Shawn McGuire

Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review.

The circulation of seed among farmers is central to agrobiodiversity conservation and dynamics. Agrobiodiversity, the diversity of agricultural systems from genes to varieties and crop species, from farming methods to landscape composition, is part of humanity’s cultural heritage. Whereas agrobiodiversity conservation has received much attention from researchers and policy makers over the last decades, the methods available to study the role of seed exchange networks in preserving crop biodiversity have only recently begun to be considered. In this overview, we present key concepts, methods, and challenges to better understand seed exchange networks so as to improve the chances that traditional crop varieties (landraces) will be preserved and used sustainably around the world. The available literature suggests that there is insufficient knowledge about the social, cultural, and methodological dimensions of environmental change, including how seed exchange networks will cope with changes in climates, socio-economic factors, and family structures that have supported seed exchange systems to date. Methods available to study the role of seed exchange networks in the preservation and adaptation of crop specific and genetic diversity range from meta-analysis to modelling, from participatory approaches to the development of bio-indicators, from genetic to biogeographical studies, from anthropological and ethnographic research to the use of network theory. We advocate a diversity of approaches, so as to foster the creation of robust and policy-relevant knowledge. Open challenges in the study of the role of seed exchange networks in biodiversity conservation include the development of methods to (i) enhance farmers’ participation to decision-making in agro-ecosystems, (ii) integrate ex situ and in situ approaches, (iii) achieve interdisciplinary research collaboration between social and natural scientists, and (iv) use network analysis as a conceptual framework to bridge boundaries among researchers, farmers and policy makers, as well as other stakeholders.

Payments for ecosystem services in an African protected area: exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness

We explore the potential for payments for ecosystem services (PES) to reconcile conservation and development goals, using a case study of an experimental PES intervention around the Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. The scheme involves the purchase of biodiversity conservation services from local communities in four selected locations. Although a portion of the payment is awarded at the household level, it is the collective action of the community that determines the level of the payment. Contracts are negotiated annually and include performance indicators within each participating community. We examine the ability of PES to achieve conservation and development objectives, through three sub-questions: Is the PES scheme effective? Is it legitimate and fair? Is it equitable? Our findings indicate that the relationship between these evaluation criteria is complex, with both trade-offs and synergies. In this case study the effectiveness of PES is dependent on the equitable distribution of the payment, participants’ belief and acceptance of the service being paid for, institutional histories that aid in the establishment of legitimacy and fairness, and the complementary nature of PES to more conventional enforcement methods.

UNDERSTANDING AND STRENGTHENING INFORMAL SEED MARKETS

SUMMARY Informal markets receive little attention from governments and researchers, despite their centrality to farmers’ seed security. This paper documents the importance of informal markets for supplying seed and restocking critical plant genetic resources in normal and stress periods. It analyses farmers’ rationales for using such markets and their strategic actions in selecting out seed from grain. Conceptual aids for differentiating among market goods ‐ grain, ‘implicit seed’ and seed ‐ are presented, including tracing of agro-ecologicalseedsources,traders’seedmanagementbehaviourandseed/grainpricepatterns.Ethiopian case material gives rare insight into how different scales of traders manage the seed/grain divide. Better understanding of informal markets is an important precursor to strengthening them as such markets have unrealized potential to deliver more and higher quality seed, and a greater range of modern and local varieties. Support for informal seed markets could usefully feature in rural livelihood and social protection programmes, but this will require basic shifts in interventions and further refinements in market analysis.

Vulnerability in Farmer Seed Systems: Farmer Practices for Coping with Seed Insecurity for Sorghum in Eastern Ethiopia

Many interventions try to address farmers’ seed insecurity, though few assess the causes of farmers’ vulnerability or understand their coping strategies. This paper analyzes farmers’ practices for maintaining sorghum seed security in a specific season (1998–99) in Ethiopia, which provides a richer picture of coping strategies than accounts of “general” practices, as it shows how responses reflect events unfolding over time and household-specific situations. High seeding rates ensure against environmental uncertainty, but not everyone has sufficient seed for repeated sowing should stands fail to establish. Off-farm seed fills this gap, though payment is usually required for substantial quantities; only 20% of seed from other farmers came for free in 1998. Differences between seed suppliers and recipients suggest indicators for chronic seed insecurity. The discussion explores implications for supporting farmers’ coping strategies. Helping the poorest farmers access off-farm seed, from other farmers or from merchants, can reduce their vulnerability.

Measuring effectiveness, efficiency and equity in an experimental Payments for Ecosystem Services trial

Highlights • The main advantage of the payment scheme was a shift away from for-fear motivations for conservation.• Incorporating equity concerns into the design likely contributed to this advantageous outcome.• Equity is proposed to contribute to the long-term efficiency of the intervention.• Controlled trials for Payments for Ecosystem Services are problematic due to need for double-blinding.

The links between food security and seed security: facts and fiction that guide response

The food price crisis has led to assumptions that food price rises are due to inadequate food production, and that such food insecurity is linked to seed insecurity. Hence, in response to high food prices, seed resources worth hundreds of millions of US dollars are being shipped into vulnerable farming systems across the world. This article examines the evidence for linking food security to seed security, particularly in acute contexts, and shows how the challenges facing security features of availability, access, and utilisation are markedly different when assessing food security and seed security scenarios. The need for sharper thinking about (a) seed security strategy in itself and (b) the causal links between food security and seed security raises questions about supply-side responses which may wrongly identify both the problem and the solution. The article closes by suggesting ways to refine seed security goals which can provide more refined strategies for addressing food security needs.

Fatal gaps in seed security strategy

Seed security initiatives are proliferating in both developmental and crisis contexts but the field as a whole is weak in critical thinking. Two gaps in particular are explored in this paper: the need to set explicit seed security goals and the need to ensure balance among the security elements of availability, access and quality. Differences in the planning and implementing of seed security initiatives are examined in some detail for programs that variously aim for: food production, nutritional enhancement, system resilience, and income generation. Results show that one seed security program is not like another and that features such as partner choice, product design, delivery and awareness-raising strategy need to be tailored to meet the overarching goals. The paper closes with five key policy and programming recommendations.

The power of “farmer friendly” financial incentives to deliver climate smart agriculture: a critical data gap

It is well documented that small-scale farmers in the developing world can achieve impressive local successes despite their poverty and acute vulnerability to climate change by adopting proven ‘‘climate smart’’ technologies. Specifically, they can greatly increase farm production despite growing climate change impacts while also helping mitigate global climate change. The critical challenge is to address the barriers to scaling up these local successes. This view is increasingly widespread, although linking agricultural production and climate resilience objectives with carbon sequestration objectives is not without its critics. Some fear that emphasising these ‘‘win–win outcomes’’ could have adverse impacts on farmers, notably that commodifying carbon could lead to weakening farmers’ rights to and control over their land. We are more optimistic about the potential for win–win outcomes across diverse landscapes, based on the numerous documented local successes. The outstanding questions involve the scope for ensuring that these outcomes consistently benefit local communities and for scaling up local successes to a majority of vulnerable farmers. We believe these objectives will remain elusive unless new cost-effective delivery mechanisms can be found. We posit an innovative but untested solution to address this challenge, and call for empirical research to examine its potential. We start from the premise that while current approaches can deliver local successes, they are ill-suited to scaling up successes due to their high costs per beneficiary, creating a need for a ‘‘slimmed down’’ delivery formula, ideally one that simultaneously benefits those providing finance. We hypothesise that ‘‘farmer friendly’’ financial incentives could address this gap, delivering rapid scaling up of climate smart innovations across small-scale farming communities at an affordable cost. At present, financial incentives for farmers to adopt these innovations are offered primarily via the carbon market, for instance, via community forestry projects. Yet existing schemes offer farmers poor terms and only achieve successful outcomes by providing support services that are not replicable at scale. The danger is that halting early experiences could discredit climate finance initiatives that create financial incentives for small-scale farmers before their potential has been explored, causing a golden opportunity to be missed. Fresh research is urgently needed to establish whether ‘‘farmer friendly’’ financial incentives offer a viable solution. We focus on the need for proof of concept, and stop short of discussing institutional requirements to implement this solution. Needless to say, we appreciate Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2012, 201–217

Incorporating gender into low-emission development: a case study from Vietnam

Abstract Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture is needed to meet global climate policy targets. A number of low-emission development (LED) options exist in agriculture, which globally emits 10–12% of GHG emissions. In paddy rice production, alternative wetting and drying (AWD) can reduce emissions by up to 48%. Co-benefits of AWD include lower water consumption, lower use of fertilizer and seeds, and higher resistance to some pests and diseases. These are expected to result in improved benefits for individual farmers while lowering the sector’s overall contribution to GHG emissions. Women are strongly involved in rice production, hence improving their access to AWD technology, participation in decisions about it, and capacity to use it influences AWD adoption and resulting emissions. Involving women in AWD and LED more broadly also can provide distributional and procedural justice gains for women. The authors develop a conceptual model to show how these issues can be integrated. They suggest that intermediary organizations such as farmer associations and women’s organizations are central to enabling women to realize their personal goals while allowing gender to be taken to scale in LED, as is the case for other technology interventions. This requires work to expand their social capacities. A case study developed from work on taking gender-responsive LED to scale in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, illustrates the model.