Explore the vast range of titles available.

The conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are issues that have been high on the policy agenda since the first Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. As part of efforts to implement in situ conservation, a methodology referred to as community biodiversity management (CBM) has been developed by those engaged in this arena. CBM contributes to the empowerment of farming communities to manage their biological resources and make informed decisions on the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity. This book is the first to set out a clear overview of CBM as a methodology for meeting socio-environmental changes. CBM is shown to be a key strategy that promotes community resilience, and contributes to the conservation of plant genetic resources. The authors present the underlying concepts and theories of CBM as well as its methodology and practices, and introduce case studies primarily from Brazil, Ethiopia, France, India, and Nepal. Contributors include farmers, leaders of farmers' organizations, professionals from conservation and development organizations, students and scientists. The book offers inspiration to all those involved in the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity within livelihood development and presents ideas for the implementation of farmers' rights. The wide collection of experiences illustrates the efforts made by communities throughout the world to cope with change while using diversity and engaging in learning processes. It links these grassroots efforts with debates in policy arenas as a means to respond to the unpredictable changes, such as climate change, that communities face in sustaining their livelihoods.

Ex situ and in situ conservation is distinguished as separate conservation strategies by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Agrobiodiversity is increasingly approached by conservation and development organizations in the context of sustainable livelihood development, rather than as a means to solely achieve conservation. Community bio-diversity management (CBM) is a methodology whereby conservation and development organizations, through a participatory process, help to build community-based organizations and strengthen their capabilities to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of agro-bioversity. CBM evolved only gradually from practice to a methodology. CBM includes many practices that are used both by community-based organizations (CBOs) concerned with conservation and use, and by external stakeholders that aim to strengthen communities in conservation and livelihood development. Rural poetry and drama are innovative practices of creating awareness on the value of biodiversity, and of documenting traditional knowledge and information.

Millions of farmers depend on the use of local crops and varieties for their food and livelihood. These resources constitute a reservoir of alternative traits and characteristics, which allow us to diversify crops, foods and farming methods and provide material for targeted plant breeding. Still, many countries lag behind in providing support to farming communities for the maintenance and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). A global survey was conducted among a wide range of stakeholders to gain insights into the state of on-farm management (OFM) as a strategy for enhancing the maintenance and sustainable use of PGRFA. The survey showed that a wide range of stakeholders provide de facto support to OFM and that the practices they consider critical are focused on building capabilities in local communities. This supports the fact that the management of crop diversity on farm can be promoted in a variety of ways, depending on the specific context, and that local solutions are needed to successfully support OFM. Partnerships and networks should be considered as one of the critical means to promote OFM, as they involve a diversity of stakeholders working towards common goals. The survey further showed that many respondents currently contribute to existing networks relevant to OFM, but that these networks are mainly nationally or internationally oriented and might therefore exclude crucial local stakeholders, such as community-based organizations. Therefore, mechanisms should be put in place to strengthen the collaboration between stakeholders and networks, especially at the local level.

A global survey was conducted among a wide range of stakeholders to gain insight into the state of on-farm management (OFM) as a strategy for enhancing the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The results show that OFM is not considered a priority in national PGRFA programmes (NPGRPs), and that OFM practitioners and their organizations are not always aware of, or involved in, NPGRPs. The survey also highlighted the lack of awareness, understanding and collaboration between OFM practitioners and the managers and policy-makers associated with NPGRPs. The outcome of the analysis supports a hypothesis that OFM is, to a large extent, supported by stakeholders who are not directly engaged in the conservation and use of PGRFA, and therefore not associated with NPGRPs. This should be taken into consideration when seeking to improve the performance and impact of national programmes, and their commitment to safeguard PGRFA and contribute to food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable agriculture.

Community biodiversity management (CBM) is a process or methodology made up of a set of practices. It is the strength of the sequence and combination of practices in which community members engage themselves, either autonomously or supported by conservation and development organizations, that results in the collective and conscious management of agrobiodiversity. Only when this situation emerges can the in situ conservation or on-farm management of agrobiodiversity be achieved (De Boef and Thijssen, Chapter 1.8). Part II focuses on sharing a range of practices that are commonly used by different types of organizations, complementing the series of more introductory, conceptual descriptions of CBM processes presented in Part I.

When we describe agricultural biodiversity as the 'complex patchwork of dynamic relations between people, plants, animals, other organisms and their environment', our attention is drawn to the 'people' who develop and use, and thereby maintain agricultural biodiversity for their livelihoods, in all its levels (De Boef and Thijssen, Chapter 1.8). Plant genetic resource conservation strategies and community biodiversity management (CBM) primarily focus on local crops and varieties, as can be seen in many of the case studies discussed in this book. As a result of this, we tend to ignore dynamic relations between farming communities and agro-ecosystems, or, more specifically, the landscapes. In the current section, the authors share a number of relevant concepts and insights that approach agrobiodiversity at both landscapes and species levels, and which are supported by a series of case studies from Brazil, complemented by those from Ethiopia and India, that all focus on the relationship between people, biodiversity and landscapes.

A common feature among conservation and development organizations supporting community biodiversity management (CBM) is that they strengthen the capabilities of farming communities in marketing what we refer to as agrobiodiversity products (i.e. those based on the local crops and varieties that farmers cultivate, and on non-timber forest products that they gather from their agricultural landscape). In many cases, value addition is incorporated into the CBM processes to increase the income generated from this specific livelihood asset of farming households or communities. Market-based actions have become part of the CBM methodology to create incentives for farming communities to continue to use local crops and varieties (Jarvis et al., 2011). The chapters in Part IV share some experiences from Asia and Europe; a number of chapters throughout this book approach the value addition and marketing of agrobiodiversity products in Ethiopia, Ecuador and various regions of Brazil as an individual component of a larger process of CBM or participatory crop improvement.

Participatory crop improvement (PCI) is based on a series of methods in which farmers and scientists collaborate in plant breeding with the basic objective of more effectively addressing the needs of farmers in the marginal areas of developing countries (Almekinders and Elings, 2001; Morris and Bellon, 2004; Ceccarelli et al., 2009). A second and often considered secondary objective is that PCI contributes to the in situ conservation or rather the on-farm management of plant genetic resources (PGR). This objective is based on the assumption that the diversity of farmers' preferences, and the environments in which they cultivate their crops and varieties, results in the local selection and use of a diversity of materials that is wider than when one or two broadly adapted varieties are introduced and disseminated over large areas (Witcombe et al., 2001; Jarvis et al., 2011). A third objective for PCI, which is expressed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in particular, is the potential to contribute to the empowerment of farmers in agricultural research and development, and agrobiodiversity management (Almekinders et al., 2006). This third objective relates to policy goals and to the creation of mechanisms through which farmers can express their rights (Andersen, Chapter 6.2) and can share benefits from the use of genetic resources in a fair and equitable manner (Vernooy and Ruiz, Chapter 6.4).

Despite the fact that both the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) recognize the importance of the in situ conservation strategy, formal plant genetic resources (PGR) programmes have been slow to implement it. As indicated by Thijssen et al. (Chapter 1.1), those programmes face the dilemma of how to incorporate in situ conservation activities into their day-to-day work, or rather, following the terminology of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 1996), how to contribute to on-farm management. Few are purposely engaged in on-farm management. Dias et al. (Chapter 2.5) describe, for example, how public gene banks associated with the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) promote the reintroduction of accessions to farming communities. Feyissa et al. (Chapter 1.4) outline how, since 1989, the Institute of Biodiversity Conservation in Ethiopia (then known as the Plant Genetic Resources Centre/Ethiopia) has been implementing activities for contributing to on-farm management by supporting the establishment of community seed banks. Other national and international PGR programmes have a strong association with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The agrobiodiversity project in Nepal, described by Subedi et al. (Chapter 1.2), was successful because of the partnerships it fostered between the NGO Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD) and national (National Agricultural Research Council) and international (Bioversity International) PGR programmes. The PGR programme in Ecuador has developed a strong linkage with a community-based organization (CBO), as illustrated by Tapia and Carrera (Chapter 2.3). Following the reintroduction of gene bank accessions, the national programme supported the CBO through practices such as diversity fairs, diversity blocks and awareness-raising on agrobiodiversity in tourism and education. Kendall and Gras (Chapter 1.7 of) describe how the Maison de la Semence Paysanne of AgroBio Périgord accesses germplasm from the public gene bank in France, though the farmer management of these materials is further sustained through informal structures independent from the public conservation programme. Moreover, most public PGR programmes that contribute to on-farm management are either experimental (e.g. the agrobiodiversity project in Nepal), or depend on specific funding (most other examples). They are neither implemented as part of mainstream PGR programmes, nor funded through government resources destined for PGR conservation.

Empowerment can be defined as a process of transformation that involves enhancing the awareness of poorer people of imbalances in power relations (Chambers, 1993); only then can they make effective choices to transform those imbalances and put these choices into practice. Empowerment is reached when these poorer people conclude such a transformation, are capable of reflecting upon the effectiveness of the choices, and thereby further engage themselves in this process of empowerment.