Back

Policy Lessons for Supporting On-farm Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity: Lessons from six case studies in Eastern and Southern Africa

Click here to see powerpoint presentations summarising:

Many of the policy lessons from the project case studies relate to the general thrust of government economic policies: the evidence from them implies that the impact of these policies on the sustainable maintenance and use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm is in practice more substantial than that of specific policies on agricultural biodiversity conservation and use. In this document, we define policy to include both content and the institutional framework in which it is implemented, in other words all that government must provide or enable.

It is important to take heed of these policy lessons because it is now widely accepted that progress on the ground with implementation of biodiversity conservation, including in agriculture, has been slow: it is time to move on from research and analysis to action. Conservative estimates suggest some US$ 45 billion a year is needed to conserve the essential components of biodiversity, and yet only a small fraction of this amount will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. At the same time, many analysts are pushing for the productive sectors - agriculture, forestry and fisheries - to be at the centre of biodiversity conservation strategies. All the more reason to ensure the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity by farmers on their own farms is supported rather than penalised by government economic policies.

Government statement of political support
A government statement of political support for on-farm biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm was identified as essential in all our case studies. For example, both the Farmer Field Schools in Kenya and the organic durum wheat production in Ethiopia really took off once there had been a clear government statement of support. For this to be forthcoming, politicians and bureaucrats need clear evidence of how supporting the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm benefits national political priorities such as poverty alleviation, economic growth, reduction of the government deficit. In the countries participating in the HIPC initiative, this must relate to the priorities set out in the PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme) - the key national planning document in HIPC countries.

Providing convincing evidence is more vital than identifying modalities for the way revised policies could be implemented. The evidence must cite who benefits ("institutional" and "stakeholder" analysis) in addition to how much ("cost-benefit" analysis), because politicians make decisions in these terms. Without this evidence, the widespread lack of political commitment to agricultural biodiversity conservation is set to continue.

An important point to bear in mind is that it is now recognised internationally that "poverty" means much more than lack of income, and includes food security, adequate health, emotional fulfilment, social engagement, and political participation. As the case studies have shown, supporting the maintenance and sustainable use on-farm of agricultural biodiversity can make significant contributions to alleviating poverty in these other dimensions, and this needs emphasising. For example, Ipongo Development Programme in Zambia was ranked highly by farmers for its contribution to community cohesion via its work with farmer groups.

Unfortunately, as yet there are no internationally accepted indicators to measure the impact of agricultural biodiversity conservation on poverty reduction, although the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is working on this (for more on this, see links). But we believe our six case study projects provide convincing qualitative evidence at grass-roots level (see case study reports for more on this).

Economic policies
Over the last 15-20 years in Eastern and Southern Africa, the same as in much of the rest of the world, structural adjustment and economic reform have changed many aspects of government policy. The case study evidence suggests that, in addition to statements of political support, three aspects in particular have increased the incentives and possibilities for the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm. These are as follows.

  • Government services
    One of the major planks of structural adjustment and economic reform - and seen in all the case study countries - is the reduction of direct government involvement in markets (eg buying produce, selling inputs) and service delivery (eg agricultural extension).

    On the one hand, this has created an incentive for farmers to join local projects, to get help with marketing and access to services. This is the case for IDP and OPPAZ in Zambia, and for FFS in Kenya.

    • Over the longer term, however, it may also constrain replication and scaling up of the projects (see below for more on this). For example, in the FFS project in Kenya it is recognised that successful replication and scaling up depends significantly on keeping funding chains short: without government staff operating at local level, this will be difficult.
  • Fiscal regime
    Another significant aspect of economic reform concerns the tax regime: an important aim (amongst others) is to change the type of taxes so they do not distort the way the national economy operates. Reducing export levies (which discourage the export of local production) has helped a number of the case study projects tap into the lucrative international market for organic produce.
  • Trade liberalisation
    This means removing rules and regulations that limit imports and exports, with the same aim as changing the fiscal regime (above). The reduction in export controls has been a major enabling factor for the case study projects aimed at tapping into the international market for organic produce (OPPAZ in Zambia, EOSA in Ethiopia). (Of course, removing limitations on local exports is only helpful if there are no barriers to imports in the receiving countries - in Northern countries, substantial import barriers remain for many basic agricultural products from the South).

Public sector investment priorities
These three examples might give the impression that the best government policy is to withdraw and let rural people get on with things. This is not the case: the case study evidence shows there are two areas in particular where government contributions are important, as follows.

  • Public infrastructure
    There are a number of infrastructure investments that need to be made if an economy is to function properly, but which are not usually attractive to the private sector because they are not profitable. Roads, education and health services are general examples.

    Most of the case study projects are in areas with poor road infrastructure, although not necessarily geographically remote. This increases project costs and has a negative impact on longer-term sustainability, once the project no longer exists to provide on-the-spot access to inputs, outputs and advice. Investing in roads infrastructure is therefore an important contribution that governments can make. This does not necessarily mean technically complicated black tar roads to all locations, but it does mean the construction and maintenance of a basic national road network - into which local roads, possibly constructed and maintained on a community self-help basis, can feed.

    From the farmer scoring exercises in each case study, additional knowledge on production techniques was one of the main components farmers valued from projects (see Best Practice Guidelines for more on this). Agricultural extension is an important channel for delivering such knowledge. The case studies showed that, whether or not governments are willing or able to invest directly in extension services, government extension policy must promote rather than penalise:


    •
    • building on farmer knowledge
    • building farmer groups (capacity building)
    • messages on sustainable agriculture, not just mono-cropping

  • Regulation and control
    Economic theory tells us that bureaucratic structures like government are good at regulating and controlling activity. Such structures are designed for this, much more than for participating directly in markets.

    The overall thrust of government policy must set appropriate limits on this regulation and control. For example, we mentioned above the negative effect of too stringent export controls. The case study evidence highlighted two areas where government regulation and control can help projects supporting the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on farm, as follows.

    The operation of seed quality control services. The existence of the government's Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI) in Zambia was a major help to Ipongo Development Programme: by inspecting IDP farmers' seed crops, SCCI ensured quality and thus increased local demand for the seed.

    In Ethiopia, the need to pay for expensive inspection visits by European organic certification agencies was a major problem for EOSA, until government agreed to the establishment of a local inspection agency Ethio-SKAL on a joint venture basis.

    It is international practice to codify seed sector institutions and standards in a national Seed Act, although these have not yet passed into law in all countries in Eastern and Southern Africa. There are different points of view on what a Seed Act should include. Here are some pointers from the case study evidence:
    • The Seed Act should not prevent material produced through participatory plant breeding (ie with farmers and breeders working together, rather than breeders working alone on-station) from being distributed. This may require modification to the Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) conditions conventionally used to judge whether material can be officially registered and released.
    • The Seed Act should not require all seed sold to have been certified by the official seed quality control agency, as this is infeasible for poor, small farmer seed producers in remote areas. An alternative, which has been in use in the US for many years, is sales based on Quality Declared Seed. The grower is free to sell seed s/he declares to be of a certain quality. If random inspections at point of sale show quality is not being met, the grower is struck off.

    An additional requirement in the current international environment of trade liberalisation under WTO, is for national legislation in WTO member countries to protect the rights of farmers - ie as well as seed companies - to produce and exchange material without breaking the law. Under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) component of the WTO agreement, member countries are obliged to put in place intellectual property protection for plant varieties.
Replication and scaling up
What do these policy lessons tell us about the possibilities for replicating and scaling up support for the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm, beyond the six case studies?

Before we answer this, let us remind ourselves that suitable geographical areas for replication and scaling up of support to the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm are limited by physical, economic and social criteria as well as by policy factors. It is now generally accepted that these physical, economic and social criteria mean the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm is relevant and feasible in particular parts of the landscape "mosaic".

It is also now generally accepted that in many geographical areas (including all six of our case study sites), the historical range of agricultural biodiversity has already been much reduced by a range of factors, including climate change and extension campaigns; and that, post-structural adjustment, even in marginal zones families aspire to sell a proportion of their harvest to meet cash needs for school fees, hospital fees, etc. Supporting the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm in these areas implies strengthening links (to sources of agricultural biodiversity, advice and markets), not promoting isolation and self-sufficiency.

So what are the policy lessons for replicating and scaling up support for the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity in particular parts of the landscape mosaic, through strengthening links to sources of agricultural biodiversity, advice and markets?

We outlined above some of the specific policy lessons: the need for political support for on-farm biodiversity conservation and the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm; the need for supportive fiscal and trade regimes, and agricultural extension policies; the need for public sector investment in infrastructure such as roads.

A significant problem with the first of these is that, even in the context of replicating and scaling up individual initiatives, the measures required are too small to be of interest to national level policy makers or big donors.

In any case, in practice many projects - including all six of the case studies - operate in an institutional vacuum: the government services for delivering these specific policies and the necessary regulation and control are crippled or absent. One way of strengthening the institutional framework is through effective decentralisation: keeping chains of funding and accountability short, promoting staff continuity at grass-roots level.

The challenge now is to push for the political support, specific policy changes, and institutional strengthening necessary for the replication and scaling-up of on-farm biodiversity conservation and the maintenance and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm in Eastern and Southern Africa and elsewhere.