ones from your area. These plants
(including trees) can provide important products, including nutritious food,
fodder, medicines, soap, fibre, timber, as well as being useful in other ways (soil
amendments, etc).
• Form groups of 4-6 students. Ask each group to pick one underutilised crop
or tree that is found locally and one from elsewhere. Get ideas from farmers,
elders, books or the internet (see some relevant websites in the box below).
Become a specialist in the possibilities that the plant holds. Make a poster with
drawings, sketches and text. Each group can then present its findings in class.
• Draw up some research suggestions – for example:
1. What are the potentials of this plant? Try to find out what potential it has
ecologically, economically and socially (for example, how much labour does
it need for preparation?).
2. What characteristics does this plant have? Think of negative aspects such
as invasiveness, toxicity and production problems, as well as beneficial
characteristics such as acting as a repellent or increasing nutrient availability.
3. Where would you place such a crop within a field? Are there possibilities
for intercropping, agroforestry, crop rotation? Be aware of light, nutrient,
moisture needs, etc.
4. Why do you think this plant is underutilised? How could this be changed?
Think of possible policies or market regulations.
Box 11: Relevant websites on underutilised crops:
• The International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC): www.icuc-iwmi.org/

• Crops for the future: www.cropsforthefuture.org/
• The Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species (GFU): http://www.underutilized-species.org/
• Plants for a future: edible, medicintal and useful plants: www.pfaf.org/index.php
• Biodiversity international: www.bioversityinternational.org/scientific_information/themes/neglected_and_
underutilized_species/overview.html
• International Symposium on Underutilized Plants for Food Security, Nutrition, Income and Sustainable
Development. Online articles: www.actahort.org/books/806/
• Wikipedia: Neglected and underutilized crops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underutilized_crops
• Marketing Underutilized Plant Species for the Benefit of the Poor: A Conceptual Framework. See especially page
22, table 1: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/eptdp154.pdf
• Pamphlets on cultivation techniques and recipes for select indigenous vegetables: http://www.indigenoveg.org/
Discussion:
• Compare findings from the different presentations. If crops from other regions
were chosen, do the students think that any of the underutilised crops studied
could benefit their region and are they ecologically applicable?
• Are there any crops that might be able to be processed into a high-value and
marketable product?
• Discuss why the markets are dominated by so few plants and crops and why
many other useful ones are “minor” and ignored by research and extension
services.
R1.3 Role play on insecticide resistance

Objective of the game: to understand how pesticides lose their
effectiveness due to a build-up of pest resistance, and how this puts farmers
on the “pesticide treadmill”.
Time involved: 1-2 hours
Suggested use: Learning Block 2 (Sub-section 2.4.1: lesson on IPM)
Number of participants: 13 players plus audience as follows:
1 storyteller
1 farmer (holding the sprayer)
7 participants, to be “ordinary worms” (who do not wear caps)
4 participants, to be “super worms” (who do wear caps)
A group of observers, they will take notes of what happens
Materials: 1 hand sprayer filled with water (“pesticide sprayer”); and 14
caps (or some other identifiable accessory)
Methodology:
• Organise the group into the characters for the role play.
• Ask the “ordinary worms” to stand on one side of the room and the “super
worms” on the opposite side.
• The middle of the room is the farmer’s field.
• The storyteller starts reading the play and gives instructions to the groups (see
below - instructions are in italics).
• When the game is finished, the observers tell what they have seen and the
whole group can discuss what mechanisms where at play.
Box 12: The role play (adapted from Vegetable IPM Exercise Manual. 2000. CABI Bioscience and FAO, Rome, p.12)
aIn the first week of the season, the farmer goes to her field and finds 5 pests (“worms”). Although she does not
know it, 1 of these, a “super worm” has become resistant to the pesticide that she usually uses. All the other
worms were ‘ordinary worms’.
[1 super worm and 4 ordinary worms go into the field. After that, the farmer comes in the field and acts as if she is
observing her crops]
aThe farmer becomes very worried that her crop is being eaten by worms, and she decides to spray poison
immediately. One lucky “ordinary worm” managed to escape the pesticide by hiding under the leaves of a plant.
[The farmer brings the sprayer into the field and sprays all the worms except 1 ordinary worm]
aAll but one of the “ordinary worms” dies and the “super worm” happily survives because of the resistance it has
against the pesticide.
[3 ordinary worms in the field die and sit on the ground. The super worm shows his cap to the public as his protection
and smiles]
aNow the farmer is happy, so she goes away for a week. In that week, the remaining worms pupate, become adults
and then start mating. Each adult in the field could produce 3 young ones. In the next generation of worms,
there are now 3 “ordinary worms” and 3 “super worms”. After producing babies, the adult insects die.
[The 2 surviving worms in the field rest, as if they are pupating, then stand up, and produce young by inviting 3
ordinary worms and 3 super worms into the field, then fly away and die]
aThe next week the farmer comes into the field and finds 6 worms. Of course she does not know that among the
worms, there are 3 “super worms” that are resistant to the pesticide. Again she worries and decides to spray. This
time she makes the pesticide mix a bit stronger and takes care to cover all areas of plants where the worms could
be hiding.
[The farmer comes into the field, looks around carefully and sprays all the living worms in her field, not missing any]
aAll the ‘ordinary worms’ die of the pesticide spray, but the “super worms” survive.
[Ordinary worms die and sit on the ground. The super worms again show their caps and smile]
aAgain the remaining worms (3 “super worms”) pupate and emerge as adults, mate and produce young. As before,
each adult produces 3 babies, flies away and dies. Because all the parents are “super worms”, all the 9 new worms
are “super worms”.
[The surviving super worms rest, as if they are pupating, then stand up, and produce young by inviting 9 more
super worms into the field, then fly away and die]
aThe next week, the farmer visits the field again. Now she finds 9 worms. She again sprays with an even stronger
concentration of pesticide, but now, none of the worms dies!
[Farmer takes her pesticide sprayer, looks around carefully and sprays all the worms, not missing any. The super
worms again show their caps and smile]
aThe farmer is surprised and doesn’t know what to do anymore. What should she do?

[End of the role play: all the players get up]
Discussion:
Discuss the play in the group. Reflect on what happened:
• How many worms died out of how many generations?
• How and why did this change occur between generations?
• What would happen if the farmer continued spraying pesticide?
• What else could the farmer try to do?
• How can farmers get off of the pesticide treadmill?
R1.4 Reforestation and policy measures
Objective of the exercise: to learn about the ecological, social, economic

and policy implications of reforestation projects.
Time involved: half a day
Suggested use: Learning Block 3 (Sub-section 3.4.1 Involving farmers in
consultation processes)
Number of participants: does not matter
Materials: paper and pencils
Methodology:
• I n this exercise, participants become government officials who need to think
about how to establish a reforestation project.
• Form small groups of 4-6 people.
• Take a map of the region in which you live or that you know well.
• Is there an area that could benefit from tree planting? How do you think it
would benefit?
• Discuss the points below and come up with a plan:
- Look at the ecological characteristics of the area: think about soil type,
rainfall, slope, current vegetation, etc.
- Think about the social and economic implications of reforestation. What is
the current land use? Who is currently using the land? Who owns the land?
What would have to change in the use of the land and its resources? What
kind of economic gains and losses would occur as a result of a change in
land use and its resource base? (e.g. what are the differences between the
current land use and its products versus the products of forests?) What kind
of products can be used by local people in the area, for domestic use or for
selling in the marketplace? Would there be any other social consequences?
Think about social organisation, cultural symbols, status and issues like
infrastructure.
• If you were a regional government official responsible for this area would
you start a reforestation project? What do you need to take into account?
How are land rights organised? How would you deal with the land owners
and users? How can you get local stakeholders, such as small-scale farmers
involved in a consultative process and interested in the scheme? What
would they want in return? How do you create awareness?
• Read the article from Niger (see R2.6) about “Farmer-managed natural
regeneration”. This is one idea about how to reforest. Would this work in
your area? Can you think of other ways to realise your plans for this area?
The article highlights the importance of farmers taking responsibility for
trees, as well as access and user rights. How would you organise all this?
What problems do you think you would encounter?
• If possible, include practical issues in your plan:
- What kinds of tree species would you want to include?
- What do you need to include in a budget, to start the project and then
keep it going?
Discussion:
• Each group presents their plans in class. Compare the plans and discuss if they
are comprehensive and realistic.
• If different groups design a plan for the same area, discuss which group has
taken the best account of the local situation.
R2. Articles about practical experiences
Objective: to use articles about small-scale farming experiences from around

the world to deepen the lessons from the three learning blocks.
Materials: all articles can be retrieved from the LEARNING pages on ileia’s
website (www.ileia.org), while a selection of articles (indicated by a green 
A )
is included in the Appendix that follows the Educational Resources section.

Methodology: these articles can be used as additional reading material,
as part of classroom discussions, or as part of student assignments. One
suggestion is to have students prepare presentations on the basis of the
articles, addressing specific questions related to the information contained in
the learning blocks. Some questions are suggested.
Figure 34: Using ileia’s article
archive can stimulate discussion
on practical implications of
small-scale cropping systems’
sustainability. R2.1 Are polycultures always more
sustainable?
Where to use this article: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2
In defence of monocultures (Global, 2000)

What it is about: this article challenges the assumption that monocultures can
never be sustainable by observing the sustainability of natural stands of wild
relatives of annual cereals.
Suggested questions:
• What examples does the author site as being natural monocultures?
• Under what conditions does the author propose that natural monocultures
can survive well?
• How do the natural monocultures described by the author differ from
monocultures found in modern agricultural cropping systems?
• Does the article answer the question it poses: i.e. is there something
that can be learned from natural monocultures that could be of value to
sustainable cereal cropping?
• Comparing the three methods, how is labour affected?
R2.2 Crop rotation

Where to use this article: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under Crop
rotation)
The mambwe mound cultivation system (Zambia, 2006)

What it is about: by introducing different practices, including a longer crop
rotation based on more crops and planting on mounds, a shifting cultivation
system has been sustainably intensified.
• Why was it necessary to find ways to intensify the Chitemene shifting
cultivation system in Northern Zambia?
• How does the author propose to intensify it?
• What is the logic behind the crops proposed in the rotation?
• What are the advantages of the mambwe mounds?
R2.3 Agroforestry
Where to use these articles: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under
Agroforestry)

A R2.3.1 Regenerative Analog agroforestry in Brazil (2000)
What it is about: the conversion of an unproductive cocoa plantation on poor
soil through the introduction of Analog agroforestry practices led to above average
yields of cacao and improved biodiversity within five years.
• What is natural succession and how does Analog agroforestry mimic it?
• How do the farmers deal with suppression of young crops by mature ones?
• What would be examples of pioneer species and of crops that produce in
the short, medium and long-term in your region?
• How could the farmers improve soil fertility without using chemical
fertilisers?
• Could Analog agroforestry work in your region? Why or why not?

A R2.3.2 Ecological processes and farmer livelihoods
in shaded coffee production (Nicaragua and El
Salvador, 2006)
What it is about: As farmers developed greater understanding of the ecological
processes and improving practices in shade coffee, it became possible to get better
productivity from local, shaded, varieties rather than having to rely on new full-
light varieties.
• Why would farmers choose shaded coffee varieties over full-sun varieties if
the latter kind have a higher productivity?
• What are some of the advantages of the different kinds of shade trees used
by farmers?
• What obstacles did the coffee farmers in Nicaragua and El Salvador face
in establishing agro-ecotourism and organic certification to improve their
livelihoods?
• What examples of useful shade trees in your region can you think of?
R2.3.3 Cultivating resilience: Lessons from the 2004

tsunami in Sri Lanka (2008)
What it is about: home gardens in the coastal areas of Sri Lanka could withstand
the effects of the 2004 tsunami because they were well-protected by trees.
• How did trees protect some home gardens so well from the effects of the
tsunami?
• What are the other benefits that trees gave the farmers?
• What other economic and social factors helped people recover from the
tsunami?
R2.3.4 Experiences with Agroforestry (Ghana, 1990)

What it is about: an NGO’s experiences in getting farmers to integrate multi-
purpose leguminous trees into their degraded farms and the insights gained about
small-scale farmers’ attitudes to adopting new agroforestry practices.
• Why did the Ghana Rural Reconstruction Movement decide to start the
agroforestry project with small-scale farmers?
• What was the organisation’s strategy in introducing new practices to
farmers?
• What were the problems encountered in getting this initiative to spread?
What were the achievements?
• Can you relate to the obstacles mentioned in this article? How would
the farmers in your region react? How would you go about introducing
agroforestry in your region?
R2.4 Home gardens

Where to use this article: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under Home
gardens)
Home gardens: A cultural responsibility (Bangladesh, 2004)
What it is about: based on a wide diversity of local crop varieties and managed
by women, home gardens are an important source of food security and local
agrobiodiversity in Bangladesh.
• What are the advantages of home gardens for families around the world?
• Why do women in Bangladesh prefer local varieties for their home
gardens?
• How many crops on average are included in the gardens? What kinds of
crops?
• Do people have home gardens in your region? What are they like? How do
they differ and how are they similar to those described in the article?
R2.5 Underutilised crops

Where to use these articles: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under
Underutilised crops)

A 2.5.1 Making the most of underutilised crops (Africa
and the Pacific, 2009)
What it is about: Spreading risk is a crucial way of reducing vulnerability,
especially for people who are already vulnerable. Increasing the use of
underutilised crops is one way to help farmers diversify and achieve nutritional,
environmental and financial security.
2.5.2 Women reintroducing neglected crops

(South Africa, 2004)
What it is about: A survey in South Africa shows that women continue to use and
maintain many underutilised crops and that they show considerable interest and
initiative in their crop diversification activities in home and community gardens.
• Why do women around the world continue to use “underutilised” crops?
• The first article suggests three main strategies for selecting underutilised
crops – can you think of examples from your region for each of the
strategies?
• Why do you think that it is women who make the most use of local
underutilised crops (as well as home gardens) rather than men? Is this also
the case in your country?
R2.6 Cropping systems and forest

ecosystems.
Where to use these articles: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.2.1

A R2.6. 1 Trees for semi-nomadic farmers: a key to
resilience (Eritrea, 2001)
What it is about: forest products, and in particular the dom palm (Hyphaene
thebaica), provide a key to the survival of semi-nomadic agro-pastoralists in
Eritrea during times of drought and war.
• What are the different strategies included in the agricultural systems of the
different tribes living in the western lowlands of Eritrea?
• Why is the dom palm such a useful tree? What are its many functions?
• How is it that, although so many people use dom products, they are not
over-harvested?
• Why does the government’s extension service not recognise the value of the
trees? How could the conflict between different priorities be resolved?
• Do you know of a similar situation in your country? How is it being (or
could it be) resolved?
R2.6.2 Pangalengan farmers: friends of the forest

(Indonesia, 2004):
What it is about: in 2003, a ban on vegetable growing on forest land in the
highlands of Pangalengan, Indonesia, affected more than 5,000 local inhabitants.
In response, farmers in the villages surrounding the forest found different ways to
conserve the forest while continuing to gain their livelihoods from it.
• Why did small-scale farmers start growing vegetables in the Mount Tilu
reserve, a protected area of primary forest?
• What did the farmers do to get attention from the Forest Department?
• How did they come to work together to preserve the forest while also
gaining their livelihoods from it?
• Could such a collaboration between forest officials and farmers work in
your country?

A R2.6.3 The development of farmer-managed natural
regeneration (Niger, 2007)
What it is about: using a method called “farmer-managed natural regeneration”
(FMNR), more than 3 million hectares has been revegetated in one of the
world’s poorest nations. Needing only little investment, FMNR involves selecting
and pruning stems naturally regenerating from the stumps of previously felled,
but still living trees.
• What are some of the signs that farmers in Niger and their cropping
systems were suffering from a lack of trees and shrubs?
• What are advantages of FMNR compared with conventional methods of
reforestation?
• What made the farmers change their practices and attitudes towards the
trees in their fields?
• How did a major change in the law affect farmers’ protection of the trees?
• Do people in your area value forests? Could FMNR work in your area?
R2.7 Local PGR systems: Seed fairs


A If you don’t save seed, you are not a real farmer
(Mozambique, 2009)
What it is about: In parts of Mozambique, seed fairs have become an important
tool for improving small-scale farmer access to a diversity of plant genetic
materials. The concept is simple: create a space for farmers from different regions
to come together to exchange seeds.
• Why do you think that Mozambican small-scale farmers needed a boost to
their seed exchange mechanisms through organised seed fairs?
• What are the different reasons given by farmers for appreciating the seed
fairs?
• Why do you think these farmers say that “if you don’t save seed, you are not
a real farmer”? Do you agree with this?
• How do the seed fairs also help farmers organise themselves and to
strengthen their knowledge and local culture?
• Do you think farmers in your country would benefit from seed fairs?
Considering the box on how to organise a seed fair, would it be possible to
organise one there as well?
R2.8 Formal seed systems: Genetically

modified organisms
Where to use this article: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.2 (under Genetic
engineering)

A Stimulating GMO-free breeding for organic
agriculture: a view from Europe (2001)
What it is about: The International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements (IFOAM) took the decision in the mid-1990s to not allow the use of
GMOs in organic farming. This article explains that decision. It also presents a
number of definitions of different biotechnological techniques applied in plant
breeding.
• What is the main reason behind IFOAM’s decision to ban the use of
GMOs?
• Look at the box describing different biotechnological techniques on the
third page: the author finds some acceptable and others not. Why is there
particular opposition to the biotechnological process of “cytoplasmic male
sterility”?
• Find out about “terminator” or “traitor” seeds, other GM technologies (not
mentioned in the article) for making the second generation of seeds sterile.
Who do you think benefits from these kinds of technologies? Do you think
they meet the needs of small-scale farmers?

• How do the organic standards help when collaborating with conventional
seed companies to produce seeds to meet organic farmers’ needs?
R2.9 Local PGR systems: Community seed

banks

A R2.9.1 Community seed banks for maintaining genetic
diversity (India, 2007)
What it is about: creating community seed banks has been an important part
of supporting farmer communities in the dry areas of two states in India (Tamil
Nadu and Karnataka) since the early 1990s. How these seed banks work,
different challenges involved in setting them up (both within and outside the
communities) and advantages are described.
R2.9.2 Seeds, knowledge and diversity in the hands of

small-scale farmers in Honduras (2009)
What it is about: farmers in mountainous regions of Honduras have organised
themselves into agricultural research teams to improve the diversity and resilience
of their farms. They are now successfully producing improved varieties of maize
and beans that meet their local needs, as well as running community seed and
gene banks.
• How have the projects in India and Honduras worked to get farmer
communities organised?
• What is “seed mapping” and why did they make these surveys in India?
• Why is there such a split in the two types of farming practised in Honduras?
Is this similar to your country?
• What kinds of characteristics do small-scale Honduran farmer researchers
select for in varieties?
• How did Hurricane Mitch affect farmers’ maize selection strategies?
• How do community seed banks work? Why was there so much opposition
to setting them up in India?
• What are the advantages of community seed banks?
• Could these kinds of initiatives work in rural areas in your country?
R2.10 Pesticide use and beneficial insects


A Indigenous honeybees: allies for mountain farmers
(Himalayas, 2004)
What it is about: The population and diversity of native bees (which are
important to pollination) is declining in the Himalayas because of habitat loss,

land use changes, increasing monoculture, the negative impacts of pesticides and
herbicides and the introduction of the European honeybee, Apis mellifera, to the
Himalayas. The article discusses how this affects biodiversity in the region.
• What are some differences (advantages and disadvantages) between
indigenous and introduced “improved” honeybees?
• What are effects of the decline in indigenous honeybees on small-scale
farming?
R2.11 Different view on weeds

Weeds and trees (Kenya, 1995)

What it is about: From his experience in agroforestry development in Kenya,
the author looks at the benefits that farmers can get from weeds and the effects of
trees on minimising weed growth.
• What are the useful qualities of certain weeds described by the author?
• In what different ways do trees help control the growth of weeds?
• What do you think farmers in your area would think of these ideas?
R2.12 Integrated pest (and weed)

management

A R2.12.1 Enhancing the push-pull system (Kenya, 2007)
What it is about: Push-Pull uses a combination of leguminous “repellent” plants
to deter pests from the main crop (“push”) and trap crops to attract the repelled
pest (“pull”). Farmers in East Africa successfully use Push-Pull to deal with
stemborer pests and the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica in their maize and
sorghum cultivation.
• Describe how different crops and repel unwanted pests and others attract
them away from crops.
• What different aspects of this method do farmers find attractive?
• What are the other benefits of this method?
• What are the constraints in promoting this method among farmers?

A R2.12.2 Managing pests through plant
diversification (California, 2006)
What it is about: using examples from vineyards in California, the author shows
how different diversification strategies can help regulate pests.
• Describe the different ways suggested by the author for modifying cropping
systems so as to regulate pests.
• What is the difference between “planned” and “associated” biodiversity and
how do these concepts fit into pest regulation mechanisms?
• Could these methods work in your region?
R2.12.3 Avoiding bruchid infestation in stored beans

(Tanzania, 2004)
What it is about: this article describes different ways of controlling small beetles
called bruchids from getting into beans after harvest, that were based on farmers
getting a better understanding about the bruchids’ behaviour.
• What different methods do farmers use to control bruchid infestations in
their stored beans?
• Do you know of natural pesticides from your area that can be used to
protect stored seeds?
R2.13 Sustainable intensification practices

Where to use this article: Learning Block 2 – Section 2.5

A R2.13.1 The successful intensification of
smallholder farming in Zimbabwe (2008)
What it is about: small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe use a mix of local and
improved soyabean varieties to meet different needs (cash and food security).
• What are the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the local
variety of soyabean in relation to the improved varieties?
• What are benefits of integrating soyabean into maize production?
• Why did the improved varieties need specific rhizobia and what are the
implications of having to use inoculants?
• How did the combination of different soyabean varieties improve farmers’
livelihoods?
2.13.2 System of Rice Intensification gains momentum
What it is about: The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) was developed by

small farmers in Madagascar. It involves changing practices and following more
ecological principles: optimising the use of water, nutrients and spacing. SRI has
since spread to many other countries, with impressive results.
• What are the nine principles that farmers follow when modifying their rice
cropping practices?
• What are advantages and disadvantages of using SRI?
• Could these principles be modified to improve the intensification of other
cropping systems?
• Do farmers in your country practise SRI? If yes, what are their results?
R2.14 Governance issues: protecting the

sustainability of ecosystems

A Community management of afroalpine highlands in
Ethiopia
What it is about: In the central highlands of Ethiopia, a community-based
natural resource management system locally known as “qero” is operating.
Recently, the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme started collaborating with
the communities to ensure the future viability of both qero and the wolves.
• What are the many uses of “guassa” grass and how does the community
regulate its use of this valuable resource?
• What happened when the revolutionary government abolished the age-old
qero system of community-based natural resource management?
• How did a partnership with the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme
help revitalise the governance of the qero system?
• How does the community-managed system compare to formal
arrangements? Why do you think that the qero system works so well?
• Compare this article to R2.6.2.
R2.15 Governance issues: Participatory

plant breeding programme

A New bean seeds and the struggle for their
dissemination (Nicaragua, 2007)
What it is about: a “participatory plant breeding” (PPB) programme was initiated
in the northern region of Nicaragua, an important bean and maize producing area.
The programme involved small-scale farmers in developing new bean varieties.
• Why were scientists interested in involving farmers in the pilot PPB
programme?
• Describe the long process of selecting seeds. What were the farmers’
priorities in selection?
• Why did the farmers encounter obstacles in registering their varieties?
• Considering the time and effort that the farmers put into developing a
commercially viable bean variety, do you think patents, protect breeders’
investments are justified?
• Do you know of any PPB programmes in your country?
R2.16 Policy support: reducing use of

pesticides

A It’s time to ban highly hazardous pesticides
(Ecuador, 2007)
What it is about: hazardous pesticides cause public health problems as well
as destroying beneficial insects alongside the harmful ones. Many small-scale
farmers use them in spite of the risks and this article calls for a ban.
• How did the researchers convince farmers in Ecuador about the harmful
effects of pesticides?
• What are the harmful effects of pesticides on health of farmers and their
families?
• Why do you think that “safe use” training programmes are ineffective in
getting small-scale farmers to take proper precautions?
• What will happen to farmers’ cropping practices if they are prevented from
using pesticides through a ban?
• What are some ways to build awareness about hazardous pesticides and to
get them banned?
• Are there any bans on hazardous pesticides in your country? What
alternatives can farmers use?
R3. Photo gallery

Objectives: To use as illustrations for teaching, to Methodology:
stimulate discussions – to help students understand • Present the photographs and ask a number of
the links between what is going on in the wider questions about the photo to help stimulate ideas:
context and cropping systems on the farm. for example, what do they observe in the photo, and
Total time involved: Presentation during class what does it mean in relation to cropping systems
time (20-30 minutes) (reflect on more than simply ecological aspects).
Materials: Photo gallery as powerpoint • Use the photographs to discuss similar initiatives in
presentation with beamer, or printout (see Appendix your region.
at end of Module)
Photo Title Explanation

Nr
1 Know the enemy,

Karnataka, India
One part of IPM is to “know the enemy” and release beneficial insects at the right
moment. Here, Indian farmers look for insects in a “pheromone trap” in a groundnut
field. This is a type of insect trap that uses pheromones (natural or synthetic insect sex
attractants) to lure insects. These traps are often used to detect the presence of exotic
pests, for sampling, monitoring, or determining the first appearance of a pest in an area.
2 Farmers make their

own biopesticide,
Through IPM activities farmers have developed practices that avoid using pesticides.
What used to only be done in the laboratory of the agricultural department is now also
Cikoneng, Indonesia done by the farmers. This farm woman is reproducing trichoderma, a fungus which is
effective against soil-borne diseases such as root rot. It is particularly useful for dryland
crops such as groundnut, black gram, green gram and chickpea.
3 Safe vegatables,
Vietnam
There is an increasing demand by consumers in particularly the urban areas of Vietnam,
for “safe” vegetables grown with fewer chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Simple pest-
control techniques such as the sticky card are being used by some farmers instead of
pesticides.
4 Bare-faced risk,
Ecuador
A farm worker without a protective mask or clothing sprays a crop. Studies show that
pesticides can cause health problems, including birth defects, nerve damage, cancer, and
other effects that might occur over a long period of time. These problems affect not only
those who prepare and apply the pesticides, but also women and children in and around
rural households. Not using protection when spraying significantly increases the health risk.
5 Seeds for agro-

biodiversity, Tamil
Women in south India became involved in multiplying seeds of different local varieties of
rice, finger millets and other food crops that can be planted in mixed-crop systems. This
Nadu/Karnataka, led to the idea of establishing community seed banks, from which members can get seeds
India free of charge by agreeing to return twice the amount of seed after the harvest. This was
part of a project on agrobiodiversity that focused on identifying and using traditional plant
species and varieties.
6 Pest and disease

management, the
Good pest and disease management is based on a well-designed crop rotation system. This
farmer grows more than eight different crops in one year, and he does not sow the same
Netherlands crop in the same field for at least six years. He grows potatoes, alfalfa, maize, beetroot,
wheat, onions, carrots and oats. This long crop rotation helps avoid many diseases.
7 Participatory
breeding, Honduras
Small-scale farmers are often largely ignored by government and agricultural scientists
and so they have to find their own solutions to the problems they encounter. Through
a participatory breeding process, farmers were able to produce two improved varieties
of maize. They have experimented with indigenous varieties adapting them to suit their
needs and preferences. This farmer, Simeona Perez, says that the new varieties have
hardly been affected by heavy rain and hurricanes.
8 Acacia - a
multipurpose crop,
Certain Australian Acacia species have great, untapped potential as multipurpose tree
species in agroforestry systems as they thrive under conditions in which annual plants
Niger struggle to survive. They are used for windbreaks, reclaiming degraded land, biomass
production for mulch and organic matter, firewood, feed for honeybees and food for
people and livestock. They also contribute to soil fertility through fixing atmospheric
nitrogen. These Acacia species trials are taking place in the Maradi region of Niger, West
Africa.
9 Ecological system,
China
This photo shows simultaneous multi-cropping in action with several species, including
maize, soyabean, melon and a Chinese relative of banana (Musella lasiocarpa). These
species form a complex ecological system in which the Musella lasiocarpa reduces water
erosion and provides forage to animals in winter and soyabean fixes nitrogen and provides
a cash crop for farmers.
10 Tribal farmers
and underutilised
People living in remote forest fringes in India plant indigenous trees on their land
and “domesticate” them. These trees yield different non-timber products and help
indigenous trees, diversify farms, preserve the forests and provide opportunities for income. This woman
India is cultivating and harvesting lac, the resinous secretion of a tiny insect growing on these
trees; lac has commercial value in India as it is used as a skin cosmetic and dye for wool
and silk.
11 Medicinal plants
in multiple canopy
Many families in the Tocatins, a moist forest ecoregion in eastern Amazonian Brazil
include medicinal plants in their home gardens. The plants, their use and management
home garden, Brazil are still part of local knowledge and culture in some areas, but in many places this
knowledge has been lost. Some local associations are offering courses on herbs and in
health care so this knowledge can be revived.
12 Multi-storey home
garden, Central
Baddala Wasswa is an innovative farmer who developed this agroforestry mix on less than
1 hectare. The canopy is made up of shade trees (Ficus natalensis) and the nitrogen-fixing
Uganda Albisia spp. The middle canopy is banana and cassava with jatropha just below. Vanilla
vines grow below, thriving in light shade and needing support. The lowest level consists
of food crops (seen here are sweet potato, cocoyam and beans). Besides food, Mr Wasswa
gets bark cloth and stakes for live fences from the Ficus. He grows vanilla to earn an
income, but the world market price is very volatile. Fertiliser is not needed in this system,
and since it is the humid tropics, sufficient water is available.
13 Intercropping in tea
garden, China
The tea gardens of farmers in Mengsong community, Xishuangbanna(the only tropical
rainforest nature reserve in China), illustrate several good practices. To avoid water
erosion, tea shrubs are planted along the terrace lines. Several species such as the
camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) have been introduced into the tea garden. This
intercropping reduces the onset of pests and disease in the tea crop and provides extra
benefits of medicine, incense, spice and timber.
14 Agroforestry trial
in farmer’s field in
The fast-growing valuable timber tree Grevillea robusta has been introduced into farmers’
fields alongside food crops such as maize and beans, cabbage and banana. This tree gives
Maseno, Western farmers a better income, but in this part of Kenya, the population density has grown so
Kenya high that the many household farms are too small to provide an adequate living. Many
households have members working elsewhere to supplement family earnings.
15 GMO lab in Kawanda

(government-run)
Researchers working on banana crops, modifying them for resistance to Black leaf streak
disease, a disease caused by fungi (Mycosphaerella fijiensis Morelet) that attack the leaves
research station, and cause lower yields. This and other pests and diseases are widespread in the East
north of Kampala, African highlands where bananas are critical to food security. Seedlings of traditional
Uganda plants are being conserved in gene banks in another part of the country.
16 Successful urban
agriculture, Havana,
Cuba is one of the countries where urban agriculture is highly developed. Urban
agriculture has many advantages which are being increasingly recognised: it can
Cuba contribute to community development and local organisation, as well as to the production
of a great diversity of fresh food grown in mixed cropping systems. The plots on the photo
are located a few kilometres east of the capital city of Havana’s centre. Vivero Alamar is a
co-operative of 170 producers working on 11 hectares, in the middle of a highly-populated
neighbourhood. They all produce organic vegetables (even if most are not certified
organic), which are sold either directly to consumers or through the local markets.
R4. Videos
Objectives: to offer visual examples from around the world to complement the teachings and to deepen
students’ understanding of sustainable cropping practices in small-scale farming and practical initiatives towards
sustainability.
Total time involved: see video durations below – add time for classroom discussion.
Materials: the videos are available on CD-Rom or can be downloaded from the LEARNING pages on ileia’s
website; to present the videos, a computer and beamer are needed.
Methodology:
• Present the videos to illustrate points from the lessons and to stimulate discussions on them.
• Use the videos to discuss related issues and initiatives in your region.
R4.1 Agroforesty: A sustainable tropical

island land use system
Duration: 21 minutes
Suggested use: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2, to supplement the lesson
on Agroforestry
What it is about: this video looks at experiences with different agroforestry
methods in Guam. It starts by looking at the relation between economic returns
for farmers and sustainable practices. It then goes on to discuss multi-purpose
functions of trees and looks at methods such as cropping systems, alley cropping,
contour hedgerows and living mulches. (Produced by the College of Micronesia
and the University of Guam - Primary funding source: Western Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (WSARE) grant programme, 2000)
• How can agroforestry contribute to spreading risks? What different options
do farmers in the video have for spreading risks in their fields?
• What are the trade-offs between short-term profitability (“use”, “harvest”)
and long-term productivity (“plant”, “care for”) of agroforestry systems.
• What is the influence of an agroforestry system on the soil?
R4.2 Dalit food systems: a new discourse in

food and farming
Suggested use: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2, to supplement lesson on
Underutilised crops
What it is about: this video looks at the importance of underutilised crops
(or “uncultivated crops”) for food security and livelihoods, focusing on the
marginalised population of Dalits (people of the lowest caste) in India (produced
by IIED/DDS, 2008)
Suggested questions
• Can you relate the experiences of the Dalits in India to those of small-scale
farmers in your region?
• What role do these foods play in the livelihoods of the Dalits? (Discuss
health, economic and ecological roles).
• What underutilised or “uncultivated” food crops are consumed in your
region? And by whom?
• Do you think these crops should be promoted as a way to improve
livelihoods and enhance biodiversity? If so, how would you promote them?
R4.3 Nature Farmer

Suggested use: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 1.4.2, on mixed cropping.
What it is about: this video shows a farmer in the Kurunegala district of Sri
Lanka, sharing his views on farming. He discusses the use of chemical fertilisers
on his field, his soil fertility measures and the use of trees and mixed cropping.
(Produced by MONLAR Sri Lanka, 2008)
Suggested questions
• Do you think that traditional practices are always ecologically sustainable?
• Discuss the economic and ecological (dis)advantages of chemical
fertilisers. Would this differ by region?
• Do you think that sustainable farming practices can produce enough to
feed your whole country?
R4.4 Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: a three

year fraud
Suggested use: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.2, in the lesson about genetic
engineering
What it is about: in India, a citizen’s assessment has been made of the promises
of GM cotton. Bt cotton was introduced in 2002 in the Warangal district, in
the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. It was backed up by an advertising
blitz which promised three things to farmers: a) a decrease in pesticide use; b)
a decline in cultivation costs; and c) an increase in yields and profits. The film
brings alive the experiences of farmers as they try to grow Bt cotton. The women
film makers of the Community Media Trust travelled month after month to
Warangal to film the reactions of farmers to the promises of Bt cotton and to
record the impact it has had on their lives. (IIED/DDS, 2005)
Suggested questions
• What do you think about GMOs on the basis of this film? Do you think
that it is a fair representation of different issues?
• Do you think that Monsanto can be held accountable for bad yields?
• What options do the small-scale cotton farmers in this film have?
• What kind of steps should or could a government take to protect its
farmers?
• Does your country produce cotton? Do you know if GM cotton (or other
GM) varieties are being planted there? How do you feel about this?
R4.5 Biotech pear is a singular tree

Duration: 4 minutes
engineering
What is it about: This film shows how the breeding of GM pear trees allows for
more trees per hectare. It shortly discusses the benefits of influencing growth
habits (United States Department of Agriculture, 2007)
Suggested questions
• If you could genetically modify a crop from your region, what
characteristics would you want?
• Based on this film, what are the advantages and disadvantages of
genetically modifying crops?
• What forms of governance are needed to regulate these practices?
• Will GM pear trees such as these contribute to more ecologically
sustainable, fertiliser-saving type of farming?
R4.6 The Transcontainer Project – GM

crop containment in the EU
engineering
What it is about: six short films showing stakeholders’ views on biological
containment. The biological containment of GM plant materials aims to
minimise GM materials crossing over to other crops, through modifying the
plants’ natural reproduction system.
GM crop containment in the EU, part 1 (almost 10 minutes)

the organic farmer
GM crop containment in the EU, part 2 the regulator (9 ¾ min)
GM crop containment in the EU, part 3 the scientist (just over 8 ½ min)
GM crop containment in the EU, part 4 the GM farmer (just under 8 ½ min)
GM crop containment in the EU, part 5 the activist (just under 8 min)
GM crop containment in the EU, part 6 the lobbyist (almost 10 min)
(Produced by AGRAPEN, 2009) ©AGRAPEN, not CC-licensed

http://www.youtube.com/user/TransContainer
Suggested questions
• What are the motivations of the different stakeholders? What drives them?
• Do you think co-existence of GMOs and non-GMOs is possible?
• What is meant by “containment”, and if 100 percent containment were
possible, would this change the (political) discussion about GMOs?
R5. Farmer visit and field exercises

Objectives: To get close to practical realities of small-scale farmers and their
cropping issues; to better understand the lessons in the three learning blocks
by observing different aspects on 1 or more farms and talking to at least one,
but preferably more, farmer(s) directly; and to allow students to get practical
experience in interviewing and synthesising information.
Time involved: Take time ahead of the interview to prepare questions and
field exercises. The time needed for the visit will depend on how far the
farmers live from the school; the interview should last at least 2 hours. Field
exercises half a day.
Suggested use: Visits can take place once the lessons in Learning Block 1
have been completed. Waiting until completing Learning Block 2 will allow
Figure 35: Visits to farmers bring
for more insights into seed systems and IPM.
practical realities alive.
Materials: For the interview: pen and paper to take notes, tape recorder,
camera and/or video camera;
For field exercises, see below.
Methodology:
• If possible, arrange interviews with different farmers, to include both men
and women farmers; if possible it is interesting to compare farmers with
multiple cropping systems and those with monocultures.
• Prepare a list of questions to ask farmers about different aspects of their
cropping practices and their reasons behind their selection processes (see
R5.1 for interview checklist).
• Take the opportunity to also do some simple exercises with students, based
on observations in the field during the visit (see R5.2 for some ideas).
• Following the visit, ask students to make presentations or a written report
on their findings.
R5.1 Farmer interview checklist

Before going into the field:
• Choose a main crop in the region and ask students to make a list of criteria for
comparing different varieties of this crop (e.g. fast-growing, tolerance to
drought/heavy rainfall, productivity, taste, quality, resistance to pests/ diseases;
usefulness of by-products for different purposes; ease of processing; timing of
harvests; ease of harvesting; cost and availability of seed; etc.
• Explain to students that it is important to get a better understanding about
how farmers’ priorities influence which crop varieties they chose. Agricultural
research organisations often develop new crop varieties in order to produce
higher yields or that are more resistant to pests and diseases. While these
characteristics are important, farmers often use many other parameters to

evaluate a crop variety.
During the field visit:

• Ask farmers what variety (or different varieties) of the crop they use. Ask them
to evaluate/compare the varieties using the list of criteria that was prepared.
Are all the criteria on the list important? Should others be added? Ask farmers
which three criteria they consider most important.
• Farmers often use more than one variety of the main crop. If this is the case ask
them why they grow two or three varieties of the same crop and not just the one
which is the most productive.
• Compare the responses of different farmers – especially men and women
farmers.
• How do farmers’ criteria and those of agricultural research programmes
compare? Why are they different?
Re-read Learning Blocks 1 and 2, and make a checklist of cropping issues you
would like to discuss with farmers. Here are some examples of questions –
√ Where do farmers get their seed and other plant genetic materials from?
How do they feel about seed supply in the area?
√ Do farmers use areas outside their fields to collect resources for their
farm? What do they use the resources for? What is the situation with
common areas (e.g. grazing land or forest) in the region? Is there a way
to check that people do not over-harvest from these areas? What are the
governance mechanisms for these?
√ Do farmers practise crop rotation or fallow their fields? Ask for details
and think about what this means for nutrient cycling, rooting, etc.
√ Do farmers have problems with pest (including disease) incidence and
weeds? What do they do to protect their crops from pests and diseases?
Observe whether there are pests and natural enemies in the field.
√ Do farmers mix crops? Have these practices changed from the past?
R5.2 Field observations

Make some observations around the field, and think about what it means for
sustainability. Discuss issues that you see with the farmer to see how s/he is
dealing with them. Some ideas:
√ Look at differences in heights of the same crop
√ Do you think the crop is healthy?
√ Is there a pest visible? Can you identify it? Can you see natural enemies or
crops that work as defenders?
√ What management practices are needed at the moment?
√ How is the harvest being stored?
√ Check how much shade/ direct sunlight the crops receive during the day
√ Weed management on the farm
√ Draw the lay-out of the field schematically, from above and side views.
R6. Further references for Module 3

This section provides a list of freely accessible resources that can help educators
and students dig deeper into issues explored in this module. Resources include
books and guides, as well as websites that offer further resources, photos and
videos.
R6.1 Books and field guides

Guide to participatory tools for forest communities
by Kristen Evans et al., 2006. 37 pp. ISBN 9792446567. Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR), P.O. Box 6596 JKPWB, Jakarta
10065, Indonesia. E-mail: cifor@cgiar.org
Download from: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/
BKristen0601.pdfhThis toolkit contains a collection of participatory tools for
environment and development practitioners, researchers and local government
leaders. Some of these tools are adaptations of existing methods; others were
created specifically for work with forest-dependent communities, for promoting
sustainable forest management and the empowerment of these and other natural
resource dependent communities. The tools have many applications, including
stakeholder identification, decision-making, planning, conflict management, and
information collection.
Manage insects on your farm: A guide to ecological

strategies
by Miguel A. Altieri, Clara I. Nicholls and Marlene A. Fritz, 2005.128 pp.
Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) Publications, P.O. Box 753, Waldorf,
Maryland 20604-0753, U.S.A. E-mail: sanpubs@sare.org
Download from: http://www.sare.org/publications/insect/insect.pdf
While every farming system is unique, the principles of ecological pest
management apply universally. “Manage insects on your farm” highlights the
ecological strategies that improve a farm’s natural defences and encourage
beneficial insects to attack pests. This book shows how ecologically based pest
management works and presents strategies used by farmers around the world
to address insect problems. As part of the principles of ecologically based pest
management, it describes how to manage soils to minimise the presence of pests,
and describes the most common “beneficial agents” on a farm.
Small-scale seed production

by Harry van den Burg, 2004. ISBN 90-77073-43-4. Agrodok no. 37.
Agromisa, P.O. Box 41, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Download from: http://www.agromisa.org/agrodoks/Agromisa-AD-37-E.pdf
This manual presents the general principles behind seed production and the
maintenance of cultivars, with special reference to cereal and legume seeds.
Written for extension staff and small-scale farmers, it highlights the basic ideas
behind inheritance and genetic variation, describing the differences between
self- and cross-pollinated species. The later sections describe the different aspects
which determine the quality of seeds, the importance of post-harvest care and the
issues to consider when setting up a small seed production business.
Agromisa documents
Download from: www.agromisa.com
Agromisa, the knowledge centre for small-scale sustainable agriculture has a lot of
useful manuals and publications (called “Agrodoks”and “AgroSpecials”) on plant
production, protection and post-harvesting. Some of these publications focus on
specific crops and others provide general guidance on cropping systems such as
agroforestry or home gardening. The information is downloadable in PDF format
in English, French and Portuguese, but ordering hard copies involves costs or
follows a system of points for members of CTA. The 50+ manuals include topics
such as: Fruit growing in the tropics, Agroforestry, Identification of crop damage,
Crop protection, Storage of agricultural products, Plant patenting, etc. (see also
specific references at the end of the second and third learning blocks).
Seeds that give: Participatory plant breeding

by Ronnie Vernooy, 2003. ISBN 1-55250-014-4. IDRC, P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa,
ON K1G 3H9, Canada. E-mail: info@idrc.ca ;
Download from: www.idrc.ca/seeds
Genetic erosion makes the world’s food supply more vulnerable to disease and
sudden climatic change - this may be the price to pay for having successfully
developed and widely used new high-yielding crop varieties over the last decades.
This paradox, and how it is being addressed by a novel plant breeding approach
that takes into account the invaluable contribution of small farmers, is the topic
of this book. Complementing the book are six case studies from the developing
world and a thematic website (www.idrc.ca/seeds).
Manifesto on the future of seeds

by the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture,
2006. ARSIA Secretariat, Regional Government of Tuscany. Via Pietrapina 30,
50121 Florence, Italy.
Download from: http://www.future-food.org
Created in 2003 with the conviction that “a better world is possible” the
Commission seeks to shape a new future of food in which small farmers’
livelihoods are secure, rural areas are economically and culturally vibrant,
ecologically resilient, and citizens have nutritional security. Its work is guided
and inspired by the principles elaborated and developed in its Manifesto on the
Future of Food.
A guide for conducting Farmer Field Schools on

cocoa integrated crop and pest management
by Soniia David et al., 2006. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(IITA), Sustainable Tree Crops Program. P.O. Box 135, Accra, Ghana. E-mail:
stcp-wca@cgiar.org ;
Download from: http://www.treecrops.org
The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is relatively new to West Africa and
there are few examples of its application to tree crops and perennial crops. Since
2003, the Sustainable Tree Crop Program (STCP) has pioneered FFS on cocoa
integrated crop and pest management in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and
Cameroon. Although it is based on the experience gained from cocoa FFSs,
many of the principles and recommendations can be applied to other tree crops.
The manual is directed at FFS programme managers and other development
practitioners.
Farmers, seeds and varieties: Supporting informal

seed supply in Ethiopia
by Marja H. Thijssen, Zewdie Bishaw, Abdurahman Beshir and Walter S.
de Boef (eds.), 2008. ISBN 978-90-8585-215-5. Wageningen International,
Programme for Capacity Development and Institutional Change, P.O. Box 88,
6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Download from: http://www.cdic.wur.nl/UK/publications
While this book was developed in response to issues identified within Ethiopia,
the variety of topics and experiences presented in it are also relevant for
other regions of the world. It will be of interest to people working in the seed
sector, development agents and NGOs working to develop farmer based seed
production. The papers were written by the trainers, resource persons and
participants of a training programme to improve farmer-based seed production
and revitalise the informal seed supply for local crops and varieties in Ethiopia.
As such it is a thorough and practical reference and resource book.
IFOAM Training Manual for Seed Saving

edited by K. Vijayalakshmi, Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems, 2008.
ISBN 3-934055-68-0. International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements (IFOAM), Charles-de-Gaulle-Strasse 5, DE-53113, Bonn, Germany.
Download from: http://www.ifoam.org/ (free for IFOAM members)
This training manual provides detailed information on how to save seeds
according to organic practices. Topics covered include; community-based seed
conservation, seed multiplication, sections on specific crops and examples from
the field.
R6.2 Interesting websites

Agrobiodiversity and Climate Change
http://www.agrobiodiversityplatform.org/climate_change
The Agrobiodiversity and Climate Change site gathers and disseminates
information on the use of agrobiodiversity by communities facing climate
change. Started in April 2008, this project brings together information from
rural communities, indigenous peoples and research workers. The website gives
you the opportunity to interact and discuss the project’s topic, to find and share
information on projects concerned with climate change and agrobiodiversity and
to check out related news and events.
Bioversity International
http://www.bioversityinternational.org
Bioversity is the world’s largest international research organisation dedicated
solely to the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity. It is non-profit and
independently operated. The website provides publications about a diverse range
of themes related to biodiversity. Their annual magazine Geneflow is available
on the website and carries stories from all around the globe, from a wide range
of sources including national, regional and international development agencies,
non-governmental organisations and research workers.
Coalition to Diversify Income from Underused Crops

(CoDI)
http://codi-asia.net
CoDI is a group of organisations in India and Vietnam led by the International
Centre for Underutilised Crops. This website describes their activities, all of
which aim to increase diversity on farms, link small-scale farmers to markets
and improve processing, packaging and marketing skills. The coalition provides
community services to help disadvantaged people in India and Vietnam generate
sustainable incomes. Their activities include “Food Processing Parks”, “Village
Crop Fairs” and “Knowledge Fairs”. The website also contains useful information
about underutilised crops in the two countries and project descriptions and
analyses.
Community-Based Natural Resource Management

Network
http://www.cbnrm.net
This site provides a network for people working on community-based natural
resource management (CBNRM), whether as practitioners, managers and
researchers, and an opportunity for them to exchange experiences, manage
knowledge, and support learning across countries, sectors, cultures, and
languages. The site has a comprehensive resources section, with many links and a
lot of references and background information.
Community IPM
http://www.communityipm.org/index.htm\
This site includes many useful documents and teaching materials related to
Farmer Field Schools. It was originally created as part of the FAO’s Programme
for Community IPM in Asia. It is now maintained as an archive of information
about the groundbreaking work carried out by government agencies, NGOs and
farmer groups carried out under this Programme.
Convention on Biological Diversity

http://www.cbd.int
The website of the Convention on Biological Diversity is a large resource,
containing information about the convention itself and the Protocol on Biosafety.
It describes various programmes, including Agricultural Biodiversity, Island
Biodiversity and Mountain Biodiversity, each complete with updates, background
information, activities and links. From the homepage you can sign up to
receive various e-newsletters, and there is also a link to The Green Wave (http://
greenwave.cbd.int), a global campaign to educate children and youth about
biodiversity.
Ecoagriculture Partners
http://www.ecoagriculture.org/
Ecoagriculture is a strategy for both conservation and rural development. It
applies an integrated ecosystem approach to agricultural landscapes that aims
to enhance rural livelihoods; conserve or enhance biodiversity and ecosystem
services; and develop more sustainable and productive agricultural systems. It
draws on diverse elements of production and conservation management systems,
through processes of collaboration or coordination between diverse stakeholders
(including farmers and rural communities) who are collectively responsible for
managing key components of a landscape.
FAO on plant production and protection

www.fao.org
The FAO website contains a wealth of information on different topics. To narrow
down your search go to ‘Topics’ and then ‘Plant production and protection’. Here
you can find information on different techniques and how FAO is and has been
working on that particular theme.
GENET Archive
www.gene.ch/archives.html
This site has been established to support discussions about genetic engineering
and to provide information intelligible to non-scientists. At present decisions
are being taken which are influencing society and the environment worldwide.
New crops are being planted and products derived from them are being sold
fraudulently (without labels and risk information) on the world market. Huge
areas are being invaded by newly designed organisms whose long-term effects on
ecosystems are unknown and may be irreversible. This archive provides plenty of
background information on these subjects.
GeneWatch
www.genewatch.org/
GeneWatch UK is an independent organisation concerned with the ethics
and risks of genetic engineering. It questions how, why and whether the use of
genetic technologies should proceed and believes that the debate over genetic
engineering is long overdue. Though GeneWatch is UK based the site is oriented
to a worldwide audience and provides a lot of information.
Global Farmer Field School Network and Resource

Centre (FFSnet)
http://farmerfieldschool.info
The objective of this FFS network is to support national and regional knowledge
sharing, networking and co-ordination among FFS practitioners in order to
make FFS interventions more effective. Its works as a decentralised network and
resource centre focusing on strategies and mechanisms for institutionalisation
and scaling-up, quality control mechanisms and low cost implementation

strategies and mechanisms. The site has a discussion forum and provides access
to a broad database that facilitates the exchange of experiences and gives access to
many resources and training materials relevant to the study of cropping systems.
Global Plant Clinic

http://www.globalplantclinic.org
The CABI Bioscience Global Plant Clinic provides a comprehensive diagnostic
and advisory service for disease problems affecting all tropical crops. The website
gives expert advice on the interpretation and application of diagnostic results.
It draws on the extensive international experience in a wide range of crops
and information from CAB International’s Crop Protection Compendium.
This service is freely available for people in developing countries involved in
agriculture.
INFONET-BioVision Farmer Information Platform

http://www.infonet-biovision.org
This large website provides a wealth of information on organic agriculture and
crop husbandry, and ecological ways to prevent and control plant, human and
animal pests and diseases. The site describes 44 common crops in detail, giving
agronomic information for each with a description of the main pests and diseases
and a list of links to other sources of information. Contributions come from
farmer groups, local experts and international scientists.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of

Nature)
http://www.iucn.org/
IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network, with
more than 1 000 government and NGO member organisations and almost
11 000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. It conducts scientific
research and manages field projects all over the world. These projects bring
together governments, NGOs, UN agencies, companies and local communities
in developing and implementing policy, laws and best practice for nature
conservation. Its headquarters are located in Gland, near Geneva, Switzerland.
La Vía Campesina
http://viacampesina.org/main_en/
Established in 1993, this is the main global advocacy organisation for small-
scale farmers. In short, La Vía Campesina calls for greater rights for small-scale
farmers, based on fair access to resources such as land and water, fair economic
relations, and ability to sustain their families from small-scale farming. One
of their key concepts is called “Food sovereignty”, introduced in 1996. A PDF
document with La Vía Campesina’s declaration of food sovereignty can be
downloaded from the link: http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/library/1996%20
Declaration%20of%20Food%20Sovereignty.pdf.
People and Plants online

www.rbgkew.org.uk/peopleplants/
People and Plants promotes the sustainable use of plant resources and seeks to
integrate the goals of conservation and development. This website is a gateway to
information on practical ways of working in applied ethnobotany. Its main focus
is on Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Besides newsletters and interesting links, the
People and Plants Handbook series provides a source of information on applying
ethnobotany to conservation and community development.
Pesticide Action Network

www.pan-international.org/
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a network of more than 600 non-
governmental organisations, institutions and individuals in over 90 countries,
working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and
socially just alternatives. Their main aims are to eliminate the use of hazardous
pesticides, reduce the overall use, risk and dependence of pesticides and increase
support for community-based control over a sustainably produced food supply.
Specific information about different pesticides can be found in the site.
Prota (Plant resources of Tropical Africa)

www.prota.org
When PROTA started in 2000, it had a simple technical objective: “to improve
access to interdisciplinary data on the plant resources of tropical Africa”.
PROTA has so far brought together previously dispersed information on about
2 100 useful plants. This information is contained in slightly over 1 200 review
articles, mostly arranged by commodity groups “cereals and pulses”, “vegetables”,
“dyes and tannins”, “vegetable oils”, “timbers” and “medicinal plants”. All the
information is freely accessible in a web database but is also available in a book
and CD series.
Prosea – Plant resources of South-East Asia

www.prosea.org
Functioning since the late 1980s, this organisation has compiled information on
plant resources in South East Asia, The site documents information on 6 697
plants from that region, which is available in a series of booklets as well as an
electronic databank (e-PROSEA). It is aimed at people working in education,
extension, research and industry as well as for end users.
SRI (System of Rice Intensification)

http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri
A collaborative effort by Tefy Saina (an NGO) and Cornell University’s CIIFAD,
this website reports on developments in SRI, the System of Rice Intensification.
This system is rapidly spreading and being adapted by rice farmers in different
parts of the world. It presents details of new techniques, which farmers are
encouraged to consider and further improve upon. It provides the opportunity to
join discussion groups and the SRI-UPDATE-L, an electronic mailing list about
SRI. They also have a blog with global news and views on SRI.
World Agroforestry Centre

http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/
The World Agroforestry Centre is an international research organisation
supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR). It works in more than 20 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Farmers have practised agroforestry for years. Agroforestry focuses on the wide
range of working trees grown on farms and in rural landscapes. The centre is
working on these topics related to the trees, farms, landscapes and global issues.
The website is based on the research of the centre and provides a lot of material,
from publications to news and learning tools.
appendix
for Module 3
This appendix includes a selection of articles
(found in R2 in the Educational Resources
section), as well as the printed version of the
Photo Gallery (found in R3).
R2. Articles
LEARNING BLOCK 1
R2.3: Agroforestry (2 articles)
R2.5: Underutilised crops (1 article)
LEARNING BLOCK 2
R2.6: Cropping systems and forest ecosystems (2 articles)
R2.7: Local PGR systems: Seed fairs (1 article)
R2.8: Formal seed systems: Genetically modified organisms (1 article)
R2.9: Local PGR systems: Community seed banks (1 article)
R2.10: Pesticide use and beneficial insects (1 article)
R2.12: Integrated pest (and weed) management (2 articles)
R2.13: Sustainable crop intensification practices (1 article)
LEARNING BLOCK 3
R2.14: Governance issues: protecting sustainability of ecosystems (1 article)
R2.15: Governance issues: Participatory plant breeding (1 article)
R2.16 Policy support: Regulations on inputs (1 article)
R3. Photo gallery

Sixteen photos from around the world.
Farmers in Camamu, Bahia prefer analog
agroforestry
R2.3.1 as it gives
higher forms the colonist consortium into a cli-
income max consortium. In nature, pioneer spe-
and helps cies that are capable of growing in poor
sustainably. soils colonise open spaces. These pio-
neers, mostly grasses, herbs and shrubs,
improve the soil and create the conditions
in which secondary herbs, shrubs and tree
species can grow. The secondary forests
undergo several cycles, during which the
life span of the dominant species gradually
increases from 3 to 15 to 30 and up to
80 years and their demands on the quality
of the environment become more and
more specific. The secondary forest
species create soil conditions conducive
to the growth of primary forest species
whose life cycles can be as long as
200 years.
Photo: Bert Lof

Analog species
Analog agroforestry also identifies natural
species, consortiums of species and succes-
Regenerative analog
sions of consortiums. To produce optimal
benefits for the farmers, some of the natural
species are substituted by more beneficial ‘-
agroforestry in Brazil
analog’ species that occur in similar natural
conditions and succession phases. The
local natural forest and traditional farming
systems are analysed in order to identify sit-
uation-specific natural species, consortiums
Patricia Vaz tures whose soils had become completely and preferred analog species. The life pro-
degraded. Within a period of 5-8 years cesses are optimalised to stimulate the
I
n 1985, Ernst Götsch started a cacao they were supporting diverse agroforests greatest possible biodiversity by adapting
plantation in the south of Bahia, and had become highly productive again. the vegetation to all micro-environments.
Northeast Brazil. The land was in very These results were achieved without the This may lead to many different combina-
poor condition. After 40 years of slash and use of chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pes- tions of species. Ernst Götsch, for example,
burn agriculture the soil was depleted and ticides or heavy machinery. planted pioneer species such as elephant
the wells had run dry. Five years later the grass, manioc, pineapple and coarana to
land was covered by a young but productive Basic principles improve the soil and secondary forest trees
agroforest and water was flowing again. like Jangada preta, Inga, and many primary
This was the result of the system of ‘regener- Natural species succession fruit-, nut-, and timber species to achieve a
ative analog agroforestry’ developed by In essence analog agroforestry attempts to prosperous agroforest and secure high,
Götsch and known in Brazil as SAFRA. imitate nature. In nature, plant and animal medium, and long-term yields.
The original vegetation in the region was species live in consortiums with other spe-
Atlantic rainforest, but now only a few cies because they need these species for It is difficult to design an optimal consor-
stands remain after years of timber exploi- optimal growth and reproduction. Each tium of plants taking all parameters into
tation and slash and burn agriculture. The consortium creates the conditions for a account. Help comes from the wild annual
average rainfall is about 1400 mm with new consortium with a different composi- and perennial species, often called ‘-
average temperature of 25ºC in January tion. Hence, each consortium is deter- weeds’, that establish themselves sponta-
and 20ºC in July. Soils are poor acidic mined by the preceding one and will neously on the plots. These fill in many of
oxisols and ultisols and classified as being determine the following one. The differ- the niches that have not been occupied by
unsuitable for cacao production. ent consortiums succeed one another in a cultivated plants.
dynamic, ongoing process called natural
However, as early as 1996, a year in which species succession. Optimal timing and density for planting is
agricultural productivity in general was identified so that each species can have
low, Ernst Götsch was getting yields of Species succession is the natural process optimal conditions to establish itself, grow
5000 kg cacao per hectare on parts of his of quantitative and qualitative accumula- and contribute to the succession process.
farm, 1400 kg more than average for south tion of soil fertility, diversity, complexity, It appears that the timing of how plants
Bahia (Penereiro 1999). From the mid- energy and vitality that gradually trans- are introduced into the succession process
nineties an incurable disease caused by
Crinipellis perniciosa had been ravaging
the cacao plantations in the region, and Succession of plant consortiums in an analog agroforestry system
production had declined dramatically. The
disease damaged the cacao trees on neigh- Source: Vivan 1998
bouring farms but did not affect Ernst
Götsch’s ‘analog agroforestry’ system.
This article will look at the principles and

practices behind ‘analog agroforestry’, a
remarkable approach that has been used
successfully to regenerate abandoned pas-
14 I L E I A N E W S L E T T E R • SEPTEMBER 2000
is a particularly critical factor in how they Soil regeneration experienced technician and then define
establish themselves and develop. In nature, depleted soils may take many their needs and objectives. Ideally the
years to regenerate. However, in analog system should include species that regular-
Natural rejuvenation agroforestry the process is much quicker. ly produce food in the short-, medium- and
A degree of stress occurs as different vege- Critical factors are: long-term and others that are capable of
tation phases succeed each other. Initially • plant community composition rapidly producing soil cover and high
pioneer vegetation dominates because it and density; amounts of biomass. There should also be
develops faster than the other species. As • order in which species appear; species that have multipurpose functions
the pioneers mature and age, the secon- • timing of when species appear; and produce mulch material, firewood,
dary vegetation is ready to take over but • interaction with micro-organisms and timber, fruits and medicines. Farmers must
only after the whole system has stagnated wild animals; therefore select a combination of annual
for a while. The ageing plants suppress the • (micro-)climatic factors. and perennial species that can be harvest-
development of ‘young’ vegetation. When ed at different phases of the succession.
storms, lightning or floods damage aged or Permanent soil cover
diseased vegetation, the secondary vegeta- In analog agroforestry leguminous and Pioneer vegetation has to fit the succes-
tion reacts with accelerated growth and non-leguminous pioneer species are used sion phase of the original vegetation and at
development. to regenerate soils. In addition, the organ- the same time species must also be intro-
ic material obtained from weeding, prun- duced that have a similar function but are
Selective weeding and pruning ing and removing plants is used as mulch adapted to the next succession phase.
In analog agroforestry, the selective weed- to protect and fertilise the soil. To
ing, pruning and removal of plants replac- enhance soil life and maintain a constant Between the species of the first consor-
es natural rejuvenation. Drastic pruning flow of nutrients, rapid and permanent tium the farmer can introduce other spe-
accelerates the growth of the system as a soil cover and regular applications of cies with longer life cycles and higher
whole because it increases the amount of organic material of different composition demands, although there is the risk that
light and nutrients available to future gen- and decomposition rates are needed. they may be pushed out of the system
eration of plant species. It serves as an Under these conditions it is not necessary because they belong to a later phase of
instrument to manage species succession to plough the soil. succession.
by making it possible to influence each
plant individually as far as access to light, It appears that the critical factors deter- Farmers have different needs and objec-
space and leaf area is concerned. Periodic mining growth rates, the health of plants tives and start work in a wide variety of
rejuvenation by pruning, for example, pro- and the productivity of the system, are not conditions such as depleted grassland,
longs the lifetime of short-lived pioneer the initial fertility of the soil, but rather bush fallow vegetation, mature forest veg-
species, and makes them better able to species composition, planting density, and etation, fertile alluvial valley soil and erod-
improve the soil. It can also encourage timing and succession management by ed upland soil. There are no blueprints for
fruit trees to come into flower. selective weeding and pruning. species selection. It is important that the
system is seen as a whole; the different
If farmers want to produce annual food Analog agroforestry in practice phases of the succession process recog-
crops on a regular basis, it is possible to nised and any gaps that threaten the suc-
return to the pioneer succession phase by Preparation cession/production cycle are tackled. To
drastic pruning and (partially) clearing of To design an analog agroforestry system do this farmers need considerable knowl-
larger fields when a higher consortium farmers analyse the farm system and the edge of the species concerned as well as
comes to the end of its life cycle. wider environment with the help of an its functions and environmental needs.
Establishment
First, existing vegetation has to be syn-
Training course on Analog Agroforestry chronised. This means that, in a given
field, all ageing plants will either be
A training course on Analog Agroforestry removed completely or, if they still have
(or Succession Farming as it is called by the organisers) in the humid tropics will be organised vigour, coppiced. Pruning brings the verti-
by Ecotop Consultants in Sapecho, Alto Beni, Bolivia on 15-29 July 2001. This course, meant for cal structure of the vegetation into equilib-
agronomists and practitioners, will combine theory and practice. Important topics are: rium. A week is taken to plant or seed the
• The principles of species succession selected species. If more time were taken
• Management of agroforestry systems to enhance species succession the system, which has to develop as one
• Management of pests, diseases and other system damages
organism, would no longer be synchron-
• Design of analog agroforestry systems
ised. This means that nearly all pioneer,
• Quality control for organic products certification
secondary and higher species are planted
Demonstrations and practical exercises will be organised in agroforestry systems with, among
others, cacao, pineapples, banana, oranges and palm trees. Visits to farmers in the region who
working the approach will be organised. The course is in Spanish.
For more information:

j.milz@ecotop.via.t-online.de ; f.augstburger@ecotop.via.t-online.de and www.ecotop-bolivia.de
I L E I A N E W S L E T T E R • SEPTEMBER 2000 15
at the same time. Because the same plant- Pruning is an art. Correct pruning requires role. Initially, there must be an intensive
ing distances are kept for each species as that the farmer bears in mind particular exchange of knowledge between farmer
in monoculture cultivation, the overall factors including the characteristics of the and technician in order to create a com-
plant density will be very high. plant and the environment in which it mon understanding of how people inter-
grows. There are some basic principles act with nature. The older members of
High densities and possible competition but the uniqueness of each situation has rural communities and small-scale tradi-
can easily be kept under control by prun- to be taken into account. In general the tional farmers know a lot about the spe-
ing or by eliminating the plant completely. farmer must take into account: cies native to their area and are well aware
It is questionable to what extent there is • the capacity of the species for coppicing; of the interactions that take place between
really competition between plants. • its physiological age; the various plants. Farmers still know how
Experience shows that plants that func- • its place in the succession process and these plants were used for food, medicine
tion in different succession phases do not the vertical stratum; and other domestic purposes.
compete. Also species that grow at vary- • whether it threatens the development
ing rates and end up in different layers of of any higher plant This common understanding can be used
the vegetation do not compete, even if • any damage being inflicted by predators to improve the system through continu-
they come from the same species consor- or parasites ous farmer experimentation. Several
tium and have similar demands. groups in Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo,
A sustainable system Paraná (see Petersen et al p17), Rio
Management There are important similarities between Grande do Sul, São Paulo and Bolivia are
If there is good species planning, it will be indigenous forest farming (see Box p13) experimenting with anolog forestry. Some
possible to harvest products at each inter- and analog agroforestry. Both imitate farmers will not commit themselves to the
vention. In this way, for example, it would nature by using analog species and species whole system and their results are, there-
be possible to harvest radish, then beans succession. In traditional shifting cultiva- fore, limited. Others are wholly commit-
and maize, and subsequently animal fod- tion fire is often used for natural rejuvena- ted to the approach and have developed
der, pineapple, banana and later timber, tion. However, where fallow periods are creative solutions that meet local needs
resin and other non-timber products. short, natural succession may be halted in and conditions.
the pioneer phase and there will be no
At the same time, the system is synchron- increase in soil fertility, diversity or vitality Centro Sabiá in Pernambuco, in
ised again by weeding, pruning and elimi- because too much valuable organic matter, Northeastern Brazil is one of many organ-
nating ageing and diseased plants. Older plant nutrients and soil and plant life is lost. isations working with analog forestry.
herbaceous plants are weeded, then fod- In modern agriculture chemical fertilisers, Here there is farmer to farmer exchange,
der grasses are cut, and finally trees and herbicides, pesticides and machinery have experimentation and some farmers are
shrubs are pruned and felled. replaced natural processes. Slash and being trained on Ernst Götsch’s farm.
burn agriculture and modern farming are Demonstrations are also held on the farms
evolving in ways that lead not only to of particularly successful farmers. Several
depleted and degraded soil and loss of spe- farmer promoters have been selected from
cies diversity but also to simplified natural this group and they distribute information
environment and decreasing productivity on analog agroforestry. These initiatives
and sustainability. The strength of analog should be intensified in order to provide
agroforestry and indigenous forest farming an alternative to the present dominant but
is that it is sustainable because it improves unsustainable production model.
agricultural productivity and the environ- ■
mental health of the production system.
Patricia Vaz, Av. D. Maria Elisa, 563. Piracicaba,
SP. 13405-125. Brazil; ppvsilva@carpa.ciagri.usp.br
Research results
Penereiro (1999) compared the analog References
agroforestry system on Götsch’s farm with - Götsch E, 1995. Break-through in agriculture.
Rio de Janeiro, AS-PTA, Rue de Candelária,
a 12-year-old, natural succession bush 9-6° andar – Centro, 20091-020, Rio de Janeiro, RJ
fallow. The vegetation in the agroforestry Brazil, Phone: +55 21 2538317; Fax: +55 21 2338363;
system was more diverse and better bal- Email: aspta@ax.apc.org
anced and the succession in the system - Penereiro, FM, 1999. Sistemas agroflorestais
dirigidos pela sucessão natural: um estudo de
was more advanced. In the analog agro- caso. São Paulo: ESALQ/USP, master thesis, 138 p.
forestry system the topsoil had a high solu- - Vivan J, 1998. Agricultura & florestas: princípios
ble phosphate content. In the top 5 cm de uma interação vital. Rio de Janeiro, AS-PTA.
layer there was 7 times more phosphate - Milz J, 1998. Guía para el establecomiento de
sistemas agroforestales en Alto Beni, Yucumo y
and between 5 and 20 cm there was
Rurrenabaque. NOGUB COSUDE, Av. Héctor
4 times as much. At the 40–60 cm level the Ormachea esq. Calle 6 No 125, Obrahes, Casilla 4679,
phosphate content was about the same. La Paz, Bolivia, Email: nogub@ceibo.entelnet.bo ;
These concentrations can be explained by lapaz@sdc.net
the combined effect of nutrient pumping
by deep rooting trees and the effect of soil
microorganisms stimulated by pruning
and the permanent organic mulch layer.
Spreading the approach

Spreading analog agroforestry concepts
Photo: Bert Lof
requires a different approach to that used

when passing on technologies via exten-
Why not change this degraded rangeland sion services. The construction and organ-
into a diverse and productive agroforestry system? isation of knowledge plays an important
16 I L E I A N E W S L E T T E R • SEPTEMBER 2000
Ecological processes and farmer R2.3.2
livelihoods in shaded coffee production

V. Ernesto Méndez and Christopher M. Bacon Ecological processes and livelihoods
In 2000 we started using a Participatory Action Research
Most tropical primary forests have been transformed into approach, trying to involve a wide diversity of stakeholders as
landscapes containing many different types of land uses. The active participants in the research activities and to integrate
challenge to maintain and conserve some of the original research into an action agenda that would contribute to local
biodiversity of these forests has resulted in a need for farming development and increase biodiversity conservation. The aim of
systems to develop and manage biodiversity. Recent research, as this approach was to foster a mutual learning process which
well as the experiences of farmers in many parts of the world, would help improve management of on-farm ecological
shows that shaded coffee agroecosystems have exceptional processes and support farmer livelihood strategies.
potential for the conservation of tropical plant and animal species,
in addition to producing high quality coffee. This article shows Work ranged from developing rigorous inventories of the
how this potential is linked to farmers’ livelihood strategies in six diversity of shade trees on-farm; to providing training on
co-operatives in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The article is based ecological management and support for marketing efforts. We
on work carried out by these co-operatives together with two local supported farmers through the processes of organic certification,
non-governmental partners, the Central de Cooperativas and trained individuals from the co-operatives on ecological
Cafetaleras del Norte (CECOCAFEN) in Nicaragua, and methods for identifying, monitoring and managing shade trees.
Asesoría e Investigación Interdisciplinaria para el Desarrollo In addition, we have continually supported the efforts of these
Local y la Conservación (ASINDEC) in El Salvador. farmers to incorporate different forms of agroecotourism within
their livelihood strategies. In both countries, organic certification
In El Salvador we worked with three coffee co-operatives in the and agroecotourism have the potential for increasing the incomes
municipality of Tacuba, in the western part of the country. These of the organisations and their members. This, however, requires
farms are of high ecological importance as they surround the making connections with different local and international
El Imposible National Park, the largest protected area in the networks. Success, though, has come slowly and with many
country. The farms are situated at elevations ranging between obstacles. The obstacles have included the costs of organic
650 and 1400 meters above sea level, and the co-operatives grow certification, the difficulties in marketing and the cost of
two varieties of shade coffee (“Borbon” and “Pacas”), which both constructing the necessary infrastructure for agroecotourism.
produce high quality beans, although their productivity is much
lower than that of full sun coffee varieties. In Nicaragua we also
worked with three co-operatives in the communities of Yasika Sur Advantages and disadvantages
and Yúcul. These farms are located about 25 kilometres from the Although coffee is traditionally grown under shade, farmers in many
city of Matagalpa, in the northern part of the country. Coffee countries have been encouraged to shift to coffee varieties which need full
varieties found here include “Tipica”, “Maragogipe”, “Borbon” sun, as this reduces fungal infections and increases yields. Emphasis on
and “Caturra”, with a few farmers having also planted newer faster maturation and higher yields, however, overlooks other aspects. In
hybrid varieties such as “Catuai” and “Catimor”. Yields in shade grown coffee, shade trees protect sensitive coffee bushes from
Nicaragua range from 140 kg/ha among certified organic farmers harsh winds and excessive light; protect the soil against erosion, and
to as much as 285 kg/ha among conventional producers. regulate temperature and humidity. The shade trees have multiple uses
(timber, fruit production, fuel wood, medicines) and most important,
there is growing evidence that shade positively affects coffee quality.
Shade trees also have other effects. They improve nutrient cycling by
absorbing nutrients through the roots at lower depths in the soil and
depositing leaf litter on the surface. They reduce the growth of weeds and
also increase local biodiversity by providing food or shelter for many other
species, such as birds and insects.
LEISA MAGAZINE 22.4 DECEMBER 2006
Farmers’ interest in better understanding the ecological processes

occurring on their farms is closely linked to the direct impact that
this learning and management can have on improving their
livelihoods. Our work focused mainly on how to manage the shade
trees and coffee plants, i.e. the competition between different plant
species within a cropping system, and on developing ecological
Photo: Ernesto Mendez
management practices for organic production.
Shaded coffee management

Shade coffee agroecosystems have a high potential for
strengthening ecological processes. This is partly due to the
Members of the “La Concordia” cooperative in El Salvador were keen to similarity between the structure of shaded coffee farms, and the
learn about the ecological processes taking place in their fields, natural forest ecosystems that they have displaced. Ecological
recognising the potential these have for improving their livelihoods. processes such as nutrient and water cycling, energy flows and
22
Table 1: The most abundant shade species and their
multiple uses
population regulation mechanisms function in a manner that is
similar to those occurring in tropical forests. Our focus therefore Tree Species Common Uses
was on the management of shade species in coffee plantations, name
particularly in terms of biodiversity and on-farm agroforestry El Salvador
management. Croton reflexifolius Copalchí firewood, windbreak
Cordia alliodora Laurel timber, shade, fruit
Tree biodiversity conservation Mangifera indica Mango firewood, fruit, shade
Agroecology places a high value on the conservation of Eugenia jambos Manzana rosa firewood, fruit,
biodiversity as a tool for managing competition and pests. In windbreak
shaded coffee, it is especially important to assess the existing tree Inga punctata Pepeto shade, firewood
biodiversity since, in providing shelter to other species, trees Inga oerstediana Cuje purito shade, firewood
multiply the biodiversity levels of a farm and its surrounding areas. Ricinus communis Higuerillo shade
In the Nicaraguan coffee co-operatives we found 106 tree species Critonia morifolia Vara negra shade, firewood
used for shade. In El Salvador we identified 123 species, from Inga pavoniana Cuje cuadrado shade, firewood
46 families. The number of shade tree species found on the Eugenia salamensis Guayabillo timber, shade
coffee farms was similar to the number of species found in
sample plots in the El Imposible National Park. However, the Nicaragua
species themselves were very different, and reflected the Inga edulis Guaba roja shade, firewood
farmers’ preferences for useful species, instead of rare, Cordia alliodora Laurel timber, firewood
endangered forest species. Inga punctata Guaba negra shade, firewood
Guazuma ulmifolia Guasimo timber, firewood
Shade tree management Lippia myriocephala Mampas firewood
The similar results from Nicaragua and El Salvador reflect Juglans olancha Nogal timber
similar management practices in both countries. Farmers Citrus sinensis Naranja dulce fruit
manage the shade tree canopy so as to optimise coffee Persea americana Aguacate fruit
production while maximising the use of the different tree Mangifera indica Mango fruit, firewood
species. This means that all shade trees are pruned once or twice Vernonia patens Tatascame firewood
every year, aiming to leave a 40 to 50 percent shade cover.
During this yearly activity tree heights are also controlled so that
they remain at between five and ten metres. Sometimes farmers
leave larger trees in place, to use for construction timber. We believe that agroecological management offers great
Weeding is done manually with machetes at least twice a year possibilities to achieve both production and conservation goals
and farmers always take care to leave naturally regenerated tree in co-operative coffee plantations, but there are several key
seedlings to grow. They are left to grow to provide additional issues that require immediate attention. To improve production,
shade in a specific area (regardless of the species), or until they co-operatives need access to financial and technical assistance.
can be identified. Farmers often uproot and transplant desirable, Secondly, they need help in finding better markets for coffee
naturally regenerating, trees. that support the conservation of biodiversity. Finally, a
comprehensive approach is needed to assist the co-operatives in
Individual small scale farmers also tend to plant a high diversity diversifying their livelihoods through improved food production
of trees to meet the family’s needs of firewood, fruit, and timber. and agroecotourism. This development will require solid
This is less common in collectively managed co-operatives, partnerships with a diversity of actors. In our role as the
where the shade trees are used for firewood or timber. Co- Participatory Action Research partners, we are strongly
operatives do not make as much use of fruit trees because there supporting the co-operatives in finding and developing the
is no clear definition of the responsibilities for taking care of partners and networks that will work best for them.
them, nor of ownership of the produce. ■
Shade management is directly linked to the yields obtained. V. Ernesto Méndez. Environmental Program and Department of Plant & Soil
Science, The Bittersweet, 153 South Prospect St., University of Vermont, Burlington,
Although “full sun” coffee varieties have the potential to Vermont 05401, U.S.A. E-mail: emendez@uvm.edu
produce more coffee beans per plant, they require high levels of Christopher M. Bacon. 2830 Magowan Drive, Santa Rosa, California 95405, U.S.A.
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to do so. The co-operatives E-mail: christophermbacon@gmail.com
cannot afford this type of management, nor the cost of replacing
References
their shade-loving varieties with those resistant to full sun.
- Bacon, C., V. E. Méndez and M. Brown, 2005. Participatory action-research and
Instead, farmers are improving production without changing the support for community development and conservation: examples from shade
shade tree system. Examples of improved management include coffee landscapes of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Research Brief # 6. Center for
replanting coffee in areas where the plants are too old, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (CASFS), University of California:
Santa Cruz, California, U.S.A.
improving fertility management, and following basic agronomic - Gliessman, S. R., 2006. Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. CRC Press,
practices like the regular pruning of the coffee plants. Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A.
- Méndez, V. E. and C. Bacon, 2005. Medios de vida y conservación de la
biodiversidad arbórea: las experiencias de las cooperativas cafetaleras en
Supporting agroecological management El Salvador y Nicaragua. LEISA Revista de Agroecología 20 (4):27-30.
The use of Participatory Action Research has helped us reach a - Méndez, V. E., S. R. Gliessman and G. S. Gilbert, 2007. Tree biodiversity in
better understanding of the ecological processes in shade grown farmer cooperatives of a shade coffee landscape in western El Salvador.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, in press.
coffee in the co-operatives, and this understanding has made it - Somarriba, E., C. Harvey, M. Samper, F. Anthony, J. Gonzalez, C. Staver and R. Rice,
possible to develop better management practices. The action 2004. Biodiversity in coffee plantations. In G. Schroth, G. Foseca, C. A. Harvey,
agenda facilitated exchange of information between researchers C. Gascon, H. Vasconcelos and A. M. N. Izac (eds.) Agroforestry and biodiversity
conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
and farmers. In this way, the understanding developed during
- Soto-Pinto, L., I. Perfecto, J. Castillo-Hernandez and J. Caballero-Nieto, 2000.
research can be used to support co-operatives and their Shade effect on coffee production at the northern Tzeltal zone of the state of
members’ livelihoods. Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 80:61-69.
23
Making the most of underutilised crops R2.5.1
Spreading risk is an essential means to reduce vulnerability, impacts will most likely occur. For example, farmers grow or
use crops which are more tolerant to environmental extremes,
especially for already vulnerable people. Increasing the use use a variety of plants for balanced nutrition and to spread the
of underutilised crops is one of the better buffers to help harvesting times of cultivated or wild-harvested plants, and make
use of important, keystone tree species which provide a range of
farmers diversify, and sustain, nutritional, environmental
products. The three strategies summarised here were presented
and financial security in times of change. during an international symposium in early 2008.
1. Use more tolerant species

Hannah Jaenicke and Nick Pasiecznik Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) is a drought tolerant
legume from West and Central Africa. It used to be grown
W
hereas it would seem common sense to “not put all extensively in sub-Saharan Africa as a nutritional complement
your eggs into one basket”, we have witnessed the to cereals, before the cultivation of peanuts took over traditional
absolute opposite in recent decades: agricultural growing areas. Farmers had problems with low and/or
intensification. Although net food production has increased, over unpredictable yields, the long time needed for processing and
50% of the carbohydrate and protein needs of the world’s human cooking, and the cultural perception that it was a “woman’s
population are met by only three plants: maize, rice and wheat. crop”. All these factors limited its production and use. Using
This has also triggered an ever-increasing reliance on external a multi-partner, multi-location system, a team led by the
inputs to keep up with pest and disease outbreaks. Similarly, University of Nottingham is using an array of approaches to test
improved crop varieties need increased water and fertilizer. These the suitability of bambara groundnut in new environments. In
problems are being aggravated by climate change, with significant addition, they are establishing a breeding programme to develop
effects on rural livelihoods. Droughts and floods will increase in better-yielding cultivars. The programme, which started in 1988,
frequency and intensity. Changing temperatures will allow pests, is seeing results. Bambara groundnut is regaining acceptance in
diseases and other invasive species to thrive in new areas. sub-Saharan Africa, as well as being accepted and integrated in
farming systems in drought-prone areas of India.
One means to achieve increased resilience to shocks and
change is by increasing the production, use and marketing Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) is a staple in the Pacific. It is eaten
of underutilised species on farms. Of special importance occasionally elsewhere where it grows, and it compares well
are indigenous plants with traditional uses and cultural links with rice for a range of nutrients from calcium to vitamin C.
with local people. By diversifying farming systems, the food, On most Pacific islands, plants have to be adapted to the thin
medicines, fibres, fodder or other products they yield offset calcareous soils and must be tolerant to frequent exposure to
demands for imported, unavailable or unaffordable alternatives. salt spray. Although breadfruit is a key resource, its productivity
and even its survival, is limited by conditions of drought and
People are already using a number of coping strategies to alleviate increasing salinity. In contrast, plants specifically adapted to
periodic hunger. A look at these can teach us where positive such conditions are pandanus (Pandanus tectorius), giant swamp
taro (Cyrtosperma merkusii) and coconut (Cocos nucifera).
Pandanus fruits contain high levels of beta-carotene, and normal
consumption of especially the orange-fleshed varieties can
satisfy a person’s vitamin A requirements. Giant swamp taro
has a beta-carotene content so high that a normal daily intake of
four cups a day provides more than half of the estimated vitamin
A requirement. Zinc and calcium contents are high enough to
satisfy 50-100% of the recommended daily intakes of these
nutrients. In addition, iron content is twice as high as that of
banana or breadfruit.
2. Spread the harvest

In rural Kenya, 60-80% of the population lacks adequate amounts
of food for two to five months a year. Whereas experts recommend
LEISA MAGAZINE 25.1 MARCH 2009
a daily intake of about 200 g of fruit, in Kenya this can be as low

as 20 g per day, even though the country has many indigenous
plants producing fruit. A recent study identified 57 indigenous fruit
species in Mwingi District and showed that wild fruits form a very
important safety net for rural Kenyans during the months of food
shortage. In particular, children consumed significant amounts
of fruit – far more than adults. Efforts are now being taken to
encourage families to grow some of these wild species within their
home gardens. This will increase the availability of fresh fruits and
Photo: L. Englberger, IFCP
improve the family’s nutritional security.
Fruiting calendars show when particular crops are available,

and when there is need for supplemental nutrition. In Nepal,
over 60% of fruits consumed are produced in family home
Enjoying a pandanus fruit . gardens. Although there is a lot of diversity in these systems,
11

often containing 30-40 species, nutritional intake may still be
Underutilised trees o
inadequate during some months. However, targeted “diversity
kits” have been developed and made available to farmers. They
contain seeds, planting material and information about selected
complementary species. These kits help to ensure that the home
gardens can provide sufficient nutritional balance throughout the
year.
3. Make more from keystone tree species

The Gruni people in northern Ghana have developed a way to
deal with hunger, based around the baobab tree (Adansonia
digitata). From January to June the availability of staple crops
(sorghum, millets and groundnut) is limited, due to floods and
droughts. Important ceremonies often have to be cancelled due
to food shortages. During this time, apart from seeking labour in
the cities, people rely on wild baobab trees. Its leaves, flowers,
Photo: Abhay gandhe

fruit pulp and seed are the most important products, used
primarily for home consumption, but also for sale and barter.
Women play a major role in collecting and processing baobab
products. They consider the dry pulp in particular as a good
source of household food. However, the Gruni have witnessed
a marked decline in the number of baobab trees over the past
70 years. They attribute this to increased human population
pressure and consequently, overharvesting. People are now being As an example of the principles described in the previous
encouraged to start planting baobab trees and to develop modern article, tribal farmers in India are being encouraged to plant
processing methods to increase efficiency and reduce wastage.
underutilised indigenous wild trees on their land. This is in
Supporting the spread of underutilised species response to the fact that, in recent times, farming systems in
These examples show that many people have developed and use central India have become less diversified and natural resources
various coping or buffering strategies. They are using several
“baskets” to carry their “eggs” – or fruits and other food as the are becoming scarcer. Tribal communities living in remote areas
case may be. Since we know that hunger periods will occur are especially affected. While forest products were previously
more often and become more severe in the future, what is a major source of income, they are now being overexploited.
needed now is to encourage increased use of more underutilised
species, and the planting of hitherto “wild” productive species Promotion of underutilised species can diversify farms,
in or near the farms. There is need to develop stronger seed preserve forests and provide opportunities for income.
supply systems and mother tree orchards. It is also necessary
to support the development of processing strategies to increase
shelf life and thus availability of produce through the hungry Abhay gandhe and Arun dolke
periods. Successful marketing of underutilised crop products
T
also requires support and mentoring in business practices and he two main crops grown in central India are rice and
the availability of credit systems. cotton. While other minor millets, pulses and oilseeds are
also grown, many farms have evolved to now operate as
Overall, underutilised crops provide a better buffer to reduce monocultures. Farming systems have become less diversified,
nutritional, environmental and financial vulnerability, and their soil and water resources have become poorer, and growing
increased use should be promoted. populations are putting more pressure on limited land resources.
n If a main crop fails, farmers suffer as they have few options
to fall back on. With systems becoming more unsustainable,
Hannah Jaenicke and Nick Pasiecznik. International Centre for Underutilised
communities are increasingly using natural resources from
Crops (ICUC), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka. E-mails: h.jaenicke@cgiar.org ; surrounding forests. This can result in overexploitation and
n.pasiecznik@cgiar.org ; http://www.icuc-iwmi.org the loss of biodiversity. Farmers need additional opportunities
within their existing farming systems. This is especially true for
LEISA MAGAZINE 25.1 MARCH 2009
References
-Jaenicke H., J. Ganry, I. Höschle-Zeledon and R. Kahane (eds.), 2009. Underutilised tribal farmers who inhabit more remote and marginal areas.
plants for food security, nutrition, income and sustainable development.
Proceedings of International Symposium held in Arusha, Tanzania, 3-7 March 2008. BAIF Development Research Foundation, in Pune, India, has
Acta Horticulturae 806. International Society for Horticultural Science. Leuven,
Belgium. The case studies presented here are taken from papers by: Englberger, L. established a Resource Centre for Tribal Development (RCTD)
and A. Lorens; Gautam, R. et al.; Kranjac-Berisavljevich, G. et al.; Mayes, S. et to identify and develop potential new interventions for tribal
al.; Taylor, M. et al. and Simitu, P. et al. communities. Tribal farmers are indigenous communities
-Jaenicke H. and I. Höschle-Zeledon (eds.), 2006. Strategic framework for
underutilised plant species research and development with special reference
generally living in forest fringed remote areas and practising
to Asia and the Pacific, and to sub-Saharan Africa. International Centre for subsistence farming on small land holdings. Collection and sale
Underutilised Crops, Colombo, Sri Lanka and the Global Facilitation Unit for of a variety of non-timber forest products (NTFP) constitutes
Underutilised Species, Rome, Italy.
-various authors, 2004. Valuing crop diversity. LEISA Magazine, 20.1. March 2004.
a major source of livelihood for tribal farmers. However,
widespread poverty, degrading agriculture and the vague tenure
The International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) has recently merged status of wild NTFP trees is leading to their overexploitation.
with the Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilised Species (GFU) and operates as
Crop diversification has been identified as a key measure for
Crops for the Future. The mandate of Crops for the Future is the support, collection,
synthesis and promotion of knowledge on neglected and underutilised species for the countering the threats of degrading farming systems. However,
benefit of the poor and the environment. BAIF and RCTD realise that there are limitations to developing
12
R2.6.1
Mature dom palm with harvested leaves drying on the ground. Photo: Stephen Connelly
Trees for semi-nomadic farmers:

a key to resilience
Stephen Connelly and Nikky Wilson the population as refugees. At the same time the area has been
ravaged by war: the Lowlands changed hands several times in the
Like many peoples of the dry lands of Africa, the farmers of the thirty years of liberation struggle (1961-91) and villages and
savannahs in the Western Lowlands of Eritrea have survived the crops were repeatedly bombed and destroyed by warfare on the
variation and stresses of their hostile environment through ground. After liberation (1991) and independence (1993) farmers
developing a flexible farming system involving a mix of crops picked up the pieces and started farming again under more
and animals, production for cash and for subsistence, and settled conditions, though facing new threats from government
widespread dispersion of activities over hundreds of miles. development policies, and then in 1998-2000 by renewed war
The resourcefulness and resilience of such farmers is well known that saw the invasion of the Lowlands by Ethiopian armies.
and well documented. They are traditionally viewed by the
outside world as semi-nomadic herders and opportunistic farmers Dependence on dom palm
(‘agro-pastoralists’). In this article, however, we show that despite At all times, forest products play a crucial role in people’s
such views these farmers in Western Eritrea are also dependent on livelihoods. The traditional farming system involves growing
a third strand of the farming system: the management, collection sorghum for food, and keeping camels, cattle, goats and sheep for
and processing of forest products, and in particular of the dom food and occasional sale. Amongst all the tribes a vast range of
palm (Hyphaene thebaica). This third strand is always important, subsistence needs (e.g. housing, tools, and some food) come from
but never more so than when disaster strikes – in times of drought the forest, and for the majority of the Lowland population
and war forests become the key to survival. (belonging to the Tigre, the Beni Amer and the Hidareb tribes) the
principal source of cash income is dom palm fibre. Palm leaves
Disasters strike frequently are cut on a massive scale from the riverine forests, and either
The Western Lowlands of Eritrea are the easternmost extension sold in their unprocessed form or woven into mats, rope and other
of the Sahel, lying between Eritrea’s border with the Sudan and household utensils for sale in the markets of Eritrea and Sudan.
the Eritrean/Ethiopian Highlands. Principally covered in semi- Under ‘normal’ circumstances - i.e. in peacetime and when
desert scrub and savannah woodland their low hills and plains are rainfall is sufficient to allow at least some cropping and herding
interrupted by three river valleys clothed in remarkably dense – dependence on the forest is greatest for the poorer members of
LEISA MAGAZINE . APRIL 2001
woodland, some of it mixed acacia and dom palm and elsewhere the community. Those with few or no animals, or who cannot
almost pure stands of dom. They are home to several hundred farm land – such as the many war widows – rely on cutting,
thousand people of six ethnic groups, each of which has weaving and selling palm for their survival on a permanent basis,
developed their own distinctive survival system, involving while even for most richer farmers the dom is a vital source of
greater or lesser emphasis on animals, crops, palm fibre and income, particularly during the lean months of the year. The
other forest products. All these systems are characterised by population clearly values the forests highly. This has been a
flexibility, and all have been repeatedly disrupted by the natural factor in its preservation: farmers that we interviewed described
and man-made upheavals of the past forty years. harvesting patterns governed by informal regulations and an
A series of major droughts has struck the area (early 1970s, understanding of the nature of dom palm regeneration and
1982-5, 1990-1, late 1990s), causing repeated crop failure and growth. These systems prevent over-cutting through restricting
massive livestock losses and – in the early 1980s – a complete access and over-frequent cutting, and their overall impact
collapse of the farming system, many deaths and mass exodus of appears to be a sustainable management system.
10
Key element of resilience The other major factor is that the government has other
In years of bad rainfall dependence on the palm forest increases priorities: the forests occupy fertile land with high water tables,
as crop and animal production falls. In serious drought years which is ideal for irrigated agriculture of cash crops such as
cutting and selling palm leaves becomes the main source of onions and bananas. Increasing production of these is a high
income for most of the population – men travel miles from priority, in order to feed urban populations, raise hard currency
villages far from the rivers in order to cut palm leaves to buy through exports, and to attract investment from wealthy (often
food. At the same time food collection from the forest increases: formerly expatriate) Eritreans. Thus the traditional system and
dom palm nuts are a food of last resort for the poor in the hungry the government’s preferred land use are in direct competition,
season before harvests, and in drought years they become a and the appropriation and clearance of forest land has caused
staple food for many. serious tensions in the Lowlands between local people and the
One ethnic group – the Kunama – has a distinctly different government. Exacerbated by current and historical ethnic and
approach to the forest. They cut very little palm for income, but religious factors, this conflict over a resource fundamental to
collect food from twenty or more tree species. These include the local livelihoods contributed to unrest and the recurrence of
dom palm and others that they value as food reserves for drought violence in the Lowlands during the 1990s. Ironically, the recent
years when their crops fail: for them the riverine forests are their (1998/2000) war between Eritrea and Ethiopia may have stopped
insurance, rather than a regular income source. the clearance of forests for commercial farming, though once
Thus harvesting from the forests provides a key element of again presumably forcing local people to rely on the forest as
the resilience of the farming system, enabling poor farmers to farming becomes impossible.
survive from year to year and entire communities to weather the
bad years, even to survive for a time when war makes farming Sustainable forest management
impossible. Only in major droughts does the system finally With the recent peace accord the question arises again of how
collapse and people become refugees. local communities, government and – perhaps - outside
In the period of peace from 1991-98 the palm forests were researchers and agencies can work together. Although the deeper
crucial in re-establishing a normal social and economic system animosities are undoubtedly still present and intractable, the
in the Lowlands, both for those who had remained and for those more immediate resource management issues should not be
who were returning from refugee camps. Livestock numbers impossible to solve. This would require, however, that the
were low and many female headed households (war widows) and government recognises both the importance of the forest to the
physically disabled people in the villages had limited ability to local livelihood system, and the right of local people to have
farm. Harvesting and export of palm leaves has consequently continued use of and control over the forest. It would thus have to
been a major source of support for the Lowland population. forego – or at least restrict – the issuing of licenses for
agricultural production in forestland. More positively,
Forest or irrigation? government and local people could work together on improving
However, this revival of the traditional system has not been sustainable management – particularly where large numbers of
actively supported by the government’s agricultural extension former refugees are being settled - and on the provision of raw
services. This appears to be partly because they recognise neither material for the industrial use of palm fibre.
the importance of the forest to the farming system nor its
sustainable nature. The Lowland farmers are seen as ‘agro- In conclusion, we can say that for many farmers in the Western
pastoralists’ for whom trees are a minor aspect of the farming Lowlands of Eritrea, the riverine forests, and in particular the
system, and there is a widespread – though unfounded - belief dom palm, are an essential resource for their survival. They show
amongst officials that cutting is carried out in ways that damage great flexibility in switching emphasis between the components
the trees. of their farming system (crops, livestock and forest) to meet
changing conditions, but their ability to cope with the
uncertainty of marginal farming and the stresses of war and
drought is ultimately underpinned by their reliance on the forest
for income and food. This dependency is even greater for poor
people, and especially for those who are prevented from farming
by physical disability or by social custom, as is the case with
female heads of households. This dependency has been strangely
neglected by both officialdom and outside agencies and
researchers. We believe, however, that the sustainable
exploitation of the forest under local management systems has
huge potential to ensure that farmers’ coping mechanisms are
both preserved and enhanced.
■
LEISA MAGAZINE . APRIL 2001
Stephen Connelly & Nikky Wilson, 31 Storrs Hall Road Sheffield S6 5AW UK.
The authors carried out social and silvicultural research on the riverine forests
and farming systems of the Western Lowlands of Eritrea in 1995/6, and returned in
the summer of 1997. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors.
A full report is available as Report on a preliminary study of the riverine forest
resources of the South West Lowland Zone, Eritrea from SOS Sahel
International UK, 1 Tolpuddle Street, London N1 0XT, England
(sossaheluk@gn.apc.org) or from the authors at nikkywiz@yahoo.co.uk.
The dom palm products market, Keren.

Photo: Stephen Connelly
11
The development of Farmer R2.6.3
Managed Natural Regeneration
Tony Rinaudo predators such as insect eating birds, reptiles, amphibians and
beneficial insects had disappeared along with the trees.
Conventional methods of reforestation in Africa have often
failed. Even community-based projects with individual or Conventional approaches
community nurseries struggle to keep up the momentum The severe famine of the mid 1970s led to a global response.
once project funding ends. The obstacles working against Stopping desertification became a top priority. Conventional
reforestation are enormous. But a new method of reforestation methods of raising exotic tree species in nurseries were used:
called Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) could planting out, watering, protecting and weeding. However,
change this situation. It has already done so in the Republic despite investing millions of dollars and thousands of hours
of Niger, one of the world’s poorest nations, where more than labour, there was little overall impact. Conventional approaches
3 million hectares have been re-vegetated using this method. to reforestation faced insurmountable problems, being costly
Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration involves selecting and labour intensive. Even in the nursery, frogs, locusts,
and pruning stems regenerating from stumps of previously termites and birds destroyed seedlings. Once planted out,
felled, but still living trees. Sustainability is a key feature of drought, sand blasting, pests, competition from weeds and
the programme which requires very little investment by either destruction by people and animals negated efforts. Low levels
government or NGOs to keep it going. The story in Niger can of community ownership and the lack of individual or village
offer valuable insights and lessons for other nations. level replicability meant that no spontaneous, indigenous
re-vegetation movement arose out of these intense efforts.
Meanwhile, established indigenous trees continued to disappear
at an alarming rate. National forestry laws took tree ownership
and responsibility for care of trees out of the hands of the
people. Even though ineffective and uneconomic, reforestation
through conventional tree planting seemed to be the only way to
address desertification at the time.
discovering Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration

In 1983, the typical rural landscapes in the Maradi Department
in the south of Niger, were still windswept and with few trees.
It was apparent that even if the Maradi Integrated Development
Project, which I managed, had a large budget, plenty of staff and
time, the methods being employed would not make a significant
Photo: Author
impact on this problem. Then one day I understood that what

appeared to be desert shrubs were actually trees which were
re-sprouting from tree stumps, felled during land clearing.
Children helping to source firewood. In that moment of inspiration I realised that there was a vast,
underground forest present all along and that it was unnecessary
to plant trees at all. All that was needed was to convince farmers
The situation in Niger to change the way they prepared their fields.
The almost total destruction of trees and shrubs in the agricultural
zone of Niger between the 1950s and 1980s had devastating The method of reforestation that developed is called Farmer
consequences. Deforestation worsened the adverse effects of Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR). Each year, live tree
recurring drought, strong winds, high temperatures, infertile soils stumps sprout multiple shoots. In practising FMNR the farmer
and pests and diseases on crops and livestock. Combined with selects the stumps she wants to leave and decides how many
rapid population growth and poverty, these problems contributed shoots are wanted per stump. Excess shoots are then cut and
to chronic hunger and periodic acute famine. side branches trimmed to half way up the stems. A good farmer
Back in 1981, the whole country was in a state of severe will return regularly for touch up prunings and thereby stimulate
environmental degradation, an already harsh land turning to faster growth rates. The method is not new, it is simply a form
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
desert, and a people under stress. More and more time was of coppicing and pollarding, which has a history of over 1000
spent gathering poorer and poorer quality firewood and building years in Europe. It was new, however, to many farmers in Niger
materials. Women had to walk for miles for fuel such as small who traditionally viewed trees on farmland as “weeds” which
sticks and millet stalks. Cooking fuel was so scarce that cattle needed to be eliminated because they compete with food crops.
and even goat manure was used. This further reduced the There is no set system or hard and fast rules. Farmers are given
amount of fodder available for livestock and manure being guidelines but are free to choose the number of shoots per stump
returned to the land. Under cover of dark, people would even and the number of stumps per hectare that they leave, the time
dig up the roots of the few remaining protected trees. Without span between subsequent pruning and harvest of stems, and the
protection from trees, crops were hit by 60 - 70 km/hour winds, method of pruning.
and were stressed by higher temperatures and lower humidity.
Sand blasting and burial during wind storms damaged crops. Acceptance of this method was slow at first. A few people
Farmers often had to replant crops up to eight times in a single tried it but were ridiculed. Wood was a scarce and valuable
season. Insect attack on crops was extreme. Natural pest commodity so their trees were stolen. A breakthrough came in
32
FMNR in practice
1. FMNR depends on the existence of living tree stumps in the fields
to be re-vegetated. New stems which can be selected and pruned
for improved growth sprout from these stumps. Standard practice
has been for farmers to slash this valuable re-growth each year in
preparation for planting crops. farmer to farmer until it became a standard practice. Over a
twenty-year period, this new approach spread largely by word
of mouth, until today three million hectares across Niger’s
agricultural zone have been re-vegetated. This is a significant
achievement by the people of Niger. The fact that this happened
in one of the world’s poorest countries, with little investment in
the forestry sector by either the government or NGOs, makes it
doubly significant for countries facing similar problems.
2. With a little attention, this growth can be turned into a valuable
resource, without jeopardizing, but in fact, enhancing crop yields. Reasons for the rapid spread
Here, all stalks except one have been cut from the stump. Side Aside from simplicity, early returns and low cost, other
branches have been pruned half way up the stem. This single stem will factors contributed to the rapid spread of FMNR. Introducing
be left to grow into a valuable pole. The problem with this system is the method on a district-wide basis with a “Food for Work”
that when the stem is harvested, the land will have no tree cover and programme eliminated much of the peer pressure that early
there will be no wood to harvest for some time. innovators would normally have to endure. As villagers
experimented, project staff who lived in the villages were
supportive, teaching, encouraging and standing alongside
farmers when disputes or theft of trees occurred. This support
was crucial, particularly in the early days when there was much
opposition to FMNR. As trees began to colonise the land again,
excited government forestry agents nominated lead farmers
and even project staff for regional and national awards. Often
3. Much more can be gained by selecting and pruning the best five or so these nominees won prizes, lifting the profile of FMNR. As
stems and removing the remaining unwanted ones. In this way, when news began to spread, national and international NGOs, church
a farmer wants wood she can cut the stem(s) she wants and leave the and mission groups received training and began promoting the
rest to continue growing. These remaining stems will increase in size method across Niger.
and value each year, and will continue to protect the environment and
provide other useful materials and services such as fodder, humus, During the development of farmer-managed natural regeneration,
habitat for useful pest predators, and protection from the wind and farmers did not own the trees on their own land. There was no
shade. Each time one stem is harvested, a younger stem is selected to incentive to protect trees and much of the destruction of that
replace it. era was linked to this policy. After discussions with the head of
the Maradi Forestry Department, project staff were able to give
assurances that if farmers cared for the trees on their land they
would be allowed to benefit without fear of being fined. These
laws were only changed in 2004 after much negotiation by
entities such as USAID. Farmers began to access markets without
undue hassle. And as trees on farms switched from being nuisance
weeds to becoming a cash crop in their own right, this was good
motivation for farmers to cultivate them. Over time, locally
Species used in this practice in Niger include: Strychnos spinosa, Balanites agreed upon codes and rules with support from village and district
aegyptiaca, Boscia senegalensis, Ziziphus spp., Annona senegalensis, chiefs were established. Without this consensus and support for
Poupartia birrea and Faidherbia albida. However, the important the protection of private property, it is unlikely that FMNR could
determinants of which species to use will be: whatever species are locally have spread as fast as it did.
available with the ability to re-sprout after cutting, and the value local
people place on those species. The benefits of FMNR quickly became apparent and farmers
themselves became the chief proponents as they talked amongst
themselves. FMNR can directly alleviate poverty, rural
migration, chronic hunger and even famine in a wide range
1984, when radio coverage of an international conference on of rural settings. FMNR contributes to stress reduction and
deforestation in Maradi helped to increase awareness of the link nutrition of livestock, and contributes directly and indirectly
between deforestation and the climate. This was followed by to both the availability and quality of fodder. Crops benefit
a Niger-wide severe drought and famine which reinforced this directly through modification of microclimate (greater organic
link in peoples’ minds. Through a “Food for Work” programme matter build up, reduced wind speed, lower temperatures,
in Maradi Department, people in 95 villages were encouraged to higher humidity, and greater water infiltration into the soil), and
give the method a try. For the first time ever, people in a whole indirectly through manuring by livestock which spend greater
district were leaving trees on their farms. Many were surprised time in treed fields during the dry season. The environment in
that their crops grew better amongst the trees. All benefited general benefits as bio-diversity increases and natural processes
from having extra wood for home use and for sale. Sadly, begin to function again. With appropriate promotion, FMNR
once the programme ended, over two thirds of the 500 000 can reduce tensions between competing interests for land-
trees protected in 1984 - 1985 were chopped down! However, based resources. For example, as natural regeneration increases
district-wide exposure to the benefits of FMNR over a 12-month fodder availability (tree pods and leaves), farmers are in a
period was sufficient to introduce the concept and put to rest better position to leave crop residues on their fields and are less
some fears about growing trees with crops. Gradually more and likely to take offence when nomadic herders want to graze their
more farmers started protecting trees, and word spread from livestock in the dry season.
33
Since 2000, World Vision has been promoting this method in a Other factors also affected the spread of the technique, for
number of other African countries. Malatin André, a Chadian example, where language may reflect deeply held attitudes.
farmer practising it for just two years reported: “Thanks to the In Hausa the word for tree (itce) is the same as the word for
new technique our life has changed. Food production has doubled firewood, and therefore trees were seen to have little value of
and many people who were laughing at us, have also adopted their own, apart from for firewood. Cultural factors may also
the techniques for soil regeneration. As a result, there is always work against adoption. Traditionally, Fulani cattle herders saw
good production, the soil is protected from erosion and heat, their lifestyle as the best in the world. Initially they found it
and women can still get firewood. We have been using the same humiliating to consider harvesting and selling wood, the way
plot for more than 30 years and without such natural fertilizing sedentary farmers did.
possibility, we would soon stop getting food from it”. Khadidja
Gangan, a 35 year old Chadian mother of six said: “This year is In addition, the practice of FMNR depends on having living
very exceptional for me because I have been able to get enough tree stumps in the fields to start with. However, in many cases,
sorghum. I cultivated one hectare and harvested 15 bags of farmers can successfully broadcast seeds of desirable species
sorghum. Generally, I could get three to five bags when working which, once established, become the basis of a FMNR system.
this land in the past. This would have been impossible if I was not The number of trees to be left in a field will depend on the
taught the new technique of land management”. number of stumps present and the farmer’s preferences. Some
left over 200 trees per hectare, others not even the recommended
40. The “correct” number of trees to be left will be a balance
Conditions for success and future challenges between farmers’ needs for wood and other products, optimal
There are, however, still many gaps in our knowledge of environmental protection and minimal negative effect on crop
natural regeneration. Farmers adapt it to their own personal yields. In areas of low rainfall, growth rates will be slower, and
needs and have different reasons for practising it. Further harvest or cutting regime should be reduced accordingly. Also,
investigation is needed into various technical aspects, such in low rainfall areas, establishment of direct sown seeds will
as the most beneficial spacing, species mix, age to harvest, take longer and be more difficult than in higher rainfall areas.
or type of harvesting, for specific purposes. In addition, legal
and cultural considerations and historical relations between In areas where existing species are predominately thorny, or
stakeholders need to be taken into account. For example, the they compete heavily with crop plants, farmers may have second
major difficulties faced in Niger included: thoughts about FMNR. Where existing tree species are palatable
to livestock, the increased effort required to herd animals or
protect trees is beyond the reach of many farmers. In many cases
however, the species are not palatable and there is no need to
exclude animals from the field during the dry season.
Conclusion
What most entities working in reforestation have failed to
recognise is that vast areas of cleared agricultural land in Africa
retain an “underground forest” of living stumps and roots.
By simply changing agricultural practices, this underground
forest can re-sprout, at little cost, very rapidly and with great
beneficial impact. In other words, in many instances the costly,
time consuming and inefficient methods of raising seedlings,
planting them out and protecting them is not even necessary for
Photo: Author
successful reforestation. Presumably, the same principle would

apply anywhere in the world where tree and shrub species have
the ability to re-sprout after being harvested.
Harvesting millet amongst the naturally regenerated trees in Niger.
Farmer managed natural regeneration is a cheap and rapid method
of re-vegetation, which can be applied over large areas of land
• The tradition of free access to trees on anybody’s property and can be adapted to a range of land use systems. It is simple and
and a code of silence protecting those who cut down trees. can be adapted to each individual farmer’s unique requirements,
It was considered anti-social to expose anybody who had providing multiple benefits to people, livestock, crops and the
felled trees. This tradition was hard to break and those who environment, including physical, economic and social benefits
left trees were often discouraged when their trees were taken to humans. Through managing natural regeneration, farmers
by others. This situation was successfully addresses through can control their own resources without depending on externally
advocacy, creation of local by-laws and support from village funded projects or needing to buy expensive inputs (seed,
and district chiefs in administering justice. Gradually, people fertilizers, nursery supplies) from suppliers. Its beauty lies in its
accepted that there was no difference between stealing from simplicity and accessibility to even the poorest farmers, and once
someone’s farm and stealing from within someone’s house. it has been accepted, it takes on a life of its own, spreading from
farmer to farmer, by word of mouth.
• Fear that trees in fields would reduce yields of food crops.
n
Field results put these fears to rest over time.
Tony Rinaudo. Natural Resource Management Specialist, World Vision
• Inappropriate government laws – if the farmer does not have Australia. G.P.O. Box 399C, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia.
the right to harvest the trees she has protected, there will be E-mail: tonyrinaudo@worldvision.com.au
little incentive for her to do so. Farmers feared that they would
Reference
be fined for harvesting their own trees. By collaborating with - National Academy of Sciences, 1980. Firewood crops. Shrub and tree species
the forestry service, we were able to stop this from happening. for energy production. N.A.S., Washington, DC, U.S.A.
34
R2.7
Seed fairs in Nampula promote food sovereignty

If you don’t save seed, you are not a re
In parts of Mozambique, seed fairs have become an important tool for improving family farming and food sovereignty.
The concept is simple: create a space for small farmers from different regions to come together to exchange seeds.
LEISA MAGAZINE 25.3 SEPTEMBER 2009
gaining access to (diverse) genetic material allows for new opportunities and ideas for reducing risk and increasing
productivity on farms. But seed fairs also offer a way to value and strengthen farmers’ knowledge and local culture, as
well as strengthening farmers’ movements. An inspiration to others to set up their own seed fairs!
Nico Bakker and Feliz Zenén Martínez Mendoza experience left many farmers in debt because of high investment
costs, and in the process of specialising in a particular crop, they
I
n Mozambique, farmers as well as farming organisations became vulnerable to an uncertain climate and volatile markets.
are becoming more aware of the strength of their local food
production systems, and the fact that these help them reduce
risks. At the beginning of this decade, some farmers tried to Margarita Amisse from Natikiri participated for the third
improve their incomes by participating in cotton and sweet pepper time. She brought groundnuts to the market and returned
“market outgrower schemes”: they obtained packages of seeds with sesame, cowpeas and rice. She also bought maize
and chemical inputs from extension agents of big companies, seeds for a neighbour. According to Margarita, the benefit
who then bought up the harvests at the end of the season. Farmers of the fairs is that the seeds are less expensive than in the
were paid for their production, minus the cost of inputs. But this shops, and the variety is much greater as well.
20
about 140 farmer members (of which 40 percent were women)
participated in each fair – and 700 members in total. Even more
people benefited from the fairs as other, non-member farmers
from the areas visited them and brought back materials for their
neighbours as well. Practically all of the material (over
95 percent) at the five fairs was exchanged.
Adelaide Mesquita from M’puto participated for the fourth

time. She brought groundnuts of the fast-growing Virginia
variety and returned with cashew tree seeds and jugo nuts.
The variety of cashew she acquired is known for growing fast
and for having larger nuts. The jugo nut variety she obtained
matures quickly (in two instead of three months). What she
likes about the fairs is the diversity and the possibility to
recover seeds that are lost when production is low. At the end
of the fairs, non-member farmers from the area always come
by to try to get seeds too – which can attract new members to
the farmers’ organisations.
diversity is growing due to seed fairs

Genetic material is crucial for all agricultural production
systems and its management determines to a large extent the
food sovereignty of a given community. In principle, all family
Why farmers value seed fairs
• In general, farmers value the diversity available at the fairs, which is

greater than that in the shops or from local distributors. In Nampula,
the fairs offer more and more varieties over the years. two examples
are the supply of ‘virginia’ groundnuts as well as the brown-streak-
resistant variety of cassava: in the beginning, these were only brought
by farmers from a particular area, but in recent years, more farmers
Photo: Nico Bakker
from other zones also bring them to the fairs.

• Participating farmers do not look for “high-yielding” varieties but
rather seek out varieties that increase the probability of a yield
(crops that have a short cycle and are early maturing or pest resistant).
Many of the farmers who participated in the seed fairs were women.
Fast-maturing crops found at the fairs, such as groundnuts, maize,
beans, sorghum, cassava and millet, attract much interest from
farmers. this material helps to reduce the four-month wait for staple
real farmer crops to mature once the rainy season begins, and so reduces the
period of food scarcity. resistance to disease and pests is another
important factor – for example, a variety of cassava that is more
resistant to brown-streak and certain varieties of millet and sorghum
with long and flexible heads, making it difficult for birds to get at them.
At the same time, food culture has been changing. Local crops
such as cassava and sweet potato, as well as cereals such as • Farmers also value culinary qualities such as shorter cooking time and
sorghum and millet, are being increasingly substituted in the sweet taste, as in certain varieties of cassava, for example.
people’s diet by crops that are not locally produced, such as

• Fairs provide an opportunity to recover “lost” varieties. varieties
potato and wheat.
become lost because of poor production, which obliges the family to
eat or sell what they have saved. In Mozambique, this is often the case
With these challenges in mind, the Union of Agricultural Co-
with maize and groundnuts as they are both cash and food crops and
operatives of Nampula (UGCAN) organised its first seed fair
relatively easy to sell in times of crisis. Marupi, a wild cereal traditionally
in 2002 in the province of Nampula in northeast Mozambique.
used in porridge, is another example. the reason it appears at the fairs
UGCAN’s objectives were to: 1) create an opportunity for
might be that it no longer easily reproduces naturally.
family farmers to exchange genetic material which was adapted
to local conditions and customs; 2) promote the diversity • Farmers are curious and have a drive for innovation, and are therefore
of seeds used by farmers; 3) exchange experiences on the eager to get to know new varieties.
production of varieties adapted to local conditions; and 4) make
• Farmers appreciate the easy access to seeds. At the Nampula fairs,
farmers aware of the importance of controlling their own seed.
seed is exchanged or otherwise sold at a symbolic price.
Since then, membership of UGCAN has grown to 2000 farmers. • Seed fairs allow farmers to actively look for and exchange knowledge
It was therefore decided in 2008 to replace the single central regarding seed.
fair with five simultaneous regional fairs, in order to help
• Finally, the farmers appreciate having a space of their own.
farmers participate more easily, closer to home. On average,
21
How to organise a seed fair
farmers in Mozambique save their seeds because, as they say, 1. organise the fairs regularly, and avoid the busy time of the growing
“if you don’t save seed, you are not a real farmer”. Managing season. the Nampula fairs are annual and take place about two
seed is, however, a dynamic process. It is normal for farmers months before the rainy season.
to exchange seeds with their neighbours and in this way create
2. Start with a central fair, but later increase the number of fairs to
small differences in seed stocks between neighbouring farms.
cover different regions, thus allowing increased participation.
Seed fairs give farmers a greater opportunity to increase seed
diversity, as they can exchange with colleagues further away. 3. Let the regions be responsible for organising their own fair, to allow
local farmer leaders to gain experience in organising activities. In
This is certainly the case in Nampula, as the fairs have come to the Nampula case, representatives were selected for the different
offer more and more diversity over the years. In 2008, each of regions, as well as an organisational committee composed of leaders
the regional fairs had more than 20 different varieties on display, from each area.
and the following produce was represented:
4. When organising simultaneous events as ugCAN did, keep the
• Cereals: maize, rice, millet, sorghum, marupi (type of wild
logistics manageable. the five seed fairs catered to members within
amaranth grain)
a 180 km distance from the ugCAN headquarters in Nampula.
• Beans: cowpeas (nhemba and ecute), mung beans, fava
beans, jugo (bambara) nuts, namara beans, pigeon peas, 5. Move the location of the fairs within the regions every year.
butter beans
6. State clearly in the invitations that an equal number of women and
• Oils: groundnuts, sesame, local sesame, cashew, castor beans
men are expected to represent each area at every fair.
• Tubers: cassava, sweet potato, yam and local wild tuber
• Vegetables: okra, tomato, garlic, cabbage, chili pepper, local 7. Also explain in the invitations that diversity and a good quantity of
pepper, pumpkin, cucumber, onion, two other types of local seeds are important, as is information about the seeds (when to
vegetable plant, preferred type of soil, water needs, etc.).
• Medicinal plants: African potato (Uapaca kirkiana), Indian
8. Add some local cultural interest: for the Nampula fairs, local
mulberry (Morinda citrifolia), neem and two other local
authorities were invited, as well as a drum and dance group. ugCAN
medicinal plants (seeds, leaves and/or roots)
members were also asked to prepare songs or a play that highlights
• Fruit: watermelon, banana, orange, lemon, pineapple
the importance of seed.
• Other: sugarcane
9. Provide money to the organisational committees, which can also be
used for food for the participants and guests. At the end of the fair, a
Ana Leite from Murrupula participated for the first time breakdown of the costs should be presented to the participants.
and obtained a variety of light-skinned cassava. This
10. Ensure that the seed be exchanged or otherwise sold at a symbolic
variety is not bitter and can be eaten raw, which made it a
price to keep it accessible to the farmers.
much sought-after product at the fair. Ana Leite took home
maize seeds and a cutting of a kind of sugarcane she had 11. Keep out commercial seed companies (authorities inevitably
never seen before, so she was also given information on suggest inviting representatives of seed companies, which of course
how to cultivate it. For Ana, the fairs offer diversity and an completely negates the idea of the fairs).
opportunity to discover new varieties.
12. Award prizes at the end of the fair to the areas that managed to
attract the most seeds in terms of diversity and quantity.
13. Afterwards, evaluate the fairs to evaluate possible adaptations for
the following year.
At one fair, participants identified three varieties each for maize,

groundnuts, cassava, sorghum and rice and two varieties each for
fava and jugo nuts, sugarcane, pumpkin, sweet potato, and millet.
In addition to the direct aspects of farming, seed fairs offer a

way to appreciate and strengthen farmers’ knowledge and local
culture. They also provide an instrument for farmers to mobilise

members, strengthen self-organisation, increase visibility, and
show a novel approach for local organisations.
n
Nico Bakker. Former advisor to the UGCAN, Oxfam Solidarity Belgium.

E-mail: nico.b@antenna.nl
Feliz Zenén Martínez Mendoza. Former advisor to ANAP (National Association
of Small Farmers) in Cuba, and specialist in Popular Education and Sustainable
Agriculture. He worked for one year in Nampula to help set up the Farmer-to-Farmer
network. E-mail: zenen3016@gmail.com
Photo: Nico Bakker
Further reading
The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) produced a useful handbook in 2006,
based on its LINK project (Gender, biodiversity and local knowledge systems for
food security) in Tanzania. Following two studies and four seed fairs, FAO prepared
simple guidelines for rural communities on how to organise a community diversity
seed fair: FAO, 2006. Community diversity seed fairs in Tanzania: Guidelines for
Sitting under shady trees, farmers display a wide diversity of seeds and seed fairs. Report no 51, Rome, Italy. Downloadable at:
other genetic material at one of the seed fairs in Nampula. www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe1/pe1_060701_en.htm
22
R2.8
Stimulating GMO-free breeding for
organic agriculture: a view from Europe
Edith Lammerts van Bueren and Aart Osman
In the mid-90s the organic agricultural sector decided not to

allow the use of GMOs in organic production. This was partly
due to the risks of undesired and unknown environmental and
health-related side effects of GMOs. But the main reason was a
more ethical choice of respecting the integrity of plants and ani-
mals. The decision to remain GMO-free is incorporated in the
Basic Standards of the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and hence applies worldwide.
These standards define how organic products are produced,
processed and handled. Most organic certification bodies use
these standards for certification purposes.
A new vision for organic plant breeding

European organic agriculture is greatly dependent on the conven-
tional seed industry. Organic farmers use modern productive
varieties, bred for a high-input farming system with the use of
chemicals. Although these varieties yield better than the old land
races, they are not adapted to specific organic conditions. They
lack traits like nutrient uptake efficiency, early soil coverage
against weeds, broad field tolerance against pests and diseases
etc. This was hardly an issue in the organic sector in The Nether-
lands until the threat of GMO varieties put it on the agenda.
Space was thus created for a thorough discussion on the suitabili-
ty of current plant breeding techniques for organic agriculture.
Louis Bolk Institute, a private research institute for organic
agriculture, organised a discussion with all key players in the
organic and conventional sectors (organic farmers, traders, com-
mercial plant breeders and researchers of national agricultural
research institutes) in the Netherlands. This resulted in a vision
on organic plant breeding that was further discussed at work-
shops throughout Western Europe in order to formulate a com-
mon standpoint for those involved in organic seed production.
The findings were finalised at a recent workshop by a group of Avoiding undesired cross-pollination. Photo: Louis Bolk Institute
European key players (organic sector, commercial seed enter-
prises). The resulting proposal was forwarded to IFOAM for
incorporation in the Basic Standards for Organic Agriculture. Principles of organic farming as the basis
Judging the suitability of plant breeding methods is based on
the principles of organic farming. Organic farming is not mere-
ly the avoidance of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and GMOs.
It takes the living soil as a basis and uses methods which stimu-
late (agro-)ecological processes, without exhausting natural
resources. Being founded on the integrity and intrinsic value of
living entities like the soil, plants, animals and human beings,
organic farming respects the environment, farm ecology and the
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2001
complexity of nature. This attitude of respect prevents farmers

from taking actions that affect a plant’s reproductive potential
and impede the sustainable use of cultivars.
Thus, the concept of organic plant breeding as formulated by
the European key players reads as follows: “The aim of organic
plant breeding is to develop plants which enhance the potential
of organic farming and bio-diversity. Organic plant breeding is
a holistic approach that respects natural crossing barriers and
is based on fertile plants that can establish a viable relationship
with the living soil.”
Biodiversity - an essential feature

As biodiversity is one of the main features of a sustainable
Cross pollination within natural barriers Photo: Louis Bolk Institute organic farming system, the organic sector places great value on
12
the free exchange of the genepool. The rights of breeders are genetic resistance traits from wild relatives and other species
respected but patents and techniques to make plants sterile into modern cultivars. This has led to a disproportionate
endanger the free exchange, and consequently the genetic diver- reliance on resistant genes and negligence of other characteris-
sity. One of the techniques to prevent free exchange of genetic tics and techniques that prevent the build-up of diseases and
diversity is the utilisation of cytoplasmic male sterility without pests. For example, the build-up of soil-borne fungal diseases is
restorer genes to produce hybrids (see Box p.14). The absence delayed in cereals, which are taller and have a more open plant
of restorer genes prevents the production of seeds and hence structure (opposed to the compact short straw types). Growing
this type of hybrids should be forbidden. All other types of varietal mixtures and intercropping also prevents disease epi-
hybrids produce viable seeds. They do not maintain purity after demics. An organic breeding strategy would therefore aim at
multiplication at the farm, but can still be used for developing compensating for low genetic resistance with a better plant
new varieties. structure and varieties that perform well in mixtures. In this way
Seed saving is not practised in the highly specialised horti- it would not rely just on a single resistant gene, but on a larger,
cultural sector in Europe. Dutch organic farmers prefer to buy more sustainable set of measures. Breeding with as little
their seeds, and most of them prefer hybrids. The uniformity of biotechnology as possible requires a rethinking of what we want
the plants allows for mechanical harvesting and reduces the to achieve and how we can reach our goals. The principles of
requirement of seasonal labour that is scarce. Whether hybrids organic agriculture can help us with this task.
are the best option for the South depends very much on the
socio-economic circumstances. Often there are valid arguments
against hybrids. Low-income farmers who do not have suffi-
cient funds to buy new seeds every year are better off with vari-
eties that they can multiply inexpensively.
The cell level divide

The biotechnological techniques used in modern plant breeding
(see Box p.14) can be divided into those that stay within the realm
of life and those that go beyond. If the cell is considered the low-
est organised structural entity of life, then all breeding techniques
that intervene below cell level do not conform to the organic prin-
ciples. This means that genetic modification (which interferes at
DNA level) and protoplast fusion should be forbidden for the
organic sector. All other cell biological techniques, including
embryo rescue techniques and in vitro-pollination, are acceptable.
A few plant breeders are willing to go further: not only ban- The breeding fields of Vitalis, a Dutch organic breeding company
ning the techniques that go below cell level, but also avoiding Photo: Louis Bolk Institue
those that intervene at cell level. The proposed certification sys-
tem will label the latter as “organic varieties”. Varieties that
respect the standards for organic breeding, but go beyond plant Setting standards for organic breeding
level, will be labelled as “organic seeds”. “Organic seeds” come The development of new varieties requires considerable finan-
from conventional breeding programmes, which respect the cial investments. As a relatively small sector, organic farming in
organic breeding standards and are multiplied under organic Europe depends largely on conventional seed breeders for new
growing conditions for at least one generation. varieties. Setting standards for organic plant breeding can influ-
ence technology development for the organic sector. These stan-
Re-thinking plant breeding dards specify the techniques allowed for the development of
For the breeders who want to work with as little biotechnology new varieties. To make the implementation of these standards
as possible, the challenge is to develop new concepts and breed- feasible, the private (conventional) seed sector has been
ing strategies that make it redundant. Most biotechnological involved in the discussions on organic breeding from the begin-
techniques in plant breeding are used to introduce specific ning.
‘Think twice before you act’: EU blocks new GM crops to be released

GM Crops such as Bt-maize, RR soybean and Bolgard cotton, are widely Before such an operational system will be implemented it could take
accepted in the United States, but public opinion in Europe continues another two years, or even longer if the issue of environmental liability
to be increasingly sceptical to GMOs. Only 11 GM varieties were has to be turned into law as well.
licensed for cultivation in the European Union before an informal mora- In non-EU member Switzerland, the release of genetically altered
torium was introduced in 1998 as compared to some 50 GM varieties plants into the environment is also forbidden. The government states
that are commonly planted in the US, Canada and Argentina. that, on the basis of current knowledge, it is not possible to gauge the
Last October, EU governments rejected the idea of lifting this three- dangers to humans and the environment of the release of such organ-
year ban on importing and planting of new GM crops. Environment isms. This precautionary principle by (some of ) the EU countries and
ministers spoke against plans to restart licensing GM seeds. Biotech neighbouring Switzerland is an important acknowledgement of the fact
companies like Monsanto and Novartis have been waiting for years to that GM crops are different from “naturally” improved varieties. ‘Think
start selling their new varieties of modified maize, soy bean, etc. in the twice before you act’ seems to be the European answer to GM crops.
EU. A total of 13 GM varieties are awaiting approval. In 1998, a number
of EU countries said they would not allow any new GMOs into the EU
until tough rules on testing, labelling and tracing were put in place. Sources: www.ictsd.org/weekly, and www.nzz.ch/english/swiss_week
13
The formulation of standards for organic plant breeding gives breeders. Here a platform of discussion between breeders and
the seed companies clarity on what is expected from them. Some farmers is created. The exchange of knowledge stimulates the
companies in the Netherlands, like Vitalis Biologische Zaden, are development of varieties, which better meet the needs of the
willing to adhere to these standards and breed organic seed with- farmers and are more adapted to an organic farming system.
out using the undesirable biotechnologies. ■
The standards for organic plant breeding do not indicate how
Edith Lammerts van Bueren and Aart Osman, Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat
the actual varieties should look like. Louis Bolk Institute helps 24, 3972 LA Driebergen, The Netherlands. E-mail:
farmers to formulate their specific wishes (i.e. adaptation to
organic soil, tolerance to problematic diseases etc.) by way of References
- Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Hulscher, M., Haring, M., Jongerden, J., van
crop ideotypes. Seed companies are requested to provide vari-
Mansvelt, J.D., den Nijs, A.P.M and G.T.P. Ruivenkamp, 1999. Sustainable Organic
eties, which comply with these ideotypes for trials on farmers’ Breeding -Final Report, Louis Bolk Instituut, Driebergen, The Netherlands.
fields. The trials are evaluated in the field with farmers and (the document can be downloaded at www.louisbolk.nl/eng/info/sopb.htm)
Biotechnological Techniques applied in Plant Breeding

At cell level
Embryo culture Used for crossing of closely related species, such as cultivated tomatoes and
Ovary culture wild relatives. Such crosses occur in nature but do not result in viable seeds as the
In-vitro pollination embryos are aborted prematurely. When these organs are separated from
the plant and grown in test tubes, they develop into mature plants.
In-vitro selection Mostly used to select new varieties, which are tolerant to stress conditions,
such as salinity. Plants are grown in test tubes containing a salt solution. Plants that
survive are selected.
Anther culture Pollen and anthers are grown in-vitro. These male sexual organs are not
Microspore culture fertilised and hence contain only half a set of chromosomes. This set is doubled
with chemicals to get plants that are genetically identical.
Meristem culture This is used for a rapid propagation of plants with an identical genetic
Micro propagation make-up. Plant cells are multiplied in test tubes and these cells are regenerated
Somatic Embryogenesis into new plants.
Below cell level
Genetic modification Genetic material of unrelated species that do not cross in nature are inserted into
Protoplast fusion cells. Protoplast fusion implies the merging of complete cells. In genetic
modification only small pieces of foreign DNA are inserted into the cell.
Cytoplasmatic Male Sterility (CMS) Used to produce parent lines for hybrid production which are male sterile. A plant cell is merged with a
without restorer genes cytoplast (a plant cell of which the chromosomes are removed). The cell plasma of the cytoplast contains
factors, which cause male sterility. CMS does occur in nature, but is accompanied with factors that neutralise
the male sterility. When CMS is transferred from an unrelated species into a crop, without the neutralising
factors (restorer genes), the new male sterile plants can not be multiplied in nature.
DNA marker assisted selection Certain sequences of DNA can be associated with certain plant traits. These sequences (markers) can be
used to select plants for characteristics, which are not directly visible in the field, such as drought tolerance.
This technique makes use of available DNA sequences in the plant cells, but does not change them, and is
acceptable for organic agriculture. Sometimes radiation or genetically modified enzymes are used to detect
these markers, which is not acceptable for organic farming. Detection can be done with substances that are
permitted by organic agriculture such as fluorescence.
14
R2.9.1
Community seed banks
for maintaining genetic diversity
Vanaja Ramprasad A participatory inventory
During meetings with the community (particularly with the elders)
By the beginning of the 1990s, the Genetic Resource Ecology and by using PRA techniques, information was gathered about the
Energy Nutrition (GREEN) Foundation had realised the plant species and varieties that had previously been in use by the
importance of working with the farmer community to conserve local people and which, in the course of time, had either become
agro-biodiversity, and its importance in ensuring food security extinct or were not used any more. This ethnobotanical survey
and developing a sustainable agriculture. So, in 1992, we initiated of a village area was referred to as “seed mapping”. This activity
a programme with small farmers in the drier areas of the Indian yielded valuable information on genetic diversity, on how local
states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The first activities were plants were used by people from the community, and where these
aimed at creating awareness about the rapid loss of useful plant species could be found. This inventory also revealed whether seeds
species and the concept of conservation of agro-biodiversity. To of the most interesting plant species were still available. Where
begin with, farmers had to go through an “unlearning” process, possible, small quantities of seeds were collected, sometimes from
as years of modernised agriculture had taken them very far other areas where they were still grown. One such participatory
away from a sustainable production. Many farmers did not seem seed mapping exercise, conducted in the northern dry regions of
aware that traditional crops and varieties had been lost, which Karnataka, helped to identify 61 different varieties of sorghum and
made it difficult to talk with them about conservation of plant eight varieties of pearl millet.
diversity. It was even more difficult to convince them that some
of the traditional varieties could yield as well as the introduced, A seed mapping exercise also provokes dialogue and debate
commercial varieties that they had become used to. in the village community. Through their discussions, farmers
would come to realise what the effects of their conversion
Our approach was to promote a sense of pride and ownership to modern, high-yielding crop varieties had been: a mono-
within the community towards their common traditional crop farming system and loss of plant diversity on their land.
knowledge. The important message was that they were the However, the GREEN Foundation was always very careful
custodians of their genetic heritage. Seed yatras were organised, with the message that they tried to convey to farmers so that
where farmers, NGO staff and other supporters marched through they would not feel pushed into any decision to change their
several villages to promote awareness about the effects of agricultural practices. This is very important, because when a
globalisation, and the way this has impacted on the agricultural farmer does decide to convert to a more diverse and integrated
sector. Such a mass awareness raising activity also helped to build cropping system, it is his or her own decision. The GREEN
links between farmers from different villages, and stirred general Foundation deliberately uses the meetings with the communities
public interest in the concept of sustainable agriculture. During a to motivate the women to participate in this effort because,
yatra, a combination of art, culture and music is used to engage traditionally, women decide which food crops to grow, and the
peoples’ interest: an oxen-cart decorated with produce of different men work in the fields.
crops and vegetables is taken around the village, which brings
people out to see. Subsequently, folk songs and street plays with a Multiplying seeds
message are enacted. After the awareness creation activities and the seed mapping, all
interested farmers were provided with seeds of some of the plant
species collected during the seed mapping exercises. Some women
were also interested in assisting the programme voluntarily by
multiplying seeds of several crop varieties on their land. That way,
more farmers could be provided with seeds at a later stage.
Photo: GREEN Foundation

20
Women have been important partners in this programme since At a completely different level was the somewhat demoralising
its inception and they have assumed a very significant role in attitude of the scientists and business community. The GREEN
the GREEN Foundation’s efforts to assist local communities Foundation team often felt dwarfed by the opposition of the big
in the conservation of agro-biodiversity. The men, however, multinationals, universities and the scientists who regarded them
showed less interest at first because they were mostly focused as reactionary, trying to take science backwards by promoting
on growing commercial crop varieties, for the market. But when the use of traditionally used crops or varieties. We went through
Karnataka was hit by drought in 1995, the men noticed that some cycles of despair and frustration as our work was often looked at
local varieties of finger millet, for instance, still managed to be with disbelief. But our strong belief in our work made us continue.
productive while the so called high-yielding varieties failed. More farmers became involved in seed banks, and media attention
regarding the conservation of agro-biodiversity increased,
In time, the assortment of seeds that the programme managed spreading the message to other stakeholders. Eventually, the
to gather began to increase, and provided an interesting base for message was convincing enough that resource persons from
further work. Gradually, more women farmers started joining in agricultural universities, industry and other NGOs have now also
the programme activities and became involved in multiplying become involved in training farmers at the village level and district
seeds of different varieties of rice, finger millet and other food levels.
crops that could be planted in mixed-crop systems. This gave way
to the idea of establishing a saving system for seeds, from which Upscaling
villagers could borrow seeds for planting. The first such “seed Once the programme had taken root in Thally, the GREEN
bank” was established by an existing self help group in a village Foundation looked to expand activities. In 1999, awareness-
called Thally. This group’s original objective was to organise raising programmes were conducted in the surrounding villages
micro-credit and savings activities for its members. on the need to conserve agro-biodiversity, and the methods
of conserving seeds efficiently. Seed mapping was carried
Seed banks out and indigenous seeds were tracked and collected from the
A community seed bank functions very much like a commercial farmers who had conserved them. Subsequently, more seed
bank. The transfers are, however, not in money but in seeds. Any banks were set up in different villages, catering for larger
inhabitant of the villages that a seed bank serves can become a clusters of farmers. A network was created with other NGOs
member of the seed bank by paying a nominal annual fee. Seeds of to expand plant diversity conservation activities with selected
food crops that are stored in the bank are provided free of charge organisations in their own regions. Of the 45 seed banks
to members of a seed bank. The member then sows the seed and currently operating in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the GREEN
after harvesting the crop, returns double the amount of seeds to the Foundation has facilitated 14 seed banks covering about 100
seed bank. villages.
Seed banks do not require special building structures and seeds Immediately after harvesting the crops, seed fairs are held. This
are stored at ambient temperature. The staff of a community seed is traditionally the time that several festivals are celebrated while
bank have various tasks: making sure the seed is treated properly there is also a quiet period in agricultural activities, so farmers
against pests; monitoring seed distribution by maintaining moni- have time to participate. A seed fair is much like a traditional
toring cards to see who is growing what; working out a record of market setting where besides buying their weekly needs, farmers
members’ needs for seeds, and planning for seed distribution in also interact socially and exchange knowledge and information
the following season. Seed banks also develop some activities to about certain practices. By reviving this “market” concept,
promote the use of local varieties of food crops. To ensure the con- the GREEN Foundation brings diverse farming communities
tinuous quality of seeds managed by the seed bank, the members together, and during seed fairs more farmers become convinced
set down some rules such as banning the use of chemical fertilizers of the need to conserve agro-biodiversity. The seed fairs also
and pesticides. “We go to farms now and then to see whether the provide opportunities for demonstrating seed storage techniques
farmers are following these rules”, says Kalamma, who works for to farmers, and other sustainable agriculture practices such as soil
the seed bank in Thally. “When it is harvest time, we often go to nutrient management, control of pests and diseases, and managing
the fields of members who have borrowed seeds, and we select the crop diversity.
best seeds and ask that these be returned to the seed bank”. The
women who work for the community seed bank are paid for their Over the years, the GREEN Foundation has become an umbrella
service from the membership fees and from commission that the organisation that trains and serves more than thirty local
seed banks make on the marketing of rice, sorghum and millets sustainable agriculture organisations in Karnataka and northern
on behalf of farmers. Furthermore, some seed banks earn some Tamil Nadu. Training and other capacity building activities
income from processing activities, adding value to crop produce. are based on farmer-to-farmer extension with some farmer-
teachers receiving a small compensation for their involvement.
Initial challenges Training is also done through village governance programmes
The farming community responded slowly to the first community where a village can now apply for help from the state government
seed bank in Thally village. As the concept was new to them, in the process of changing to organic growing. Community seed
and they had lost the sense of ownership over their seeds, it took banks are an important aspect of the programme for safe-guarding
some time for farmers to see the importance of having the option traditional varieties of food crops. The GREEN Foundation
to plant traditional varieties again. The GREEN Foundation took believes that the seed bank is not just a store where seeds of
farmers for exposure visits to well-established seed banks, as a traditional varieties of food crops are kept for distribution to
way to enable learning between farmers from different regions. farmers. More than this, it is an important self-help strategy for
When farmers interact with one another, it creates an enhanced maintaining genetic diversity in crop and plant species on farms.
understanding, awareness and knowledge about the process at n
work. With some persistent efforts, the belief in the seed bank
concept grew and local farmers also began to see the differences
between the traditional varieties and the commercial varieties, both Vanaja Ramprasad. Director, GREEN Foundation. 30 Surya, 4th main, N.S. Palya,
in terms of production cost and yield reliability. Bangalore 560076, India. E-mail: earthbuddy@gmail.com
21
R2.10
Indigenous honeybees:
allies for
mountain farmers
Farooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung
In mountain agriculture, field 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 world’s cultivated crops
are pollinated by different species of bees, and honeybees are
the most effective and reliable pollinators. They also play an
Photo: S.R. Joshi/ICIMOD

often 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 than Apis mellifera still exist, and even fewer A mountain village in Nepal.
where the indigenous honeybees can be kept in hives and
managed by farmers.
different types of contagious bee diseases and harmful mites.
In the Hindu Kush Himalayas, indigenous honeybees include Although Apis mellifera potentially produces more honey than
Apis dorsata, Apis florea, Apis laboriosa (bees whose products the indigenous honeybees, it is not as well adapted to the local
can be collected but which cannot be kept in hives) and Apis climatic conditions and the indigenous vegetation, making it a
cerana. In addition to their importance for pollination, these less effective pollinator. The introduction has therefore
bees contribute directly to the livelihoods of mountain people by adversely affected the livelihoods of mountain farmers. In spite
providing honey and other bee products. Apis cerana, the Asian of these developments, Apis cerana beekeepers with backyard
hive bee, is particularly important to mountain farmers as a bees are still being confronted by development extensionists
source of cash income. This species is well suited both to the trying to encourage introduction of Apis mellifera – in the areas
climatic conditions in the region and to the farming practices of origin of Apis cerana.
that are typical of these marginal, mountainous areas. It has the
ideal characteristics to ensure the pollination of mountain crops, In isolated mountain areas like Jumla and Humla in Nepal and in
having adapted its foraging patterns to suit the changing many parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, subsistence
flowering and nectar production rhythms that result from the farmers are totally dependent on their own resources for their
uncertain and variable climatic conditions in mountain areas. It survival. Due to environmental degradation as well as poor
can work under cool conditions up to an altitude of 3000 metres pollination, the quantity and quality of many life-saving
and is ideally suited as a pollinator of early flowering crops like mountain crops is declining significantly, making survival
almonds, peaches and plums. Kept in hives in the backyards, increasingly difficult and forcing people to migrate to the plains.
these bees pollinate kitchen garden crops, usually the main The situation is similar in many other areas of Nepal and
source of vegetables. The indigenous bee offers a further Afghanistan.
advantage in that it keeps going even under adverse conditions;
if the situation becomes really difficult the colonies may migrate Decline in fruit and seed production
temporarily, but the bees come back to their hives when Agriculture in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region is in a stage of
conditions allow them to do so. transition from traditional cereal crop farming to high-value
cash crops such as fruits and vegetables. This ongoing
Decline in native pollinators transformation from subsistence to cash crop farming poses a
Despite an increasing recognition of their important role in number of new challenges, including low production or crop
pollination, the population and diversity of native bees is failures due to inadequate pollination. This emerging problem
declining in the region. Factors causing the decline include has been documented in a series of field studies carried out by
habitat loss through land use changes, increasing monoculture ICIMOD across the region. Findings suggest that the decline in
and negative impacts of pesticides and herbicides. In addition, pollinator intensity presents a serious threat to agricultural
the well-intended introduction of the European honey bee, production and maintenance of biodiversity. The negative impact
Apis mellifera, to the Himalayas has brought difficulties for of declining pollinator intensity is visible in Himachal Pradesh
indigenous bee species, partly because of competition for nectar of India, Azad Jammu and Kashmir of Pakistan as well as in
in some areas, but more importantly through the introduction of mountain areas of Afghanistan and China.
12
Despite increasing agronomic inputs, there is a clear decline in are therefore usually unaware of the role of bees as well as of the
the production and quality of fruit crops such as apples, pears need for suitable polliniser varieties in the pollination process: In
and almonds, and seed crops such as buckwheat. In fact, the order to pollinate fruit such as apples, for example, the bees first
negative effects of these agronomic inputs on pollinators is one need to take pollen from a compatible variety of apple and bring
of the major causes of pollination failure and hence the observed this pollen to the tree being pollinated (see box).
declines in productivity. For example, apple cultivation in
Himachal Pradesh in India, though it initially gave significant New focus in beekeeping
economic gains, has resulted in a loss of agricultural ICIMOD is working to address the pollination issue in
biodiversity and a decline in natural insect pollinators. In this partnership with local people and grassroots networks and more
area, farmers are now compelled to rent colonies of honeybees than 25 institutions of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China,
for pollinating their apple orchards. At present, it is mostly the India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan. ICIMOD is engaged from
Department of Horticulture and a few private beekeepers that policy to action level in promoting the importance of pollination
rent out bee colonies to apple farmers. The current rate for for mountain agriculture. The programme is focusing on the
renting an Apis cerana or Apis mellifera colony for apple conservation and sustainable management of wild bees, Apis
pollination is US$20 per colony. Only a few farmers keep their dorsata and Apis laboriosa, and on promotion and sustainable
own colonies for pollination. A heavy demand for honeybees for management of the Asian hive bee, Apis cerana, through
pollination has been created, and there are not enough bee selection and breeding in collaboration with local communities.
colonies to meet this demand. Hence, in the apple growing areas This programme
of Himachal Pradesh, there is a tremendous scope for intends to improve
entrepreneurial beekeeping for pollination. livelihoods by
increasing pollinator
In Maoxian County, Sichuan, China, farmers have resorted to intensity without
Photo: U. Pratap/ICIMOD
hand pollination of their apples and pears, as there are not disturbing local
enough natural insect pollinators to ensure a proper fruit setting. biodiversity.
Awareness about the use and function of honeybees is lacking,
and the beekeepers in this area hesitate to let their bees into this A selection and
fruit-producing valley because of the serious overuse of multiplication
pesticides in apple orchards. In Pakistan, disappointed farmers programme on
are cutting down their apple trees and recently ICIMOD found indigenous Apis Hand pollination by “human bees” in China.
evidence of cutting down almond orchards in the Bamiyan cerana in India,
valley of Afghanistan due to low yields caused by insufficient Nepal and Pakistan
pollination. is being implemented through action research. Farmers are
involved in recording selection data and identifying better
A major reason for this development is the lack of awareness on colonies for multiplication. Mass queen rearing from these
the importance of pollinators for crop production, as well as lack colonies helps in increasing pollinator intensity and honey yield.
of knowledge about the habits and management of bees. The
promotion of beekeeping has focused only on honey production, Databases on the cliff sites and nesting habitats of wild
neglecting the more valuable role of bees in pollination. Farmers 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
The importance of polliniser trees them with additional income, thereby contributing to the
conservation of biodiversity.
In Himachal Pradesh in India, farmers used to plant many varieties of
apples. However, due to the better market value farmers have been In addition to playing a crucial role in pollination and thereby
planting only Royal Delicious and uprooting other varieties. Royal improving crop yields, honeybees contribute in a balanced way
Delicious is self-sterile and requires cross-pollination from other to rural development efforts leading to secure and sustainable
compatible varieties for fruit setting. Some farmers do not have even a livelihoods.
single polliniser tree in their orchards. So, wherever the orchards have ■
Royal Delicious only, there are serious pollination problems. Farooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi, and M.B. Gurung. ICIMOD,
P.O. Box 3226, Jawalakhel, Kathmandu, Nepal. Email: fahmad@icimod.org.np
Some farmers are now including “polliniser” trees in their orchards.
References
These are grafted on to commercially premium varieties for fast results. - Ahmad F; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2003. The Himalayan cliff bee Apis
Farmers have even devised short-term solutions to bridge the gap until laboriosa and the honey hunters of Kaski. Indigenous honeybees of the Himalayas
the grafted branches or newly-planted polliniser trees begin flowering: (Volume I). ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 52p.
- Ahmad F. U. Partap; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2002. Please do not steal our
Bunches of small flowering branches of the pollinisers called “bouquets” honey. Bees for Development Journal 64: 9.
are put in plastic bags filled with water. These bouquets are hung in the - Gurung, M.B.; F. Ahmad; S.R. Joshi and C.R. Bhatta, 2003. The value of Apis
branches of commercially premium varieties. This type of pollination cerana beekeeping for mountain farmers in Nepal. Bees for Development Journal
method is locally referred to as “bouquet pollination”. The large-scale use 69: 13.
- Partap, U., 2003. Improving agricultural productivity and livelihoods through
of plastic bags has increased the price of plastic bags in the local market pollination: some issues and challenges. In: F. Waliyar, L. Collette and P.E.
from US$0.75 per kg to US$2.10 per kg. 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 the
Adapted from the article “Declining apple production and worried Himalayan Hindu Kush-Himalayas: productivity concerns and pollination problems.
farmers: promotion of honeybees for pollination issues in mountain development ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 104 p.
2001/1, by Uma Partap and Tei Partap.
13

R2.12.1 Enhancing the Push-Pull strategy
David Amudavi, Zeyaur Khan and John Pickett and improvement in the sustainable use of natural resources.
The strategy provides several benefits, directly or indirectly
Millions of rural people in Eastern Africa depend on maize contributing to the livelihoods of rural families. Such
and sorghum for food security and cash income. Despite this, opportunities include:
production of these crops is seriously affected by constraints such
as stemborers, the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica, low and Improving food security
declining soil fertility, lack of knowledge on how to manage these Push-Pull has increased maize yields of farmers in Kenya by
pests and weaknesses in the extension system. Stemborers lead an average of 20 - 30 percent in areas with only stemborers
to yield losses of 30 - 40 percent, while Striga infestation causes (Trans Nzoia district), and by more than 100 percent in areas
a loss of 30 - 50 percent to Africa’s agricultural economy on 40 with both stemborers and Striga (e.g. Vihiga, Siaya, Suba and
percent of its arable land. Although chemical control is usually Migori districts). This has been a key incentive for its increased
recommended, it is uneconomical and impractical for many small- adoption.
scale farmers, and has negative impacts on the environment and
human health. On the other hand, the commonly used cultural Reduced soil erosion and increased soil fertility
method of uprooting Striga is labour-intensive and less effective. By providing a good ground cover, the strategy improves
Adoption of effective control methods is limited due to lack of soil conservation. Through nitrogen fixation, the strategy
labour, little knowledge about the pest problems, and lack of other reduces the required amount of nitrogen fertilizers, which are
resources needed to make the necessary investments. unaffordable by most smallholder farmers. A long-term study at
ICIPE’s on-station fields in Mbita, western Kenya, has shown a
Affordable alternative strategies are needed to combat the significant increase in total nitrogen on field plots under maize-
growing threats to the smallholders’ livelihoods. One such Desmodium intercropping for three years, especially when
method is the “Push-Pull” strategy. This combines knowledge of compared to maize fields intercropped with other legumes.
the chemical ecology and agro-biodiversity of the stemborer, with
Striga management. This strategy was developed by scientists Enhanced biodiversity
at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology The Push-Pull strategy promotes and conserves biodiversity by
(ICIPE) in Kenya and Rothamsted Research in the United maintaining species diversity. This, in turn, improves natural
Kingdom, in collaboration with other research organisations in and agricultural ecosystems by contributing to ecosystem
Eastern Africa. A first article about Push-Pull in LEISA Magazine services such as nutrient cycling and decomposition. This helps
(Vol.17 No.4, December 2001) presents it as a viable “organic” in developing sustainable crop protection systems which rely
alternative to genetically modified maize (Bt maize). This article less on pesticides. A study conducted in Lambwe Valley (Suba
explains how the Push-Pull strategy has been adopted by farmers district, Kenya) shows that the strategy is associated with an
in Kenya since then. overall enhancement of beneficial predators, which is important
in agricultural systems.
How does the Push-Pull strategy work?
Push-Pull uses a combination of legume repellent plants to deter Livestock production and human health
the pest from the main crop (“push”) and trap crops to attract Unstable availability and seasonality of livestock feed have
the repelled pest (“pull”). Molasses grass (Melinis minutiflora) been major constraints to improving dairy livestock in Eastern
and Desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum) are the common Africa. Push-Pull provides quality fodder for livestock. On
repellents, whereas Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and small farms where land pressure is high, this is likely to
Sudan grass (Sorghum vulgare var. sudanense) are the common improve the health of farming families, especially children.
trap plants. Research has shown that the repellent plants produce Improved dairy cows and goats are emerging as important
chemical compounds, some of which repel the stemborer pests. income alternatives for smallholder farmers.
On the other hand, during dusk Napier grass produces other
chemical substances that evaporate easily, some of which are good Protecting fragile environments
attractants for stemborers to lay eggs. Fortunately, Napier grass Higher crop yields and improved livestock production, resulting
produces a gummy substance which traps the resulting stemborer from habitat management strategies, have the potential to
larvae, and only few survive to adulthood, thus reducing their support rural households under existing circumstances. This can
population. slow the migration of rural populations to areas designated for

protection. Moreover, farmers using such strategies have less
Push-Pull also suppresses and eliminates the Striga weed through reason to use pesticides that could affect flora and fauna in the
several mechanisms, including nitrogen fixation, soil shading and agro-ecosystem.
allelopathy. Allelopathy is where one plant harms another with
chemical substances: Desmodium roots produce such chemical Income generation and gender empowerment
compounds. Some of these compounds stimulate Striga seeds to Push-Pull has shown promising impacts of not only enhancing
germinate but others inhibit lateral growth and the attachment of farm incomes but also empowering rural women. It provides
the Striga roots on to maize roots. The Striga dies, and eventually alternative income sources, as surplus grain, fodder and
the number of Striga seeds in the soil decreases. As Desmodium is Desmodium seed can be sold. It also has potential for
a perennial crop, it controls Striga even when the host crop is out improving the quality of rural life as more partners interact with
of season, making it a better repellent than other legumes. farmers to disseminate it to other farmers.
Opportunities for diversifying livelihoods Push-Pull dissemination to smallholder farmers

The Push-Pull strategy is a good case of how basic research The Push-Pull strategy has been adopted by more than 10 000
can contribute to the enhancement of agricultural productivity households in 19 districts in Kenya, five districts in Uganda,
8
Photo: Jimmy Pittchar / ICIPE
Consolata enjoys talking about the success of her Push-Pull fields, and sharing her knowledge with others as an FFS facilitator.
and two districts in Tanzania. It is being promoted by the the first season, the companion crops (Desmodium and Napier
public extension system, non-governmental organisations, the grass) are not fully established for farmers to learn how to
private sector, and by regional partners in these three countries. manage them. Additionally, given the emphasis on learning
Previously, the strategy has been disseminated through mass by observation and discovery, learning how to conserve and
media (a radio programme called Tembea na Majira), printed utilise Push-Pull products is made easier during the second
material (newspapers, brochures, information bulletins season. During this season farmers also learn how to establish
and posters), farmer field days comparing Push-Pull and Push-Pull plots using Desmodium vines and Desmodium seed
conventional cropping systems, agricultural shows, farmer-to- multiplication plots. The curriculum also involves collecting
farmer extension (farmer teachers), on-station demonstrations, relevant information for assessing the effectiveness of the Push-
and public meetings (barazas). These methods have produced Pull strategy.
variable achievements.
Following the successful launch of the Push-Pull curriculum
The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is now being used in Bungoma district in western Kenya, in March 2007, ICIPE
to disseminate this strategy as it is knowledge-intensive, and organised a first training workshop for FFS facilitators the
the FFS approach is likely to increase economies of scale by following month. The objective was to train facilitators on
reaching out to many thousands or millions of farmers. The the strategy, learn how to implement it in a field school,
FFS approach uses a curriculum developed by stakeholders and develop facilitation and group management skills. The
involving farmers, government extension staff, researchers, workshop was attended by experienced FFS facilitators from
FFS and curriculum specialists, ICIPE scientists, and staff from Bungoma and Busia districts and potential facilitators from
NGOs and community-based organisations. The curriculum Suba and Homa Bay districts, all in western Kenya. After
includes weekly sessions during two cropping seasons, largely the training, the facilitators from Bungoma and Busia started
based on the life cycle of maize, namely: (a) pre-season implementing the curriculum in the existing FFSs. Now there
weekly sessions of five weeks covering activities that prepare are 22 and 12 FFSs in Bungoma and Busia respectively. One
the ground for FFS formation and implementation, (b) a first such school in Bungoma, the Ngwelo FFS, started in 2005
season of 21 weeks corresponding with the first maize cropping initially to learn about conservation agriculture in growing
season activities, (c) first off-season sessions of two weeks groundnut and water melon. Its members had some prior
involving relevant economic activities, and (d) a second season knowledge about Push-Pull through the Push-Pull radio
of 23 weeks corresponding with the second maize cropping programme. Some of the FFS members were among a group of
season. The programme follows two seasons because during farmers who took a study tour to the ICIPE-Mbita station to see
9
the Push-Pull demonstration site. They were encouraged by the support provided by the ICIPE field staff, Consolata and the
superior performance of Push-Pull compared to other legume other farmers planted Push-Pull fields. Currently, Consolata is
intercrops. The school then approached the Bungoma district the facilitator of an FFS in Ebukhaya village in Vihiga district.
Umbrella FFS Network to provide an experienced facilitator
whom they pay weekly stipends. Ngwelo FFS has provided Consolata used to harvest about 45 kgs of maize per season
useful lessons for establishing FFSs in other areas in western from a 0.25 acre plot. During the 2002 long rainy season she
Kenya. started using the Push-Pull strategy and harvested about 270
kgs. This motivated her to increase her Push-Pull acreage to
ICIPE organised a second workshop in June 2007 at the ICIPE- half an acre in 2006. Since then she has been selling some of
Mbita station to train FFS facilitators from the Suba and Homa her Napier grass to neighbours. She has also acquired a dairy
Bay districts. First, interested farmer groups were identified goat, which she feeds on her own fodder. She has increased
through focus group discussions with experienced Push-Pull her livestock herd and her milk production has increased
farmer teachers and non-practising Push-Pull farmers. These dramatically.
discussions were used to find out about the groups’ profiles,
members’ access to information, and experience with Striga Consolata has disseminated the Push-Pull strategy to several
and stemborer control. They also provided entry points for other farmers in her neighbourhood. She has been an example to
raising awareness among farmers about the strategy and role others, with over 30 visitors to her farm from outside the district.
of FFS in providing opportunities to learn new or improved Consolata is gradually expanding her Push-Pull fields, leaving a
strategies. Each group then selected one farmer to attend the small portion of her farm for planting maize and beans. Asked
to sum up what she enjoyed most about the strategy, she said:
“I don’t have to buy a lot of maize from the market to feed my
family. Push-Pull has also enabled me to have more livestock”.
Future outlook
Push-Pull is not a universal remedy for solving smallholder
farmers’ problems, but it can provide opportunities for
diversifying livelihoods. The major constraint to its
dissemination to thousands or millions of farmers has been
the non-availability of Desmodium seed. Several opportunities
have emerged, including involvement of a private seed
company, community-based seed production and vegetative
multiplication. The relative merits of these in stimulating the
diffusion of the strategy are being investigated. In addition, the
Photo: Philemon Orondo / ICIPE
effectiveness of different dissemination pathways, such as mass

media, print media, farmer-to-farmer advisory and Farmer Field
Schools are being evaluated to provide lessons for improving
the dissemination of Push-Pull.
Work is underway to develop tools for ensuring the

performance of new Push-Pull components, as well as to
An FFS Farmer facilitator demonstrates how to plant Napier grass improve our understanding of soil nutrient dynamics. Research
around a maize field; Lambwe Valley, Suba. is also ongoing into the emerging problems of a previously
unrecognised pest (a pollen beetle attacking Desmodium) and
a disease of the companion crops (phytoplasma disease in
facilitators training workshop. As in the first training, this was Napier grass). Questions relating to the potential integration
also supported by experienced FFS facilitators from established of new production and protection strategies (e.g. Bt maize) or
FFSs in Bungoma district. The trainees visited ICIPE’s on- their complementarities have been raised. This has stimulated
station Push-Pull fields at Mbita and several Push-Pull farmers the need to evaluate crop productivity and protection strategies
in Suba. Later, the Suba and Homa Bay facilitators visited in continued collaboration with other centres. The Push-Pull
Farmer Field Schools in Bungoma district, where they observed strategy thus lays the foundation for wider scientific work and
how a typical FFS is organised. They engaged in observational serves as a model for the management of other pests in Africa
learning, asked questions and sought clarifications. They also and beyond.
visited Desmodium seed bulking plots. Using this strategy of n
training, ICIPE has trained more FFS facilitators in about ten
districts in Western Kenya. It has also organised training for
David M. Amudavi and Zeyaur R. Khan. Habitat Management Programme,
farmers from Uganda, who will eventually be trained as FFS International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya.
farmer facilitators. E-mails: damudavi@mbita.mimcom.net ; zkhan@mbita.mimcom.net
John A. Pickett. Rothamsted Research. Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ,
Success story United Kingdom. E-mail: john.pickett@bbsrc.ac.uk
Consolata James is a mother of four children, living in References
Ebuchiebe, a village in the Luanda division in Vihiga district - Cook, S.M., Z. R. Khan, and J.A. Pickett, 2007. The use of ‘Push-Pull’ strategies
(western Kenya) with 3.5 acres of land. She was among the in integrated pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 52: 375-400.
first 12 farmers from Vihiga who visited the ICIPE-Mbita - ICIPE, 2007. Push-Pull curriculum for Farmer Field Schools. International
Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Nairobi, Kenya.
station and the farmers in Suba in 2001 to learn about Push- - Nielsen, F., 2001. The Push-Pull system – a viable alternative to Bt maize.
Pull. Following this field experience and with technical LEISA Magazine Vol.17 No.4: 17-18.
10

Managing pests through plant R2.12.2
diversification
Miguel A. Altieri, Luigi Ponti and Clara I. Nicholls existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions, the end
result is improved ecological sustainability. By adopting key
Agroecology provides guidelines for developing diversified ecological management practices the farmer can increase the
agroecosystems that take advantage of the integration of plant stability and resilience of the agroecosystem. These practices
and animal biodiversity. Successful integration of plants and should contribute to:
animals can strengthen positive interactions and optimise the • increasing the plant species and genetic diversity in time and
functions and processes in the ecosystem, such as the regulation space;
of harmful organisms, recycling of nutrients, biomass • enhancing functional biodiversity (for example natural
production and the build up of organic matter. In this way enemies);
agroecosystems can become more resilient. Farmers need to • enhancing soil organic matter and biological activity;
identify and support processes that strengthen the functioning of • increasing soil cover and crop competitive ability; and
the agroecosystem. These will include: • removing toxic inputs and residues.
• natural pest control;
• decreased toxicity through avoiding the use of agrochemicals; In this article we explore one example of agroecology – the
• optimised organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling; restoration and management of agricultural biodiversity for pest
• balanced regulatory systems such as nutrient cycles, water control in vineyard monocultures in California, U.S.A. The
balance, energy flow and populations of plants and animals; principles for improving ecologically vulnerable vineyard
• enhanced conservation and regeneration of soil and water monocultures can be applied to other simplified cropping
resources and biodiversity; systems. Improved biodiversity establishes a sound ecological
• increased and sustain long-term productivity. base where key ecological processes, such as pest regulation,
can function effectively. It is also crucial for crop defences: the
Today there is a wide selection of practices and technologies more diverse the plants, animals and soil-borne organisms
available to improve the functioning of agroecosystems. When within a farming system, the more diverse the community of
these agroecosystems are developed so that they are in tune with pest-fighting beneficial organisms.

Photo: M.A. Altieri
Creating habitats for natural enemy species on the least productive parts of the farm is an important strategy. The island of flowering plants,
behind the fence in this photo, acts as a push-pull system for natural enemy species.
9
In vineyards, farmers can enhance biodiversity by: Increasing biodiversity
• increasing plant diversity by growing cash crops between the In California, many farmers either manage ground vegetation or
vines; plant cover crops to provide a habitat for natural enemies during
• planting cover crops between the vines; the winter. These practices reduce the numbers of mite and
• managing the vegetation in surrounding fields to meet the grape leafhoppers but are often not sufficient to avoid economic
needs of beneficial organisms; losses from pest attacks. Usually the problem is due to the
• designing corridors of plants that make it possible for common practice of mowing or ploughing under the winter
beneficial organisms to move from nearby forests or natural cover crops or weedy resident vegetation at the beginning of the
vegetation towards the centre of the fields; or by growing season. As a result, from late spring on, these vineyards
• selecting non-crop plants grown as strips in fields, whose become virtual monocultures without floral diversity at the
flowers match the requirements of the beneficial organisms. beginning of the growing season. Pest control is better achieved
by providing habitat and food for natural enemies throughout the
All these strategies provide food (pollen and nectar), as well entire growing season. The green cover should therefore be
as hiding places, for predators and parasitic wasps, thereby maintained during spring and summer. One way to achieve this
increasing the diversity and numbers of natural enemies in is to sow summer cover crops that flower early and continue to
vineyards. These factors contribute to optimising a key flower throughout the season. This provides a highly consistent,
ecological process: pest regulation. abundant and well-dispersed food source, as well as
microhabitats for a diverse community of natural enemies. In
Biodiversity in vineyards this way it is possible to build up the number of natural enemies
There are two distinct types of biodiversity in vineyards. The in the system early in the growing season, which helps keep pest
first, called planned biodiversity, includes the vines and other populations at acceptable levels.
plants grown in the vineyard such as cover crops or corridors.
The second type, called associated biodiversity, includes all In a vineyard near Hopland, northern California, summer cover
flora and fauna that come from surrounding environments to crops such as buckwheat (Fagopyrum sp.) and sunflower were
live in the vineyard, and which will, under suitable management, maintained throughout the growing season. This floral diversity
thrive there. The relationship between these different types of increased the associated natural enemies and reduced the
biodiversity is illustrated in Figure 1. abundance of western grape leafhoppers and western flower
thrips (see box). During two following years (1996-1997), the
areas with flowering cover crops had lower densities of thrips
Surrounding and grape leafhoppers and there were more predators on the
Farmer vines in the cover-cropped sections than in the monocultures.
biodiversity
management Generally, the number of predators was low early in the season,
(forest, hedgerows, etc.)
but increased as prey became more numerous as the season
progressed. Dominant predators included spiders, Nabis sp.,
Orius sp., Geocoris sp., coccinellids, and Chrysoperla sp.
Planned biodiversity Associated Designing corridors

(cover crops, biodiversity The abundance and diversity of beneficial insects within a field
corridors, etc.) (predators, parasitoids) depends on the diversity of plants in the surrounding vegetation.
To take advantage of this insect diversity, some farmers have
established corridors composed of several flowering species,
which connect to forests near water sources and cut across their
vineyards. Such corridors serve as “biological highways” for the
movement and dispersal of predators and parasitic wasps into
Ecosystem function the centre of the vineyards.
(i.e. pest regulation)
Studies conducted in the Hopland organic vineyard showed that
predator species, including spiders, were often found on the
Figure 1. Relationship between several types of biodiversity and their flowers of the plants in the corridor, demonstrating that
role in pest regulation in a diversified vineyard. populations of key predator species become established and
circulate within the corridor. In both years studied (1996-97) the

number of harmful adult leafhoppers was clearly lower in the
Planned biodiversity has a direct function. For example, cover vine rows close to the corridor and gradually increased toward
crops enrich the soil, thus helping vine growth. They have a
direct function in enhancing soil fertility. Yet, they also have an
indirect function, in that their flowers contain nectar which
attracts wasps. These are the natural parasitic wasps of pests that Key pests in vineyards and their natural enemies
normally attack the vines and are part of the associated
biodiversity. Key pests Natural enemies
The challenge for farmers is to identify the type of biodiversity Frankiniella occidentalis Orius spp. (minute pirate bug),
that they wish to maintain and enhance on their farms in order to (Thrips) coccinellids, spiders, Nabis sp.
enable specific ecological services (i.e., pest regulation), and
then to decide on the best practices for encouraging such Erythroneura elegantula Anagrus epos ( parasitic wasps),
biodiversity. In our experience, cover cropping and creation of (Grape leafhoppers) spiders, Geocoris sp., chrysopids
habitats within and around vineyards are key strategies.
10

It is important to establish a diversity of plants to attract an
optimal number and mix of natural enemies. The size and shape
of the flowers determine which insects are attracted, as only
those who are able to access the flowers’ pollen and nectar will
make use of the food sources provided. For most beneficial
insects, including parasitic wasps, the flowers should be small
and relatively open. Plants from the Compositae (for example,
daisy or sunflower) and Umbelliferae families are especially
useful.
The period during which the flowers are available is as

important as the size and shape of the flowers. Many beneficial
insects are only active as adults and for specific periods during
the growing season; they need pollen and nectar during these
active periods, particularly in the early season when prey is
scarce. With this knowledge farmers can provide mixtures of
plants with relatively long, overlapping, flowering times.
Current knowledge about which plants are the most useful

sources of pollen, nectar, habitat and other critical needs is far
from complete. Clearly, many plants encourage natural enemies,
but scientists have much more to learn about which plants are
Photo: M.A. Altieri
associated with which beneficial insects, and how and when to

make desirable plants available. Because beneficial interactions
between plants and insects are site-specific, the geographic
location and overall farm management are important aspects to
The size and shape of flowers determine which insects are attracted to consider.
the “insectory”.
Farm planning
Once farmers have a good knowledge of the characteristics and
the centre of the field. The highest concentration of leafhoppers needs of key pests and their natural enemies on their farm, they
and thrips occurred 20 to 25 rows (30 to 40 metres) downwind can develop a management strategy. A few guidelines need to be
from the corridor. In both years substantially more thrips were considered:
caught in the central rows than in rows near to the corridor. • Consider the size of the habitat which is to be improved
(e.g., field or landscape level);
Flowering islands • Understand the predator-parasite behaviour which will be
Creating habitats on the least productive parts of the farm to influenced by managing the habitat;
concentrate natural enemies is another important strategy. This • Decide on the most beneficial arrangement (within or around
approach is used in a biodynamic farm in Sonoma County, the fields) of the plants considering local conditions and time
where an island of flowering shrubs and herbs was created at the of flowering;
centre of the vineyard, which acts as a push-pull system for • Select the most appropriate plant species; preferably those
natural enemy species. with multiple benefits, such as improving pest regulation and
contributing to soil fertility and weed suppression;
The island provides pollen, nectar and neutral insects from early • Be aware that adding new plants to the agroecosystem can
April to late September for a variety of predators and parasites affect other agronomic management practices and be
including Anagrus wasps. During the 2004 season, the island prepared to develop ways to manage this.
was dominated by neutral insects that forage on the various ■
plants, and which provide food for natural enemies. As a result,
Miguel A. Altieri, Luigi Ponti and Clara I. Nicholls. University of California,
the natural enemies slowly increased in number in the adjacent Berkeley. ESPM-Division of Insect Biology, 201 Wellman Hall-3112, Berkeley,
vineyard as the season progressed. Many natural enemies moved California 94720-3112, U.S.A. E-mail: agroeco3@nature.berkeley.edu
from the island into the vineyard, a distance of up to 60 metres.

References
Orius sp. and coccinellids move to the vineyard at the beginning
- Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls, 2004. Biodiversity and pest management in
of the season, followed later in the season by syrphid flies and agroecosystems. Food Products Press, Binghamton, New York, U.S.A.
Anagrus wasps. Parasitisation of leafhopper eggs by Anagrus - Altieri, M.A., L. Ponti and C.I. Nicholls, 2005. Manipulating vineyard
wasps was particularly high on the vines near the island, but biodiversity for improved insect pest management: case studies from northern
California. Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 1: 191-203.
lower nearer the centre of the vineyard. - Landis, D.A., S.D. Wratten, and G.M. Gurr, 2000. Habitat management to
conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of
Ways forward Entomology, 45, 175-201.
- Nicholls, C.I., M. Parrilla and M.A. Altieri, 2001. The effects of a vegetational
A key strategy in agroecology is to enhance biodiversity at the corridor on the abundance and dispersal of insect biodiversity within a northern
landscape and field level. As in the case of vineyards, California organic vineyard. Landscape Ecology, 16, 133-146.
diversified agroecosystems develop ecological properties that - Nicholls, C.I., M. Parrella and M.A. Altieri, 2000. Reducing the abundance of
leafhoppers and thrips in a northern California organic vineyard through
increase their capacity for self-regulation. The basis for maintenance of full season floral diversity with summer cover crops. Agricultural
ecological pest management is increased agroecosystem and Forest Entomology, 2, 107-113.
diversity. This serves as a foundation for establishing the
beneficial interactions that promote the ecological processes
needed for pest regulation.
11
R2.13
The successful intensification of
smallholder farming in Zimbabwe
Ten years ago, soyabeans were promoted with smallholder
farmers in Zimbabwe to help offset problems of soil fertility,
introduce diversity into cropping systems dominated
by maize production, and increase incomes. A mix of
soyabeans can now be seen in most smallholder farming
areas in suitable agroecologies throughout the country.
This success is due to a solid multi-institutional effort that
included establishment of local input facilities, as well as
market and transport opportunities.
Ken giller
Maize is the dominant staple crop across most of southern

Africa, and takes up more than 80 percent of the smallholder
planted land area. Soyabean was identified as a crop with
potential to address the need for diversification in cropping
systems, to assist in overcoming soil fertility constraints, and
one that could increase incomes of smallholder farmers. An
initiative was launched in 1996/97 in Zimbabwe to test out
Photo: Author
soyabean as a potential smallholder crop. From the initial

five villages, soyabean production expanded rapidly – from
50 farmers in the first year to an estimated 10,000 farmers three
years later. Since then, soyabean has diffused spontaneously Farmers evaluating soyabean varieties in adaptive trials run through
into most of the higher rainfall areas of Zimbabwe. Its adoption the Soyabean Promotion Task Force in Zimbabwe. The tall leafy variety
by a large number of smallholders thus exploded the long-held centre of the picture is the promiscuously-nodulating variety Magoye.
belief that soyabean was an inappropriate crop for smallholders. The variety in the foreground is a specifically-nodulating variety Nyala.
Soyabeans in Africa
Soyabean is known to have been cultivated in Africa since the advantages. Magoye is a very leafy, indeterminate variety that
early 1900s, although it is likely that the crop was introduced can supply a lot of nitrogen for subsequent crops. It also seems
much earlier through extensive trade around the Indian Ocean. to be more resistant to environmental stresses, such as poor soil
Although nodulation of soyabean by rhizobia (see Box) in the fertility and mid-season drought, than the specific varieties that
absence of inoculants had been observed earlier, it was not until are available commercially. On the down side, because Magoye
1981 that an intensive varietal screening programme in Zambia is an “unimproved” variety, it is susceptible to some diseases
identified one exceptionally promiscuous local variety which was (such as bacterial pustule) as opposed to modern varieties in
named Magoye. Magoye nodulates readily in virtually all soils which resistance has been incorporated. Many new high-yielding
in southern Africa where it has been tested. This characteristic, “promiscuous” cultivars developed by the International Institute
together with its good and consistent yields, has led to its for Tropical Agriculture at Ibadan, in Nigeria, are currently being
widespread promotion in Southern Africa for use by smallholder tested with farmers throughout Africa.
farmers. Magoye is a good variety for production by smallholders
when rhizobial inoculants are not available, and it has some other Complementarity of promiscuous and specific soyabeans
Although the initial aim was to promote the promiscuously-
nodulating Magoye, farmers were keen to grow both types of

soyabeans. The specifically-nodulating varieties have a greater
Rhizobia yield potential as a cash crop, while the promiscuous varieties
Rhizobial inoculants – which are used to deliver the nitrogen fixing are considered more robust as they do not need inoculants, and
bacteria (collectively termed rhizobia) – have been on the commercial have greater potential for fodder and soil fertility improvement.
market for over 100 years. More than 90 percent of rhizobial inoculants The programme therefore assisted farmers with timely access
worldwide are used with soyabean. Soyabean differs from many other to seeds of specifically-nodulating varieties, together with
tropical legumes such as cowpea, groundnut and common beans as it careful education of smallholder farmers in the use of rhizobial
has “specific” requirements in terms of the types of rhizobia that are able inoculants. Specifically-nodulating varieties were promoted
to form nodules on its roots and actively fix nitrogen, while others form together with rhizobial inoculation because there was no system
nodules with a wide range of rhizobia that are present in most soils. These for seed production of the promiscuous varieties to meet the
are termed “promiscuous” or “naturally-nodulating” grain legumes, and rapid increase in farmers’ demand. Another key part of the
they make effective use of the inherent soil biodiversity of rhizobia. input package was a small amount of lime and P:K:S fertilizer.
This would help to overcome the other nutrient constraints on
30
the highly-weathered sandy granitic soils that are predominant Keys to successful soyabean adoption
in the smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. Farmers were A key to the successful adoption of soyabean as a smallholder crop
able to afford all of the inputs themselves. Farmers also paid the in Zimbabwe was the formation of a Soyabean Promotion Task
transport costs when their produce was collectively delivered Force (SPTF). The task force comprised members of the
and sold at the factory gate. University of Zimbabwe, the Department of Research and
Specialist Services, the extension service, the Zimbabwe Farmers’
In on-farm experiments, maize grown after maize commonly Union, the Commercial Farmers’ Union, and the main company
yielded only 0.5 t/ha whereas yields of maize after soyabean purchasing soyabean, a vegetable oil producer, Olivine. The SPTF
were more than 1.5 t/ha. Effectively growing soyabean was arranged for leaflets to be printed. These were written for
sufficient to replace the basal nitrogen fertilizer, but to achieve development workers (extension and NGOs) in English and in the
yields of 3-4 t/ha of maize, extra nitrogen fertilizer as top- local vernacular directly for farmers with guidance on simple
dressing was required. We also found that the inoculant strains agronomy, how to handle inoculants and pest and disease manage-
tended to decline in numbers within a few years on the coarsest ment. Besides the income benefits of selling soyabeans to Olivine,
sandy soils, but that a moderate rate of cattle manure, that could local extension staff gave training in local processing of soyabean
also serve as a basal fertilizer for soyabean, could enhance for food: milling soya with maize meal for a fortified porridge for
persistence of the rhizobia. children, baking soya bread, making soya milk and as a relish.
Local inoculum production Before the SPTF embarked on an extensive promotion campaign,
Farmers’ continuous access to inoculants was ensured due to the an economic study was conducted to assess models for the
inoculum production facility at the Soil Productivity Research involvement of farmers’ organisations, and to confirm the market
Laboratory in Marondera. This semi-commercial operation was demand for soyabean. Olivine tested a wide range of samples
established in 1964 and largely served the commercial farming of soyabean grain from smallholders and was so impressed with
sector until the expansion of smallholder soyabean production. the quality that they agreed to change the grading of smallholder
The long history of inoculant production means that there is a soyabeans from “D” grade to “B” grade with the associated
solid body of expertise in inoculant production, including expert higher price. The smallholder grain was found to be cleaner (less
technical staff. More than 90 percent of the inoculants produced chaff and stalk) than commercially-produced grain because it was
are for soyabean, although inoculants are also made for other hand-harvested and cleaned. Soyabean as a potential crop was
crops. The soyabean inoculants are made from pure cultures of publicised widely by radio, television and in the popular press.
Bradyrhizobium japonicum. The inoculants have a shelf life of The SPTF gave substantial assistance in marketing soyabean
up to six months when refrigerated at 4oC – and a shelf life of from communal farming areas to Harare in the first years when
four months when stored at room temperature in clay pots. production was expanding rapidly. Technical staff employed
by the Task Force through a small grant assisted groups of
Production of inoculants increased until the collapse of smallholders to consolidate their production at rural centres. Once
commercial agriculture in 2001 to a peak of 136,000 sachets a group had managed to collect together 30 tonnes of soyabean
(see Figure). Since 2000, many of the inoculants produced have they contacted the SPTF, who in turn phoned a haulage contractor
been used in smallholder agriculture, with production gradually to collect the soyabean load by truck and deliver it for sale to the
gaining ground in response to demand until 2006. During the oil-processing factory in Harare. From the payment for the load,
past season (2007/2008) problems of intermittent electricity the Task Force then deducted the cost of transport and arranged
supply have hampered production, but the committed staff have to repay the farmers in proportion to their contributed produce
worked at night when power was available to ensure production. – quantities which ranged from as little as seven kg from one
The facilities are well-maintained under the circumstances, but smallholder to more than three tonnes from wealthier farmers.
are in dire need of reinvestment. This was a complex process, the transaction costs being borne by
the project, but was a necessary step to take soyabean from being
16000 an “orphan” crop to fully established marketing. As funding dried
up and the promotion activities were scaled back, other traders
14000 have come in to take up the role of buying smallholder produce
and delivering it to the central markets.
12000
Commitment
10000 Travelling through Zimbabwe during the current growing
season I have been amazed to see how widespread soyabean
8000
now is as a smallholder crop. This success owes much to the
drive and commitment of Professor Sheu Mpepereki of the
University of Zimbabwe and his committed staff within the
6000
Soyabean Promotion Task Force in championing production of
soyabean in the smallholder farming sector.
4000
n
2000
Ken Giller. Plant Production Systems, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen
University. P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, the Netherlands.
0 E-mail: ken.giller@wur.nl
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
References
Year - Giller, K.E., 2001. Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems. 2nd edition.
CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
Inoculant production Inoculant sales - Giller, K.E. and K. Dashiell, 2007. Glycine max (L.) In: Merr. In Van der Vossen,
H.A.M. and G.S. Mkamil (eds.). Plant Resources of Tropical Africa 14. Vegetable
Figure 1: Production of soyabean inoculants (indicated in number of oils. PROTA Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
- Mpepereki, S., F. Javaheri, P. Davis, and K.E. Giller, 2000. Soyabeans and
80 g sachets) at Soil Productivity Research Laboratory, Marondera, sustainable agriculture: ‘Promiscuous’ soyabeans in southern Africa. Field
Zimbabwe, since 1995. Crops Research, 65, 137-149.
31
R2.14
Community management of
Afroalpine highlands in Ethiopia
Zelealem Tefera As with any restricted system, it required regulation and
enforcement. The local people developed an indigenous institution,
Environmental conservation has often been characterized by a known as “Qero”. This entailed each of the two user communities
top-down approach that includes the establishment of protected in the area democratically electing an elder as a headman, called
areas, enforcement of legislation and the assumption of the Abba Qera. The Abba Qera was then responsible for protecting
ownership of biodiversity by the State. This approach reflects and regulating the use of the Guassa area.
the suspicion of governments that local communities are
incapable of managing their own resources. Thus, while these The Qero system could entail the closure of the Guassa area
approaches have ensured the survival of a few populations of from any type of use by the community for as long as three to
certain species and ecosystems and contributed to foreign five consecutive years. The length of closure depended largely
exchange earnings, they have been slow to integrate local people upon the growth of the Guassa grass. When both of the Abba
into resource management and decision-making activities. Local Qeras felt that the grass was ready for harvest, they would
communities who live near protected areas and whose announce the date of the opening to the community. This usually
populations have invariably grown, are instead faced with a took place at public gatherings such as church ceremonies,
rapidly diminishing natural resource base, often resulting in market places, or burial ceremonies.
conflicts between local communities and environmental
conservation authorities. The area was usually only open for use at the height of the dry
season – around February or March each year. There was also a
There are exceptions, however – including ancient examples of sequence to its use: only once the grass cutting was over were
local communities establishing natural resource management livestock allowed to graze the Guassa area. When the wet season
systems that are essential to the people’s livelihoods and also to started the use of the area was once again prohibited, giving the
the persistence of biodiversity. These examples not only need to resources time to regenerate. The traditional date of closing each
be closely examined to reveal how they work, but they also year was the 12th of July, the date for breaking the second most
deserve our full support in a changing and threatened natural important fasting season of the Coptic Church.
world. Following is an experience from Ethiopia, a country which
has suffered untold environmental disasters and biodiversity loss. While the area was closed, the prohibition of its use was strictly
enforced by the users themselves. Under the leadership of the
Community-based natural resource management Abba Qera, household heads regularly patrolled the area. Every
In the Central Highlands of Ethiopia, there is a small (111 km2) able male household head was obliged to take part. Failure to
patch of land which has persisted in its current, relatively pristine participate would result in severe punishment – in some
state for the past four hundred years. The area, called Guassa by instances, punishment could even result in the burning of the
the local Menzi people, ranges from 3200 to 3700 metres above absentee’s house.
sea level. It is part of the Amhara Regional State of North Shoa,
265 km northeast of the national capital Addis Ababa. Drastic changes
In 1974 a popular uprising, a revolution, swept the country.
The natural resource management system of the Guassa area On March 4th 1975, the new revolutionary government
dates back to the 17th Century. Given that it still persists, this proclaimed the nationalization of all rural land. Over large parts
makes it one of the oldest conservation areas in sub-Saharan of Ethiopia, the relationship between tenant and landlord was
Africa. The area was set aside as a resource for the community, dissolved. The proclamation abolished private and community
who use it for harvesting the “Guassa” grass (Festuca sp.) for ownership of land and gave all farmers the same right to
thatch, for grazing livestock, and for harvesting shrubs for cultivate land within the framework of state ownership. It also
fuelwood. In essence, the use of these resources was restricted to established peasant associations to distribute and regulate the
a limited number of users during a limited period of time. The use of land. As a result, the Qero system was abolished, together
right to use the resources of the Guassa area depended on the with its mechanisms of natural resource management. The
prevailing land rights and tenure system, which was based on changes also gave people who had earlier been excluded from
ancestry and controlled by the Ethiopian Coptic Church. resource use, uncontrolled access to the Guassa area.
An Ethiopian wolf seeking rats among giant lobelias in the Afroalpine

ecosystem of Guassa-Menz.
Photo: Stuart Williams
10
One of the strengths of community-based institutions is their These include the most endangered canid in the world, the
resilience – their capacity to cope with change. When the Qero Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), also known as the Simien fox.
system was abolished, the community adapted to the condition With an estimated 530 individuals in the world, Guassa - Menz
set by the new regime. They brought their case to the new local protects one of the major populations. The Afroalpine ecosystem
administration, and a new “Guassa Committee” was formed also harbours astonishing densities of rodents, on which the wolf
through the eight peasant associations. To some extent this preys. The other important species of the area is the endemic
replaced the former Abba Qeras, with the aim of overseeing the gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada). It is the only surviving
activities of the peasant associations for the protection of the member of a once widespread genus Theropithecus. These
Guassa area. The main function of the Guassa Committee was to magnificent animals with their lion-like manes are the only
enforce agreed by-laws, particularly to control illegal uses of the grazing primates in the world. They aggregate into huge herds of
Guassa area during the closed season. The system was enforced up to 400 animals. They too deserve the protection afforded to
by local militia from the peasant associations. Illegal users were them by the Guassa area. Bird species have also benefited from
prosecuted in the local courts, while repeated offenders were the Qero system and 111 species have been recorded in the area.
taken to the woreda (district) court. One striking feature of the birdlife in the Guassa area is the
abundance of birds of prey that feast, with the wolves, on
Despite the apparent adaptability and resilience of the system to abundant rats.
the new regime, it was less efficient than before and the area
started to show signs of overuse and degradation. Indeed, by the Rain that falls in the Guassa area starts a long journey to the
mid-1990s, the system was collapsing under the strain. Mediterranean through the Nile river. Indeed, 26 rivers, springs
However, the Guassa area was not brought under crop and streams have their origin in the area. The ecological service
cultivation despite the general craving for land. Its saving provided by the protection of the vegetation by the local
feature was the altitude: the Guassa area is above the tree line, community is invaluable to all the downstream users all the way
which makes cultivation very difficult, and there is therefore no to Cairo! Finally, among the local communities, the area is
permanent human settlement in the area. The area continues to renowned for medicinal plants for human and livestock uses.
play an important role in the livelihoods of the Guassa
communities and it is therefore not surprising that they have a Now, through the partnership with the Ethiopian Wolf
vested interest in safeguarding the area. Conservation Programme, the communities are seeking to
broaden the benefits accrued from the protection of the area and
The Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme (EWCP) had been its unique fauna and flora. Tourists are welcome to enjoy the
concerned with the conservation of the area because of the area, and the people wish to accrue benefits from the visitors.
important population of Ethiopian wolves that lives there. Thus,
in November 2003, the EWCP facilitated a discussion among Conclusion
community leaders, elders and concerned individuals in all the The contribution made by the Qero system to the conservation
eight peasant associations about the future of the area. This of highland biodiversity in Ethiopia is comparable with areas
resulted in the formation of a new committee and new by-laws. protected under the more formal conservation system of the
Today the Guassa area is managed by a committee comprising country. However, unlike other protected areas, the Guassa area
of five elected elders from each of the eight peasant community-based natural resource management system also
associations. They form the Guassa committee, which oversees provides the community with valuable resources in times of
the use of the area, guards it and prosecutes illegal users. stress.
The first meeting of the Guassa committee, in view of the In general, indigenous communities have developed ways of life
decline of the area in recent years, resulted in the closure of the remarkably tuned to their local environment. Their long
area for three years starting from June 2003. It will be open association with their territories has resulted in developing
again for a few months (March - June) in 2006. The EWCP strong ties to their lands, expressed in customary laws, complex
continues to be involved by monitoring the effectiveness of the religious ceremonies, symbolic activities and extremely detailed
community management and assisting in bringing together all knowledge of their resources. Such knowledge may be deeply
stakeholders for workshops and conferences. coded within traditional lore, handed down and refined from
generation to generation.
On top of this, the people decided there was a need for a
management plan which would be recognized by the regional The long association with their environment and commitment to
government. In effect, this would mean the classification of the remaining there in the future equips indigenous communities for
area as a community-based and managed protected area – the prudent management of natural resources – even by present day
first of its kind in Ethiopia. Such a classification would secure standards. Indigenous communities have held resource
the traditional form of land-use and the livelihoods of the local management systems under complex, often overlapping tenure
community. Recently, a draft management plan was reviewed by rights, which share benefits across their community and exclude
all stakeholders. It is anticipated that the management plan will non community members. Traditional systems are in effect a
be approved by the regional Environmental Protection and Land partnership between individuals and their community, where
Use Authority, thereby giving an ownership certificate of the rules and regulations enshrined within the traditions of the
Guassa area to the communities. society ensure the smooth functioning of the system. Indigenous
systems of communal land use may therefore offer greater
Biodiversity benefits promise for sustainable conservation than Western systems.
By regulating the exploitation of the area, the ancient system However, indigenous resource management systems are
has also protected the unique and diverse fauna and flora of the undergoing rapid change and it is not clear to what extent they
area. The Guassa area harbours many of the endemic species can be maintained during changing circumstances.
of fauna and flora associated with the Afroalpine ecosystem. ■
For example, there are 22 mammal species found in the area, Zelealem Tefera. EWCP, P.O. Box 101426, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
27% of which are endemic to Ethiopia. Email: kykebero@telecom.net.et
11
R2.15
Photo: Conny Almekinders

Seed producer José Manuel in his bean field.
New bean seeds and the struggle

for their dissemination
Conny Almekinders, Eduardo Aguilar and Rolando Herrera were embarking on, they were very interested in this initiative
because the beans they were planting did not yield well. The
Pueblo Nuevo and Condega are two small villages in the support of CIPRES and the involvement of a bean breeder from
mountainous province of Segovia in northern Nicaragua, not the National Agricultural Research Institute (INTA) convinced
far from the border with Honduras. This region has always a group of 42 farmers to take part in this initiative that aimed
been an important bean and maize producing area, although the to develop new bean varieties that would fit their ecological
cultivation of tobacco and tomato picked up after 1990, providing conditions and their own specific demands.
farmers with a cash income. Increased cultivation of these crops
resulted in a serious increase of white fly populations (Bemisia developing a new variety
tabaci), generally controlled with pesticides. These insects, It was originally planned that farmers would identify a local
however, soon became resistant to the pesticides commonly used, variety that would be crossed with a variety “improved” by
leading to a higher incidence of viruses in these and other crops. a bean breeder, and that, through selection, they would then
Widespread presence of the Golden Mosaic Virus (GMV) made develop a bean variety with the characteristics they preferred.
it impossible to grow beans in the lower parts of the region. The But one of the first problems the project faced was that there
local beans did not show any resistance to the virus, and only a were no seeds readily available that they could work with. This
modern variety (‘DOR 364’) could be planted. Developed by meant that at least a year would be necessary to produce the
CIAT in Colombia and formally released in Nicaragua and other desired seeds with which the project could really start. The
countries between 1990 and 1993, ‘DOR 364’ has a dark-black group of farmers, the NGO technician and the breeder agreed
colour and does not have the culinary and commercial qualities to run a pre-trial with some crosses of which the bean breeder
of the light-red local bean varieties. As beans are one of the had enough seed. They decided that five of the farmers would
most important food crops in Central America, farmers in these host the trials. The farms of those five farmers represented
villages were facing the serious problem of having to purchase the variation in growing conditions in the area, ranging from
them to feed the family. the relative warm and dry valley areas at 600 m above sea
level to the cooler and wetter mountainous parts at 1000 m
This was the situation in 1999, when a pilot project on above sea level. These five farmers started by planting 15 rows
Participatory Plant Breeding was proposed by the Centro para with seeds from 15 different progenies (or plant “families”).
la Promoción, la Investigacion y el Desarollo Rural y Social Thereafter, together with the breeder and taking into account the
(CIPRES), a Managua-based NGO with an office in Pueblo preferences of the other 40 farmers involved in the project, the
Nuevo. Although the farmers had little clue of what they five farmer-breeders selected seeds for their next planting.
14
This part of the process lasted two years, considering that of 2002 and the first season (primera) of 2003. Based on these
self-pollinating species segregate (or produce seeds of varying results, the farmers decided against selecting only one champion
genetic makeup) approximately six generations after crossing. variety. They preferred to select two varieties for further seed
At first, the farmers selected the families with the best looking multiplication: one that did best in the lower, drier areas and
and most resistant plants, and eliminated the progenies that did one that excelled at higher elevations. The farmers who selected
not show good overall resistance to GMV. From the progenies them named them ‘Pueblo Nuevo JM 12.7’ and ‘Santa Elena’.
that did show good resistance, they selected seeds from the Farmers selected these varieties for their overall performance:
plants with an attractive architecture, and a good number of they do well at low soil fertility levels, show a good resistance
pods per plants and seeds per pod. Other important criteria to Golden Mosaic Virus, are drought tolerant and are of a
for selection were plant growth and seed filling capacity in well-liked red colour. ‘Pueblo Nuevo JM 12.7’ is especially
their drought stressed environment. Yield and grain size and liked because of its culinary qualities. The farmers’ aim was to
colour were the selection criteria used during harvest. In the distribute seeds of these varieties to other farmers and also to try
later plantings they selected the best families, while removing to earn some cash income by selling the seed.
all the plants susceptible to GMV from these families. One
could say that, in this way, each of the five farmer-breeders was Registration and commercialisation of the seed
running a small breeding program. They planted twice a year The commercialisation of their two “champion” varieties in the
on average, applied hardly any fertilizer, but did irrigate (so as formal market meant following the official regulations, which
not to risk the loss of the experiments to drought). Although the start with an obligatory registration of the variety. This requires
five farmers took the group’s criteria into consideration, their data on the performance of the genetic materials along with
final selection very much reflected their personal preferences for morphological descriptors, all of which was available from
plant type, pod load and seed filling performance. For example, the 48 verification trials. But the farmers soon realised that
one farmer was very keen to select beans that would still give presenting the data was not enough: they also needed to have a
him reasonably well-filled seeds even if the rains stopped early. legal set-up under which the varieties could be registered. With
Another farmer emphasised the ability of plants to remain the support of CIPRES, the farmers organised themselves into
standing after the torrential rains which typically follow short a co-operative, COSENUP. This co-operative was founded in
intense drought periods. After five plantings, each farmer had 2004 with 42 members, with the specific aim of controlling the
selected the seeds which performed best in his fields, and ended quality of the seed and of commercialising it. In anticipation of
up with his own “champion” variety. the registration, the bean varieties were informally “launched”
in a big celebration held in October 2004 in Pueblo Nuevo. The
These “champion” varieties were then planted in a series of news reached the local radio and newspaper.
trials for comparison. The first round of comparisons consisted
of a trial on each farmer’s land. This meant that for the first But this is where the process got stuck. Seed laws and their
time, they could compare their “champion” variety with the implications are difficult to understand, especially for a new
other four “champions” on their own farm. These trials showed and small organisation like COSENUP. In addition, there is the
how much the selections of the five farmers differed, despite the difficulty of maintaining the variety. The “owner” of a variety
fact that they had all started with the same seed. Planting was is responsible for maintaining genetically pure, basic seed.
“blind”, meaning that there were no labels to indicate which Although the farmers are convinced that they can maintain
variety was whose, although the farmer-breeders found it easy to the two new varieties, not everybody else shares this view.
recognise their own variety without any doubt. The results of the Additionally, the registration and the maintenance of pure seed
joint evaluation, involving the 40 other farmers as well, showed implies yearly costs in visits to the fields by officers of the
that these seeds were better than the varieties commonly used ministry of agriculture (which can cost up to US$ 300 per year),
(see Table 1). as well as in inputs and infrastructure (like a storage facility to
keep the seed) that are the responsibility of the “owner”.
What followed was a total of 48 evaluation trials, run in
collaboration with the breeder and the CIPRES technicians. All together, this created a hazy picture that was not easily
Seeds were planted in the second planting season (postrera) understood by the farmers and technicians. It was not quite
Table 1. Yield (kg/ha) of the five best families of beans selected by five farmer breeders
in evaluation trials on their farm.
Origin of the material (farmer)
Farmer Location of planting Juan Jose M. Pedro Santos L. Jairo Test

garcía gonzález gómez Merlo Videa variety
Juan García Santa Rosa 850 m 2005 1551 (#) 2717 2069 2127 1875
Jose M. González Paso Hondo 630 m 969 (#) 2522 2134 2134 2263 1616
Pedro Gómez La Lima 1000 m 969 839 (#) 1948 1098 1164 1551
Santos L. Merlo El Rosario 650 m 1035 1016 1180 (#) 1722 1275 1057
Jairo Videa Rio Abajo 600 m 2328 1616 1357 1482 (#) 2522 2269
(#) The selection with the highest yield in the trial
15

clear what information was missing and what was the next contact between the breeder and the farmers, and made sure
thing to do, nor who was going to do what. COSENUP farmers the plantings were correctly followed through. He mobilised
multiplied the seed for several seasons and in January 2005 resources for irrigating the plots, made sure there were good
they had a commercial volume of seeds of both varieties. But bags to store the seeds between the seasons and, something
apart from selling seed to an NGO that planned to distribute the farmers saw as very important, he inspired the farmers
it for evaluation trials in the south of Nicaragua, nobody has when they got discouraged. He also helped out if there was
shown major interest in buying their seed. Of course, there has a difficulty with the trials or when a family crisis had to be
been interest from neighbouring farmers and family members, overcome.
but the COSENUP farmers feel they cannot charge neighbours
and friends commercial prices for the seed. So, in these cases Despite the time consuming efforts, the COSENUP farmers
they give or exchange seed. Apparently, one of the factors that feel proud. The project has boosted their confidence because
discouraged farmers in other villages from buying seed was a they now have more knowledge, understand where varieties
government seed distribution programme which provided seed come from, and what is involved. Bean yields have definitely
for free. As a result, the investments made by COSENUP and increased, and farmers can again produce enough for their own
the farmer-breeders for the construction of silos to store the consumption. Selling the surplus allows them to buy more meat
seed have so far not paid off. Farmers also invested time, energy for the family, extend their house, put on a new roof or buy
and land in developing the varieties, and the lack of interest a bicycle. An interesting observation is that not only the two
for their varieties is discouraging. This represents a dilemma: “champion” varieties are grown by other farmers; they also like
formal commercialisation of a new variety is not legal without a third selection because of its drought resistance.
an expensive registration process, while it is difficult from the
beginning to know the potential demand for their seed. More Future actions
than two years after the informal launching of the two new bean Although the registration and marketing of the bean varieties
varieties, the National Seed Council (CONASEM) has now took a long time and occasionally lessened the enthusiasm of
acknowledged that the provided information is sufficient, and the farmers, the fire did not extinguish. Several farmers have
has officially approved the registration of ‘Pueblo Nuevo JM continued to work with the breeders of INTA. Some of them
12.7’ as a bean variety in April 2007. like to work with early generation bean families that are still
segregating into different genotypes, others feel this is too time-
consuming and prefer to select the best seeds from advanced,
genetically stable families. Recently, breeders and farmers have
started talking about evaluating bean varieties preferred by
the Hispanic population in the United States, discussing what
they would do differently in a new process (try out each others’
materials at earlier stages; not wait three years before doing
culinary tests). Other farmers have engaged in the development
of better maize and sorghum varieties, and some have also
asked INTA and CIPRES to bring them tomato varieties to
work with.
In the meantime, the breeders at INTA have developed new

varieties that have good grain colour and show resistance to
the Golden Mosaic Virus. And although it does not look as if
Photo: Conny Almekinders
structural changes in the breeding and production of seeds will

result, the interaction between the farmers and the breeders
has changed, as they undeniably work more closely together.
Maybe the changes in the interactions at the personal level are
even more relevant than those in the procedures of the research
institutions. In any case, despite the fact that sometimes steps
José Manuel gonzalez and his father from Pueblo Nuevo, Nicaragua are taken forwards, and at other times backwards, the overall
examine different varieties of their sixth generation bean seeds. feeling of all involved is that they are moving in a positive
direction.
n
Lessons
The overall process took three years (six plantings) of selection
and one additional year for evaluation trials. It was extremely Conny Almekinders. Department of Technology and Agrarian Development,
time consuming and difficult at times, and the farmers Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands.
E-mail: conny.almekinders@wur.nl
acknowledge that they could not have managed without the
breeder and the CIPRES technician. With the breeder they Eduardo Aguilar. Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Norwegian
University of Life Sciences, UMB. P.O. Box 5003, Aas, N-1432 Norway.
discussed the options and made the plans for the trials. Initially,
Rolando Herrera. Centro para la Promoción, la Investigacion y el Desarollo Rural y
he was seen as their instructor and teacher. But over the Social, CIPRES. Pueblo Nuevo, Nicaragua
seasons, as the farmers increased their understanding of the
selection process, the relationship between the breeder and the Reference
farmer-breeders developed into a partnership, in which they - Almekinders, C. and J. Hardon (eds.), 2006. Bringing farmers back into
breeding: Experiences with Participatory Plant Breeding and challenges for
discussed the planning on an equal footing. The NGO technician institutionalisation. Agromisa Special 5, Agromisa, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
was also crucial in the whole process. He co-ordinated the http://www.agromisalustrum.org/agromisa/agrospecials/Agromisa-AS-5-E.pdf
16

It’s time to ban highly R2.16
hazardous pesticides
Photo: Stephen Sherwood

Stephen Sherwood, donald Cole and douglas Murray
Development practitioners face difficulties persuading small holder

farmers to reduce their use of extremely and highly hazardous
pesticides. The patents on many of these pesticides expired long Banning pesticides would not mean losses in production. Farmers
ago, allowing companies to market them at bargain prices. From are increasingly relying on alternatives such as insect traps.
an agro-ecological perspective, it is ironic that nearly all are non- In this case, potato leaves are set under carton boxes around the
specific, broad spectrum insecticides that kill all insects – both margins of freshly ploughed fields.
harmful and beneficial. From a public health perspective, it is
perverse and tragic that they are the most toxic and at the same
time normally the most readily available products in the developing While difficult to demonstrate scientifically, continual exposure
world. In small villages in Asia, Africa, and Latin America even to neuro-toxins produces symptoms of depression. Depression
children can purchase highly toxics at the local store, and millions often leads people to commit self-harming acts. This has led
of farmers and their families come in contact with them routinely. some medical experts to argue that exposure to highly toxic
pesticides may contribute to the climbing number of suicide
Pesticides produce huge health burdens attempts worldwide. Regardless of whether highly toxics are
Highly toxic pesticides are associated with suicides, nervous the cause of wanting to take your life or just an effective means
system and mental health problems, not just among those who of doing so, where access to extremely and highly hazardous
spray the products but also among the entire family. Researchers pesticides has been restricted, suicide rates have fallen. Further,
who compared the status of mental health and suicides in China, research in Northern Ecuador revealed that not just those who
Sri Lanka, and the United Kingdom found that the high suicide applied pesticides were at risk. Women and young children,
rate in Sri Lanka and China is not due to higher levels of mental although not commonly active in field agriculture there, were
illness or rates of self-harm acts. People simply have easier access affected nearly as much.
to pesticides than do the residents of the U.K. Success of a suicide
attempt is directly associated with access to these pesticides, Further research demonstrated that treatment costs and work
accounting for 60 to 90 percent of suicides in Asia, Africa, and days lost impose a significant financial burden on the public
Latin America. health system and the individual. Each human poisoning (not
accounting for deaths) cost about six worker days. Chronic
exposure to highly toxic pesticides adversely affects farmer
thinking and motor performance to a level that would justify
Box 1. discovering the harmful effects of pesticides worker disability payments in wealthier countries.
When we arrived to Carchi, Ecuador in 1998 pesticides were not seen as a
problem, but rather a solution. One farmer told us, “I don’t know if I believe Alternatives exist
in a God, but I do believe in pesticides. Thanks to pesticides, my family eats.” Through studies of contamination pathways (Box 2), rural
families have learned more about how hazardous pesticides
The true costs of pesticides were hidden. To help farmers come to see regularly enter their homes. When confronted by these realities,
the harmful effects of pesticides, we employed during workshops a the agrochemical industry argued that they cannot be held
relatively disturbing activity that involved giving baby chicks a small responsible for farmers’ mis-use of pesticides, but this belies
dosage of highly toxic pesticides (usually carbofuran or methamidaphos) the industries’ own findings. According to research financed by
and observing them until they died. Participants watched and discussed the Novartis Foundation, the single largest study on pesticide
symptoms as the chicks became wobbly, incoherent and then collapsed safety concerns anywhere, it is not realistic to expect the people
over a period of about one hour. Typically, certain participants would of poor countries to manage these pesticides safely. As a result,
complain about the “murdering” of innocent chicks. Admittedly, the the study concluded, “… any pesticide manufacturer that cannot
exercise was cruel, but it was highly effective at making blindly obvious guarantee the safe handling and use of its products should
the health effects that pesticides have on farmers and their families. (To withdraw those products from the market.” While industry and
avoid having to repeat the exercise, we came to use videos of the activity.) governments continue to tout the value of “safe use” training
and education programs, these initiatives have been found
During the exercise, participants inevitably would open up and talk largely ineffectual in curbing pesticide hazards on a large scale,
about previously hidden experiences. Most admitted to becoming and they continue to encourage the general use of pesticides.
“drunk” while applying pesticides. Many said they had passed out in their Companies and governments know that the distribution and
fields, but that they did not tell anyone because they did not want to be use of highly toxic pesticides will lead to poisonings and
labelled a debilucho, a weakling. We discovered that intoxications were neurological damage of rural families, yet they are steadfast in
commonplace. We also learned that deaths due to pesticides occurred in their resistance to halting their sale.
each of the communities where we worked, often to young children.
In cases where access to extremely and highly hazardous
Commonly participants would conclude, “The fact is this is happening pesticides were restricted, no measurable negative effects
every day in our fields. We care more about the chicks than we do about occurred to rural economies (beyond perhaps, a decline in
our women and children. Something needs to be done!” This activity pesticide sales). Farmers simply found other alternatives,
never failed to shock people into action. proving that these pesticides can be substituted by switching to
non-chemical pest control or less toxic pesticides. The latter are
32
usually more expensive than highly toxics, but judicious use consumers, to support them in shifting food choices away
leads farmers to use them economically. Through knowledge- from that produced with these pesticides. The movement has
based methodologies, such as Farmer Field Schools, growers proposed that by 2010 farmers, women, and children no longer
have shown that they can eliminate the use of extremely and suffer from the sicknesses associated with chronic exposure to
highly hazardous pesticides with no losses in production. highly toxic pesticides.
Despite the claims of governments and industry, the problem
with eliminating highly toxics never has been a lack of To achieve this, agroecologists are beginning to champion the
alternatives, but rather the political will to place the interest of following grassroots actions:
the public over those of influential private actors.
• Organize information campaigns based on existing studies
Policy initiatives that demonstrate the health, economic, and environmental
Corporate influence over government policy has resulted in a consequences associated with the use of highly toxics.
failure to control pesticide hazards through traditional forms of • Promote the continuous learning on organically based
regulation throughout much of the developing world. This has alternatives to pesticides, in particular through farmer-
led the FAO’s Director of Plant Production and Protection, to to-farmer exchanges. This should include programs on
go beyond calls for the implementation of additional modest “ecological literacy” – that is, helping rural people to learn
policy reforms such as the FAO Code of Conduct, and call for how to manage their farm ecologies for their benefit.
the elimination of extremely and highly hazardous pesticides
• Protest and boycott the purchase and consumption of foods
altogether. In a bold public statement, he said, “There is no
such as tomatoes, potatoes, and bananas when the seller
way to ensure the chemicals involved would be used within
cannot guarantee that they were produced free of highly toxic
acceptable margins of risk in developing countries”. A few
pesticides.
developing countries, including China, Thailand and Viet Nam,
are beginning to prohibit the use of the most toxic pesticides. • Demand that government regulatory agencies place a label
Other governments are being called upon to follow these on products that are produced with highly toxic pesticides,
examples and speed up their withdrawal from markets the informing that the purchase of that product indirectly
world over. contributes to the poisoning of men, women, and children of
rural communities.
Despite such examples, however, most politicians have not • Demand that government agencies, the Ministry of
shown the willingness to confront the pesticide industry over Education, local governments, the FAO, and other national
the sale and distribution of these products. As a result, most and international organisations do not accept financing from
countries continue to permit their sale and distribution and companies that produce, sell, or distribute highly toxics.
companies promote them aggressively, including through cut- Further, public agencies should not collaborate in safe use
rate pricing. When publicly questioned about this, industry programmes of highly toxic pesticides, since it is known
representatives and government officials typically blame that they cannot be used safely under the conditions of
farmers, talk about inadequate monitoring resources or call for developing countries. Instead, programmes should focus on
more studies. Yet during an informal meeting, a representative the elimination of the use of highly toxics.
from a large pesticide company told one of the authors: “We
know the days of highly toxics are numbered. The industry has • Establish ties with other like-minded international
been planning alternatives for several decades. Nevertheless, movements in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia to
it will continue to sell highly toxic pesticides until it becomes demand greater corporate responsibility.
either economically or politically unviable to do so.” • Join with NGOs and social movements around the world
in promoting private certification and other systems that
Taking charge through grassroots action guarantee the elimination of highly toxic products.
In order to make extremely and highly hazardous pesticides
“politically unviable” greater public pressure is needed. In We urge LEISA practitioners and readers from throughout the
Ecuador, members of the national agroecology movement world to consider similar actions in alliance with other sectors
have proposed the elimination of these products. In addition of society.
to working with growers, they see the need to work with n LEISA MAGAZINE 23.3 SEPTEMBER 2007
Stephen Sherwood. Andes Area Program, World Neighbors. Los Motilones

N40-598 y Carlos Guevara, 3 piso. Casilla Postal 17-17-97, Quito, Ecuador.
Box 2. Exposure pathways E-mail: ssherwood@wnandes.org
To illustrate pesticide exposure pathways, we employed a “tracer”– a Donald Cole. Department of Public Health Services, University of Toronto,
non-toxic fluorescent powder that glowed under ultraviolet light. Working Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada.
with community volunteers, we added the tracer powder to the liquid Douglas Murray. Department of Sociology and Center for Fair and Alternative
in backpack sprayers and asked farmers to apply as normally. At night Trade Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, U.S.A.
we visited homes with ultraviolet lights and video cameras to identify References
exposure pathways. During video presentations, community members - BBC World Service, 2004. Dying to make a living. A two-part radio programme
were astonished to see the tracer not only on the hands and face of on pesticide poisonings in northern Ecuador that is available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1646_dying/.htm
applicators, but also on their young children who played in fields. We also
- Bertolote, J.M., A. Fleischmann, A. Butchart, and N. Besbelli, 2006. Suicide,
found traces on clothing and throughout the house, such as around wash suicide attempts and pesticides: A major hidden public health problem. Bulletin
areas, on beds and even on the kitchen table. The tracer study helped of the World Health Organization. April. 84:4:260-261.
people discover how pesticides entered to home and how those who did - Murray, D., P. Taylor, 2000. Claim no easy victories: Evaluating the pesticide
industry’s global safe use campaign. World Development, 28(10):1735-1749.
not apply pesticides, in particular women and children, became exposed. - Pretty, J. (ed.)., 2005. The pesticide detox: Towards a more sustainable
agriculture. Earthscan Publications, London, U.K.
33

R3. Photo gallery
India Photo 1
Photo: S. Jayaraj
Eritrea Photo 3
Photo:

Indonesia Photo 2
Photo: Euis Holisoh
Vietnam Photo 3
Photo: Luke Simmons

Ecuador Photo 4
Photo: R. Lemoyne, CIDA
India Photo 5
Photo: Green Foundation

The Netherlands Photo 6

Photo: Hans Peter Reinders
Honduras Photo 7
Photo: Faris Ahmed

Niger Photo 8
Photo: Peter Cunningham
China Photo 9
Photo: CBIK

India Photo 10
Photo: Abnay Ghande
Brazil Photo 11
Photo: Arquivo APACC

Uganda Photo 12
Photo: Flemming Nielsen
China Photo 13
Photo: CBIK

Kenya Photo 14
Uganda Photo 15

Cuba Photo 16
Photo: UBPC Vivero Alamar


Module 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEARNING

Module 3 (interim version)

Published by ileia, This publication forms part of the Learning

Ileia uses the Attribution-Noncommercial-

Authors: Mundie Salm, ileia

Frank van Steenbergen (MetaMeta) and Willem

What is in it and how can it be used?

Learning AgriCultures: Insights from sustainable small-scale farming

Module 1 • Sustainable small-scale farming

This module describes different aspects of mixed cropping practices. It also

Summary of this module 4

LEARNING BLOCK 2: CROPPING ISSUES IN 31

2.4 Management of weeds, pests and diseases 42

LEARNING BLOCK 3: GOVERNANCE 49

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR MODULE 3 59

R2 Articles about practical experiences 66

R3. Photo gallery 77

R5. Farmer visit and field exercises 84

R6. Further references for Module 3 86

How to teach Module 3

Glossary for the whole series

Making a lesson plan

Example of a Lesson Plan

Lesson The implications of mixing crops in small-scale farming

Objectives After completion of this session participants are able to:

Prerequisite Introduction to cropping systems’ ecological interactions

Time Content Teaching method Teaching aid

15 Central question: What is Introduction: agrobiodiversity Blackboard,

Time Content Teaching method Teaching aid

45 Central question: How can different Introduction: mixed cropping Blackboard,

80 Central question: What different ways are Brainstorm: Blackboard,

10 Concluding remarks about small-scale Wrap up and explain group exercise.

Mohanty Adivasi woman harvesting millet in India, photo from ORRISSAA

How do small-scale farmers around the world

1.2 Distinguishing aspects of crops

It is very difficult to make generalisations about crops because of their extreme

1.2.1 Crop products

1.2.2 Scientific classification

Box 1: How does symbiosis between legumes and rhizobia work?

• Genus: This is the “generic” or common name given to a specific group of

well-known species such as Brassica oleracea (cabbage, cauliflower, etc.),

more likely to have a combination of desired traits.

In recent times, the study of genetics has led to a greater understanding of

1.3 Crops as part of a system of interactions

To understand issues of sustainability and small-scale farming it is helpful to

Figure 7: Crops as part of a

The soil is home to a tremendous number of micro-organisms that make up a

Box 2: Mycorrhizal fungi and crops (modified from Habte, 2006)

1.3.2 Crop interactions with other plants

fixed by the root nodules in beans, a leguminous crop.

Sunlight and shade

1.3.3 Crop interactions with animals

1.3.4 Crops and farmers

1.4 Farm management and cropping systems

Farmers’ selection, seed-saving and exchange activities have allowed them to

Box 3: What is Agrobiodiversity?

Despite ongoing development of crop diversity by farmers, overall crop genetic

has led to tremendous positive benefits – in particular higher food production

Small-scale multiple cropping systems tend to have higher productivity in terms

timing and sequence of crops.

fertility demands and contributions (e.g. replenishing nitrogen by planting

Diversity at the crop-field boundaries

1.5 Sources for this learning block

• Genus: This is the “generic” or common name given to a specific group of

1.3 Crops as part of a system of interactions

• Altieri, Miguel A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in

• Ashworth, Suzanne. 2002. Seed to seed: Seed saving and growing

• Bioversity International. 2010 Why biodiversity matters; Cereals.

• Brookfield, Harold, Helen Parsons and Muriel Brookfield (eds). 2003.

• FAO. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity, multifunctional character of

• FAO. 2005. Classification of crops. Appendix 3 in: A system of integrated

• Habte, Mitiku. 2006. The roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant

• Ileia editorial team. 2006. Ecological processes at work. LEISA Magazine

• Kew Royal Botanic Gardens. 2000. Kew information sheet: Studying

• Pimbert, Michel. 2009. Theme overview: Women and food

• Römheld, Volker and Neumann, Günter. 2006. The rhizosphere:

nvironmental and health risks: there is concern about risks of unforeseen

• Conflicting values: Some people find the generation and use of GM

2.4.2 I ntegrated pest (and weed)

2.5 Intensification of crop management

• Almekinders, Conny and de Boef, Walter. 1999. The challenge of

• Altieri, Miguel A. and Nicholls, Clara I. 2004. Biodiversity and pest

• Bioversity International. 2010. www.bioversity.org. International Plant

• FAO. 2008. Progress on farmer training in parasitic weed

• Greenfacts. 2007. Scientific facts on forests. www.greenfacts.org. GreenFacts,

• Greenfacts. 2005. Scientific facts on genetically modified crops. www.greenfacts.

• ISAAA. 2010. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: The first

• Kenmore, Peter. 1997. A perspective on IPM. LEISA Newsletter 13(4): 8-9.

• MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (International assessment

3.2.1 I nvolving farmers in rural planning

3.2.3 I ncluding farmers in formal research,

3.3 Policies supporting sustainable cropping

• Hardon, Jaap J. 2004. Plant patents beyond control: Biotechnology,

• Ileia. 2003. Editorial: Access to and control over resources. LEISA

• Lockie, Stewart and Carpenter, David. 2010. Agriculture, biodiversity and