Sophie Caillon

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.

Biodiversity: negotiating the border between nature and culture

In a context of globalization, Article 8j. from the Convention on Biological Diversity recognizes the value of biodiversity and formalizes its mixed nature through its biological as well as cultural dimensions. This new definition raises questions more than it solves them. We demonstrate that national and international organizations, local communities, and even researchers from different disciplines (anthropology, botany or genetics) identify and evaluate biodiversity differently. The various stakeholder groups have developed an unavoidable social relation with multiple aspects of biodiversity that they relate to through their job or way of life. And therefore, they pursue various conservation purposes: the preservation of place’s memory through ancestral links, cultural diversity, phenotypic variability or evolutionary potential. Which disciplinary and ethical boundaries are these actors willing to compromise, in order to preserve biodiversity in the name of development? Which indicators should we choose to fulfil which goals? The contrasting examples of taro (a socially valued object, planted on taro pondfields inherited “from the ancestors”, linked to an important cultural diversity and to a narrow genetic-base) and coconut (a socially devalued object, cultivated in coconut plantations at the prompting of “the Whites” and genetically diverse despite few named types) demonstrate that same farmers from a village in Vanuatu (South Pacific) affirm traditional ecological knowledge though their management of taro, and still participate in a market economy by intensifying their crop of coconuts. Conservation and research programs should integrate ethical questions and political processes to reconcile systems of diversified values and representations.

Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales

Monitoring and evaluation are central to ensuring that innovative, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability are effective. The development of relevant indicators for local sustainable management outcomes, and the ability to link these to broader national and international policy targets, are key challenges for resource managers, policymakers, and scientists. Sets of indicators that capture both ecological and social-cultural factors, and the feedbacks between them, can underpin cross-scale linkages that help bridge local and global scale initiatives to increase resilience of both humans and ecosystems. Here we argue that biocultural approaches, in combination with methods for synthesizing across evidence from multiple sources, are critical to developing metrics that facilitate linkages across scales and dimensions. Biocultural approaches explicitly start with and build on local cultural perspectives — encompassing values, knowledges, and needs — and recognize feedbacks between ecosystems and human well-being. Adoption of these approaches can encourage exchange between local and global actors, and facilitate identification of crucial problems and solutions that are missing from many regional and international framings of sustainability. Resource managers, scientists, and policymakers need to be thoughtful about not only what kinds of indicators are measured, but also how indicators are designed, implemented, measured, and ultimately combined to evaluate resource use and well-being. We conclude by providing suggestions for translating between local and global indicator efforts.Biocultural approaches combining local values, knowledge, and needs with global ecological factors provide a fruitful indicator framework for assessing local and global well-being and sustainability, and help bridge the divide between them.

Globalization in the Brazilian Amazon Region: Conflicting Answers from “Quilombo” Communities

Globalization is a process that encompasses the accelerated and simultaneous circulation of ideas, goods, and human beings (Appadurai, 1996). In an Amazonian context, this chapter aims at analyzing the impacts of particular land status ownership on the resilience and flexibility of traditional communities facing globalization (Kramer et al, 2009). The Amazon has been part of the global market since the 16th century: from the drogas do Sertao, through the rubber boom, to Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa) and acai (Euterpe oleracea), the global demand for Amazonian products has played a crucial role in the phases of human population of this rich basin (Bunker, 1985). Mark Harris (2006), following Moran and Parker, characterizes the “cabocla” populations by their ecological adaptations as well as their economic versatility. During the 1990s and 2000s, a great number of “traditional” and/or indigenous communities were granted land rights in Brazil. Innovative legal statuses were created, either for the sake of environmental protection or as a function of the peculiar special social status of some social groups, mainly indigenous people and remnants of escaped slave communities (i.e. remnant quilombola communities). At the core of these rights is the recognition of a “special relationship” between these traditional communities and their territories. Due to the acknowledgement of this particular link, almost 30% of the Legal Amazon is officially under the responsibility of traditional communities.1 However, traditional communities are now facing contradictory pressures induced by Brazilian public policies and globalization. On the one hand, they were granted land under