Gaps and Needs on Global Networking on In Situ Conservation and On Farm Management of PGRFA - A preliminary analysis of stakeholders’ initiatives
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•493 views
Gaps and Needs on Global Networking on In Situ Conservation and On Farm Management of PGRFA - A preliminary analysis of stakeholders’ initiatives Selim LOUAFI, Cirad, France Didier BAZILE, Visiting Expert, FAO / Cirad Nohemi VOGLOZIN, Expert consultant © FAO: http://www.fao.org
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (8)
Ähnlich wie Gaps and Needs on Global Networking on In Situ Conservation and On Farm Management of PGRFA - A preliminary analysis of stakeholders’ initiatives
Ähnlich wie Gaps and Needs on Global Networking on In Situ Conservation and On Farm Management of PGRFA - A preliminary analysis of stakeholders’ initiatives (20)
Mehr von FAO
Mehr von FAO (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Gaps and Needs on Global Networking on In Situ Conservation and On Farm Management of PGRFA - A preliminary analysis of stakeholders’ initiatives
- 1. Gaps and Needs on Global Networking on In Situ Conservation and On Farm Management of PGRFA Selim LOUAFI, Cirad, France Didier BAZILE, Visiting Expert, FAO / Cirad Nohemi VOGLOZIN, Expert consultant A preliminary analysis of stakeholders’ initiatives MULTISTAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE: In situ conservation and on-farm management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture Options for global networking Rome, 6 - 7 June 2016 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
- 2. What general lessons could be drawn on gaps and needs for global networking from existing initiatives? • Previous work conducted on this topic in FAO (Survey) • Bibliographic data • Analysis of selected initiatives • Interviews with resource persons • Interviews with practitioners Sources
- 3. • 52 initiatives involved in various degrees and modalities, in in situ conservation and on- farm management of PGRFA analyzed. • About half have a global coverage, one fourth have regional or national scope and a small proportion has only local scope. • The panel represents a fairly balanced equilibrium among the different regions of the world (9 in South America, 9 in North America, 10 in Asia, 11 in Africa, 11 in Europe and 1 in Oceania). Sample frame
- 4. Our panel includes 52 initiatives, networks or organizations involved, in various degrees and modalities, in in situ conservation and on-farm management of PGRFA. Out of these 52 initiatives, networks or organizations, less than half have a global coverage (23), one fourth have regional or national scope and a small proportion (less than 10%) has only local scope. The panel represented a fairly balanced equilibrium among the different regions of the world (9 in South America, 9 in North America, 10 in Asia, 11 in Africa, 11 in Europe and 1 in Oceania). Based on five criteria 1- Resources characteristics 2- Stakeholders involved 3- Geographical focus 4- Main functions and activities 5- Structure and management A common framework for describing existing organizations and initiatives
- 5. Considering intra-specific diversity only is rare: often combined with inter-specific, ecosystem or cultural diversity Scope and Actors / Key features Some initiatives cover simultaneously the three types of PGRFA: improved varieties, landraces and CWR. Initiatives focusing on PGRFA often include NUS Functional linkages with the ecosystem dimension are rare Linkages with cultural diversity are very often an essential component of on farm management initiatives Few initiatives combine on farm and in situ Rare initiatives combine a wide diversity of stakeholders within a single network Linkages between different biodiversity dimensions are quite common In situ and on farm are generally managed separately On farm management tends to cover the whole PGRFA continuum Focus on NUS indicates complementarity/linkages with ex situ conservation Difficulties in engaging in strong and stable partnerships beyond same-type actors
- 6. Goals and Functions / Key Gaps Exchange of experiences and information is the most frequent function although it faces many obstacles: Specific nature of challenges & contexts Geographical dispersion Lack of common framework Projects and technical assistance function is also quite frequent but faces many challenges: Lack of continuity Scaling up Lack of broader institutional support Global awareness raising initiatives are less frequent. Upscaling initiatives to have broader visibility/impact remains challenging Community and norm building are limited by communication challenges and lack of common framework Difficulties in engaging in strong and stable partnerships beyond same-type of actors Difficulties of integration with national policy processes and with GRFA policy objectives Lack of a common analytical framework that could facilitate replication and strengthen impact
- 7. Governance and Partnerships Centralized Federation of communities Fully connected communities Community -based Difficulties in engaging in strong and stable partnerships beyond same-type actors Difficulties in translating the diverse local needs into decisions at higher management level(s) Difficulties in connecting with others networks Difficulties in upscaling
- 8. Summary: gaps and needs Promotion of constructive ‘trialogues’ between the science, policy and practice communities at the regional and global levels on specific PGRFA policy issues (access; incentives for conservation…) - Regular face-to–face meetings? - Web portal? - Facilitation/matchmaking mechanisms? 1 ‘science-practice’ GAP 2 ‘policy-practice’ GAP 3 ‘science-policy’ GAP Practitioners Researchers Policy makers
- 9. Other gaps and needs Gap 4: Need for increased understanding of the interactions between the different dimensions of diversity associated with PGRFA (specific, agroecosystemic, cultural) Gap 5: Need for better integration between the different sub-sectors of GRFA (FGR, AnGR, AqGR, MiGR, invertebrates) Gap 6: Need for better integration between biodiversity and agrobiodiversity
- 10. Thanks for listening! Selim Louafi Didier Bazile Nohemi Voglozin
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Existing initiatives on in situ conservation and on farm management of PGRFA have a key role in advancing the in situ/on farm agenda System-level networking would magnify such a role
- This is mainly a qualitative analysis that could not claim to represent the reality but rather aim to increase our understanding on the structure of the community and to provide some observations that are supposed to trigger the discussion Resources charateristics: Primary focus on PGRFA, species, ecosystem or cultural aspects Type of PGRFA, single vs multi-crop, NUS Type of ecosystem Human group Method of conservation Stakeholders: Status and level of inclusiveness are two different things Geographical focus: scope or level of intervention Goals and functions: - Awareness raising and advocacy Exchange of information and experience Cooperation, project development, technical assistance Common Norms and community building others Structure and management: Centralized; Decentralized; Community-based management
- D : very few initiatives include the diversity that directly supports the agroecosystems (soil micro-org, predators, pollinators) or linkages with protected/natural areas Reaching out to other diversity dimensions is quite common BUT clear gaps with the ecosystem dimension, incl for in situ conservation. Although on farm management and in situ conservation are in most cases dealt with separately, initiatives that link both aspects exist. On farm management sometimes covers the whole PGRFA continuum, from conservation to breeding and from CWR to Improved varieties. Focus on NUS indicates complementarity with ex situ conservation Difficulties in engaging in strong and stable partnerships beyond same-type of actors
- Centralized: one single node organizing networking activities at local level among individuals/groups (ex: GHIAS) Centralized/Community building: fully connected communities connected to one central node (ex: federation of communiTIES that would represent them Fully connected communities are communities interacting (exch of information, joint activities, etc…) among themselves on an equal footing without central/intermediary node
- The landscape of in situ conservation and on farm management initiatives is highly heterogeneous. Despite their unitary, overarching common goal of promoting in situ conservation and on-farm management, the ways in which the different initiatives aim to these goals are quite different, with respect to the level of diversity considered (genetic, species, ecosystem, culture), the types of PGRFA (CWR, landraces, improved varieties), the governance level (local, national, regional, global) and the main groups of stakeholders involved. This diversity could be seen as a complicating factor in the development of a global unifying strategy (e.g. a network of networks). Gap 1 : Lack of structured and trustworthy relationship between the formal academic world and the civil society organisation to help build common heuristic framework on in situ and on farm that needs both CSO to better structure their action but require also that scientists revisit some of their methods and approach through which they are characterizing, evaluating and conserving GR. GAP 2: Institutional misfit btw policy practice. Many initiatives suffer from a lack of enabling policy environment that could help them to function properly. Some mechanisms have been put in place in some countries that create more space for in situ and on farm management but these initiatives remain limited. More interactions is needed to foster mutual understanding. GAP 3: Lack of agreed understanding of the link between conservation and development: the weight given to developmental consideration as well as the model of development promoted differ not just btw the ex situ and in situ world but also within the on farm and in situ communities. Need to invest in reducing the science policy gap by increasing understanding on the potential of CWR and landraces for helping achieving broader objectives such as crop improvement, resilience, nutrition and access to food and the different methods by which this could be achieved Take stock of what we know on a particular topic, identify knowledge gaps and policy issues
- Compared to ex situ conservation techniques, in situ and on farm conservation have constantly to manage interaction with other elements of biodiversity. The idea here is to recognize that more interactions need to be strenghthen not so much across the three groups mentioned earlier but rather within each groups. GAP 4: We saw that there are already strong interactions btw pgrfa and the other dimensions of biodiversity. But the Knowledge gap is still huge in understanding how these different dimensions interact GAP 6: Diversity of non-cultivated species that support production (soil micro-organisms, predators, pollinators), and those in the wider environment that support agro-ecosystems (agricultural, pastoral, forest and aquatic), are seldom considered by the agrobiodiversity community. Similarly, intra-specific diversity and use practices are seldom considered by the biodiversity community.