ISSN
S 2412-5474
THE STATE OF
THE WORLD’s
BIODIVERSITY
FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
FAO COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ASSESSMENTS • 2019
FAO COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ASSESSMENTS • 2019
THE STATE OF
THE WORLD’s
BIODIVERSITY
FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Rome, 2019
Required citation:
FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, J. Bélanger & D. Pilling (eds.).
FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Rome. 572 pp.
(http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf)
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies
or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been
endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-131270-4
© FAO, 2019
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial
purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no
suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo
is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative
Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along
with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The
original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”
Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and
arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable
mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with
the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third
party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed
for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from
infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website
(www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for
commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding
rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.
Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations and acronyms
About this publication
Executive summary
Part A
xix
xxi
xxvii
xxxii
xxxvii
Overview
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
3
4
5
8
10
Biodiversity and the challenges facing global food and agriculture
What is biodiversity for food and agriculture?
Biodiversity for food and agriculture and global policy agendas
Assessments of biodiversity for food and agriculture
Key concepts addressed in this report
CHAPTER 2 ROLES AND IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY
FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Key messages
Introduction
Ecosystem services
2.2.1 Provisioning services
2.2.2 Regulating and supporting services
2.2.3 Cultural services
Resilience
2.3.1 Overview of the contributions of biodiversity for
food and agriculture
2.3.2 Resilience to specific threats
2.3.3 Needs and priorities
Sustainable intensification
2.4.1 Overview of the contributions of biodiversity for
food and agriculture
2.4.2 Needs and priorities
Livelihoods
2.5.1 Overview of the contributions of biodiversity for
food and agriculture
2.5.2 Needs and priorities
Food security and nutrition
2.6.1 Availability
2.6.2 Access
2.6.3 Utilization
2.6.4 Stability
2.6.5 Nutrition and food systems
2.6.6 Contribution of wild foods
2.6.7 Needs and priorities
17
17
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
27
34
35
36
41
41
42
48
48
49
50
51
52
53
56
62
iii
Part B
Drivers, status and trends
CHAPTER 3 DRIVERS OF CHANGE OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD
AND AGRICULTURE
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Key messages
Introduction
Overview
Economic and social drivers
3.3.1 Population growth and urbanization
3.3.2 Markets, trade and value chains
3.3.3 Changing economic, sociopolitical and cultural factors
Environmental drivers
3.4.1 Climate change
3.4.2 Natural disasters
3.4.3 Pests, diseases and invasive alien species
Advances and innovations in science and technology
Drivers at production-system level
3.6.1 Changes in land and water use and management
3.6.2 Pollution and external inputs
3.6.3 Overexploitation and overharvesting
Policies
Drivers of women’s involvement in the management of
biodiversity for food and agriculture
Drivers of traditional knowledge of biodiversity for
food and agriculture
CHAPTER 4 THE STATUS AND TRENDS OF BIODIVERSITY FOR
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
4.1
4.2
4.3
iv
Key messages
Introduction
Plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
4.2.1 Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
4.2.2 Animal genetic resources for food and agriculture
4.2.3 Forest genetic resources
4.2.4 Aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture
Associated biodiversity
4.3.1 Associated-biodiversity species managed for
ecosystem services
4.3.2 Information and monitoring systems on associated biodiversity
4.3.3 Overview of status and trends
4.3.4 Associated biodiversity for pollination
4.3.5 Associated biodiversity for pest and disease regulation
4.3.6 Associated biodiversity for soil-related ecosystem services
4.3.7 Associated biodiversity for water-related ecosystem services
65
65
65
69
69
70
74
76
78
78
83
87
93
95
95
101
104
107
109
111
113
113
113
114
114
116
117
117
119
120
120
126
129
134
140
148
4.4
4.5
4.6
Part C
4.3.8 Associated biodiversity for natural-hazard regulation
4.3.9 Associated biodiversity for habitat provisioning
4.3.10 Associated biodiversity for air-quality and climate regulation
Wild foods
4.4.1 State of knowledge
4.4.2 Status and trends
Ecosystems of importance to food and agriculture
4.5.1 Wetlands
4.5.2 Mangroves
4.5.3 Seagrasses
4.5.4 Coral reefs
4.5.5 Forests
4.5.6 Rangelands
Needs and priorities
153
154
157
160
160
161
171
171
172
175
177
180
183
186
State of management
CHAPTER 5 THE STATE OF USE OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD
AND AGRICULTURE
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Key messages
Introduction
Overview of management practices and approaches
Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches
5.3.1 Overview
5.3.2 Sustainable forest management
5.3.3 Ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculture
5.3.4 Agroecology
5.3.5 Landscape and seascape approaches and management
5.3.6 Integrated land- and water-use planning
5.3.7 Needs and priorities
Restoration practices
5.4.1 Overview
5.4.2 Status and trends
5.4.3 Needs and priorities
Diversification in production systems
5.5.1 Integrated crop–livestock systems
5.5.2 Home gardens
5.5.3 Agroforestry
5.5.4 Diversification practices in aquaculture
5.5.5 Needs and priorities
Management practices and production approaches
5.6.1 Organic agriculture
5.6.2 Low external input agriculture
5.6.3 Management practices to preserve and enhance
soil biodiversity
191
191
191
192
198
198
201
205
208
212
213
214
215
215
218
222
223
224
228
233
241
248
248
249
251
253
v
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.6.4 Conservation agriculture
5.6.5 Integrated plant nutrient management
5.6.6 Integrated pest management
5.6.7 Pollination management
5.6.8 Forest-management practices
5.6.9 Needs and priorities
The use of micro-organisms in food processing and
agro-industrial processes
5.7.1 Micro-organisms in food processing
5.7.2 Micro-organisms in agro-industrial processes
Rumen microbial diversity
5.8.1 Roles and drivers
5.8.2 Methane emissions
5.8.3 State of knowledge
5.8.4 Needs and priorities
Genetic improvement
5.9.1 Domestication and base broadening
5.9.2 Plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
5.9.3 Associated biodiversity – overview
5.9.4 Pollinators
5.9.5 Assisted evolution for reef-building corals
5.9.6 Needs and priorities
CHAPTER 6 THE STATE OF CHARACTERIZATION OF BIODIVERSITY FOR
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
vi
Key messages
Introduction
Plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
6.2.1 Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
6.2.2 Animal genetic resources for food and agriculture
6.2.3 Forest genetic resources
6.2.4 Aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture
Associated biodiversity
6.3.1 Overview
6.3.2 Country-report analysis
Wild foods
6.4.1 Overview
6.4.2 Country-report analysis
Needs and priorities
256
259
260
267
272
275
275
276
280
287
287
289
289
292
292
293
295
297
298
301
304
305
305
305
306
306
307
308
311
312
313
314
318
318
321
323
CHAPTER 7 THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
Part D
Key messages
Introduction
Plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
7.2.1 Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
7.2.2 Animal genetic resources for food and agriculture
7.2.3 Forest genetic resources
7.2.4 Aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture
Associated biodiversity
7.3.1 In situ conservation
7.3.2 Ex situ conservation
Wild foods
7.4.1 In situ conservation
7.4.2 Ex situ conservation
Roles of protected areas
7.5.1 Status and trends
7.5.2 Contribution to conservation of wild species used for food
7.5.3 Management of biodiversity or food and agriculture
in protected areas
7.5.4 Country-report analysis
Maintenance of traditional knowledge associated with
food and agriculture
Needs and priorities
325
325
325
326
326
329
330
332
334
334
344
354
354
357
359
361
362
366
367
371
373
Enabling frameworks
CHAPTER 8 THE STATE OF POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS AND CAPACITIES
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Key messages
Introduction
Stakeholders
8.2.1 Producers and their organizations
8.2.2 Suppliers, processors, traders and retailers
8.2.3 The public sector
8.2.4 The non-governmental sector
8.2.5 The general public
8.2.6 Regional and international organizations
Cooperation
8.3.1 Cooperation at national level
8.3.2 Cooperation at international level
8.3.3 Needs and priorities
Education, training and awareness raising
8.4.1 Plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
8.4.2 Associated biodiversity
379
379
379
380
380
386
386
387
388
388
395
396
398
403
404
404
406
vii
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
Part E
8.4.3 Needs and priorities
Research
8.5.1 Institutions involved in research on associated biodiversity
8.5.2 Needs and priorities
Valuation
8.6.1 Overview of valuation approaches
8.6.2 State of implementation
8.6.3 Needs and priorities
Incentives
8.7.1 Overview
8.7.2 State of adoption
8.7.3 Needs and priorities
Policy and legal frameworks
8.8.1 Frameworks at international level
8.8.2 Frameworks at national level
8.8.3 Climate change policy and programmes
8.8.4 Frameworks supporting the maintenance of
traditional knowledge
8.8.5 Access and benefit-sharing
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
viii
438
439
Conclusions
CHAPTER 9 NEEDS AND CHALLENGES
References
409
410
411
411
412
413
415
418
419
419
420
424
425
427
430
437
Introduction
Drivers of change
Status and trends
Management
9.4.1 State of use
9.4.2 State of conservation
Policies, capacities and institutions
Towards a more diverse and sustainable future
445
445
445
446
446
446
449
450
451
453
BOXES
1
The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
xxxii
PART A
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Biodiversity for food and agriculture, FAO and the Sustainable
Development Goals
Assessing the state of the world’s genetic resources for
food and agriculture
Projects and programmes supporting livelihoods by promoting
biodiversity for food and agriculture – examples from around the world
The Second International Conference on Nutrition Framework for Action
Voluntary Guidelines for Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Policies,
Programmes and National and Regional Plans of Action on Nutrition
The Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project
Food-based dietary guidelines as a tool to promote biodiversity
7
9
47
49
53
55
57
PART B
3.1
3.2
3.3
Human-made grasslands as a cultural and ecological asset
Links between biodiversity, biodiversity loss and disease risk
Unsustainably managed production systems are a key threat to
bird species
4.1 The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of
Threatened SpeciesTM
4.2 Birds as indicator species
4.3 Monitoring total flying insect biomass over 27 years in protected
areas in Germany
4.4 The main functional groups of biological control agents
4.5 The roles of birds in the supply of supporting and regulating
ecosystem services
4.6 The Netherlands’ soil biological monitoring programme
4.7 Páramos – a vital provider of water-regulating services under threat
4.8 Trends in the state of habitats in the European Union
4.9 Soil carbon assessment initiatives – examples from the United
States of America
4.10 FAO global definition of forest
79
87
97
125
125
133
136
137
145
149
156
159
180
PART C
5.1
5.2
5.3
The Convention on Biological Diversity’s principles and operational
guidelines for the ecosystem approach
The concept of sustainable forest management
Application of the ecosystem approach in capture fisheries –
an example from Panama
199
203
207
ix
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
x
Ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Saint Lucia
The ten elements of agroecology
The Pacific Ridge to Reef approach – an example of integrated land
and water-use planning
Needs and challenges in coral-reef restoration
The floating gardens of Bangladesh
Promotion of home gardens for healthy diets in Solomon Islands
Projects and initiatives targeting home gardens – examples from
around the world
Policy and legislative frameworks promoting agroforestry –
examples from around the world
France’s Agroforestry Development Plan 2015–2020
Fish polyculture for improved nutrition – an example from Bangladesh
The Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management
Burkina Faso’s Operation Manure Pits
Conservation agriculture for climate-smart agriculture
The Save and Grow approach
The push–pull approach
Integrated pest management in horticultural production in Almería, Spain
Management of stingless bees in Malaysia
Enhancing pollinator presence in cassava fields in Ghana
Measures or steps typically included in reduced-impact logging
Global research efforts in rumen microbiology
SmartBees: a European project for the conservation of endangered
honey-bee subspecies
The role of molecular techniques in the characterization of foodprocessing micro-organisms
Characterization studies on micro-organisms – examples from Peru
Why undertake genetic data analysis of crop wild relatives and
wild food plants?
Study and development of foods and natural products with
potential health benefits in Paraguay
The World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture
The Domestic Animal Diversity Information System
Marine sanctuaries and monitoring systems – examples from Jamaica
Marine protected areas in Palau
The traditional Hima rangeland management system in Jordan
Agri-environmental schemes supporting cropland and grassland
biodiversity – examples from Belgium
Initiatives supporting the in situ conservation of pollinators in the
United States of America
Selected species-conservation measures in Ireland
Plan of Action for the Conservation of the Nordic Brown Bee
Conservation methods for micro-organisms stored ex situ
Cooperation in the ex situ conservation of micro-organisms
207
209
213
220
224
230
232
238
239
246
254
256
258
260
263
265
269
271
273
290
300
315
317
319
322
327
330
338
339
340
341
342
343
345
348
350
7.12 The culture collection of Mexico’s National Genetic Resources Centre
7.13 The Microbial Biodiversity Directorate of the Ethiopian
Biodiversity Institute
7.14 Micro-organism conservation for improved agricultural production in India
7.15 The role of Japan’s National Agriculture and Food Research
Organization Genebank in recovering genetic resources after the
earthquake of 2011
7.16 Voluntary Guidelines for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Crop Wild Relatives and Wild Food Plants
7.17 The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
7.18 FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems
7.19 The role of geographical indications in the maintenance of
biodiversity for food and agriculture
7.20 Maintenance and use of indigenous knowledge – examples from Kenya
7.21 Maintenance and use of traditional practices in the Pacific
7.22 Women’s traditional knowledge for improved food and seed
security under climate change
7.23 Community forest management and development in Ban Banh, Viet Nam
351
351
352
353
356
367
369
370
371
372
373
374
PART D
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.14
Governance outcomes promoted by small-scale food providers’
organizations
Community control of a coastal ecosystem – an example from Senegal
Agroforestry under local control – an example from Costa Rica
The role of a women’s group in promoting sustainable fishing – an
example from Ecuador
Contributions of non-governmental organizations to the
sustainable management of biodiversity for food and agriculture –
examples from the Near East
Zambia’s Biodiversity Community Network
The Norwegian Genetic Resource Centre and its genetic
resources committees
France’s Agricultural Biodiversity Observatory
The Regional Project for Sustainable Management of Globally
Significant Endemic Ruminant Livestock (PROGEBE)
Appointment of national focal points and participation in the
preparation of The State of the World’s Biodiversity for
Food and Agriculture
Transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa
Resolution 4/2017. The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture and its contribution to the achievement of the
Sustainable Development Goals
Farmer field schools on integrated pest management –
experiences from Nepal
The farmer field school approach
382
382
383
383
387
388
396
397
398
399
400
402
407
408
xi
8.15 Participatory workshops with local communities in the development
of a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System in Chile
8.16 Incentive schemes promoting sustainable shrimp aquaculture in Viet Nam
8.17 Integrated incentive packages for microwatershed development in Brazil
8.18 Integrated incentive packages in Mexico
8.19 Binding and soft-law instruments related to port state measures
in the capture-fisheries sector
8.20 Biodiversity and international law
8.21 Brazil’s experience in mainstreaming biodiversity into its Food and
Nutrition Security Policy
8.22 Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Integration of Genetic
Diversity into National Climate Change Adaptation Planning
8.23 The UNFCCC adaptation and mitigation instruments
xii
409
424
425
426
427
428
434
437
438
TABLES
1
Overview of country reports and their regional distribution
xxxiv
PART A
1.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Production-system classification used in this report
Biological control of invasive alien species through predation,
parasitism and herbivory – examples from the country reports
Biological control of invasive alien species through resource
competition and other antagonistic relationships − examples from
the country reports
Species or varieties that are tolerant or resistant to the effects of
invasive alien species – examples from the country reports
Potential interventions to support positive interactions in food
production systems
15
32
33
34
38
PART B
3.1
3.2
Drivers of change explored in the country-reporting guidelines
Reported effects of drivers of change on regulating and supporting
ecosystem services, all production systems aggregated
3.3 Number of countries reporting negative, neutral and positive
effects of drivers of change on the diversity, availability and
knowledge of wild foods
3.4 Reported effects of population growth and urbanization on the
provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services, by
production system
3.5 Reported effects of markets, trade and the private sector on the
provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services, by
production system
3.6 Reported effects of changing economic, sociopolitical and cultural
factors on the provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem
services, by production system
3.7 Reported effects of climate change on the provision of regulating
and supporting ecosystem services, by production system
3.8 Natural disasters reported to have had a significant effect on
biodiversity for food and agriculture and/or on ecosystem services
in the past ten years
3.9 Reported effects of natural disasters on the provision of regulating
and supporting ecosystem services, by production system
3.10 Reported effects of pests, diseases and invasive alien species on the
provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services,
by production system
3.11 Invasive alien species reported by five or more countries as present
in one or more production systems
67
68
70
72
75
77
82
85
86
88
90
xiii
3.12 Reported effects of advances and innovations in science and
technology on the provision of regulating and supporting
ecosystem services, by production system
3.13 Reported effects of changes in land and water use and
management on the provision of regulating and supporting
ecosystem services, by production system
3.14 Reported effects of pollution and external input use on the
provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services, by
production system
3.15 Reported effects of overexploitation and overharvesting on the
provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services, by
production system
3.16 Reported effects of policies on the provision of regulating and
supporting ecosystem services, by production system
4.1 Examples of species and genera reported by countries to be
managed for regulating or supporting ecosystem services in
production systems
4.2 Species and genera most frequently reported to be managed for
multiple supporting and regulating ecosystem services
4.3 Risk status of associated biodiversity for which a significant threat
of extinction or loss is reported
4.4 Reported trends in the state of provision of regulating and
supporting ecosystem services in production systems
4.5 Examples of associated-biodiversity species or species groups that
contribute to pest and disease regulation reported to be under threat
4.6 The functions of soil organisms
4.7 Typical numbers of soil organisms in healthy ecosystems
4.8 Summary of regional extent, trends and uncertainties of soilbiodiversity loss presented in the Status of the World’s Soil Resources
4.9 Selected examples of wild food species and genera reported by countries
4.10 Global forest area change (1990–2015)
94
100
103
106
109
121
123
126
130
138
142
143
147
163
181
PART C
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
xiv
Reported levels of adoption of selected management practices and
approaches, all production systems aggregated
Reported trends in the adoption of selected management practices
and approaches, by production system
Reported ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches
Restoration measures for wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems
Land area under agroforestry (2008–2010) and trends (2000–2010),
by region
Major benefits and challenges of aquaponic food production
Indicators of the status of organic agriculture worldwide
Environmental and other benefits of implementing the three
principles of conservation agriculture
193
196
202
217
237
244
251
259
5.9 Examples of integrated pest management measures
5.10 Examples of the roles of associated biodiversity in integrated
pest management
6.1 Traits and methods used for characterizing germplasm: percentage
of accessions characterized and/or evaluated, by region
6.2 Degree of characterization for the five largest crop collections
conserved by 27 reporting countries
6.3 Characters most frequently assessed in 692 evaluations of foresttree genetic variability reported by countries
6.4 Known and estimated number of species of soil organisms and
vascular plants
7.1 Associated biodiversity species and genera reported to be
conserved in situ, by taxonomic group
7.2 Associated biodiversity species reported to be conserved ex situ,
by taxonomic group
7.3 Wild food species and genera reported to be conserved in situ,
by taxonomic group
7.4 Wild food species and genera reported to be conserved ex situ,
by taxonomic group
7.5 IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
7.6 Number of species in the comprehensively assessed groups of The
IUCN Red List with mapped ranges and classified as used for human food
7.7 Types of designated area reported to be of particular significance
for biodiversity for food and agriculture
261
264
307
307
310
314
335
346
355
358
360
364
368
PART D
8.1
8.2
8.3
Selected regional intergovernmental bodies and multilateral
partnerships reported by countries to contribute to initiatives in
the management of associated biodiversity
Examples of associated-biodiversity management activities
reported by international organizations
Examples of practices reported to be promoted through the
provision of incentives
390
394
421
xv
FIGURES
1
Assignment of countries to regions in this report
xxxv
PART A
1.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
Key developments in the international recognition of the
importance of biodiversity for food and agriculture
Damage and loss to agriculture sectors caused by specific types of
abiotic hazard (2006–2016)
The sustainable livelihoods analytical framework
Types of wild-food use reported by countries
6
29
43
59
PART B
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
xvi
Reported climate change-related threats to associated biodiversity,
(A) by region and (B) by production system
Global trends in the occurrence of natural disasters − 1980 to 2017
Invasive alien species reported by countries to be impacting
biodiversity for food and agriculture, A) by type of organism and
(B) by region
Regulating and supporting ecosystem services for which associated
biodiversity is reported to be managed, by sector of production
Reported threats to associated biodiversity, by region
Reported trends in associated biodiversity, by production system
The soil food web
Map of the Soil Biodiversity Index
Map of potential threats to soil biodiversity
Global risk status of invertebrates in the classes Bivalvia,
Holothuroidea, Maxillopoda and Polychaeta
Global risk status of species included in The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species, by habitat
Number of wild food species reported, by type and region
Examples of wild plants reported to be used for food
Production systems and environments in which wild food species
are present and harvested, by type
Reported trends in the status of wild food species, by region
Reported trends in the status of wild food species, by type
Risk categories of wild foods for which a significant threat of
extinction or loss is reported, by region
Reported threats to wild foods species
Number of species classified as used for human food on The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species, by type and risk category
Global distribution of mangroves
Interconnectivity between coastal ecosystems
Global distribution of seagrasses
81
84
92
124
127
128
141
144
144
152
157
162
164
165
166
166
167
168
169
173
173
176
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
Global status of reef-building corals
Annual change in forest area (1990–2015)
Global distribution of ruminant livestock production systems
Global grasslands suitable and unsuitable for crop production and
share of land use
179
182
184
186
PART C
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
Perceived impacts on biodiversity for food and agriculture of
various management practices and approaches
The ten principles that characterize the landscape approach
Legal and policy frameworks on agroecology
Commitments to the Bonn Challenge
Livestock and crop integration: from a linear to a circular bioeconomy
An example of an aquaponic system
Rumen microbial fermentation
Motivation for and steps involved in the assisted-evolution
approaches in corals
Reported progress in the implementation of (A) phenotypic and (B)
molecular characterization in livestock species of economic importance
Status of characterization or evaluation of associated biodiversity
species reported to be conserved ex situ, by region
Wild foods in the FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database
for Biodiversity
Status of identification and characterization of differences within
wild food species reported by countries, by type
Reported objectives for the in situ conservation of associated biodiversity
Reported actions for the in situ conservation of associated biodiversity
Reported objectives for the ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity
Reported objectives for the in situ conservation of wild foods
Progress of global coverage of protected areas
Geographic distribution of the terrestrial, marine and coastal
protected areas of the world
Protected area coverage of species in the comprehensively assessed
taxonomic groups of The IUCN Red List with mapped ranges and
classified as used for human food
Protected area coverage of species in the comprehensively assessed
taxonomic groups of The IUCN Red List with mapped ranges and
classified as threatened and as used for human food
197
200
211
219
225
243
288
302
309
316
320
321
336
337
347
357
361
362
365
366
PART D
8.1
8.2
Elements of the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework
Examples of sources of incentives to support sustainable use and
conservation of biodiversity
416
420
xvii
Foreword
O
ur food and agricultural systems depend in countless ways on the plants,
animals and micro-organisms that comprise and surround them. Biodiversity,
at every level from genetic, through species to ecosystem, underpins the
capacity of farmers, livestock keepers, forest dwellers, fishers and fish farmers to
produce food and a range of other goods and services in a vast variety of different
biophysical and socio-economic environments. It increases resilience to shocks and
stresses, provides opportunities to adapt production systems to emerging challenges
and is a key resource in efforts to increase output in a sustainable way. It is vital to
efforts to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda.
Over the last two decades, FAO has prepared country-driven global assessments of
the genetic resources of crop plants, livestock and forest trees. An assessment covering
aquatic genetic resources will shortly be published. What has been missing to date has
been an assessment of how biodiversity as a whole contributes to food and agriculture,
including “associated biodiversity”, the myriad components of biodiversity that support
food and agricultural production by providing services such as pollination, pest control,
soil formation and maintenance, carbon sequestration, purification and regulation of
water supplies, reduction of disasters threats, and the provision of habitat for other
beneficial species. The urgency of closing knowledge gaps in this field is underlined
by the mounting evidence that the world’s biodiversity is under severe threat and by
the ever-growing challenges facing food and agriculture, including particularly those
related to the impacts of climate change. The publication of The State of the World’s
Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture is therefore a significant and timely milestone.
Like all the global assessments prepared under the auspices of FAO’s Commission
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, a key characteristic of this report is
its country-driven nature. Ninety-one countries prepared and submitted reports on
the state of their biodiversity for food and agriculture and its management, focusing
particularly on associated biodiversity and its role in the supply of supporting and
regulating ecosystem services and on wild species that are sources of food. The
reporting process provided an opportunity for countries to identify needs and priorities
in terms of promoting the sustainable use and conservation of these resources, both at
national level and internationally.
Parts of the global report make sombre reading. It is deeply concerning that in so
many production systems in so many countries biodiversity for food and agriculture and
the ecosystem services it provides are reported to be in decline. The foundations of our
food systems are being undermined, often, at least in part, because of the impact of
management practices and land-use changes associated with food and agriculture. It is
also abundantly clear that the state of knowledge of many components of biodiversity,
including in particular invertebrates and micro-organisms, is very inadequate and that
this contributes to their neglect. The good news is that many management practices
and approaches that rely on the maintenance of abundant and diverse biological
communities, or that can otherwise be considered biodiversity friendly, are attracting
growing interest and in many cases are becoming more widely adopted.
xix
The importance of biodiversity and its roles in the food and agriculture sector is
increasingly being acknowledged in international policy agendas. This recognition
needs to be translated into action. Key tasks include addressing the drivers of
biodiversity loss within the food and agriculture sector and beyond, strengthening
in situ and ex situ conservation measures, and increasing the uptake of management
practices that promote the contributions of biodiversity to sustainable production.
Coordinated and collaborative action on the part of the international community is
essential. This report will make a valuable contribution to these efforts and to raising
awareness of the vital importance of biodiversity to food and agriculture.
José Graziano da Silva
FAO Director-General
xx
Acknowledgements
T
he preparation of The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture
required the dedication, time and expertise of many individuals, and the collaboration
and support of many governments and institutions. The country reports submitted by
91 countries were the primary sources of information. FAO wishes to thank the respective
governments and the hundreds of individuals involved, in particular the National Focal
Points. Gratitude is also expressed to those who contributed to the preparation of the
reports submitted by international organizations. The preparation of the report would not
have been possible without the financial and in-kind support of Germany, Norway, Spain
and Switzerland.
The report was prepared by FAO. The reporting and preparation process was coordinated
by Julie Bélanger, with the assistance of Dafydd Pilling and Kim-Anh Tempelman, in FAO’s
Secretariat of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The work
was facilitated and supported by current and former Secretaries of the Commission,
Irene Hoffmann and Linda Collette, and by current and former officers of the Secretariat,
Anna Asfaw (seconded by the Government of Germany), Ladina Knapp (seconded by the
Government of Switzerland), Dan Leskien, Damiano Luchetti and Miriam Widmer (seconded
by the Government of Switzerland). Core contributors to the analysis of the country reports
and the drafting, editing and/or finalization of report included Agnès Bernis-Fonteneau,
Cordula Hinkes (seconded by the Government of Germany), Manuel Pomar Cloquell, Marcela
Portocarrero-Aya, Suzanne Redfern, Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy and Miriam Widmer. The
work was further supported by a number of interns, Davide Albeggiani, Poljanka Johnson,
Agathe Mansion-Vaquié, Michael Ruggeri, Angus Wilsdon, Lilly Zeitler and Sabrina Zhang.
Administrative and secretarial support was provided by Nathalie Bramucci and Cintia Pohl.
The database of country-report data was designed, created and loaded by Enrico Anello,
under the supervision of Giorgio Lanzarone of FAO’s Information Technology Division. François
Fauteux1 processed and compiled all taxonomic information contained in the database.
Over 175 individuals contributed to the preparation of the report as authors, contributors
and reviewers. Details are provided in the table below, section by section. Significant
contributions were provided by staff from many divisions within FAO. The manuscript was
further reviewed by David Cooper2 (Parts A, B and C), Nigel Dudley,3 Toby Hodgkin,4 Patrick
Mulvany5 (Parts A and D) and Mary Taylor6 (Parts B and C). All members of the Commission
Secretariat also contributed to the reviewing process.
Text boxes were prepared by Peer Berg,7 Kaspar Bienefeld,8 Teresa Borelli,9 Martin Brink,10
Stuart Butchart,11 Georgina Chandler,12 Gonzalo Eiriz,13 François Fauteux,1 Hasan Gezginç,14
Linn Fenna Groeneveld,7 Kim Holm Boesen,15 Danny Hunter,9 Mohd Fahimee Bin Jaapar,16
Rosliza Jajuli,16 Malene Karup Palne,15 Amir Kassam,17 Patricia Larbouret,18 Birgitte Lund,15
Tom Moore,19 Serge Morand,20 Daniela Moura de Oliveira Beltrame,21 Christophe Pinard,18
Maryam Rahmanian, Ana Islas Ramos, Gamini Samarasinghe,22 Florence Tartanac, Emilie
Vandecandelaere, Anja Laupstad Vatland,23 Pierre Velge24 and Victor W. Wasike.25 Additional
material for the preparation of text boxes was provided by Widegnoma Jean de Dieu
Nitiema26 and Thembinkosi Gumedze.27
The thematic study Biodiversity for food and agriculture and ecosystem services was
prepared by Dafydd Pilling. The study Biodiversity for food and agriculture: the perspectives of
xxi
small-scale food providers was prepared by Patrick Mulvany, Bob Brac de la Perrière, Maryam
Rahmanian and Angela Cordeiro (International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty,
Agricultural Biodiversity Working Group). The study The contributions of biodiversity for food
and agriculture to the resilience of production systems was prepared by Ashley Duval, Dunja
Mijatovic and Toby Hodgkin (Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research). The study Contributions
of biodiversity to the sustainable intensification of food production was prepared by Ian K.
Dawson, Simon J. Attwood, Sarah E. Park, Ramni Jamnadass, Wayne Powell, Terry Sunderland,
Roeland Kindt, Stepha McMullin, Peter N. Hoebe, John Baddeley, Charles Staver, Vincent
Vadez, Sammy Carsan, James M. Roshetko, Ahmed Amri, Eldad Karamura, Deborah Karamura,
Paulo van Breugel, Md. Emdad Hossain, Michael Phillips, Ashok Kumar, Jens-Peter B. Lillesø,
John Benzie, Gerhard E. Sabastian, Beatrice Ekesa, Walter Ocimati and Lars Graudal (CGIAR).
The document entitled Study on the linkages between protected areas and the conservation
of biodiversity for food and agriculture was prepared by Natasha Ali, Bárbara Goettsch, James
Hardcastle, Sara Oldfield and Yichuan Shi (International Union for Conservation of Nature).
See respective studies for authors’ individual affiliations.
The layout was designed and implemented by Chiara Caproni.
The draft report was made available for review by members and observers of the
Commission. Comments were received from Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada,
France, Georgia, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia and the United States of America. The International Union for
the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity also provided comments.
Listing every person by name is not easy and carries with it the risk that someone may be
overlooked. Apologies are conveyed to anyone who provided assistance but whose name
has been omitted.
Chapter/section
Authors and contributors (alphabetical order)
(affiliations are provided below the table; FAO if not indicated)
Entire report
Julie Bélanger and Dafydd Pilling (eds.)
PART A – OVERVIEW
Chapter 1. Introduction
Entire chapter
Julie Bélanger, Dafydd Pilling, Kim-Anh Tempelman and Pablo Tittonell,28 with
contributions from Devin Bartley, Paul Boettcher, Stefano Diulgheroff, Simon FungeSmith, Bonnie Furman, Jarkko Koskela, Graham Mair, Chikelu Mba and Shawn McGuire
Reviewers: Vera Agostini, Frédéric Castell, Anneli Ehlers,29 John E. Fa,30 Giulia Muir
Chapter 2. Roles and importance of biodiversity for food and agriculture
2.2
Ecosystem services
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on FAO (2019)
2.3
Resilience
Agnès Bernis-Fonteneau and Dafydd Pilling, drawing on Duval et al., (2018), with
contributions from Toby Hodgkin,4 Rebeca Koloffon and Sylvie Wabbes-Candotti
2.4
Sustainable intensification
Agnès Bernis-Fonteneau and Dafydd Pilling, drawing on Dawson et al. (2018a), with
contributions from Pablo Tittonell28
2.5
Livelihoods
David Colozza and Dafydd Pilling, with contributions from Nigel Dudley3 and Cordula
Hinkes
2.6
Food security and nutrition
Julie Bélanger, Dafydd Pilling and Lilly Zeitler, with contributions from Vaishali Bansal,31 Agnès
Bernis-Fonteneau, Ruth Charrondiere, Dalia Mattioni, Giulia Muir, Vikas Rawal,31 Florence
Tartanac and Doordarshni Thokchom31
Reviewers: Simon Attwood,9,32,33 Edmundo Barrios, Caterina Batello, Badi Besbes, Eric Blanchart,34 Paul Boettcher, Teresa Borelli,9
David Colozza, Ian Dawson,35,36,37 Ashley Duval,4 John E. Fa,30 Simon Funge-Smith, Bonnie Furman, Nao Furuta,38 Rodolphe Gozlan,20
Danny Hunter,9 Rebeca Koloffon, Jarkko Koskela, Maria Hernandez Lagana, Dunja Mijatovic,4 Avetik Nersisyan, Florence Poulain,
Maryam Rahmanian, Beate Scherf, Nadia Scialabba, Pablo Tittonell,28 Sylvie Wabbes-Candotti and Liesl Wiese
xxii
PART B – DRIVERS, STATUS AND TRENDS
Chapter 3. Drivers of change of biodiversity for food and agriculture
3.2
Overview
Julie Bélanger, Toby Hodgkin4 and Lilly Zeitler
3.3
3.4
3.5
Economic and social drivers
Environmental drivers
Advances and innovations
in science and technology
Drivers at production
system level
Policies
Marcela Portocarrero-Aya, Pablo Tittonell28 and Lilly Zeitler, with contributions from Julie
Bélanger, Agnès Bernis-Fonteneau, David Colozza, Nigel Dudley,3 Toby Hodgkin,4 Dafydd
Pilling, Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy Michael Ruggeri and Kim-Anh Tempelman
3.8
Drivers of women’s
involvement in the
management of biodiversity
for food and agriculture
Michael Ruggeri
3.9
Drivers of traditional
knowledge of biodiversity
for food and agriculture
Miriam Widmer
3.6
3.7
Reviewers: Edmundo Barrios, Caterina Batello, Marcio Castro de Souza, David Colozza, Amber Himes-Cornell, Maria Eleonora
D’Andrea, Liseth Escobar Aucu, Nicole Franz, Bonnie Furman, Maurizio Furst, Beatrice Grenier, Baogen Gu, Eva Kohlschmid, Regina
Laub, Szilvia Lehel, Gregoire Leroy, Dalia Mattioni, Chikelu Mba, Shawn McGuire, Rebecca Metzner, Jamie Morrison, Kwang Suk
Oh, Florence Poulain, John Ryder, Nianjun Shen, Ilaria Sisto, Markos Tibbo and Joseph Zelasney
Chapter 4. The status and trends of biodiversity for food and agriculture
4.2
Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on FAO (2010a, 2014a, 2015a, forthcoming), with contributions
from Devin Bartley, Roswitha Baumung, Paul Boettcher, Stefano Diulgheroff, Simon
Funge-Smith, Bonnie Furman, Jarkko Koskela, Gregoire Leroy and Chikelu Mba
4.3
Associated biodiversity
4.3.1
Associated biodiversity species
managed for ecosystem
services
Information and monitoring
systems on associated
biodiversity
Overview of status and trends
Julie Bélanger and Kim-Anh Tempelman
4.3.4
Associated biodiversity for
pollination
Hien Ngo39 and Kim-Anh Tempelman, with contributions from Michael Ruggeri
4.3.5
Associated biodiversity for pest
and disease regulation
Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy, with contributions from Markus Knapp40 and William Settle
4.3.6
Associated biodiversity for
soil-related ecosystem services
Agnès Bernis-Fonteneau and Alberto Orgiazzi,41 with contributions from Liesl Wiese
4.3.7
Associated biodiversity for
water-related ecosystem
services
Marcela Portocarrero-Aya, with contributions from Dafydd Pilling
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.8
Associated biodiversity for
natural-hazard regulation
4.3.9 Associated biodiversity for
habitat provisioning
4.3.10 Associated biodiversity for airquality and climate regulation
Agnès Bernis-Fonteneau, with contributions from Dafydd Pilling and Michael Ruggeri
4.4
Wild foods
Julie Bélanger, with contributions from Natasha Ali,38 Bárbara Goettsch,38 Poljanka
Johnson, Lilly Zeitler and Sabrina Zhang
4.5
Ecosystems of importance to
food and agriculture
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
Wetlands
Mangroves
Seagrasses
Coral reefs
Marcela Portocarrero-Aya, with contributions from Anne-Maud Courtois, Nigel Dudley,3
Dafydd Pilling, Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy and Elaine Springgay
4.5.5
Forests
Orjan Jonsson, Jarkko Koskela, Lars Gunnar Marklund, Anssi Pekkarinen, Leticia Pina,
Kristina Rodina and Sheila Wertz
xxiii
4.5.6
Rangelands
Irene Hoffmann
4.6
Needs and priorities
Dafydd Pilling and Kim-Anh Tempelman
Reviewers: Vera Agostini, Jose Aguilar Manjarrez, Edmundo Barrios, Eric Blanchart,34 Junning Cai, Viridiana Alcántara Cervantes,
John E. Fa,30 Kim Friedman, Simon Funge-Smith, Bonnie Furman, Maurizio Furst, Jarkko Koskela, Regina Laub, Szilvia Lehel, Tom
Moore,19 Anne Mottet, Florence Poulain, Bronwen Powell,42 Nadia Scialabba, Ilaria Sisto, Philip Thornton,43 Madeleine J.H. van
Oppen,44,45 Lauren Weatherdon46 and Xinhua Yuan
PART C – STATE OF MANAGEMENT
Chapter 5. The state of use of biodiversity for food and agriculture
5.2
Overview of management
practices and approaches
5.3
Ecosystem, landscape and
seascape approaches
Julie Bélanger and Toby Hodgkin4
5.3.1
Overview
Kim-Anh Tempelman
5.3.2
Sustainable forest
management
Jarkko Koskela
5.3.3
Ecosystem approach to
fisheries and aquaculture
Marcela Portocarrero-Aya
5.3.4
Agroecology
Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy and Pablo Tittonell28
5.3.5
Kim-Anh Tempelman
5.3.7
Landscape and seascape
approaches
Integrated land- and water-use
planning
Needs and priorities
5.4
Restoration practices
Blaise Bodin2 and Marcela Portocarrero-Aya
5.5
Diversification in
production systems
5.5.1
Integrated crop–livestock
systems
Dario Lucantoni and Anne Mottet, with contributions from Dafydd Pilling
5.5.2
Home gardens
David Colozza
5.5.3
Agroforestry
Jonathan P. Cornelius,35,56 Jules Bayala,35 Trent Blare,35 Delia Catacutan,35 Ann Degrande,35
Roeland Kindt,35 Beria Leimona,35 Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel,35,57 Andrew Miccolis,35
Devashree Naik,35 Javed Rizvi,35 James M. Roshetko35 and Leigh Ann Winowiecki35
5.5.4
Diversification practices in
aquaculture
Kim-Anh Tempelman, with contributions from Lionel Dabbadie, Simon Funge-Smith,
Alessandro Lovatelli, Dafydd Pilling and Michael Ruggeri
5.5.5
Needs and priorities
Toby Hodgkin4
5.6
Management practices and
production approaches
5.6.1
Organic agriculture
Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy, with contributions from Nadia Scialabba and Helga Willer47
5.6.2
Low external input agriculture
Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy, with contributions from Dafydd Pilling and Pablo Tittonell28
5.6.3
Management practices to
preserve and enhance soil
biodiversity
Alberto Orgiazzi41 and Miriam Widmer
5.6.4
Conservation agriculture
Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy, with contributions from Amir Kassam17
5.6.5
Integrated plant nutrient
management
Hugo Fernandez Mena and Debra Turner
5.3.6
5.6.6
Integrated pest management
Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy, with contributions from William Settle
5.6.7
Pollination management
Hien Ngo39 and Kim-Anh Tempelman
5.6.8
Forest-management practices
Jarkko Koskela, with contributions from Jonas Cedergren
5.6.9
Needs and priorities
Toby Hodgkin4
5.7
The use of micro-organisms
for food processing and
agro-industrial processes
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on Alexandracki et al. (2013) and Chatzipavlidis et al. (2013),
with contributions from Nelson Lima48
xxiv
5.8
Rumen microbial diversity
Graeme Attwood,49 Peter H. Janssen,49 Sandra Kittelmann,49 Sinead Leahy 49,50 and
Christina Moon49
5.9
Genetic improvement
5.9.1
Domestication and base
broadening
Toby Hodgkin4
5.9.2
Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on FAO (2010a, 2014a, 2015a, forthcoming), with contributions
from Devin Bartley, Paul Boettcher, Stefano Diulgheroff, Simon Funge-Smith, Jarkko
Koskela, Chikelu Mba and Arshiya Noorani
5.9.3
Associated biodiversity –
overview
Julie Bélanger, Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy and Miriam Widmer
5.9.4
Pollinators
Yves Le Conte51 and Robert J. Paxton52
5.9.5
Assisted evolution for reefbuilding corals
Madeleine J.H. van Oppen,44,45 with contributions from Ken Anthony44 and Line K. Bay44
5.9.
Needs and priorities
Toby Hodgkin4
Reviewers: Vera Agostini, Elizabeth Bach,53 Edmundo Barrios, Roswitha Baumung, Fenton Beed, Kaspar Bienefeld,8 Eric Blanchart,34
Paul Boettcher, Lucrezia Caon, Jonas Cedergren, Viridiana Alcántara Cervantes, Richard Coe,35 Sandra Corsi, Rosa Cuevas Corona,
Marjon Fredrix, Theodor Friedrich, Simon Funge-Smith, Bonnie Furman, Maurizio Furst, Barbara Gemmill-Herren,35 Cristina Grandi,47
Juan J. Jiménez,54 Amir Kassam,17 Johannette Klapwijk,40 Markus Knapp,40 Jarkko Koskela, Regina Laub, Szilvia Lehel, Chikelu Mba,
Douglas McGuire, Shawn McGuire, Soren Moller, Anne Mottet, Tipparat Pongthanapanich, Maryam Rahmanian, Rosa Rolle, Beate
Scherf, Ilaria Sisto, Carolina Starr, Philip Thornton,43 Randolph Thaman,55 Pablo Tittonell,28 Liesl Wiese and Xinhua Yuan
Chapter 6. The state of characterization of biodiversity for food and agriculture
6.2
Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on FAO (2010a, 2014a, 2015a, forthcoming), with contributions
from Devin Bartley, Roswitha Baumung, Paul Boettcher, Stefano Diulgheroff, Simon
Funge-Smith, Toby Hodgkin,4 Jarkko Koskela, Graham Mair and Chikelu Mba
6.3
Associated biodiversity
Julie Bélanger, Dafydd Pilling and Miriam Widmer
6.4
Wild foods
Julie Bélanger
6.5
Needs and priorities
Dafydd Pilling and Miriam Widmer
Reviewers: Vera Agostini, Edmundo Barrios, Abram Bicksler, Ruth Charrondière, John E. Fa,30 Bonnie Furman, Maurizio Furst, Amber
Himes-Cornell, Jarkko Koskela, Regina Laub, Szilvia Lehel, Nelson Lima,48 Graham Mair, Sarah Najera Espinosa, Arshiya Noorani,
Dave Nowell, Beate Scherf and Ilaria Sisto
Chapter 7. The state of conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture
7.2
Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on FAO (2010a, 2014a, 2015a, forthcoming), with contributions
from Devin Bartley, Roswitha Baumung, Paul Boettcher, Stefano Diulgheroff, Simon FungeSmith, Bonnie Furman, Toby Hodgkin,4 Jarkko Koskela, Graham Mair and Arshiya Noorani
7.3
Associated biodiversity
Julie Bélanger, Dafydd Pilling, Mary Taylor6 and Miriam Widmer, with contributions from
Toby Hodgkin4 and Vladimir Shlevkov-Pronskiy
7.4
Wild foods
Julie Bélanger
7.5
Roles of protected areas
Natasha Ali,38 Bárbara Goettsch38 and James Hardcastle,38 with contributions from
Michael Ruggeri and Kim-Anh Tempelman
7.6
Maintenance of traditional
knowledge associated with
food and agriculture
Miriam Widmer
7.7
Needs and priorities
Dafydd Pilling
38
Reviewers: Vera Agostini, Natasha Ali, Edmundo Barrios, Abram Bicksler, Yoshihide Endo, Bonnie Furman, Amber Himes-Cornell,
Maurizio Furst, Jarkko Koskela, Regina Laub, Szilvia Lehel, Graham Mair, Arshiya Noorani, Beate Scherf and Ilaria Sisto
PART D – ENABLING FRAMEWORKS
Chapter 8. The state of policies, institutions and capacities
8.2
Stakeholders
Dafydd Pilling and Michael Ruggeri, with contributions from Julie Bélanger, Nigel
Dudley,3 Miriam Widmer and Angus Wilsdon
8.3
Cooperation
Dafydd Pilling, with contributions from Simon Funge-Smith
8.4
Education, training and
awareness raising
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on FAO (2010a, 2014a, 2015a, forthcoming), with contributions
from Devin Bartley, Paul Boettcher, Nigel Dudley,3 Simon Funge-Smith, Bonnie Furman,
Shawn McGuire, Arshiya Noorani and Hugo Wilson
xxv
8.5
Research
Cordula Hinkes, with contributions from Nigel Dudley3
8.6
Valuation
Cordula Hinkes, with contributions from Nigel Dudley,3 Lucy Garrett and Dafydd Pilling
8.7
Incentives
Lucy Garrett, Bernardete Neves and Daniela Ottaviani
8.8
Policy and legal frameworks
8.8.1
Frameworks at international level Dan Leskien
8.8.2
Frameworks at national level
Dafydd Pilling, drawing on FAO (2010a, 2014a, 2015a, forthcoming), with contributions
from Devin Bartley, Paul Boettcher, Bonnie Furman, Simon Funge-Smith, Shawn
McGuire, Arshiya Noorani and Hugo Wilson
8.8.3
Climate change policy and
programmes
Donagh Hennessy
8.8.4
Frameworks supporting the
maintenance of traditional
knowledge
Miriam Widmer
8.8.5
Access and benefit-sharing
Dan Leskien
Reviewers: Edmundo Barrios, Paul Boettcher, Junning Cai, Stefano Diulgheroff, Simon Funge-Smith, Bonnie Furman, Maurizio
Furst, Kathryn Garforth,2 Amber Himes-Cornell, Rebeca Koloffon, Regina Laub, Szilvia Lehel, Dan Leskien, Dalia Mattioni, Shawn
McGuire, Beate Scherf and Ilaria Sisto
PART E – CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 9. The way forward
Entire chapter
Julie Bélanger, Dafydd Pilling and Kim-Anh Tempelman
Reviewers: Vera Agostini, Edmundo Barrios, Bonnie Furman, Jarkko Koskela, Graham Mair and Beate Scherf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
National Research Council, Canada.
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Equilibrium Research, United Kingdom.
Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research.
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience,
United Kingdom.
University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia.
NordGen Farm Animals.
Länderinstitut für Bienenkunde Hohen Neuendorf,
Germany.
Bioversity International.
Wageningen University, the Netherlands.
BirdLife International.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, United Kingdom.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio
Ambiente, Spain.
Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General
Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies, Turkey.
Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark,
The Danish Agricultural Agency, Denmark.
Malaysia Agriculture Research and Development
Institute, Malaysia.
University of Reading, United Kingdom.
Ministère de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, France.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
United States of America.
Centre de coopération internationale en recherche
agronomique pour le développement, France.
Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project, Brazil.
Plant Genetic Resources Center, Department of
Agriculture, Sri Lanka.
Brown Bee Network.
Secrétariat Général des Affaires Européennes –
Comité interministériel de l’agriculture et de
l’Alimentation, France.
Genetic Resources Research Centre, Kenya Agriculture
and Livestock Research Organization, Kenya.
Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Sécurité alimentaire,
Burkina Faso.
xxvi
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
National Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Eswatini.
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria,
Argentina.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit, Germany.
Center for International Forestry Research.
Society for Social and Economic Research, India.
University of East Anglia, United Kingdom.
World Wildlife Fund, Singapore.
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, France.
World Agroforestry Centre.
Scotland’s Rural College, United Kingdom.
CGIAR Consortium.
International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
Koppert Biological Systems.
European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.
Pennsylvania State University, United States
of America.
International Livestock Research Institute.
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia.
University of Melbourne, Australia.
UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
IFOAM – Organics International.
European Culture Collections’ Organization.
AgResearch Limited, New Zealand.
New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research
Centre, New Zealand.
Institut national de la recherche agronomique, UR406
Abeilles & Environnement, France.
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg and iDiv,
Germany.
Colorado State University, United States of America.
Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología, Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Científicas, Spain.
University of the South Pacific, Fiji.
James Cook University, Australia.
University of Bern, Switzerland.
Abbreviations and acronyms
ABO
ABS
AGRA
AIDS
AMBER
AnGR
APCRM
AqGR
ASEAN
ASFIS
AU
BCA
BCCM
BFA
BFN
BGCI
BINGO
BIO_SOS
BISQ
BLUP
BRC
CABI
CABRI
CAMPFIRE
CBD
CEPF
CIAT
CIFOR
CIP
CITES
CMS
COMET
COMIFAC
CONABIO
COUSSA
CRP
CSO
CSP
CTI-CFF
DAD-IS
DIAS
DNA
EBA
Agricultural Biodiversity Observatory (France)
access and benefit-sharing
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
acquired immune deficiency syndrome
Adaptive Management of Barriers in European Rivers
animal genetic resources for food and agriculture
Association of Fishermen of the Rural Community Mangagoulack (Senegal)
aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System
African Union
biological control agent
Belgian Co-ordinated Collections of Micro-organisms
biodiversity for food and agriculture
Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project
Botanic Gardens Conservation International
Breeding Invertebrates for Next Generation Biocontrol
BIodiversity Multi-Source Monitoring System: from Space to Species
Biological Indicator of Soil Quality (Netherlands)
best linear unbiased prediction
biological resource centre
Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International
Common Access to Biological Resources and Information
Communal Areas Management Programme for
Indigenous Resources (Zimbabwe)
Convention on Biological Diversity
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
International Center for Tropical Agriculture
Center for International Forestry Research
International Potato Center
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
CarbOn Management Evaluation Tool
Commission of Central African Forests
Biodiversity Commission (Mexico)
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil and Water (Mexico)
Conservation Reserve Program (United States of America)
civil society organization
Conservation Stewardship Program (United States of America)
Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security
Domestic Animal Diversity Information System
Database on Introductions of Aquatic Species
deoxyribonucleic acid
Endemic Bird Area
xxvii
EBCC
EBI
ECCO
EMbaRC
EODHaM
EU
EUR
FANTA
FAO
FAOSTAT
FBDG
FGR
FMNR
FRA
FS
FSC
GBRCN
GDP
GEF
GEMStat
GEMS/Water
GIAHS
GIS
GRC
HIV
IBGE
ICCA
ICIPE
IFF
IFOAM
IMARPE
IMTA
INDC
INFOODS
INIA
INRA
INTECRAL
InVest
IPBES
IPF
IPLC
IPM
IPM-FFS
IPNM
IPOA-IUU
IPPC
xxviii
European Bird Census Council
Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute
European Culture Collection Organization
European Consortium of Microbial Resource Centres
Earth Observation Data for Habitat Monitoring
European Union
euro
Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAO Statistical Database
food-based dietary guidelines
forest genetic resources
farmer-managed natural regeneration
Global Forest Resources Assessment
farmer school
Forest Stewardship Council
Global Biological Resource Centre Network
gross domestic product
Global Environment Facility
Global Water Quality Database and Information System
Global Environment Monitoring System for Freshwater
Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems
geographic information system
Global Rumen Census
human immunodeficiency virus
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics
Indigenous and Community Conserved Area
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
Intergovernmental Forum on Forests
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
Marine Institute of Peru
integrated multitrophic aquaculture
intended national determined contribution
International Network of Food Data Systems
National Institute of Agricultural Innovation (Peru)
National Institute for Agricultural Research (France)
Integrated Eco Technologies and Services for a Sustainable Rural
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
indigenous peoples and local communities
Integrated pest management
farmer field school on integrated pest management
integrated plant nutrient management
International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
International Plant Protection Convention
IPPM
IPR
IPSI
ISCAAP
IUCN
IUU
KBA
KEEP
KENRIK
LEAF
LEIA
LER
LI-BIRD
MARS
MasAgro
MAT
MDS
MEA
MERCES
MIRRI
MSDN
NAPA
NARO
NBA
NFP
NGO
NIBIO
NOAA
NVS
OECD
PAA
PAAP
PDNA
PEFC
PELUM
PERSAGA
PESA
PESAGRO-RIO
PGRFA
PIC
PLANAPO
PNAD
PNAE
PNAN
integrated production and pest management
intellectual property rights
International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative
International Standard Statistical Classification of Aquatic Animals
and Plants
International Union for Conservation of Nature
illegal, unreported and unregulated
Key Biodiversity Areas
Kakamega Environmental and Education Programme (Kenya)
Kenya Resource Center for Indigenous Knowledge
Linking Environment and Farming
low external input agriculture
land equivalent ratio
Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (Nepal)
Managing Aquatic ecosystems and water Resources
under multiple Stress
Sustainable Modernization of Traditional Agriculture (Mexico)
mutually agreed terms
Ministry of Social Development and Hunger Alleviation (Brazil)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Marine Ecosystems Restoration in Changing European Seas
Microbial Resource Research Infrastructure
Microbial Strain Data Network
national adaptation programme of action
National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (Japan)
Niger Basin Authority
national forest programme
non-governmental organization
Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(United States of America)
natural vegetative strips
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Food Acquisition Programme (Brazil)
Programme for the Acquisition of Productive Assets (Mexico)
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
Participatory Ecological Land Use Management Association
Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
Strategic Project for Food Security (Mexico)
Agricultural Research Enterprise of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
prior informed consent
National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (Brazil)
National Household Sample Survey (Brazil)
National School Meals Programme (Brazil)
National Food and Nutrition Policy (Brazil)
xxix
PROGAN
Sustainable Livestock Production and Management for Livestock and
Beekeeping (Mexico)
PROGEBE
Regional Project for Sustainable Management of Globally Significant
Endemic Ruminant Livestock
PROMAF
Project of Support for the Productive Chain of Corn and
Bean Producers (Mexico)
PRONAF
National Programme for Strengthening Family Farming (Brazil)
PRONAFOR
National Forest Programme (Mexico)
PSM
port state measure
PURSN
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Programme (Mexico)
QTL
quantitative trait locus
REDD+
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
REDESMI
Spanish Micro-organisms Network
REFORM
REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management
RIL
reduced-impact logging
RIVM
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Netherlands)
RNA
ribonucleic acid
RSPB
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
SADC
Southern African Development Community
SAF
Portuguese and Spanish abbreviation of “agroforestry system”
SAGI
Secretariat for Evaluation and Information Management (Brazil)
SALT
sloping agricultural land technology
SBSTTA
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
SDG
Sustainable Development Goal
SEBRAE
Brazilian Micro and Small Enterprises Support Service
SEEA
System of Environmental Economic Accounting
SNP
single nucleotide polymorphism
SoW
state of the world
TEEB
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TEEBAgFood
TEEB for Food and Agriculture
TEV
total economic value
TFCA
transfrontier conservation area
TRIPS
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
UBINIG
Policy Research for Development Alternative (Bangladesh)
UKNCC
United Kingdom National Culture Collection
UN
United Nations
UNALM
National Agrarian University La Molina (Peru)
UNCCD
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNCED
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UN Environment United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP-WCMC
UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNFF
United Nations Forum on Forests
UN-REDD
United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries
UPOV
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
USD
United States dollar
xxx
USDA
WAVES
WFCC
WHC
WIEWS
WIPO
WISER
WTA
WTO
WTP
United States Department of Agriculture
Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services
World Federation for Culture Collections
World Heritage Convention
World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture
World Intellectual Property Organization
Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status
and Recovery
willingness to accept
World Trade Organization
willingness to pay
xxxi
About this publication
Background
This report presents the first global assessment of biodiversity for food and agriculture
(BFA). It complements other global assessments prepared under the auspices of the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (see Box 1), which have
focused on the state of genetic resources within particular sectors of food and agriculture.
Box 1
The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
With 178 countries and the European Union
as its members, the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture provides a
unique intergovernmental forum that specifically
addresses biological diversity for food and
agriculture. The main objective of the Commission
is to ensure the sustainable use and conservation
of biodiversity for food and agriculture and the
fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from
its use, for present and future generations. The
Commission guides the preparation of periodic
global assessments of the status and trends of
genetic resources and biological diversity for food
and agriculture. In response to these assessments,
the Commission develops global plans of action,
codes of conduct or other policy instruments and
monitors their implementation. The Commission
raises awareness of the need to conserve and
sustainably use biological diversity for food and
agriculture and fosters collaboration among
countries and other relevant stakeholders to
address threats to this biodiversity and promote its
sustainable use and conservation.
Scope and contents of the report
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (SoW-BFA) addresses the
sustainable use, development and conservation of BFA worldwide. BFA is taken to include
the diversity of animals, plants and micro-organisms at the genetic, species and ecosystem
levels that sustain structures, functions and processes in and around production systems
and provide food and non-food agricultural products.
The report consists of the following five parts.
Part A – Overview: Chapter 1 describes the context for the assessment and presents key
concepts and definitions used. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the contributions that
BFA makes to the supply of multiple ecosystem services, to livelihoods, to the resilience of
production systems, to the sustainable intensification of food and agricultural production,
and to food security and nutrition.
Part B – Drivers, status and trends: Chapter 3 discusses the major drivers of change
affecting BFA. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the status and trends of BFA, including a
discussion of the state of knowledge in this field.
Part C – State of management: Chapter 5 considers the state of use of BFA, including
discussions of landscape, seascape and ecosystem approaches, diversification in production
systems, and management practices that utilize BFA or are considered to promote its
conservation and sustainable use. This chapter also addresses the roles of micro-organisms
in food processing, in agro-industrial practices and in the digestive processes of ruminant
xxxii
animals. Finally, it includes a discussion of breeding (genetic improvement) activities for
various categories of BFA. Chapters 6 and 7, respectively, address the state of characterization
and conservation efforts for BFA.
Part D – Enabling frameworks: Chapter 8 describes the state of policies, institutions and
capacities that support the conservation and sustainable use of BFA.
Part E – Conclusions: Chapter 9 presents a discussion of needs and challenges in the
management of BFA.
The reporting and preparatory process
At its Eleventh Regular Session, in 2007, the Commission adopted a number of outputs
and milestones to be addressed in its Multi-year Programme of Work,1 including the
presentation, at its Sixteenth Regular Session, of the SoW-BFA.2 The Commission stressed
that the preparation of the report should be based on information from country reports
and should also draw on thematic studies, reports from international organizations and
inputs from other relevant stakeholders, including centres of excellence in developing
countries. It further stressed that the report should focus on interactions between sectors
and on cross-sectoral matters, taking full advantage of existing information sources,
including sectoral assessments. It also suggested that priority be given to information not
available in existing sources. At its Sixteenth Regular Session, which was held in 2017, the
Commission considered a draft of the SoW-BFA and requested FAO to finalize it, taking into
account comments submitted by Members and Observers, by the end of 2018.
Inputs to the report
The main sources used to prepare the SoW-BFA were as follows:
Country reports
In June 2013, FAO invited countries to officially nominate national focal points to lead the
preparation of country reports to be submitted to FAO to support the preparation of the
SoW-BFA. FAO prepared guidelines to support the development of country reports. The
guidelines outlined the suggested content of the report and provided questions to assist
countries with their analysis and with the development of each section of the report. The
guidelines were made available in all six official FAO languages (Arabic, Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish), both in read-only form and as a dynamic version into which
countries could enter their responses in order to generate a preformatted country report.3
Between March and May 2016, in response to a request by the Commission at its
preceding session, FAO organized a series of informal regional consultations at which
countries and other stakeholders could share knowledge and information on the state
of BFA and discuss needs and priorities with respect to its conservation and sustainable
use. The informal regional consultations also served to support national focal points in
the finalization of their country reports. As background documentation for each informal
regional consultation, FAO prepared a draft regional synthesis report based on the country
reports that had thus far been submitted. The regional synthesis reports were subsequently
finalized based on feedback received from the participants of the informal regional
consultations and on additional country reports received.
By 30 June 2017, the deadline set by the Commission, 91 country reports had been
received (see Table 1).
1
2
3
CGRFA-11/07/Report, paragraph 90.
CGRFA-14/13/Report, paragraph 14.
The dynamic questionnaire was made available in Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
xxxiii
TABLE 1
Overview of country reports and their regional distribution
Region
Countries
Africa (19)
Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Kenya,
Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Asia1,2 (9)
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam
Europe and Central Asia (23)
Belgium, Bulgaria, Belarus, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,3 Georgia, Germany,
Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom
Latin America and the
Caribbean (16)
Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia, Suriname
Near East and North Africa (13)
Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian
Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
North America (1)
United States of America
Pacific (10)
Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands,
Tonga
Notes:
1
The Lao People’s Democratic Republic submitted as a country report its National Agro-biodiversity Programme and
Action Plan II (2015–2025). Selected information from this report is presented.
2
Selected information from the country report of Japan, submitted in 2018, is presented.
3
France submitted a draft report.
Reports from international organizations
In April 2016, FAO invited 55 international organizations to report on their activities related
to the management of BFA and provided them with a standardized questionnaire for the
preparation of their reports. Responses were received from the following organizations:
Africa Rice Center; African Union – Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources; African Union
Commission, Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture; Bioversity International;
Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute; Centre for Agriculture and
Biosciences International; Global Crop Diversity Trust; IFOAM Organics International; InterAmerican Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture; International Atomic Energy Agency;
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas; International Center for
Tropical Agriculture; International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology; International
Food Policy Research Institute; International Fund for Agricultural Development;
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center; International Union for Conservation of Nature; International Rice Research
Institute; Pacific Organic and Ethical Trade Community; Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity; Slow Food; Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center;
United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre; World
Agroforestry Centre; World Bank. In addition, Oxfam voluntarily provided a report entitled
Women’s roles in biodiversity management from lessons to practice and impact: scaling
up pathways in people’s biodiversity management, containing case studies from Peru
Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.
xxxiv
FIGURE 1
Assignment of countries to regions in this report
Africa
Asia
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Near East and North Africa
North America
Pacific
Source: FAO.
Thematic studies
The following four thematic studies providing in-depth analysis of specific topics relevant
to BFA were prepared for the SoW-BFA:
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture: the perspectives of small-scale food providers;
• The contributions of biodiversity for food and agriculture to the resilience of
production systems;
• Contributions of biodiversity to the sustainable intensification of food production;
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture and ecosystem services.
Regional synthesis reports
As described above, the series of informal regional consultations held in 2016 involved the
preparation of a regional synthesis report for each region where consultations were held.
The contents of these synthesis reports served as source material for the global analysis
presented in the SoW-BFA.
State of the world reports
The subsections of the SoW-BFA that address plant (crop), animal (livestock), forest and
aquatic genetic resources draw heavily on the respective global assessments (state of the
world reports) published or in preparation under the auspices of the Commission.
Other sources
In addition to the sources mentioned above, the SoW-BFA draws on a range of literature
and data sources. The latter include FAO’s statistical database FAOSTAT,4 the FAO/INFOODS
Food Composition database for biodiversity,5 the Domestic Animal Diversity Information
System,6 the World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources for
4
5
6
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/tables-and-databases/faoinfoods-databases/en/
http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en/
xxxv
Food and Agriculture7 and The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of
Threatened Species.8
Regional classification of countries
The assignment of countries to regions for the purposes of the SoW-BFA follows the regional
groupings used in FAO statistics and for election purposes (Figure 1). Seven regions are
distinguished: Africa; Asia; Europe and Central Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; Near
East and North Africa; North America; and Pacific.
7
8
http://www.fao.org/wiews/en/
https://www.iucnredlist.org/
xxxvi
Executive summary
What is biodiversity for food and agriculture?
Biodiversity is the variety of life at genetic, species and ecosystem levels. Biodiversity for
food and agriculture (BFA) is, in turn, the subset of biodiversity that contributes in one
way or another to agriculture and food production. It includes the domesticated plants
and animals raised in crop, livestock, forest and aquaculture systems, harvested forest and
aquatic species, the wild relatives of domesticated species, other wild species harvested for
food and other products, and what is known as “associated biodiversity”, the vast range of
organisms that live in and around food and agricultural production systems, sustaining them
and contributing to their output. Agriculture is taken here to include crop and livestock
production, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture.1
About this report
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture provides an assessment of
biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) and its management worldwide, drawing on
information provided in 91 country reports (prepared by over 1 300 contributors), 27 reports
from international organizations and inputs from over 175 authors and reviewers.
It describes the many contributions that BFA makes to food security and nutrition,
livelihoods, the resilience of production systems, the sustainable intensification of food
production and the supply of multiple ecosystem services; the major drivers of change
affecting BFA; the status and trends of various components of BFA; the state of management
of BFA; the state of policies, institutions and capacities that support the sustainable use and
conservation of BFA; and needs and challenges in the management of BFA.
Key findings
1. Biodiversity is essential to food and agriculture
Biodiversity for food and agriculture is indispensable to food security, sustainable development
and the supply of many vital ecosystem services. Biodiversity makes production systems and
livelihoods more resilient to shocks and stresses, including to the effects of climate change.
It is a key resource in efforts to increase food production while limiting negative impacts on
the environment. It makes multiple contributions to the livelihoods of many people, often
reducing the need for food and agricultural producers to rely on costly or environmentally
harmful external inputs. The country reports highlight the importance of biodiversity, at
genetic, species and ecosystem levels, to efforts to address the challenges posed by diverse
and changing production systems. Many emphasize the role of diversification – using multiple
species, integrating the use of crop, livestock, forest and aquatic resources, and conserving and
managing habitat diversity at landscape or seascape scale – in promoting resilience, improving
livelihoods and supporting food security and nutrition.
1
For the purpose of the country-reporting process, biodiversity for food and agriculture was defined as follows: “…the
variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels that sustain
the ecosystem structures, functions and processes in and around production systems, and that provide food and nonfood agricultural products.” More information on key concepts is provided in Section 1.5.
xxxvii
2. Multiple interacting drivers of change are affecting biodiversity for food
and agriculture
While a range of drivers of change are having major negative impacts on biodiversity for
food and agriculture and the ecosystem services it delivers, some provide opportunities
to promote more sustainable management. Analysis of the country reports and the wider
literature indicates that BFA is affected by a variety of drivers operating at a range of
levels: major global trends such as changes in climate, international markets and demography give rise to more immediate drivers such as land-use change, pollution and overuse
of external inputs, overharvesting and the proliferation of invasive species. Interactions
between drivers often exacerbate their effects on BFA. Demographic changes, urbanization,
markets, trade and consumer preferences are reported to have a strong influence on
food systems, frequently with negative consequences for BFA and the ecosystem services
it provides. However, such drivers are also reported to open opportunities to make food
systems more sustainable, for example through the development of markets for biodiversityfriendly products. Many of the drivers that have negative impacts on BFA, including
overexploitation, overharvesting, pollution, overuse of external inputs, and changes in land
and water management, are at least partially caused by inappropriate agricultural practices.
The driver mentioned by the highest number of countries as having negative effects
on regulating and supporting ecosystem services is changes in land and water use and
management. Loss and degradation of forest and aquatic ecosystems and, in many production
systems, transition to intensive production of a reduced number of species, breeds and
varieties, remain major drivers of loss of BFA and ecosystem services. Countries report that
the maintenance of traditional knowledge related to BFA is negatively affected by the loss of
traditional lifestyles as a result of population growth, urbanization and the industrialization of
agriculture and food processing, and by overexploitation and overharvesting. Policy measures
and advances in science and technology are largely seen by countries as positive drivers that
offer ways of reducing the negative effects of other drivers on BFA. They provide critical
entry points for interventions supporting sustainable use and conservation. However, policies
intended to promote the sustainable management of BFA are often weakly implemented.
3. Biodiversity for food and agriculture is declining
Many key components of biodiversity for food and agriculture at genetic, species and
ecosystem levels are in decline. Evidence suggests that the proportion of livestock breeds
at risk of extinction is increasing, and that, for some crops and in some areas, plant diversity
in farmers’ fields is decreasing and threats to diversity are increasing. Nearly a third of
fish stocks are overfished and a third of freshwater fish species assessed are considered
threatened. Countries report that many species that contribute to vital ecosystem services,
including pollinators, natural enemies of pests, soil organisms and wild food species, are in
decline as a consequence of the destruction and degradation of habitats, overexploitation,
pollution and other threats. Key ecosystems that deliver numerous services essential to food
and agriculture, including supply of freshwater, protection against hazards and provision of
habitat for species such as fish and pollinators, are declining rapidly.
Knowledge of associated biodiversity, in particular micro-organisms and invertebrates,
and of its roles in the supply of ecosystem services needs to be improved. While a large
amount of information has been accumulated on the characteristics of the domesticated
species used in food and agriculture, many information gaps remain, particularly for species,
xxxviii
varieties and breeds that are not widely used commercially. Information on wild food species
is also often limited. Many associated-biodiversity species have never been identified and
described, particularly in the case of invertebrates and micro-organisms. Even when they
have, their functions within the ecosystem often remain poorly understood. Over 99 percent
of bacteria and protist species remain unknown. For several types of associated biodiversity,
including soil micro-organisms and those used for food processing, advances in molecular
techniques and sequencing technologies are facilitating characterization. Several countries
have active programmes for characterizing soil micro-organisms using molecular methods.
In many countries, however, gaps in terms of skills, facilities and equipment constrain
opportunities to benefit from these developments.
Monitoring programmes for biodiversity for food and agriculture remain limited. Assessment
and monitoring of the status and trends of BFA at national, regional and global levels are
uneven and often limited. Even in developed regions, where the population trends of many
species are well monitored and there are numerous ongoing research projects on the links
between biodiversity and food and agriculture, available data often provide only a snapshot
of the status of individual species (or groups of species) in particular production systems,
habitats or geographical areas. While it is clear that many components of BFA are declining,
lack of data often constrains the planning and prioritization of effective remedial measures.
4. The use of many biodiversity-friendly practices is reported to be increasing
The sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture call for
approaches in which genetic resources, species and ecosystems are managed in an
integrated way in the context of production systems and their surroundings. In particular
for many types of associated biodiversity and wild foods, sustainable use and conservation
require in situ or on-farm management integrated into strategies at ecosystem or landscape
levels. Ex situ conservation should serve as a complementary strategy.
The use of a wide range of management practices and approaches regarded as favourable
to the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture is reported
to be increasing. Eighty percent of reporting countries indicate that one or more of the
biodiversity-focused practices on which they were invited to report are being used in one or
more types of production system. A much higher proportion of OECD countries than nonOECD countries report the use of these practices. However, it is difficult to fully evaluate
the extent to which these approaches are being implemented, because of the variety of
scales and contexts involved and the absence of data and appropriate assessment methods.
Although countries generally indicate that the impacts of the biodiversity-focused practices
on diversity are perceived to be positive, they emphasize the need for more research in this
regard, even for practices where research on production issues is well established. Many
biodiversity-focused practices are relatively complex and require good understanding of
the local ecosystem. They can be knowledge intensive, context specific and provide benefits
only in the relatively long term. Many countries note major challenges in up-scaling such
practices, and the need to promote them through capacity-development and strengthening
policy frameworks.
Although efforts to conserve biodiversity for food and agriculture in situ and ex situ
are increasing, levels of coverage and protection are often inadequate. Crop, livestock,
forest and aquatic genetic resources are conserved in situ through a variety of approaches,
xxxix
including promotion of their sustainable use in production systems and the establishment
of protected and other designated areas. However, many species and populations remain
inadequately protected. Relatively few in situ conservation programmes are reported to
explicitly target associated biodiversity and its roles in the supply of ecosystem services,
although such programmes are increasing. Most associated-biodiversity species targeted
are conserved through the promotion of biodiversity-friendly production practices, the
establishment of protected areas, or policy and legal measures aimed at restricting activities
that damage biodiversity. Ex situ conservation efforts for BFA are increasing, in particular
for plant genetic resources, although many gaps in coverage remain. Much of the diversity
present in minor crops, and in livestock, forest and aquatic species, is also not yet secured ex
situ. Although limited, public- and private-sector ex situ conservation initiatives for targeted
species of associated biodiversity have been established, with many countries, for instance,
holding culture collections of micro-organisms used in agriculture or in agrifood industries.
Eight percent of the wild species reported by countries to be used for food are reported to
be subject to in situ conservation measures and 13 percent to be conserved ex situ.
5. Enabling frameworks for the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for
food and agriculture remain insufficient
Enabling frameworks for the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food
and agriculture urgently need to be established or strengthened. Most countries have
put in place legal, policy and institutional frameworks targeting the sustainable use and
conservation of biodiversity as a whole. Policies addressing food and agriculture are reported
to be increasingly based on ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches. However, legal
and policy measures explicitly targeting wild foods or components of associated biodiversity
and their roles in supplying ecosystem services are not widespread. Constraints to the
development and implementation of effective policy tools include a lack of awareness among
policy-makers and other stakeholders of the importance of BFA, and in particular wild foods
and associated biodiversity, to livelihoods and food security. There is a large knowledge
gap in terms of how existing policies are affecting these components of biodiversity and
the ecosystem services they provide. Diverging interests among stakeholders hamper the
development and implementation of laws, policies and regulations, as do shortages of
human and financial resources.
Research on food and agricultural systems needs to become more multidisciplinary,
more participatory and more focused on interactions between different components of
biodiversity for food and agriculture. Improvements to the sustainable use and conservation
of BFA are often constrained by a lack of understanding of interactions between sectors
(crop and livestock production, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture), between wild and
domesticated biodiversity, and between the ecological and socio-economic components of
production systems. Cooperation across disciplines, and greater involvement of producers
and other stakeholders in research projects, can help to overcome these knowledge gaps.
Improving the management of biodiversity for food and agriculture and enhancing its
contributions to ecosystem services call for better multistakeholder, cross-sectoral and
international cooperation. Ensuring the sustainable use of BFA requires effective actions
by relevant authorities and improved collaboration among a range of stakeholder groups
(producers and their organizations, consumers, suppliers and marketers, policy-makers,
and national and international governmental and non-governmental organizations) across
xl
the sectors of food and agriculture and between the food and agriculture sector and the
environment/nature-conservation sector. The management of BFA spans international
borders and the conventional boundaries between sectors. Frameworks for cooperation
at national, regional and international levels in the management of genetic resources are
relatively well developed in the individual sectors of food and agriculture. Cross-sectoral
cooperation and multistakeholder collaborative activities specifically targeting associated
biodiversity and wild foods are less widespread and need to be expanded and strengthened.
What needs to be done?
Securing and enhancing the multiple roles of BFA will require sustainable use and
conservation of the ecosystems, species and genetic diversity that compose it. For this to
happen, knowledge of the roles of biodiversity in the ecological processes that underpin food
and agricultural production needs to be strengthened, and used to develop management
strategies that protect, restore and enhance these processes across a range of scales.
Establishing effective policy and outreach measures will be needed to support the uptake
of management practices that sustainably use biodiversity to promote food and livelihood
security and resilience.
The country-driven process of preparing The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and
Agriculture has led to the identification of numerous gaps, needs and potential actions in
the management of BFA. The next step is to take action. Over the years, the Commission on
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has overseen the development of global plans
of action for genetic resources in the plant, animal and forest sectors. Implementation of
these instruments needs to be stepped up. Consideration also needs to be given to how
the international community can more effectively promote synergies in the management
of all components of biodiversity, across these sectors and others, in the interests of a more
sustainable food and agriculture.
xli
Part A
OVERVIEW
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Biodiversity and the
challenges facing global food
and agriculture
Supplying enough safe and nutritious food for
a growing world population poses many challenges. Among the most serious is the need to
increase food production globally without undermining the capacity of the world’s lands and seas
to meet the food needs of future generations
and to deliver other essential ecosystem services.
Despite repeated warnings about the rapid loss of
biodiversity (e.g. MEA, 2005a; Steffen et al.,
2015) and the mounting evidence of its key role
in food security and nutrition (Bommarco, Kleijn
and Potts, 2013; Cunningham et al., 2013; Diaz et
al., 2011; FAO and PAR, 2011; Pinstrup-Andersen,
2013; Rockström et al., 2017; Sunderland, 2011;
Tittonell et al., 2016; Tscharntke et al., 2012), production systems worldwide are becoming ever less
diverse in terms of the ecosystems, species and
within-species genetic resources they comprise
(FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a; Khoury
et al., 2014; Macfadyen et al., 2015).
In many parts of the world, biodiverse agricultural landscapes in which cultivated land is
interspersed with uncultivated areas such as
woodlands, pastures and wetlands have been, or
are being, replaced by large areas of monoculture, farmed using large quantities of external
inputs such as pesticides, mineral fertilizers and
fossil fuels. Livestock production is increasingly
becoming geographically separated from crop
production, with animals often raised in landless
production units, heavily dosed with veterinary
drugs and fed on feedstuffs produced elsewhere
and transported over long distances (FAO, 2009a,
2015a; Steinfeld et al., eds., 2010). Although high
levels of crop and livestock production have been
achieved, this has often come at the cost of major
disruptions to the integrity of terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems, of declining opportunities for
mutually beneficial interactions between sectors,
and of the loss of components of biodiversity that
provide services such as pollination, pest control
and nutrient cycling. Many grasslands are being
degraded by excessive or badly managed grazing
or being converted for use in crop production
or for other purposes (FAO, 2011a). The world’s
soils and their biodiversity are beset by threats
such as erosion, loss of organic carbon, nutrient
imbalances, salinization and contamination with
pollutants (FAO and ITPS, 2015).
Overfishing threatens marine resources worldwide. Changes in fishing activities by international
fleets are exerting particular pressure in the waters
of some developing countries, in part because of
the use of “flags of convenience” (Ferrel, 2005;
Miller and Sumaila, 2014). As of 2015, an estimated 33.1 percent of world fish stocks were
being fished at unsustainable levels (FAO, 2018a).
Overfishing is also affecting many of the world’s
lakes and rivers (ibid.).
Over recent decades, growing global demand
for fish has increasingly been met by aquaculture. Although fish farming offers opportunities
to diversify production through polyculture or
through integration with other production activities, it is also becoming increasingly intensified.
Some systems use non-native species, which creates
the risk of escapes that may harm local biodiversity
(Lee and Gordon, 2006; McGinnity et al., 2003).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
3
OV ERV I E W
PART A
Forest loss represents a major global threat to
biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services
such as habitat provisioning, clean water, soil
conservation and protection, and carbon sequestration (FAO, 2018b). Although rates of loss have
decreased (and gone into moderate reverse in
some regions), global forest area continues to
decline, with the early part of this century seeing
net losses in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and
Southeast Asia (ibid.). The main cause of deforestation in these regions is conversion to agriculture,
with illegal logging, fires and fuelwood extraction
also contributing (ibid.). Remaining forests are
threatened by degradation and fragmentation
(Haddad et al., 2015).
The food and agriculture sector is a major contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions. For example,
livestock production chains are estimated to be
responsible for 14.5 percent of anthropogenic
greenhouse-gas emissions (FAO, 2017a; Gerber et
al., 2013). At the same time, climate change poses
enormous threats to food and agriculture, including through its impacts on the species and ecosystems – from soil micro-organisms to coral reefs
– that underpin production (FAO, 2015b). Loss of
biodiversity in turn threatens the capacity of ecosystems used for food and agriculture to sequester carbon and reduces the options available for
modifying production systems in the interests of
climate change mitigation and adaptation (Chen
et al., 2018; Henry et al., 2009; FAO, 2015b).
As the outcome of the first country-driven
global assessment addressing all components of
biodiversity of significance to food and agriculture across all sectors, this report, prepared by
FAO at the request of its Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, aims to shed
light both on the nature of these challenges and
on opportunities to address them. It identifies
and assesses the contributions that biodiversity
makes to the supply of ecosystem services relevant to food and agriculture, to the resilience of
production systems, to efforts to intensify production sustainably, to the livelihoods of farmers,
livestock keepers, fishers, fish farmers and forest
dwellers, and to food security and nutrition. It
4
documents what is known about the status and
trends of these components of biodiversity, and
identifies and assesses the impacts of major drivers
of change affecting them. It also documents the
state of adoption of management practices and
strategies in food and agriculture that use biodiversity or contribute to its conservation, the
state of programmes addressing the characterization and conservation of components of biodiversity relevant to food and agriculture, and the state
of policy and institutional frameworks for the
management of these resources. It identifies key
gaps and needs in terms of knowledge, capacity
and resources and pinpoints priority actions that
can help to address them.
1.2 What is biodiversity
for food
and agriculture?
Put simply, biodiversity is the variability that
exists among living organisms (both within and
between species) and the ecosystems of which
they are part. In turn, biodiversity for food and
agriculture (BFA) is the biodiversity that in one
way or another contributes to agriculture and
food production (see Section 1.5 for more formal
definitions of these terms). It includes not only the
domesticated crops and livestock raised by farmers
and livestock keepers, the trees planted and harvested by forest dwellers and the aquatic species
harvested or raised by fishers and aquaculture
practitioners, but also the myriad other species of
plants, animals and micro-organisms that underpin production, whether by creating and maintaining healthy soils, pollinating plants, purifying water, providing protection against extreme
weather events, enabling ruminant animals to
digest fibrous plant materials or delivering any
of a range of other vital services. It also includes
wild species (beyond the already-noted harvested
aquatic species and forest trees) that are harvested for food and for other purposes. Finally, it
includes micro-organisms used in food processing
and in various agro-industrial processes.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
I N TRO DUCT I O N
It is difficult to establish definite boundaries
to BFA. Crops and livestock and farmed or
wild-harvested trees and aquatic species all
clearly contribute directly to food security and
livelihoods. In many cases, they also provide
other services that support food and agricultural
production. For example, a tree or a herbaceous
crop plant may help to protect the soil against
erosion or to create a favourable microclimate
for other components of the production
system, a farmed animal may remove weeds
or provide manure to fertilize crops, or a
filter-feeding mollusc raised in aquaculture
may contribute to water purification. Many
of the other species that live in and around
production systems also make relatively direct
and clearly identifiable contributions to food
and agriculture, for example the role of bees in
pollination or ladybird beetles in removing aphid
pests from crop plants. However, the health of
a crop, grassland, forest, marine or freshwater
production system is influenced by an enormous
range of ecological processes, many of which are
complex and not well understood. These process
operate on a variety of scales, ranging from very
local to global, and cross the boundaries between
production systems, between the sectors of food
and agriculture and between managed and
unmanaged ecosystems. To provide a concrete
example, a crop plant may benefit from soilmaintaining services provided by earthworms
living in the immediate vicinity, from pollination
services provided by insects that depend on the
biodiversity present in hedgerows or uncultivated
areas at the edge of the field, and from climateregulating services provided by distant forest,
grassland or ocean biodiversity.
BFA cannot be considered in isolation from
the humans that manage production systems.
Farmers, livestock keepers, forest dwellers, fish
farmers and fishers constantly engage with their
environments, shaping them to varying degrees
and utilizing components of biodiversity in
different combinations to meet their needs. Many
domesticated species have been used, developed
and maintained by humans for thousands of years.
1.3 Biodiversity for food
and agriculture
and global policy agendas
Over recent decades, the importance of biodiversity to food security and nutrition, rural and
coastal livelihoods and sustainable development
more generally has gradually been acquiring
greater recognition on international agendas
(Figure 1.1). 1983 saw the establishment of
the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources
– an intergovernmental body with a secretariat hosted by FAO – which in 1995 became the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture1 and acquired a mandate covering
all components of biodiversity of relevance
to food and agriculture. Over the years, the
Commission has overseen global assessments of
genetic resources in the crop, livestock, forest
and aquatic sectors and negotiated global plans
of action for genetic resources in the first three
(FAO, forthcoming, 1997, 2007a, 2007b, 2010a,
2011b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a).
The adoption of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD)2 in 1992 established an international legal framework for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity, including domesticated and non-domesticated species used for
food and agriculture, along with the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising from
the use of genetic resources. The CBD’s programmes on (inter alia) agricultural biodiversity,
forest biodiversity, dry and subhumid land biodiversity, inland water ecosystems and marine and
coastal biodiversity aim to promote these objectives across a range of ecosystems used for food
and agriculture. The Aichi Biodiversity Targets,
adopted in 2010 as part of the CBD’s Strategic
Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (CBD, 2010a),
recognize the importance of BFA, including the
need to reduce or eliminate the loss of forests
(Target 5), manage and harvest fish and aquatic
1
2
http://www.fao.org/cgrfa/en (see also Box 1 in the “About this
publication” section).
https://www.cbd.int
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
5
1
OV ERV I E W
PART A
FIGURE 1.1
Key developments in the international recognition of the importance of biodiversity for food
and agriculture
Commission on
Plant Genetic
Resources
established
1983
1992
Commission’s
mandate
extended to cover
all biodiversity
for food and
agriculture
1995
Convention on
Biological
Diversity (CBD)
adopted
1996
CBD Programme
of Work for
Agricultural
Biodiversity
is established
Millennium
Development
Goals adopted
2000
2001
First Global Plan
of Action (GPA)
for Plant Genetic
Resources for Food
and Agriculture
(PGRFA) adopted
GPA
Animal Genetic
Resources
adopted
2007
2010
2011
Nagoya Protocol
adopted
Millennium
Ecosystem
Assessment
initiated
2012
2013
IPBES
established
Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity
2011–2020
adopted
International
Treaty on PGRFA
adopted
GPA Forest
Genetic Resources
adopted
Second GPA
PGRFA adopted
2015
Cancun
Declaration
adopted
2016
Sustainable
Development
Goals adopted
Note: IPBES = Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
invertebrates and plants sustainably (Target 6),
ensure areas under agriculture, aquaculture
and forestry are managed sustainably in order
to conserve biodiversity (Target 7) and maintain the genetic diversity of cultivated plants
and animals and their wild relatives (Target 13).
Target 18 recognizes the importance of the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices
of indigenous and local communities for the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing
of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to
the Convention on Biological Diversity, a supplementary agreement to the CBD adopted in
2010, established a legal framework for the
implementation of the CBD’s objective of fair
and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
the use of genetic resources.
In 2001, the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which
was negotiated under the aegis of the Commission,
established an international legal framework, in
harmony with the CBD, for the conservation and
sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food
and agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing
of the benefits arising from their use.
6
2012 saw the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),3 an independent
intergovernmental body that provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments of the
planet’s biodiversity and ecosystems, the benefits
they provide to people, and the tools and methods
available to protect and sustainably use them.
The Sustainable Development Goals, adopted
by the United Nations in 2015 (see Box 1.1), include
a number of targets related to the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity in the context
of food and agriculture, as did the Millennium
Development Goals adopted in 2000.
In December 2016, the high-level ministerial
segment of the thirteenth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the CBD adopted
the Cancún Declaration on Mainstreaming the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity for
Well-being (CBD, 2016a). More than 190 countries
committed themselves to working to mainstream
biodiversity and “bearing in mind that the
agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism
sectors heavily depend on biodiversity and its
components, as well as on the ecosystem functions
3
https://www.ipbes.net
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
I N TRO DUCT I O N
Box 1.1
Biodiversity for food and agriculture, FAO and the Sustainable Development Goals
FAO is “custodian” UN agency for 21 indicators under
Sustainable Development Goals 2, 5, 6, 12, 14 and 15, and a
contributing agency for four more. Many of these indicators
directly or indirectly measure components of biodiversity for
food and agriculture.
Goal 2 (End hunger, achieve food
security and improved nutrition and
promote sustainable agriculture)
includes a target on ensuring
sustainable food production systems and
implementing resilient agricultural practices that increase
productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems,
that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change,
extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and
that progressively improve land and soil quality (Target 2.4).
It also includes a target on maintaining the genetic diversity
of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated
animals and their related wild species, and promoting access
to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the
utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge (Target 2.5). Indicators for these targets include:
• Indicator 2.4.1: Proportion of agricultural area
under productive and sustainable agriculture;
• Indicator 2.5.1: Number of plant and animal
genetic resources for food and agriculture secured
in medium- or long-term conservation facilities; and
• Indicator 2.5.2: Proportion of local breeds, classified
as being at risk, not-at-risk or at unknown level of
risk of extinction.
Data for Indicators 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 are compiled by FAO
through the World Information and Early Warning System on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (WIEWS)1
and the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System
(DAD-IS),2 both of which are managed under the guidance
of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (see Boxes 7.1 and 7.2 for further information on
these systems).
1
2
http://www.fao.org/wiews/en
http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en
Goal 14 (Conserve and sustainably use
the oceans, seas and marine resources)
includes targets on the sustainable
management and protection of marine
and coastal ecosystems, action to
promote their restoration in the interest of healthy and
productive oceans, and effective regulation of harvesting
and overfishing. Indicators for this target include:
• Indicator 14.4.1: Proportion of fish stocks within
biologically sustainable levels; and
• Indicator 14.7.1: Sustainable fisheries as a
percentage of GDP in small island developing
states, least developed countries and all countries.
Goal 15 (Sustainably manage forests,
combat desertification, halt and reverse
land degradation, halt biodiversity
loss) includes targets addressing
the conservation, restoration and
sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater
ecosystems and their services, sustainable management
of all types of forests and the integration of ecosystem
and biodiversity values into national and local planning,
development processes and poverty reduction strategies.
Indicators for this target include:
• Indicator 15.1.1: Forest area as a percentage of
total land area;
• Indicator 15.2.1: Progress towards sustainable
forest management; and
• Indicator 15.4.2: Mountain Green Cover Index (a
measure of changes in the area of green vegetation
in mountain areas [forest, shrubs and pasture land,
and cropland]).
Note: For further information, see FAO (2017b) or visit FAO’s Sustainable
Development Goals web page: http://www.fao.org/sustainable-developmentgoals/en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
7
1
OV ERV I E W
PART A
and services which biodiversity underpins, and
that these sectors also impact on biodiversity in
various direct and indirect ways, … to undertake
specific actions for each sector …”
1.4 Assessments of biodiversity
for food and agriculture
The growing prominence of biodiversity on international agendas has led to the implementation
of a number of global assessments of various
components or aspects of biodiversity, including
those of relevance to food and agriculture. For
example, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,4
a global effort launched in 2001 to identify the
consequences of ecosystem change for human
well-being, assessed the state of a range of ecosystem services,5 including the supply of food and
other agricultural products, and many of the services that underpin production (pollination, pest
regulation, erosion control, etc.) (MEA, 2005a).
IPBES has prepared global assessments on pollinators, pollination and food production (IPBES,
2016a), on land degradation (IPBES, 2018a) and
on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES,
forthcoming). Starting in 2001, the CBD’s Global
Biodiversity Outlook series6 has provided periodic
reports on the status and trends of global biodiversity and its management. The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)7 initiative has
prepared a number of publications on the theme
of valuating biodiversity and ecosystem services,
including an interim report addressing the food
and agriculture sector (TEEB, 2015) and a scientific
and economic foundation report (TEEB, 2018).
FAO has long conducted regular assessments
of food and agriculture (The State of Food and
Agriculture),8 forests (The State of the World’s
Forests;9 Global Forest Resources Assessment)10
and fisheries and aquaculture (The State of World
Fisheries and Aquaculture),11 each of which contributes to knowledge of the state of species
and/or ecosystems of relevance to food and agriculture. In 2015, FAO and the Intergovernmental
Technical Panel on Soils published Status of the
World’s Soil Resources, the first major global
assessment on soils and related issues (FAO and
ITPS, 2015).
The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition12 of the UN Committee on World
Food Security has over recent years published a
number of reports addressing the significance of
particular components of BFA to food security and
nutrition: Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture
for food security and nutrition (HLPE, 2014a);
Sustainable agricultural development for food
security and nutrition: what roles for livestock?
(HLPE, 2016); Sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition (HLPE, 2017a); and Nutrition
and food systems (HLPE, 2017b).
As noted above, the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture has overseen global assessments of genetic resources and
their management in the various sectors of food
and agriculture (FAO, forthcoming, 1997, 2007a,
2010a, 2015a) (see Box 1.2). These assessments
have largely focused on the species, varieties and
breeds of plants and animals that are raised or
harvested in each sector to provide food and other
products (although other roles and uses are discussed).13 Other components of BFA received little
attention and interactions between sectors were
not a major focus.
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food
and Agriculture is intended to complement the
sectoral assessments and to fill gaps in terms of
scope and focus. It addresses all components of
9
4
5
6
7
8
8
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Index-2.html
See Section 1.5 for further information on this concept.
https://www.cbd.int/gbo/default.shtml
http://www.teebweb.org
http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/
the-state-of-food-and-agriculture/en
10
11
12
13
http://www.fao.org/publications/sofo/en
http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en
http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en
http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/en
See Section 1.5 for further discussion of genetic resources in
the various sectors of food and agriculture and the scope of
the global assessments overseen by the Commission.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
I N TRO DUCT I O N
Box 1.2
Assessing the state of the world’s genetic resources for food and agriculture
The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture has overseen the preparation of
authoritative assessments of the state of the world’s
genetic resources in the plant (crop), animal (livestock),
forest and aquatic sectors.
The State of the World’s Aquatic
Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (FAO, forthcoming)
focuses on cultured species and
their wild relatives, within national
jurisdiction. It draws on 92 country
reports and five specially
commissioned thematic background
studies. The reporting countries are responsible for
96 percent of global aquaculture production. The report
sets the context with a review of the state of the world’s
aquaculture and fisheries and includes overviews of the use
and exchange of aquatic genetic resources, the drivers
affecting the status of these resources, and the extent of
ex situ and in situ conservation efforts targeting them.
It also describes the roles of stakeholders in the
management of these resources and the levels of activity
in research, education, training and extension in this field.
It reviews national policies and the levels of regional
and global cooperation in the management of aquatic
genetic resources. Finally, it assesses needs and challenges
in the context of the findings of the analysis of the data
provided by countries.
The Second Report on the State of the
World’s Animal Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2015a)
provides an update of the global
assessment provided in the first
report on The State of the
World’s Animal Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture, published in
2007. It presents an analysis of the state of livestock diversity,
the influence of livestock-sector trends on the management of
animal genetic resources, the state of capacity to manage
animal genetic resources, including legal and policy
frameworks, the state of the art in tools and methods for
characterization, genetic improvement, valuation and
conservation, and needs and challenges with respect to the
future of animal genetic resources management. It draws on
129 country reports, four reports from regional focal points
and networks, 15 reports from international organizations and
two commissioned thematic studies.
The State of the World’s Forest
Genetic Resources (FAO, 2014a)
reviews the values of forest genetic
resources, the drivers of change
affecting them, emerging
technologies for their management
and the state of their conservation
and use. It provides
recommendations for the management of these resources,
both in terms of innovations in practices and technologies
and in terms of increased attention at policy and
institutional levels. It draws on information provided by
86 countries, outcomes from regional and subregional
consultations, and five commissioned thematic studies.
The Second Report on the State
of the World’s Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture
(FAO, 2010a) provides an update
of the global assessment provided
in the first report on The State of
the World’s Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture,
published in 1996. It documents the major achievements in
the sector during the preceding decade and identifies
gaps and needs requiring urgent attention. It draws on
113 country reports, regional syntheses and eight
commissioned thematic studies.
Note: The reports can be viewed at
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4787e.pdf
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3825e.pdf
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e.pdf
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
9
1
OV ERV I E W
PART A
biodiversity across all sectors of food and agriculture,
but pays particular attention to the interface
between managed and unmanaged biodiversity,
cross-sectoral interactions and the roles of components of BFA in the supply of supporting and
regulating ecosystem services.14
Like the sectoral assessments, the report is the
outcome of a country-driven process. The decision
to prepare it was taken at the Commission’s
Eleventh Regular Session in 2007 (FAO, 2007c).
Ninety-one countries submitted reports on the
state of their BFA and its management, including
information on priorities that need to be
addressed in order to strengthen the sustainable
use and conservation of these resources. A series
of informal regional consultations attended by
country representatives took place in 2016 and
provided an opportunity to share knowledge and
information and to discuss needs and priorities.
The broad scope and innovative perspective
of the assessment presented challenges in terms
of data collection and analysis at all levels. In
discussing the preparatory process, the Commission15
recognized that findings would be incomplete
in a number of areas and requested that gaps in
knowledge be assessed and highlighted in the
report (FAO, 2013a).
1.5 Key concepts addressed in
this report
This section provides definitions and short overviews of key concepts addressed in this report.
Biodiversity
Biological diversity (often referred to as biodiversity) is defined in Article 2 of the CBD as “the variability among living organisms from all sources
including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other
aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes
of which they are part: this includes diversity within
14
15
See Section 1.5 for further discussion of the various categories
of ecosystem services.
At its Fourteenth Regular Session, in 2013.
10
species, between species and of ecosystems”
(CBD, 1992).
Biodiversity for food and agriculture
BFA is a subcategory of biodiversity taken for
the purposes of this report to correspond to “the
variety and variability of animals, plants and
micro-organisms at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels that sustain the ecosystem structures,
functions and processes in and around production
systems, and that provide food and non-food
agricultural products” (FAO, 2013b).16 Production
systems (see below for further discussion of this
term) are here taken to include those in the crop,
livestock, forest, fishery and aquaculture sectors.
BFA includes plant, animal and aquatic genetic
resources for food and agriculture, forest genetic
resources, associated biodiversity and wild foods
(see below for further discussion of these terms).
It also includes micro-organisms used for food processing and in agro-industrial processes.
Genetic resources
Genetic resources are defined under Article 2 of
the CBD as “genetic material of actual or potential value”. “Genetic material” is in turn defined as
“any material of plant, animal, microbial or other
origin containing functional units of heredity.”
Genetic resources can be embodied in living plants,
animals or micro-organisms or in stored seeds,
semen, oocytes, embryos, somatic cells or isolated
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). In the context of food
and agriculture, the term is often used to refer to
the species managed or harvested within a given
sector (e.g. plant, animal, forest or aquatic genetic
resources for food and agriculture – see below).
Plant genetic resources for
food and agriculture
The term plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture refers to genetic material of plant
origin of actual or potential value for food and
agriculture (FAO, 2010a). This includes farmers’
varieties/landraces managed on-farm, improved
16
The wording draws on FAO and PAR (2011).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
I N TRO DUCT I O N
varieties, breeding materials in crop-improvement
programmes, accessions conserved ex situ (i.e. in
genebanks or other collections) and wild plants
that may be related to crops (i.e. crop wild relatives) or those wild species harvested for food.
In agronomy, the term “variety” refers to a
plant grouping that is distinguished from any
other plant grouping by the expression of certain
heritable characteristics that remain unchanged by
propagation.17 Cultivated varieties can be broadly
classified as “modern officially released varieties”
or “farmers’ varieties” (FAO, 1997).18 Modern
officially released varieties are the products of
breeding by professional plant breeders, mainly
working for private companies or publicly funded
research institutes (sometimes referred to as the
“formal system” or “scientific breeding”). These
typically have a high degree of genetic uniformity
and breed true (i.e. produce offspring with the
same phenotypic traits as their parents). Farmers’
varieties, also known as “landraces” or “traditional
varieties”, are the product of breeding or selection
carried out continuously, deliberately or otherwise,
by farmers over many generations. Farmers’
varieties tend not to be genetically uniform, and
contain high levels of genetic diversity.
Crop wild relatives are potential sources of heritable traits for use in crop breeding. Traits from
crop wild relatives that confer tolerance to abiotic
and biotic stresses and improved nutritional qualities have been successfully incorporated into some
elite crop varieties. Advanced biotechnologies
(e.g. embryo rescue and protoplast fusion) are
17
18
Definition is based on wording from Article 1 (vi) of the 1991
Act of the International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention (UPOV, 1991), which
states that “‘variety’ means a plant grouping within a single
botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which grouping,
irrespective of whether the conditions for the grant of a
breeder’s right are fully met, can be defined by the expression
of the characteristics resulting from a given genotype or
combination of genotypes, distinguished from any other
plant grouping by the expression of at least one of the said
characteristics and considered as a unit with regard to its
suitability for being propagated unchanged.”
It should be noted that “farmers’ variety” is an imprecise term
and that “varieties” referred to in this way may not meet the
requirement that a variety breed true.
increasingly being used to circumvent the barriers
to cross-breeding that have prevented the introduction of novel alleles from crop wild relatives
into cultivated varieties.
Animal genetic resources for
food and agriculture
Animal genetic resources for food and agriculture are genetic resources of animal origin used
or potentially used for food and agriculture (FAO,
2007a, 2007b). In line with the scope of previous global assessments (FAO, 2007a, 2015a), the
term is used in this report to refer to the genetic
resources of domesticated avian and mammalian
species used in food and agriculture.
Livestock species generally encompass a number
of different subspecific populations referred to as
breeds. According to the definition used by FAO,
a breed is “either a subspecific group of domestic
livestock with definable and identifiable external
characteristics that enable it to be separated by
visual appraisal from other similarly defined groups
within the same species or a group for which
geographical and/or cultural separation from
phenotypically similar groups has led to acceptance
of its separate identity” (FAO, 1999a). Individual
breeds, in turn, harbour varying degrees of genetic
diversity, and some are more genetically distinct
from the species population at large than others.
Breeds that have been present in a particular
production environment for sufficient time for the
effects of natural selection and managed genetic
improvement to adapt them to local conditions are
referred to as “locally adapted breeds”.19 Breeds
can be subject to breeding programmes to improve
their productivity or promote other desirable
characteristics. They can be mated with each
other to produce cross-bred animals that embody
characteristics from both the parent breeds.
19
The definition agreed upon by the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture for use in national
reporting states that “locally adapted breeds” are “breeds that
have been in the country for a sufficient time to be genetically
adapted to one or more of the traditional production systems
or environments in the country” and that “exotic breeds” are
“breeds that are not locally adapted”.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
11
1
OV ERV I E W
PART A
The wild relatives of domesticated livestock
are generally not used in any systematic way in
contemporary animal breeding. Some of the wild
ancestral species of major domesticated animal
species are now extinct, for example the aurochs
(Bos primigenius), ancestor of domestic cattle.
in the last century. Subspecific stocks of aquatic
species in the wild are recognized. Although
some stocks are genetically characterized, it is
more usual for a stock to be characterized by its
geographic location (e.g. North Atlantic cod).
Associated biodiversity
Forest genetic resources
Forest genetic resources are the heritable materials maintained within and among tree and other
woody plant species that are of actual or potential economic, environmental, scientific or societal
value (FAO, 2014a).
The distribution of genetic diversity within tree
species is shaped by the evolutionary history of
the species, introgression and hybridization with
related species, as well as by forest degradation and
fragmentation. Although humans have long utilized
tree species, tree genetic improvement efforts were
only initiated in the 1930s. Tree breeding is a slow
process, as one cycle of testing and selection typically
takes decades. Most advanced tree-breeding
programmes are only in their third cycle of testing
and selection. This means that the gene pools of
trees in breeding programmes are still mostly semiwild. Only a few tree species (e.g. various fruit and
nut trees) have been domesticated to a level similar
to that of agricultural crops.
Aquatic genetic resources for food and
agriculture
Aquatic genetic resources include DNA, genes,
chromosomes, tissues, gametes, embryos and
other early life history stages, individuals, strains,
stocks and communities of organisms, of actual
or potential value for food and agriculture. The
scope of the assessment undertaken for the report
on The State of the World’s Aquatic Genetic
Resources for Food and Aquaculture is farmed
aquatic species and their wild relatives within
national jurisdiction (FAO, forthcoming).
Unlike domesticated crop and livestock species,
which generally include many breeds, varieties or
cultivars, there are few recognized within-species
strains among the species used in aquaculture, a
sector in which commercial breeding only started
12
Associated biodiversity is a subcategory of BFA. The
concept is perhaps most familiar in the crop sector,
where the biodiversity of harvested domesticated
crop plants is distinguished from “crop-associated
biodiversity” – the range of other species that are
present in and around the production system and
that sustain ecosystem structures, functions and processes (e.g. Lenné and Wood, 2011; Waliyar, Collette
and Kenmore, 2002). Examples include pollinators,
the predators of crop pests, the vegetation found
in hedgerows and at field margins, and the invertebrates and micro-organisms that help to create
and maintain the soil and its fertility. In addition
to beneficial species such as pollinators, crop associated biodiversity includes the various species that
inhibit crop production by acting as weeds or pests.
Equivalent categories of biodiversity can
be distinguished in other sectors of food and
agriculture. In a livestock production system,
for example, the domesticated animals can be
distinguished from associated biodiversity such
as rangeland plants, the micro-organism and
invertebrate communities associated with the soil,
and the micro-organisms found in the animals’
digestive systems. In a forest ecosystem, trees are
surrounded by a multitude of plants, animals and
micro-organisms that contribute in various ways
to the functioning of the ecosystem.20 In capture
fisheries, harvested species rely on a range of
animals, plants and micro-organisms as sources of
food and for services such as water purification and
habitat provisioning. They benefit from oxygen
provided by aquatic plants and the protection
provided by habitats such as kelp forests, seagrass
beds and coral reefs. Some species rely on others as
20
The term “forest biodiversity” is used to refer to “the variability
among forest-dwelling organisms and the ecological processes
of which they are a part. It includes variation at forest
ecosystem, species and molecular levels” (FAO, 2014a).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
I N TRO DUCT I O N
Wild foods are food products obtained from
non-domesticated species. They may be harvested
(gathered or hunted) from within food and agricultural production systems or from other ecosystems. The group of species that supplies wild
foods overlaps to various degrees with those in
the above-described “sectoral” categories of
genetic resources and with associated biodiversity.
For example, capture fisheries are probably the
largest single example of the human use of wild
foods, and many aquaculture facilities use wildcaught stocks for broodstock or larval grow-out.
defined the term simply as “the benefits humans
derive from ecosystems” (MEA, 2005a). It identified the following four categories of ecosystem
service: provisioning, regulating, supporting and
cultural (ibid.). Provisioning services are “the products obtained from ecosystems”, i.e. food and raw
materials of various kinds. Regulating services are
“the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes.” Examples include regulation
of the climate, air and water quality, diseases and
natural disasters. Cultural services are “the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems
through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences”. Supporting services are services “that are
necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services.” Examples include photosynthesis,
nutrient cycling and provision of habitat for other
species. The distinguishing feature of supporting
services is that they have a less direct effect on
human welfare.21
The slightly different framework used by The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
initiative does not treat supporting services
as a separate category, but rather as a subset
of the ecological processes that underlie the
delivery of other services (TEEB, 2010). However,
it distinguishes a separate category, “habitat
services”, defined as services that “provide living
space for resident and migratory species.”
In preparing their reports for The State of the
World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, countries were invited to focus primarily on regulating
and supporting services. A number of questions in
the country-reporting guidelines refer specifically
to these two categories of ecosystem service.
Ecosystem services
Conservation
As implied in the definition given above, BFA is
integral to ecosystem structures, processes and
functions in and around production systems. Such
structures, processes and functions, both in food
and agricultural systems and in ecosystems more
generally, give rise in turn to a range of benefits to humans – often referred to as ecosystem
services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Conservation of BFA is taken in this report to
include all actions implemented with the aim of
preventing the loss of diversity in the populations,
species and ecosystems that constitute this subset
of biodiversity.
hosts. Aquatic species farmed in extensive systems
or raised in culture-based fisheries also interact
with these various components of associated
biodiversity. Similarly, species raised in aquaculture
ponds benefit from a range of services provided
by the flora and fauna that surround them,
particularly with respect to water purification and
nutrient cycling.
Associated biodiversity consists largely of nondomesticated species. Exceptions include the
domestic honey bee and some other pollinator
species. Various biological control agents (natural
enemies used to control pest species) are bred in
captivity.
Where ecosystem services (see below) are
concerned, associated biodiversity is particularly
important to the supply of supporting and
regulating services. However, components of
associated biodiversity may also be direct sources
of food and other products (supply provisioning
ecosystem services) or have cultural significance
(supply cultural ecosystem services).
Wild foods
21
All the definitions presented in this paragraph are taken from
MEA (2005a).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
13
1
OV ERV I E W
PART A
“In situ conservation” is defined under the
CBD as “conservation of ecosystems and natural
habitats and the maintenance and recovery of
viable populations of species in their natural
surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or
cultivated species, in the surroundings where they
have developed their distinctive properties.” In
the context of BFA, in situ conservation comprises
measures that promote the maintenance of
biodiversity (including domesticated biodiversity)
in and around crop, livestock, forest, aquatic and
mixed production systems (or in the case of wild
foods and wild relatives of domesticated species
also in other habitats).
“Ex situ conservation” is defined under the CBD
as “the conservation of components of biological
diversity outside their natural habitats.” In the
context of BFA, ex situ conservation comprises
the conservation of relevant components of
biodiversity outside their normal habitats in and
around production systems. This may involve the
maintenance of live organisms at sites such as
botanic gardens, aquaria, field genebanks, zoos
or rare-breed farms, or storage of seeds, pollen
or vegetative plant tissues or cryoconserved
materials, such as animal semen or embryos, in
genebanks.
to promote the delivery of ecosystem services,
and the harvesting of food and other products
from the wild.
Sustainable use and conservation are interrelated in various ways. From one perspective,
sustainable use can be seen as an element of
conservation. For example, in the case of wild
biodiversity, enabling people to use a wild
species or ecosystem in a sustainable way may
lead to its being protected from more destructive activities. Domesticated biodiversity is to
a large degree dependent on use. Individual
varieties and breeds of crops, livestock and
farmed aquatic species are products of humancontrolled breeding and would cease to exist
without ongoing management. In situ conservation of domesticated biodiversity therefore inevitably involves use (unless the targets are feral
populations). From another perspective, conservation of BFA can be viewed as a pre-requisite for
use. Aside from the obvious point that individual
components of BFA cannot be used if they have
become extinct, sustainable use of a food and
agricultural system, and the genetic resources
it contains, may depend on the conservation of
neighbouring (or more distant) ecosystems that
provide it with essential services.
Sustainable use
Production system
Sustainable use of the components of biodiversity
is one of the three objectives of the CBD, which
defines the term as follows: “the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate
that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential
to meet the needs and aspirations of present and
future generations.”
In the case of BFA, “use” is taken in this report
to include the various practical activities involved
in cultivating or raising domesticated species, the
implementation of formal or informal geneticimprovement activities and the domestication
of additional wild species, the introduction of
domesticated or wild species into new production
systems, the management of wild species and
their habitats in and around production systems
For the purpose of this report, a production system
is a category of management unit (farm, livestock
holding, forest stand, fishery [in a natural or
human-made water body], aquaculture holding,
or mixed management unit) that shares common
characteristics with respect to the types of species
raised or harvested and the types of management practised. The following systems were
distinguished in the country-reporting process:
grassland-based livestock systems; landless
livestock systems; naturally regenerated forests;
planted forests; self-recruiting capture fisheries;
culture-based fisheries; fed aquaculture; non-fed
aquaculture; irrigated crop systems (rice); irrigated crop systems (other); rainfed crop systems;
and mixed production systems. See Table 1.1 for
further details of this classification system.
14
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
I N TRO DUCT I O N
TABLE 1.1
Production-system classification used in this report
Name of the
production system
Livestock grassland-based
systems
Description
Systems in which the animals obtain a large proportion of their forage intake by grazing natural or sown pastures,
includes:
• ranching: grassland-based systems in which livestock is kept on privately owned rangeland;
• pastoralist: grassland-based systems in which the livestock keepers move with their herds or flocks in an opportunistic
way on communal land to find feed and water for their animals (either from or not from a fixed home base).
Livestock landless systems
Systems in which livestock production is separated from the land where the feed given to the animals is produced.
Naturally regenerated
forests
Includes:
• primary: forests of native species, where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the
ecological processes are not directly disturbed by humans;
• modified natural: forests of naturally regenerated native species where there are clearly visible indications of
significant human activities;
• semi-natural (assisted natural regeneration): silvicultural practices in natural forest by intensive management
(weeding, fertilizing, thinning, selective logging).
Includes:
• semi-natural (planted component): forests of native species, established through planting or seeding, intensively
managed;
Planted forests
• plantations (productive): forests of introduced and/or native species established through planting or seeding
mainly for production of wood or non-wood goods;
• plantations (protective): forests of introduced and/or native species, established through planting or seeding
mainly for provision of services.
Self-recruiting capture
fisheries
Includes capture fisheries in marine, coastal and inland areas that can involve:
• natural ecosystems;
• modified ecosystems e.g. reservoirs and rice paddies.
Culture-based fisheries
Fisheries based on resources, the recruitment of which originates or is supplemented from cultured stocks (i.e.
populations chosen for culture and not stocks in the same sense as that term is used for capture fisheries) raising
total production beyond the level sustainable through natural processes.
Fed aquaculture
The farming of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans, aquatic plants, crocodiles, alligators,
turtles and amphibians. Farming implies some sort of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production,
such as regular stocking, feeding or protection from predators. Farming also implies individual or corporate
ownership of the stock being cultivated (i.e. the population chosen for culture and not a stock in the same sense
as that term is used for capture fisheries).
Fed aquaculture production utilizes or has the potential to utilize aquafeeds of any type, in contrast to the farming
of filter-feeding invertebrates and aquatic plants that relies exclusively on natural productivity. Also defined as
“farming of aquatic organisms utilizing aquafeeds in contrast to that deriving nutrition directly from nature.”
Non-fed aquaculture
The farming of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants that do not need
supplemental feeding. Farming implies some sort of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production,
such as regular stocking, feeding or protection from predators. Farming also implies individual or corporate
ownership of the stock being cultivated (i.e. the population chosen for culture and not a stock in the same sense
as that term is used for capture fisheries). In non-fed aquaculture systems culture is predominately dependent on
the natural environment for food, e.g. aquatic plants and molluscs.
Irrigated crops (rice)
Areas where rice is cultivated and purposely provided with water, including land irrigated by controlled flooding.
Irrigated crops (other)
Agricultural areas purposely provided with water, including land irrigated by controlled flooding.
Rainfed crops
Agricultural practice relying exclusively on rainfall as its source of water.
Mixed production systems
(livestock, crop, forest
and /or aquatic and
fisheries mixed)
Production systems with multiple components. They include:
• crop–livestock: mixed systems in which livestock production is integrated with crop production;
• agropastoralist: livestock-oriented systems that involve some crop production in addition to keeping grazing
livestock on rangelands; they may involve migration with the livestock away from the cropland for part of the
year; in some areas, agropastoral systems emerged from pastoral systems;
• agroforestry–livestock: mixed systems in which livestock production is integrated with the production of trees
and shrubs;
• integrated aquaculture: mixed systems in which aquaculture is integrated with crop and livestock production;
may involve ponds on farms, flooded fields, enrichment of ponds with organic waste, etc.;
• other combinations.
Source: FAO, 2013b.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
15
1
Chapter 2
Roles and importance
of biodiversity for
food and agriculture
Key messages
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) –
including domesticated crops and animals,
harvested forest and aquatic species, and the
associated biodiversity found in and around
production systems – is indispensable to food
security, sustainable development and the supply of
many vital ecosystem services.
• BFA helps to make production systems and
livelihoods more resilient to shocks and stresses,
including those associated with climate change.
• BFA is a key resource in efforts to increase food
production while limiting or reducing negative
impacts on the environment.
• BFA contributes in numerous ways to the
livelihoods of many households, particularly
to those that have limited access to external
production inputs or live in marginal areas with
harsh production environments.
2.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the contributions made
by biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) to
human livelihoods and well-being and to various
aspects of sustainable development. The sections
of the chapter, respectively, cover the roles of
BFA in the supply of ecosystem services, in promoting the resilience of production systems and
livelihoods, in providing options for the sustainable intensification of production, in supporting
livelihoods and in underpinning food security
and nutrition. Each section outlines the concepts
• Components of BFA often provide or contribute
to multiple ecosystem services, and this needs
to be built on in their management and in the
management of the production systems where
they are found.
• Many countries emphasize the importance of
genetic diversity as a means of coping with
diverse production environments and adapting
to future challenges. Many also emphasize the
role of diversification – using multiple species
or integrating crop, livestock, forest and aquatic
resources, and conserving and managing habitat
diversity at landscape or seascape scale –
in promoting resilience, improving livelihoods and
supporting food security and nutrition.
involved, describes the mechanisms through which
BFA delivers benefits in the respective thematic
area, and presents an overview of relevant country-report1 responses. The focus of the countryreport analysis presented in this chapter is on
what countries regard as the key contributions of
BFA in each of the thematic areas covered.2 Details
1
2
Unless otherwise specified, the term “country reports” in this
chapter refers to the country reports prepared as contributions
to the preparation of The State of the World’s Biodiversity for
Food and Agriculture.
Countries were specifically invited to report on the
contributions of BFA in each of these thematic areas.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
17
OV ERV I E W
PART A
of what countries report about specific aspects of
BFA management – much of which will be relevant
to more than one of the thematic areas – is provided in other chapters of the report, particularly
in Chapters 5 and 7.
2.2 Ecosystem services
• Diverse biological resources – domesticated and
non-domesticated, and at every level from genes to
ecosystems – are fundamental to food production and
to the supply of many essential non-food products.
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) delivers
multiple supporting and regulating ecosystem services
– including pollination, formation and maintenance of
soils, nutrient cycling, climate regulation, maintenance
of water supplies, and control of pests and diseases –
that are vital to production and to human well-being
more broadly.
• BFA contributes in many ways to the supply of cultural
ecosystem services, i.e. the aesthetic, recreational,
inspirational, spiritual and educational benefits that
people obtain from contact with nature.
Human well-being and livelihoods depend in
countless ways on the Earth’s ecosystems and the
biodiversity within them. In recent decades, it has
become common to describe this dependence in
terms of a set of “services” provided by ecosystems. This ecosystem service concept provided
the framework for the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, a major study of the state of the
world’s ecosystems and their influence on human
well-being undertaken between 2001 and 2005.
Ecosystem services were defined in this case as
“the benefits humans derive from ecosystems”
(MEA, 2005a). The concept also underpins The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
initiative, a global study launched in 2007 with
the aim of providing a better understanding
of the economic value of such services (TEEB,
2010b), and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES), an independent intergovernmental body,
established in 2012 to “provide policymakers
18
with objective scientific assessments about the
state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the benefits they provide
to people, as well as the tools and methods to
protect and sustainably use these vital natural
assets” (IPBES, 2018b).
Exploring the role of BFA in the delivery of
ecosystem services was a major objective of The
State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and
Agriculture (SoW-BFA) reporting process. The
country-reporting guidelines focused particularly on “regulating services”3 and “supporting
services”,4 although countries were also invited
to report on contributions to “provisioning services” 5 and “cultural services.” 6 Provisioning
services (and to a lesser degree cultural services)
are extensively discussed in the various sectoral
global assessments of genetic resources prepared
by FAO (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a).
The country reports include numerous references to the significance of BFA – at every level
from landscapes and seascapes to within-species
genetic diversity – in the supply of ecosystem
services. Examples are presented throughout the
report. For instance, Sections 2.5 and 2.6 on the
significance of BFA to livelihoods and to food
security and nutrition include many references
to provisioning services. Section 2.3 on resilience
discusses the role of BFA in reducing risks associated with (inter alia) hazards such as natural
and human-induced disasters. Sections 2.4 and
Chapter 5 feature examples of how ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control and nutrient
cycling are mobilized to support sustainable production and integrated into various management
strategies. Chapter 4 provides further information
on the roles of components of BFA in the supply
3
4
5
6
Defined by MEA (2005a) as the “benefits obtained from the
regulation of ecosystem processes.”
Defined by MEA (2005a) as services “that are necessary for the
production of all other ecosystem services.”
Defined by MEA (2005a) as “the products obtained from
ecosystems.”
Defined by MEA (2005a) as “nonmaterial benefits people
obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment,
cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic
experiences.”
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
of ecosystem services, and in particular discusses
trends in their supply within the various production system categories considered in this report.
Chapter 7 touches on the role of in situ conservation programmes in maintaining the supply of a
range of ecosystem services.
This section provides a short introductory overview of the roles of BFA in the delivery of ecosystem services both within and beyond the food
and agriculture sector. A more detailed account
can be found in the thematic study Biodiversity for
food and agriculture and ecosystem services (FAO,
2019), prepared as part of the SoW-BFA process
(and as indicated above examples from the country
reports can be found throughout the report).
2.2.1 Provisioning services
The world’s food production depends on its terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Approximately
82 percent of the calories in the human food
supply are provided by terrestrial plants,
16 percent by terrestrial animals and 1 percent by
aquatic animals and plants. The figures for protein
supply are 60 percent from terrestrial plants,
33 percent from terrestrial animals and 7 percent
from aquatic animals and plants.7 Within each
of these broad categories, a range of different
species – and varieties, breeds and populations
within species – are used in food production (see
Section 4.2 for further discussion). A wide variety
of wild foods, including fruits, leafy vegetables,
woody foliage, bulbs and tubers, cereals and
grains, nuts and kernels, saps and gums (eaten
or used to make drinks), mushrooms, terrestrial
invertebrates (insects, snails, etc.), honey, birds’
eggs, fish, shellfish and meat from small and large
vertebrates (WHO and CBD, 2015), contribute to
the diets of large numbers of people, particularly
in developing countries (Bharucha and Pretty,
2010). An even wider range of species contribute
to the functioning of the ecosystems upon which
food production depends.
Global averages mask the fact that certain
sectors of food production may be extremely
7
All figures in this paragraph are based on FAOSTAT data for 2013.
important in specific geographical areas or to particular sections of the population, for example fish
in small island developing states and livestock in
pastoralist communities. Moreover, in addition to
calories and protein, food security and good nutrition require adequate access to vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids. These nutrients are
found in varying quantities in products derived
from the various species, varieties and breeds of
plants, animals and micro-organisms that are used
as sources of food.
Crop, livestock, forest and aquatic production
systems and the biodiversity used in and associated with them supply a wide range of non-food
products, including fuels (e.g. wood and dung),
timber and other construction materials, plant and
animal fibres used in the manufacture of textiles,
animal hides and skins, various materials used to
produce medicines or for biochemical purposes,
and ornamental products such as flowers. They are
also a source of genetic resources that can be used
in plant and animal breeding. They contribute in
various ways to the supply of freshwater that can
be used domestically, in food and agriculture or in
industry (see discussion of water-related services
in the following section).
A high degree of diversity among the species,
varieties, breeds, populations and ecosystems that
supply provisioning services can contribute in a
number of ways to increasing the quantity, quality
and stability of output and to the efficiency of
production. In the case of forests, for example, a
study of data from 44 countries found a consistent
positive relationship between tree diversity and
productivity at landscape, country and ecoregion
scales, with on average a 10 percent loss in biodiversity leading to a 3 percent loss in productivity
(Liang et al., 2016). Likewise, a large-scale experiment in China comparing forest plots planted with
different numbers of tree species found that combining multiple species provided higher levels of
productivity: after eight years, 16-species mixtures
had accumulated more than twice as much carbon
as had monocultures on average (Huang et al.,
2018). The contributions of BFA to the resilience of
production to shocks and stresses and to efforts to
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
19
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
sustainably increase output are discussed further
in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
2.2.2 Regulating and supporting
services
Pollination
An estimated 87.5 percent of all flowering plant
species are pollinated by animals (Ollerton, Winfree
and Tarrant, 2011). Crops at least partially pollinated by animals account for 35 percent of global
food production (Klein et al., 2007) and are particularly significant in the supply of micronutrients for
human consumption, for example accounting for
more than 90 percent of available vitamin C and
more than 70 percent of available vitamin A (Eilers
et al., 2011). Bees – including both managed and
wild species − are generally the main providers of
pollination services. Other insects, birds, bats and
some other animals also contribute.
While farmers in intensive systems often rent
managed honey bees to pollinate their crops,
the majority of farmers rely on bee populations
maintained by local beekeepers and on wild pollinators. Moreover, it has been shown that pollination services are enhanced by the presence of
wild insects even where honey bees are abundant
(Garibaldi et al., 2013). Both higher pollinator
density and higher species diversity of pollinator
visits to flowers have been found to be associated
with higher crop yields (Garibaldi et al., 2016).
Species diversity among pollinators can also be
important in buffering the supply of pollination
services against the effects of fluctuations in
the populations of individual species (Kremen,
Williams and Thorp, 2002).
Soil-related ecosystem services
Soil formation and maintenance are inextricably
linked to biodiversity. Micro-organisms and invertebrates, in particular, are vital to soil health (Beed
et al., 2011; Cock et al., 2011; Schulz et al., 2013).
Studies have shown that reducing soil biodiversity
can impair various soil processes, including decomposition, nutrient retention and nutrient cycling
(Wagg et al., 2014), and reduce resilience to shocks
20
(Griffiths et al., 2000). Microbial communities can
give the soil disease-suppressive qualities that help
to protect plants from pathogens (e.g. Schlatter
et al., 2017). Plants, including crop and forage
plants and forest trees, provide protection against
erosion and contribute organic matter (Angers
and Caron, 1998). Dung from above-ground
animals, including domesticated livestock, can be
an important source of nutrients (Graham, Grandy
and Thelen, 2009; Ozlu and Kumar, 2018; Sradnick
et al., 2013). In some agroecosystems, shade from
trees provides protection to earthworm populations and thus promotes improvements to soil
structure (Barrios et al., 2018).
Air-quality and climate regulation
Ecosystems used for food and agriculture and the
biodiversity within them can affect the climate
at global, continental and local scales. Forests,
grasslands and freshwater, marine and coastal
ecosystems play key roles in the Earth’s carbon
cycle and hence in regulating greenhouse-gas
concentrations in the atmosphere. In all cases, the
uptake and release of carbon depend on complex
processes involving an enormous range of interacting species (Beed et al., 2011; Cock et al., 2011;
Laffoley and Grimsditch, 2009; Nellemann et al.,
2009; Pullin and White, 2011). Because of the
complexity involved, the significance of diversity
per se can be difficult to evaluate (i.e. whether,
and to what extent, diverse biological communities are more effective providers of carbonsequestration services than less diverse ones). Some
studies in grasslands have found that more diverse
plant communities are better at sequestrating
carbon (Fornara and Tilman, 2008; Lange et al.,
2015; Steinbeiss et al., 2008). More generally, the
health and resilience of ecosystems such as soils
and forests – and hence, other things being equal,
probably their capacity to sequester carbon – tend
to benefit from greater diversity (e.g. Griffiths et
al., 2000; Hicks et al., 2014; Loo et al., 2011).
Aside from its contributions to carbon sequestration, studies in various parts of the world have
shown that forest vegetation can moderate temperatures and increase rainfall, including in some
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
cases influencing rainfall patterns across large
swathes of land that are vital to agricultural
production at a continental scale (e.g. Alkama
and Cescatti, 2016; Macedo and Castello, 2015;
Spracklen, Arnold and Taylor, 2012; Wright et al.,
2017). Where air quality is concerned, trees and
other plants make major contributions to the
removal of particulate matter and gaseous pollution from the air (e.g. Nowak et al., 2014).
Natural-hazard regulation
The frequency of several kinds of extreme
weather events is predicted to increase under
climate change, and thus one way in which BFA
can contribute to reducing the threat posed
by natural disasters is via its above-mentioned
contributions to climate change mitigation.
However, it can also play a more direct protective role (see Section 2.3). For example, a number
of coastal ecosystems (mangroves, coral reefs,
seagrass meadows, kelp forests, etc.) provide
protection against coastal storms and flooding. Forests, wetlands and grasslands regulate
water flows and diminish the risk of flooding in
downstream areas. Trees and other terrestrial
vegetation can provide physical shelter against
wind, rain, snow or sun. Vegetation, whether in
croplands, forests or grasslands, helps to maintain stable soils and hence reduce hazards such
as sand storms and landslides. Grazing animals
can be used in certain circumstances to reduce
the risk of fires or avalanches (Fabre, Guérin
and Bouquet, 2010; Lovreglio, Meddour-Sahar
and Leone, 2014; Pecora et al., 2015), although
in some ecosystems they can increase fire risk
(e.g. Leonard, Kirkpatrick and Marsden-Smedley,
2010). Moreover, although grazing is essential
to the maintenance of a healthy plant flora in
many ecosystems, overgrazing is a major global
driver of soil erosion, soil compaction and related
hazards (FAO and ITPS, 2015).
Pest and disease regulation
Many different components of biodiversity found
in and around production systems help to control
species that may attack crops, livestock, trees or
aquatic species, cause or spread diseases or otherwise disrupt human activities or the supply of
ecosystem services. The direct providers of these
services (e.g. predators, parasitoids and herbivores
that consume pests, disease vectors or weeds) are
referred to as biological control agents. These
species can include both those that are naturally
present in the local area and those introduced
deliberately to help control particular problems.
The latter approach has to be treated with caution
as there have been cases in which species introduced to control pests have themselves caused
major problems (e.g. De Clercq, Mason and
Babendreier, 2011).
Pest- and disease-regulation services are provided by a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic
invertebrates and vertebrates, micro-organisms
and plants (the latter may compete with weeds for
resources or release substances that are harmful to
weeds or repel animal pests – ICIPE, 2015; Lemessa
and Wakjira, 2015; Teasdale, 2003). As well as wild
species, the providers of pest- and disease-regulation services can include domesticated plants and
animals. For example, cover crops can be used to
combat weeds, and farmed fish or ducks used to
control pests in paddy fields (Halwart and Gupta,
2004; Teo, 2001). Aside from the biological control
agents themselves, the supply of pest and disease
regulation services depends on the presence of
species that provide them with the resources they
need to survive, for example shelter, nesting sites
and alternative food sources (e.g. Gurr et al., 2017).
The relationship between diversity per se and
the provision of this service is again complex.
Biological control agents may complement each
other’s actions in space or time, but there may
also be inhibitory effects (e.g. when one control
agent preys on another) (Rocca and Messelink,
2017; Finke and Denno, 2004). However, there
is evidence that more often than not there is a
positive relationship between diversity of biological control agent populations and the supply
of pest-control services (Letourneau et al.,
2009). Habitat diversity within the agricultural
landscape tends to increase the supply of these
services (Bianchi, Booij and Tscharntke, 2006;
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
21
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
Bommarco, Kleijn and Potts, 2013; Hooper et al.,
2005; Kremen and Miles, 2012; Tscharntke et al.,
2005). Diversity among the species, varieties and
breeds of crops, livestock or aquatic animals raised
in a given area can hinder the spread of diseases
and help to reduce the risk of devastating losses
(see Section 2.3 for further discussion).
Water-related ecosystem services
Ecosystems used for food and agriculture affect
both the quantity and the quality of water supplies. Healthy soils and vegetation (see above for
discussion of the role of biodiversity in maintaining
healthy soils), whether in forests, grasslands, wetlands or crop fields, help to regulate the run-off of
water into downstream areas. This can both help
to reduce the risk of flooding (see above) and to
keep streams and rivers flowing during dry periods
of the year (TEEB, 2010b). Where water quality is
concerned, a range of different physical, chemical
and biological processes contribute to removing
contaminants (harmful organic and inorganic
substances, pathogenic microbes, etc.) from water
supplies as they pass through soils or through
water bodies such as rivers and lakes. Many different organisms contribute to the process of
filtering pollutants before they can enter water
bodies, transferring them out of the water (e.g.
into bottom sediments or the atmosphere) or
degrading them into benign or less-harmful components (Ostroumov, 2010). Water from forested
watersheds is generally less contaminated with
pollutants than water from non-forested watersheds; many cities deliberately protect forests as
part of their water-purification strategies (Dudley
and Stolton, 2003). Some ecosystem types, such as
tropical mountain cloud forests (Bruijnzeel, 1990),
old eucalyptus forests (Kuczera, 1987) and Andean
páramos (Postel and Thompson, 2005) (see Box 4.7
in Section 4.3), also increase net water flow.
Habitat provisioning
Food and agricultural production systems are, on
the one hand, major drivers of habitat loss (CBD
Secretariat, 2010), but on the other are often significant habitats in their own right. In the case of
22
forestry and fishing, it is clear that many production systems are diverse natural or semi-natural
ecosystems that provide habitats for a vast range
of species. At the other end of the spectrum, many
crop, tree plantation and livestock systems raise
only one, or only a very few, domesticated species
and have largely been stripped even of semi-natural
landscape remnants that would contribute to
habitat diversity. However, some crop and livestock
systems are very far from being homogeneous in
their biological composition. For example, in many
parts of the tropics people maintain highly diverse
home gardens that serve as sources of food, medicines, ornamental and culturally important plants,
fuel, fodder and other products (see Section 5.5 for
further information). In places, these gardens serve
as refuges for native wild plants that are threatened by habitat loss in the wider landscape (Hemp,
2006; Larios et al., 2013; Webb and Kabir, 2009). For
example, coffee plants in home gardens in Ethiopia
have been found to be important habitats for a
range of rainforest epiphytic species (Hylander and
Nemomissa, 2008). Some grasslands used in livestock production are also very biodiverse habitats
(FAO, 2014c) (see also Section 4.5.6).
At a landscape scale, crop and livestock farming
sometimes add diversity to the “mosaic” of habitat
types present. So-called conservation grazing – the
intentional use of grazing animals such as cattle,
sheep and horses to maintain vegetation in a state
that provides suitable habitat for particular kinds
of wildlife – has become a widespread practice,
particularly in Europe (e.g. Woodland Trust, 2012).
2.2.3 Cultural services
Both production systems as a whole and their
components (including species, varieties or breeds
of crops, livestock, trees and aquatic organisms)
can contribute to cultural ecosystem services, i.e.
the aesthetic, recreational, inspirational, spiritual
and educational benefits that people obtain from
contact with ecosystems. Biodiversity has a major
influence on the aesthetic appearance of many
ecosystems, their capacity to inspire, their suitability for various recreational activities and their educational significance. Some cultural or recreational
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
activities depend directly on the presence of particular species (or within-species populations) or
a certain level of species diversity, for example
various wildlife-watching activities or recreational
fishing. In other cases, characteristic species or biological communities add to the particular aesthetic
and inspirational qualities of a local landscape.
Many cultural ecosystem services are associated
with wild ecosystems. However, food and agricultural production systems and their domesticated
and associated biodiversity also contribute to
these services. This is the case, for example, for
many culinary traditions, which are often linked
to local products and may depend on particular
local species, varieties or breeds of crops, livestock
or aquatic species. The same is true for a variety
of non-food products made from wood, plant
and animal fibres, skins, feathers, bones or horns.
Particular plants and animals, or products obtained
from them, are important elements in many cultural and religious events and festivals. Gardening
and raising small livestock species such as chickens
are widely pursued as leisure activities, and in some
places larger-scale hobby farming is popular. Pets
and companion animals of various kinds, including
aquarium species, are also widely popular. Horses
and other animals are used in various sports.
Agricultural, pastoral, wetland and forest
landscapes are often valued for their aesthetic
qualities, their cultural significance or as sites for
recreational activities. A number of traditional
agricultural landscapes are recognized as cultural
World Heritage Sites,8 for instance the Cultural
Coffee Landscapes of Colombia, the Rice Terraces
of the Philippine Cordilleras and the Lavaux
Vineyard Terraces of Switzerland (Mitchell, Rössler
and Tricard, 2009), or as Globally Important
Agriculture Heritage Sites9 (FAO, 2018c). Particular
crops, fish, trees or types of livestock may be vital
to the “sense of place” associated with a given
location. Grazing livestock can play a major role in
shaping the local vegetation and hence the character of semi-natural landscapes.
8
9
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list
http://www.fao.org/giahs/en/
The biodiversity present in and around food
and agricultural systems remains central to the
cultures and world views of many indigenous
peoples around the world, who often maintain a
wealth of traditional knowledge on their use and
management. Many studies have demonstrated
the contributions that indigenous peoples and
other rural communities make to the conservation and use of BFA via their cultural norms and
practices (Berkes, Folke and Gadgil, 1995; Gadgil,
Berkes and Folke, 1993) (see also Section 8.2).
2.3 Resilience
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) at
intraspecific, species and ecosystem levels
can improve the resilience of production systems
by decreasing vulnerability to stresses and shocks,
reducing their impacts and supporting recovery
and adaptation.
• BFA provides options for adapting production systems
to the threats posed by climate change and other
environmental changes, strengthening disaster prevention,
response and rehabilitation measures and combating
threats posed by invasive alien species.
• Key priorities for enhancing the contributions of BFA
to resilience include ensuring that BFA is conserved
and remains available to producers, strengthening
research into the relationships between BFA and
resilience, and developing management strategies
that integrate a range of components of BFA across a
range of scales.
Recognition that the capacity of food and agricultural systems to meet the needs of a growing
population is vulnerable to various kinds of shocks
– and that production systems need to adapt to
the effects of (often accelerating) environmental,
economic and social trends and drivers of change –
has led to increasing interest in the concept of
resilience. For example, Sustainable Development
Goal Target 1.5 reads as follows: “By 2030, build
the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
23
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
other economic, social and environmental shocks
and disasters.” The concept is also mentioned in
several other targets. FAO’s Strategic Programme
includes the goal of increasing “the resilience
of livelihoods to threats and crisis” (Strategic
Objective 5) (FAO, 2013c).10
One difficulty with providing an overview of
the roles of BFA in promoting resilience is that the
term is used in different ways in different contexts.
The concept emerged in the ecological literature
in the 1960s and 1970s to describe the response
of ecosystems to disturbances (e.g. Holling,
1973). Resilience is sometimes thought of as the
capacity of a system to withstand or recover from
shocks. However, in recent years it has increasingly tended to be viewed in a more dynamic way
– as the capacity to maintain particular properties
(e.g. in the case of an ecosystem to continue supplying particular ecosystem services) in the face
of changes of various kinds (e.g. Elmqvist et al.,
2003; Folke et al., 2004). Where food and agricultural systems are concerned, these changes will
inevitably include changes in management strategies and practices and in broader social, cultural
and political structures and processes. The need
to take this into account and address the multifaceted nature of resilience in human societies
has led to the emergence of the concept of social–
ecological resilience, which has been applied to a
range of production systems in recent years (e.g.
Berkes, 2012; Cabel and Oelofse, 2012; Darnhofer
et al., 2010; Haider, Quinlan and Peterson, 2012;
Kremen and Miles, 2012). Resilience in this sense
has been described as the capacity to continually
change, adapt and transform, through innovation, in response to external drivers and internal processes (Folke et al., 2010). For example,
Darnhofer (2014) proposes that resilience in agricultural systems can be understood in terms of
10
This section draws in part on the thematic study The
contribution of biodiversity for food and agriculture to the
resilience of production systems (Duval, Mijatovic and Hodgkin,
2018) commissioned to support the preparation of The State
of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Further
discussion and further examples of the contributions of BFA to
resilience can be found in this document.
24
three capabilities: buffer capability − the ability
of the system to cope with shocks and continue
functioning more or less as before; adaptive
capability − the ability of the system to adjust
to external and internal drivers of change; and
transformative capability − the ability to undergo
radical changes, for example to transition successfully to a completely different agricultural
enterprise or livelihood strategy.
In the context of FAO’s Strategic Objective 5
(see above), resilience has been defined as follows:
“the ability to prevent and mitigate disasters and
crises as well as to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover and adapt from them in a timely,
efficient and sustainable manner. This includes
protecting, restoring and improving livelihoods
systems in the face of threats that impact agriculture, nutrition, food security and food safety”
(FAO, 2018d).
The diverse interpretations of the resilience
concept are reflected in the country reports. Some
countries’ responses focus on the ecological aspects
of resilience, while others also refer to social, economic or cultural aspects. Some countries emphasize resilience to shock events, while others also
refer to resilience to more gradual changes.
This section begins by presenting an overview
of the ways in which BFA helps to build resilient
production systems and livelihoods. It then looks
in more detail at the roles of BFA in promoting
resilience to a number of specific challenges,
namely climate change, disasters and emergencies
of various kinds, the threat posed by invasive alien
species and food-chain threats such as pest and
disease outbreaks. Needs and priorities in terms
of strengthening the contributions of BFA to resilience are presented at the end of the section.
2.3.1 Overview of the contributions
of biodiversity for food and
agriculture
Diversity at every level from genetic to ecosystem
contributes to the capacity of production systems
to cope with shocks and to adapt to change. These
contributions involve a variety of different processes operating at every scale from that of the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
individual organism, through the field (or pond
or plot of trees), the farm (or holding) and the
landscape, to the planet as a whole. Resilience can
be conferred not only to the biological components of a system but also to socio-economic components such as a household’s livelihood or the
food security of a community. It can be enhanced
both by the natural properties of unmanaged biodiversity and by human interventions that utilize
biodiversity. These many dimensions often overlie
each other. The following description focuses on
the ways in which resilience can be enhanced at
the level of the production system or household.
There are numerous mechanisms through which
the characteristics of individual components of
BFA or the presence of high levels of diversity
can promote resilience. Risk can be reduced, for
example, by raising species, breeds or varieties
that are well adapted to coping with shocks such
as droughts or disease outbreaks or by raising a
number of different types of crops, livestock or
aquatic organisms so as to increase the likelihood
that at least some will survive such events (Hesse
et al., 2013). Farmers in the Sahel, for example,
tend to hedge against the threat of drought by
planting both long- and short-cycle millet varieties (ibid.). Analysis of data from a survey in the
Tigray region of Ethiopia showed that maintaining a large number of barley varieties reduced the
risk of crop failure, with the effect being particularly marked in areas affected by land degradation
(Di Falco and Chavas, 2009).
Production systems that lack diversity can be
more vulnerable to severe impacts from shocks
such as disease and pest outbreaks than those
with more diverse populations. If a single variety
is widely grown, a pest or disease to which it lacks
resistance can lead to a dramatic fall in production. If livelihoods are heavily dependent on the
species in question, the effects can be disastrous.
Over the years, this kind of vulnerability has been
illustrated in practice on a number of occasions,
including the famine caused by potato blight in
Ireland in the 1840s, losses in various cereal crops
in the United States of America during the twentieth century (Keneni et al., 2012) and losses of taro
production in Samoa in the 1990s (Hunter, Pouono
and Semisi, 1998; also mentioned in the country
report from Samoa).
Aside from biophysical risks such as adverse
weather or disease outbreaks, diversifying the
species, breeds and varieties raised can also reduce
risks associated with economic shocks such as the
loss of markets for particular products. Moreover,
as discussed further in Section 2.5, some components of BFA such as livestock can serve as stores
of wealth that can be drawn upon to cover urgent
expenditures or to compensate for loss of income
from other activities (on-farm or off-farm).
Another component of BFA that can help households to cope with fluctuations in the supply of
food or income-generating opportunities is wild
food. A wide range of such foods, including aquatic
and non-wood forest products, are often important
components of the diet or sources of income during
lean seasons of the year or in times of drought or
other disaster (see Sections 2.6 and 4.4).
In addition to hedging against the risk of severe
production losses or livelihood disruption in the
various ways described above, utilizing a diverse
range of crop, livestock, aquatic or tree resources
can also directly help to reduce vulnerability to
stresses and shocks. Many different mechanisms
can contribute. For example, integrating intercrops, hedgerows or cover crops, particularly
legumes, into a system can (among other benefits) reduce drought stress by helping to conserve
water in the soil profile (Buckles, Triomphe and
Sain, 1998) and help to replenish depleted soil
fertility (Bunch, 1999; Kang, Wilson and Sipkens,
1981; Kaumbutho and Kienzle., 2007; Sanchez,
2000). Crop diversification, including rotation and
intercropping and the use of diverse forage plants
in pastureland, can reduce pest damage and weed
invasions (Altieri, 1999; Chabi-Olaye et al., 2007;
Sanderson et al., 2007).
Integrating trees into a crop production system
can help to maintain a favourable microclimate
for crop growth in the face of harsh conditions
in the wider environment, for example keeping
temperatures and solar radiation within acceptable levels or preventing excessive fluctuation
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
25
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
in soil moisture levels (e.g. Lin, 2007). Trees and
other features such as hedgerows and wildflower banks at field margins can help maintain populations of key suppliers of ecosystem
services such as insect pollinators, biological
control agents and earthworms (Barrios et al.,
2018; IPBES, 2016a; Reed et al., 2017). Trees
can also help protect livestock from climatic
extremes and provide fodder that can be used
when other sources are in short supply (Gregory,
1995; Johnson and Nair, 1985; Wagner et al.,
2013). In turn, appropriately managed livestock
can contribute to the resilience of crop production. For example, inclusion of a grazed pasture
rotation in a cropping system can – through the
effects of grazing and dunging – promote the
accumulation of soil organic matter, stimulate
soil-microbial activity and increase the diversity
and density of soil invertebrate macrofauna
and hence promote all the resilience-enhancing
benefits of healthy and biodiverse soils (Salton
et al., 2014). Grazing during a pasture rotation
can also help to suppress weeds (Concenço et al.,
2015; Salton et al., 2014). As noted in Section 2.2,
grazing animals can also be used in the management of fire risk and in the control of pests or
invasive species. Specific management strategies
and practices involving the use of diverse components of biodiversity that contribute in various
ways to resilience are discussed in greater detail
in Chapter 5.
Over the longer term, biodiversity increases the
range of options that farmers, livestock keepers,
forest dwellers, aquaculturists and fishers can
draw upon to adapt their livelihoods and production strategies to changing conditions, including
in recovering from disasters and other shocks.
Aside from providing a range of existing options
that can potentially be introduced into a production system (e.g. drought- or disease-resistant
species, varieties or breeds), diversity (in this case
specifically within-species diversity) also provides
the raw material for genetic improvement activities. Well-planned breeding programmes can help
adapt populations to the challenges posed by
changing production environments (and changing
26
human demands) or enable them to cope better
with future extreme events (although in the case
of long-lived species, such as trees, breeding
programmes operate on timescales longer than
those normally associated with the concept of
resilience). Crop wild relatives, traditional landraces and locally adapted livestock breeds are
an important resource in this respect and their
conservation and sustainable use is a key part of
overall resilience strategies. Genetic-improvement
programmes for various components of BFA are
discussed in Section 5.9.
Beyond the level of the farm or holding, resilience can be promoted by conserving or enhancing
habitat diversity across the landscape or seascape.
For example, efforts can be made to conserve habitats such as coral reefs, mangroves and forests
that provide protection against extreme events
or to ensure that enough diverse habitat is available to allow sufficient numbers and diversity of
ecosystem-service providers such as pollinators to
be maintained over the long term in the face of
shocks and changing conditions.
Specific examples from the country reports on
how BFA contributes to resilience are presented
in the sections below on resilience to specific
types of threat. To summarize briefly, countries’ responses focus mainly on domesticated
plants and animals. Several note the significance
of species, breeds and varieties that are well
adapted to coping with extreme events or report
resilience-enhancing roles of diversity at species
and variety or breed levels. Although few countries provide detailed information on particular
resilience-related benefits provided by associated biodiversity, many mention that resilience
is enhanced by the presence of diverse biological
communities in and around production systems
or by landscapes that consist of mosaics of different types of habitat. Several note that resilience
is being reduced as a result of the homogenization of landscapes or seascapes or the loss,
degradation or fragmentation of wildlife habitats. Several also mention the roles of wild foods
as resources that people can draw upon in times
of food shortage.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
2.3.2 Resilience to specific threats
Climate change
The significance of BFA in efforts to cope with the
effects of climate change has received increasing attention in recent years. For example, the
Resilience Outcome Document of the twenty-third
session of the Conference of the Parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change in 2017 recognized that “nature is central
to climate resilience. The protection, sustainable
management and restoration of terrestrial and
marine ecosystems are the main elements for
adaptation and resilience to a changing climate”11
(UNFCCC, 2017d). FAO has prepared a number of
publications in this field, including the Climate
smart agriculture sourcebook (FAO, 2013d, 2017c),
a review of the economics of plant genetic resource
management for adaptation to climate change
(Asfaw and Lipper, 2012), a series of studies prepared at the request of the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture on the interactions between climate change and plant, animal,
forest, aquatic, invertebrate and micro-organism
genetic resources (Beed et al., 2011; Cock et al.,
2011; Jarvis et al., 2008; Loo et al., 2011; Pilling
and Hoffmann, 2011; Pullin and White, 2011) and
Coping with climate change – the roles of genetic
resources for food and agriculture (FAO, 2015b), a
short book drawing on the sectoral studies.
To summarize briefly (see Section 3.4.1 for
further discussion of the effects of climate change
on BFA), it is predicted that, over various timescales and with substantial regional variations,
crop, livestock, forest and aquatic production
will be affected by climate change, for example
because of higher temperatures, lower or higher
rainfall, greater pressure from pests and diseases,
increased occurrence of invasive alien species,
more frequent extreme events such as floods and
droughts, and (in aquatic environments) lower
oxygen levels, greater acidity and higher levels
of turbidity or siltation. Many species, breeds or
varieties of plants and animals have distinctive
characteristics that help them to cope with challenges of this kind and hence potentially increase
the resilience of production systems to the effects
of climate change. As noted above, diversity
increases the choices available to producers in
their efforts to adapt production systems and to
breeders in their efforts to develop better-adapted
plant and animal populations. Associated biodiversity contributes both to climate change mitigation
(e.g. by promoting carbon sequestration and providing alternatives to fossil fuel-based agricultural
practices) and to climate change adaptation (e.g.
by buffering against the potential loss or decline
of individual species involved in the supply of
ecosystem services such as pollination – see for
example Christmann and Aw-Hassan, 2012).
Many country-report responses related to the
roles of BFA in enhancing resilience note that
the roles of BFA are becoming (or are expected
to become) increasingly significant in the context
of climate change. Aside from these specifically
resilience-related responses, countries also note
the significance of BFA in climate change adaptation and mitigation in various other parts of their
reports.12 The following paragraphs discuss the
main points raised.
Maintaining, using and developing
adapted genetic resources
A number of countries note the significance of
well-adapted species, varieties or breeds in terms
of enhancing resilience to climate change. Several
specific examples of how such components of BFA
have been utilized in adaptation efforts are provided. For example, Papua New Guinea mentions
the distribution to farmers of crop accessions identified in ex situ collections as being tolerant to salinity (taro and cassava varieties), drought (cassava,
banana and aibika13 varieties) and flooding (taro
12
13
11
Emphasis (bold text) is in the original.
The country-reporting guidelines included a question inviting
countries to provide information on climate change-related
projects and programmes that include explicit references to
BFA (see Section 8.8.3 for further information on responses to
this question).
Aibika (Abelmoschus manihot) is a traditional leafy green
vegetable.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
27
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
and banana varieties). It notes that this activity proved very useful in sustaining food security
during the drought that struck the country in 2015
and 2016,14 when 40 percent of the population was
seriously affected. Panama reports that its criollo
livestock breeds have a combination of characteristics that are not found in any introduced breeds,
including high fertility rates, longevity, resistance
to parasites and diseases and good grazing abilities, including the ability to make use of poorquality pastures. It notes, in particular, the potential
of two locally adapted cattle breeds, the Guaymí
and the Guabalá, in climate change adaptation.
It also mentions, among its climate change adaptation measures, the development of maize varieties and hybrids that are tolerant of drought and
diplodia rot (a fungal disease) and that grow well
in soils with low nitrogen levels. With regard to
choices at species level, Sudan reports that some of
its livestock keepers have replaced cattle and sheep
with dromedaries and goats, as the latter species
are better suited to a climate change-affected environment that is more prone to droughts.
Some countries note the significance of participatory breeding programmes in the context of
climate change. For example, Oman mentions
that local wheat and barley landraces have been
improved through such programmes to obtain
varieties that have shorter growing seasons and
can be managed more flexibly, especially during
years with prolonged periods of extreme heat
and limited water availability. Ensuring farmers
have access to the adapted germplasm they need
is another issue highlighted. Nepal, for example,
mentions the role of community-based seed banks
in providing farmers with immediate access to
locally adapted germplasm that can be used in
efforts to cope with climate change.
Diversifying production systems
A number of countries mention the important role
that diversity within production systems plays in
climate change adaptation and/or describe measures
14
The situation was ongoing at the time the country report was
submitted.
28
that are being taken to promote diversity with
adaptation-related objectives in mind. Papua New
Guinea again provides an example, reporting that
a project implemented by the National Agriculture
Research Institute using a participatory approach
to help communities determine their needs with
regard to climate change adaptation included
a major component focused on diversifying the
use of crop species and varieties with the aim of
promoting food supply during times of seasonal
shortage or unfavourable weather. The project also
introduced new livestock species (ducks and goats),
production systems (aquaculture and duck−fish
integration) and livestock-management practices.
Conserving and managing habitats and
landscape diversity
Many countries highlight the importance of conserving and managing natural and semi-natural
ecosystems that contribute to climate change
adaptation and mitigation. The importance of
forest ecosystems is mentioned particularly frequently, with countries noting the roles of forests
in carbon sequestration and in the supply of a
wide range of products and services relevant to
climate change adaptation. Several countries note
the importance of mangroves, coral reefs and/
or coastal ecosystems more generally in terms
of resilience to climate-related disasters. For
example, the Bahamas mentions that habitat fragmentation caused by economic development has
reduced resilience to hurricanes and storm surges,
which are expected to become more severe as a
result of climate change. This is reported to be
leaving the country more vulnerable to storm
damage, erosion and flooding, with impacts on
the habitats of economically important species
such as fish, crustaceans and honey bees (see the
following subsection for further information on
the roles of BFA in resilience to climate-related
and other disasters). Several countries from
the Pacific region mention activities under the
Pacific Ridge to Reef Programme.15
15
http://www.pacific-r2r.org/
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Disasters and their impacts
In all sectors of food and agriculture, production
systems and the communities that depend on them
are often severely affected by disasters (Doswald
and Estrella, 2015; FAO, 2018e), although the relative impacts of specific categories of disaster vary
across sectors (see Figure 2.1). One of the striking
elements in the material presented in many of the
country reports is the domino and/or multiplication effects of most of the disasters reported. For
example, countries mention that earthquakes can
lead to landslides that in turn cause river obstructions or soil erosion, or that cyclones lead to floods
FIGURE 2.1
Damage and loss to agriculture sectors caused
by specific types of abiotic hazard (2006–2016)
Crop
1%
Livestock
4% 1%
14%
9%
20%
86%
65%
Fisheries and
aquaculture
11%
Forestry
1% 6%
5%
31%
44%
38%
64%
Drought
Floods
Storms
Earthquakes
Tsunamis
Notes: Based on the review of 74 Post Disaster National
Assessments (PDNAs) conducted in 53 developing countries
between 2006 and 2016. A PDNA is a system of processes and
methods used to assess, plan and mobilize support for the
recovery of countries and populations affected by disasters.
Typically, the process is owned and led by the respective
government and supported by UN Agencies, the European Union
and the World Bank.
Source: FAO, 2018e.
that in turn lead to pest and disease outbreaks or
the spread of invasive alien species. Such chains of
events cause losses at production level in all sectors
and also in food processing and distribution.
A resilience-focused approach to disaster risk
management involves both disaster response and
rehabilitation and disaster risk reduction. The
following subsections illustrate the relevance of
BFA to each.
Disaster response and rehabilitation
In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, emergency responses prioritize saving lives and ensuring that basic requirements such as water, food
and shelter are provided to affected communities.
Actions focused on the use of BFA will often not
be a priority during the relief phase. It is, however,
important to consider them during the initial
stages of response and rehabilitation efforts. For
example, attention needs to be given to the restoration of ecosystems affected by disasters, as the
loss of the protective functions they provide may
increase the risk of severe impacts in the event
of future disasters. Rehabilitation in production
systems often involves the distribution of seeds or
animals to allow production to recommence and
recover. Care needs to be taken to ensure that
the material distributed is well adapted to local
conditions and meets the requirements of local
people in what will typically be difficult circumstances (e.g. FAO, 2014a, 2015a). However, it is
also possible that there may be opportunities to
innovate in the interests of reducing future risks.
For example, a shorter-cycle variety of black bean
(the ICTA Ligero) that can be harvested before the
hurricane season has been promoted in Haiti to
reduce the risk of losing crops during the hurricane season (Bush, 2018).
The significance of ensuring that appropriate
genetic resources are available for distribution
during disaster rehabilitation is noted in a number
of country reports. For example, the Cook Islands
mentions that government response to disasters
normally involves providing seeds and seedlings
of short-cycle or annual vegetable crops sourced
from non-affected areas to provide an immediate
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
29
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
supply of food while damaged longer-cycle crops,
such as bananas, passion fruit and papaya, start
to recover. Bangladesh reports that in response to
increased soil salinity following cyclones, researchers have screened for salinity-tolerant varieties of
rice and other crops, which have then been multiplied and supplied to farmers. The United States
of America mentions the Seeds of Success16 programme, which helps to re-establish stable native
plant communities on land being rehabilitated
after disasters such as wildfires. Argentina and
Panama highlight the importance of genebanks
in supporting producers in recovering genetic
resources lost in disasters.
Gathering, hunting and fishing often increase
after a disaster as a result of the loss of productive assets or displacement of populations, and can
allow people to improve their nutritional intakes
and rebuild their livelihoods. For example, in locations near to inland or shallow coastal waters, the
low levels of expenditure and limited skills needed
in order to take up fishing mean that it is an activity
that people can easily fall back on when livestock
and crops have been lost (Cattermoul, Brown and
Poulain, eds., 2014). In drylands such as those of
sub-Saharan Africa, small and fast-growing wild
fish can be crucial components of resilience building, as they are highly productive when it rains and
if properly processed can be stored for long periods
(FAO, 2016a). Fishing and hunting gear are sometimes included in post-disaster emergency supplies
in order to help affected people with short-term
coping strategies. However, in the long term and
if not practised sustainably, their use can seriously
damage local ecosystems and make them and
related livelihoods less resilient to future disasters
(Cattermoul, Brown and Poulain, eds., 2014).
Numerous country reports mention the significance of wild foods to livelihood resilience and
food security following disasters. For example,
Zimbabwe reports that communities have turned
to wild foods for survival following various disasters, noting also the significance of local knowledge
of wild foods in this regard. It further notes that
aside from direct benefits they provide in terms
of consumption, non-wood forest products,
such as mopane worms, edible stinkbugs and
wild fruits, have become important sources of
household income as an alternative to traditional
crops affected by drought. It notes, however,
that between disasters the importance of wild
resources is neglected and that little or no conservation or management action is taken to ensure
they remain available as a resource for use in
potential future emergencies. Section 2.6 provides further examples of the use of wild foods in
emergency situations.
Other ways in which BFA can contribute to
post-disaster management can include the use
of pack animals to deliver food aid to inaccessible areas. There is also interest in the potential
roles of micro-organisms in food preservation in
post-disaster situations (Beed et al., 2011). See also
the discussion of food-chain emergencies below.
Disaster risk reduction
The term “disaster risk reduction” has been
defined as follows: “Disaster risk reduction is
aimed at preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk and managing residual risk, all
of which contribute to strengthening resilience
and therefore to the achievement of sustainable
development” (United Nations, 2016). Globally
agreed policy on disaster risk reduction is set
out in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015–2030, adopted in 2015 (United
Nations, 2015a).17 The intention is to achieve
“substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses
in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries.” In the food and agriculture
sector, disaster risk reduction can be viewed as
a continuum of actions taken before, during
17
16
https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/fish__wildlife_and/
plants/seeds_of_success.htm
30
The Sendai Framework was adopted by UN Member States on
18 March 2015 at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster
Risk Reduction in Sendai City, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, and
subsequently endorsed by the UN General Assembly.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
and after disasters to protect, save, restore and
enhance livelihoods.
As described above, BFA helps to make production systems and the supply of the ecosystem
services they depend on more resilient to shocks
of various kinds. BFA can both reduce the risk of
disasters (e.g. by preventing floods) and limit their
effects on production systems (e.g. use of trees as
shelter against extreme weather or resistant/tolerant crops, livestock or fish to reduce the effects
of disease outbreaks). Another link between ecosystem management and disaster risk reduction
lies in the fact that ecosystem degradation often
reduces economic and livelihood options and
can therefore drive people into even more marginal and fragile environments where they are at
greater risk from disasters (FAO, 2013e). BFA can
help to reduce this effect both by reducing problems such as erosion and loss of soil fertility and by
providing people with options for adapting their
livelihoods in situ.
Certain ecosystems such as forests are well recognized for their important roles in reducing
disaster risk (UN Environment, 2010), and more
generally there is growing awareness of the significance of “natural infrastructures” in reducing the threats posed by hazards such as floods,
storms and landslides (e.g. Sudmeier-Rieux, 2013).
Nonetheless, ecosystem management is still often
an overlooked element of disaster risk reduction
(Renaud, Sudmeier-Rieux and Estrella, 2013). Too
often, development activities disrupt the roles of
ecosystems in reducing disaster risk. For example,
flood risks can be increased by the loss of floodplain
connectivity as a result of the construction of roads
or dykes, by the loss of water meadows as a result
of river training or by the removal of mangroves.
Several ecosystem processes and structures that
help to reduce disaster risk also have associated
benefits for food production. For example, floodplains supply sediment-rich seasonal grazing or
cropping land (Gugic’, Župan and Zupan, 2012)
and mangroves provide secure fish nurseries and
boost fish production (Kastl, 2014). Measures that
enhance the capacity of dryland pastures to supply
hazard regulation services will also contribute to
the sustainability of grazing resources (Dudley,
MacKinnon and Stolton, 2014).
Both species diversity and within-species genetic
diversity contribute to the role of ecosystems in
disaster risk reduction (see discussion of hazard
regulation in Section 2.2). However, the extent
and precise nature of the benefits provided are
generally not well understood and require more
research (Monty, Murti and Furuta, 2016), as do
other factors influencing the capacity of ecosystems to supply hazard-regulation services.
A number of country reports identify species or
species categories that play particularly significant
roles in the supply of hazard-regulation services.
In all cases, references are to plants. For example,
several reports note the crucial role of mangrove
species in coastal protection or mention the importance of riverside or wetland vegetation in flood
protection. Some countries refer to the importance
of trees and bushes in binding the soil or as windbreaks that reduce the impact of storms. As discussed in more detail in Section 4.3, countries list a
number of ecosystems, species, breeds and varieties
that are specifically managed to promote hazard
regulation. For example, Jordan mentions that
the trees Cupressus sempervirens (Mediterranean
cypress) and Ceratonia siliqua (carob tree) are
planted as part of fire-control efforts. Bhutan notes
the contribution of fodder species (e.g. Guatemala
grass and Napier grass) in reducing landslide risk.
Several countries mention the benefits of operating mixed systems or of raising a more diverse
range of crops or livestock. For example, Nepal
mentions that agroforestry is an increasingly
important means of promoting resilience to the
adverse effects of rainfall variability, shifting
weather patterns, reduced water availability and
soil erosion. Senegal notes that, in pastoral and
agropastoral systems, keeping several species of
animals allows flexibility in destocking decisions
(a chicken, goat or sheep is sold more easily than
a bovine), provides insurance against the effects
of droughts and epidemics (which may affect one
species but not another) and facilitates the reconstitution of livestock holdings following losses
(restocking can start with smaller animals).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
31
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
TABLE 2.1
Biological control of invasive alien species through predation, parasitism and herbivory –
examples from the country reports
Invasive alien species
Controlling species
Countries reporting
Plants
Eichhornia crassipes
(water hyacinth)
Neochetina bruchi (chevroned water hyacinth weevil)
Neochetina eichorniae (water hyacinth weevil)
Papua New Guinea
Sudan
Mimosa diplotricha
Mimosa invisa (giant sensitive plant)
Heteropsylla spinulosa (sensitive plant psyllid)
Niue
Palau
Chromolaena odorata (Siam weed)
Cecidochares connexa (a gall fly)
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Salvinia molesta (Kariba weed)
Cyrtobagous salviniae (giant salvinia)
Papua New Guinea
Pistia stratiotes (water lettuce)
Neohydronomus affinis (water lettuce weevil)
Papua New Guinea
Mikania micrantha (bitter vine)
Puccinia spegazzini (a rust fungus)
Papua New Guinea
Sida rhombifolia
(flannel weed broom stick)
Calligrapha pantherina (sida leafbeetle)
Papua New Guinea
Impatiens glandulifera
(Himalayan balsam)
Rust fungus
United Kingdom
Fallopia japonica
(Japanese knotweed)
Aphalara itadori (Japanese knotweed psyllid)
United Kingdom (research ongoing)
Amorpha fruticosa (desert false
indigo)
Cattle
Croatia (reintroduction of grazing cattle
and traditional livestock farming; however,
Amorpha fruticosa is reported to be widely
spread and its eradication considered unlikely)
Tuta absoluta (tomato leafminer)
Bracon concolorans (a parasitic wasp)
Jordan
Papuana huebneri (taro beetle)
Metarhizium anisopliae (a fungus)
Kiribati (reported as unsuccessful)
Flat worm
Solomon Islands
Not specified
Parasite or predator insects:
Trichogramma evanescens (a wasp)
Bracon hebetor
Podisus maculiventris (spined soldier bug)
Entemopathological nematodes
Georgia
Perccottus glenii (Amur sleeper) and
other invasive alien fish species
Silurus glanis (Wels catfish)
Sander lucioperca (pike-perch)
Hungary (effect reported to be insufficient
to slow spread and proliferation or to offset
negative effects on the native fish fauna)
River weed
Grass carp
Fiji
Sciurus carolinensis (grey squirrel)
Martes martes (pine marten)
Ireland
Insects
Molluscs
Giant African snail
Other
Source: Selected from the 91 country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
Invasive alien species
Invasive alien species are non-native organisms that
have been introduced accidently or deliberately
into a new location and are causing economic or
environmental harm or adversely affecting human
32
health. Worldwide, invasive alien species are considered a major threat to biodiversity, including
BFA, in terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems (Chornesky et al., 2005; Keller et al., 2011;
MEA, 2005a). For further discussion of the impact
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 2.2
Biological control of invasive alien species through resource competition and other antagonistic
relationships − examples from the country reports
Invasive alien species
Controlling species
Countries reporting
Tilapia
Tor putitora (native golden mahaseer)
Nepal (partial success reported)
Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed –
a species that has led to reduced crop yields
in sunflower, maize and wheat production
systems)
Cover crops such as Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass)
and Medicago sativa (alfalfa) and other plant species
that form dense tufts or groups and compete for light,
moisture and soil nutrients
Bulgaria
Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed)
Various willow species that compete for light with the
Japanese knotweed
France
Merremia peltata (merremia)
Mucuna (a legume cover crop)
Fiji
Samoa
Plant-parasitic nematodes
Tagetes erecta (Mexican marigold)
Jordan
Cyperus aromaticus (Navua sedge)
Setaria (a pasture species)
Fiji
Source: Selected from the 91 country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
of invasive alien species on BFA, see Section 3.4.3.
Destabilized ecosystems, including systems used
for food and agricultural production, tend to be
more vulnerable to the spread of invasive alien
species (e.g. Chytrý et al., 2008; Marvier, Kareiva
and Neubert, 2004). However, there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that highly
diverse ecosystems are inherently more resistant
to invasive alien species than less-diverse systems
(e.g. Keller et al., 2011).
Various species are used as biological control
agents to control invasive alien species. However,
this strategy can carry some risk and needs to be
carefully planned and monitored. It has sometimes had negative effects on native biodiversity.
For example, attempts to control giant African
snails in the Caribbean using the predatory rosy
wolf snail (Euglandina rosea), native to the United
States of America, and in the Pacific using the flat
worm (Platydemus manokwari), are reported to
have led to declines in native endemic snail populations in both regions (Sankaran, 2004).
Countries were invited to provide information
on any contribution made by BFA to the management of invasive alien species. The majority of the
responses provided relate to the use of specific
components of BFA to control specific invasive alien
species. A range of different species are reported to
provide services of this kind, including predators,
herbivores, parasites and parasitoids that feed
on invasive alien species (Table 2.1), species that
compete with invasive alien species for resources
or are otherwise antagonistic to their presence
(Table 2.2) and species that are resistant to effects
of invasive alien species (Table 2.3). A few countries mention broad control strategies or broad
relationships between diversity and the spread
of invasive alien species. For example, France
states that one means of controlling the proliferation of invasive species in forests is to restore
the ecosystem using native species chosen so as
to reduce the availability of resources to targeted
invasive species. It also notes that native species
diversity provides a reserve of resources from
which candidates for use in such approaches can
be drawn. A few countries note the significance
of diversity-based agricultural practices such as
multicropping in this context.
Food-chain crises
Human food chains are affected by a range of
shocks including pest and disease outbreaks and
food-safety and pollution events (FAO, 2017d).
BFA can help increase resilience to many of these
threats. Contributions of plant (crop), animal (livestock), aquatic and forest genetic resources to
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
33
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
TABLE 2.3
Species or varieties that are tolerant or resistant to the effects of invasive alien species –
examples from the country reports
Invasive alien species
Resistant/tolerant species or varieties
Countries reporting
Mycosphaerella fijiensis
(black sigatoka)
Resistant cultivars of Musa spp. (banana)
Saint Lucia
A new strain of chili anthracnose disease
Resistant and tolerant chili varieties
Fiji
Inter alia, tomato yellow leaf curl virus,
tomato spotted wilt virus and zucchini
mosaic virus
Resistant Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)
Jordan
Ascochyta rabiei
(fungus causing Ascochyta blight)
Resistant cultivars of Cicer arietinum (chickpea)
Jordan
Chalara fraxinea
(fungus causing ash dieback disease)
Less susceptible forest tree types
Norway
Cyperus aromaticus (Navua sedge)
Setaria (a pasture species)
Fiji
Source: Selected from the 91 country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
pest- and disease-control strategies are discussed
in the respective sectoral global assessments
(FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a). The significance of associated biodiversity in conferring
resilience to the effects of diseases and parasites
is noted elsewhere in this chapter, particularly in
Section 2.2. The country reports include many references to the roles of associated biodiversity in
the control of pests and diseases (see, in particular,
Section 4.3).18 Management practices involving
the use of BFA in controlling pests and diseases
are discussed in Section 5.6. Micro-organisms can
contribute to the control of some pollution events
(see Section 5.7) and can also be used to combat
threats to food safety.
2.3.3 Needs and priorities
The resilience-related priority most widely identified in the country reports is promoting the
conservation and sustainable use of BFA so as to
ensure that the resilience-enhancing properties
of ecosystems are not undermined and that producers have access to a wide range of options for
potential future use. As noted above, a number of
countries report that resilience is being threatened
18
The country-report questions on these roles did not specifically
refer to the concept of resilience.
34
by the loss, degradation or fragmentation of habitats. Several mention the significance of maintaining wildlife corridors to provide connections
between larger patches of habitat.
Many countries note that detailed information
on relationships between biodiversity and resilience is often lacking. Strengthening research
on these relationships is widely mentioned as
a priority. A number of countries refer to the
need to establish or strengthen policies and
programmes that provide support to producers
in the implementation of management practices and strategies that help to build resilience.
Specific needs identified in this regard include
improving training and technology transfer and
establishing community-based genebanks. The
general significance of participatory and community-based approaches in efforts to improve
resilience is also widely noted. Some countries
also refer to the importance of awarenessraising among decision-makers on the significance of improving resilience within production
systems. While not specifically highlighted in
the country reports in the context of resilience,
it is important also to note that implementing
integrated BFA-management activities at multiple scales that extend beyond farm/holding
level can be challenging in that it requires an
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
institutional framework that facilitates action at
all relevant scales and coordination across them
(see Chapters 5 and 8 for further discussion).
The thematic study on resilience prepared as
part of the SoW-BFA process (Duval, Mijatovic
and Hodgkin, 2018) emphasizes the importance
of promoting the conservation and availability
of species and genetic diversity in and around
production systems, diversifying the use of crops,
livestock, forest trees and aquaculture species,
and restoring habitats to increase landscape and
seascape complexity. It identifies, inter alia, the
following priorities for resilience-related research:
• further analyses of the ways in which BFA
can optimally contribute to responses to and
recovery from stresses and shocks;
• development of management approaches
that integrate effects at different scales and
that involve diverse components of BFA;
• assessment of the contribution of BFA to resilience of production systems over sufficiently
long periods of time to capture medium- and
long-term outcomes; and
• more complete analysis and description of
the dynamic nature of production systems
and development of improved methods for
assessing and measuring their resilience.
2.4 Sustainable intensification
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) can
contribute to efforts to increase the output and
quality (e.g. nutritional content) of food and other
products while using less land, water and other inputs
per unit output.
• Appropriate diversification of the species, varieties
and breeds present in and around production systems
can promote positive interactions that reduce the
need for external inputs.
• Well-planned genetic-improvement programmes can
produce plant and animal populations that have the
characteristics needed to produce efficiently in specific
production environments.
• Key priorities for enhancing the contributions of BFA
to sustainable intensification include:
– improving knowledge of how existing practices
and new approaches can best be combined to
promote outcomes that increase productivity in a
sustainable way;
– identifying means of adapting sustainable
management methods to local agroecological and
socio-economic conditions; and
– developing appropriate policy and outreach
measures for scaling-up interventions.
The need to ensure the food security and nutrition of a world population predicted to increase
to almost 9.8 billion by 2050 (United Nations,
2017a) means that food supplies and their nutritional quality will need to increase substantially
over the coming years and decades (Foley et
al., 2011). Although strategies such as reducing
food waste and promoting dietary changes can
potentially contribute, it has been estimated
that global food production will need to increase
by 50 percent by 2050 (FAO, 2017e). The supply
of a range of non-food products will also need
to increase substantially (ibid.). The challenge
involved is exacerbated by the fact that the food
production systems that currently dominate
global production have serious negative environmental impacts and are increasingly regarded as
unsustainable in a number of respects (FAO, 2017f;
Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015; TEEB,
2015). Shortages of land that can be converted
to agricultural use without inflicting yet greater
damage on the environment (Lambin et al., 2013)
mean there is a need to increase the output19 of
food and other products on land and in water that
is already being used for production.20
Various approaches to utilizing improved ecological function to increase food production while
maintaining the sustainability of production
19
20
This statement refers to terrestrial and aquatic food production
systems taken as a whole. There are systems from which
output cannot be maintained or increased sustainably.
This Section draws on the thematic studies Contributions
of biodiversity to the sustainable intensification of food
production (Dawson et al., 2018a) and The contribution
of biodiversity for food and agriculture to the resilience of
production systems (Duval, Mijatovic and Hodgkin, 2018).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
35
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
systems have been developed (Baulcombe et al.,
2009; Struik et al., 2014). These have been variously
described as sustainable intensification, ecological
intensification, agroecological intensification and
eco-functional intensification. The term “sustainable intensification” (often contrasted with “conventional intensification”) is used in different ways
in different publications (e.g. Garnett et al., 2013;
Godfray, 2015; Wezel et al., 2009).21 However, the
objective in this section is to explore the significance of BFA in efforts to increase the quantity and
the nutritional quality of food products using less
land, water and other inputs (e.g. inorganic fertilizers and pesticides) per unit output. In keeping
with the focus of the report, the discussion largely
centres on approaches that involve making more
effective use of the functions performed by the biological components of the local agroecosystem and
wider landscape (and the interactions and synergies
between these components) and thus allow reliance
on external inputs to be reduced. A wide range of
approaches and management practices can contribute to this kind of biodiversity-focused sustainable
intensification (see Chapter 5 for discussion of many
of these), including many traditional practices developed by farming, pastoralist, forest and fish-farming
communities (Tittonell, 2014).
The focus of this section is largely on the contributions BFA makes to the environmental sustainability of production systems. Social and economic aspects are further discussed in Section 2.5.
Practices and approaches that involve mobilizing
BFA to promote the maintenance of productivity
in the context of shocks and stresses are introduced above in Section 2.3.
While much of the literature on sustainable
intensification has focused on crop production
21
A recent assessment of global progress towards the
implementation of sustainable intensification (Pretty et
al., 2018) took seven management practices into account
(integrated pest management, conservation agriculture,
integrated crop and biodiversity, pasture and forage, trees,
irrigation management and small/patch systems). The authors
estimated that 163 million farms (29 percent of the worldwide
total) practise some form of sustainable intensification on
453 million hectares of agricultural land (9 percent of the
worldwide total).
36
systems (e.g. Attwood et al., 2016; FAO, 2011c),
sustainable intensification approaches have also
been applied to livestock production (Eisler et
al., 2014), mixed systems and (to a much lesser
extent) aquaculture (FAO, 2016b, 2016c). Because
sustainable intensification as described above
involves intervening to promote the productionsupporting functions of ecosystem components,
the concept is less applicable to systems, such as
capture fisheries, that involve harvesting products
from unmanaged ecosystems.
2.4.1 Overview of the contributions of
biodiversity for food and
agriculture
Across all sectors of food and agriculture, biodiversity underpins the supply of multiple ecosystem
services that contribute to the productivity and
resilience of production systems (see Sections 2.2
and 2.3 and Chapters 4 and 5). Appropriate management of BFA is thus vital to efforts to enhance
the supply of these services in the interests of sustainable intensification. Potential interventions
to support positive interactions between components of biodiversity in food production systems
are listed in Table 2.4.
Diversification to promote sustainable
intensification
There are many ways in which increasing the
diversity of the biological components within
production systems can contribute to sustainable
intensification. This may involve specific practices
(e.g. intercropping), as well as broader integrated
approaches such as agroecology (see Section 5.3).
Diversification may involve utilizing a wider range
of species, varieties or breeds from within a given
sector (crops, livestock, forest, aquaculture, etc.),
promoting positive interactions or complementarities between species from different sectors within
or across production systems (including by diversifying the types of production practised at landscape
scale) and/or enhancing the benefits obtained
from associated biodiversity such as pollinators and
biological control agents. For example, increasing the within- and between-species diversity
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
of the crops grown within a production system,
both in space and in time, tends to increase the
potential for beneficial interactions that, for
instance, generate favourable microclimates,
promote nutrient cycling or contribute to the
control of pests (Altieri et al., 2015a; Attwood et
al., 2017a). Crops with different characteristics
(e.g. different root lengths, vegetative architectures, or planting and harvesting times) can
complement each other in terms of resource use
(Brooker et al., 2015). Introducing trees or shrubs
can benefit crop yields through improved nutrient
cycling and fixation, groundwater recharge and
the provision of shade (Binam et al., 2015; Ilstedt
et al., 2016). Similarly, livestock can benefit from
shade, shelter and/or additional feed supplied
by woody species. Livestock in turn can provide
manure to fertilize crops and fishponds. Ducks,
fish and other aquatic species can contribute to
pest control in rice paddies and similar systems.
See Section 5.5 for further discussion of the significance of mixed production systems.
Potential measures involving associated biodiversity include increasing the availability of pollinator habitat by planting strips of wild flowers
or trees within agricultural landscapes to promote
pollinator abundance and diversity, and hence
the supply of pollination services (Garibaldi et al.,
2013; Klein et al., 2007; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al.,
2017), reducing or eliminating the application of
pesticides to protect pollinators (Chagnon et al.,
2015; EASAC, 2015) and adopting management
practices that favour beneficial soil biodiversity
(e.g. use of intercrops, rotations, appropriate
tillage methods, maintenance of soil cover and
the incorporation of crop residues into the soil)
(Brooker et al., 2015; FAO, 2003a).
Quantifying the impact of such measures in terms
of sustainable intensification can be challenging.
The productivity of a system can be measured in
various ways based on the relative quantities of
various inputs (e.g. energy, fertilizer, water, labour
or land), outputs (e.g. food calories or other nutritional measures) and environmental impacts (e.g.
greenhouse-gas emissions, biodiversity loss or soil
erosion) (Elliott et al., 2013; Notarnicola et al., 2017;
Smith et al., 2017). Such approaches can potentially
be used to evaluate the impact of introducing additional biodiversity into a system, although basic
measures may not account for more subtle effects
such as changes in the nutritional quality of foods.
One widely used method of measuring the
effects of including multiple crop species or genotypes in crop-production systems is the “land
equivalent ratio” (LER) (Mead and Willey, 1980).
The LER is the ratio of the sum of the relative
yields of the different components when they are
grown together as intercrops to the sum of their
yields when grown separately. A value above 1
indicates that having multiple components in the
system provides benefits in terms of yield. A value
of less than 1 indicates disbenefits in terms of
yield. Yu et al. (2015) calculated the LER for annual
intercrop systems described in the scientific literature and found an average LER of 1.22 for cereal–
legume intercrops, i.e. that intercropping tended
to have a positive effect on yields (although in
a significant minority of cases effects were negative). Nitrogen fertilization was found to lower
LERs, suggesting that intercropping systems may
be more advantageous where access to inputs is
limited, as is the case for many millions of smallholder farmers in low-income countries. It must
be recalled, however, that LER is purely a measure
of production, and hence does not indicate the
overall attractiveness of an intercrop approach to
farmers, who also have to consider the labour and
other costs involved. Potential additional benefits
such as increases in yield stability, reduction of
risks and long-term improvements to soil fertility
also need to be considered.
Where agroforestry is concerned, Sileshi et al.
(2008) conducted a meta-analysis of studies from
sub-Saharan Africa on the effect that including
woody legumes in the production system had
on maize yields and found significant positive
responses. An analysis of 40 projects and programmes implemented in the 1990s and 2000s in
various countries in Africa that involved practices
such as crop improvements, agroforestry, conservation agriculture, integrated pest management
and the integration of livestock, fodder crops or
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
37
2
38
TABLE 2.4
Potential interventions to support positive interactions in food production systems
Interventions
Approaches to measuring
impacts
Knowledge gaps/research needs
Land equivalent ratio, stability
and quality of production (direct
measures).
Rate of artificial fertilizer
application, soil fertility, cropspecies diversity in intercrops and
rotations (indirect measures).
Interactions among annual crops are some of the best researched in food
production systems. However, developing breeding methods that effectively
account for these interactions requires a paradigm shift from current breeding
methods, and this is still in its infancy (Litrico and Violle, 2015).
A better understanding of genetic variation in important interaction traits in
the crop gene pools available for breeding is required, exploring landraces
and wild germplasm where variation in important traits may be more evident
than in advanced crop cultivars grown in high-input monocultures (Palmgren
et al., 2015).
To integrate new and orphan crops into production systems, more research is
needed on effective cropping options in combination with major crops, using
cropping system modelling frameworks and based on knowledge of existing
production systems (Reckling et al., 2016).
Trees in farmland
and forests
Protect remaining forest/farm landscape mosaics.
Further integrate trees, including leguminous species,
into farms, with a focus on soil rehabilitation and
improvement.
Domesticate a wider range of tree species to increase
productivity and allow them to compete successfully
with annual crops and thereby contribute to agricultural
diversification.
Develop new markets for additional tree products and
“shade-produced” commodities.
Adopt more effective systems for delivering tree-planting
materials to smallholder growers.
(Sources: Leakey, 2010; Lillesø et al., 2011, 2018)
Land equivalent ratio, production
resilience, life-cycle analysis
(direct measures).
Soil fertility, soil retention, niche
occupation, species and market
diversity (indirect measures).
Many trees provide important
habitat for animal pollinators,
so distance-related effects on
agricultural production from
tree habitat can be measured
(pollinator effects measured as
indicated below).
Longer-term and larger-scale research on forest- and tree-based ecosystem
services and associated impacts on food production is required (Reed et al.,
2017).
Positive spillovers from farms to forests are generally not well understood;
further research on them is needed, for example on farm-habitat pollination
services for forest food production (Blitzer et al., 2012).
The impacts of agroforestry in terms of land-use changes and food security
are only partially understood and require further study (van Noordwijk et al.,
2014).
The best approaches to bringing trees into cultivation to support agricultural
diversification are often unknown; further research is needed on participatory
tree domestication in particular, giving due attention to the specific needs
of both women and men, and with particular emphasis on farm niches
(Mulyoutami et al., 2015).
BFA in livestock
production
systems
Restore degraded pastures to support overall production
and increase resilience.
Adjust and diversify the breeds raised, the plants grown
as feed and the composition of ruminal gut flora and
fauna to enhance productivity/synergies and minimize
environmental costs.
Implement improved methods of manuring.
(Sources: Dawson et al., 2014; Dijkstra, Oenema and
Bannink, 2011; Hayes, Lewin and Goddard, 2013)
Animal weight changes and milk
yield, crop yield and yield stability
from manuring, life-cycle analysis
(direct measures).
Soil fertility, animal health,
animal gut microflora and fauna
composition, fodder diversity
(indirect measures).
There is currently only limited detailed understanding of the interactions
between animals and other components of production systems, including
under climate change; further research on animal–crop(–tree) interactions is
required (Thornton and Herrero, 2015). Methods for analysing greenhousegas balances to determine appropriate mitigation interventions in the context
of other production components are available but need to be refined (de Boer
et al., 2011).
(Cont.)
OV ERV I E W
Annual crops
Breed and select crops for more positive crop–crop
interactions in production systems, exploiting wild and
landrace gene pools (Litrico and Violle, 2015).
Exploit species and within-species combinations to
improve disease resistance and climate resilience (Döring
et al., 2015; Finckh et al., 2000).
Explore the integration of a wider range of crops
(including new and orphan crops) that may be able to
interact positively with other components into cropping
systems, over spatial (intercrop) and temporal (rotation)
scales (AOCC, 2018; Dawson et al., 2018b).
PART A
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Component of
biodiversity
TABLE 2.4 (Cont.)
Potential interventions to support positive interactions in food production systems
Component of
biodiversity
Interventions
Approaches to measuring
impacts
Knowledge gaps/research needs
Fish catch and catch stability, fish
growth rate, crop yield and yield
stability (direct measures).
Fish diversity, fish-feed diversity
and conversion efficiency, fishpest and crop-pest prevalence
(indrect measures).
Many fish are important for
nutritionally balanced diets, so
increases in production can be
modelled as human nutritional
benefits.
There is frequently little information on interactions in aquatic agriculture
systems and aquaculture, including interactions between terrestrial and
aquatic components, and between aquaculture and fisheries; further research
is needed in order to allow the development of more-effective integrated
production strategies (Attwood et al., 2017b; Soto et al., 2012).
The development of multitrophic aquaculture systems – i.e. systems in which
organisms from different trophic levels (carnivores, filter feeders, autotrophes,
etc.) are grown in combination – has received limited attention; further
research is needed on the creation or enhancement of synergistic relationships
in resource use and recycling (Barrington, Chopin and Robinson, 2009).
Addressing the negative on- and off-site environmental impacts of
aquaculture has received only limited attention and further research
is needed.
Animal
pollinators
Reintroduce a range of native pollinators into
agricultural landscapes.
Protect remaining natural habitat/habitat mosaics and
further improve and expand animal-pollinator habitat in
farmland through agroforestry, border planting, fallow
practices, etc.
Implement joint management plans for wild and
introduced pollinators in landscapes.
Reduce insecticide use in farmland.
Adopt integrated, pollinator-friendly “environmental
certification” approaches for animal-pollinated crops.
(Sources: FAO, 2008a; Garibaldi et al., 2013; IPBES,
2016a; Klein et al., 2007; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al.,
2017)
Yield, yield stability and quality
of animal-pollinated crops (direct
measures).
Number, range and stability of
pollinators/pollinator populations
in agricultural landscapes,
especially over the crop flowering
period (indirect measures). Many
animal-pollinated crops are of
particular nutritional significance,
so increases in crop production
may be modelled as human
nutritional benefits.
There are gaps in understanding of the levels of pollinator dependency of
different crops; more realistic estimates of pollinator dependency in different
production contexts are required, especially for important staples (e.g.
soybean) where the range of quoted effects is large, new and orphan crops,
and low- and middle-income country production contexts (Klein et al., 2007;
Melathopoulos, Cutler and Tyedmers, 2015; Teichroew et al., 2017).
Climate change impacts on pollinator–crop mutualisms (e.g. impacts caused
by loss of life-cycle synchronies) are often unknown and require elucidation,
especially for major animal-pollinated crops (Gilman et al., 2012; Kerr et al.,
2015).
Soil microorganisms
Implement soil/farm-management practices that
enhance beneficial microbe populations and support
nutrient cycling and soil fertility, such as greater use of
intercrops, rotations and appropriate tillage methods,
and more incorporation of crop residues.
Directly inoculate with microbial populations.
Breed crops for more effective beneficial interactions
with micro-organisms by exploiting wild and landrace
crop gene pools.
(Sources: Brooker et al., 2015; FAO, 2003a; Kapulnik
and Kushnir, 1991; Mutch and Young, 2004)
Crop yield and yield stability
(direct measures).
Rate of artificial fertilizer
application, soil fertility, soil
texture, soil biome quantity
and composition, water run-off
quality (indirect measures).
The role of below-ground biodiversity in nutrient cycling is often poorly
characterized; more research is required on the mechanisms involved in
shaping complex soil communities and their functions (Bardgett and Van Der
Putten, 2014).
The effectiveness of inoculation methods is often limited; research is needed
to address colonization problems (Compant, Clément and
Sessitsch, 2010).
There is limited knowledge of how to create more effective crop–microbe
interactions at the genotype-to-genotype level; research is required on a
range of genotype combinations (Tikhonovich and Provorov, 2011). Research
needs to address the question of how domestication and selective breeding
have affected the ability of crops to establish beneficial interactions with
rhizosphere microbes (Pérez-Jaramillo, Mendes and Raaijmakers, 2016).
39
Source: Adapted from Dawson et al., 2018a.
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
BFA in aquatic
production
systems
Promote a wider range of production systems involving
diverse components (algae, cleaner fish, etc.).
Promote a greater range of crops capable of tolerating
flooding and salinity in aquatic agriculture systems and
that have greater complementarity in broader floodplain
management.
Domesticate a range of fish to increase the productivity
and support the diversification and resilience of
aquaculture and to increase the nutritional diversity of
production.
Diversify animal- and plant-based fish-feed resources.
(Sources: FAO, 2016b; Faruque et al., 2017; Hall et
al., 2011; Olesen et al., 2015; Thilsted et al., 2016;
Wijkström, 2012).
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
aquaculture into food production systems identified positive results in terms of food outputs
and yield increases (Pretty, Toulmin and Williams,
2011). An evaluation of 85 integrated pest management projects implemented in 24 countries in
Asia and Africa between 1990 and 2014 (Pretty
and Bharucha, 2015) found that they led to a
mean yield increase across crops of 41 percent,
combined with a decline in pesticide use to
31 percent of the original level.22
Potential BFA-based approaches to sustainable
intensification in aquaculture include polyculture,
i.e. raising multiple species or taxonomic groups
(including the use of bioremediation species),
shifting to vegetable-based feed, and improving
interactions with other production-system components such as crops and livestock (Attwood et al.,
2017b). For example, the use of wrasse (Labridae)
as cleaner fish has proved to be an effective substitute for the use of chemicals in the control of sea
lice in salmon farms (Research Council of Norway,
2010; Skiftesvik et al., 2014).
Genetic improvement to support
sustainable intensification
Genetic-improvement programmes are among the
main tools that can be drawn upon to increase the
productivity and stability of food and agricultural
systems, whether by increasing output, increasing
product quality, enabling production to be maintained in harsh conditions or reducing harmful
environmental impacts per unit of output. In
many cases, however, plants and animals are currently bred for use in production systems that are
in one way or another unsustainable, for example
polluting, highly dependent on non-renewable
resources or vulnerable to being undermined by
the negative effects of various drivers of change.
Breeding in support of sustainable intensification
thus requires adjusting breeding goals so that the
outputs are better adapted to systems that meet
the overall objectives of the approach.
22
Reviews of reported magnitudes of benefits should be
interpreted with caution, as they may inadvertently be affected
by biases in the literature towards publishing studies that show
positive effects.
40
Particularly given the effects of climate change,
genetic improvement efforts require access to
genes that better enable plants and animals to
respond to a range of abiotic and biotic stresses.
This requires the maintenance of a diverse portfolio of genetic resources, including crop wild
relatives and locally adapted varieties and breeds,
which in turn requires effective approaches to
the conservation and sustainable use of these
resources (Dulloo et al., 2017; FAO, forthcoming,
2010a, 2014a, 2015a; see also Chapters 5 and 7).
It also needs to be borne in mind that interactions between the biological components of production systems – including for example those
that may influence complementarity in the use
of resources – are influenced by their genetics.
This means that, for example, it may be possible
to improve the performance of crop mixtures by
identifying traits that influence such interactions
and breeding the components of the mixture so
as to optimize complementarity (Litrico and Violle,
2015). Breeding plants for attributes other than
yield may be a means of promoting the supply of
a wider range of ecosystem services, for example
increasing carbon sequestration or water capture.
Realizing the potential contributions of a broad
range of genetic resources to breeding programmes
that promote sustainable intensification remains
challenging. To varying degrees across sectors, there
are organizational, technological, knowledgerelated and biological (e.g. the need to conserve
genetic diversity in small populations) constraints
to the integration of locally adapted populations
into genetic improvement strategies. Breeding programmes are discussed in Section 5.9 and in greater
detail in the sectoral global assessments of genetic
resources (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a).
Country-report analysis
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries
to provide information on cases in which increasing the amount of BFA in production systems has
contributed to an increase in productivity or specifically to sustainable intensification. Responses refer
to a range of different biodiversity-based interventions. For example, Argentina reports that studies
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
have looked into the potential of sustainable
intensification as a means of avoiding agricultural
expansion into vulnerable areas. It notes that intensified crop rotations were found to allow improvements in grain yields and in the contribution of crop
residues to soil carbon balance. Ethiopia mentions a
project in the southwestern part of the country that
introduced the use of improved fruit and vegetable
varieties, along with practices such as the use of
organic manure and integrated pest management,
and resulted in a 60 percent increase in crop yields
and a 70 percent improvement in nutrition in the
areas targeted. It notes that similar activities have
been implemented in other parts of the country
and that most of the crop varieties involved were
developed from landraces at the country’s agricultural research centres. Several countries note the
significance of breeding programmes that create
high-performance varieties, breeds and strains that
are resistant to stresses they are likely to encounter
or note the importance of existing locally adapted
crops or livestock that can function in low external
input production systems.
2.4.2 Needs and priorities
The country reports emphasize the need to
increase research into the potential roles of BFA in
sustainable intensification across a range of production systems and to generate, adapt or develop
sustainable technologies – including approaches
to land management – that meet the needs of
producers and their communities. Reported priorities include improving knowledge of how existing practices and new technologies can best be
combined to promote sustainable intensification.
Several countries note the importance of strengthening genetic-improvement programmes for local
breeds and varieties of livestock and crops.
Countries highlight the importance of increasing
the availability of financial resources for research
on sustainable intensification and for the implementation of sustainable-intensification practices
and note the need to promote the involvement
of both the public and the private sectors. Several
mention the need to develop incentive measures
to encourage the adoption of sustainable practices
by producers. Raising awareness among policymakers and local communities of the potential
significance of sustainable intensification to food
security and nutrition – and of the significance of
BFA in this regard – is noted as another priority.
Some countries also mention the need to monitor
and establish indicators for the implementation of
sustainable intensification in agriculture.
The thematic study prepared by Dawson et al.
(2018a) draws attention to a number of challenges
involved in the design and implementation of sustainable intensification strategies and interventions. In addition to the need for greater understanding of the various components of BFA and
their interactions, it notes the need to investigate
factors influencing levels of adoption, such as the
amount of labour, knowledge and time required
relative to other practices, as well as potential constraints associated with institutional and governance systems. It further notes the need to determine
how to tailor sustainable intensification strategies
and interventions to local agroecological conditions and to socio-economic factors such as dietary
preferences. The need for interdisciplinary research
approaches to all these questions is emphasized.
At a more technical level, priority actions identified (largely focused on the crop sector) include
the following: greater focus on adaptive-trait
breeding for staple crops based on landrace and
wild gene pools; support for the diversification
of farming systems by focusing on strengthening
positive interactions between biological components and promoting greater investment in more
nutrient-rich orphan and new crops; and greater
attention to spatial planning to maximize positive
interactions between components of BFA.
2.5 Livelihoods
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) is
indispensable to livelihoods in countries at all levels
of development, providing a wide variety of goods
and employment opportunities, contributing to local
culture, strengthening food and nutrition security
– particularly among marginalized groups and in
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
41
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
resource-poor areas – and increasing the resilience of
production systems to adverse events.
• Actions that need to be taken to support the
livelihood-enhancing roles of BFA include:
– better documenting its multiple contributions,
including documenting indigenous knowledge
related to its use;
– raising awareness of the significance of its
livelihood roles; and
– creating appropriate policies in fields such as
marketing of sustainably supplied products
(e.g. certification schemes) and agro-ecotourism.
According to one widely cited definition, a livelihood “comprises the capabilities, assets (stores,
resources, claims and access) and activities
required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from
stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood
opportunities for the next generation; and which
contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the
local and global levels and in the short and longterm” (Chambers and Conway, 1991). In this sense,
the livelihoods of the world’s farmers, livestock
keepers, forest-dwellers, fishers and aquaculturists
involve drawing on (inter alia) the assets represented by components of BFA and using and combining them in various ways to meet their needs.
2.5.1 Overview of the contributions of
biodiversity for food and agriculture
According to the so-called sustainable livelihoods
approach – a framework developed during the
1990s to analyse livelihoods (particularly the livelihoods of the rural poor) and potential development
strategies or interventions (Carney, 1998; Scoones,
1998) – livelihood assets can be grouped into various
categories of “capital”, typically financial, physical,
natural, social and human capitals. Although these
categories are not necessarily completely distinct
from each other and can be interpreted in various
different ways, the framework serves to illustrate
the diverse range of assets and activities that make
up many livelihoods, and provides a structure within
which the livelihood significance of BFA can be
42
discussed. The framework is illustrated in Figure 2.2:
a household combines its various categories of assets
into a strategy aimed at coping with the various
challenges it faces (“the vulnerability context”) and
achieving desirable “livelihood outcomes”.
Financial capital
“Financial capital” in the livelihoods context refers
to the cash assets to which an individual or a household has access. These assets can be used to purchase
items that either directly contribute to well-being
(e.g. food, medicines and various consumer goods
and services) or can be invested in making improvements to the productivity or resilience of livelihood
activities (tools, land, seeds, animals, fertilizers,
feeds, veterinary medicines, etc.).
Clearly, many products and services derived from
biological resources can be sold to obtain cash
income. The significance of diversity in this context
lies, in part, in the fact that access to a range of different components of BFA (e.g. a range of species,
breeds or varieties) can help allow a household to
maintain a supply of saleable products in diverse
and fluctuating environments and in response to
changes in market demand. However, the financial role of BFA is not necessarily restricted to the
supply of a steady stream of products that can
immediately be converted into cash. Where conventional financial services are unavailable, biological assets can also serve as alternative forms
of savings or insurance. This is a well-documented
function of livestock, for example (e.g. Ayalew et
al., 2003; Ejlertsen, Poole and Marshall, 2012; Moll,
2005). Cash can be “banked” in a herd or flock of
animals that can then be sold when need arises.
Other resources that may otherwise be of little
value such as food waste, crop residues or vegetation from uncultivated rangelands, wastelands,
roadsides, etc. can also be converted into savings
by feeding them to the animals. If things go well,
the flocks and herds will also yield “interest” in the
form of offspring, milk, eggs, etc.
Physical capital
A household’s assets will include items that have
not yet been, or will never be, converted into cash.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 2.2
The sustainable livelihoods analytical framework
LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
Vulnerability context
• Shocks
• Trends
• Seasonality
Processes and structures
Social
Human
Natural
Influence
and access
Financial
Physical
• Institutions
• Policies
• Culture
Livelihood strategies
Livelihood outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
More income
Increased well-being
Reduced vulnerability
Improved food security
More sustainable
natural resource base
Source: Adapted from FAO (2012a) based on Randolph et al. (2007) and Carney et al. (1999).
As in the case of financial capital, this so-called
“physical capital” can serve directly to meet human
needs (e.g. crop plants, livestock, forest trees or
aquatic species can provide food, transport, shelter,
clothing, etc.) and serve as inputs to further livelihood activities (e.g. crops and trees can provide
feed for use in animal production, animals can
provide draught power for use in crop production,
trees can provide timber for use in making tools for
various livelihood activities). Again, as in the case
of marketed products and services, fulfilling these
diverse roles across a range of different production
environments requires a range of different species,
varieties and breeds.
Natural capital
“Natural capital” refers to the natural resources
and processes that a household (or individual or
group) can draw upon. Where BFA is concerned,
the boundaries of this category are rather blurry.
In a sense, all the functions of all components
of BFA could be included. However, some components of BFA are more “natural” than others
in that they have not been domesticated and/or
are not actively managed by humans. Moreover,
as described above, many types of BFA (crops,
livestock, species used in aquaculture, and major
harvested tree and aquatic species) are key contributors to the financial and physical assets of
large numbers of households. The main focus
under this subheading is on BFA falling outside
these “sectoral” categories.
As described throughout this chapter and
throughout the report, associated biodiversity
contributes in many ways to the supply of supporting and regulating ecosystem services that are
drawn upon at household level, whether passively
or through active use (see in particular Sections 2.2
and 2.4, and Chapter 5). Likewise, wild biodiversity is widely used as source of food and other
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
43
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
products (see in particular Section 2.6). However,
while everyone’s livelihoods and well-being
depend ultimately on ecosystem services and functions, some households are more dependent than
others on the services directly provided by their
local ecosystems. These may often be households
that are not well endowed with other assets. For
example, if food is in short supply (e.g. because of
a poor harvest), households that have plenty of
“financial capital” may be able to buy the food
they need despite higher prices, while those that
are poorer may have to fall back on harvesting
wild foods. Similarly, regulating and supporting
services provided by wild biodiversity may be particularly important to poorer households as they
often come at little or no direct cost to the beneficiary. For example, wild biological control agents
may be particularly important for farmers that are
unable to afford purchased pesticides.
However, while some studies have, indeed, indicated that poorer sections of the community tend
to be particularly dependent on products obtained
from the wild (e.g. Béné et al., 2009; Cavendish,
2000; Jodha, 1992; Shackleton and Shackleton,
2006), it may not be correct to assume that this is
a general rule (Vira and Kontoleon, 2012). In some
cases, the relationship between the use of particular
wild resources and wealth is positive (i.e. wealthier
households use more than poorer ones) or U-shaped
(i.e. the poorest and the richest use more and those
with intermediate levels of wealth use less) (ibid.).
Various factors can influence access to wild
resources and capacity to use them. For example,
access to other assets may be a prerequisite
(Adhikari, Di Falco and Lovett, 2004; Coomes,
Barham and Takasaki, 2004; Coulibaly-Lingani
et al., 2009). Landowners may find it easier than
landless people to access wild resources or may be
better able to make use of them, for example using
leaf litter gathered in the forest to make compost
for use in their crop fields. Livestock owners may
have more opportunity to make use of grasslands
or other ecosystems that can be grazed or from
which forage can be gathered. Access to some
wild products may require investment in relatively expensive equipment (e.g. boats for fishing).
44
Lack of time or knowledge may be constraints
and there may be various physical hazards that
have to be overcome (rough terrain, dangerous
animals, etc.). Particularly where endangered and
more valuable resources are concerned, political
or social influence may affect access. Changing
socio-economic conditions may alter the way in
which wild biodiversity is used and valued, for
example the high cultural value and therefore
economic value that meat or other products from
wild animals have acquired among some wealthy
people in Africa and Asia (Nasi et al., 2008). There
may also be legal, cultural or religious factors that
inhibit or promote the use of particular resources,
either by the population at large or by particular
sections of society.
Another concern that is sometimes raised is
that while wild biodiversity is clearly a significant
source of income (either regular or as a safety net)
for many households, these people often remain
poor. In other words, the use of wild biodiversity
is not enabling them to break out of the “poverty
trap” in which they find themselves and transition
to other livelihood activities (Vira and Kontoleon,
2012). Moreover, overuse of wild products is a
major problem in many places and has implications both for biodiversity and, in the medium
term, for the sustainability of the livelihoods of
people relying on these resources. The paradox is
that rarity itself can give a species added value and
thus promote further exploitation.
Social capital
“Social capital” in the context of the sustainable livelihoods framework refers to the social connections
and bonds that people can draw upon for assistance. BFA can contribute to building social capital
via its role in social and cultural life. It can also be
the form in which social capital is realized into tangible assets. In pastoralist societies, for example,
exchange of livestock via loans and gifts has traditionally been a means of building and maintaining
social relationships that can later be drawn upon
for help, typically again in the form of loans or
gifts of animals (Morton and Meadows, 2000;
Potkanski, 1999). More generally, many cultural
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
or religious events or activities that help to build
social ties involve the use of crops, livestock, forest
trees or aquatic organisms or products obtained
from them. Sometimes such traditions require the
use of specific varieties or breeds within species
(FAO, 2007a, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a).
Human capital
The term “human capital” is used to refer to
human capacity to contribute to livelihood activities, i.e. to knowledge, skills, physical strength
and so on. As discussed further in Section 2.6,
BFA contributes in various ways to human nutrition, and hence to health and capacity to work.
Many cultivated and wild plants have medicinal
qualities. Moreover, for many households, sales
of agricultural, forest or aquatic products are a
means of financing expenditures on health and
education. For example, among livestock-keeping
households, medium-sized animals such as sheep
and goats are often sold to finance educational
expenses such as school fees (e.g. Otte et al., 2012).
Another consideration is that activities that are
time consuming or physically exhausting tend to
“use up” human capital, i.e. limit people’s capacity to do other things. Labour-saving assets can
therefore be important. For example, in poorer
households in many parts of the world, donkeys
often perform essential tasks, such as carrying
water and fuelwood, which would otherwise have
to be done by people, often by women (Valette,
2014). Raising locally adapted species, varieties
and breeds of crops, livestock, trees or fish can
be less demanding in terms of labour than raising
their exotic counterparts. These labour-sparing
characteristics can make locally adapted genetic
resources particularly important for women, who
often have to spend a lot of time on child-rearing
and other domestic activities (FAO, 2012a).
Country-report analysis
Country reports from all regions, and from countries at all levels of development, provide examples of the positive contributions that BFA makes
to livelihoods, including as a direct source of food
and income and as a provider of ecosystem services
that underpin livelihood activities. Reported roles
in food security and nutrition are described in
Section 2.6. Chapter 5 includes information on the
reported use of BFA in various management activities that underpin livelihoods in food and agriculture. This subsection, therefore, provides a fairly
short overview of the main livelihood-related roles
of BFA described in the country reports.
Direct contributions of BFA to income generation and employment are highlighted across all
sectors of food and agriculture. Even in countries where these sectors make up a relatively
small proportion of the national economy, BFA
is reported to be key a component of the livelihoods of some local populations, whether directly
or indirectly (e.g. by helping to attract tourists).
Many countries report on the economic contributions provided by major food and agricultural
commodities.23 However, the livelihood significance of relatively “overlooked” components of
BFA is also widely reported, including those that
play multiple roles in household livelihoods and
in the wider economy or that are of particular
significance to the livelihoods of poorer sections
of the population. Several countries report initiatives and programmes aiming to protect and build
on the multiple benefits that BFA offers to livelihoods. Box 2.1 presents some examples.
The forest sector is widely reported as a source
of employment and of a wide range of wood and
non-wood forest products. For example, Bhutan
mentions that over 40 species of edible wild vegetables and 350 species of edible mushrooms
have been identified in its forests. It notes that
as well as making a direct contribution to diets
some of these wild species are sold to generate cash income. Similarly, Burkina Faso draws
attention to the importance of non-wood forest
products in sustaining livelihoods, particularly
those of women, who are often responsible for
collecting, processing and commercializing such
products. Reported examples include shea butter
23
Latest national data on production quantities and values for
many products are available via FAO’s statistical database
FAOSTAT at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
45
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
– extracted from the shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa) – and soumbala, a traditional aromatic condiment obtained from the seeds of the African
locust bean (néré) tree (Parkia biglobosa).
The Gambia notes that forests provide about
85 percent of its domestic energy requirements, in
the form of fuelwood and charcoal, in addition to
providing timber, wild foods, construction materials, medicine and forage for livestock. Sudan
mentions that production of gum arabic (a natural
gum obtained from acacia trees and used in food
production and for various other purposes) makes
a substantial contribution to the livelihoods of
millions of its poorest people, providing some
with up to 50 percent of their total cash incomes.
It notes that for smallholders gum arabic represents a diversification strategy that can help to
mitigate the effects of crop failure.
Fisheries and coastal ecosystems are reported
to be vital to livelihoods in many countries. Fiji,
for example, mentions that it has over 70 edible
species of shellfish, in addition to finfish, crabs,
freshwater mussels and seaweed. It notes that as
well as providing a source of products that can be
harvested for home consumption, some of these
species (e.g. tuna) represent a significant source
of paid employment and foreign exchange.
India mentions the importance of mangrove
ecosystems and their biodiversity in supporting
coastal fisheries and hence the livelihoods of
local villagers.
The country reports also highlight a range
of livelihood contributions provided by livestock. Ethiopia, for example, reports that some
80 percent of smallholders in the country use
animal traction to plough their fields. India
reports that smallholders and landless rural
dwellers manage 75 percent of the country’s livestock resources and obtain nearly half of their
income from them. Sudan mentions that for pastoralist groups living in areas where there are
no banking services livestock are a way to store
wealth. It also notes that keeping animals facilitates group solidarity in that those with larger
herds may lend animals to those who have fewer
resources or have been affected by droughts,
46
epidemics or armed conflicts. Some countries
also mention the significance of beekeeping as
a source of products such as honey and beeswax
for home use or sale.
As illustrated by some of the examples above,
many countries note the significance of wild foods
to livelihoods, both in terms of food security and
nutrition (see Section 2.6) and as a more general
source of income. Several provide examples of
the livelihood opportunities related to consumer
demand for wild foods. Cameroon, for example,
mentions that demand for such products from
rural dwellers that have moved to urban areas or
to other countries increases the prices that can be
obtained for them. The popularity of Gnetum spp.
(a forest vine eaten as a vegetable) in restaurants
throughout the country and abroad is noted as
a case in point. Zimbabwe reports that insects,
particularly those that can be collected in large
numbers, provide both a supplementary source
of nutrition for local people and an incomegenerating activity. It notes that commercial harvesting and sale of forest insects is a substantial
industry in some parts of the country and drives
efforts to conserve trees that provide habitat for
the targeted insects. Reports from developed
countries generally indicate that wild biodiversity
provides only a marginal contribution to national
incomes and diets. Several, however, note that it
makes a substantial contribution to the livelihoods
of some sections of the population or underpins
significant niche industries.
Many countries highlight the importance of
biodiversity to cultural life – often particularly
for indigenous populations – including via roles
in traditional ceremonies, cuisine and handicrafts.
Several note that aside from their purely cultural
significance such traditions often also help to
underpin income-generating activities, nutritious
diets, the supply of medicinal products or the
maintenance of social ties within communities.
Niue, for example, mentions that its annual yam
and thanksgiving food festivals encourage the
utilization of a diverse range of local crop species
and varieties and hence help promote a more
nutritious diet. Almost all families in the country
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 2.1
Projects and programmes supporting livelihoods by promoting biodiversity for food and
agriculture – examples from around the world
One Village One Product (Nepal), a project implemented
by the Ministry of Agricultural Development, is promoting
indigenous food and non-food products derived from local
biodiversity – including fabrics and dresses, furnishing and
decorations – to enhance the livelihoods of rural villagers.
Árbediehtu (Inherited Knowledge) (Norway), a
project established and implemented by the Sámi University
College, is documenting the traditional knowledge of the
Sámi people on the management of local natural resources,
including wild foods, that support their livelihoods. The
aim is to integrate this knowledge into the management of
local biodiversity.
Research and Innovation in Family Agricultural
Production Systems in the Ngäbe Buglé Region
(Panama) aims to document local biodiversity for food and
agriculture and promote its conservation and sustainable
use. Smallholders in the area are custodians of a wide
variety of maize, bean, yucca and other vegetables that
are well adapted to the local environment. The project has
collected local crop cultivars with the aim of breeding them
for characteristics such as uniform height and distributing
them to family farmers. It has evaluated biofortified varieties
for potential introduction in poor rural areas with the aim of
improving food security and nutrition. It has also promoted
the use of vermicompost in local farming systems and
achieved a marked increase in crop yields.
Mainstreaming Agro-biodiversity Conservation and
Use in Sri Lankan Agro-ecosystems for Livelihoods
and Adaptation to Climate Change (Sri Lanka), a
project implemented by the Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources, Bioversity International and the Ministry
of Agriculture, is looking at ways in which agrobiodiversity –
including crops, forest species, livestock and pollinators – can
be directly linked to sustainable production practices that
can improve the livelihoods of local people while helping to
increase resilience to climate change.
Sustainable Livelihoods and Healthy Foods (Tonga)
is part of the country’s Agriculture Sector Plan and aims to
improve farmers’ knowledge of, and access to, technology
to promote climate-resilient, diversified crop and livestock
production and improve product marketing.
Forests Sustainably Managed for Communities,
Environment and Shock Resilience (Forest Forces
2014–2018) (Zimbabwe) was established with funding from
the European Union and FAO to improve the food security,
livelihoods and resilience of vulnerable rural communities
through participatory forest management and valorization of
forest products to diversify livelihood strategies.
Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries
and Food Security (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New
Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor
Leste) promotes the conservation of coastal and marine
ecosystems. Objectives include protecting the livelihoods of
the millions of people that depend on these ecosystems for
food and nutrition and income generation.
Mangrove Ecosystems for Climate Change
Adaptation and Livelihoods (Fiji, Samoa, Solomon
Islands, Vanuatu and Tonga) targets the conservation and
management of coastal mangrove ecosystems to reduce
the impacts of climate change and improve the livelihoods
of local communities. In addition to reducing the negative
impacts of natural disasters on livelihoods, one of the
project’s objectives is to actively seek opportunities to obtain
carbon credits for mangrove protection and reforestation in
the context of REDD+ and global carbon markets.1
A typical mangrove ecosystem in Solomon Islands. © WorldFish Solomon
Islands.
Sources: Adapted from the country reports of Malaysia, Nepal, Norway,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tonga and Zimbabwe.
1
https://unfccc.int
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
47
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
are reported to participate in the latter festival, which involves a range of crops and marine
species. Products are donated to village pastors
and then redistributed in equal proportions to
all villagers. The tradition reportedly encourages
local people to grow local food species that contribute to healthy diets. Several countries note the
importance of micro-organisms in the preparation
of traditional foods and drinks that contribute
significantly to the livelihoods of local people
(see Section 5.7 for examples).
2.5.2 Needs and priorities
There is general agreement among reporting
countries that the contributions that BFA makes to
peoples’ livelihoods, whether in terms of income,
food security or sociocultural benefits, need to be
better documented and researched. Some countries highlight the urgency of recording associated traditional knowledge that may be at risk of
being lost. It is also widely recognized that efforts
need to be made to ensure that the biological
resources that underpin livelihoods are conserved
and used sustainably, including wild resources that
may be overexploited.
With regard to policies, some concerns are
expressed about a lack of awareness of the livelihood significance of BFA among decision-makers
and a lack of attention to the need for innovation
in small-scale production systems. Some countries
mention challenges related to the need to reconcile conflicts between conservation-focused and
livelihood-focused policies. Policy areas identified
as having potential for further development in
support of the livelihood roles of BFA include marketing – including certification schemes (e.g. fair
trade, geographic indication or organic production) for products that can fetch premium prices,
including in export markets – and agro-ecotourism.
2.6 Food security and nutrition
• Biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) contributes
to food security and nutrition in many ways, including
by enabling food to be produced in a wide range of
48
environments, helping to maintain the stability of
food supplies through the year and through shocks
such as droughts and pest outbreaks, supplying
a wide variety of nutritionally diverse foods and
contributing to the supply of water and fuel used in
food preparation.
• Wild biodiversity is an important source of food for
many people, particularly in the poorer regions of the
world. It also provides raw material for crop breeding
programmes and contributes to the supply of many
ecosystem services that support food production.
• Actions that need to be taken to strengthen the
contributions of BFA to food security and nutrition
include:
– taking steps to maintain and restore ecosystems and
habitats of importance to food and agriculture;
– promoting the sustainable use and conservation of
relevant species and populations;
– implementing breeding programmes targeting,
inter alia, nutrient content and adaptation to
environmental stresses and shocks, particularly
those associated with climate change; and
– increasing knowledge of how BFA, including
wild foods, supports the various dimensions of
food security.
Ending food insecurity and malnutrition remains
one of the most fundamental challenges facing the
world. Recent figures signal a rise in world hunger
levels, reversing a long downward trend (FAO et
al., 2018). According to the latest estimates, about
821 million people in the world are chronically
undernourished, up from 804 million in 2016 (ibid.).
Estimates using the Food Insecurity Experience
Scale, a more complex and multidimensional
measure of food insecurity, show that about
769 million people in the world faced severe
food insecurity in 2017. In the same year, nearly
151 million children under five years of age suffered from stunted growth, while 50 million suffered from wasting (a low weight-for-height ratio).
Over 38 million children under five were estimated
to be overweight and more than 672 million adults
to be suffering from obesity (ibid.).
The widely used definition adopted by the
1996 World Food Summit states that food security
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 2.2
The Second International Conference on Nutrition Framework for Action
Recent global policy frameworks and commitments
recognize the strong link between nutrition and
sustainable food systems. In 2014, the Second International
Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) called for countries to
adopt a common vision for global action to eradicate
hunger and end all forms of malnutrition worldwide
(FAO and WHO, 2014a). The ensuing ICN2 Framework
for Action (FAO and WHO, 2014b) includes a set of
60 recommendations, nine of which are aimed at promoting
sustainable food systems and healthy diets. One of these
(Recommendation 10) calls for the “the diversification
of crops including underutilized traditional crops, more
production of fruits and vegetables, and appropriate
“exists when all people, at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food which meets their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy
life” (FAO, 1996a). Over the decades, food security
has increasingly come to be recognized as a multifaceted concept (FAO, 2006a). The 2009 World
Summit on Food Security identified availability,
access, utilization and stability as the four dimensions of food security and also noted that “the
nutritional dimension is integral to the concept of
food security” (FAO, 2009b).
In 2014, the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition defined a sustainable food
system as a “food system that ensures food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the
economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition of future generations are not compromised” (HLPE, 2014b). The
same year, the Second International Conference
on Nutrition Framework of Action featured a set
of recommendations aimed at promoting sustainable food systems and healthy diets that included
one specifically focused on BFA (Box 2.2).
BFA is essential to all four dimensions of food
security, to nutrition and to the sustainability of
food systems.
production of animal-source products as needed, applying
sustainable food production and natural resource
management practices.”
To further reinforce commitments on nutrition, in April
2016 the United Nations proclaimed the UN Decade of Action
on Nutrition (2016–2025). The objective of this initiative is to
increase investment in nutrition and to implement policies
and programmes that improve food security and nutrition
within the framework agreed at ICN2. Led by FAO and the
World Health Organization, it brings together a wide group
of actors, and centres around six action areas, one of which,
“Sustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets”,
reiterates the importance of diversification.
2.6.1 Availability
Although food supplies can be stored and transported to address temporary or local shortages, and efforts can be made to reduce food
waste, availability is ultimately dependent on
production. As noted in Section 2.4, to feed a
global population expected to exceed 9 billion
in 2050, it has been estimated that food production will need to rise to 50 percent above
2012 levels (FAO, 2017e). The major challenge
will be to ensure that the food supply not only
meets the energy needs of the population but
also provides it with all the nutrients it requires.
Production increases will need to be achieved
without degrading the natural resources that
underpin future production and the supply of
other ecosystem services (ibid.) (see Section 2.4
for further discussion).
As discussed in Section 2.2, obtaining food
from a wide range of different environments
– terrestrial and aquatic, tropical, temperate
and boreal, mountain, lowland, forest, steppe,
desert and so on – requires a diverse range of
plants, animals, bacteria and fungi, both as
direct suppliers of food and as suppliers of the
supporting and regulating ecosystem services
that make food production possible. Increasing
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
49
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
output will require (along with advances in
many other fields) the implementation of wellplanned breeding programmes in crop, tree, livestock and aquatic species. Genetic-improvement
programmes have been major contributors to
the increases in crop and livestock yields that
have occurred over recent decades (Evenson and
Gollin, 2003; Peng and Khushg, 2003; Leakey et
al., 2009). It may require the domestication of
additional food-producing species and increasing
the use of underutilized and neglected species.
It will certainly require efforts to ensure that the
natural resources upon which food production
depends, including all categories of BFA, are
conserved and that the ecosystem services they
provide are nurtured. For example, it has been
estimated that about 30 percent of the increase
in global production of food crops since the
1960s has come from pollinator-dependent crops
(Potts et al., 2016).
Sustainably increasing food output will depend
not only on the presence of an appropriate
range of well-adapted, food-producing plants
and animals and the associated biodiversity
that they depend on, but also on how they are
managed. As discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 and
in Chapter 5, there are many ways in which diversifying the range of species, varieties or breeds
within a given field, area of pastureland, forest
or aquaculture unit or across the wider landscape/
seascape – or making more effective use of components of associated biodiversity such as pollinators and soil biota – can contribute to increasing
food production.
The main themes noted in the country reports
in relation to the availability dimension of food
security are the significance of access to a wide
range of within-species genetic diversity, including for use in breeding programmes, the significance of associated biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides in supporting food
production and the significance of interactions
between domesticated components of BFA
(e.g. the contributions of livestock to crop production via the supply of manure and draught
power). Countries stress the significance both of
50
international exchange of genetic resources and
of the use of native species, varieties and breeds
whose adaptive characteristics enable them to
produce well in local conditions. Where the contributions of associated biodiversity are concerned,
Burkina Faso notes that in addition to their vital
role as pollinators of crop plants (particularly
oilseed crops), bees and other insects help to
increase yields of seeds and fruits in forest systems
and are also a direct source of honey and other
food products such as pollen. Bangladesh likewise
mentions the significance of pollination services,
noting that a substantial increase in the yield of
pollinated crops such as mustard and rapeseed
has been achieved through the deployment of
beehives. India stresses the significance of associated biodiversity in the delivery of ecosystem
services that directly and indirectly support food
production, including (in addition to pollination)
nutrient cycling and pest regulation. The United
Republic of Tanzania mentions that higher yields
are obtained from fisheries in mangrove-fringed
coastal waters than from fisheries in coastal
waters where mangroves are absent.
2.6.2 Access
The significance of the “access” dimension of food
security lies in the need not only to ensure that
sufficient food is available at global or national
levels, but that individuals are able to acquire the
food and nutrients they need. This means that
they have to be able either to produce foods in
sufficient quantity, quality (nutrient content) and
diversity or to acquire them through purchases
or some other kind of social arrangement. This
dimension of food security is therefore dependent not only on biophysical aspects of food production, storage, processing and distribution,
but also on the broader security of livelihoods
at household and individual levels and on economic, social, political and legal factors at community, national and international levels.
As discussed in Section 2.5, food production at
household level (or the supply of products and services that can be sold for cash that is used to purchase food) generally requires the use of genetic
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
resources that are well adapted to the local environment, particularly in areas where the environment is harsh and when the household is unable
to access inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, veterinary
medicines, supplementary livestock feed, etc.) that
might ameliorate production conditions. The ecosystem services (pest regulation, nutrient cycling,
etc.) provided by the associated biodiversity
present in and around local production systems
are also vital. Again, these may be particularly
important for households that are unable to substitute them with purchased inputs. As also noted
in Section 2.5, particular components of BFA may
also play roles in social and cultural life that help
to build ties that can be crucial in obtaining food
in times of need.
Wild foods found in the local area are an important source of food for many households. For
example, Poverty and Environment Network surveys
conducted in selected forest-dependent communities in Asia, Africa and Latin America between
2004 and 2010 found that over 53.5 percent of
households consumed at least one type of forest
food (Rowland et al., 2017). In traditional riceproduction systems, farm households can access
edible aquatic animals such as snails, crabs, crayfish, frogs and fish from their fields (Balzer et al.,
2006; Halwart, 2006, 2008; Pingali and Roger, eds.,
1995). See Section 2.6.6 for further discussion of
the significance of wild foods in food security and
nutrition. Wild resources also provide a range of
food and non-food products (timber, fuelwood,
medicinal products, etc.) that can be sold to obtain
cash that can then be used to buy food.
Access to food can also be affected by the practicalities of transport, storage and processing.
Problems are particularly likely to arise in remote
areas, in emergency situations or in other circumstances where relevant equipment or facilities (trucks, fridges, stoves, etc.) are difficult
to access or use. BFA can contribute in various
ways to addressing problems of this kind. For
example, certain micro-organisms, referred to
as “protective cultures”, can be used to increase
the shelf-life of food and protect it from spoilage
by other micro-organisms and reduce the risk of
contamination with mycotoxins (Alexandraki et
al., 2013; Beed et al., 2011). In many countries,
pack and draught animals continue to play an
important role in transporting food, particularly
in remote and inaccessible locations (FAO, 2015a).
Access can also be an issue in urban areas. For
non-food producers, urban or otherwise, income
is the main determinant of access. However,
the access of urban populations to food is particularly dependent on food outlets, whether
retailers, street-food vendors or restaurants. In
certain countries, the access of urban populations
to food is highly dependent on the decisions of
relatively few food traders and supermarkets
(IPES-Food, 2017; Lang, Barling and Caraher,
2009; Vorley, 2003). Open “wet” markets are
declining as sources of food in low- and middleincome countries and are being replaced by
supermarkets (Gómez and Ricketts, 2013). Many
places have become “vacuums” of fresh products,
which are increasingly being replaced by cheap,
processed foods (Hawkes, Chopra and Friel,
2009). Recent food-consumption data show that
people are consuming more and more processed
foods at the expense of diverse fruits and vegetables (FAO, 2017e). The spatial distribution of
food outlets in cities, especially in lower-income
areas, can exacerbate this effect (Mozaffarian et
al., 2012). Changes in marketing and retailing are
also making it more difficult for small-scale producers to directly access growing urban markets
(see also Chapter 3).
2.6.3 Utilization
“Utilization” refers to the way in which food
is used in order to create a state of nutritional
well-being (FAO, 2006a). This involves, inter
alia, selecting a nutritionally balanced diet and
storing, processing and preparing foods safely.
A healthy diet will require a range of different
foods and hence a range of different plants and
(in many cases) animals. Studies have shown
that dietary diversity is a good predictor of diet
quality, particularly in the case of children’s diets
(Kennedy et al., 2007; Moursi et al., 2008; Parlesak,
Geelhoed and Robertson, 2014; Rah et al., 2010).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
51
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
See Section 2.6.5 for further information on the
contributions of BFA to nutrition.24
Appropriate utilization requires knowledge
of foods and how to process, store and prepare
them. As discussed in Chapter 3, traditional
knowledge related to many components of BFA,
including on how to process and cook traditional
food products, is being lost. Access to various nonfood inputs, such as clean water and fuel, is also
essential. In some circumstances, again particularly in remote areas and for poorer people, these
inputs will depend on provisioning (e.g. supply of
fuelwood) and regulating (e.g. water purification)
ecosystem services supplied by the biodiversity in
and around local production systems. Storage can
depend on the use of micro-organisms for fermentation (see Section 5.7 for further details).
The country reports provide a number of examples of how BFA helps provide more balanced diets.
Burkina Faso, for example, mentions that various
crops with specific nutritional and therapeutic
virtues are used as dietary supplements, including red and white sorghum, moringa (powdered
leaves of Moringa oleifera), soybean and spirulina
(certain species of blue-green algae). It further
notes the key role of non-wood forest products in
the supply of nutritionally balanced diets and also
the significance of honey produced by domesticated bees. Nepal mentions that various minor fish
and other aquatic species that were once regarded
as a “nuisance” are increasingly being recognized
for the diversity of their nutrient contents and
hence their potential dietary significance. India
notes the significance of livestock as a source of
products that can help to overcome deficiencies
in protein and various vitamins and minerals. A
number of countries mention the importance of
crop varieties that contain high concentrations
of particular nutrients. Some specifically note
24
FAO and Bioversity International have produced guidelines on
assessing biodiverse foods in dietary intake surveys (FAO and
Bioversity International, 2017). FAO and USAID’s Food and
Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA), managed by
FHI 360 (https://www.fhi360.org), have published a guide to
measuring minimum dietary diversity for women (FAO and
FHI 360, 2016).
52
the significance of breeding programmes that
improve the nutritional quality of staple foods.
For example, Zambia mentions vitamin A-rich varieties of maize and sweet potato, and iron- and
zinc-rich varieties of beans.
2.6.4 Stability
The significance of the “stability” dimension of
food security relates to the fact that food security depends on adequate food being available
to all individuals at all times, for example with
no seasonal shortages or shortages in years when
harvests are poor (FAO, 2006a). Diversity is significant to stability, whether at household level or
at larger scales, in that the presence of a range
of different food-producing species, varieties and
breeds that have different life cycles and different
adaptive characteristics helps to maintain food supplies through the seasons of the year and through
inter-year variations in rainfall, temperature,
disease challenge, etc. In the case of food or nonfood products raised or harvested for sale (in this
context to obtain cash that can be used for food
purchases), diversity can also help to maintain stability of income in the face of market-related risks.
Associated biodiversity contributes to stability
by helping to reduce the impacts of disruptive
events (floods, droughts, disease and pest outbreaks, etc.) that may affect food production, distribution or storage (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3). Use
of micro-organisms in food preservation can help
to overcome seasonal variations in food supply.
Wild foods can also be important to stability in
that access to them potentially serves as a means
of maintaining food intakes in the event of shocks
that affect food output from domesticated species
or otherwise affect access to food (e.g. because of
reduced cash income) (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001;
Thondhlana and Muchapondwa, 2014).
The country reports provide numerous examples
of how BFA contributes to the stability dimension
of food security. Several note the significance of
diversified production systems in this regard. For
example, Kiribati mentions that integrated farming
of milkfish, sandfish, sea cucumber and seaweed
has proved to be an effective means of securing
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
production and income in fluctuating weather
conditions, as one or the other of the components
of the system is always producing food. India again
notes the significance of livestock, which it mentions can act as a buffer against crop failure. Both
Zambia and Zimbabwe report that smallholders
have responded to persistent drought by adopting
more resilient crops such as sorghum, millet, sweet
potato and cassava and by diversifying their production systems. Where livestock are concerned,
the same two countries mention increasing use
of small ruminants as a response to the effects
of drought and disease on cattle herds. Further
reported examples of the contributions of BFA to
the stability of food production are provided in the
discussion of resilience in Section 2.3.
2.6.5 Nutrition and food systems
Taking a cue from the above-mentioned definition of sustainable food systems, FAO regards food
systems as consisting of four functions, roughly
corresponding to the four stages of a food supply
chain: food production; food handling, storage
and processing; food trade and marketing; and
consumer demand, food preparation and preferences (FAO, 2017g). The interface between the
food system and the consumer (the availability,
affordability, convenience and desirability of foods)
is referred to as the “food environment” (ibid.).
More generally, recent years have seen
growing interest in the links between biodiversity and nutrition (FAO, 2013d). In 2006, the CBD,
FAO and Bioversity International jointly established the Cross-cutting Initiative on Biodiversity
for Food and Nutrition (CBD, 2006). Further
developments have included the formulation of
nutrition indicators for biodiversity (FAO, 2008b,
2011d). In 2010, FAO, in collaboration with the
International Network of Food Data Systems
(INFOODS), published the first version of the
FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for
Biodiversity, with updates published in 2011,
2012, 2016 and 2017 (FAO, 2017h). The current
version holds 10 156 entries (ibid.). In 2015,
the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture adopted Voluntary Guidelines
for Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Policies,
Programmes and National and Regional Plans of
Action on Nutrition (FAO, 2016f) (see Box 2.3).
The background to these developments has
been a concern about the fact that, although
the proportion of the world population that is
Box 2.3
Voluntary Guidelines for Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Policies, Programmes and National and
Regional Plans of Action on Nutrition
The Voluntary Guidelines for
Mainstreaming Biodiversity into
Policies, Programmes and National
and Regional Plans of Action on
Nutrition (FAO, 2016d) were endorsed
by the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture
at its Fifteenth Regular Session, in
2015. The objective of the guidelines is “to support countries
in the integration of biodiversity into all relevant policies,
programmes and national and regional plans of action
addressing malnutrition in all its forms, and specifically to
promote knowledge, conservation, development and use of
varieties, cultivars and breeds of plants and animals used as
food, as well as wild, neglected and underutilized species
contributing to health and nutrition.”
The guidelines provide examples of how mainstreaming
could be implemented, in accordance with countries’ needs
and capabilities. They are divided into three main elements:
research; implementation; and awareness. The Commission
stressed that implementation of the guidelines should be
based on scientific evidence and consistent with relevant
international obligations.
Note: The voluntary guidelines can be viewed at http://www.fao.org/3/ai5248e.pdf
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
53
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
undernourished has declined over recent decades,
reductions in food-energy deficits have often not
been accompanied by equivalent improvements
in other aspects of dietary quality, particularly the
intake of micronutrients (FAO, 2015c). Problems
of this kind are sometimes exacerbated by a
decline in dietary diversity and the replacement of
micronutrient-rich local or traditional foods with
more mainstream globally traded alternatives
(Johns and Eyzaguirre, 2006). The significance
of non-mainstream crops – and wild foods – in
the diets of (in particular) poor rural people has
tended to be overlooked (Heywood, 2013). To
some degree, this has been due to the strong
attention given in the past decade to agricultural
research on staple grains (mainly wheat, maize
and rice), to the detriment of other cereals and of
pulse, root and oil crops (Khoury and Jarvis, 2014).
Driven in part by the actions of the global
food industry (Moodie et al., 2013), many parts
of the world are in transition towards a so-called
“Western” diet, dominated by high intake of
refined carbohydrates, added sugars, fats and (terrestrial) animal-source foods (Popkin, Adair and
Ng, 2012). This trend has been implicated in the rise
of obesity – 39 percent of the world’s adult population was overweight as of 2016 (WHO, 2018) –
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and some cancers (Murray et al., 2013).
It is important to note that changes in diet have
been caused not only by changes in supply, but also
by changes in demand: urbanization, women’s entry
into the labour market, higher incomes in some
countries and longer hours worked away from
home have led to a shift in food demand towards
more-convenient, processed foods (Kennedy, Nantel
and Shetty, 2004). The challenge is therefore to
make diverse, fresh foods more available, affordable and appealing. For this to occur, action needs to
be taken not only at production level, for example
by increasing agricultural research funds for diverse
foods (Khoury and Jarvis, 2014), but also throughout
the food system. Relevant measures could include
increasing levels of public- and private-sector investment in transport, storage and market development
for diverse non-staple foods and taking steps to
54
reduce the transaction costs of smallholder integration into these markets (Pingali, 2015).
Significant intraspecific differences in nutritional content have been documented in most
plant-source foods (Burlingame, Charrondiere and
Mouille, 2009; FAO, 2013f). These differences are
sufficiently large to mean that eating one variety
rather than another can make a significant difference in terms of the nutritional adequacy of
the diet. They also provide opportunities to breed
cultivars that combine higher nutrient content
with other desirable characteristics, such as higher
productivity or disease resistance. Within-species
differences in the nutritional quality of animal
products have been relatively little studied, and
there are difficulties involved in distinguishing
differences caused by genetics from those caused
by management factors such as feeding. However,
evidence suggests that there are some nutritionally significant differences between products
obtained from different breeds (FAO, 2015a).
Where wild and underutilized species are concerned, detailed studies of nutritional significance
are not common (Powell et al., 2015). However, evidence from various production systems in various
parts of the world indicates that such species make
important contributions to local diets. Asian rice
fields, for example, harbour a wide range of
animals and plants, many of which are important
sources of food for local people, often providing
essential micronutrients that are not found (or
found in limited quantities) in rice, as well as additional sources of protein (Halwart, 2006; Halwart
et al., eds., 2016). Traditional rice diets are often
deficient in the amino acid lysine, but this can be
compensated for by eating fish and other aquatic
animals foraged from rice fields. A study of the
diets of mothers and children in a small-scale
farming system in the East Usambara Mountains
of the United Republic of Tanzania found that wild
foods, mostly obtained from agricultural land,
provided 31 percent of the vitamin A, 19 percent
of the iron and 16 percent of the calcium content
of the diet, with the contribution being greatest
during the wet (more food-scarce) season (Powell
et al., 2013). An assessment covering 21 African
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
countries (Ickowitz et al., 2014) found a positive
relationship between children’s dietary diversity
and tree cover, an indication of the important
contributions that non-wood forest products
make to food and nutrition security in the region.
A study in a community in rural northeastern
Madagascar showed that removing access to wild
meat would induce a 29 percent increase in the
number of children suffering from anaemia and
a tripling of anaemia cases among children in the
poorest households (Golden et al., 2011). Details
of a project that has (inter alia) supported the
Box 2.4
The Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project
Brazil, Kenya, Sri Lanka and Turkey are home to a vast
array of traditional and/or neglected native edible species,
both wild and cultivated, that are of enormous nutritional
value but are also (like similar resources in most countries)
threatened by environmental pressures or lack of use.
The Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project1 has
placed the conservation of this diversity on a much stronger
footing by building national capacity to generate nutrition
data for 189 underutilized species (primarily plants)
across the four countries and to collect information on the
sociocultural significance and market value of these species.
This evidence base is gradually being made available in
national databases and is expanding global knowledge of
food biodiversity via the FAO/INFOODS database.2
Countries have used the data to strategically target
national policies promoting local and indigenous biodiversity
for food and nutrition. Actions include promoting diverse,
healthy native foods in dietary guidelines (Brazil) (see
Box 2.5 and Box 8.21), supporting smallholder farmers in the
production of biodiverse foods and linking them to schoolmeals programmes (Kenya), linking with the private sector to
create markets for biodiverse foods (Turkey) and prioritizing
food biodiversity in relevant national strategies/action plans
and in agricultural and nutrition policies (Sri Lanka).
Social and cultural attitudes to these species, which
are often perceived as “food for the poor”, particularly by
younger generations, are also changing thanks to increased
awareness of their value. Collaboration with celebrity chefs,
food fairs and increased media attention have raised the
profile of neglected and underutilized biodiversity and are
creating interest among consumers.
Much of the project’s experience in promoting the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and
nutrition and mainstreaming it into different sectors is captured
Food festivals and fairs organized in the project countries provide
opportunities to raise awareness and promote orphan crops and species.
In this gastronomic event in Sri Lanka, women take part in a cooking
competition using traditional species. © Bioversity International/D. Hunter.
in an online course3 and in a mainstreaming toolkit aimed
at policy-makers, academic coordinators, university students,
extension workers and others studying or working in nutrition,
agriculture, public health or socio-economic development.
For further information, visit the Biodiversity for Food and
Nutrition website.4
1
2
3
4
The project is funded by the Global Environment Facility and led by
Brazil, Kenya, Sri Lanka and Turkey. It is coordinated by Bioversity
International with implementation support from FAO and the United
Nations Environment Programme. Additional resources were received
from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, the
Vanguard Charitable Trust and the MacArthur Foundation for the school
feeding programme in Kenya and from FAO Kenya for the analysis of the
nutritional content of local varieties and species and the development of
an updated food composition table that will include local biodiversity.
The project contributes to the implementation of the CBD’s Cross-Cutting
Initiative on Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition.
http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/tables-and-databases/faoinfoodsdatabases/en
http://www.b4fn.org/e-learning
http://www.b4fn.org/
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
55
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
Box 2.4 (Cont.)
The Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project
H
G
K
O
N
M
B
N
D
M
C
I
F
L
A
D
H
I
C
L
J
A
E
J
B
K
E
D
P
F
Traditional vegetables
A. Banana flower (Musa spp.)
B. Eggplant (Solanum melongena) – multiple varieties (ela-batu, wam-batu, tib-batu)
C. Yardlong bean (Vigna unguiculata var. sesquipedalis) and
okra (Hibiscus esculentus)
D. Bitter gourd and wild bitter gourd (Momordica charantia)
E. Spiny gourd (Mormordica dioica)
F. Hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus)
G. Sword bean (Canavalia gladiata)
H. Winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus)
I. Bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria)
J. Cooking melon (Cucumis melo)
K. Chilli pepper (Capsicum annuum)
L. Tabasco pepper (Capsicum frutescens)
M.Bonnet pepper (Capsicum chinense)
N. Asamodagam (Trachyspermum roxburghianum)
© Bioversity International/D. Hunter.
G
Traditional fruits
A. Mango (Mangifera indica)
B. Soursop (Annona muricata)
C. Mandarin (Citrus reticulata)
D. Passion fruit (Passiflora sp.)
E. Governor’s plum (Flacourtia indica)
F. Dan (Syzygium caryophyllatum)
G. Velvet tamarind (Dialium cochinchinense)
H. Velvet apple (Diospyros discolor)
I. Star fruit (Averrhoa carambola)
J. Papaya (Carica papaya)
K. Guava (Psidium guajava)
L. Cacao (Theobroma cacao)
M.Custard apple (Annona squamosa)
N. Banana varieties (Musa spp.)
O. Avocado (Persea americana)
P. Star gooseberry (Phyllanthus acidus)
© Bioversity International/D. Hunter.
Source: Provided by Teresa Borelli, Danny Hunter, Daniela Moura de Oliveira
Beltrame, Victor W. Wasike, Gamini Samarasinghe and Hasan Gezginç.
generation of nutritional data on traditional and/
or neglected species in Brazil, Kenya, Sri Lanka and
Turkey are provided in Box 2.4. The contributions
that wild foods make to food security and nutrition are explored in greater detail below.
2.6.6 Contribution of wild foods
Wild foods25 contribute to food security both via
direct consumption (on a regular basis or as an
emergency measure in times of scarcity) and by
being sold to provide income that is reinvested in
food purchases (see Section 2.5 for more informa25
See Section 1.5 for a definition of this term.
56
tion on the livelihood roles of wild foods). Many
wild foods are rich in micronutrients (Bharucha
and Pretty, 2010; Grivetti and Ogle, 2000; Grubben
and Denton, 2004; Yang and Keding, 2009; van
Huis et al., 2013), some containing more than their
cultivated counterparts (Kobori and Rodriguez
Amaya, 2008; Smith et al., 1996). Eating them can
alleviate micronutrient and/or protein deficiencies
and thus make diets more nutritious and balanced
(Broegaard et al., 2017; Kuyper, Vitta and Dewey,
2013). In addition to regular assessments provided in FAO’s reports on The State of the World
Fisheries and Aquaculture, several recent publication have reviewed the contributions of wild
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 2.5
Food-based dietary guidelines as a tool to promote biodiversity
Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are a set of
evidence-based, easily understood, behaviourally focused
messages that constitute a government’s recommendation
to its population on healthy (and sometimes explicitly
sustainable) eating (Gonzalez Fischer and Garnett, 2016).
The Voluntary Guidelines for Mainstreaming Biodiversity
into Policies, Programmes and National and Regional
Plans of Action on Nutrition (FAO, 2016d – see Box 2.3)
recommend the incorporation of biodiversity considerations
into FBDGs. There are many potential links between
biodiversity and human nutrition, including those related
to increasing dietary diversity and quality, improving
income, enhancing resilience and promoting the
maintenance of genetic resources for future adaptation
(Berti and Jones, 2013; Frison, Cherfas and Hodgkin, 2011;
Heywood, 2013; Toledo and Burlingame, 2006). However,
the practicalities of integrating biodiversity-focused advice
into FBDGs can be challenging.
Recommending the consumption of foods produced in
ways that conserve and make sustainable use of
biodiversity is one approach that can be used to promote
biodiversity in FBDGs. For example, Sweden’s FBDG
recommends choosing eco-friendly products, such as those
from sustainable fishing or organic agriculture.1 Likewise,
Brazil’s Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population
(Ministry of Health of Brazil, 2016) explicitly promote
biodiversity as part of “socially and environmentally
sustainable food systems” that provide healthy diets.
However, as FBDGs can have a significant influence on
public procurement and food-provision programmes, the
inclusion of such recommendations often gives rise to
opposition from special interest groups.
Most national FBDGs recommend eating a variety of foods
(Dwyer, 2012). However, this often refers to eating foods from
different food groups, for instance combining rice and beans,
or varying the foods within a group, for instance eating apples
one day and pears the next. Short and simple messages of
this kind comply with the principles of good communication.
However they are too general to address the utilization
Venezuelan food spinning top.
Venezuelan food spinning top for indigenous people.
1
https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/globalassets/english/food-habits-healthenvironment/dietary-guidelines/kostrad-eng.pdf?id=8140
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
57
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
Box 2.5 (Cont.)
Food-based dietary guidelines as a tool to promote biodiversity
of “food biodiversity” in the sense of a range of different
varieties and breeds of plants and animals, or wild, neglected
and underutilized species. Components of biodiversity at these
levels are often unique to specific local areas and may have
particular significance in the food-production and culinary
traditions of specific sections of the population.
Some countries have sought to bridge the gap between
national policy and local realities by adapting their national
FBDGs for use in different subnational contexts. For example:
• Canada has produced a version of its national food
guide adapted for use by First Nations, Inuit and Métis
peoples,2 which provides advice, inter alia, on how
foods such as wild plants and seaweed, bannocks
(a type of bread), fish with bones, shellfish and nuts
can help provide the nutrients needed by people who
do not consume milk products.
• The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has adapted its
national “food spinning top” for use by indigenous
people (see images on preceding page).3
• Japan has adapted its national spinning top food
guide for each of its prefectures.4
foods to food security and nutrition (Bioversity
International, 2017; WHO and CBD, 2015; HLPE,
2017a, 2014; Vinceti et al., 2013).26 All raise concerns about the sustainability of use of wild foods
(see Chapter 3 for further discussion).
It is difficult to quantify the global contributions of wild foods to diets. For example, data on
wild-food consumption are generally excluded
from national statistics (Bharucha and Pretty, 2010;
MEA, 2005a).27 Other constraints include a lack
of information on the nutritional composition of
26
27
In addition, the draft of a first evaluation of the scale and
drivers of subsistence and commercial harvesting of wild
terrestrial vertebrates for food in tropical and subtropical
regions was submitted to CBD SBSTTA 21 (Coad et al., 2017).
Sorrenti (2017) provides a systematic review of non-wood forest
products in the existing international classification systems used
for the collection and dissemination of data on production, trade
and economic activities, with the aim ultimately of improving
data collection on non-wood forest products.
58
Efforts to localize guidance can face a number of
challenges and pitfalls. For example, attention needs to be
paid to the health of the ecosystems that supply the foods
targeted, as success in promoting an individual food may
lead to overexploitation to meet demand. There is also a risk
that initiatives may be hijacked for commercial purposes.
Nonetheless, locally adapted FBDGs have the potential
to be an important means of promoting consumption of
diverse and underutilized locally available foods. Integrating
these efforts with existing initiatives aimed at promoting
biodiversity and linking them to the development of cooking
skills and gastronomy helps to make them more effective
and enjoyable, and also to minimize the above-noted risks
associated with promoting single foods.
Source: Provided by Maryam Rahmanian and Ana Islas Ramos.
2
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/canada-foodguide/eating-well-with-canada-food-guide-first-nations-inuit-metis.html
3
http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/
countries/venezuela/en/
4
For example: http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/hf/kth/kak/tkh/framepage/
dbaransugaido.htm (in Japanese).
wild foods (Bharucha and Pretty, 2010; Colfer, Sheil
and Kishi, 2006; Grivetti and Ogle, 2000; Powell et
al., 2015), the variability of nutritional composition within species (Stadlmayr et al., 2013; Toledo
and Burlingame, 2006) and inconsistent or incorrect nomenclature in published results (Nesbitt et
al., 2010). For further information on the state of
knowledge of wild foods, see Section 4.4.
While definitive global data are lacking, estimates
are available for specific sectors, regions or types
of wild food. Capture fisheries provided a total of
90.9 million tonnes of fish28 in 2016 (FAO, 2018a).
In 2015, aquatic products supplied 17 percent of
the global population’s intake of animal protein
(nearly half of fish for human consumption
28
“Fish” here refers to fish, aquatic crustaceans, aquatic molluscs
and other aquatic animals other than mammals and reptiles (it
also excludes seaweeds and other aquatic plants).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 2.3
Types of wild-food use reported by countries
Non-OECD
15
Regular use of wild foods
Regular use by
specific population groups
Use of selected species
Recreational use
Cultural use
20
3
63
4
17
12
67
18
40%
60%
7
3
66
20%
12
13
68
5
8
8
53
3
0%
15
57
8
Commercial use
5
50
14
Use as supplementary
food sources
20
56
21
Use in times of scarcity
OECD
80%
100%
Countries reporting use
0%
17
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Countries not reporting use
Notes: Values refer to the number of countries. Some countries reported more than one type of use. OECD = Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
was supplied from capture fisheries) (ibid.).29 Wild
forest foods contribute to the diets of many millions of people, particularly in terms of micronutrients (Rowland et al., 2017; Sunderland, 2011).
Food obtained from forests has been estimated to
contribute about 0.6 percent of the global supply
of dietary energy (FAO, 2014d).30 Recent analysis of data from communities living in or close to
forests in 24 countries in Latin America, Africa and
Asia revealed that 77 percent of such households
29
30
These statistics on fish consumption are based on the Food
Balance Sheets calculated by the Statistics and Information
Branch of the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department as of
March 2016. Consumption data for 2013 should be considered
preliminary. Food Balance Sheet data refer to “average food
available for consumption”, which, for a number of reasons
(e.g. waste at the household level), is not equal to average
food intake or average food consumption. Production from
subsistence fisheries, as well as cross-border trade between
some developing countries, may be incompletely recorded and
might therefore lead to an underestimation of consumption.
These figures are likely to be a major underestimate of the
total consumption of food from forests because information
about production (and consumption) of these products is far
from complete.
collected wild food from forest and non-forest
environments (Hickey et al., 2016). It is estimated
that insects are regularly eaten by at least 2 billion
people worldwide (van Huis et al., 2013). According
to Coad et al. (2017), estimates of per capita wildmeat consumption from studies conducted in tropical areas where wild meat is eaten range from
0.05 to 0.28 kg/person/day.
Country-report analysis
Countries were invited to report the proportion
of their respective populations that consumes
wild food on a regular basis, as well as to supply
other information such as the proportion of the
diet that is collected from the wild in normal
times and in times of scarcity and the degree to
which wild foods are used for various purposes.31
The numbers of countries reporting various
types of wild-food use are shown in Figure 2.3.
31
Countries were also invited to report on gender differences in
the patterns of use, management and consumption of wild
foods. The information provided is discussed in Section 2.5
and Section 3.8.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
59
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
Each category is further discussed in the following
subsections.
Regular use of wild foods
Sixteen percent of all respondents (15 countries, all non-members of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD])
report that regular use of wild foods is widespread nationally. Nine countries provide quantitative data indicating that at least a third of their
respective populations use wild foods.32 In some
cases, the figures are substantially higher: Eswatini
and Gabon both report that approximately twothirds of their population consume wild foods
regularly. Ethiopia reports that the proportion of
the population consuming wild plants varies from
30 or 40 percent in some regions to as much as
56 percent or 67 percent in others. It also mentions that over 50 percent of the population in its
Gambella region consumes wild meats. Burkina
Faso reports that non-wood forest products are
eaten by 43 percent of its households.
Several Pacific countries report high levels
of dependence on seafood. For instance, Palau
reports that an estimated 80 percent of its population eats wild foods, mainly aquatic species.
Niue reports that 60 percent of households hunt
coconut crabs and 62 percent engage in fishing,
with an average fresh-fish consumption estimated
at 31.1 kg per person per year.33 Kiribati reports
that in its Line and Phoenix Islands the proportion of wild food in the diet can at times reach
100 percent.
Regular use by specific population groups
Twenty-nine percent of respondents (25 percent
of OECD and 30 percent of non-OECD respondents) indicate regular use of wild foods by specific segments of the population, such as indigenous peoples, nomadic groups, remote rural
populations or forest or highland communities.
32
33
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kiribati,
Niue, Palau and Zambia.
The country report indicates that the figures are from
Niue’s Agricultural Census of 2009 and its Food Security
Assessment of 2011.
60
For example, the Gambia, Nepal, Rwanda and
Sri Lanka report widespread use of wild foods
among communities living near forests. Nepal
mentions that wild foods are especially important for some tribal groups (namely the Chepang,
Raji, Bankariya and Raute), with wild foods constituting approximately 25 percent of their diets.34
Angola mentions the importance of wild foods
to Khoisan nomads, who collect approximately
30 percent of their food from the wild under
normal conditions.
Some OECD countries note that although
wild-food consumption is generally low it makes
a substantial contribution to the diets of some
population groups. For instance, Finland reports
that the indigenous Sámi population continues
to depend on wild fish and meat for a significant
portion of its diet. The United States of America
mentions that wild-food use is highest in Alaska,
where 86 percent of rural households consume
wild meat.35
Use in times of scarcity
Fifteen percent of respondents (14 countries,36 all
non-OECD) report that wild-food consumption
increases during times of scarcity, such as “the
hungry gap” shortly before harvest when food
stores are depleted or periods following natural
disasters, crop failures or conflicts. For instance,
Kiribati mentions that in times of emergency or
when there are shortages of imported food (usually
rice) consumption of wild staple foods, such as
giant swamp taro and breadfruit, increases.
Use of wild foods as supplementary
food sources
This category of use refers to the addition of wild
foods to a predominately non-wild food diet
to add diversity and/or increase the quantity of
minerals, vitamins or other nutrients consumed.
Twelve percent of respondents (15 percent of
34
35
36
The country report cites Thapa (2013).
The country report cites Titus, Haynes and Paragi (2009).
Burkina Faso, Chad, China, El Salvador, Eswatini, Ethiopia,
Kiribati, Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Sudan, United Republic of
Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
RO LES A N D I MP ORTA N CE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
OECD and 11 percent of non-OECD respondents)
report this kind of use, with reported frequency
ranging from occasional to daily. A few countries provide specific nutritional information for
key wild foods used to supplement the diet. For
example, China notes that wild fish are important sources of unsaturated fatty acids, protein,
calcium, phosphorus and vitamins A, D, B1 and B2
in highly bioavailable form. It also mentions that
wild insects are high in protein, unsaturated fatty
acids and a range of other nutrients including
calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc and
selenium, and that amphibians and reptiles serve
as supplementary sources of protein. The Gambia
mentions that some wild food species that serve
as sources of food supplements (e.g. the African
locust bean or néré tree [Parkia biglobosa]) have
become increasingly rare and that their contributions to livelihoods have declined.
Use of selected species
Eighteen percent of respondents (60 percent of
OECD and 6 percent of non-OECD respondents)
indicate selective use of wild food species (i.e. use
only of a small number of particularly soughtafter wild food species). In many European
countries and in the United States of America,
consumption of various mushrooms, berries and
game species falls into this category. Elsewhere
in the world, Fiji reports that the edible fern
ota (Diplazium esculentum and D. proliferum)
is a popular delicacy among the local population and is also exported to meet demand from
Fijians living overseas. Jamaica reports that
among Maroon indigenous groups, root drinks
and tonics made from selected wild plants are
consumed for their medicinal properties.
Commercial use
Twenty-nine percent of respondents (40 percent
of OECD and 25 percent of non-OECD respondents) mention commercial use of wild foods.
Specific types of products mentioned include
fish, wild meat, berries and other fruits, vegetables, mushrooms and invertebrates. For example,
Burkina Faso notes the importance of non-wood
forest products as a source of income and employment for rural households. Gabon mentions a
rapidly growing market for wild meat, with consumption estimated to be between 20 000 and
30 000 tonnes annually, up from an estimated
12 000 tonnes in 2008. A number of OECD countries mention substantial commercial harvesting of
wild foods (i.e. in addition to the very frequently
mentioned commercial capture fishing industry).
For example, Finland notes that commercial harvesting of its most popular wild mushroom species
(Lactarius spp., Boletus spp. and Chanterelle
spp.) totalled approximately 299 200 kg in 2013.
Belarus mentions that exports of snails brought
in more than USD 3.8 million over the five years
preceding the preparation of the country report
(submitted in 2016).
Recreational use
Eighteen percent of respondents (65 percent of
OECD and 4 percent of non-OECD respondents)
mention recreational harvesting of wild foods.
Hunting, angling, mushroom gathering and
berry picking are among the commonly reported
activities. For example, the United States of
America reports that 6 percent of its population
over the age of 16 participated in hunting as of
2011.37 Angling is widely mentioned as a popular
pastime in Europe and North America. Germany,
for example, reports that it has 1.6 million anglers.
Cultural use
Even where wild foods are not vital for food security, they may still be valued for cultural reasons
and play central roles in festivities and celebrations. Use of this kind is reported by 9 percent
of all respondents (15 percent of OECD respondents and 7 percent of non-OECD respondents).
Grenada, for example, mentions that wild meat
is regarded as a delicacy and is consumed at
fetes and festivals. The United States of America
mentions the evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium
ovatum) and the American matsutake mushroom
(Tricholoma magnivelare) as wild food species
37
The country report cites USFWS (2011).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
61
2
OV ERV I E W
PART A
used by Native Americans for a variety of culinary
and cultural purposes. It also notes the key significance of the salmon in the diets and culture of
some Native American peoples.
2.6.7 Needs and priorities
Priorities reported by countries in terms of supporting the contribution of BFA to food security
and nutrition included the following:
• supporting ex situ and in situ conservation
and sustainable use of relevant components
of BFA, including by promoting biodiverse
production systems and sustainable management practices and by promoting consumption of biodiverse products so as to increase
market demand for them;
• supporting breeding activities targeting
the development of improved varieties
and breeds, including ones providing products that have improved nutrient content,
with focus on adaptation to environmental
shocks and stressors and in particular those
associated with climate change; and
• raising awareness of the importance of BFA,
with a specific focus on the significance of
62
local and traditional foods in food security
and the provision of nutritionally balanced,
healthy diets.
A number of country reports highlight the need
for greater recognition of the contribution that
wild foods make to global food security and nutrition. However, it is clear that there are considerable knowledge gaps with regard to the extent of
this contribution in quantitative terms – several
countries note the need to improve data collection on wild-food use, for example by including
wild foods in national censuses and surveys or in
ethnobiological or other scientific studies. Several
countries note that a lack of monitoring systems
for wild food species constrains the development
of conservation and management programmes
and makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of such programmes. Limitations in terms of
capacity development and stakeholder involvement are also highlighted. Some countries identify
a need to quantify and clarify the effects of wild
food use on human health and well-being, including in some cases not only nutritional impacts
but also effects on cultural life and the possible
stress-reduction effects of collecting wild foods.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Part B
DRIVERS,
STATUS AND TRENDS
Chapter 3
Drivers of change of biodiversity
for food and agriculture
Key messages
• Analysis of country reports and recent literature
provides a rich and complex picture of the drivers
that directly or indirectly influence biodiversity
for food and agriculture (BFA) and the ecosystem
services it provides.
• BFA is affected by a range of drivers of change:
major global trends such as changes in climate,
international markets and demography give
rise to more immediate drivers such as land-use
change, pollution and overuse of external inputs,
overharvesting, and proliferation of invasive species.
Interactions between drivers often exacerbate their
effects on BFA.
• Demographic changes, urbanization, markets,
trade and consumer preferences are reported to
have strong influence on food systems, often with
negative consequences for BFA and the ecosystem
services it provides. However, such drivers are also
reported to provide opportunities to make food
systems more sustainable.
• Many of the drivers that have negative impacts on
BFA, including overexploitation, overharvesting,
pollution, overuse of external inputs, and changes in
land and water management, are at least partially
caused by inappropriate agricultural practices.
3.1 Introduction
• The driver mentioned by the highest number of
countries as having negative effects on regulating
and supporting ecosystem services is changes in
land and water use and management. Loss and
degradation of forest and aquatic ecosystems and,
in many production systems, transition to intensive
production of a reduced number of species, breeds
and varieties, remain major drivers of loss of BFA
and ecosystem services.
• Countries report that the maintenance of traditional
knowledge related to BFA is negatively affected
by the loss of traditional lifestyles as a result
of population growth, urbanization and the
industrialization of agriculture and food processing,
and by overexploitation and overharvesting.
• Policies and advances in science and technology are
largely seen by countries as positive drivers that
offer ways of reducing the negative effects of other
drivers on BFA. They provide critical entry points for
interventions supporting the sustainable use and
conservation of BFA. However, policies intended to
promote the sustainable management of BFA are
often weakly implemented.
and on wild foods. It draws principally on the
information provided in the country reports.1
This chapter discusses major drivers of change in
the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture
(BFA), with a particular focus on associated biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides
1
Throughout this chapter, unless noted otherwise, the term “country
reports” refers to the country reports submitted as contributions
to The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
See “About this publication” for additional information.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
65
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
Other global assessments have reviewed
drivers of change affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services in general (e.g. IPBES, forthcoming, a,b, 2016a; MEA, 2005b), specific drivers such
as climate change (e.g. FAO, 2015b; IPCC, 2014),
drivers affecting various production systems and
ecosystems of importance to food and agriculture (e.g. FAO’s regular publication series The
State of Food and Agriculture, The State of the
World’s Forests and The State of World Fisheries
and Aquaculture, and other reports such as
Status of the World’s Soil Resources published
by FAO and the Intergovernmental Technical
Panel on Soils [FAO and ITPS, 2015] and The First
Global Integrated Marine Assessment [United
Nations, 2017b]) and drivers affecting genetic
resources in the various sectors of food and
agriculture (e.g. FAO, forthcoming, 1997, 2007a,
2010a, 2014a, 2015a).
To briefly summarize the conclusions of the
sectoral assessments of genetic resources: in the
case of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, land clearing, population pressure, overgrazing, environmental degradation and changing agricultural practices are identified as major
causes of genetic erosion (FAO, 2010a). For forest
genetic resources, land-use change, particularly
forest conversion to cropland and pasture, overexploitation, selective harvesting, and high tree
mortality caused by extreme climatic events are
considered major threats (FAO, 2014a). Growth in
demand for animal-source foods, transformation
of production systems and inadequate policies
and breeding strategies are regarded as major
challenges to the sustainable management of
animal (livestock) genetic diversity (FAO, 2015a).
Habitat loss and degradation, pollution of
waters, the direct and indirect effects of climate
change, and the establishment of invasive species
have been identified as major drivers affecting
aquatic ecosystems and hence aquatic genetic
resources, both wild relatives and farmed types
(FAO, forthcoming).
For the current assessment, countries were
invited to report on a set of drivers of change
(Table 3.1) and to indicate whether their effects
66
on the supply of specific ecosystem services 2
within particular production systems (Table 1.1)
during the preceding ten years had been positive,
negative or neutral. Countries were also specifically invited to report on the effects of the same
set of drivers on the availability and diversity of
wild foods and on the state of knowledge of
these resources.
Although countries were invited to report on
each driver individually, in reality the drivers
interact with each other and may operate at
different levels (i.e. some may drive others). For
example, major global trends such as changes in
international markets and demography may give
rise to changes in demand for agricultural products that lead to changes in land use, changes
in production methods or changes in the level
of exploitation of particular resources. These
in turn may lead to further effects such as soil
erosion, the spread of invasive alien species or
the pollution of land, air or water. As well as
giving rise to gradual changes, some drivers can
increase the risk of shocks such as climatic disasters or disease outbreaks that can have a major
impact on biodiversity in a short period of time.
Opportunities created by technological innovations may increase or decrease the impacts of
other drivers. Public policies can deliberately
or inadvertently affect drivers at all levels,
and may be specifically introduced in order to
reduce harmful impacts on BFA. The status of a
given component of BFA will therefore normally
depend on a range of interacting drivers operating at a range of scales. Similarly, a given driver
may give rise to both direct and indirect effects
on BFA via a number of different pathways. For
example, urbanization may lead (inter alia) to
the destruction of habitat as a result of infrastructure development, to quantitative and qualitative changes in demand for food and agricultural products, to changes in levels of pollution
at various scales and to population migrations
that lead to changes in the availability of labour
to work in agriculture.
2
The ecosystem services are described in Section 2.2.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 3.1
Drivers of change explored in the country-reporting guidelines
Drivers
Explanatory notes provided in the guidelines
Population growth and
urbanization
Population – changes in population metrics (e.g. growth, fertility, composition, mortality, migration, health
and disease, including different effects on men and women)
Urbanization – for example, shifts in proportion of urban and rural populations; change in urbanization
trends, including different effects on men and women
Markets, trade and the private
sector
Trade – changing terms of trade, globalization of markets, commercialization of products, retailing, the
separate capacities of men and women to commercialize products, etc.
Markets and consumption – demand-driven changes in production or practices, including the tastes, values
or ethics of consumers that may directly or indirectly impact biodiversity for food and agriculture, product
quantity or quality
Private sector – the changing role and influence of the private sector and corporate interests
Changing economic, sociopolitical
and cultural factors
Economic development – changes in economic circumstances of countries, industries, households
(e.g. change in GDP and economic growth, structural change of economy, income diversification, and the
different economic circumstances of men and women)
Changing sociopolitical, cultural or religious factors – variation in the forces influencing the decision-making
of men and women (e.g. public participation, shifts in the influence of the state vs the private sector, changes
in levels of education and knowledge, shifts in the beliefs, values and norms held by groups of people)
Participatory actions – the role of collective action towards conservation and use of biodiversity by
stakeholders
Climate change
The impacts and effects of progressive climate change (alterations in precipitation regimes, temperature
changes, loss of water supply, increased variability, sea-level rise, shifts in flowering time or seasonality, etc.)
Natural disasters
Climate shocks, extreme weather events and other natural disasters that threaten agricultural production
and the resilience of production systems (e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and fires)
Pests, diseases and invasive
alien species
New and emerging threats from pests, diseases and invasive species affecting biodiversity for food and
agriculture (shifting ranges, introductions, increased suitability, loss of predators, etc.)
Advancements and innovations in
science and technology
Development and diffusion of scientific knowledge and technologies (e.g. advances in breeding,
improvements in mobile extension, tools for monitoring, biotechnology applications and access of men and
women to information)
Changes in land and water use
and management
Changes in use, management and practices around land and water (deforestation, fragmentation,
modification of water regimes, forest degradation, land conversion for agriculture, ecosystem restoration,
the role of women and men in land and water use and management, etc.)
Pollution and external inputs
Mismanaged, excessive or inappropriate use of external inputs (overapplication of fertilizer and pesticides,
excessive use of antibiotics or hormones, nutrient loading, including from use of imported feed, ocean
acidification, CO2 fertilization, chemical and particulate pollutants, etc.)
Overexploitation and
overharvesting
Unsustainable extraction practices (overfishing, overhunting, overgrazing, logging and extractive activities
exceeding replacement rates or affecting species of uncertain and at-risk conservation status, etc.)
Policies
Policies – global, regional, national and subnational legislation and regulations (e.g. conservation
regulations, and participation and compliance with international treaties and conventions)
Economic and policy interventions – interventions that impact biodiversity for food and agriculture directly
or indirectly (e.g. taxes, subsidies, charges for resource use and payments for ecosystem services)
Intellectual property rights (IPR), access and benefit-sharing (ABS) – direct or indirect impacts of IPR and
ABS policy and regulations on biodiversity for food and agriculture
Note: The list of drivers was developed based on the findings of global assessments of genetic resources for food and agriculture
(FAO, 1997, 2007a, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005b) and Hazell and Wood (2008).
Source: FAO, 2013b.
The driver-by-driver approach taken in the
country reporting is reflected in the structure
of the chapter. After a short overview of the
findings, each driver is given its own dedicated
section, each of which provides an introduction
to the respective driver, where possible presents
a literature-based summary of global trends, and
then summarizes the information provided in the
country reports on the driver and its impacts on
BFA, ecosystem services and wild foods. Drivers
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
67
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.2
Reported effects of drivers of change on regulating and supporting ecosystem services,
all production systems aggregated
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Ecosystem services
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Markets, trade and the private
sector
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
Changing economic, sociopolitical
and cultural factors
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
Climate change
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Natural disasters
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35–37
Pests, diseases and invasive alien
species
-
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
-
38–40
Advancements and innovations in
science and technology
+/-
+
+
+/-
+
+/-
+
+/-
+/-
41–43
Changes in land and water use
and management
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
44–45
Pollution and external inputs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Overexploitation and
overharvesting
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Policies
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Drivers of change
Population growth and
urbanization
Number of
countries reporting
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of drivers on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. In this table the answers reported for different production systems are aggregated. If 50% or more
of the responses for a given combination of driver and ecosystem service indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no
effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour
scale indicates the number of countries reporting any effect of the respective driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision
of the respective ecosystem service. See Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services.
Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
are discussed under a series of broad headings,
beginning with higher-level economic and social,
environmental and technological drivers, followed by drivers at production-system level and
finally policies.
68
In addition to the general discussion of the
impacts of the various drivers on BFA and its role in
the supply of ecosystem services (Sections 3.2 to 3.7),
the chapter also includes separate discussions of
the effects of drivers of change on the involvement
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
of women in the management of BFA and on the
maintenance and use of traditional knowledge
related to BFA (Sections 3.8 and 3.9, respectively).
3.2 Overview
This section provides an overview of the countryreport responses before the individual drivers are
discussed in greater detail below. A total of 68
countries – including countries from all regions
and both OECD and non-OECD member countries – provided evaluations of the effects of at
least one of the individual drivers identified.
As noted above, countries were invited to indicate whether the effects of each driver on ecosystem services in each production system category
had been positive, neutral or negative during the
preceding ten years, and to provide additional
information on the effects of individual drivers.
Table 3.2 presents the reported effects of the
drivers of change for all production systems aggregated. Negative impacts on ecosystem services in
production systems are more frequently reported
than positive, mixed (i.e. both positive and negative) or neutral effects for the following drivers:
changes in land and water use and management;
pollution and external inputs; overexploitation
and overharvesting; climate change; natural disasters; pest, diseases and invasive species; markets,
trade and the private sector; and population
growth and urbanization. In the case of policies
and advancements in science and technologies,
positive effects are more frequently reported
than negative, mixed or neutral effects for most
ecosystem services. Responses related to changing
economic, sociopolitical and cultural factors are
more evenly divided between negative, positive,
and mixed effects, possibly reflecting the broad
range of factors potentially falling within this
category. In addition to the drivers listed in Table
3.2, countries provide information on the effects
of four other drivers, in each case either in one
or in two country reports. Three of these drivers
(migration, ethnic conflicts and acidification) are
reported to have negative impacts on the supply
of ecosystem services and one (afforestation) to
have both positive and negative impacts.
Countries were invited to report on drivers
affecting the availability and diversity of wild foods
and knowledge of these resources (Table 3.3).
In the case of the following drivers, negative
effects on the availability and diversity of wild
foods are far more frequently reported than the
combined total of positive or neutral effects:
overexploitation and overharvesting; changes
in land and water use and management; pests,
diseases and invasive alien species; population
growth and urbanization; climate change; pollution and external inputs; and natural disasters.
In the case of policies and advancements and
innovations in science and technology, reports
of positive effects on availability substantially
outnumber other responses. For the remaining
drivers (markets, trade and the private sector,
and changing economic, sociopolitical and cultural factors) responses are more mixed, but
with negative responses the more frequent. With
regard to knowledge of wild foods, reports of
positive impacts are more frequent than other
responses in the case of the following drivers:
advancements and innovations in science and
technology; policies; markets, trade and the
private sector; and changing economic, sociopolitical and cultural factors. For diversity, the
only two drivers for which positive responses
outnumber negative are policies, and advancements in science and technologies.
3.3 Economic and social drivers
• Information from countries indicates that population
growth and urbanization, and associated habitat
destruction and land conversion, are having a negative
effect on biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA)
and ecosystem services, with forests and coastal
habitats appearing to be particularly threatened.
• Outmigration from rural areas is tending to lead
to changes in management practices and land use,
in some cases leading to the decline of traditional,
biodiverse production systems.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
69
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.3
Number of countries reporting negative, neutral and positive effects of drivers of change on the
diversity, availability and knowledge of wild foods
Knowledge
Diversity
Availability
Knowledge
Diversity
Availability
Knowledge
Positive
Availability
Driver
Population growth and urbanization
Neutral
Diversity
Negative
29
37
22
9
6
8
1
2
4
Markets, trade and the private sector
18
20
10
9
6
6
11
16
21
Changing economic, sociopolitical and cultural factors
19
18
9
8
8
8
12
14
18
Climate change
31
35
13
7
5
13
3
2
2
Natural disasters
22
29
11
8
6
11
2
2
3
Pests, diseases and invasive alien species
34
40
15
6
2
9
2
2
2
Advancements and innovations in science and technology
5
8
3
9
9
6
20
24
28
Changes in land and water use and management
32
41
21
8
5
10
5
6
7
Pollution and external inputs
29
35
13
8
5
9
1
1
6
Overexploitation and overharvesting
36
45
18
6
4
10
1
2
5
Policies
9
9
4
11
7
8
23
34
26
Notes: The numbers in the table represent counts of country reports. Sixty-one out of 91 country reports provided information.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
• Markets and trade have a generally homogenizing
effect globally, and international trade, urbanization
and increasing regulation of markets are considered
by countries to have a largely negative effect on BFA
and ecosystem services. Locally, effects may be more
mixed, with consumer demand and market regulation
(of labelling, etc.) sometimes helping to promote
biodiversity-friendly production or harvesting practices.
• The effects of economic, social and cultural changes
are complex, but changes in dietary preferences have
had a largely negative effect on BFA, with an increasing
emphasis on meat-based diets and the use of a narrow
range of major cereals (maize, wheat and rice).
3.3.1 Population growth and
urbanization
It is generally agreed that population growth,
together with an increase in average per capita
incomes, will result in higher pressure on natural
resources and biodiversity (e.g. Foley et al., 2011).
70
Feeding, housing and meeting the other needs
of more than 9 billion people in the coming two
to three decades will exert pressures on ecosystems worldwide.
People living in cities now outnumber those
living in rural areas (United Nations, 2014a).
Projections indicate that population growth
in cities and small rural towns, along with the
number of people migrating from rural to urban
areas, will continue to increase. Urban population growth rates actually decreased from around
3 percent in the 1960s to around 2 percent in
the five years to 2016.3 However, the percentage
of the world population living in urban areas
grew from 33 percent to 54 percent over the
same period, or from 1.01 billion to 4.2 billion
3
World Bank staff estimates based on the United
Nations Population Division’s World Urbanization Prospects:
2014 Revision.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
in absolute terms (United Nations, 2014a, 2018).
It has been predicted that the figure will rise to
68 percent by 2050 (United Nations, 2018). The
global rural population is now close to 3.4 billion
and is expected to rise slightly and then decline to
around 3.1 billion in 2050 (ibid.). Urban population growth will, therefore, not mean an “emptying” of the countryside in the near future, at least
at global level. At regional or local levels, however,
there are already cases of rural depopulation,
fuelled largely by outmigration to neighbouring,
or more distant, town or cities, or to other countries (e.g. Gray and Bilsborrow, 2014; Chen et al.,
2014). This often leads to increasing involvement
of women in the management of agricultural
holdings (e.g. Agarwal, 2015; FAO, 2011e) (see
also Section 3.8). Out-migration from rural areas
can be permanent or temporary, involve people
of various social strata and education levels, and
often results in an inflow of remittances to family
members who remain. The inflow of remittances
may represent up to 30 percent of gross domestic
product in some countries (World Bank, 2018).4
As noted in the introduction to this chapter,
urbanization can affect biodiversity in many ways.
Globally, urban development is a significant direct
driver of land-use change, deforestation and
habitat fragmentation (Elmqvist et al., eds., 2013).
However, it also has numerous effects on (inter
alia) lifestyles and consumption patterns, social
and political attitudes, and the organization of
production and supply chains, all of which can have
knock-on effects on biodiversity, on a range of scales
(ibid.). For example, as people move to cities they
tend to depend increasingly on purchased foods,
often from a few supermarket chains (Macfadyen
et al., 2015). They often also tend to lose ties with
rural areas and rural foods, and increasingly opt for
processed foods rather than fresh foods (Popkin,
2017). While supermarkets and other modern
retailers can make a more diverse diet available and
accessible to more people, they can also encourage
4
World Bank staff estimates for 2016 based on International
Monetary Fund balance of payments data, and World Bank and
OECD GDP estimates.
the consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor,
highly processed foods and reduce the ability of
marginalized populations to purchase the food
needed for a high-quality diet (Hawkes, 2008). This
often has negative consequences for nutrition (see
Section 2.6). Urban consumption patterns are also
associated with a greater proportion of food going
to waste (Parfitt, Barthel and Macnaughton, 2010).
Demand for standardized foods can lead in
turn to a decrease in the diversity of the crops and
animals raised in food and agricultural systems
(see also Section 3.3.2). However, demand from
urban consumers can also help promote “BFAfriendly” approaches such as organic agriculture
(Seto and Ramankutty, 2016) or the maintenance
of non-mainstream species, varieties and breeds
of crops and livestock (FAO, 2013g; Lamers et al.,
2016). Moreover, trends in consumption and retailing are more advanced in some countries than
others. Urban food systems in developing counties
often remain complex and diverse, with traditional
outlets such as wet markets, street and mobile
vendors still playing a major role (Crush, 2014)
and substantial amounts of food being produced
within the boundaries of cities (Orsini et al., 2013).
The impacts of dietary changes on BFA are further
discussed in Section 3.3.3.
Human population growth and the resulting
industrialization, agricultural intensification and
urbanization are considered to be among the
main global drivers of degradation of aquatic ecosystems (Verdonschot et al., 2013). Infrastructure
development associated with urbanization affects
water quantity and quality, changes river channels, destroys habitats and habitat connectivity
and favours the spread of invasive species (Speed
et al., 2016). Pressures on aquatic ecosystems,
especially rivers, are expected to increase (ibid.).
Population growth is also driving other threats to
aquatic BFA, including overharvesting, pollution
(including sediment loading caused by coastal
development) and detrimental land and water use
associated with touristic developments (United
Nations, 2014a).
The impacts of population growth and urbanization on ecosystem-service provision as reported
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
71
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.4
Reported effects of population growth and urbanization on the provision of regulating and
supporting ecosystem services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of population growth and urbanization on ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock landless systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naturally regenerated forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Planted forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Culture-based fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13–20
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21–27
Non-fed aquaculture
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28–34
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35–41
Fed aquaculture
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rainfed crop systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem service
in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service indicate the
same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other cases, mixed
effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective system that report
any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See Section 1.5 for descriptions
of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
by countries are summarized in Table 3.4. In
nearly all production systems and for nearly all
ecosystem services, negative impacts are by far
the most frequently reported. Countries report
a diverse range of different impacts associated
with this driver. Some emphasize the effects of
habitat destruction linked to the expansion of
towns and cities. For example, Morocco reports
that urbanization is one of the most serious
threats to its biodiversity. It notes that the rapid
expansion of human settlements into areas that
are rich in BFA and the removal of sand and rocks
72
from sites such as coastal dunes and wadi beds5
for use in construction are resulting in the loss
of habitats and the species they shelter. China
notes that since the late 1950s urbanization and
the rapid development of industry, along with
population growth, have led to ever-increasing
discharge of industrial wastes, municipal sewage
and garbage, including the disposal of garbage
and solid wastes in farmland.
5
A wadi is a valley or streambed that contains water only during
the rainy season.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
A number of countries emphasize the various
ways in which population growth is driving
expansion of the agricultural frontier and
greater exploitation of natural resources. For
example, Ecuador, one of the most densely populated countries in Latin America, reports that the
high density of the rural population is increasing
local demand for resources and leading to the
occupation of land that is not suitable for use for
food and agriculture and that this is threatening
the survival of wild species. Ethiopia notes that
growth of the population has led to expansion
and intensification of land use, overutilization
of biological resources, increasing use of marginal lands and the breakdown of traditional
resource-management systems. These changes
are reported to be putting pressure on all ecosystem services and all the country’s biodiversity,
including impacts on the availability and diversity of wild foods and on the maintenance of
associated traditional knowledge. 6 Zimbabwe
mentions that human populations have been
encroaching on previously unused habitats such
as wetlands in an effort to escape the effects of
drought, poverty and climate change and that
this has led to the degradation of the affected
ecosystems. Countries also note impacts on
aquatic ecosystems, both via the effects of the
increasing demand of growing populations for
fish and other aquatic products and via the effects
of pollution and infrastructure development.
Several countries mention the effects of migration out of rural areas. For example, Ecuador notes
that rural migration to urban centres is more
common among men than among women, and
is permanent, i.e. the migrants do not return. It
further notes that this has led to an increasing proportion of women and elderly people in the rural
population and in turn to the abandonment of
cropping systems to make way for pastures and livestock, as these require less labour. This is reported
to have led to a decline of crop genetic diversity.
Several country reports from Europe note that the
6
The report cites Kelbessa et al. (1992), Addis (2009) and Asfaw
(2009).
abandonment of farming areas can have negative
consequences for some components of biodiversity.
Norway, for example, reports that the decline of
grazing and haymaking on more marginal land is
leading to forest expansion and that this is threatening a number of rare grassland species.7
Several countries report that urbanization and
population growth, and associated infrastructure
development and economic activities, are threats
to marine biodiversity and aquatic resources. For
example, Spain reports that increased coastal
development due to tourism has affected populations of Neptune grass (Posidonia oceanica),
a key Mediterranean seagrass species. In Europe
in general, offshore wind parks, sand and gravel
extraction and gas and petroleum pipelines are
considered to be particularly damaging to marine
flora and fauna, depriving fisheries of key fishing
grounds and many species of their habitats. Among
Latin American countries, Argentina reports that
urban infrastructure development is affecting wetlands in its Delta region – damaging the region’s
traditional productive agroecosystems, diminishing their capacity to supply ecosystem services
such as flood control and reducing their resilience.
Mexico notes that, with a population of 123 million
growing at an average rate of 1.8 percent per
annum, demand for food will be a key source of
pressure on its fisheries and aquaculture sector,
and mentions that it will be necessary to find new
species to culture and new strategies for the sustainable use of already-established fisheries.
Where wild foods are concerned, population
growth and urbanization are reported to be
exerting increasing pressure on wild plant, fish
and game populations in a number of countries,
whether via the effects of increased demand or
via habitat destruction. For example, Cameroon
reports that population growth is creating more
demand for forest products, including wild meat.
It notes that settlements are occupying land
even in protected areas and that roads through
parks are destroying habitats and disturbing wild
species. Kiribati mentions that the most notable
7
The report cites Kålås et al. (2010).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
73
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
driver affecting its wild food resources is population pressure, resulting either from increased
urbanization or general high population growth.
It notes that a large proportion of the population
is concentrated in urban centres and that this
leads to overexploitation of some of the marine
wild food species commonly used in these areas.
These species are reported to be easily accessible
to the public, making them easy targets for unsustainable exploitation. Solomon Islands notes that
in heavily populated urban and peri-urban areas
marine species are being affected by effluent discharge, overexploitation and habitat destruction
caused by land clearing and reclamation.
3.3.2 Markets, trade and value chains
The way in which food systems (and their associated
markets and value chains) evolve can influence BFA
and associated ecosystem services in various ways.
Many regions in the world are undergoing waves
of economic development based on the exploitation of natural resources through the expansion of
activities such as mining and fossil-energy extraction, extensive cattle ranching, tree monoculture
and production of agricultural commodities such
as soybean, palm oil and sugar cane (e.g. UNCTAD,
2012). These trends, mostly driven by the private
sector, but often with governmental support or
facilitated by a lack of adequate regulation, have
major implications for the world’s ecosystems and
biodiversity (e.g. IPBES, 2018c, 2018d, 2018e).
Commercial harvesting of wild foods (including
fish), medicinal plants, charcoal and timber and
non-wood forest products creates the risk of overexploitation (see also Section 3.6.3). The involvement
of international markets may exacerbate such risks.
As noted in Section 3.3.1, quantitative and qualitative changes in consumer demand are major drivers
of change affecting BFA. However, consumption
patterns and food habits can be influenced not only
by changes in consumers’ incomes and lifestyles, but
also by changes in the value chain. For example,
increases in fish consumption are influenced by
urbanization and rising incomes on the demand
side and by improved distribution and international
trade on the supply side (FAO, 2018a).
74
Markets may also impose requirements in terms
of product uniformity and the timing and continuity of supply. Demands of this kind can exert
pressure on producers to continuously grow/
keep only a limited range of species, breeds and
varieties of crops, livestock, trees, fish, etc., with
both individual holdings and wider productive
landscapes thus becoming more homogeneous
in space and time in terms of their genetics and
their physical structure. Such changes will often
have negative implications for the resilience of
production systems (see Section 2.3 for further
discussion) and for their roles as habitats for biodiversity (Macfadyen et al., 2015). A case in point
is the development of private food standards by
supermarkets and other buyers (sometimes partly
on the grounds of aesthetics), which have helped
to steer farmers towards particular varieties and
management procedures (Dolan and Humphrey,
2000; Lang, Barling and Caraher, 2009; Stuart,
2009). International markets may be particularly
restrictive and impose specific requirements for
market entry, including for food-safety reasons
(Kahane et al., 2013). This can effectively debar
the entry into the market of minor crops from
developing countries (Davis, 2006).
Conversely, markets may also be a means of
promoting production practices that help to
protect biodiversity or the supply of ecosystem
services, for instance when regulations and certification schemes are put in place to satisfy consumer demands for sustainably supplied products
(e.g. organic farming, fair trade, welfare-friendly
animal products, shorter supply chains, sustainable forestry or sustainable fishing practices) or
products with distinctive characteristics associated with their origin (e.g. geographical indications). The development of voluntary sustainability standards – for example, those of the
Rainforest Alliance8 and the Marine Stewardship
Council9 – is contributing to the inclusion of
biodiversity-related variables in food standards
(Potts et al., 2017). The establishment of a value
8
9
https://www.rainforest-alliance.org
https://www.msc.org
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 3.5
Reported effects of markets, trade and the private sector on the provision of regulating and
supporting ecosystem services, by production system
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
-/+
-
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5–11
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Effects of markets, trade and the private sector on ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
0
Livestock landless systems
0
Naturally regenerated forests
-
Planted forests
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
Culture-based fisheries
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
Fed aquaculture
0
+/-
-
+/-
0
+/-
-
-
-
12–18
Non-fed aquaculture
0
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
-
19–25
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
+/-
-
0
+/-
-
+/-
-
+/-
26–33
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
0
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
-
+/-
+/-
Rainfed crop systems
Mixed systems
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
chain for specific varieties or breeds can help to
promote continued use of these resources and
reduce their risk of extinction (e.g. FAO, 2013g;
FAO and SINER-GI, 2010; Keleman and Hellin,
2009; Vandecandelaere et al., 2018). International
trade can also facilitate the introduction of invasive alien species, pests and diseases that may
affect BFA (see Section 3.4.3). For example, trade
in honey bees can contribute to the spread of
diseases around the world and lead to the infection of native wild pollinators (Fürst et al., 2014).
International trade can also function as a means
of “exporting” environmental problems. For
example, the intensive animal production based
on concentrate feeds that takes place in Europe
and China affects not only the surrounding environment, but also the environments where the
raw materials for these feeds are produced,
for instance through the expansion of soybean
production into native forests in South America
(e.g. Grau and Aide, 2008; Ran et al., 2013).
Information provided by countries on the
effects of this driver on ecosystem services is
summarized in Table 3.5. Although effects on
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
75
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
ecosystem services are often reported to be
negative, in particular in the case of habitatprovisioning services, positive effects on pest and
disease regulation are reported across production
systems, and on water purification, natural-hazard
regulation and nutrient cycling in livestock and
mixed production systems. Countries that describe
specific impacts include Peru, which notes that
growing demand for fishmeal and fish oils has led
to an increase in the number of large boats fishing
for anchovy (Engraulis ringens) and other coastal
species. This is reported to be negatively affecting
the coastal ecosystem and hence on fish species
that are important for human consumption and
underpin the livelihoods and food security of
artisanal fishers and their households. Loss of the
species captured in small-scale fisheries is leading
in turn to more consumption of imported frozen
fish nationally.
New markets for wild-food products are
reported to be emerging in various parts of the
world. Examples include Ilex guayusa (a tree whose
leaves are used to make a drink) in Ecuador, ota
(Diplazium esculentum and D. proliferum) (an
edible fern delicacy) in Fiji, sumac (Rhus coriaria)
(a shrub whose dried fruits are used as a spice) in
Jordan, wild mushrooms in Scotland, various wild
fish species in the Netherlands, forest foods such
as cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus), Gnetum
spp. (a leafy vegetable), Ricinodendron spp. (a tree
that produces oily seeds) and Irvingia spp. (bush
mango) in Cameroon (in some cases for export),
and cabbage palm (Euterpe precatoria), aguaje
(Mauritia flexuosa) (a palm), brazilnut (Bertholletia
excelsa) and sacha inchi (Plukenetia volubilis) (a
source of oily seeds) in Peru.
In some cases, new markets are created when
rural populations move to cities and carry their
traditional food preferences with them. Gabon,
for example, mentions that this is the case with
urban wild-meat markets. Several countries,
however, report a revival of interest in wild
foods among long-standing urban residents. In
some cases, commercialization leads to overexploitation (see Section 3.6.3), but in others can
lead to more positive outcomes. For example,
76
China notes that development and utilization of
wild-food resources has attracted the attention
of local governments and enterprises, creating
job opportunities and incentivizing environmental protection.
Argentina mentions the potential of national
and international trade in fibres from wild species
such as the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) and the
vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) to promote the conservation of these species, their habitats and the biodiversity and ecosystem services associated with
them. It notes that income-generating initiatives
related to this trade encourage local indigenous
communities to organize themselves into cooperatives and develop plans for the sustainable
use of natural resources. Argentina also mentions the work of the Southern Cone Grasslands
Alliance,10 an initiative involving a number of
non-governmental organizations under the
umbrella of BirdLife International,11 which certifies bird-friendly beef from the pampas and
campos grasslands of South America, including
for export to Europe, as a means of contributing
to the conservation of these ecosystems.
3.3.3 Changing economic,
sociopolitical and cultural factors
Economic and political aspects of this driver are
discussed in Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.7. The
focus in this section is therefore largely on cultural factors.
One aspect of culture that has a significant
influence on the use of BFA is diet. As discussed
above, urbanization, globalization and a slow
but steady rise in the average purchasing capacity of households are leading – in broad terms –
to a homogenization of global diets, often with
negative consequences for human nutrition (Ng
et al., 2014) (see also Section 2.6). Worldwide, the
use of three cereals (maize, wheat and rice) has
increased at the expense of local and often better
adapted and more nutritious crops such as smallgrain cereals and pulses (Khoury et al., 2014).
10
11
http://www.alianzadelpastizal.org/en
www.birdlife.org
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 3.6
Reported effects of changing economic, sociopolitical and cultural factors on the provision of
regulating and supporting ecosystem services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of changing economic, sociopolitical and cultural factors on
ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock landless systems
+/-
+
+
+/-
+/-
+/-
+
-
+/-
Naturally regenerated forests
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
Planted forests
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
+/-
9–15
16–22
Culture-based fisheries
Fed aquaculture
Non-fed aquaculture
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
Irrigated crop systems (other)
Rainfed crop systems
Mixed systems
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any impact of the
driver (%)
+
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
23–29
30–36
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
-
-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective system
that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See Section 1.5
for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
In many developing countries people tend to
perceive traditional food crops as poor people’s
food. For example, in much of sub-Saharan Africa
maize is perceived to be a “modern” crop and is
promoted over traditional small grains by governmental extension services or private input
suppliers (Shiferaw et al., 2011). Preference for
traditional foods may decline for other reasons,
such as their longer processing and cooking times
(Global Panel, 2017). At the same time, however,
products from some traditional varieties and
breeds are also perceived as more tasty and
hence may remain popular or provide opportunities for the development of new speciality products for high-value niche markets (e.g. LPP et al.,
2010). Where wild foods are concerned, similar
diverging trends – abandonment on the one
hand and revival for cultural, recreational, nutritional or environmental reasons on the other –
can be observed in some developed regions such
as Europe and North America, as well as in some
urban centres in developing regions (Alexander
and Mclain, 2001; Łuczaj et al., 2012; Reyes-Garcia
et al., 2015; Stryamets et al., 2015).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
77
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
As discussed in Section 3.3.1, many rural areas
are experiencing large-scale outmigration of
young people and increases in the inflow of remittances. Cultural changes associated with these
developments and with the greater accessibility
of rural areas are contributing to the decline of
some traditional biodiverse production systems
as a consequence of, inter alia, lack of interest or
involvement on the part of the younger generation and loss of traditional knowledge associated
with these systems (see Section 3.9).
Information from the country reports on the
effects of changing economic, sociopolitical and
cultural factors on the supply of ecosystem services is summarized in Table 3.6. The table indicates that for many production-system/ecosystemservice combinations the overall reported effect
of this driver is mixed (i.e. not dominated either
by responses indicating negative effects or by
those indicating positive effects). Most countries
reporting positive effects of changing economic,
sociopolitical and cultural factors refer to changes
in food habits associated with health concerns
or greater awareness of the environmental and
societal impacts of agriculture and food production. Reported developments in this category
include growth in the consumption of organic
foods and the establishment of certification
schemes for sustainably produced foods and other
agricultural products. For example, Argentina
reports a certification scheme for goat meat from
a traditional transhumant system in northern
Patagonia that aims to promote the conservation
of the production system, the local goat breed
and the goat herders’ traditional knowledge12
(see Sections 3.9 and 8.7 for further information
on certification schemes). Another factor noted
by a number of countries is increasing interest in
local landscapes and biodiversity − including those
associated with food and agricultural systems −
as components of national heritage. An example
from Switzerland is presented in Box 3.1.
Several countries report impacts of cultural
and/or socio-economic changes on the use of wild
12
The report cites López Raggi et al. (2008).
78
foods. Eswatini, for example, notes that women
are increasingly active in wage labour and lack
time for collecting wild foods, and that this is
leading to the erosion of traditional knowledge.13
Nepal mentions that year-round availability of cultivated vegetables means that indigenous populations no longer rely on wild foods, again resulting
in the loss of traditional knowledge. Togo reports
that use of the seeds of néré (African locust bean)
(Parkia biglobosa) and kapok (Ceiba pentandra)
trees to make mustard has been replaced by the
use of peanuts and soybeans as a consequence of
a growing dislike for the smell created by traditional mustard-production methods.
3.4 Environmental drivers
• Climate change is considered by countries to be
having a negative effect on biodiversity for food
and agriculture (BFA) and ecosystem services in all
production systems. Coastal areas are likely to be
particularly affected.
• The distribution and phenology of important
associated-biodiversity species are expected to change
as a result of climate change, with possible negative
effects on many production systems, especially on
ecosystem services such as pollination and pest and
disease control.
• Meteorological disasters can have severe long-term
effects on BFA, with forest production systems and
coastal areas appearing to be particularly vulnerable.
Countries note negative effects on ecosystem services.
• Across production systems, countries note the
negative effects of pests, diseases and invasive species
on the supply of ecosystem services. Several of the
invasive species, however, are also reported under
certain circumstances to provide ecosystem services
themselves.
3.4.1 Climate change
Climate change affects BFA and ecosystem services both directly and indirectly. Direct impacts
include those caused by changes in rainfall,
13
The report cites Howard (2003).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 3.1
Human-made grasslands as a cultural and ecological asset
Switzerland’s species-rich mountain grasslands are a result
of hundreds of years of extensive agricultural activity
that maintains open and semi-open habitats below the
timberline. Without human interference, most of these
habitats would quickly revert to their natural forest state,
resulting in the loss of the existing biodiversity.
The primary function of these grasslands is to provide
fodder for domestic grazing animals. However, landscapes
and species diversity play an increasingly important role
in attracting tourists, which creates additional income
for mountain regions. With the ongoing intensification
of agriculture in the surrounding lowlands, mountain
grasslands increasingly function as refuges for species that
were once common throughout Europe.
Mountain grasslands occupy 940 000 ha, or almost a
quarter of the country’s total land area, and are still actively
used. However, there is a trend towards intensification of
grassland management near mountain farms and extensive
use of marginal grasslands further away, and this is likely
to increase. In particular, increases in the level of nitrogen
input and altered grazing and/or mowing regimes have had
significant negative effects on the extent and diversity of
mountain grasslands.
temperature and the frequencies of events
such as droughts, cyclones/hurricanes, floods,
fires and early or late frosts and by changes in
plant flowering seasons and growing periods,
animal breeding seasons, the oxidation rate of
soil organic matter and the ranges and population dynamics of invasive species, pests, pathogens
and disease vectors. Indirect impacts include those
associated with climate change adaptation and
mitigation strategies. For example, rising temperatures in the tropics are pushing coffee growing
towards higher elevations in mountainous areas,
leading to replacement of natural vegetation
(Läderach et al., 2017). This exposes more soil to
erosion and degradation and affects water regulation, habitat provisioning and other ecosystem
services. The ranges of some important pests, such
To combat the decline of dry grasslands in general, and
mountain dry grassland pastures in particular, the Federal
Office for the Environment has established an inventory
of dry grasslands of national importance. In 2010, the
Federal Council approved a Federal Ordinance on the
implementation of the Federal Inventory of Dry Grasslands.
The inventory includes 3 000 items representing 0.5 percent
of the national territory (Federal Office for the Environment
of Switzerland, 2018).
Mountain grassland in the Val d’Hérens, Canton of Valais. © Federal Office
for Agriculture of Switzerland.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Switzerland.
as the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei),
have also extended to higher elevations – for
example in East Africa (e.g. Jaramillo et al., 2011)
− prompting coffee farmers to spray pesticides in
newly opened highland environments. Irrigation
to counter the effects of a drier climate or more
erratic rainfall may disrupt river flows and lead
to negative effects on fisheries (Cochrane et al.,
eds., 2009).
Temperature changes associated with climate
change can lead to shifts in flowering periods and
mismatches between them and the active periods
of pollinating insects, with negative consequences
both for pollinator populations and for pollination services (Kjøhl, Nielsen and Stenseth, 2011),
although effects on pollination may be mitigated
by the presence of a diverse range of pollinators
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
79
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
(Bartomeus et al., 2013). Other seasonal abnormalities such as more frequent cold or windy days
in spring can also disrupt pollination services, with
pollinator diversity again potentially playing a
buffering role (Christmann and Aw-Hassan, 2012).
Shifting climatic zones are likely to require pollinator species to alter their geographical ranges.
Some species may struggle to do this with sufficient speed (Bedford, Whittaker and Kerr, 2012).
The effects of climate change on soil ecosystems are complex and involve a large number of
interacting processes and interactions with other
drivers. Together with the diverse characteristics of
soil ecosystems themselves, this means that it is difficult to predict outcomes for soil biodiversity (Cock
et al., 2011). Temperature, moisture and carbondioxide levels affect the composition of soil invertebrate and micro-organism communities and many
of the functions they perform, both directly and via
their effects on other components of the ecosystem (e.g. plants). As climatic conditions change, the
distribution of production systems can be expected
to shift. Some existing relationships between plant
species and soil micro-organism and invertebrate
communities are likely to break down, as many soil
invertebrates are relatively immobile and those
that can move may not necessarily adapt well to
new locations even if the climate is suitable, for
example because of direct or indirect effects of
photoperiod differences (ibid.).
The impacts of climate change on aquatic ecosystems include those associated with changes in the
temperatures of lakes, rivers and oceans, which may
affect species’ reproductive patterns and growth,
and their physiology, morphology and behaviour
more generally (e.g. Spalding, Ravilious and Green,
2001; Speed et al., 2016). Impacts on aquatic biogeochemical processes are expected to affect the
roles of aquatic ecosystems as carbon sinks or
sources (Boyd and Hutchins, 2012; Erickson et al.,
2015; Wrona et al., 2006). Ocean acidification as
a result of increased absorption of carbon dioxide
threatens marine organisms that use carbonate minerals to form shells and skeletons (CBD Secretariat,
2009). Climate change can also be expected to lead
to reductions in wetland areas, changes in flooding
80
periods, water levels, mixing regimes, water clarity
and food webs and greater risk of alien-species
invasions (Speed et al., 2016). Climate change is a
major threat to the world’s coral reefs, for example
via the effects of higher water temperatures, ocean
acidification and increasing frequency of extreme
weather events (Heron, Eakin and Douver, 2017;
Wilkinson, 2008) (see also Section 4.5.4).
Countries were invited to provide information on cases in which associated biodiversity is
believed to be affected by climate change, indicating the severity and frequency of the effects and
the production systems in which they occur. Fiftyfive countries provided information. The following specific threats are mentioned in the country
reports: changes in temperature (37 reports);
changes in precipitation patterns (34); droughts
(31); pests and diseases (22); floods (20); changes
in sea level (18); changes in phenology (8); soil
erosion (8); wildfires (8); changes in nutrient cycles
(7); and unspecified extreme events (6). Less frequently reported threats include desertification,
strong winds and changes in snow cover. The
most frequently reported climate change-related
threats to associated biodiversity vary by region.
Figure 3.1 shows a breakdown of responses by
production system and region.
Information provided by countries on the
impact of climate change on the supply of ecosystem services is summarized in Table 3.7. In
almost all cases impacts are reported to be negative. Pest and disease regulation, natural-hazard
regulation, water cycling, habitat provisioning
and pollination are the ecosystem services most
frequently reported to be affected by climate
change. Several countries provide information on
threats affecting particular regions and ecosystems
within their national territories. For example, Peru
mentions the threat that climate change is posing
to high Andean ecosystems (vital to water- and
climate-regulation services) as a result of rising
temperatures and obstacles to altitudinal migrations. In the case of the Amazonian forests, it
notes that climatic changes are predicted to lead to
“savannization”, which would affect the supply
of wild foods, including fish, medicinal plants and
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 3.1
Reported climate change-related threats to associated biodiversity, (A) by region and
(B) by production system
A 40
Number of countries
35
30
25
20
Africa
Asia
Europe
Latin America and
the Caribbean
Near East and
North Africa
North America
Pacific
15
10
5
0
B 60
Number of responses
50
40
Crops systems
Forestry systems
Livestock systems
Aquaculture
Fisheries
Mixed systems
Agriculture
(unspecified)
Not specified
30
20
10
tu
ra
pe
ip
m
ec
in
te
pr
Ch
an
g
es
in
es
an
g
Ch
re
n
tio
ita
gh
ou
Dr
di
ts
es
s
se
as
od
sts
Pe
Ch
an
ge
in
si
n
an
d
lev
a
se
Flo
el
r
he
lo
ph
en
o
Ot
gy
es
fir
W
ild
Ch
an
g
es
Ex
tre
m
(u e e
Ch
ns ve
an
pe n
ge
cifi ts
si
ed
n
)
nu
tri
en
tc
yc
les
So
il e
ro
sio
n
0
Notes: Part A of the figure shows the total number of countries that reported the respective threat for at least one production system,
broken down by region. A given country may have reported a given threat for more than one production system category. Part B of the
figure shows the total number of responses referring to the respective threat, broken down by production system. Fifty-five out of a
total of 91 reporting countries reported at least one threat.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
81
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.7
Reported effects of climate change on the provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem
services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of climate change on ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock landless systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naturally regenerated forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Planted forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Culture-based fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10–17
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18–25
Non-fed aquaculture
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26–33
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34–42
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rainfed crop systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fed aquaculture
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
other goods, as well as regulating services such as air
purification, temperature regulation, water cycling
and flood regulation, with serious consequences
for the local population. In the case of marine ecosystems, expected impacts of climate change are
reported to be potentially catastrophic owing to
rising temperatures and intense rains in the north
of the country: ecosystem services predicted to be
affected include climate regulation and the supply
of fish and other products, with impacts on human
nutrition, particularly among resource-poor coastal
populations. China reports that in recent decades
82
there has been a marked warming and drying of
the climate in the vicinity of Hulun Lake (a large
lake in Inner Mongolia), with a decline in the size of
the lake, deterioration of the grasslands around it,
desertification and a reduction in vegetation cover.
These changes are reported to be a severe threat to
several terrestrial species.
Numerous other countries highlight climate
change as a major threat to biodiversity in inlandwater and coastal ecosystems. Predicted effects
relate mainly to drier summers or to more intense
rainfall that may result in floods and landslides
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
that affect habitats such as lakes. With regard to
marine ecosystems, the Netherlands reports that
rising sea temperatures in the southern North Sea
have resulted in changes in the fish community,
with species that prefer warmer temperatures
(e.g. sea bass) becoming more common and
those that prefer cooler waters (e.g. plaice and
cod) becoming less common or moving to deeper
water.14 Similarly, Egypt reports that rising temperatures will lead to northwards shifts in the
ranges of fish species, with impacts on fishery
production. Mexico notes that its fisheries sector
is considered highly vulnerable to climate change
via the effects of current and predicted changes
in water temperature, salinity, nutrient availability and other factors that influence the number
and distribution of marine and freshwater biota.
Several countries from the Pacific region mention
the effects of coral bleaching, particularly during
El Niño years.
A number of island nations mention the severe
threats they face from climate change. For example,
the Bahamas reports that out of all the identified
threats to biodiversity, climate change is considered to be the most serious: 80 percent of the
country’s landmass is within 1.5 metres of sea level
and 90 percent of its freshwater lenses15 are within
1.5 metres of the land surface, making groundwater resources highly vulnerable to contamination. It further notes that it is very vulnerable to
climate-related threats such as coral bleaching,
increasingly powerful hurricanes and rising sea
levels. Saint Lucia mentions that rising temperatures and changing ocean currents have led to an
increase in the quantity of Sargassum seaweed
along the eastern coasts of Caribbean islands. It
notes that marine plants and animals become
trapped and die in thick sheets of seaweed and that
under anaerobic conditions the seaweed degrades
and emits a stench that creates problems for coastal
communities. It also mentions, however, that the
14
15
The report cites Dulvy et al. (2008) and Ter Hofstede and
Rijnsdorp (2011).
A freshwater lens is a body of freshwater that has percolated
through the soil and floats on top of denser seawater below
(Bailey, Jenson and Olsen, 2009).
seaweed has increased fish populations and thus
led to larger catches for some fishers.
Aside from species targeted by capture fisheries, a number of other wild foods are reported to
be threatened by climate change-related effects.
For example, Eswatini reports that altered precipitation patterns and erratic rainfall are predicted
to hinder the germination of wild fruits and
other wild food plants. Peru notes that changes
to fruiting seasons are expected to reduce the
availability of wild fruits such as camu-camu
(Myrciaria dubia), humarí (Poraqueiba sericea)
and pijuayo (peach palm – Bactris gasipaes).
Finland notes that climate change-related threats
associated with the country’s northern position
include declines in the availability of wild mushrooms and berries as a result of poleward movement of the coniferous zone. It also mentions
that earlier flowering when there is still a risk
of frost exposure may also negatively affect the
availability of wild berries.
3.4.2 Natural disasters
Ecosystems and food and agricultural production
are often seriously affected by natural disasters.16
For example, a study of post-disaster needs assessments covering 74 medium- to large-scale disasters in 53 developing countries between 2006
and 2016 showed that agriculture accounted for
23 percent of all losses and damage incurred (FAO,
2018e). Where droughts are concerned, agriculture absorbed 83 percent of the economic impact.
Overall, the crop sector was the most affected
(49 percent of all damage and losses), followed
by the livestock sector (36 percent) (see Figure 2.1
in Section 2.3). The most damaging types of disaster in the crop sector were floods, in the livestock
sector droughts, in the forest sector storms, and in
fisheries floods and storms (ibid.). Data from the
International Disaster Database EM-DAT17 indicate
that the number of disasters reported worldwide
16
17
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries to report
on “natural” disasters. The use of this term is not intended
to suggest that human actions do not contribute to many
disasters in this category.
http://www.emdat.be/
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
83
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 3.2
Global trends in the occurrence of natural disasters − 1980 to 2017
Number of disasters per disaster type
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Year
Earthquakes
Floods
Storms
Drought
Source: EM-DAT, the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, www.emdat.be
increased rapidly between the 1960s and the early
2000s before reaching a plateau (Renaud and
Murti, 2013). Figure 3.2 shows global trends in
natural disasters for the period 1980 to 2017.
Disaster risk is influenced by complex and interacting drivers that affect both exposure18 and
vulnerability.19 The latter is generally associated
with poor land-use planning, poverty, rapid urbanization and ecosystem degradation (FAO and
UNISDR, 2017; Sudmeier-Rieux et al., 2017). Several
of the drivers discussed elsewhere in this chapter
(e.g. climate change, population growth, land-use
change, overexploitation of natural resources, policies and technological innovations) are involved.
Despite the impact that disasters have on the
food and agriculture sector, their link to BFA
18
19
“People, property, systems, or other elements present in
hazard zones that are thereby subject to potential losses”
(UNISDR, 2009).
“The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system
or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a
hazard” (UNISDR, 2009).
84
remains poorly understood. Disasters of various
kinds are widely recognized as threats to plant
(crop), animal (livestock), forest and aquatic
genetic resources, although the levels of threat
posed to particular genetic resources (species,
varieties, breeds, etc.) are generally not well
established (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a,
2015a, 2018e). Where associated biodiversity and
the supply of ecosystem services are concerned,
information on impacts is generally available at
the ecosystem rather than the species level. For
example, coastal and estuarine wetlands in some
areas can be threatened by hurricanes (Morton
and Barras, 2011). Sediment loss means that
affected wetlands may be unable to recover properly (ibid.). Many wetlands are subject to multiple
hazards, with flooding the most pervasive (Kusler,
2009). The roles played by BFA in reducing disaster
risk are discussed in Section 2.3.
Countries were invited to report any disasters
that had had a significant effect on their BFA during
the preceding ten years. As shown in Table 3.8,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 3.8
Natural disasters reported to have had a significant effect on biodiversity for food and agriculture
and/or on ecosystem services in the past ten years
Type of disaster
(number of countries)
Reporting countries
Droughts and heat waves (32)
Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Belgium, Burkina Faso, China, Croatia, El Salvador, Eswatini,
Ethiopia, Gambia, Germany, Guyana, Hungary, India, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger,
Panama, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Floods (31)
Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Ecuador,
Ethiopia, Germany, Guyana, Hungary, India, Ireland, Mali, Nepal, Panama, Peru, Saudi Arabia,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Togo, United Kingdom, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Fires and wildfires (21)
Angola, Argentina, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Eswatini, Ethiopia, France, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico,
Niger, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United States of
America, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe
Oil spills, mining pollution, chemical
industrial accidents* (17)
Angola, Belgium, China, Finland, Hungary, Jordan Lebanon, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Peru,
Sudan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam
Epidemics (in animals and plants) and
pest and disease outbreaks (15)
Belgium, Burkina Faso, China, Estonia, Germany, Niger, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Sudan,
Sweden, United States of America, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes (13)
Bangladesh, China, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Fiji, France, Grenada, India, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Viet Nam, Yemen
Storms (11)
Argentina, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Panama, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United
Kingdom
Landslides (9)
Argentina, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Nepal, Panama, Peru, Spain, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam
Cold, frost and heavy snow episodes (7)
Belgium, Croatia, Ireland, Jordan, Peru, Slovenia, United Kingdom
Volcanic eruptions (6)
Argentina, Cameroon, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ireland, Solomon Islands
Earthquakes (5)
Costa Rica, Nepal, India, Solomon Islands, Spain
Tsunamis (4)
Bangladesh, India, Solomon Islands, Yemen
Heavy rainfall and hail storms (4)
Ethiopia, Hungary, Slovenia, Zambia
Avalanches (2)
Nepal, Spain
Armed conflicts* (2)
Lebanon, Yemen
Notes: *Although the guidelines referred to “natural disasters”, some countries reported on human-made disasters such as armed
conflicts, oil spills, mining pollution and chemical industrial accidents. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
meteorological disasters are the most commonly
reported category. Many country reports note
the exacerbating effects of climate change.
Information provided on how disasters are affecting the supply of particular ecosystem services is
summarized in Table 3.9. Here again, in nearly all
production systems and for nearly all ecosystem
services, negative impacts are by far the most frequently reported. Given the devastating impacts
that some disasters have on the affected areas,
it is perhaps not surprising that many countries
describe multiple effects on the supply of ecosystem services. Grenada, for example, reports
that the major losses of forest species and forest
cover caused by hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 substantially reduced the supply of services such as
pollination, pest and disease regulation, and
nutrient and water cycling. It notes that effects
have been long lasting and that the impacts of
the hurricanes are still (as of 2016) being felt, with
many parts of the country continuing to suffer
from water shortages caused by these disasters.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
85
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.9
Reported effects of natural disasters on the provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem
services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of natural disasters on ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock landless systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naturally regenerated forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Planted forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Culture-based fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10–16
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17–23
Non-fed aquaculture
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24–30
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31–38
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rainfed crop systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fed aquaculture
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
Fires are another category of disaster widely
reported to be affecting BFA.20 For example, Mali
reports that human-made bushfires are one of the
most important causes of degradation of its vegetation and soils. It notes that fires slow the growth
of trees, reduce soil organic matter levels and have
restricted the distribution of some species. Impacts
of geological disasters are also quite widely
20
The frequency and intensity of fires are likely to increase
under climate change in several parts of the world (Barbero
et al., 2015).
86
reported. Solomon Islands, for example, mentions that (in addition to cyclones) earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions and tidal waves have serious
impacts on its coastal environments. It notes that
in the area affected in 2007 by an earthquake and
tsunami there has been considerable loss of reefs
and seagrass beds as a result of landform lifting
and underwater landslides.
Many wild food species are reported to be vulnerable to drought, for example mangos in Nauru
and aguaje (Mauritia flexuosa) in Peru. Togo mentions losses of wild foods caused by a drought in
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 3.2
Links between biodiversity, biodiversity loss and disease risk
An increasing number of emerging infectious diseases in
humans, animals and plants have been reported over recent
decades (Anderson et al., 2004; Fisher et al., 2012; Jones
et al., 2008). This has been linked to rapid habitat changes
caused by urbanization and agriculture intensification
(Hassell et al., 2017). Empirical studies show that high levels
of biodiversity are associated with high levels of pathogen
diversity (Morand and Lajaunie, 2017). However, increases in
epidemics and the risk of disease emergence are associated
with decreased biodiversity (ibid.), as deforestation and
agricultural intensification increase contacts between
wildlife, domestic animals and humans, favouring the spread
of zoonotic diseases (Keesing et al., 2010).
Empirical studies have also shown that species-rich host
communities contribute to reducing the transmission of
infectious diseases, a phenomenon known as the “dilution
effect”. The effect has been observed in studies on several
vector-borne and zoonotic diseases. A meta-analysis
2013 and by a flood in 2008. Peru notes21 that
climatic events will cause long-term changes in
forest structure, composition and plant diversity
and exert additional pressure on already-reduced
terrestrial mammal populations.
3.4.3 Pests, diseases and invasive
alien species22
Pests and diseases affect food and agriculture
worldwide and can pose a threat to the supply
of ecosystem services and to the survival of some
components of BFA, particularly species or withinspecies populations confined to small geographical areas. Aside from their direct effects, diseases
can also threaten BFA indirectly, for example
when their presence triggers practices such as
21
22
Citing Bodmer et al. (2014).
The term alien species has been defined as “a species,
subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural
past or present distribution” and an invasive alien species as
“an alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten
biological diversity” (CBD, 2002).
of 90 studies on various diseases that affect humans,
wildlife, livestock or plants concluded that they provide
broad support for a negative effect of diversity on disease
transmission (Johnson, Ostfeld and Keesing, 2015). The
magnitude of the effect, however, appears to be related to
the structure of species communities and not only to species
diversity per se (Civitello et al., 2015).
Similar effects operate at the infraspecies (genetic)
level. Species that have high genetic diversity may sustain
a high diversity of pathogens, but with each pathogen
showing low transmission and rarely causing an epidemic.
In contrast, while species that have low genetic diversity
may sustain fewer pathogens, these pathogens may have
high transmissibility and the potential to cause dramatic
epidemics (Heesterbeek et al., 2015; Karvonen et al., 2016;
King and Lively, 2012).
Source: Provided by Serge Morand.
the excessive use of pesticides, fire, antibiotics or
tillage. Disease epidemiology is, in turn, affected
by a range of drivers, including climate change,
trade and changes in land use. Loss of biodiversity
can itself be a risk factor (see Box 3.2).
Invasive alien species are regarded as a major
threat to biodiversity (e.g. CBD Secretariat, 2006).
Alien species may be introduced into a new ecosystem accidentally, for example as a result of trade
or travel (Wittenberg and Cock, 2001). However,
they may also be introduced deliberately as part
of various management measures, including for
biological control purposes, and later turn out
to be invasive (Myers and Cory, 2017). Ecological
changes and imbalances caused by human actions
can also contribute to invasions. For example,
shrub encroachment by invasive thorny species is
often a result of overgrazing (e.g. Kgosikoma and
Mogotsi, 2013; see also Section 3.6.3).
Invasive species have had substantial impacts on
various important components of BFA. For example,
the New Zealand flatworm (Arthurdendyus
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
87
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.10
Reported effects of pests, diseases and invasive alien species on the provision of regulating and
supporting ecosystem services, by production system
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
Naturally regenerated forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Planted forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
Culture-based fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Natural-hazard
regulation
-
Water purification
and waste treatment
-
Livestock landless systems
Pest and disease
regulation
+/-
Production systems (PS)
Livestock grassland–based systems
Pollination
Soil formation and
protection
Effects of pests, diseases and invasive alien species on
ecosystem services
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
9–17
Fed aquaculture
-
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
-
18–25
Non-fed aquaculture
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26–33
34–41
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
-
-
-
-
0
+/-
-
-
Rainfed crop systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed systems
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver(positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
triangulates) is a significant threat to earthworms
in the United Kingdom and some other European
countries (Murchie and Gordon, 2013). Invasive
plants may affect the abundance and community
structure of mycorrhizal fungi or affect the leaf litter,
and hence the habitats of litter-dwelling arthropods
and other invertebrates (Cole et al., 2006; Jordan et
al., 2012; Turbé et al., 2010). Invasive herbivores can
influence soil ecosystems via their effects on the
structure of plant communities (although not in all
cases with a negative impact on soil biodiversity)
(e.g. Bellingham et al., 2016; Stritar et al., 2010).
88
Numerous invasive species have had severe
impacts on forests. For example, Hymenoscyphus
fraxineus, a fungus that causes ash dieback disease,
has been rapidly spreading across much of Europe
(Forestry Commission, 2018). Ash dieback and the
emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), a beetle
that is spreading westwards across Europe, are
posing a major threat to ash tree (Fraxinus excelsior) populations (Thomas, 2016). Loss of the ash
would have a significant impact on biodiversity.
For example, 44 species in the United Kingdom
(4 lichens, 11 fungi and 29 invertebrates) are
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
considered “obligate” ash-associated species and
a further 62 (19 fungi, 13 lichens, 6 bryophytes and
24 invertebrates) to be highly associated with the
ash (Mitchell et al., 2014).
Many aquatic ecosystems are also affected by
invasive alien species, which can cause problems,
inter alia, by preying on native species, impeding
watercourses and affecting ecological processes
such as nutrient cycling (MEA, 2005b). Major
examples include water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), a highly invasive species that covers
and chokes major waterways and lake surfaces in
many countries, negatively affecting biodiversity,
fisheries, hydroelectric production, transportation
and local economies across large parts of Africa
and Asia (CABI, 2018).
Information provided by countries on the
effects of pests, diseases and invasive alien species
on the supply of ecosystem services is summarized
in Table 3.10. The ecosystem services most often
reported to be negatively affected are pollination,
pest and disease regulation and habitat provisioning. Several countries report that invasive species
and/or pests and diseases are becoming more prevalent, with a number noting that climate change,
habitat destruction or changes in agricultural
practices are exacerbating factors (see below for
further information). Some provide specific examples of the effects of pests, diseases and invasive
alien species on associated biodiversity and the
supply of ecosystem services. For instance, Zambia
reports that invasive alien species have negatively affected the habitats of some pollinators.
The Bahamas mentions that the lionfish (Pterois
volitans), an invasive species that entered the
country’s waters in recent years, is a threat both
to biodiversity and to fisheries. More specifically,
it notes that as well as feeding on the juveniles
and adults of commercially important fish species
such as grunts and snapper, the lionfish is feared
to be affecting coral reefs by predating on herbivores that keep the reefs free of algae. In order to
counteract the impact of the lionfish, the country’s
Fisheries Department is introducing initiatives to
encourage the consumption of the species (see
Section 4.4 for additional information).
Sri Lanka reports that the clown knife fish (Chitala
ornatus), first introduced as an ornamental aquarium fish, is affecting some of the county’s most
threatened endemic freshwater fish populations.
The Netherlands mentions that the Pacific oyster
(Crassostrea gigas), an invasive alien species that
has been spreading through the country’s waters
since the 1960s, is considered a serious threat to
the functions of coastal waters, including shellfish
culture and the provision of feeding areas for birds.
It notes, however, that reefs created by this species
can provide an important habitat for certain species.23 A few countries mention the threat posed by
hybridization between invasive alien species and
native species. For example, Zambia reports that
the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), an escapee
from fish farms, is not only competing with indigenous fish but also likely to be altering the genetic
composition of native cichlid species.
Countries were invited to report examples of
invasive alien species that had had a significant
effect on BFA and/or ecosystem services in the
preceding ten years. The 59 countries24 that
responded reported a total of 1 077 such cases,
involving 633 distinct species and 509 distinct
genera. The most commonly reported species are
shown in Table 3.11. Half of the reported invasive
alien species are plants, 46 percent animals, and
the remaining 4 percent fungi, chromists, viruses
or bacteria (Figure 3.3). Almost 60 percent are
reported by Asian or European countries.
With regard to the causes of species invasions, some country reports, as noted above,
mention a link to climate change, for example
in the case of the threat posed by Kikuyo grass
(Pennisetum clandestinum) to the páramo
23
24
The report cites Smaal, Kater and Wijsman (2009).
Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cook Islands, Croatia,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Hungary, India,
Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Mexico, Nepal,
Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo,
Tonga, United Kingdom, United States of America, Viet Nam,
Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
89
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.11
Invasive alien species reported by five or more countries as present in one or more production systems
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Number
of
countries
Positive
Common
English
name
Impact on
ecosystem
services
(number of
responses)
Neutral
Species
(Latin name)
Impact
on BFA
(number of
responses)
Negative
Production systems where reported
(in decreasing order of frequency)
14
0
3
13
1
3
1
Eichhornia
crassipes
Water
hyacinth
21
Self-recruiting capture fisheries, culture-based fisheries,
irrigated crop systems (rice), mixed systems (livestock, crop,
forest and/or aquatic and fisheries), fed aquaculture, irrigated
crop systems (non-rice), non-fed aquaculture, livestock
grassland-based systems, naturally regenerated forests,
planted forests, rainfed crop systems
Lantana camara
Largeleaf
lantana
14
Livestock grassland-based systems, naturally regenerated
forests, irrigated crop systems (rice), planted forests, irrigated
crop systems (non-rice), mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest
and/or aquatic and fisheries), rainfed crop systems, livestock
landless systems
10
1
1
6
0
Cyprinus carpio
Common
carp
10
Self-recruiting capture fisheries, fed aquaculture
5
1
1
4
1
Prosopis juliflora
Ironwood
10
Naturally regenerated forests, livestock grassland-based
systems, irrigated crop systems (non-rice), irrigated crop
systems (rice), mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest and/or
aquatic and fisheries), planted forests, rainfed crop systems
7
0
2
5
0
2
Mikania
micrantha
Bitter vine
9
Naturally regenerated forests, livestock grassland-based
systems, irrigated crop systems (rice), livestock landless
systems, mixed systems, planted forests, rainfed crop systems
4
0
3
3
0
2
Chromolaena
odorata
Siam weed
9
Naturally regenerated forests, planted forests, livestock
grassland-based systems, irrigated crop systems (rice),
livestock landless systems, rainfed crop systems
5
0
2
4
0
2
Oreochromis
mossambicus
Mozambique
tilapia
8
Self-recruiting capture fisheries, culture-based fisheries, fed
aquaculture
6
0
0
2
1
0
5
0
3
3
0
3
Parthenium
hysterophorus
Santa-Maria
8
Livestock grassland-based systems, naturally regenerated
forests, mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic
and fisheries), planted forests, rainfed crop systems, irrigated
crop systems (non-rice), irrigated crop systems (rice), livestock
landless systems
Harmonia axyridis
Harlequin
ladybird
7
Rainfed crop systems, irrigated crop systems (non-rice),
livestock grassland-based systems, mixed systems (livestock,
crop, forest and/or aquatic and fisheries), planted forests
5
0
0
1
0
0
Salvinia molesta
Giant salvinia
7
Irrigated crop systems (rice), self-recruiting capture fisheries,
culture-based fisheries, fed aquaculture, mixed systems
(livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic and fisheries), rainfed
crop systems
5
0
1
4
0
1
Bemisia tabaci
Sweet potato
whitefly
6
Rainfed crop systems, irrigated crop systems (non-rice),
irrigated crop systems (rice)
2
0
2
2
0
1
Micropterus
salmoides
Largemouth
bass
6
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
5
0
0
1
0
0
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rainbow
trout
6
Fed aquaculture, self-recruiting capture fisheries
4
0
0
1
1
0
Oreochromis
niloticus
Nile tilapia
6
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
3
0
1
3
0
0
(Cont.)
90
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 3.11 (Cont.)
Invasive alien species reported by five or more countries as present in one or more production systems
Common
English
name
Number
of
countries
Positive
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Impact on
ecosystem
services
(number of
responses)
Neutral
Impact
on BFA
(number of
responses)
Negative
Production systems where reported
(in decreasing order of frequency)
Pistia stratiotes
Water lettuce
6
Self-recruiting capture fisheries, culture-based fisheries,
irrigated crop systems (rice), mixed systems (livestock, crop,
forest and/or aquatic and fisheries), naturally regenerated
forests
3
0
1
3
0
1
Tuta absoluta
Tomato
leafminer
6
Irrigated crop systems (non-rice), rainfed crop systems,
irrigated crop systems (rice), naturally regenerated forests
1
0
1
0
0
1
Leucaena
leucocephala
White
leadtree
6
Mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic and
fisheries), naturally regenerated forests, livestock grasslandbased systems
3
0
0
3
0
0
Merremia peltata
Merremia
5
Naturally regenerated forests, mixed systems (livestock, crop,
forest and/or aquatic and fisheries)
3
0
0
1
0
0
Ambrosia
artemisiifolia
Common
ragweed
5
Rainfed crop systems, irrigated crop systems (non-rice), mixed
systems (livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic and fisheries)
3
0
1
2
0
0
Ceratitis capitata
Medfly
5
Rainfed crop systems, irrigated crop systems (non-rice), mixed
systems (livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic and fisheries)
1
0
0
1
0
0
Cherax
quadricarinatus
Australian
redclaw
5
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
5
0
0
2
0
0
Clarias gariepinus
North African
catfish
5
Self-recruiting capture fisheries, fed aquaculture
4
1
0
2
2
0
Heracleum
mantegazzianum
Giant
hogweed
5
Rainfed crop systems, mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest
and/or aquatic and fisheries), livestock grassland-based
systems, irrigated crop systems (non-rice), naturally irrigated
crop systems, planted forests
4
0
0
2
0
0
Pacifastacus
leniusculus
Signal crayfish
5
Self-recruiting capture fisheries, fed aquaculture, culturebased fisheries, non-fed aquaculture
3
0
0
2
0
0
Fallopia japonica
Japanese
knotweed
5
Naturally regenerated forests, planted forests, mixed systems
(livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic and fisheries), irrigated
crop systems (non-rice), livestock grassland-based systems,
rainfed crop systems
4
0
0
2
0
0
Robinia
pseudoacacia
Black locust
5
Naturally regenerated forests, irrigated crop systems (nonrice), planted forests, mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest
and/or aquatic and fisheries)
1
2
1
3
0
1
Solidago
canadensis
Common
goldenrod
5
Mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic and
fisheries), rainfed crop systems, livestock grassland-based
systems, irrigated crop systems (non-rice), naturally irrigated
crop systems, planted forests
2
2
0
3
0
1
Solidago gigantea
Tall goldenrod
5
Mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest and/or aquatic and
fisheries), rainfed crop systems, irrigated crop systems (nonrice), livestock grassland-based systems, naturally irrigated
crop systems
3
1
0
3
0
1
Varroa destructor
Varroa mite
5
Rainfed crop systems, livestock grassland-based systems,
irrigated crops (other), mixed systems (livestock, crop, forest
and/or aquatic and fisheries), planted forests
4
0
0
2
0
0
Species
(Latin name)
Note: Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
91
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 3.3
Invasive alien species reported by countries to be impacting biodiversity for food and agriculture,
(A) by type of organism and (B) by region
A
Other
Chromists arthropods
2% 1%
Insects
16%
Crustaceans
2%
Ray-finned fish
12%
Plants
50%
Birds 3%
Mammals 5%
Fungi 2%
B
Molluscs 4%
Other animals 3%
Africa
Asia
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Near East and North Africa
North America
Pacific
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Number of responses
Notes: A “response” is a mention by a specific country of a specific component of biodiversity (species or genus). Out of 91 reporting
countries, 59 provided a combined total of 1 077 responses. A single species or genus may be reported by more than one country.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
ecosystem in Ecuador. Zimbabwe mentions that
heightened climatic variability, including floods
and droughts, are increasing susceptibility to invasive species, with negative impacts on, inter alia,
wild foods. Mexico refers to a number of human
actions (e.g. modernization of transport systems,
mining, biological control practices and artificially
joining water bodies) and natural phenomena
92
(e.g. natural disasters) as contributing to the introduction of invasive species.25 Palau reports that, in
the last 20 years, land clearing, road construction
and other human activities have enabled the invasive vine Merremia peltata to thrive.
25
The report cites Comité Asesor Nacional sobre Especies
Invasoras (2010).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
3.5 Advances and innovations
in science and technology
• Advances in science and technology are largely seen
as positive by countries and as ways of reducing
negative effects of other drivers on biodiversity for
food and agriculture (BFA).
• Science and technology are crucial to the generation
of knowledge related to genes, species and
ecosystems and hence to the sustainable use and
conservation of BFA.
• Some technologies have negative effects on BFA
and its role in the supply of ecosystem services. The
precautionary approach provides a framework that
can guide the adoption of science and technology
advances in agriculture and food production.
Advances and innovations in science and technology can have both positive and negative effects
on BFA and associated ecosystem services, often
by increasing or reducing the impact of other
drivers discussed in this chapter. Although it can
be argued that it is how the technologies are used
rather than the fact that they exist that “drives”
impacts on BFA and the supply of ecosystem services, there are some technologies that open major
new opportunities for more sustainable management and others whose use on any significant
scale inevitably involves serious negative impacts
on components of biodiversity and/or substantial
homogenization of the production system.
Any technology used to control pests, weeds or
diseases that is toxic to non-target organisms is
a potential threat to associated biodiversity. For
example, unintended negative impacts of pesticide
use on soil biodiversity have been documented
(FAO and ITPS, 2015) (see also Section 3.6.2).
However, impacts on BFA can also arise because
of the ways in which a new technology influences
the broader management of the production
system. For example, in areas where genetically
modified glyphosate-resistant crop cultivars have
been adopted, for instance in parts of Argentina
and the United States of America, this has tended
to lead to a simplification of landscapes as crop
rotations decline (Schutte et al., 2017).
The adoption of a precautionary approach26
to advances in science and technology has been
widely advocated. In the case of capture fisheries
(including species introductions), detailed guidelines on the application of the precautionary
approach have been elaborated (FAO, 1996b).
Technologies that have had, or could have,
positive effects on BFA include nanotechnology,
which offers multiple opportunities to improve
detection and monitoring and thus support
rational decision-making, resource-use efficiency
and precision targeting, all of which have the
potential to reduce environmental impacts. For
example, the use of nanosensors allows detection of plant diseases before symptoms become
evident, meaning that infected plants can be
removed to prevent the spread of disease and
reduce or eliminate the need to use pesticides
(Chen and Yada, 2011). Another example from
the field of crop production is the use of robotics
and nanosensors to improve mechanical weeding
and hence reduce or eliminate the need for chemical herbicides (Duhan et al., 2017; Westwood
et al., 2018). In addition to developments of
this kind, advances in “nature-based” solutions
involving the deployment of components of BFA
can provide environmentally friendly means of
addressing the various challenges facing food
and agriculture. Many of these approaches are
discussed in Section 2.4 and in Chapter 5.
The impacts of developments in genetics on the
management of plant (crop), animal (livestock),
forest and aquatic genetic resources are discussed
in the respective sectoral global assessments published by FAO (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a,
2015a). In addition to opening new opportunities in the fields of characterization and genetic
improvement (see Chapters 5 and 6 for brief
26
The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
states that “in order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation” (Principle 15)
(UNCED, 1992).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
93
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.12
Reported effects of advances and innovations in science and technology on the provision of
regulating and supporting ecosystem services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of advancements and innovations in science and technology on
ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Livestock landless systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Naturally regenerated forests
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Planted forests
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Culture-based fisheries
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
11–18
Fed aquaculture
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
19–26
Non-fed aquaculture
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
27–34
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
35–41
Irrigated crop systems (other)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Rainfed crop systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Mixed systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
discussions of developments in these fields)
genetic technologies contribute to other aspects
of BFA management such as the enforcement of
laws related to forestry and to trade in endangered species (FAO, 2014a).
Information provided by countries on the
effects of advances and innovations in science and
technology on the supply of ecosystems services is
summarized in Table 3.12. In all production systems
and for all ecosystem services, positive impacts are
by far the most frequently reported. The country
reports generally indicate that technologies
94
are seen as a means of countering the negative
effects that other drivers are having on BFA and
the supply of ecosystem services. A wide variety
of technologies are highlighted, ranging from
those used for characterization and monitoring
of components of BFA to those used in conservation, various sustainable management practices, education or awareness raising. Among
the latter, for example, Estonia mentions that
mobile phone applications have been developed
to inform people about various components of
biodiversity including mushrooms, amphibians,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
epiphyte lichens and birds. Where promoting
sustainable management is concerned, Mexico
reports advances in the development of moreselective capture systems for fisheries that
reduce bycatch. Spain mentions that technological advances and recent innovations in aquaculture have fostered positive interactions between
aquaculture and the surrounding environment
and associated biodiversity. The United States of
America reports that the use of genetically modified crops such as Bt maize has led to a decrease
in the application of insecticides, and that the
use of herbicide-tolerant varieties has increased
levels of adoption of conservation tillage relative
to levels with conventional crops. It also notes,
however, that while the toxicity and persistence
of glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide for tolerant varieties, are lower than those
of herbicides formerly used,27 the emergence of
glyphosate-resistant weeds may to some extent
offset the advantages of the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops as it has led farmers to raise
application rates in recent years.
Negative effects mentioned include those associated with technologies that allow more effective harvesting of wild foods and have led to
overexploitation. Some countries note that new
technologies are contributing to the displacement
of traditional lifestyles and the loss of traditional
ecological knowledge (see also Section 3.9).
3.6 Drivers at production-system
level
• Loss and degradation of forest and aquatic ecosystems
and, in many production systems, transition to
intensive production of a reduced number of species,
breeds and varieties, often coupled with inappropriate
management practices, remain major drivers of loss
of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) and
ecosystem services.
27
The report cites WHO (1994) and NRC (2010). It notes,
however, that recent publications have raised questions
regarding the toxicity of glyphosate.
• Various management practices have been identified
that can limit the harmful effects of other drivers
and may even have positive effects on BFA and
ecosystem services.
• Pollution, from within production systems and beyond,
remains a major cause of decline in the populations
of many important species of associated biodiversity.
Excess nutrients, pesticide residues, urban effluent,
plastics and heavy metals are among the pollutants of
most concern.
• Overharvesting, particularly in forest and aquatic
ecosystems, as well as excessive or badly managed
grazing and browsing by livestock, are substantial
threats to many components of BFA.
3.6.1 Changes in land and water use
and management
Changes in land and water use and management
encompass a wide range of effects, many of which
will influence or be influenced by other drivers
discussed in this chapter. In the context of terrestrial ecosystems, such changes have classically
been studied and categorized using the concept
of “land-use transitions” (e.g. Foley et al., 2005;
Mazoyer and Roudart, 2006; Ruthenberg, 1980).
According to this concept, changes in land use
follow a unidirectional pathway of succession
from the natural ecosystems of the pre-settlement period, through smallholder subsistence
agriculture, to landscapes dominated by intensive agriculture interspaced with urban, recreational and conservation areas. This classical view
broadly reflects the history of land-use changes
in many temperate and tropical regions of the
world, especially those where forests once dominated, with the process being most complete
in parts of Europe, temperate Asia and North
America. However, changes taking place today
in locations where the land-transition trajectory
is less complete do not necessarily follow the
sequential pattern of past events elsewhere. For
example, many of the hundreds of thousands of
hectares of forest cleared in various parts of the
world each year are incorporated directly into
large-scale, commercially oriented, intensive crop
or livestock production systems without passing
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
95
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
through a phase of being used by smallholders.
The following paragraphs briefly describe major
recent land-use trends in various ecosystems used
for food and agriculture.
The world’s total forest area has continued
to decline in recent years (FAO, 2018b) (see
Section 4.5.5 for further discussion of trends in
forest ecosystems). In the tropics and subtropics,
the expansion of commercial large-scale agriculture accounted for 40 percent of forest loss during
the period 2010 to 2015 (FAO, 2016e). Smallholder
farming accounted for 33 percent of the loss,
urbanization and infrastructure for 10 percent each
and mining for 7 percent (ibid.). These patterns,
however, vary considerably from region to region.
For example, Hosonuma et al. (2012) estimated that
during the period 2000 to 2010 transformation
to commercial agriculture accounted for almost
70 percent of forest-area loss in Latin America,
compared to about 35 percent in Africa and Asia. In
Africa, 40 percent was lost to subsistence farming
and up to 10 percent to mining (ibid.).
In recent years, forest loss (mostly native forest)
has been partially offset by natural expansion of
forest (2.2 million ha/year during the period 2010
to 2015), often onto abandoned agricultural land,
notably in Europe and Central America, and by
forest plantations (3.1 million ha/year during the
period 2010 to 2015), particularly in parts of Asia
(FAO, 2016e).
In addition to reductions in the absolute extent
of forest area, forest fragmentation is a major
threat to biodiversity and ecosystem-service provision (Haddad et al., 2015), as is conversion from
natural forests to monoculture forest plantations
in some parts of the world (e.g. Ahrends et al.,
2015; Edwards et al., 2010; Hosonuma et al., 2012;
Warren-Thomas, Dolman and Edwards, 2015). It
has been estimated that 70 percent of the world’s
remaining forest area is within 1 km of a forest
edge (Haddad et al., 2015). Fragmentation has
implications for habitat structure and quality,
microclimate, hydrology, and wildlife recolonization and dispersal. It also increases accessibility
and thus increases pressure on wild foods and
other forms of associated biodiversity.
96
Land use for livestock production has traditionally involved either integrated crop–livestock
systems (see Section 5.5.1) or extensive grassland-based systems. In places, initially in developed regions such as Europe and North America,
but in recent decades increasingly in other regions,
mixed production has tended to give way to specialized intensive crop production systems on the
one hand and “landless” livestock systems on the
other. In the case of grassland production, traditional management systems and practices, notably
mobile pastoralism, have declined in many parts
of the world (FAO, 2009a, 2015a). Large areas
of species-rich grassland have been replaced by
croplands or high-yielding single-species grasslands (see Section 4.5.6). In other cases, changes
in management have contributed to grasslands
becoming overgrown with shrubs. Extensive commercial grassland livestock production has also
declined in some places over recent years. For
example, expansion of soybean production in
South America is taking place on land previously
cleared of forest for livestock production (De Sy et
al., 2015) – with the soy produced going to feed
animals in an increasing number of large-scale
intensive landless livestock operations, both in
the region and elsewhere (Modernel et al., 2016).
These various changes have been accompanied by
an increase in the global population sizes of all
major livestock species, although with considerable regional variations (FAO, 2015a).
Land-use changes associated with livestock production threaten biodiversity in various ways. Direct
effects include those caused by effluents from landless production units or other intensive systems
escaping into waterbodies and those caused by
excessive or badly managed grazing. Indirect
effects include those associated with demand for
raw materials to produce concentrate feeds (Godde
et al., 2018). Livestock production is also one of
the main sources of greenhouse-gas emissions,
accounting for 14.5 percent of all global emissions
by some estimates (Gerber et al., 2013). The loss
and degradation of grassland areas around the
world has negative implications for many species,
including, for example, many birds (see Box 3.3).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 3.3
Unsustainably managed production systems are a key threat to bird species
BirdLife International classifies the extinction risk of all the
world’s birds for the International Union for Conservation of
Nature Red List. Their 2017 assessment concluded that
1 469 species of birds (13 percent of extant species) are
globally threatened with extinction (BirdLife International,
2018). While birds provide many ecosystem services to
production systems, unsustainable management of these
systems has a negative impact on bird populations. As shown
in the figure below (on the left) the three most important
threats globally (those with the largest number of species
facing the highest level of threat) are agriculture, which
affects 911 threatened bird species (73 percent), logging and
wood harvesting, which affect 669 species (54 percent), and
invasive alien species, which affect 422 species (34 percent)
(Butchart et al., 2010).
In recent decades, both increases in the extent
of cropland (particularly marked in the tropics) and
intensification of agriculture have driven the loss of
natural habitats and increased threats to birds (BirdLife
International, 2013). For example, the European Farmland
Bird Index showed a 55 percent decline in common farmland
birds between 1980 and 2016, and the downward trend
appears to be continuing (see figure below on the right).
Long-term trend data for Europe (1980 to 2016) are based
on national breeding-bird surveys in 28 countries collated
and synthesized by the Pan-European Common Bird
Monitoring Scheme (EBCC, 2017; Gregory et al., 2005, 2008;
Gregory and van Strien, 2010). A large body of research in
Europe has attributed the steep decline of farmland birds
to a general process of agricultural intensification, which
has adversely affected many other taxa in addition to
birds (Donald, Green and Heath, 2001; Donald et al., 2006;
Gregory et al., 2005).
Similar trends are seen in the marine environment.
Increased fishing pressure is affecting seabird numbers,
especially long-lived species such as albatrosses (Anderson
et al., 2011a). At Bird Island (South Georgia), long-term
monitoring and demographic studies have revealed steady
declines of 2 to 4 percent per year over the last few decades
for the wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans), grey-headed
albatross (Thalassarche chrysostoma) and black-browed
albatross (T. melanophrys) as a result of bycatch from longline
fisheries (Croxall et al., 1998; Pardo et al., 2017).
Expansion and intensification of agriculture
are the most important of many threats affecting
threatened bird species
European Union Wild Bird Index 1980 to 2016
1000
800
600
400
200
100
80
60
40
20
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Re
sid
en
tia
l&
In
va
s
Ag
ric
ul
tu
Lo re
gg
Hu
in
i
co
v
m ntin e sp g
m
En
er g & ecie
er
c
gy
s
tr
ia
pr l de app
od
in
ve
g
u
Ch cti lopm
o
Cl
a
im ng n & ent
e
at
in min
e
fi
ch
i
Hu
an re r ng
m
eg
ge
im
Tr an i
&
an
e
nt
w
ea
r
sp
or usio
th
ta
e
n
P
r
s&
tio
ol
n
di luti
&
se stur on
rv
ice ban
co ce
rri
do
Fis rs
he
rie
s
0
120
Population Index (1980 = 100)
Number of species
1200
Source: Provided by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and
BirdLife International.
High/medium impact
Source: Butchart et al., 2010.
Low impact
Unknown impact
All common birds (n = 168 species)
Common forest birds (n = 34 species)
Common farmland birds (n = 39 species)
Source: EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife International/Statistics Netherlands.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
97
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
Agriculture accounts for the largest share of
water withdrawals worldwide (approximately
70 percent of the total), although the proportions
taken by industry (approximately 20 percent) and
by domestic use (approximately 10 percent) are
increasing, as is the share taken by urban areas relative to rural areas (FAO, 2011a). This trend is more
pronounced in high- and middle-income countries
than in low-income countries, where agricultural withdrawals still account for 90 percent of
the total. The area equipped for irrigation has
more than doubled worldwide over the last five
decades, from 139 million ha to 301 million ha (an
increase from 10 percent to 20 percent of the total
cultivated land area), while water withdrawal for
irrigation grew from 1 540 km3 to 2 710 km3 per
year over the same period. About 80 percent of
this capacity is located in low- to middle-income
countries (ibid.). The consequences of irrigation
expansion for BFA are variable and context specific.
However, major irrigation infrastructure developments are often associated with the expansion
of market-oriented monocultures such as sugar
cane or cotton, while the infrastructure associated
with irrigation schemes (dams, channels, etc.) can
also affect aquatic biodiversity (e.g. Tendall et al.,
2014; Verones et al., 2012). Poorly managed irrigation can result in salinization, the accumulation
of water-soluble salts in the soil, which eventually
inhibits crop growth. At least a fifth of irrigated
land is believed to be salt-affected to some degree
(Pitman and Läuchli, 2002), with researchers
suggesting that half of all arable land might be
affected by 2050 (Butcher et al., 2016).
Wetlands and inland aquatic ecosystems
around the world are facing a range of expanding demands, including those associated with
agriculture, urban development, flood protection,
transport and hydropower generation. These are
giving rise to a number of serious threats to freshwater biodiversity, including channelization of
watercourses, habitat fragmentation and loss of
riparian forests (Angelopoulos, Cowx and Buijse,
2017; Boulton, Ekebom and Gislason, 2016; Carrizo
et al., 2017; Speed et al., 2016). The degradation
of freshwater ecosystems and loss of their physical
98
and functional complexity eliminate vital components of natural flood-control mechanisms, inhibit
the recharging of wetlands and destroy and fragment habitats that support fisheries (Friberg
et al., 2016; Gleick, Singh and Shi, 2001). Weirs,
dams and other barriers have interfered with the
migratory routes of several fish and river-dolphin
species, and reduced connectivity along the length
of most large rivers (Addy et al., 2016; Pivari, Pacca
and Sebrian, 2017). The loss of riparian forests
increases the risk of seasonal flooding and results
in the loss of habitat and nursery grounds for fish
and other aquatic species (Larsen et al., 2012;
NRC, 2002). In places, however, successful efforts
have been made to improve water quality, construct fish passages and restore waterway banks to
create spawning habitats and increase fish population sizes (see Section 5.4 for further discussion).
Across production systems, much of the world’s
soil is in a degraded and often deteriorating
state (FAO and ITPS, 2015). Key threats to soil
biodiversity and the capacity of soils to deliver
ecosystem services include land-use changes that
involve vegetation clearance or the sealing of
soils under permanent cover such as concrete, the
increasing frequency of forest fires, the spread of
inappropriate crop-production practices and overgrazing (Turbé et al., 2010; Orgiazzi et al., eds.,
2016). Globally, 33 percent of land is moderately
to highly degraded due to erosion, salinization,
compaction, acidification and chemical pollution
of the soil (FAO and ITPS, 2015). Around a fifth
of the Earth’s vegetated surface shows persistent
declining trends in productivity, leaving 1.3 billion
people living on degrading agricultural land
(UNCCD, 2017).
The management of a crop production system
involves decisions with regard to (inter alia) what
tillage practices will be used, which crop species
or varieties will be grown, whether trees or livestock will be integrated into the system, how
crop residues will be managed, what and how
external inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides and
pesticides will be applied and whether hedges
and uncultivated strips will be left around fields
or plots. All these decisions will influence the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
characteristics and the diversity of the local soil
fauna and flora.
Soil biodiversity is greatly influenced by the
quantity and quality of organic matter present
in the soil. The biodiversity in overexploited soils
is less abundant, dominated by fewer species
and characterized by simpler trophic networks
(Creamer et al., 2016). Loss of soil organic matter
may lead to weaker soil structure, soil sealing,
surface crusting and/or compaction, reducing the
soil’s capacity to capture and store water, buffer
its pH and regulate its salinity.
Declines in the soil’s organic-matter and nutrient content are caused by misbalances between
inputs and outputs. Inputs are provided by plant
litter and by the addition of organic matter and
nutrients (e.g. in the form of manure – FAO,
2018f). Losses occur through the decomposition of
organic matter and soil erosion. Nutrients can also
be lost via leaching, volatilization and removal
in harvested products. Soil-nutrient depletion
through negative nutrient balances is widespread
throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa (Tittonell
and Giller, 2013).
Soil biodiversity will generally benefit from
management methods that increase the input of
organic matter and reduce its loss, for example
mulching, manuring and composting. Increasing
crop diversity in the form of rotations or intercropping tends to increase soil biodiversity (Tiemann
et al., 2015; Zander, Jacobs and Hawkins, 2016).
Tillage generally has a negative effect on soil biodiversity (e.g. Creamer et al., 2016; Nielsen et al.,
2011; Tsiafouli et al., 2015). For further discussion
of soil-management practices, and the status and
trends of their use, see Section 5.6.3.
Appropriate management of non-cultivated
areas within agricultural landscapes is also vital
to the supply of many ecosystem services. For
example, the health of pollinator populations
often depends on the floristic diversity of areas
such as field margins (Carvalheiro et al., 2010;
Holland et al., 2015; Ricketts et al., 2008). Further
information can again be found in Chapter 5.
The information provided by countries on the
effects of changes in land and water use and man-
agement on the supply ecosystem services in different production systems is summarized in Table
3.13. In a large majority of cases (i.e. production
system by ecosystem service combinations) reports
of negative impacts outnumber reports of positive impacts. In some production system categories
(livestock grassland-based, livestock landless, naturally regenerated forests, rainfed crop and irrigated crop [non-rice]), this is the case for all ecosystem services. Moreover, for several vital ecosystem services such as pollination, pest and disease
control and water purification, the number of
countries reporting negative effects exceeds (or at
best equals) the number reporting positive effects
across all production systems. However, for all ecosystem services there are at least some reports of
positive impacts. The most frequently reported
positive effects are on the production of oxygen
in planted forests and nutrient cycling and soil formation and protection services in mixed systems.
The country reports do not always include
details of the mechanisms through which landor water-use changes are giving rise to the
reported changes in the supply of ecosystem
services. However, some examples are provided.
With regard to aquatic systems for instance, a
number of countries stress the negative impact
that water-management practices such as the
fragmentation of watercourses through the
creation of dams, levees, irrigation systems or
flood-protection barriers have had on aquatic
biodiversity. Several mention that dams and
hydroelectric-power schemes have led to declines
in river fish stocks. Developments of this kind are
reported to have blocked the migration routes
of commercially valuable fish species, disturbed
the spawning grounds and habitats of a range of
aquatic species, contributed to the loss of forest
trees near watercourses and negatively affected
downstream habitats including those in estuaries
and coastal areas. For example, Iraq reports that
various large-scale water-diversion projects have
degraded the Tigris−Euphrates alluvial saltmarsh
and greatly affected land use in this area. It notes
also that these effects have been exacerbated by
a decrease in rainfall in recent years.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
99
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.13
Reported effects of changes in land and water use and management on the provision of regulating
and supporting ecosystem services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of changes in land and water use management on
ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock landless systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naturally regenerated forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Planted forests
+/-
-
+/-
-
+/-
+/-
+
-
+/-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
+/-
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
-
Culture-based fisheries
+/-
-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
+/-
-
+
Fed aquaculture
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
10–17
+/-
-
-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
-
+/-
18–25
Non-fed aquaculture
0
-
+/-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+
+/-
26–33
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
+/-
-
+
+/-
+
-
-
-
34–42
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
-
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
Rainfed crop systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed systems
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
+
+
+/-
+/-
+/-
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
Several countries mention that freshwater or
marine biodiversity and related ecosystem services
have been negatively affected by wetland conversion for use in crop, livestock or aquaculture
production or by the destruction or poor management of forests. For example, Argentina reports
that inappropriate management of forests in the
upper stretches of river basins has led to changes in
water quality and quantity in low-lying areas and
that the conversion of forests into grasslands is
affecting the feeding and breeding grounds of fish
species targeted by artisanal and sport fisheries.
100
With regard to the management of marine and
coastal ecosystems, the Bahamas reports that fisheries are being compromised by the creation of
navigation channels and the physical destruction
of habitats such as coral reefs and mangroves for
infrastructure development (docks and piers).
Where wild foods from forests are concerned, the
type of land-use change most commonly reported
to be having an impact is deforestation, in many
cases linked to agricultural expansion and in some
to other factors such as urban expansion, mining
and infrastructure development.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
3.6.2 Pollution and external inputs
There is abundant evidence that intensification of
crop, livestock and aquaculture systems through
excessive use of synthetic inputs adversely affects
BFA and particularly associated biodiversity
(e.g. Angelini et al., 2013; Brodeur and Vera
Candioti, 2017; Van Dijk et al., 2013; Geiger et
al., 2010; Hussain et al., 2009; Pelosi et al., 2013;
White, 2017). The use of nutrient inputs in excess
of efficient levels results in pollution of soil, air
and water (e.g. Carpenter et al., 1998; van Dijk,
Lesschen and Oenema, 2016). Although nutrient inputs in all forms may have negative effects
when used in excess, nutrients carried in mineral
fertilizers are particularly susceptible to ending
up as pollutants, owing to their high concentration and solubility (although not necessarily in the
case of phosphorus fertilizers), their volatility (in
some cases) and the changes they induce in the
soil ecosystem when used for an extended period
(changing the pH, promoting oxidation of organic
matter, modifying soil biota, etc.) (e.g. Barak et al.,
1997; Fonte et al., 2012; Guo, 2010; Mäder et al.,
2008; Marschner, Kandeler and Marschner, 2003).
Contamination of soils with pesticide residues is
also a major concern in intensive crop-production
systems (FAO and ITPS, 2015; Rodríguez-Eugenio,
McLaughlin and Pennock, 2018).
Intensive landless and intensive grassland-based
livestock production creates large amounts of
nutrient-rich effluent and solid residue, often
containing high concentrations of antimicrobials, pathogens, heavy metals and other pollutants (FAO, 2006b; Maron, Smith and Nachman,
2013; Modernel, Astigarraga and Picasso, 2013).
Industrial and urban sources are also contributing
to the contamination of soils with pollutants such
as heavy metals and microplastics (Alloway, 2013;
Chae and An, 2018; Ng et al., 2018; Tóth et al., 2016;
Wuana and Okieimen, 2011). Other significant soil
pollutants include persistent organic pollutants,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, radionuclides
and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (RodríguezEugenio, McLaughlin and Pennock, 2018). Humaninduced salinity (see Section 3.6.1) and acidification
are widespread problems, the former mostly
associated with inappropriate irrigation practices
and the latter with high rates of ammonium-based
fertilizer application (FAO and ITPS, 2015).
The diversity and functions of soil invertebrates
and micro-organisms are known to be affected
by the presence of excessive nutrients and by the
use of herbicides and pesticides (Ceulemans et
al., 2014; Ewald et al., 2015; Hussain et al., 2009;
Wolmarans and Swart, 2014). However, the processes involved are complex and a lot of uncertainty remains as to how particular substances,
and combinations of substances, affect particular
organisms and how these effects are influenced
by environmental factors and by other management practices (Lo, 2010; Goulson, 2013; SanchezMoreno et al., 2015; Sebiomo, Ogundero and
Bankole, 2011; Turbé et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2014).
Although research on the impact of microplastics
in the soil is limited, there is evidence that they
affect the biophysical environment and biodiversity of the soil (Rochman, 2018; De Souza
Machado et al., 2018). For example earthworms
have been shown to have reduced growth rates
and increased mortality if they ingest microbeads
(Huerta Lwanga et al., 2016).
There is increasing evidence that some classes of
pesticides threaten arthropod pollinators worldwide (IPBES, 2016a). High herbicide doses can be
deleterious to the flora within and around agricultural fields (Egan and Mortensen, 2012; Gaba
et al., 2016), with knock-on effects on biodiversity at higher trophic levels, for example insects
and birds. One problem associated with pesticide
use is the synergistic toxic effect that some molecules have when applied in mixtures. Most active
ingredients are tested before they are released
onto the market. However, the tests are done on
the pure product in its commercial formulation
(Brodeur et al., 2014). Most farmers, however, use
such products in mixtures (e.g. a herbicide plus an
insecticide in the same water suspension), and evidence obtained using biological indicators shows
that some of the most common mixtures increase
the toxicity of all active ingredients (ibid.). It is
also important to note that the toxicity of active
ingredients has increased over time, reducing the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
101
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
dosage needed to have an impact (Letourneau,
Fitzsimmons and Nieto, 2017).
A number of factors are driving increased use
of pesticides and herbicides in some areas. For
example, introduction of glyphosate-resistant
genetically modified crop cultivars in North and
South America and the Pacific led to greater use
of glyphosate, leading in turn to the emergence
of glyphosate-resistant weeds that resulted in the
application of ever higher doses of this herbicide
(Benbrook, 2012; Mortensen et al., 2012), with
possible consequences for certain soil organisms
(Van Bruggen et al., 2018; Gaupp-Berghausen et
al., 2015). Pest pressures that trigger high doses of
pesticide use appear to be increasing as a result of
climate change (Cannon, 1998; Cilas et al., 2016;
Taylor et al., 2018).
The increasing contamination of freshwater
systems with pathogens and chemical pollutants,
including nutrients, is a major global threat to
aquatic biodiversity (Dudgeon, 2012; Okano et
al., 2018). The most significant problem affecting
water quality globally is eutrophication caused by
nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from agricultural
land, flows of domestic sewage and industrial
effluents, and atmospheric inputs from fossil-fuel
combustion and forest fires (FAO and IWMI, 2018;
Russi et al., 2013; UN Environment, 2016a). Lakes
throughout the world are affected by eutrophication, and those in some regions (Scandinavia,
northeastern United States of America/eastern
Canada and China) are affected by acidification
(Gleick, Singh and Shi., 2001). Lakes and reservoirs
are particularly susceptible to the effects of pollution, as the water that flows into them carrying
sediments, dissolved nutrients and other pollutants
normally remains standing for some time, leading
to problems such as algal blooms, other species
invasions and hypoxia (Speed et al., 2016). An issue
that has recently been receiving increasing attention is nitrate accumulation in the vadose zone
(i.e. the part of the Earth’s crust situated above the
aquifers) in areas where highly intensive agriculture is practised. Ascott et al. (2017) describe this
as a latent “nitrate bomb” that could cause major
damage to aquatic biodiversity if released.
102
It has been estimated that more than 80 percent
of wastewater globally is released into the environment without adequate treatment (WWAP,
2017). Aquatic pollution is exacerbated when
ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and wetlands that provide water purification services are
destroyed or degraded and when rivers lose their
ability to self-purify due to changes in the biota
that perform this function (Ostroumov, 2005;
WWAP and UN-Water, 2018). Problems are also
caused by the operation of dams, which results in
the discharge of water with low oxygen levels into
downstream areas (WWF, 2004). Another concern
is the passage of personal-care products and
pharmaceuticals into the aquatic environment
via domestic sewage. Some of these pollutants
contain microplastics (UN Environment, 2016b)
and some are believed to mimic natural hormones
in humans and other species (UN Environment,
2008; Vilela, Bassin and Peixoto, 2018).
Seawater quality and marine and coastal biodiversity all around the world are also seriously
affected by pollution (FAO, 2011a). The problem
is becoming increasingly widespread near heavily
populated regions of Latin America and Southeast
Asia, threatening marine food sources and the
economic activities of coastal communities (UN
Environment, 2008, 2016c). So-called “dead zones”
caused by excess nitrogen undermine fish production and other ecosystem services (Halpern et
al., 2009).28 Coastal pollution is one of the many
threats facing coral reefs (see also Section 4.5.4).
For example, the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of
Australia is seriously affected by nutrient and pesticide runoff from sugar-cane farming and other
types of agriculture (Queensland Government,
2017; Schaffelke et al., 2017).
An emerging threat to marine wildlife is increasing pollution by microplastics. Microplastics (plastic
particles of less than 5 mm in diameter) are classified
into two groups. Primary microplastics are plastics
28
Such effects (and those noted above for freshwater and
terrestrial systems) are among those that led Rockström et
al. (2009) to conclude that the Earth may have crossed the
so-called planetary boundary (i.e. the upper tolerable limit) for
the disruption of its nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 3.14
Reported effects of pollution and external input use on the provision of regulating and supporting
ecosystem services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of pollution and external inputs on ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
-
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock landless systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naturally regenerated forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Planted forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Culture-based fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10–17
Fed aquaculture
+/-
-
-
-
-
+/-
-
-
-
18–25
Non-fed aquaculture
+/-
-
-
-
-
+/-
+/-
-
-
26–33
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34–43
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rainfed crop systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
directly released into the environment in the form
of particulates smaller than 5 mm, while secondary microplastics originate from the degradation
of larger plastic items once exposed to the marine
environment (Boucher and Friot, 2017). The global
release of primary microplastics into the ocean is
estimated at around 1.5 million tonnes per year
(ibid.). Given the large amount of plastic entering
the ocean, it is assumed that secondary microplastics are far more prevalent, but because fragmentation rates of plastics are largely unknown, there
are no estimates available for the amount of sec-
ondary microplastic present (Duis and Coors, 2016;
Koelmans et al., 2014; Sundt, Schulze and Syversen,
2014). Ingestion of microplastics by aquatic fauna
(fish, turtles, birds) has been shown to inhibit
hatching, decrease growth rates and alter feeding
patterns (Lönnstedt and Eklöv, 2016).
Information from the country reports on how
pollution and external input use are driving changes
in the supply of ecosystem services in specific
production systems is summarized in Table 3.14.
Perhaps not surprisingly given the connotations of the word “pollution”, negative impacts
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
103
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
are far more frequently reported than positive
ones. Where positive impacts are reported and
explanations provided, they normally relate to
the benefits of using additional external inputs in
systems where use is currently very low. Countries
highlight a range of different effects. In the case
of grassland systems for example, some European
countries note that the overuse of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers is directly affecting species
diversity. The report from the Netherlands, for
instance, cites a study (Melman and Van der Heide,
2011) that found that the number of grass and herb
species in unfertilized grasslands with relatively
poor soils is between 20 and 30, while in fertilized
grassland the number of species is between 5 and
15. The report further notes (citing LEI, 2015) that
although average grassland fertilization rates in the
Netherlands have declined, they still remain high.
Among examples from the crop sector, China mentions the problem of so-called “white pollution”,
i.e. pollution of the soil with plastic films used for
mulching, and the negative effects of excess herbicide use on the native flora surrounding agricultural fields. Egypt notes that the excessive use of
fertilizers and pesticides has led to the decline of
important components of agricultural biodiversity
such as owls, kites and various pollinators.
Where aquatic ecosystems are concerned,
many countries report that pollutants originating
from crop and livestock production are negatively
affecting biodiversity. For example, Spain reports
that pollution from agricultural runoff has affected
the composition and abundance of aquatic microorganism communities and other components of
aquatic biodiversity. It also notes that this pollution
may alter the physical and chemical composition of
the marine bed, influencing, in turn, the biological composition and structure of benthic communities. Argentina mentions that agricultural runoff
seems to be the most significant source of pollution in aquatic ecosystems, noting in particular that
soybean production is affecting wetland biodiversity in surrounding areas and is leading, inter alia,
to changes in the population sizes of various aquatic
organisms, changes in the physiology and behaviour
of fish and amphibians, eutrophication of water
104
bodies and changes in the structure of riparian
communities. The country reports provide little specific information on pollution problems associated
with aquaculture. However, Viet Nam reports that
intensive aquaculture, in particular catfish farming
in the Mekong Delta, has significantly contributed
to eutrophication in surrounding waters.
Several countries note the impacts of pollutants from mining and other industries on aquatic
ecosystems. For example, Zambia mentions that
effluents from the mines of its Copperbelt and
Northwestern provinces negatively affect the
diversity of dragonflies and other benthic invertebrates in major river systems as a result of
elevated levels of redox, electrical conductivity
and turbidity.29 Zimbabwe mentions that more
than a million people are illegally panning for
gold along its rivers and that this is resulting in
the clearance of trees and digging in river beds,
which in turn cause soil erosion and landslides
that lead to the siltation of water bodies and
destruction of aquatic biodiversity. It further
notes that there has been an increase in the use
of mercury, iron and cyanide to process ore and
that this has polluted watercourses and affected
the livelihood sources of local people. Mexico
mentions that oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico
have caused tremendous damage to marine and
coastal ecosystems, biodiversity and economic
activities such as fishing and aquaculture.
3.6.3 Overexploitation and
overharvesting
Overexploitation and overharvesting are serious
threats to the world’s biodiversity in general
(Maxwell et al., 2016) and to BFA specifically.
As well as affecting target populations directly
through removal, overharvesting can affect them
indirectly by modifying their habitats. It can also
adversely affect non-targeted components of BFA
in the surrounding ecosystem. For example, overharvesting of woody species for fuel or timber can
lead to major changes in the local environment,
including in its microclimate and hydrology,
29
The report cites Chama and Siachoono (2015).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
nutrient-cycling processes and capacity to provide
habitat services. Overharvesting of wild species
of plants or animals can lead to misbalances
in trophic networks that affect the survival of
non-target species (e.g. Baum and Worm, 2009).
A range of factors can lead to the overharvesting of wild foods. For example, 16 of the world’s 36
biodiversity hotspots are in areas where the human
population suffers from malnutrition and hunger
(Treweek, Brown and Bubb, 2006), which clearly has
the potential to place pressure on wild biodiversity
used as a source of food. Overharvesting can also
be triggered by the commercialization of species
that have previously been used exclusively for local
subsistence (Kala, 2009). Overharvesting for medicinal purposes can be another threat (Schippmann,
Leaman and Cunningham, 2002).
Where aquatic ecosystems are concerned, overharvesting of fish and other species is a threat both
to biodiversity and to the long-term sustainability
of fisheries (Speed et al., 2016). According to FAO
(2018a), 33.1 percent of marine fish stocks are
classified as overfished. The bluefin tuna of the
Northern Pacific Ocean provides an emblematic
example. By 2016, overfishing had led to a fall of
about 97 percent in its population relative to estimated unfished levels; a large majority of the catch
were young fish that had not yet reached reproductive age (ISC, 2018). According to WWF (2015),
more than 85 percent of fish stocks in the world’s
oceans are at significant risk of “illegal, unreported
and unregulated” fishing. Changes in fishing activities by international fleets are exerting particular
pressure in the waters of some developing countries through, inter alia, the use of “flags of convenience” (Ferrel, 2005; Miller and Sumaila, 2014).
Overgrazing is a particular form of overharvesting in which the harvest is extracted via (mostly)
domesticated herbivores. Impacts include loss of
soil cover and consequent increases in the soil's
susceptibility to erosion and declines in its capacity
to capture and retain water, cycle nutrients, etc. As
noted above, grazing can also contribute to the
spread of woody vegetation, leading to the loss
of grassland biodiversity (including forage species
used by livestock) and potentially to a complete
transformation of the vegetation structure and
ecology of the affected area (Archer et al., 2017).
Mechanisms involved include reduced competition from grasses as a result of selective grazing,
reduced frequency of fires as a result of removal
of fine fuel, and seed dispersal by livestock (ibid.).
Overgrazed wetland soils that have lost their permanent surface cover often become salinized and
accumulate surface salt, especially in dry regions
(e.g. Di Bella et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2015).
The effects of livestock grazing on grassland biodiversity and associated ecosystem services depend
greatly on the type of grassland involved (vegetation structure, climatic and hydrological regimes,
soil type and geomorphology) and are also affected
by the types of animals stocked and how grazing
is managed (Briske, ed., 2017). In some grassland
production systems, vegetation is more influenced
by environmental variables such as rainfall patterns
than by livestock (ibid.), and in various circumstances well-managed grazing can be a means of
promoting biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services (FAO, 2016f). However, it is also clear
that in many locations excessive or badly managed
grazing is an important driver of soil erosion and
biodiversity loss (e.g. FAO, 2016f; Kairis et al., 2015;
Palmer and Bennett, 2013).
Information from the country reports on the
effects of overharvesting and overexploitation on
the supply of ecosystem services is summarized
in Table 3.15. Given that this driver by definition
gives rise to adverse effects at least on the targeted species, it is not surprising that that negative effects on ecosystem services are far more
frequently reported than positive effects.
Overgrazing is mentioned as a problem by
countries from most regions. For example, Spain
mentions that stocking rates on its rangelands are
higher or lower than those appropriate for local
conditions, especially in the Mediterranean region,
and that this is leading to land degradation in
several locations. This effect (in combination with
a reduction in the spatial frequency of hedgerows −
often as a result of land consolidation) is reported
to be disrupting habitats and leading to the loss of
ecosystem services such as biological pest control
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
105
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 3.15
Reported effects of overexploitation and overharvesting on the provision of regulating and
supporting ecosystem services, by production system
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Pest and disease
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Natural-hazard
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Effects of overexploitation and overharvesting on ecosystem services
Livestock grassland-based systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock landless systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naturally regenerated forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Planted forests
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Culture-based fisheries
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12–18
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19–25
Non-fed aquaculture
-
+/-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
26–32
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33–40
Irrigated crop systems (other)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rainfed crop systems
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed systems
-
+/-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fed aquaculture
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
and control of water runoff. Finland mentions
that overgrazing by reindeer is negatively affecting the quality and abundance of lichen pastures.
Stocking pressure is reported to have increased as
a result of the introduction of fences and supplementary winter feeding, which allows larger herds
of reindeer to be kept than could be sustained by
the pastures alone. Sri Lanka mentions that overgrazing by buffalo and cattle in protected areas
has had negative consequences for biodiversity
and the supply of ecosystem services. The United
Arab Emirates reports that overgrazing is one of
106
the most serious threats to its desert environment.
It notes that in the past nomadic pastoralists kept
small herds and moved them from one place to
another according to the availability of water and
natural vegetation, which provided the main source
of feed for the animals. Today, in contrast, herds
are reportedly large, managed under sedentary
systems within relatively small areas, supplied with
water and fed on imported feed. The resulting
overgrazing, which has been exacerbated in recent
years by scarcity of rainfall, has led to erosion and
the removal of natural vegetation, including a
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
significant decline in some palatable plant species
such as arfaj (Rhanterium epapposum) and sometimes their replacement by poisonous plants such as
Calotropis procera and Rhazya stricta.
Impacts of the overharvesting of wild foods and
forest products of various kinds are also widely
reported. For example, Nepal reports overharvesting and overexploitation of some wild foods
(e.g. mushrooms, ferns and bamboo shoots), medicinal plants and various other forest products, but
notes that a lack of relevant studies has prevented
assessment of the specific effects these practices
have had on ecosystem services. In most cases, the
impacts reported by countries are on the supply
of the harvested resources themselves rather
than on the wider supply of ecosystem services.
Mali reports that the removal of wood for charcoal production empties forests and savannahs of
resources. Some species − kantakara (Combretum
glutinosum), African rosewood (Pterocarpus
erinaceus), small-leaved bloodwood (P. lucens)
and the gum arabic tree (Acacia nilotica) − are
reported to be particularly endangered because
of the calorific value of their wood. Others such as
guelé (Prosopis africana) and siri (Burkea africana)
are intensively sought after as their charcoal is
popular in local crafts.
Most European countries do not indicate that
wild foods are being affected by overharvesting.
Many reports from this region note that legislation has been put in place to protect potentially
threatened resources. In some cases, however,
commercial collection of wild food resources
results in overexploitation and/or otherwise damaging the local environment. This is reported to be
the case, for example, with wild herbs in Slovenia
and locally with wild berries in Finland.
Some countries note that socio-economic factors
can influence exploitation rates. For instance,
Croatia mentions that unemployment increases
threats to wild mushroom species, as people
gather them to supplement their incomes. Jordan
reports that poverty drives the overexploitation of
wild fauna and wild edible plants and mushrooms.
Overfishing is highlighted by countries from
all regions as a threat to freshwater and marine
ecosystems and their biodiversity. Again, countries mainly note impacts on the supply of food
rather than on any other ecosystem services. For
example, Solomon Islands mentions that overexploitation for both subsistence and commercial
purposes has resulted in the depletion of several
important species, including greensnails, blacklip
and goldlip shells, coconut crabs, giant clams and
sandfish (sea cucumber). Some countries specifically
note the impact of damaging fishing practices. For
example, Sudan reports that some fish populations are decreasing as a consequence of the use
of destructive fishing gear, the violation of closed
fishing periods and illegal trawling. Viet Nam
mentions that destructive fishing methods such as
fishing with poison and creating electric shocks to
stun and kill fish are widely used in both coastal
and inland waters. Use of poison is reported to be
severely threatening over 80 percent of the country’s coral reefs.
Lack of regulation is noted as an exacerbating
factor in some reports. For example, in addition to
the above-noted problems, Solomon Islands mentions that companies engaged in coral exports are
not monitored or supervised by any authority and
that this is leading to the decline of reef ecosystems.
3.7 Policies
• Policies directly addressing the management of
biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA), and
particularly those that restrict unsustainable practices,
are considered by many countries to have positive
effects on diversity and the supply of ecosystem
services. However, negative impacts are also reported,
for example in the case of policies favouring
inappropriate mining, dam or reservoir construction
or road building.
• The impacts of policies considered favourable to BFA
or to the supply of ecosystem services have often not
been adequately assessed.
• Policies intended to promote the sustainable
management of BFA are often weakly implemented as
a consequence of shortages of resources, inadequate
stakeholder involvement and conflicts of interest.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
107
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
BFA can be affected both by policies that are specifically intended to promote its sustainable use
and conservation and by the impacts of other
policies. The former include policies that restrict
unsustainable practices such as inappropriate use
of fertilizers and pesticides, establish protected
areas or limit the harvesting of wild species so
as to prevent their overexploitation. Many policies of this kind have been put in place at both
national and international levels (see Chapter 1
for an overview of global policy agendas and
Chapter 8 for further discussion of BFA-related
policies in general). However, it is often difficult
to determine the extent to which such measures
are being implemented and what influence they
are having on the status of BFA. Policies that have
indirect effects on BFA and ecosystem services are
very diverse in nature and can include those influencing any of the drivers discussed in this chapter.
Many of these policies have had a significant
negative effect on BFA. Examples include those
that support agricultural intensification, favour
industrial development, mining or development
of infrastructure such as roads, reservoirs or largescale dams in areas where there are high levels
of BFA (e.g. IAASTD, 2009; Laurance, Sayer and
Cassman, 2014; World Bank, 2008).
Information provided by countries on the
effects of policies on the supply of ecosystem
services is summarized in Table 3.16. Positive
effects on ecosystem services are more frequently reported than negative effects for most
production systems and types of ecosystem
service. Countries that provide details of positive
outcomes include, for example, Estonia, which
reports that policy measures aimed at protecting
soils and the environment have benefited soil formation and protection services, and Argentina,
which mentions that its export-tax policies on
soybean and export quotas for wheat and beef
have indirectly contributed to the diversification
of agricultural systems as a result of economic
decisions taken by individual farmers. Several
countries mention fisheries policies that have had
positive impacts on biodiversity. For example, the
Netherlands reports that restrictions (catch limits,
108
limits on the number of days when species can be
caught, regulation of fishing practices and establishment of marine protected areas) imposed by
policies at European Union and national levels
have meant that fishing practices in the North Sea
have become more sustainable. It notes that mortality rates imposed by fishing have decreased by
about 35 percent since 2000 and that spawningstock biomass is starting to recover.30
Some countries note that despite major policy
initiatives their BFA remains under threat. For
example, Finland reports that European Union
policies that aim to promote the utilization of ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling and biological control to replace external inputs in food
and agricultural production have so far only been
implemented to a limited extent and notes that
the overall impact of policy may have remained
negative as a result of a focus on the economic
performance of individual farms rather than on
overall sustainability. Several European Union
member countries note that such measures are
increasingly difficult for farmers to comply with.
This is often ascribed to the high costs associated
with land and labour resources, and in some cases
to the low prices farmers receive for their produce,
which forces them to intensify production per unit
area using the cheapest available means, even if
they are not sustainable. Another issue raised in
some country reports is a lack of adequate assessment of the impact of policies on BFA and the
supply of ecosystem services. For example, Finland
reports that over recent decades legislative and
voluntary measures have alleviated pressures on
natural resources caused by threats such as overgrazing and the overexploitation of forests, for
example by promoting the establishment of riparian buffer zones and the protection of key habitats. It notes, however, that the effectiveness of
such measures in terms of improving the supply of
ecosystem services remains unconfirmed. Several
countries provide examples of policies and legal
instruments that support the maintenance of
traditional knowledge (see Section 8.8.4).
30
The report cites ICES (2013).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 3.16
Reported effects of policies on the provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services,
by production system
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
+
+
+
+
+/-
+
+
+
+
+
+
Water cycling
+/-
+
Soil formation and
protection
+
+
Nutrient cycling
Natural-hazard
regulation
+
+
Livestock grassland-based systems
Pest and disease
regulation
+/-
Livestock landless systems
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
Water purification
and waste treatment
Effects of policies on ecosystem services
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any effect of the
driver (%)
Naturally regenerated forests
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Planted forests
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Culture-based fisheries
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
10–17
Fed aquaculture
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
18–25
Non-fed aquaculture
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
26–33
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
34–43
Irrigated crop systems (other)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Rainfed crop systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Mixed systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Notes: Countries were invited to report the effects (positive, negative or “no effect”) of this driver on the provision of each ecosystem
service in each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service
indicate the same trend (positive [+], negative [-] or “no effect” [0]) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other
cases, mixed effects (+/-) are indicated. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective
system that report any effect of the driver (positive, negative or “no effect”) on the provision of the respective ecosystem service. See
Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of ecosystem services. Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
Countries reporting less positive outcomes
include Viet Nam, which notes that policies promoting the construction of dams, reservoirs, roads
and other infrastructure have caused the degradation and fragmentation of ecosystems, destroying
habitats and creating barriers to species migrations. These effects are reported to be leading
to long-term negative impacts on wildlife populations. Ecuador mentions, inter alia, its decision
to allow open-pit mining. Although the methods
to be deployed are termed low impact and environmentally friendly, it notes most of the sites
identified for mining operations are in highly bio-
diverse ecosystems and that the projects represent
a threat to biodiversity.
3.8 Drivers of women’s
involvement in the
management of biodiversity
for food and agriculture
As discussed in greater detail in Section 8.2,
women play vital roles in the management of
BFA. The country-reporting guidelines specifically
invited countries to report on drivers affecting the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
109
3
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
involvement of women in the maintenance and
use of BFA. Responses indicate that a number of
socio-economic and environmental changes are
transforming women’s roles in the management
of BFA and are to some extent altering traditional
divisions of labour between men and women. The
factors highlighted range from improved access
to education to increasing demand for products
typically produced by women. Responses do not
always include explicit indications of how such
changes are affecting BFA, i.e. whether they have
impact in terms of promoting or constraining the
sustainable use of these resources. The focus is also
mainly on changes at production-system level, such
as increases or decreases in women’s participation
in particular aspects of management (as opposed
to, for example, changes in levels of involvement
in policy-making, research, etc.).
Several countries mention that alternative livelihood opportunities for women are reducing
their roles as managers of BFA. Bangladesh, for
example, reports that such changes have led to a
decline in women’s participation in poultry breeding. On the other hand, several countries report
that changing economic conditions have provided
women with new opportunities to market the
products they have traditionally been involved
in supplying, including both wild foods (e.g.
reported by Cameroon and Sri Lanka) and crop
and livestock products (e.g. reported by Eswatini).
In some cases, women’s participation in specific activities has been promoted by the weakening of sociocultural barriers defining gender
roles. For example, Grenada notes that women’s
greater self-reliance and independence has led
to more direct involvement in farming, with
some activities now dominated by women. For
example, over 90 percent of the country’s flower
growers are reported to be women. Similarly,
Eswatini reports that better access to markets
from which they were traditionally excluded has
led to increased participation of women in cattle
production, a traditionally male-dominated sector.
Several countries highlight women’s increasing
access to education, either as a factor facilitating
their participation in the management of BFA or
110
as a factor facilitating transition out of food and
agriculture-related livelihood activities.
Several countries also acknowledge that
women’s participation in BFA management is
constrained by a lack of access to external inputs
and productive resources. Some note the significance of increasing levels of poverty. For example,
Jordan and Zambia note that this factor has led
to higher numbers of women participating in
wild-food collection. Some mention the effects of
the so-called feminization of agriculture resulting from the outmigration of men from rural
areas because of poverty and lack of job opportunities. China, for example, notes that women
have increasingly been taking responsibility for
decision-making in agriculture. It mentions that
increasing workloads may have pushed women
towards more rapid adoption of unsustainable
and biodiversity-eroding practices, including the
adoption of crop varieties that require the use of
large amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Women’s lack of education in sustainable
agricultural practices is reported to be an exacerbating factor. Nepal notes that labour shortages, combined with flows of remittances and
the increasing availability of cheap alternative
products on local markets, have contributed to
the abandonment of local crops. High levels of
widowhood are another factor noted by some
countries. Eswatini, for example, reports that the
HIV/AIDS pandemic has on the one hand meant
that many women have lost their husbands and
are taking the lead in farm-management decisions
and on the other that women’s roles as primary
care givers limits the amount of time they have
available for agriculture.
Agricultural “modernization” is reported to be
affecting women’s roles in some countries. For
example, Guyana notes that mechanization has
led to displacement of women from the rice industry, where they used to be responsible for land
preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting and
processing. Bangladesh notes that the spread of
commercial orchard plantations growing crops
such as bananas in hilly areas has swept away local
plants that women relied on to diversify their diets.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
DRI V ER S O F CHA NGE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
A number of countries note that environmental
drivers such as climate change and land degradation are compromising women’s involvement in the
use and management of BFA. Several highlight the
particular vulnerability of women to the impacts of
climate change on agriculture and local ecosystems.
Jordan, for instance, reports that climate change is
likely to reduce the availability of wild foods and
add to the burden on women from traditional communities, who are responsible for collecting wild
foods and in future will probably have to walk
longer distances to find them. Some countries note
women’s vulnerability to natural disasters such as
droughts and hurricanes. Various unsustainable
management practices and changes in land and
water use are reported to be threatening women’s
livelihoods via their impacts on common-property
resources such as fuelwood, fodder and wild foods,
resources upon which women are often disproportionately dependent. Examples include land
conversion (Zambia), overfishing (Jamaica, Nepal),
deforestation and soil erosion (Jamaica), overgrazing (Yemen) and disturbance of food webs as a consequence of infrastructure development (Nepal).
3.9 Drivers of traditional
knowledge of biodiversity for
food and agriculture
Countries were invited to provide information on
the most significant drivers affecting the maintenance and use of traditional knowledge relating to
BFA. The majority of drivers reported to be having
a negative effect on the maintenance of traditional
knowledge are connected to declining use of such
knowledge and therefore declining transmission
to the next generation. Many countries report that
traditional knowledge is vanishing along with the
older generation, with younger people not interested in acquiring it. Drivers widely reported to
be affecting the use of traditional knowledge
include population growth, urbanization and the
loss of traditional rural lifestyles. Many countries
report that market-driven industrialization of
agriculture and food processing is contributing
to the disappearance of traditional knowledge
by driving the decline of traditional farming practices and indigenous varieties and breeds. Loss of
components of BFA as a result of overexploitation
and overharvesting is also widely reported to be
having a negative effect on the maintenance of
traditional knowledge related to these resources.
A few countries note that traditional knowledge
is perceived to be primitive, inferior and related
to poverty. Grenada, for example, states that
colonialism instilled a belief that foreign products
are superior to local ones and that this has led to
the replacement of traditional varieties and local
foods with imported ones. Advances and innovations in science and technology are reported to
have mainly negative effects on the maintenance
of traditional knowledge.
Dietary trends and changes in consumer
demands are reported to have both negative and
positive effects on the maintenance of traditional
knowledge. Some countries report that the availability of processed foods has reduced the use of
traditional foods. However, a number of European
countries note that an increased interest in traditional local foods in academia and among the
wider public is contributing to the maintenance
and use of traditional knowledge associated with
them. France, for example, notes that designatedorigin labels promote the continued use of traditional foods and the conservation of knowledge
associated with their production.
Several countries report that policies have a
positive effect on the maintenance and use of
traditional knowledge (see Chapter 8 for further
information on relevant policies and legal frameworks). Some countries mention that efforts to
record traditional knowledge in writing have
contributed to its continued use. Several report
initiatives and organizations that contribute
to the active maintenance of traditional practices through a variety of cultural activities (see
Chapter 8 for examples). A number of countries
also report that educational measures, such as
awareness raising in schools, universities, on television and online, have had a significant impact
on the use of traditional knowledge.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
111
3
Chapter 4
The status and trends of
biodiversity for food and
agriculture
Key messages
• Many key components of biodiversity for food and
agriculture (BFA) at genetic, species and ecosystem
levels are in decline.
• Evidence suggests that the proportion of animal
breeds at risk of extinction is increasing, and that –
for some species and in some areas – crop diversity
in farmers’ fields is decreasing and threats to
diversity are increasing. Nearly a third of fish stocks
are overfished and a third of freshwater fish species
assessed are classed as threatened.
• Countries report that many species that contribute
to vital ecosystem services, including pollinators,
natural enemies of pests, soil organisms, and wild
food species, are in decline as a consequence
of the destruction and degradation of habitats,
overexploitation, pollution and other threats.
• Forests, rangelands, mangroves, seagrasses, coral
reefs and wetlands in general – key ecosystems
that deliver many essential services to food
and agriculture, including supply of freshwater,
protection against storms, floods and other hazards,
carbon sequestration and provision of habitat for
countless species – are declining rapidly.
4.1 Introduction
Approaches to monitoring the status and trends
of biodiversity to food and agriculture (BFA) vary
across sectors and across categories of biodiversity,
depending, inter alia, on what data are considered
useful for management purposes, how difficult
such data are to collect, and the extent to which
• Assessment and monitoring of the status and trends
of BFA at national, regional and global levels are
uneven and often limited. While declining trends are
clear, lack of data often constrains the planning and
prioritization of effective remedial measures.
• Priorities for improving the monitoring of the status
and trends of BFA include:
– addressing the knowledge and data gaps that
exist across all categories of BFA;
– establishing or strengthening monitoring
programmes for BFA and providing these
programmes with the resources needed to
operate over the long term;
– improving methods for recording, storing and
analysing data on changes in the status of
species and habitats in and around production
systems, and making them accessible to those
that need them; and
– addressing skill gaps, such as shortages of trained
taxonomists, and exploring innovative options for
improving knowledge of status and trends, such
as involving non-specialist “citizen-scientists” in
monitoring some components of BFA.
the relevant resources and capacity are available.
A range of different aspects of diversity can potentially be monitored. For example, ecosystems can be
monitored based on their geographical extent, but
also on various measures of their quality. Species
and within-species groups, such as varieties and
breeds, can simply be counted (i.e. “richness” can
be monitored), but it is also possible to establish
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
113
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
extinction-risk categories to which species (or
within-species populations) can be assigned and
to monitor movements between categories. Risk
categorization, in turn, can be based on more or
less complicated methods, depending on the availability of data on population sizes, structures and
trends, geographical distributions, threats and
other factors. If population data are available, it is
also possible to calculate statistics based on the distribution of the individual organisms within a population across species (or breeds, varieties or other
categories) and to monitor how these change over
time. Aside from measures based on units such as
species, breeds or varieties, it is also possible simply
to count the number of individual organisms or
measure the amount of biomass within a particular
category of biodiversity (see for example Box 4.3).
This chapter presents an overview of the status
and trends of BFA category by category, beginning with short discussions of plant (crop), animal
(livestock), forest and aquatic genetic resources
(further details for each can be found in the
respective FAO global assessments – [FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a]). The next section
provides an overview of the status and trends of
associated biodiversity1 involved in the supply of
particular categories of regulating and supporting
ecosystem services. It also presents an overview of
trends in the supply of the services themselves. This
is followed by sections on the status and trends of
wild foods and a number of ecosystems reported
by countries to be of particular importance to food
and agriculture. Finally, key needs and priorities for
improving the state of knowledge on the status
and trends of BFA are presented.
4.2 Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
• While more than 6 000 plant species have been
cultivated for food, fewer than 200 make substantial
1
See Section 1.5 for further information on the various
categories of BFA.
114
contributions to global food output, with only nine
accounting for 66 percent of total crop production in
2014. Although it is not possible to make definitive
statements about global trends in the erosion of
on-farm crop diversity, evidence suggests that, overall,
the diversity present in farmers’ fields has declined
and that threats to diversity are getting stronger.
• The world’s livestock production is based on about 40
animal species, with only a handful providing the vast
majority of global output of meat, milk and eggs. As of
2018, 7 745 out of 8 803 reported livestock breeds are
classed as local (i.e. reported to occur in one country
only); 594 of these breeds are extinct. Among extant
local breeds, 26 percent are classed as being at risk of
extinction, 7 percent as not at risk and 67 percent as
being of unknown risk status.
• The number of trees species in the world is estimated
to be about 60 000. Globally, more than 700 species
are now included in tree-breeding programmes. There
is no systematic global monitoring system in place for
intraspecific diversity in tree species.
• Countries report the farming of 694 aquatic species
and other taxonomic groups. In 2016, global capture
fisheries harvested over 1 800 species of aquatic animal
and plants. Within these thousands of species there are
numerous genetically distinct stocks and phenotypes.
As of 2015, 33 percent of fish stocks were estimated to
be overfished, 60 percent to be maximally sustainably
fished and 7 percent to be underfished.
4.2.1 Plant genetic resources for food
and agriculture
Globally, there are approximately 382 000 species
of vascular plants (RBG Kew, 2017), out of which
a little over 6 000 have been cultivated for food
(IPK, 2017). Of these, as of 2014, fewer than
200 species had significant production levels
globally,2 with only nine (sugar cane, maize, rice,
wheat, potatoes, soybeans, oil-palm fruit, sugar
beet and cassava) accounting for over 66 percent
of all crop production by weight (FAO, 2017j).
The genetic diversity within crop species can be
broad. However, the precise extent of such diversity
2
This refers to the number of species for which production
statistics are recorded in FAOSTAT.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
is difficult to quantify. A widely applicable indicator for monitoring within-species diversity has
yet to be developed. Important dimensions of
concern are genetic erosion and genetic vulnerability at within-species level. Genetic erosion
within species has been defined as “the loss of
individual genes and the loss of particular combinations of genes (i.e. of gene complexes) such
as those manifested in locally adapted landraces”
(FAO, 1997). The term is sometimes used in a
narrow sense, i.e. referring to the loss of genes
or alleles, and sometimes in a broader sense, i.e.
referring to the loss of varieties. Genetic vulnerability has been defined as “the condition that
results when a widely planted crop is uniformly
susceptible to a pest, pathogen or environmental hazard as a result of its genetic constitution,
thereby creating a potential for widespread crop
losses” (FAO, 1997).
Indicators of genetic erosion would ideally
focus on changes in the frequency of alleles of
importance to crop production (and give them
more weight than less important ones), provide
a measure of the extent of potential loss (e.g. by
estimating the fraction of genetic diversity at risk
relative to the total diversity) and allow assessment of the likelihood of loss over a specific
time period in the absence of intervention (FAO,
2010a). Indicators for genetic vulnerability could
be based on a number of different populationlevel attributes, for example differences in levels
of resistance to, or tolerance of, actual and potential major pests and diseases or abiotic stresses
(ibid.). In the absence of data that can serve as
more accurate indicators of genetic vulnerability, a simple proxy is the extent to which single
varieties dominate over large areas of land. This
is based on the assumption that genetic vulnerability is higher when large areas are cropped with
one (or only a few) varieties.3
3
See, for example, Indicator 42 of the monitoring framework for
the Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture: “The least number of varieties that
together account for 80% of the total area for each of the five
most widely cultivated crops” (FAO, 2016m).
The evidence presented in the country reports4
prepared for The Second Report on the State of
the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (Second SoW-PGRFA) (FAO, 2010a)5
indicates that, overall, the diversity present in
farmers’ fields has declined and that threats to
diversity are increasing (although the situation
varies greatly depending on the country, location, type of production system, etc.). There is
considerable consensus that, overall, the shift
from traditional production systems utilizing
farmers’ varieties/landraces to “modern” production systems depending on officially released
varieties6 is leading to genetic erosion. Many
farmers’ varieties/landraces are reported to have
disappeared or to have become rarer. However,
the situation is complex. For example, it appears
that many farmers who plant modern varieties
also continue to maintain traditional varieties.
Studies of trends in genetic diversity within
released varieties also indicate a complex situation, with some reporting no reduction, or even
increases in diversity over time. Newly adopted
varieties can add genetic diversity to an agricultural system. However, in some cases they may
completely substitute the original ones. The
balance of diversity is therefore difficult to assess.
It is also difficult to make definitive statements
about trends in genetic vulnerability. However,
more than half the country reports prepared for
the Second SoW-PGRFA indicate the presence of
significant genetic vulnerability.
The diversity of crop wild relatives has decreased
in some areas and appears to be particularly threatened in places where the climatic conditions are
changing but species migration is prevented by
ecogeographical barriers.
4
5
6
Note that elsewhere in this chapter, unless indicated otherwise,
the term “country reports” refers to the country reports
submitted as contributions to The State of the World’s
Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. See “About this
publication” for additional information.
Unless otherwise indicated, the material presented in this
subsection is based on this report.
In other words, varieties developed and made available by
breeding programmes.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
115
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
4.2.2 Animal genetic resources for
food and agriculture
The number of animal species domesticated for
use in food and agriculture is relatively small. The
Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources,
hosted by FAO, records data on 38 species.7 At
global level, the status and trends of animal
genetic resources for food and agriculture are
assessed largely on the basis of summary statistics on breed risk status, i.e. the proportions of
the world’s breeds that are categorized as being
at risk, not at risk, extinct or of unknown risk
status according to the classification system used
by FAO.8 Since 1993, FAO has published global
data of this kind in a number of reports, the most
recent being Status and trends of animal genetic
resources – 2018 (FAO, 2018g).9 The approach has
some limitations in that it treats all breeds equally
regardless of their significance to the overall
diversity of the species (or significance in terms of
other possible conservation criteria). It also only
registers changes when breeds move from one
risk-status category to another. Lack of regularly
updated data on the size and structure of breed
populations is a major practical constraint to the
monitoring of risk status in many countries, particularly in the developing regions of the world.10
Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 2.5.2
is “Proportion of local breeds classified as being
at risk, not-at-risk or at unknown level of risk of
7
8
9
10
Some of these are in fact groups of species (e.g. deer) or fertile
interspecies crosses (e.g. dromedary × Bactrian camel crosses).
Breeds are assigned to risk categories on the basis of the size,
structure and trends of their populations. Data are drawn
from the Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources, the
backbone of FAO’s Domestic Animal Diversity Information
System (DAD-IS). Countries are responsible for entering data on
their breed populations into the system.
Unless otherwise indicated the data presented in this
subsection are taken from this report.
In 2013, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture adopted the following indicators for the diversity
of animal genetic resources: the number of locally adapted
breeds; the proportion of the total population accounted for by
locally adapted and exotic breeds; and the number of breeds
classified as at risk, not at risk and unknown. The indicators
have not (as of 2018) been fully put into operation because the
necessary classification of breeds as locally adapted or exotic
has not been completed.
116
extinction.” As of March 2018, 7 745 breeds out
of the 8 803 breeds recorded by FAO were classed
as local breeds (i.e. reported present in only one
country). A total of 594 local breeds were extinct.
Among extant local breeds, 26 percent were classified as being at risk of extinction, 7 percent as
not at risk and 67 percent as being of unknown11
risk status. A comparison of data from 2006 and
2014 shows a slight decrease (29 to 26 percent) in
the proportion of local breeds classified as being
at risk of extinction.12 However, the apparent
trend needs to be interpreted with caution given
the above-mentioned limitations in the state of
reporting. Over the same period, the proportion
of local breeds with unknown status increased
from 62 percent to 67 percent. If all breeds are
considered, regardless of whether or not they are
classed as local, 59 percent are classed as being
of unknown risk status, 10 percent as not at risk,
24 percent as at risk and 7 percent as extinct.
Among the extant species regarded as having
been the wild ancestors of major livestock
species, the most seriously at risk according to The
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM (The IUCN Red
List)13 are the African wild ass (Equus africanus)
and the wild Bactrian camel (Camelus ferus), both
of which are classified as Critically Endangered.
The wild water buffalo (Bubalus arnee) and
the banteng (Bos javanicus) are classified as
Endangered. The Indian bison (Bos gaurus), wild
yak (Bos mutus), mouflon (Ovis orientalis), wild
goat (Capra aegagrus) and swan goose (Anser cygnoides) are classified as Vulnerable. The European
rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is classified as Near
Threatened.14 Overall, it appears that a higher
proportion of livestock wild relative species are
threatened with extinction than mammalian and
11
12
13
14
Breeds are considered to be of unknown risk status if no
population data have been reported to FAO during the
preceding ten years.
Both sets of figures were calculated on the basis of the data
recorded in DAD-IS as of March 2018.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-1.
This refers to the status of the wild rabbit in its natural range.
Outside its natural range, the species is widespread and often
considered a pest.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
bird species in general. As of 2010, 25 percent of
species in order Galliformes (chicken relatives),
83 percent of species in tribe Bovini (cattle relatives), 44 percent of species in subfamily Caprinae
(sheep and goat relatives) and 50 percent of
species in family Suidae (pig relatives) were classified as threatened (McGowan, 2010).
4.2.3 Forest genetic resources
The total number of extant tree species in the
world remains uncertain. However, it is estimated
to be about 60 000 (Beech et al., 2017). The country
reports submitted for The State of the World’s
Forest Genetic Resources (SoW-FGR) list nearly
8 000 species of trees, scrubs, palms and bamboo,
of which about 2 400 are actively managed for the
products and/or services they supply (FAO, 2014a).
Globally, more than 700 species are now included
in tree-breeding programmes.
The status and trends of forest genetic resources
are monitored at ecosystem, species and intraspecific levels. However, these efforts are hampered by many methodological and other constraints. Most countries face difficulties in assessing their primary forest area. Forest degradation,
forest restoration and species composition are also
difficult to monitor precisely. Monitoring of the
risk status of tree species is currently not comprehensive globally, although a number of countries
are able to monitor the status of all their tree
species. The Global Tree Assessment,15 an initiative
led by Botanic Gardens Conservation International
and the IUCN/Species Survival Commission Global
Tree Specialist Group, aims to provide conservation assessments for all the world’s tree species by
2020 (Newton et al., 2015a).
Globally, forest genetic resources are being
threatened and eroded by conversion of forests
to agriculture, unsustainable harvesting of trees
for wood and non-wood products, grazing and
browsing, climate change, forest fires and invasive species (FAO, 2014a). In many parts of the
world, vast areas of land once covered by forests
have been converted to other land uses, with
15
https://www.bgci.org/plant-conservation/globaltreeassessment/
much of this change having occurred during the
twentieth century. Forests still cover 30.6 percent
of the world’s land area and, while global forest
area, and – while global forest area continues to
shrink – the rate of annual net loss of forests has
decreased significantly over recent decades (FAO,
2016g) (see Section 4.5.5 for further information).
There is no systematic global monitoring system
in place for intraspecific diversity in tree species.
The SoW-FGR provides an overview of the state
of knowledge in this regard. Schemes for genetic
monitoring of forest trees have been proposed at
global (Namkoong et al., 1996, 2002) and regional
levels (e.g. Aravanopoulos et al., 2015). However,
they have not yet been implemented, and only
a very few countries have tested such schemes
in practice (e.g. Konnert et al., 2011). Loss of
intraspecific diversity in economically important
tree species has been a major concern in forest
management for decades. Forest management
practices can have genetic impacts on tree populations. However, they need to be assessed on
a case-by-case basis. The extent of the impact
depends on the management system and the
stand structure, as well as on the demography,
biological characteristics and ecology of the
species (Wickneswari et al., 2014). In temperate
forests, for example, silvicultural interventions,
such as the thinning of stands, usually have limited
genetic consequences (Lefèvre, 2004), and many
silvicultural systems maintain genetic diversity in
tree populations rather well (Geburek and Müller,
2005). However, if forest management practices
change evolutionary processes within tree populations, this can have a more profound impact on
the genetic diversity of subsequent generations of
trees (Lefèvre et al., 2014).
4.2.4 Aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
Globally, there are more than 31 000 species
of finfish, 52 000 species of aquatic molluscs,
64 000 species of aquatic crustaceans and
14 000 species of aquatic plants (Balian et al., 2007;
Chambers et al., 2008; Lévêque et al., 2008; WoRMS,
2018). In 2016, global capture fisheries harvested
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
117
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
over 1 800 species, including finfish, crustaceans,
molluscs, echinoderms, coelenterates and aquatic
plants (FAO, forthcoming). Within these thousands
of species there are numerous genetically distinct
stocks and phenotypes.
Fisheries and aquaculture data submitted to
FAO by its member countries provide valuable
information on various aspects of aquatic BFA.
However, information is not always reported at
the species level. This is especially problematic for
inland fisheries, where over half of all production
is not designated by species (Bartley et al., 2015).
In the case of aquaculture, available data suggest
that more species are now being farmed than ever
before, especially as more marine fishes are being
bred in captivity (Duarte, Marbà and Holmer, 2007;
FAO, 2016h). Country reports prepared for The
State of the World’s Aquatic Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (FAO, forthcoming)
report the farming of 694 species and other taxonomic groups. As of 2016, FAO had recorded
data on about 598 species used in aquaculture:
369 finfish species (including hybrids); 104 mollusc
species; 64 crustacean species; 7 amphibian and
reptile species (excluding alligators, caimans or
crocodiles); 9 other aquatic invertebrate species;
and 40 species of aquatic algae (FAO, 2018a).
The level of monitoring of species and populations harvested in marine and inland fisheries and
raised in aquaculture varies substantially across
these subsectors and across the world. Monitoring
of diversity at intraspecies level is relatively undeveloped in the aquatic sector as compared to the terrestrial livestock and crop sectors (FAO, forthcoming).
The state of the world’s marine fisheries is
assessed by FAO through the analysis of over
400 stocks of fish. Species targeted by marine fisheries are classified according to whether they are
overfished (fished at biologically unsustainable
levels), maximally sustainably fished (fished at biologically sustainable levels) or underfished. As of
2015, 33.1 percent of fish stocks were estimated to
be overfished, 59.9 percent to be maximally sustainably fished and 7.0 percent to be underfished
(FAO, 2018a). The share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels (maximally sustainably
118
fished or underfished) declined from 90 percent in
1974 to 66.9 percent in 2015 (ibid.). FAO does not
provide an equivalent analysis for inland fisheries.
The state of inland capture-fishery resources is
more difficult to monitor for a number of reasons,
including the diffuse character of the sector, the
large number of people involved, the seasonal
and subsistence nature of many small-scale inland
fisheries, the fact that much of the catch is consumed locally or traded informally, and the fact
that populations can be greatly affected by activities other than fishing, including stocking from
aquaculture and diversion of water for other uses
such as agriculture and hydroelectric development
(FAO, 2012b). While there is no dedicated FAO programme addressing the state of inland fisheries,
the Thirty-second Session of the FAO Committee
on Fisheries recommended “the development of
an effective methodology to monitor and assess
the status of inland fisheries, to underpin their
value, to give them appropriate recognition and
to support their management … [and] requested
that FAO develop this assessment methodology,
including broader ecosystem considerations that
impact inland fisheries” (FAO, 2016h).
Top-level carnivores are reported to have
declined in many marine and inland fisheries
(Pauly et al., 1998). This is referred to as “fishing
down the food web” and can indicate overfishing
(ibid.). In such cases, the productivity of a fishery
remains high, especially in inland waters, as lower
trophic-level species increase in abundance in the
absence of larger predators; however, the value of
the fish drops as the large, more-valuable species
disappear (Welcomme, 1999).
The status of many aquatic species is assessed
by conservation and trade organizations. The
IUCN Red List16 classifies over 1 300 marine species
(including plants, fish, molluscs, crustaceans and
other invertebrates) and over 5 200 wetland species
as Endangered, Threatened or Vulnerable.17 Among
freshwater fish (not the wider range of biodiversity
mentioned above), out of 5 785 species that had
16
17
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
been assessed for The IUCN Red List at the end of
2011, 60 were considered extinct, 8 Extinct, 8 Extinct
in the Wild and 1 679 (29.3 percent) threatened
(Carrizo, Smith and Darwall, 2013). If it is assumed
that the 1 062 species classified as data deficient are
threatened in the same proportion as species for
which data are available, the proportion of threatened species would amount to 36.1 percent of the
total (ibid.). However, not all the fish species assessed
by IUCN are used for food and agriculture. The
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)18 maintains
information on the status of aquatic species that
are traded internationally. Several species used in
fisheries and aquaculture (e.g. sturgeons, tunas and
sharks) are on the CITES Appendices.19
4.3 Associated biodiversity
• Across all production systems, over 450 species are
reported by countries to be managed to promote
the supply of ecosystem services supporting food
production and agriculture, with a vastly higher number
of unmanaged species also essential to these services.
• Components of BFA often provide or contribute to
multiple ecosystem services, and this needs to be built
on in their management and in the management of the
production systems where they are found.
• Many species of associated biodiversity are reported
by countries to be under threat from habitat alteration
and loss, overexploitation, pollution, pests, diseases
and invasive species, and agriculture intensification.
• Reports of bee-colony losses are on the rise; 16.5 percent
of vertebrate pollinator species are threatened with
global extinction (rising to 30 percent for island species).
Declines in wild-pollinator populations are reported by
several countries, with the major threats reported to
include habitat loss and fragmentation, use of pesticides,
decline in the diversity of landscapes and plant
communities, and climate change.
18
19
https://www.cites.org/eng
The CITES Appendices are lists of species afforded particular
types or levels of protection from overexploitation. For further
information, visit the relevant page of the CITES website
(https://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.php).
• Many countries report declines in the populations of
birds, bats and insects that contribute to pest and
disease regulation. Habitat loss and unsustainable
management practices in the food and agriculture
sector are noted as particular threats.
• Soil biodiversity is under threat in all regions of the world.
Many indicators point to declines in soil health, and
ecosystem services provided by soils are at severe risk.
• The provision of water-related ecosystem services,
hazard regulation, habitat provisioning, and air-quality
and climate-regulation services is closely tied to the
health and integrity of seagrass beds, mangroves,
coral reefs, wetlands, forests and rangelands, all of
which are in decline globally.
This section discusses the status and trends of components of associated biodiversity, i.e. the biodiversity present in and around production systems
that contributes to the supply of supporting and
regulating ecosystem services.20 While ecosystem
services generally rely on the healthy functioning
of whole ecosystems, some species play particularly significant roles in the supply of particular
services.21 Some of these species are specifically
managed for ecosystem services that support food
production and agriculture.
The first section below introduces the components of associated biodiversity reported by countries to be specifically managed to promote the
supply of ecosystem services. The second provides
an overview of the state of information systems
and monitoring programmes for associated
biodiversity. The third provides an overview of
countries’ responses on the status and trends of
associated biodiversity. The next seven discuss
the status and trends of associated biodiversity
involved in the supply of particular categories of
ecosystem services, based on information from
the country reports and other sources. They also
discuss what countries reported on trends in the
supply of the services themselves.
20
21
See Section 1.5 for further discussion.
See Section 2.2 further discussion of the roles of BFA in the
supply of ecosystem services and Section 4.5 for discussion
of the status and trends of a number of important ecosystem
categories.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
119
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
4.3.1 Associated-biodiversity species
managed for ecosystem services
The country-reporting guidelines specifically
invited countries to list species (or subspecies)
of associated biodiversity that are in one way or
another managed in production systems to help
provide regulating or supporting ecosystem services. Sixty-eight countries provided responses,
referring to a total of 462 distinct terrestrial and
aquatic species, including micro-organisms, invertebrates, birds, mammals, and trees and other
plants. The ecosystem service for which the largest
number of species are reported to be managed is
pest and disease regulation, followed by habitat
provisioning, soil formation and protection, nutrient cycling and pollination. The western honey bee
(Apis mellifera), which is managed for pollination
purposes, is the species most frequently mentioned
(Table 4.1). Several countries also mention managing ecosystems and landscape features to improve
the delivery of ecosystem services, including the
management of forests, wetlands, lakes, riparian
buffer zones and hedgerows (see for example
Sections 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.3.9, 4.3.10 and 4.5).
Among the species and genera managed in production systems for the delivery of regulating or
supporting ecosystem services, 16 are reported to
be managed for more than one service (Table 4.2).
These include nine tree and seven non-tree plant
species and genera. Acacia spp. are reported
to be managed for the largest number of distinct
ecosystem services supporting food and agriculture (eight).
The number of species of associated biodiversity
that are reported to be managed for ecosystem
services is particularly large in rainfed crop systems
(413 species), followed by mixed systems (307),
naturally regenerated forests (298), livestock
grassland-based systems (256), planted forests
(249) and irrigated crop (other than rice) systems
(191). Several of these species are reported to be
managed in production systems in more than one
sector of production (Figure 4.1).
In forest, livestock and mixed production
systems, the ecosystem services for which the
largest numbers of species are reported to be
120
managed are soil formation and protection and
habitat provisioning (Figure 4.1). In crop production systems, pest and disease regulation is the
most frequently targeted ecosystem service, with
many countries referring to the use of biological
control agents and to the management of invasive
species. The use of cover crops to promote nutrient cycling and soil formation, or for habitat provisioning through the creation of riparian buffer
zones, is also mentioned. In rainfed systems in
particular, a considerable number of associatedbiodiversity species are reported to be specifically
managed for pollination. In aquatic production
systems, habitat provisioning is the most commonly
reported ecosystem service for which associatedbiodiversity species are being managed. For
example, mangrove species are noted to provide
spawning grounds for fish and other aquatic
species. Several countries mention planting trees,
shrubs and grasses as windbreaks and to protect
coastal and other areas against various hazards.
Some, for example, mention planting trees such
as the Mediterranean cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) around forests for fire-control purposes.
Overall, the large number of associated biodiversity species managed in various production
systems and the multiplicity of ecosystem services
they supply reflect their enormous value and
their great potential to support food and agricultural production.
4.3.2 Information and monitoring
systems on associated biodiversity
Countries were invited to report on national
information systems on associated biodiversity.
Fifty-seven country reports indicate the presence
of at least one such information system (247 are
reported in total). An additional four reports22 specifically indicate the absence of any such systems.
Over 40 percent of the systems reported are in
European countries. Several examples of information and monitoring systems are described in the
“state of knowledge” subsections of Sections 4.3.4
to 4.3.10 and in Boxes 4.6 and 8.8.
22
Those from the Gambia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka and Suriname.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 4.1
Examples of species and genera reported by countries to be managed for regulating or supporting
ecosystem services in production systems
Ecosystem service (number
of distinct species reported)
Pest and disease regulation (144)
Species or genus
Common name
Acorus calamus
Flagroot
Aphelinus mali
Woolly aphid parasite
Nepal, Peru, Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen
Azadirachta indica
Neem tree
Jordan, Nepal, Niger
Bacillus thuringiensis
Bt
Ecuador, India, Peru
Cecidochares connexa
Gall fly
Palau, Papua New Guinea
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Grass carp
Fiji, Syrian Arab Republic
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri
Mealybug destroyer
India, Jamaica, Syrian Arab Republic
Habrobracon hebetor
Soil formation and protection (111)
Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Sudan
Trichoderma harzianum
Bangladesh, India, Nepal
Typhlodromus pyri
Croatia, France, Syrian Arab Republic
Brassica oleracea
Wild cabbage
Ireland, United Kingdom
Khaya senegalensis
African mahogany
Chad, Togo
Mangifera sylvatica
Nepal mango
Bangladesh
Platycladus orientalis
Chinese arborvitae
China
Tamarindus indica
Tamarind
Chad, Ecuador, Yemen
Chrysopogon zizanioides
Khuskhus vetiver
Jamaica, Zimbabwe
Leucaena leucocephala
White leadtree
Brazil, Mexico
Panicum turgidum
Merkba
Yemen
Pinus sylvestris
Scots pine
Ireland, Slovenia
Prosopis juliflora
Ironwood
Brazil, Yemen
Secale cereale
Rye
Ireland, United Kingdom
Swietenia humilis,
S. macrophylla
Mexican mahogany
Mexico
Rhizobium leguminosarum
Bangladesh
Bradyrhizobium elkanii,
B. japonicum
Nutrient cycling (76)
Nepal
Niger, Syrian Arab Republic
Chevroned water hyacinth
weevil, mottled water hyacinth
weevil
Neochetina bruchi,
N. eichhorniae
Habitat provisioning (125)
Countries
Brazil
Eisenia fetida
Tiger worm
Faidherbia albida
Winter thorn
Burkina Faso
Hordeum vulgare
Barley
Sweden, United Kingdom
Lens culinaris
Common lentil
Jordan, Yemen
Leucaena leucocephala
White leadtree
Brazil, Zimbabwe
Lumbricus rubellus
Red earthworm
Bulgaria
Secale cereale
Rye
Sweden, United Kingdom
Vicia sativa
Common vetch
Jordan, Yemen
Rhizobium leguminosarum
Bulgaria, Jamaica
Brazil, Nepal
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
121
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 4.1 (Cont.)
Examples of species and genera reported by countries to be managed for regulating or supporting
ecosystem services in production systems
Ecosystem service (number
of distinct species reported)
Pollination (49)
Species or genus
Common name
Western honey bee
Apis cerana
Eastern honey bee
Bhutan, Sri Lanka
Buff-tailed bumble bee
Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden
Bombus terrestris
Other Bombus spp. (B.
canariensis, ignites, morio)
Belgium, Brazil
Straw-coloured fruit bat
Osmia spp. (O. bicornis,
O. lignaria)
Mason bees (red mason bee,
blue orchard bee)
Germany, United States of America
Malus sylvestris
Crab apple
Slovenia
Alnus acuminata
Alder
Ecuador
Khaya senegalensis
African mahogany
Niger, Togo
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black locust
China
Tectona grandis
Teak
Nepal, Togo
Coffea arabica
Arabica coffee
Panama
Phragmites australis
Common reed
Jordan, Lebanon, United Kingdom, Yemen
Avicennia germinans
Black mangrove
Mexico
Sorghum halepensis
Johnson grass
Jordan, Yemen
Panicum virgatum
Old switch panic grass
United States of America
Eisenia fetida
Tiger worm
Nepal
Alnus glutinosa
European alder
Slovenia
Avicennia spp. (A. alba,
A. marina)
Black mangrove (api-api, white
mangrove)
Bangladesh, Yemen
Bauhinia rufescens
Natural hazard regulation (27)
Water cycling (25)
Burkina Faso
Malaysia
Heterotrigona itama
Water purification and waste
treatment (25)
Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Burkina
Faso, Cameroon, Ecuador, Eswatini, Gambia,
Germany, Hungary, Jamaica, Lebanon,
Nepal, Netherlands, Niue, Norway, Panama,
Peru, Poland, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Apis mellifera
Eidolon helvum
Production of oxygen/gas
regulation (30)
Countries
Niger
Cenchrus purpureus
Napier grass
Bhutan
Chrysopogon zizanioides
Khuskhus vetiver
Jamaica
Cupressus sempervirens
Mediterranean cypress
Jordan
Picea abies
Norway spruce
Switzerland
Atriplex halimus
Mediterranean saltbush
Jordan, Yemen
Andropogon gayanus
Bluestem grass
Niger
Leucaena leucocephala
White leadtree
Brazil
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout
Finland
Note: Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
122
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Species or
genus
Common
name
Acacias
3
1
2
2
2
3
Pinus spp.
Pines
3
2
1
1
1
4
Brassica spp.
Brassicas
1
1
1
Trifolium spp.
Clover
1
4
Eucalyptus
spp.
Eucalyptus
1
Crotalaria
spectabilis
Showy
rattlebox
1
1
Medicago
spp.
Medick
1
3
Populus spp.
Aspen
2
Canavalia
ensiforms
Total number of ecosystem
services for which the
species is managed
Water purification and
waste treatment
Number of countries
Acacia spp.
Bauhinia
rufescens
Water cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Production of oxygen/gas
regulation
Pollination
Pest and disease regulation
Nutrient cycling
Natural-hazard regulation
Habitat provisioning
TABLE 4.2
Species and genera most frequently reported to be managed for multiple supporting and regulating
ecosystem services
1
1
1
1
1
1
Countries
2
3
1
16
12
China, Ireland, Mexico,
Peru, Slovakia, Slovenia
8
Bulgaria, Ireland, Jordan,
United Kingdom, Slovakia
8
Bulgaria, Ireland, Jordan,
Norway, Slovakia, Sweden
1
1
1
2
1
7
Cameroon, Ecuador, Peru,
Senegal, Sudan
1
1
1
6
Brazil
1
1
6
Bulgaria, Jordan, Yemen
6
Finland, Ireland, Jordan,
Slovenia, Yemen
1
1
1
Angola, Burkina Faso,
Chad, China, Jordan,
Mexico, Nepal, Niger,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Yemen, Zimbabwe
1
3
1
1
5
Niger
Jack bean
1
1
1
1
1
5
Brazil
Cajanus cajan
Pigeon pea
1
1
1
1
1
5
Brazil
Leucaena
leucocephala
White
leadtree
1
2
1
2
1
5
Brazil, Mexico, Zimbabwe
Tithonia
diversifolia
Tree
marigold
1
1
1
1
1
5
Brazil
Hordeum
vulgare
Barley
4
Jordan, Sweden, United
Kingdom
Tamarindus
indica
Tamarind
3
3
Chad, Ecuador, Yemen
Khaya
senegalensis
African
mahogany
2
3
Chad, Niger, Togo
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Note: Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
123
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.1
Regulating and supporting ecosystem services for which associated biodiversity is reported
to be managed, by sector of production
Pollination
Pest and disease regulation
Water purification and waste treatment
Natural-hazard regulation
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation and protection
Water cycling
Habitat provisioning
Production of oxygen/gas regulation
Other
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Number of responses
Aquatic sector
Crop sector
Forest sector
Livestock sector
Mixed systems
Other/not specified
Notes: A “response” is an indication by a country that a particular species or other taxonomic group is managed within a particular
production system to promote the supply of a particular ecosystem service. Several of the 462 distinct species that featured in the
responses were mentioned by more than one country and/or for more than one production system. The total number of responses
is 1 228. For presentation purposes, production systems are grouped by sector of production. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
In most countries, the reported information
systems were developed in the context of environmental monitoring programmes and not
because the monitored species are considered of
importance to food and agriculture. For example,
most countries have established “red lists” that
summarize the status and trends of native flora
and fauna species and the threats affecting them.
These lists are usually based on a methodology
similar to that used for The IUCN Red List (Box 4.1)
and are reviewed at regular intervals.23 In addition
23
The IUCN Red List allows species to be grouped according
to the types of ecosystems in which they occur, including
agricultural, forest and marine ecosystems. However, it does
not allow this to be done for particular roles, or assumed roles,
in the supply of regulating or supporting ecosystem services
(pollination, pest control, etc.) within these ecosystems.
124
to databases of species risk status, the systems
reported include a variety of sources of information on associated biodiversity, including newsletters, national reports on the state of biodiversity
produced by relevant ministries (e.g. forestry or
environment), radio and television programmes,
Internet resources, institutes, universities, laboratories, museums and encyclopaedias. More information can be found in the regional synthesis
reports prepared as part of the reporting process
for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food
and Agriculture.24
The reported information systems are used
to monitor a range of different components of
24
The regional synthesis reports will be made available at
http://www.fao.org/cgrfa/en/
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 4.1
The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM
Increase in the number of species assessed for
The IUCN Red List (2000–2018)
100 000
90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000
Species
The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red
List of Threatened SpeciesTM (The IUCN Red List) is the
world’s most comprehensive source of information
on species extinction risks, and contains a wealth of
information on factors affecting species survival, including
on distribution ranges, population trends, ecology,
conservation actions, threats and trade and use. As of
November 2018, more than 96 500 species were included,
over 26 500 of which were threatened with extinction,
including 40 percent of amphibians, 34 percent of conifers,
33 percent of reef-building corals, 25 percent of mammals
and 14 percent of birds.
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
2000
Source: The IUCN Red List version 2018-2.
Note: For further information, see https://www.iucnredlist.org
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
2018
Year
Total species assessed
Total threatened species
Box 4.2
Birds as indicator species
Avian species can act as valuable indicators of
environmental change and complex shifts in ecosystem
dynamics that may be detrimental to food and agriculture.
For example, seabirds are excellent indicators of climate
change thanks to their behavioural, social and life-history
traits and the vast amount of long-term data available on
them (Grémillet and Boulinier, 2009). Seabirds generally
have highly specialized diets and rely on just a few
prey species, whose abundance and distribution can
shift dramatically in response to abrupt environmental
changes (BirdLife International, 2009). Rising sea-surface
temperatures in Antarctica have led to a reduction in
the abundance of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), a
key prey species for many seabirds, and an increase in
the abundance of less favourable food. This has affected
several seabird populations, including emperor penguins
(Aptenodytes forsteri) in Terre Adélie, whose population
declined by 50 percent during a period of abnormally warm
temperatures and poor krill production (Barbraud and
Weimerskirch, 2001). When pieced together, such trends and
warning signs demonstrate where, and how much, climate
change is affecting the ecosystems that industries such as
fishing depend upon.
Seabird numbers can also be a direct indication of fishstock depletion. A study on sardine fisheries in the Gulf
of California demonstrated (taking El Niño influences into
account) that a declining proportion of sardines in the
diets of three seabird species (the California brown pelican
[Pelecanus occidentalis], Heermann’s gull [Larus heermanni]
and the elegant tern [Thalasseus elegans]) gave a reliable
forecast of diminishing catch per unit effort in fisheries
landings in subsequent years. This allowed successful
mitigation or reduced-catch measures to be implemented,
helping to stabilize fisheries income (Velarde, Ezcurra and
Anderson, 2013).
Source: Provided by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and
BirdLife International.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
125
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
associated biodiversity, including particular ecosystem categories (e.g. forests, grasslands or aquatic
ecosystems), protected areas, individual species,
species in general (e.g. via the above-mentioned
red lists), rare or endangered species, specific taxonomic groups (e.g. amphibians and reptiles, bats,
bees, birds, butterflies, freshwater and marine
fish, fungi, lichens or mosses) or other categories such as crop pests and their natural enemies.
Several European countries mention monitoring
efforts for micro-organisms (including bacteria,
viruses and protists) and fungi, including groups
that are of importance to food and agriculture,
such as mycorrhizal fungi, soil microbes, planktonic microbes and rumen microbes. Despite these
various initiatives, however, countries generally
make it very clear that there are many gaps and
weaknesses in monitoring programmes and information systems for associated biodiversity. Even
where demographic data on components of associated biodiversity are collected, it often remains
unclear how these relate to the geographical distribution of production systems, which makes it
more difficult to draw conclusions regarding possible effects on food and agriculture.
Lack of capacity is widely reported by countries
to be a significant constraint to the monitoring
of associated biodiversity. Some countries indicate
that much of the monitoring work that does take
place is done by (expert or non-expert) volunteers. For example, Finland reports that initiatives
of this kind account for approximately 70 percent
of all its biodiversity-related monitoring work.
Monitoring of butterflies and birds is largely
volunteer-based in most countries in Europe.
Efforts are also being made to develop methodologies based on indicator species that can be
used even where capacity is limited. For example,
the Belau National Museum, in cooperation with
the Palau Conservation Society and the Palau
International Coral Reef Centre, is reported to
have completed preliminary studies aimed at identifying bird species that could be used as indicators
for near-shore environmental quality and ecosystem health. See Box 4.2 for further information on
birds as indicator species.
126
TABLE 4.3
Risk status of associated biodiversity for which a
significant threat of extinction or loss is reported
Risk status
Extinct (EX)
Responses
Distinct species
17
17
1
1
Critically Endangered
(CR)
154
151
Endangered (EN)
811
766
Vulnerable (VU)
304
300
Extinct in the Wild (EW)
Data Deficient (DD)
13
13
Near Threatened (NT)
65
63
Least Concern (LC)
Threatened
Not known
Not specified
Total
36
38
362
336
34
34
277
261
2 074
1 900
Notes: A “response” is a mention by a specific country of a
specific component of biodiversity (species or higher taxonomic
group). The “threatened” category encompasses all responses
indicating that a species is threatened but without further
specification of the degree of threat according to the IUCN Red
List Categories and Criteria. The figures refer to the risk statuses
assigned to species in the country reports. Analysis based on 91
country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s
Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
4.3.3 Overview of status and trends
Countries were invited to list any components
of associated biodiversity for which there is evidence of a significant threat of extinction or loss
of important populations, to specify the degree
of the threat according to the classification system
in use in the country or following the Categories
and Criteria of The IUCN Red List, and to provide
a description of the threat. The responses are
summarized in Table 4.3. Seventy-nine percent
of the responses indicate Critically Endangered,
Endangered, Vulnerable or Threatened status,
and 82 percent of distinct species mentioned fall
into these categories.
A total of 2 074 responses, from 48 countries and
covering 1 900 distinct species, were provided. More
than half of these responses come from three countries, Bangladesh, Mexico and Panama. The groups
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 4.2
Reported threats to associated biodiversity, by region
Number of responses
Africa
297
Asia
505
Europe and Central Asia
212
Latin America and the Caribbean
779
Near East and North Africa
293
0%
20%
40%
Agricultural intensification and expansion
Changes in land use
Climate change
Deforestation
Habitat alteration and loss
Hunting and poaching
60%
80%
100%
Overexploitation
Pests, diseases and invasive species
Pollution
Water-cycle alteration
Other
Not reported
Notes: A “response” is a mention by a specific country of a specific component of biodiversity (species or higher taxonomic group).
No data are available for North America or the Pacific. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
of species that feature most frequently in countries’
responses are plants, followed by birds, fish and
mammals. Plants account for 1 032 (63 percent) of
the responses referring to species that are classed
as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable
or Threatened, birds for 180 (11 percent), fish for
125 (8 percent), mammals for 83 (5 percent), fungi
for 74 (5 percent), reptiles for 61 (4 percent), arthropods25 for 37 (2 percent), molluscs for 22 (1 percent),
amphibians for 13 (1 percent) and sea cucumbers for
4 (less than 1 percent).
The species most frequently mentioned, for
any risk category, include the western honey
bee (Apis mellifera), the green turtle (Chelonia
mydas), the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricate), the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretta), the West African ebony (Diospyros
mespiliformis), the Himalayan yew (Taxus wallichiana), the baobab (Adansonia digitata), the
Eurasian skylark (Alauda arvensis), the European
25
Arthropod species mentioned include insects, spiders
and crustaceans.
eel (Anguilla anguilla), the Palmyra palm (Borassus
aethiopum), the European roller (Coracias garrulus), the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea), Duvalia sulcate (a succulent plant),
Globularia arabica (a low shrub), the house finch
(Haemorhous mexicanus), the hippopotamus
(Hippopotamus amphibius), the African mahogany (Khaya senegalensis), the ocelot (Leopardus
pardalis), the olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys
olivacea), the pomegranate (Punica granatum),
the clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), the whiteheaded vulture (Trigonoceps occipitalis), biznaugita (Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus) (a cactus)
and the thirsty thorn (Vachellia seyal).
For the majority of species listed by countries,
no specific indication is provided that they are
being deliberately managed for their contributions to the supply of ecosystem services to food
and agriculture. Countries made extensive use
of national red lists as sources of information.
In some cases, ecosystems included in red lists
were matched with the production-system categories used in the country-reporting process
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
127
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.3
Reported trends in associated biodiversity, by production system
Production system
Micro-organisms
Invertebrates
Number of
countries
Livestock grassland-based
40
Livestock landless
22
Naturally regenerated forests
38
Planted forests
37
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
33
Culture-based fisheries
16
Fed aquaculture
23
Non-fed aquaculture
14
Irrigated crops (rice)
18
Irrigated crops (other)
36
Rainfed crops
41
Mixed
34
Vertebrates
Plants
Livestock grassland-based
40
Livestock landless
22
Naturally regenerated forests
38
Planted forests
37
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
33
Culture-based fisheries
16
Fed aquaculture
23
Non-fed aquaculture
14
Irrigated crops (rice)
18
Irrigated crops (other)
36
Rainfed crops
41
Mixed
34
0%
50%
Decreasing
100%
Stable
0%
Increasing
50%
100%
Not known/reported
Notes: The figures refer to the ten-year period prior to the preparation of the country reports. “Number of countries” refers to the
number of countries – out of 91 providing reports – that reported trends for the four categories of associated biodiversity in the
respective production system. “Not known/reported” refers to cases where no response is provided or where the information is
indicated to be not known or not applicable. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
(see Section 1.5) and all species included in the
respective red lists considered to be associatedbiodiversity species, i.e. there was an assumption
that each of these species plays a role in the functioning of the respective ecosystem.
128
The main threats reported are habitat alteration and loss (490 responses), deforestation (547),
overexploitation (286), pollution (134), hunting
and poaching (86), change in land use (52), pests,
diseases and invasive species (49), agricultural
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
intensification and expansion (19), water-cycle
alteration (14) and climate change (5). Figure 4.2
provides a regional breakdown.
Figure 4.3 summarizes the information
reported by countries on trends over the last
ten years in the status of various categories of
associated biodiversity (micro-organisms, invertebrates, vertebrates and plants).26 It presents
an overview of number of countries reporting
information on trends and a proportional breakdown of this information by production-system
category and type of organism.
Overall, for all production systems and all types
of associated biodiversity combined, 33 percent of
responses indicate decreasing trends, 15 percent
stable trends and 19 percent increasing trends;
33 percent indicate that information is unknown
or not applicable. The breakdown presented in
Figure 4.3 highlights the generally limited amount
of information available on micro-organisms in
production systems, in particular in forest production systems. Trends in invertebrate, vertebrate
and plant species providing supporting and regulating ecosystem services in various production
systems are better assessed.
Countries were invited to report on changes
in regulating or supporting services detected in
specific production-system categories over the
preceding ten years,27 to describe the trends
reported and, if possible, to provide information
on baseline levels, measurements and indicators
used, extent of change, likely cause(s) and references to sources of information (Table 4.4). A
total of 46 countries (51 percent of those that
provided country reports), including countries
from all regions, provided information on trends
in at least one ecosystem service. For individual
categories of ecosystem services, the numbers
26
27
Specifically, countries were invited to provide qualitative
assessments of trends (strongly increasing, increasing, stable,
decreasing and strongly decreasing) or to indicate that
information was not known or not applicable.
Specifically, countries were invited to provide qualitative
assessments of trends (strongly increasing, increasing, stable,
decreasing and strongly decreasing) or to indicate that
information was not known or not applicable.
of countries reporting ranged from 36 (naturalhazard regulation) to 43 (habitat provisioning).
The next seven sections discuss the status and
trends of associated biodiversity involved in the
supply of particular categories of ecosystem services, based on information from the country reports
and other sources. They also discuss what countries
reported on trends in the supply of the services
themselves. With regard to the trends in the latter, it
should be noted that relationships between BFA and
the supply of ecosystem services are complex and
that trends in the diversity or distribution of components of BFA will often not be reflected straightforwardly in trends in the supply ecosystem services.
4.3.4 Associated biodiversity for
pollination
Introduction
Nearly 90 percent28 of all flowering-plant species,
including the vast majority of those in tropical
forests, savannah woodlands, mangroves and
temperate deciduous forests, depend, to some
degree, on animal pollination (other means of
pollen transfer include self-pollination and pollination by wind and water) (Bradbear, 2009;
Ollerton, Winfree and Tarrant, 2011).29 Thirtyfive percent of the world’s total crop production
by volume comes from species that are, at least
in part, pollinated by animals (Klein et al., 2007).
Levels of pollinator dependence vary significantly
among crops, with the highest levels found mainly
in fruits, vegetables and nuts (ibid.). Potts et al.
(2016) report a figure of USD 235–577 billion for
the annual value of the enhancements that animal
pollinators make to global crop output.30
28
29
30
This ranges from 78 percent in temperate-zone communities
to 94 percent in tropical communities (IPBES, 2016a; Ollerton,
Winfree and Tarrant, 2011).
Pollination also occurs in aquatic environments. While until
recently it was thought that animal pollination does not
contribute to pollination under water, it has been found that
marine invertebrates contribute to the pollination of the
seagrass Thalassia testudinum (Van Tussenbroek et al., 2016).
The figure (inflated to 2015 USD value) is based on the work
of Lautenback et al. (2012), who used production and price
figures for 2009.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
129
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
Production of oxygen/
gas regulation
Habitat provisioning
Water cycling
Soil formation and
protection
Nutrient cycling
Natural-hazard
regulation
Water purification
and waste treatment
Pest and disease
regulation
Production systems (PS)
Pollination
TABLE 4.4
Reported trends in the state of provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services
in production systems
Livestock grassland-based systems
↘
↗↙
↘
↔
↘
↘
↗↙
↘
↘
Livestock landless systems
↔
↗↙
↗↙
↔
↗↙
↗
↗↙
↘
↘
Naturally regenerated forests
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗
↗↙
Planted forests
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗
↗
↗
↗
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
Culture-based fisheries
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↘
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
0–10
Fed aquaculture
↔
Non-fed aquaculture
↗↙
↗↙
↗
↗
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
Proportion of
countries reporting
the PS that report
any trends (%)
↗
↗↙
↗↙
11–20
↔
↗↙
↗
21–30
31–40
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
↗↙
↘
↘
↔
↘
↘
↘
↘
↗↙
Irrigated crop systems (other)
↗↙
↘
↘
↗↙
↘
↘
↗
↘
↗
Rainfed crop systems
↗↙
↘
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↘
↗↙
↘
↗↙
Mixed systems
↗↙
↗
↗↙
↗↙
↗
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↗↙
↔
↗
↘
↗↙
Stable
Increasing
Decreasing
Mixed trends
Notes: Countries were invited to report trends (increasing, stable or decreasing) in the state of provision of each ecosystem service in
each production system. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system and ecosystem service indicate
the same trend (increasing, decreasing or stable) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of the table. In other cases, mixed
trends are indicated. The empty cells correspond to cases in which fewer than five countries provided a response. The colour scale
indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective system that report any trends in the state of the respective
ecosystem service (increasing, stable or decreasing). See Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production systems and a discussion of
ecosystem services. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
Animal pollination in crop production systems is
largely supplied by managed and wild bee species.
However, there are important pollinators among
other groups of insects, including flies, butterflies,
moths, wasps and beetles, as well as among bats,
birds and rodents (FAO, 2018i, IPBES, 2016a).31 For
example, it has been estimated that bats play some
part in the pollination of at least 500 Neotropical
species from 96 genera (Vogel, 1969). The role of
31
More than 90 percent of the leading global crop types are visited
by bees and around 30 percent by flies. Each of the other animal
pollinator taxa visits less than 6 percent of the crop types.
130
birds as pollinators is discussed further in Box 4.5.
Some species of pollinators are specialists (i.e. visit
only one or a few plant species), while others
are generalists (i.e. visit a wide range of species).
Similarly, there are specialist plants, pollinated by a
small number of species, and generalist plants, pollinated by a broad range of species (IPBES, 2016a).
State of knowledge
Scientific studies, citizen-science projects and
indigenous and local knowledge all help to build
up understanding of the economic, environmental
and sociocultural values of pollination, threats to
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
pollinator populations, and the status and trends
of wild and managed pollinators, pollinatordependent crops and wild plants at various
scales. At global level, the thematic assessment
of pollinators, pollination and food production
published in 2016 by the International Panel on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2016a)
remains, as of 2018, the latest major assessment
conducted on the topic.
The availability of data on the status and
trends of pollinators varies significantly by region,
country and type of pollinator. Data are more
complete in Europe and North America than
elsewhere in the world. Within these regions,
managed pollinator species are better documented than wild pollinators, because they are (i)
recognized as economically important, (ii) easier
to monitor (they are kept in boxes) and (iii) their
taxonomy is relatively well understood (IPBES,
2016a; NRC, 2007). A report on the status of pollinators in North America (NRC, 2007) notes that
despite constraints associated with a lack of capacity in taxonomy and identification, quite a large
amount of information is available on pollinator
population trends. However, the quality of this
information, and hence the state of knowledge
on status and trends, varies from taxon to taxon
(ibid.). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
assessment covers 58 out of the 130 common
crop-pollinating bee species in Europe and North
America (IPBES, 2016a).
The country reports indicate that, across all
regions, bees are the most widely monitored group
of pollinator species. Honey bees are the most frequently mentioned, but some countries also refer
to monitoring of bumblebees, stingless bees and
other (wild) bee species. Relevant initiatives mentioned in the country reports include the bee
monitoring framework developed in the United
Kingdom as part of England’s National Pollinator
Strategy (DEFRA, 2014). Numbers of beehives are
widely monitored.32 Ethiopia, for example, notes
that despite a general lack of information on
32
See, for example, the country data provided in FAO’s statistical
database FAOSTAT (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home).
managed associated biodiversity, its annual inventory of beehives provides a form of “indirect” monitoring. A number of countries mention that – as
an alternative to gathering data on pollinating
animals themselves – monitoring plant reproductive success or pollen-deposition deficits may be
an effective means of measuring pollinator trends.
However, this approach will only work if the effects
of other influences, such as climate and floral herbivory, can be accounted for (FAO, 2008a).
Butterfly monitoring, where it occurs, is
reported to be largely conducted on a voluntary
basis by experts and enthusiasts. For example,
Germany notes that volunteers conduct weekly
walks along set routes (transects), recording all
species of diurnal butterflies, year after year.33 The
population data obtained are used to track trends
in butterfly populations at local, subnational and
national levels. Butterflies are also among the
groups of species reported to be monitored by
the Dutch Network Ecological Monitoring34 programme in the Netherlands.35 Again, these data
are mostly collected by volunteers. The results
are published by, among others, the Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency and Statistics
Netherlands. Around 16 000 volunteers are
reported to be active in the programme’s various
monitoring networks.36 Ireland also mentions the
establishment of butterfly and bumblebee monitoring programmes.37
Information on the status and trends of other
pollinators is generally limited. The IUCN Red List
provides information on the global status of many
vertebrate pollinators (e.g. humming birds and bat
species). The migratory habits of species belonging
to these groups sometimes require that monitoring
work is done on a multicountry scale (FAO, 2008a).
Mexico and the United States of America are collaborating in several initiatives of this kind (ibid.).
33
34
35
36
37
See, for example, http://www.tagfaltermonitoring.de
(in German).
http://www.netwerkecologischemonitoring.nl/home
There are also networks for mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish, dragonflies, flora and mushrooms.
The country report cites De Groot (2014).
http://www.biodiversityireland.ie
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
131
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
Data on fly populations (Diptera) are limited (FAO,
2008a). However, some evidence can be gleaned
from case studies (see below). Overall, the risk
status of most of the world’s insect pollinator
species has not been assessed (IPBES, 2016a).
Status and trends
Status and trends of pollinators
Data from FAO’s statistical database, FAOSTAT,
show that the number of managed western honey-bee hives is increasing globally. In 1961, countries reported fewer than 50 million hives. In 2016,
they reported more than 90.5 million hives, producing nearly 1.8 million tonnes of honey annually. IPBES (2016a), however, notes that, despite
the overall upward trends globally, important seasonal colony losses are known to occur in some
European countries and in North America (data
for other regions of the world are largely lacking).
Concerns about colony losses are reflected in
some of the country reports. For example, the
report from the United States of America notes
that honey bees have been in serious decline for
decades: there were approximately 5.7 million
managed honey-bee colonies in the country in the
1940s and approximately 2.74 million colonies in
2015. It further notes that sharp colony declines
occurred following the introduction of the mite
Varroa destructor38 in 1987, and again around 2006
with the first reports of colony collapse disorder.39
The number of managed honey-bee colonies in the
country seems to have stabilized in recent years,
but this is reported to have required increased
efforts by the beekeeping industry.40 Since 2006,
38
39
40
An external parasite that attacks honey bees and spreads
viruses among them.
The term colony collapse disorder describes a complex set
of interacting stressors, including exposure to pesticides and
other environmental toxins, poor nutrition (resulting in part
from decreased availability of high-quality and diverse forage),
exposure to pests (e.g. Varroa mites) and disease (viral, bacterial
and fungal) that cause high colony losses (USDA, 2012).
When overwintering colony losses are high, beekeepers
compensate for these losses by “splitting” one colony into two
and supplying the second colony with a new queen bee and
supplementary food in order to quickly build up colony strength.
132
the average seasonal loss of honey bees in the
United States of America has reportedly averaged
around 31 percent, far exceeding the 15 percent to
17 percent loss rate that commercial beekeepers
consider to be an economically sustainable average.41 A few country reports from northwestern
Europe mention that the state of insect colonies
in general, and of bee colonies in particular, is currently below the optimal threshold for pollination
of flowering plants in arable land and grassland.
With regard to wild pollinators, IPBES (2016a)
concludes that they “have declined in occurrence
and diversity (and abundance for certain species)
at local and regional scales in North West Europe
and North America” and notes that while a lack
of data precludes general statements about other
regions, local declines have been recorded. In
Europe, 9 percent of bee and butterfly species
are threatened, and populations are declining
in 37 percent of bee and 31 percent of butterfly
species (excluding data deficient species, which
include 57 percent of bee species [ibid.] ).42 Trends
of this kind are reflected in the country reports
from Europe. The report from the United Kingdom,
for example, refers to work showing that among
216 bee species monitored nationally, 70 percent
showed a decline in distribution between 1980
and 2010. With regard to the country’s butterfly
populations, the report indicates that recent years
(2008 to 2013) have seen no overall change, but
that long-term figures (1976 to 2013) show that
the populations of 50 percent of butterfly species
have decreased. Several country reports from the
region, including those from Ireland, Norway,
Poland and Switzerland, refer specifically to a
decline in bumblebees. Serious declines in two
bumblebee species, the great yellow bumblebee
(Bombus distinguendus) in Europe and Franklin’s
bumblebee (B. franklini) in the western United
States of America, are highlighted by IPBES (2016a).
In both cases, effects on production systems have
yet to be examined (ibid.).
41
42
The country report cites Steinhauer et al. (2015).
Data for other regions are currently insufficient to draw
general conclusions.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 4.3
Monitoring total flying insect biomass over 27 years in protected areas in Germany
Insects play a central role in the supply of several ecosystem
services, including pollination, biological control and nutrient
cycling, and provide a food source for a wide range of species,
including many birds, mammals and amphibians (Noriega et
al., 2018). A decline in insect numbers therefore has serious
implications for ecosystem functioning, dynamics and integrity.
Based on long-term insect-trapping results from
63 nature-protection areas in Germany, Hallmann et al.
(2017) concluded that over the period 1989 to 2016 flyinginsect biomass underwent a seasonal decline of 76 percent
(“seasonal” refers to the period 1 April to 30 October) and a
mid-summer decline of 82 percent.
The fact that all sampling sites were within natureprotection areas makes the decline even more alarming.
The authors note that the presence of the effect
Among countries from other regions, Brazil
reports that its 1 173 species of fauna classified as
being threatened with extinction include 85 bird
species, 63 lepidopteran species, 29 beetle species,
7 bat species and 4 bee species that can be considered pollinators. Some other countries report
anecdotal indications of trends. For example,
Grenada mentions that farmers frequently
comment on falling numbers of butterflies and
other insects in their fields, but notes that no specific studies have been conducted to confirm this
perceived change or to identify possible causes.
As noted above, data on population trends in
insect pollinators other than bees and Lepidoptera
are generally limited. However, some studies
provide insights into local trends or drivers of
change among relevant taxonomic groups. For
example, Lagucki, Burdine and McCluney (2017)
report negative effects of urbanization on flies
(Diptera), among other groups of flying arthropods. Hallmann et al. (2017) report severe declines
in total flying-insect biomass over recent decades
at sites in Germany (see Box 4.3).
Where vertebrate pollinators are concerned,
IPBES (2016a) estimates, based on data from
throughout the season and across all habitat types studied
suggests that large-scale factors must be involved, but
that analysis of data on climate, land use and local habitat
characteristics indicates that changes in these factors
cannot explain the decline. They mention that agricultural
intensification “(e.g. pesticide usage, year-round tillage,
increased use of fertilizers and frequency of agronomic
measures)”, although not incorporated into their analysis,
may be a plausible cause (almost all the study sites were
close to agricultural fields). They also note that the effect
“must have cascading effects across trophic levels and
numerous other ecosystem services.”
Following this and other similar studies, Germany
initiated an Action Programme for Insect Protection (see
https://www.bmu.de/insektenschutz/).
The IUCN Red List, that 16.5 percent of species
are threatened with global extinction (increasing to 30 percent for island species), with a
trend towards more extinctions. Regan et al.
(2015) report that among 1 089 bird species and
343 mammalian species identified as pollinators,
18 of the former and 15 of the latter moved into
a higher IUCN Red List risk-status category during
the period 1988 to 2012 (with two mammalian
species moving in the opposite direction). The
most serious threats to vertebrate pollinators
in terms of the number of species affected are
reported to be habitat loss caused by unsustainable agriculture (seriously affecting both bird and
mammalian pollinators), hunting and trapping
(a threat to mammals in particular) and invasive alien species (a threat to birds in particular)
(ibid.). Key drivers of change affecting pollinators
are further discussed in Chapter 3.
Status and trends of pollinator-dependent crops
A study undertaken by Aizen et al. (2009) using FAO
data concluded that the global economic importance of pollinator-dependent crops relative to
pollinator-independent crops increased significantly
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
133
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
between 1961 and 2006. Yield growth and stability in pollinator-dependent crops have, however,
been lower than in pollinator-independent crops
(Aizen et al., 2009; IPBES, 2016a). The reasons for
this have not been clearly established. However,
many studies at local scales show that crop production is higher in fields with diverse and abundant pollinator communities than in fields with
less-diverse pollinator communities (Garibaldi et
al., 2016). Pollinator density and diversity depend,
in turn, on the characteristics of the local environment (e.g. the quality and quantity of food and
nesting resources) and on management practices in
agriculture. For example, Klein et al. (2007) report
case studies for nine crops on four continents that
indicated that agricultural intensification jeopardizes wild-bee communities and their stabilizing
effect on pollination services at the landscape scale
(see Section 5.6.7 for further information on links
between management practices and pollinator
diversity and pollination services).
Status and trends of pollination
Countries’ responses on trends in the supply
of pollination services in particular production
systems are summarized in Table 4.4. In livestock
grassland-based systems, reports of decreasing
trends predominate. In crop, forest and mixed
systems, trends are mixed (i.e. neither positive nor
negative nor stable trends predominate). Some
countries report perceived declines (quantitative
data are generally lacking) in the state of pollination services in agriculture without specifying
which production systems are affected.
Where explanations for reported trends are provided, they often apply to more than one production
system. Many countries identify the use of pesticides,
human-induced habitat loss and fragmentation
and climate change as major causes of declines in
pollinator abundance across production systems.
Several countries report that the availability of
food sources for pollinators in agricultural production systems is being jeopardized by a decline in
the diversity of landscapes and plant communities.
Nepal, however, notes that crop diversification in
its rainfed crop systems has increased pollination
134
levels. Several European countries mention that the
establishment of flower strips in and around fields
(incentivized through agri-environmental schemes)
may have led to an increase in the number of pollinators in surrounding areas. In the case of rainfed
and irrigated crop (non-rice) systems, some countries (e.g. Zambia and Switzerland) report that
invasive plant species are replacing plant species
that pollinators depend on for food.
With regard to grassland-based livestock systems,
Zambia reports that wild pollinators are among
the components of BFA that have been negatively
affected by a recent decline in the number of livestock herds (caused by disease outbreaks). Norway
notes that the gradual abandonment of extensive
grazing is leading to the disappearance of habitats that benefit pollinators. Conversely, Argentina
reports that overgrazing in grassland systems is
reducing pollinator habitat. Loss of habitat in naturally regenerated forests is reported to be affecting
pollinators in a number of countries. Some countries, however, mention that forest area, particularly planted forest area, is increasing and that this
is creating habitat for pollinators. Logging and the
overharvesting of non-wood forest products (specifically plants) are reported to be among the causes
of loss of pollinator habitat in forests. Grenada
mentions that natural disasters such as hurricanes
have disturbed forest ecosystems, with deleterious
effects on pollinators.
Several countries report that efforts to raise
awareness of the importance of pollinators have
had positive effects. Poland, for example, reports
that growing awareness of the importance of
honey bees in increasing crop yields, along with
growing demand for pollination services in large
plantations of insect-pollinated crops, is expected
to lead to increasing interest in beekeeping and
an increase in the honey bee population.
4.3.5 Associated biodiversity for pest
and disease regulation
Introduction
Pest, disease and weed regulation is a crucial ecosystem service for food and agriculture. The direct
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
providers of this service are a vast category of
associated biodiversity known as biological control
agents (BCA). Non-BCA biodiversity contributes
indirectly to the creation of a pest-suppressive
environment by, inter alia, providing alternative
food sources and shelter for BCAs (e.g. Settle et al.,
1996). BCAs can be deliberately introduced (augmentative and classical biological pest control) or
managed indirectly by manipulating the local environment and wider landscape to promote their
presence (conservation biological control). See
Section 5.6.6 for further information on the roles
of BCAs in integrated pest management.
BCAs are taxonomically diverse and include
many species of bacteria, fungi, invertebrates
and vertebrates. The most significant functional
groups of BCAs are parasitoid insects, predators,
herbivores, entomopathogenic organisms (bacteria, fungi, nematodes and viruses) and antifungal
fungi (Box 4.4). The roles of birds in the supply
of ecosystem services, including pest and disease
regulation, are discussed in Box 4.5.
Relationships between the status of BCA populations and the supply of pest-control services
are complex. The presence of more than one
BCA species that preys on a given pest may not
always add to the effectiveness of regulation
services (Martin et al., 2013; Rafikov, Balthazar
and von Bremen, 2008; Straub, Finke and Snyder,
2008). Generally speaking, however, so-called
functional redundancy is considered likely to
increase the resilience of pest-control services by
reducing the risk that all BCAs for a particular
pest will be lost (e.g. because of climate change)
(Beed et al., 2011; Cock et al., 2011). An increase
in the abundance and species richness of BCAs
can sometimes lead to antagonistic relationships such as superpredation (predation of predators) and hyperparasitoidism (parasitoidism
of parasitoids) (Griffin, Byrnes and Cardinale,
2013; Holland et al., 2012; Landis, Wratten and
Gurr, 2000; Martin et al., 2013). These kinds of
trophic relationships among BCAs, and hence
potentially the supply of pest-control services,
are affected in turn by the characteristics of the
local landscape. For example, Martin et al. (2013)
found that negative interactions among natural
enemies constrained pest control as landscapes
became more complex. However, other studies
have found increasing landscape complexity to
be correlated with increased diversity and effectiveness (timing) of BCA activity (e.g. Dominik et
al., 2017; Settle et al., 1996).
The country reports list many associated biodiversity species as being actively managed to
provide pest- and disease-regulating services,
whether directly or indirectly (e.g. via habitat provisioning for BCAs) (see Section 4.3.1). The majority are predatory and parasitoid invertebrates
associated with crop production.
State of knowledge
The country reports indicate varying levels of
knowledge on the status and trends of species
that provide pest and disease control services.
A number of countries report extensive monitoring
of relevant components of associated biodiversity.
Examples include Switzerland (agro-environment
monitoring programmes implemented by the
Federal Office for Agriculture), the United Kingdom
(Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society;
Farmland Bird Indicator), the United States of
America (National Invertebrate Genetic Resources
Program) and Germany. Some countries report
that monitoring activities are implemented on a
less systematic basis. For example, Croatia mentions that some monitoring of natural enemies
(spiders and mites) is done under its Reporting
and Early Warning System in Agriculture. Guyana
notes that although it does not have monitoring programmes for associated biodiversity
in its rice production systems, natural-enemy
populations are recorded as part of pestmonitoring activities. Some countries note that
some information on the status and trends of
BCAs is obtained via individual research projects.
Moreover, even among countries that make no
specific reference to the monitoring of BCAs or
other components of biodiversity that contribute to pest and disease control services, some
of these species are probably covered by monitoring programmes reported to be undertaken
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
135
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
Box 4.4
The main functional groups of biological control agents
Parasitoids. Species belonging to this group spend part of
their life cycles (usually the larval stage) inside or on the
surface of a host, killing it in the process. Approximately
10 percent of known insect species are parasitoids (Godfray,
1994). Parasitoid biological control agents are used in
agricultural systems on a large scale in augmentative,
classical and conservation biological control (Heimpel and
Cock, 2018; Jonsson et al., 2008; Van Lenteren et al., 2018).
Examples include wasps of the suborder Apocryta and
several families of flies, for example the Tachinidae family.
Predators. This group includes many arthropod species
– including members of the Acari (mites), Araneae (spiders),
Opiliones (harvestmen), Odonata (dragonflies), Hemiptera
(e.g. assassin bugs), Thysanoptera (thrips), Neuroptera
(lacewings), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies) and
Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) (Cock et al., 2011) –
as well as a number of vertebrates (amphibians, birds, fish,
mammals and reptiles). Predators help to control a wide
range of pest species, although some may feed on useful
species as well. Subcategories of this functional group
include aerial, aquatic (subsurface- and surface-dwelling),
vegetation-dwelling and ground-dwelling predators
(Holland et al., 2012). The first group have good dispersion
ability and can predate on pests in the air. Examples include
many species of flying insects (e.g. families within the orders
Odonata, Hymenoptera and Diptera) and insectivorous birds
and bats. Aquatic predators include many species of insects,
in both larval and adult forms. Aquatic predators used
specifically as control agents include fish species in
rice-field systems (e.g. common carp [Cyprinus carpio] and
Nile tilapia [Oreochromis niloticus]), Labridae (wrasses)
employed as removers of sea lice in salmon cages, and a
number of carnivorous species (e.g. bronze featherback
[Notopterus notopterus]) used to control tilapia breeding by
predating on their young. Ground predators are associated
with the soil surface and the upper layer of the soil.
Predatory mites of the family Phytoseiidae, for instance,
play an important role in augmentative, classical and
conservation biocontrol of pest mites and insects in openfield and greenhouse crops (Calvo et al., 2015; Maoz et al.,
2014; Yaninek and Hanna, 2003). Other examples include
ground and rove beetles. Predatory amphibians include
136
toads and frogs, although the importance of their role (as
well as that of reptiles) in biological control remains poorly
understood (Hocking and Babbit, 2014).
Entomopathogenic fungi. This group comprises
members of the Fungi Kingdom that invade arthropod
tissues and reproduce in them, killing the host. Several
species (e.g. Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium
anisopliae) are important in the control of grasshoppers and
locusts (Jaronski and Goettel, 1997).
Antifungal fungi. This group comprises members of the
Fungi Kingdom that limit the development of fungal disease
in plants by killing or competing with the disease-causing
fungi or by promoting plant resistance. Examples include
Trichoderma spp. (John et al., 2010; Zeilinger et al., 2016).
Entomopathogenic nematodes. These nematodes
invade the tissues of many types of insects (including
Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Diptera). Important examples
include Steinernema spp. and Heterorhabditis spp. (Cock
et al., 2011).
Entomopathogenic bacteria. An important species
in this category is the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis,
which synthesizes a compound (Bt) that is toxic to insects.
Entomopathogenic viruses. Although a number of
virus families are known to infect arthropods, baculoviruses
stand out within this group because of their ability to
kill insects with high specificity. These viruses are commonly
used as biopesticides against lepidopteran pests
(e.g. the Anticarsia gemmatalis nuclear polyhedrosis virus
used to control the velvetbean caterpillar on soybean
and the Helicoverpa armigera nuclear polyhedrosis virus
used to control the cotton boll worm [Reid, Chan and
van Oers, 2014]).
Weed- and algae-damaging herbivores. Herbivores
such as Curculionidae (weevils) and Chrysomelidae (leaf
beetles) help control weeds in croplands (Cock et al., 2011).
Fish such as the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) are
used in irrigation systems to control aquatic weeds (Halwart
and Gupta, 2004). Rabbitfish (Siganus spp.) and scats
(Scatophagus spp.) help control fouling epiphytic algae in
marine fish cages.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 4.5
The roles of birds in the supply of supporting and regulating ecosystem services
Pest control: Pest predation by birds enhances crop yields
in many regions. More than 50 percent of bird species are
primarily insectivores (Wenny et al., 2011).
The European pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) has
been shown to be a major suppressor of insects harmful
to forest vegetation, especially destructive moths and
caterpillars. Because of these benefits, plantation owners
actively encourage the presence of pied flycatchers by
providing them with nest-boxes (BirdLife International,
2015). The success of such schemes means the use of
nest-boxes for flycatchers and tits has become a standard
management tool throughout European forests (ibid.).
A study in a cacao agroforesty system in Central
Sulawesi, Indonesia, found that exclusion of insectivorous
birds and bats increased insect-herbivore abundance, despite
the presence of other insectivorous predators, an effect
that decreased the final crop yield by 31 percent, equating
to a loss of USD 730 per ha per year (Maas, Clough and
Tscharntke, 2013). A study in Costa Rica on the effect of bird
predation on the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei),
a pest that often devastates coffee crops, demonstrated
that infestations nearly doubled when birds were excluded
from foraging on coffee shrubs (Karp et al., 2013). Similarly,
the findings of a study on a coffee farm in Jamaica led
researchers to conclude that the value of coffee berry borer
removal by birds equated to 12 percent of the total crop
value (Johnson, Kellermann and Stercho, 2010).
Pollination: Birds are thought to be particularly
important as pollinators in circumstances where the density
and activity of pollinating insects is limited, for example in
cold, high-rainfall or dry conditions or on isolated islands
with poor insect colonization (Cronk and Ojeda, 2008).
Anderson et al. (2011b) demonstrated that seed
output of the bird-pollinated shrub New Zealand gloxinia
(Rhabdothamnus solandri) was 84 percent lower and shrub
regeneration 55 percent lower at sites in New Zealand that
had lost two out of three major avian pollinator species
than at sites where all three species were present. Studies
have demonstrated strong relationships between birds and
the plants they pollinate: often the role of the bird species
cannot be substituted by other pollinators such as insects
(Nabhan and Buchmann, 1997).
Seed dispersal: Vertebrates, including birds, are the
main seed dispersers for flowering and woody plants
(Sekercioglu, 2006). Nearly 33 percent of bird species
disperse seeds, primarily through fruit consumption, but
also through scatter-hoarding of nuts and conifer seeds.
Seed dispersal benefits plants by increasing the likelihood
that seeds will colonize areas with favourable germination
conditions.
Removing carrion: Vultures fulfil an extremely
important ecological role as scavengers, helping to keep
the environment free of carcasses and waste that spread
disease among people and livestock. Vultures in South Asia
have declined drastically over recent decades. For example,
the abundance of the Indian vulture (Gyps indicus) and
the slender-billed vulture (Gyps tenuirostris) declined by
96.8 percent between 1992 and 2007 (Prakash et al., 2007).
This is largely because of widespread use of the
anti-inflammatory drug “diclofenac” in livestock (Ogada,
Kessing and Virani, 2012). The drug is highly toxic to
vultures, which ingest it when feeding on livestock
carcasses. Declines in vulture populations meant that
carcasses became more prevalent, which in turn led to
increases in feral dog populations, and hence increased
the risk to humans of contracting rabies via dog bites
(Markandya et al., 2008). Based on the costs of commercial
carcass-disposal plants, the value of a single vulture
has been estimated at about 600 000 Indian rupees
(approximately USD 9 200) (IUCN, 2016a). India, Nepal and
Pakistan banned the use of diclofenac as a veterinary drug
in 2006, and surveys suggest that vulture populations have
stabilized, although numbers still remain too low across the
region (e.g. Prakash et al., 2012).
Source: Provided by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and
Birdlife International.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
137
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 4.5
Examples of associated-biodiversity species or species groups that contribute to pest and disease
regulation reported to be under threat
Country
Argentina
Belgium
Species/group
Degree of threat
Main threat(s)
Insectivorous birds
Moderate
Loss of habitat in production zones, agrochemicals
Alauda arvensis (Eurasian skylark)
VU
Intensive agriculture
Perdix perdix (grey partridge)
VU
Emberiza citrinella (yellowhammer)
Threatened
Miliaria calandra (corn bunting)
Threatened
Bats
High
Collocalia sawtelli (Atiu swiftlet)
EN
Acrocephalus kerearako (Cook Islands
reed warbler)
EN
Pomarea dimidiata (Rarotonga
monarch)
EN
Aplonis cinerascens (Rarotonga
starling)
EN
Coracias garrulus (European roller)
CR
Changes in use of arable land (e.g. drainage, changes
in mechanization, changes in crops), disappearance of
dead, hollow and dry trees, pollution, acidification
Cucujus cinnaberinus (flat bark beetle)
CR
Forestry, disappearance of dead, hollow and dry trees,
changes in tree species in forests, changes in the age
structure of forests, disappearance of old forests and/or
big trees, clear-cutting
Calosoma inquisitor (lesser searcher
beetle)
CR
Forestry
Guyana
Synallaxis kollari (hoary-throated
spinetail)
EN
Ireland
Odonata (damselfly and dragonfly
species)
EN: 2 species
VU: 2 species
NE: 9 species
Lebanon
Carduelis carduelis (European
goldfinch)
EN
Loss of habitat (mainly caused by fires), climate change,
illegal hunting, pollution
Spider species in livestock
grassland-based systems
EN: 3 species
VU: 25 species
Habitat loss due to land-use change, pollution
Spider species in rainfed crop systems
VU: 8 species
Centipede species in semi-natural
forests
VU: 5 species
Spider species in semi-natural forests
EN: 3 species
VU: 23 species
Burkina Faso
Cook Islands
Estonia
Norway
Poaching, habitat destruction, pesticide susceptibility
Habitat loss due to land-use change
(Cont.)
for other purposes or for which the purpose is
not specified. It is also likely that the status of
managed BCAs is at least to some degree monitored, although this is often not stated explicitly
in the country reports. Monitoring programmes
for pests and diseases themselves exist throughout the world. Notwithstanding these various
138
strands of reporting, however, many country
reports note major weaknesses in monitoring
programmes for BCAs.
Status and trends
While, as described above, the state of knowledge
remains very far from complete, the country reports
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 4.5 (Cont.)
Examples of associated-biodiversity species or species groups that contribute to pest and disease
regulation reported to be under threat
Country
Panama
Slovenia
Sri Lanka
Switzerland
Species/group
Degree of threat
Tinamus major (great tinamou)
EN
Crypturellus soui (little tinamou)
EN
Crax rubra (great curassow)
EN
Nothocercus bonapartei (highland
tinamou)
EN
Pharomachrus mocinno (resplendent
quetzal)
EN
Odontophorus gujanensis (marbled
wood-quail)
EN
Geotrygon chiriquensis (Chiriquí
quail-dove)
EN
Alauda arvensis (Eurasian skylark)
VU
Crex crex (corncrake)
EN
Otus scops (Eurasian scops owl)
EN
Jynx torquilla (Eurasian wryneck)
VU
Lanius minor (lesser grey shrike)
VU
Lanius collurio (red-backed shrike)
VU
Main threat(s)
Habitat loss
Lullula arborea (woodlark)
EN
Spider species
Threatened: 100 species
EN: 40 species
CR: 21 species
Habitat loss, excessive use of pesticides
Bat species
NT: 7 species (23%)
On Swiss Red List: 15
species (50%)
Renovation and reassignment of historic buildings,
intensive agriculture and forestry practices, land-use
changes, use of pesticides. Habitat fragmentation due
to the presence of infrastructure (e.g. communication
routes, lights)
Odonata (damselfly and dragonfly
species)
EX: 2 species (3%)
CR: 12 species (16%)
EN: 7 species (10%)
VU: 5 species (7%)
Habitat loss (e.g. fragmentation, drainage)
Carabidae (ground beetle and tiger
beetle species)
On Swiss Red List: 148
species (29%)
Habitat loss (e.g. draining of moors), intensive
agriculture
Chrysopidae (lacewing species)
On Swiss Red List: 21
species (18%)
Loss of habitat for larvae
Notes: Countries followed the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 2012) (CR [Critically Endangered]; EN [Endangered]; EX
[Extinct]; NT [Near Threatened); VU [Vulnerable]) except where stated otherwise. The numbers in the “Degree of threat” column
indicate the numbers of species in the respective risk category and the percentages indicate the proportion of the evaluated species in
the respective taxonomic group falling within the respective risk category. See Cordillot and Klaus (2011) for more information on the
Swiss Red List classification system. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
provide a number of indications of the status of
individual BCA species, groups of BCAs or species
categories that include substantial numbers of
BCAs. For example, Bangladesh reports a decline
in spiders and predatory insects in crop fields.
Nepal mentions a general decline in the diversity of the natural enemies of pests. The United
Kingdom reports that its indicator for farmland
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
139
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
birds (many of which are insectivorous)43 declined
by 55 percent between 1970 and 2013. Similarly,
the United States of America reports a decline
of almost 40 percent in its grassland bird index
between 1968 and 2014. India notes the decline
of parasitoid wasps (Ichneumonidae, Braconidae
families) and parasitoid flies (Tachinidae). Table 4.5
presents examples from the country reports of the
reported risk status of components of associated
biodiversity that contribute to pest and disease
control, along with (where available) the main
reported threats to these species.
Countries’ responses on trends in the supply of
pest- and disease-regulation services in particular
production-system categories are summarized in
Table 4.4. Reports of decreasing trends predominate in all three crop production-system categories, while increasing trends predominate in mixed
systems. In all other production-system categories,
trends are mixed (i.e. neither positive nor negative
nor stable trends predominate). Many countries
report factors that are threatening BCAs in and
around production systems, including the use of
agrochemicals (particularly pesticides), habitat
loss and fragmentation, overexploitation and
climate change. For further discussion of drivers
of change, see Chapter 3.
4.3.6 Associated biodiversity for
soil-related ecosystem services
Introduction
This section addresses the status and trends of
components of BFA involved in soil formation and
protection and in nutrient cycling. The biota of
the soil itself is highly diverse (Orgiazzi et al., eds.,
2016). Components include micro-organisms (e.g.
fungi, bacteria, algae, nematodes and protozoa),
mesofauna (invertebrates ranging from 0.1 mm to
2 mm in length, and including mites, springtails
and molluscs) and macrofauna (larger animals such
43
Eleven out of 19 species are predominantly insectivorous
during the spring and summer and therefore have a potential
role in controlling insect pests (DEFRA, 2017). However, little is
known about the effectiveness of these species as pest control
agents (ibid.).
140
as earthworms, ants, beetles, termites, spiders and
moles) (see Figure 4.4 and Table 4.7). These organisms are vital to a range of processes that build
and maintain the capacity of the soil to support
plant growth, regulate water flows and store
carbon (Balvanera et al., 2016; FAO and ITPS, 2015;
Beed et al., 2011; Okoth, Okoth and Jefwa, 2013)
(see Table 4.6 for a summary). All these functions
depend on complex webs of interactions between
different functional and taxonomic groups of soil
organisms. Plants and above-ground animals
also contribute, for example by supplying nutrient inputs or protecting the soil against erosion
(Angers and Caron, 1998b; Graham, Grandy and
Thelen, 2009; Vanni, 2002).
Aquatic organisms are vital to the formation
of pond sediments, the accumulation of deposits in flood plains and river beds, and nutrient
cycling within these sediments and deposits and
in the wider aquatic environment (Hauer et al.,
2016; Palmer et al., 2000). More information on
biodiversity that contributes to nutrient cycling
in aquatic ecosystems is provided in Section 4.3.7.
State of knowledge
The role of soil biota in the supply of ecosystem
services has become a key focus for soil science over
the last few decades (FAO and ITPS, 2015), and soils
and soil biodiversity in general have been receiving increasing attention. Recent milestones have
included the launch of the Global Soil Biodiversity
Initiative in 2011, the establishment of the Global
Soil Partnership in 2012, and the inauguration of
World Soil Day in 2013.44 The first major global
assessment of soils and how they are changing, The
Status of the World’s Soil Resources (FAO and ITPS,
2015), was published in 2015. The following year
saw the publication of the Global Soil Biodiversity
Atlas (Orgiazzi et al., eds., 2016), which provided
the first comprehensive overview of the geographical and temporal distribution of soil biodiversity in
both natural and managed ecosystems. A number
of regional soil-biodiversity surveying initiatives
44
In December 2013, the 68th UN General Assembly declared 5
December as the World Soil Day.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 4.4
The soil food web
A simplified soil food web
MESO- AND
MACROFAUNA
(e.g. arthropods)
Predators
MESO- AND
MACROFAUNA
(e.g. arthropods)
Shredders
MICROFAUNA
(e.g. nematodes)
Root feeders
PLANTS
Shoots and roots
BIRDS
MICROFAUNA
(e.g. nematodes)
Predators
FUNGI
Mycorrhizal fungi
Saprophytic
fungi
ORGANIC MATTER
Dead plant and animal
tissues, organic compounds
and metabolites from
organism activities
1st TROPHIC LEVEL:
Primary producers
MICROFAUNA
(e.g. nematodes)
Predators
PROTISTS
BACTERIA
EARTHWORMS
MAMMALS
2nd TROPHIC LEVEL:
Decomposers, litter
and soil organic matter
feeders
Mutualists
Pathogens and parasites
Root feeders
3rd TROPHIC LEVEL:
Shredders
Predators
Grazers
4th TROPHIC LEVEL:
Higher-level predators
5th and higher
TROPHIC LEVEL:
Higher-level predators
Source: Orgiazzi et al., eds., 2016. © European Union, 2016.
have also been established, including the African
Soil Microbiology Project and activities under the
Environmental Assessment of Soil for Monitoring
Project,45 as have various national initiatives, for
example in several European countries (Gardi et
al., 2009) (see also Box 4.6).
The country reports generally indicate that
knowledge of the biodiversity that contributes
to soil formation and protection and to nutrient
cycling in production systems is limited and that
trends in the status of these resources are not monitored. Among the 91 reporting countries, eight
45
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/envasso
indicate that they have a monitoring system in
place explicitly for organisms that play a role in soil
function. The level (sampling frequency and type
of analysis) and coverage (number of species monitored) of these systems vary greatly from country
to country. Some countries describe monitoring
efforts focused on a particular component of soil
biodiversity. For example, Estonia notes that its
Agricultural Research Centre monitors the diversity
and distribution of earthworms. Sri Lanka mentions
monitoring activities for soil biodiversity in specific
production systems: arthropod diversity in paddy
fields and microbial diversity in various farming
systems. Other countries mention more-general
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
141
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
TABLE 4.6
The functions of soil organisms
Type of soil organism
Major functions
Plants, algae, bacteria
Capture energy
Use solar energy to fix carbon dioxide
Add organic matter to soil
Bacteria, fungi
Break down organic residues
Immobilize (retain) nutrients in their biomass
Create new organic compounds (cell constituents, waste products) that are
sources of energy and nutrients for other organisms
Produce organic compounds that help bind soil into aggregates
Enmesh and bind soil aggregates with fungal hyphae
Convert nitrogen into plant-available, leachable or gaseous forms (nitrifying
and denitrifying bacteria)
Compete with or inhibit disease-causing organisms
Mutualists
Bacteria, fungi
Enhance plant growth
Protect plant roots from disease-causing organisms
Fix nitrogen (some bacteria)
Form mycorrhizal associations with roots and improve access and delivery of
key nutrients (e.g. phosphorus) and water to the plant (some fungi)
Pathogens and parasites
Bacteria, fungi, nematodes,
micro-arthropods
Potentially cause disease
Consume roots and other plant parts, causing disease
Parasitize nematodes or insects, including disease-causing organisms
Root feeders
Nematodes, macro-arthropods
(e.g. cutworm, weevil larvae,
symphylans and white grubs)
Consume plant roots
Potentially cause significant crop yield losses
Bacterial feeders
Protozoa, nematodes
Graze on bacteria
Release plant-available nitrogen and other nutrients when feeding on bacteria
Fungal feeders
Nematodes, micro-arthropods
Graze on fungi
Control many root-feeding or disease-causing pests
Stimulate and control the activity of fungal populations
Ecosystem engineers
Earthworms, termites, ants
Maintain soil structure
Enhance soil aggregation by passing soil through their guts
Shredders
Macro-arthropods
Break down residue and enhance soil structure
Process organic residue into smaller fragments
Shred plant litter as they feed on bacteria and fungi
Higher-level predators
Nematode-feeding nematodes,
larger arthropods, mammals,
birds, other vertebrates
Control populations
Control populations of lower trophic-level predators
Larger organisms improve soil structure by burrowing
Larger organisms carry smaller organisms over long distances
Primary producers
Decomposers
Source: Based on Tugel, Lewandowski and Happe-vonArb, eds. (2000).
monitoring systems. The Netherlands, for example,
reports a nationwide monitoring programme for
soil biodiversity (see Box 4.6). China indicates that
it has developed a national biodiversity monitoring
network and drafted monitoring guides for, inter
alia, soil-dwelling animals. Information on monitoring activities conducted by France’s Observatory of
Agricultural Biodiversity is provided in Box 8.8.
Some countries indicate that while they have
no systematic national monitoring programmes
142
in place for soil biodiversity, relevant activities
are sometimes conducted within the framework
of individual projects. For example, Norway mentions the Living Topsoil project, under which soil
biodiversity and health are assessed and farmers
are then encouraged to modify their management practices to improve soil health. The United
Kingdom reports a pilot project that is identifying and characterizing soil-organism communities using genetic barcoding and metabarcoding
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 4.7
Typical numbers of soil organisms in healthy ecosystems
Agricultural soils
Protozoa
Nematodes
Arthropods
Earthworms
Per square foot
Fungi
100 million to 1 billion
Per teaspoon of soil (1 gram dry)
Bacteria
Prairie soils
Forest soils
100 million to 1 billion
100 million to 1 billion
Several yards
(dominated by vesiculararbuscular mycorrhizal fungi)
Tens to hundreds of yards
(dominated by vesiculararbuscular mycorrhizal fungi)
Several hundreds of yards in
deciduous forests
One to forty miles in coniferous
forests (dominated by
ectomycorrhizal fungi)
Several thousand flagellates and
amoebae, one hundred to several
hundred ciliates
Several thousand and amoebae,
one hundred to several hundred
ciliates
Several hundred thousand
amoebae, fewer flagellates
Ten to twenty bacterial-feeders
A few fungal-feeders
Few predatory nematodes
Tens to several hundred
Several hundred bacterial- and
fungal-feeders
Many predatory nematodes
Up to one hundred
Five hundred to two thousand
Ten to twenty-five thousand
Many more species than in
agricultural soils
Five to thirty
More in soils with high organic
matter
Ten to fifty
Arid or semi-arid areas may have
none
Ten to fifty in deciduous
woodlands
Very few in coniferous forests
Note: 1 foot = 0.3048 m; 1 yard = 0.9144 m; 1 mile = 1.609344 km.
Source: The table is included in the country report of the United States of America (also published in Tugel, Lewandowski and HappevonArb, eds. [2000] and online in the Soil biology primer of the National Resources Conservation Service available at https://www.nrcs.
usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/soils/health/biology/?cid=nrcs142p2_053860).
approaches. Denmark mentions a study of the
effects of the herbicide glyphosate and nitrogen fertilizer on small terrestrial biotopes such
as hedgerows and field margins, which measured, inter alia, impacts on biodiversity and functional traits in soil fauna.46 The United States of
America reports an example of indirect monitoring, noting that using data from the National
Resource Inventory (a survey conducted once
every five years) and other studies, trends in soilmanagement practices can be monitored as a
proxy for soil health – with a focus on soil carbon,
soil erosion, adoption of reduced-tillage practices,
adoption of crop rotations and adoption of cover
crops. Countries also report a number of other
initiatives that, while not strictly focused on monitoring of soil biodiversity, nonetheless contribute
to the accumulation of knowledge on their soil
resources. For example, Norway reports a “soil
mapping” initiative that involves surveys of soil
46
The country report cites Damgaard et al. (2016).
properties in predetermined areas of the country
(about 40 km2 are surveyed each year). The data
collected provide a basis for identifying trends in
soil texture and health.
Status and trends
A summary of the regional trends in soil biodiversity loss as identified by FAO and ITPS (2015)
is presented in Table 4.8. Among the ten factors
identified as major threats to the continued provision of soil ecosystem services, the loss of soil
biodiversity is listed as the fourth most important,
after soil erosion, organic-carbon decline and
nutrient imbalance. As the table shows, although
information is limited, there are grounds for
serious concern about the status of soil biodiversity in all regions of the world. Many indicators of
soil health are in decline and ecosystem services
provided by soils are under severe threat (ibid.).
Figure 4.5 shows the outcome of the first attempt
to map soil biodiversity at global scale (Orgiazzi
et al., eds., 2016). It combines two datasets:
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
143
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.5
Map of the Soil Biodiversity Index
Soil Biodiversity Index
High
Low
Not available
Water
Ice
Source: Orgiazzi et al., eds., 2016. © European Union, 2016.
FIGURE 4.6
Map of potential threats to soil biodiversity
Potential threats to
soil biodiversity
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Not available
Water
Ice
Source: Orgiazzi et al., eds., 2016. © European Union, 2016.
144
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
distribution of microbial biomass, as a proxy for soil
micro-organism diversity (Serna-Chavez, Fierer and
Van Bodegom, 2013); and distribution of 14 groups
of soil macrofauna, as a proxy for soil-fauna diversity (Orgiazzi et al., eds., 2016). The two datasets
were harmonized on a 0 to 1 scale and summed to
generate an index. Due to the current lack of data,
important groups of soil organisms such as nematodes, collembolans and mites are not included the
index. There is thus a need for significantly more
research and data collection.
Figure 4.6 shows a first global map of the distribution of potential threats to soil organisms. A risk
index was generated by combining eight potential
stressors of soil biodiversity: loss of above-ground
diversity; pollution and nutrient overloading; overgrazing; intensive agriculture; fire; soil erosion;
desertification; and climate change. Specific
proxies were chosen to represent the spatial distribution of each threat (Orgiazzi et al., eds., 2016).
All datasets were harmonized on a 0 to 1 scale and
summed, with total scores categorized into five
risk classes (very low to very high). Some potential
threats, such as soil sealing and salinization, were
not included due to a lack of data. The exercise
indicated the need for better data collection that
will allow the development of conservation actions
specifically for soil-dwelling organisms.
As noted above, the majority of country reports
do not include detailed information on the status
and trends of components of associated biodiversity
involved in soil formation and protection and
nutrient cycling. Some countries, however, provide
partial or tentative statements in this regard. For
Box 4.6
The Netherlands’ soil biological monitoring programme
In the Netherlands, the nationwide soil biological monitoring
programme BISQ (Biological Indicator of Soil Quality) was
developed with the aim of collecting data that would enable
policy-makers to assess the quality and resilience of soil
ecosystem services. BISQ is considered to rank among the
most advanced soil-monitoring systems in the world.
BISQ links soil functioning to soil biodiversity. First,
the most important life-support functions of the soil were
identified: decomposition of organic matter; nutrient cycling;
soil-structure formation; plant–soil interactions;
and ecosystem stability. Next, ecological processes linked
to these functions were described. Finally, the dominant
soil-organism groups and ecological-process parameters
were determined and combined into an indicator system
(see table below).
About 300 locations, with different combinations of land
use and soil type, were selected, and from 1999 onwards
samples were collected from about 60 locations (farms,
natural areas and urban sites) and analysed for soilbiological characteristics. Because of budget constraints, soil
sampling was discontinued in 2014, but the data obtained
so far continue to be used for policy formulation. Sampling
may restart when budget becomes available again.
In general, the abundance of soil organisms was found
to be higher in the soil of dairy farms than in that of arable
land. Earthworms, especially, appeared to be scarce in
arable land, and were virtually absent in mixed forests and
heathlands. Nematode abundance was highest in dairy
farms on peat and lowest in the mineral layer of mixed
forest on sand.
Data from BISQ have been used to develop benchmarks
for ten combinations of soil type and land use. For each of
these combinations, a limited number of monitoring sites
were selected that were considered to be well managed
and to represent relatively good-quality soil ecosystems.
The average of the BISQ parameters for these sites was
taken as a benchmark for a good-quality soil ecosystem.
In agriculture, these benchmarks can serve to help farmers
improve soil quality and establish more-sustainable farming
practices. In nature conservation, the benchmarks can guide
managers of protected areas in their efforts to restore
former agricultural lands.
The main lesson learned from the programme is that
biological soil monitoring, with measurements carried out
for more than 15 years on a semi-routine scale, is feasible.
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
145
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
Box 4.6 (Cont.)
The Netherlands’ soil biological monitoring programme
The BISQ indicator framework
Life support
functions
Decomposition of
organic matter
Ecological processes
Plant–soil
interactions
Ecosystem stability
Indicators
Fragmentation
Earthworms, enchytraeids, mites,
wood-related fungi
Taxonomic diversity per trophic level
Transformation of organic substrate
Bacterial degradation routes
Litter- and dung-related fungi
Genetically diverse microflora
Taxonomic diversity per trophic level
Bacterial DNA polymorphism
Carbon and nitrogen mineralization
Trophic interactions
Model-derived nitrogen production
Microbial activity
Micro-organisms
Concentration, biomass, thymidine
incorporation
Predation microfauna
Protists
Nematodes
Springtails
Mites
Active/inactive cysts
Maturity index
Functional diversity
Maturity index
Bioturbation and formation of soil
aggregates
Earthworms
Enchytraeids
Mycelium hyphae
Functional diversity
Number of organisms
Biomass
Uptake of N, P, H2O and heavy metals
Mycorrhizal macrofungi
Functional diversity
Nitrification
Nitrifying bacteria
Nitrate production from NH4+
Feeding on plant roots
Nematodes and fungal pathogens
Plant parasitic index
Trophic links; loops and cascade
effects
Structure of community
Food-web structure; food-web
pyramid
Nutrient cycling
Soil-structure
formation
Dominant soil-organism
groups and ecological process
parameters
After Rutgers et al., 2009.
Source: Provided by Martin Brink, drawing on British Ecological Society (2016), CBS, PBL and WUR (2016), Rutgers et al. (2014, 2009) and personal communication
with Michel Rutgers (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, the Netherlands), 24 November 2016.
example, the United States of America notes that
the above-mentioned soil-related monitoring
activities indicate positive trends in the implementation of the management practices considered
potential proxies for the status of soil biodiversity.
Other countries that indicate at least some positive
trends include Ethiopia, which reports that the
planting of trees that symbiotically fix nitrogen
has had a positive effect on soil micro-organism
diversity in planted forest systems. Countries
reporting unfavourable developments include
El Salvador, which notes large-scale soil erosion
associated with loss of forest cover and mentions
that this has been accompanied by loss of soil
invertebrates and micro-organisms. Zambia
146
mentions negative trends among grassland invertebrates and micro-organisms. These effects
are attributed to a decline in livestock numbers
(caused by disease outbreaks) that has disrupted
soil-formationprocesses, although the report also
mentions that overstocking and overgrazing in
communal areas have negatively affected soils
and their capacity to supply water-related ecosystem services. Grenada notes that farmers have
reported a decline in earthworm numbers.
Countries’ responses on trends in the supply of
soil-related ecosystem services (i.e. nutrient cycling
and soil formation and protection) in particular
production systems are summarized in Table 4.4.
Where nutrient cycling is concerned, reports
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 4.8
Summary of regional extent, trends and uncertainties of soil-biodiversity loss presented in the Status
of the World’s Soil Resources
In trend
In condition
Confidence
Very good
Good
Fair
Summary
Poor
Region
Very poor
Condition and trend
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa suffers a high
rate of deforestation. The areas most
affected are those in the moist areas of
West Africa and the highland forests
of the Horn of Africa. Cultivation,
introduction of new species, oil
exploration and pollution reduce the
population of soil organisms, thus
reducing faunal and microbial activities.
↘
Asia
Limited information is available for soil
biodiversity in Asia. Some reports show
high microbial biodiversity in the soils
of organic farming lands.
↗↙
Europe and
Eurasia
Loss of biodiversity is expected in the
most urbanized and contaminated
areas of the region. However, there are
almost no qualitative estimations of
the biodiversity loss in soils.
↘
Evidence and consensus
are limited
Latin America
and the
Caribbean
Loss of soil biodiversity is suspected to
occur in deforested and overexploited
agricultural areas.
↗↙
Adequate high-quality
evidence and
high level of consensus
Near East and
North Africa
The extent of loss of soil biodiversity
due to human impact is largely
unknown in the Near East and North
Africa region. More studies need to be
undertaken to understand the scope of
the problem.
North America
The extent of loss of soil biodiversity
due to human impact is largely
unknown in North America. The effects
of increasing agricultural chemical use,
especially pesticide use, on biodiversity
are a major public concern. Known
level of carbon loss suggests similar
loss in biodiversity.
↗↙
Southwest
Pacific
Rates of loss were most likely highest
during the expansion of agriculture,
particularly over the last 100 years,
and this may have slowed. However,
information on baselines and trends
is lacking in nearly all districts and
countries.
↗↙
Evidence and consensus
are low
↗↙ Variable
↗ Improving
↘ Deteriorating
↘
Source: FAO and ITPS, 2015.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
147
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
of downward trends predominate in livestock
grassland-based systems, irrigated crop systems
and culture-based fisheries. In most other systems,
trends are mixed (i.e. neither positive nor negative nor stable trends predominate). In the case
of soil formation and protection services, reports
of negative trends predominate in livestock
grassland-based systems and in all categories of
crop system. Reports of positive trends predominate for planted forest systems (possibly reflecting
increasing areas of planted forests in some countries)
and landless livestock systems. Trends are mixed
(i.e. neither positive nor negative nor stable
trends predominate) for naturally regenerated
forests. While, as in the case of other ecosystem
service categories, levels of reporting are low, the
substantial proportion of countries that report
negative trends in major food-producing systems
reinforces the concerns that have emerged from
the global assessments described above.
A few country reports provide information
linking trends in soil-related ecosystem services
to management practices in specific production
systems. For example, the report from Panama
mentions that in grassland systems the use of herbicides and antiparasitic livestock drugs is leading
to contamination of the soil, affecting soil invertebrates and inhibiting soil-formation and nutrientcycling services. Similarly, Bangladesh reports that
soil formation and protection are being hampered
in areas where soil micro-organism diversity is
affected by the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Further information on trends in management
practices that are considered beneficial to soil
biodiversity can be found in Section 5.6.3.
4.3.7 Associated biodiversity for
water-related ecosystem services
Introduction
Water is vital to all species and to all ecosystem
functions and services. While much of the Earth’s
estimated 1.4 billion km3 of water is in long-term
storage in oceans, ice caps and aquifers, about
41 000 km3 circulates between the atmosphere, the
surface of the land, subsurface zones, freshwater
148
bodies and the ocean (Acreman, 2004). Ecosystems
and the living organisms within them influence the
hydrological cycle and hence the amount of water
available at particular locations at particular points
in time: for example, whether or not there is sufficient water to meet the needs of plants during the
growing season in a cropping area or whether or
not a vulnerable area is hit by flooding.
Vegetation and soils are vital to the control of
water flows in terrestrial ecosystems. Vegetation
promotes the infiltration of water into the soil,
thus helping to recharge underground aquifers
and lowering flood risk (Acreman, 2004). Soil
biota – plants, micro-organisms and invertebrate
and vertebrate animals – modifies the structure
of the soil and affects the pathways and rates of
water infiltration, influencing the capacity of the
soil to hold water (BIO Intelligence Service, 2014;
Sans and Meixner, 2016) (see Section 4.3.4 for
further information on the status and trends of
associated biodiversity contributing to soil-related
ecosystem services). Plants also return water to the
atmosphere through transpiration (Acreman et
al., 2014; Stewart, 1977) and in some cases influence the amount of precipitation that falls in the
local area (Spracklen, Arnold and Taylor, 2012;
Wright et al., 2017) (see Box 4.7).
As well as influencing the quantity of water
available, biodiversity also influences water
quality, including by cycling nutrients within
waterbodies and between them and other ecosystems. Nutrient-cycling services are essential to the
health of aquatic ecosystems. On the one hand,
aquatic organisms clearly need to be able to access
sufficient quantities of nutrients to allow them
to grow and reproduce. On the other, however,
waterbodies can become overloaded with nutrients, for example in agricultural areas where there
is a heavy use of fertilizers, and this can have negative impacts on biodiversity and the supply of
ecosystem services (see Chapter 3).
A myriad of interconnected physical, physiochemical, chemical and biological processes
contribute to water-purification and nutrientcycling services in aquatic ecosystems (Cardinale,
2011; Ostroumov, 2002, 2005). Some species
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 4.7
Páramos – a vital provider of water-regulating services under threat
What are páramos?
Páramos are high-altitude ecosystems found mainly in a
discontinuous belt stretching along the Andean mountain
range from the Cordillera de Merida in the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela to the Huancabamba depression in northern
Peru, passing through Colombia and Ecuador (Buytaert et al.,
2006; IUCN, undated). There are separate páramo complexes
in Costa Rica and in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta,
Colombia (Hofstede, Segarra and Mena, 2003).
Páramo ecosystems extend from the upper tree line to
the perennial snow border (3 200 to 5 000 metres above sea
level) (IUCN, undated). It is estimated that they host around
5 000 different plant species, a high proportion of which are
endemic (i.e. found nowhere else) (Buytaert et al., 2006).
Species that occupy the páramos have developed remarkable
adaptations to harsh physiochemical and climatic conditions
such as low atmospheric pressure, intense ultraviolet radiation
and the drying effects of the wind (ibid.).
How do páramos contribute to water regulation?
Páramos play a key role in regulating water flows (Buytaert
et al., 2006): rainfall is high and may be supplemented by
fog condensation; water consumption is low as the leaves of
the tussock grasses are protected against radiation and dry
air by accumulated dead leaves and because the herbaceous
vegetation consists of xerophytic species (plants adapted
to a lack of water); the tussock grasses and dwarf shrubs
protect the soil and reduce evaporation. The soils themselves
Páramos ecosystem on the foothills of Puracé National Park in the Andes,
Colombia. © Nigel Dudley.
have extraordinary water-retention capacity (ibid.). Many
of the largest tributaries of the Amazon basin have their
headwaters in páramo ecosystems, which thus help sustain
the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, providing
water for domestic, agricultural and industrial consumption
and for use in generating hydropower (Buytaert et al., 2006).
Why are páramos under threat?
The country reports mention several threats to the páramos
and the ecosystem services they provide. For example, the
report from Peru states that the country’s páramos are
undergoing a process of transformation, desertification
and erosion, mainly as a result of overgrazing, extractive
activities, intensive agriculture and pollution. It notes
that this is directly affecting the ecosystem’s capacity to
moderate extreme events, prevent erosion, maintain soil
fertility and maintain genetic diversity. Ecuador mentions
that the invasive alien species Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum
clandestinum) represents a threat to páramos, as it could
outcompete native species and, given its value as a fodder,
promote more livestock grazing in mountain areas. Costa
Rica reports that, according to a scenario study, climate
change will lead to altitudinal shifts in life zones that will
potentially result in the disappearance of the country’s
páramos in the coming decades.
Sources: Country reports of Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru (plus the references
cited in the text).
Espeletia spp., commonly known as frailejones, are typical plants of
páramos ecosystems. © Nigel Dudley.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
149
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
play particularly prominent roles. For example,
some plant species, such as the water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes), duck weed (e.g. Lemna
spp.), aquatic ferns (e.g. Azolla spp.), cattails
(Typha spp.) and reeds (Phragmites spp.), are
recognized for their ability to remove toxic substances such as heavy metals from waterbodies
(Ramsar Convention, 2011a). 47 Filter-feeding
animals, such as ascidians (sea squirts), cirripeds
(barnacles), bryozoans (colony-forming invertebrates sometimes referred to as moss animals),
bivalves (e.g. clams, oysters, mussels and scallops),
polychaetes (bristle worms) and sponges, play a
conspicuous “cleaning” role in the ecosystem as
they remove suspended particles from the water
(Ostroumov, 2005). However, virtually all the
species in an aquatic ecosystem are involved in
water-purification and nutrient-cycling processes,
either directly (e.g. by trapping, transforming,
accumulating and/or translocating pollutants via
their behavioural activities and physiological processes) or indirectly (e.g. by releasing oxygen into
the water, mixing the water column, influencing
the physical and chemical properties of the water
by contributing organic matter, or influencing the
behaviour of other organisms such a prey species)
(Ostroumov, 2002, 2005; Vanni, 2002).
In addition to processes occurring within
waterbodies themselves, water-purification services are provided by other ecosystems through
which water flows (forests, grasslands, etc.) (FAO,
2007d; Oregon State University, 2008; Ostroumov,
2005). As with water-cycling services, the capacity of these ecosystems to purify water is greatly
affected by the state of the vegetation and the
soils within them – and in turn on a wide range
of components of biodiversity that contribute to
soil health or help maintain plant communities.48
In response to a question about species
managed specifically to promote water-related
ecosystem services, countries mention approximately 80 species. Examples include willows
47
48
It should be noted that some of those species are invasive in
some regions of the world.
See Section 4.5 for further discussion of the status and trends
of rangelands, forests and wetlands.
150
(Salix spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), the oyster
mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) and bamboos
(Bambusa spp.) (see Section 4.3.1). Trees are particularly widely mentioned, as is the importance
of soils, wetland ecosystems, forests and riparian
areas. For example, the United States of America
highlights the importance of the soil as a filter that
improves water quality, and also notes the role
played by riparian buffers in reducing the amount
of fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals
passing from farmland into waterways. Countries
also note a number of marine and coastal ecosystems as important suppliers of water-purification services. For example, Norway mentions kelp
forests and Solomon Islands mentions coral reefs,
mangroves, seagrass beds and intertidal mud
ecosystems. Several groups of aquatic species are
noted as contributors to marine water-purification services, including shellfish and micro-organisms (Mexico) and microalgae (Peru).
State of knowledge
As described above, a wide range of taxonomic
and functional groups of organisms, across a
range of different ecosystems, contribute to
water-purification and water-cycling services.
However, although the processes involved may be
broadly understood, in many cases little is known
about the underlying ecological mechanisms that
keep them in operation or about the relationships
between the diversity and distribution of BFA
and provision of these services (Cardinale, 2011;
Harrison et al., 2014; Ostroumov, 2005).
Water quality itself has not yet been assessed
comprehensively at global scale. In 1978, the
Global Environment Monitoring System for
freshwater (GEMS/Water) was established under
the auspices of the United Nations Environment
Programme, the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, the
World Health Organization and the World
Meteorological Organization (UN Environment,
2016c). The GEMS/Water Data Centre maintains
the Global Water Quality database and information system (GEMStat), which stores data
received from a global network of national
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
focal points (ibid.). A global assessment of water
quality (Meybeck et al., 1989; UNESCO, WHO and
UN Environment, 1996) was published in 1988.
However, inconsistencies in spatial and temporal coverage and differences in the ranges of
variables reported meant that the assessment
relied on sources other than the GEMS/Water
database (UN Environment, 2016c). In 2016, UN
Environment published A snapshot of the world’s
water quality: towards a global assessment (ibid.),
a prestudy aiming to provide some of the building
blocks of a global assessment and to provide a
preliminary estimate of the state of water quality
in freshwater ecosystems, with a focus on lakes
and rivers in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The status of relevant ecosystems and groups
of species are assessed and monitored under a
number of global initiatives. For example, IUCN
monitors the conservation status of marine and
freshwater invertebrates and how they are being
affected by environmental changes (Collen et
al., 2012). The IUCN Species Programme Marine
Biodiversity Unit assesses extinction risks for
marine vertebrates, plants and selected invertebrates, including those in important ecosystems
such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds
(GMSA, 2017). The Global Census of Marine Life,49
conducted between 2000 and 2010 to assess and
explain the diversity, distribution and abundance
of marine life, resulted in the creation of a global
marine-life database (see Chapter 6 for more
information). More information on relevant ecosystem assessments can be found in Section 4.5.
Regional and national initiatives within
the framework of The IUCN Red List have provided detailed reviews of the status of particular groups of aquatic species. For instance,
the European Red List of Non-Marine Molluscs
(Cuttelod, Seddon and Neubert, 2011) provides
information on the state of freshwater bivalves
and gastropods. A study of African freshwater
biodiversity (Darwall et al., 2011) addresses the
state, diversity, distribution and conservation
of, inter alia, freshwater molluscs and plants in
49
http://www.coml.org/
a range of ecosystems, including river and artesian basins, ancient, montane and crater lakes,
saline lagoons, salt-marshes and mangroves.
Other examples include studies of the status of
freshwater biodiversity in the Eastern Himalaya
(Allen, Molur and Daniel, 2010), Western Ghats
(Molur et al., 2011) and Indo-Burma biodiversity
hotspots (Allen, Smith and Darwall, 2012).
In as far as the country reports mention research
or monitoring programmes addressing the role
of biodiversity in the delivery of water-cycling
and water-purification services, it is generally to
note a lack of knowledge or a lack of studies on
relevant components of biodiversity (e.g. microorganisms), on the capacity of particular ecosystems to deliver these services or on trends in the
supply of these services. Finland does, however,
mention water purification among the ecosystem
services for which there has been a rapid growth
of research in recent decades.
Status and trends
As discussed above, while water-related supporting and regulating ecosystem services depend to
a large degree on the extent, distribution and
general health of relevant ecosystems and on a
very wide range of different organisms, some
species play particularly prominent roles. In the
case of water purification services, these include
aquatic plants and various groups of aquatic invertebrates. The risk status of species in these categories is, in general, relatively poorly monitored,
as compared to that of vertebrates, for example.
Data from The IUCN Red List for some relevant
taxa – Maxillopoda (crustaceans such as barnacles
and copepods), Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers),
Bivalvia (e.g. clams, oysters, mussels and scallops)
and Polychaeta (bristle worms) – are summarized
in Figure 4.7, disaggregated by class.
Countries’ responses on trends in the supply
of water-purification, waste-treatment, watercycling and nutrient-cycling services in particular
production systems are summarized in Table 4.4.
Where water-purification and waste-treatment
services are concerned, trends are mixed (i.e.
neither positive nor negative nor stable trends
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
151
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.7
Global risk status of invertebrates in the classes Bivalvia, Holothuroidea, Maxillopoda
and Polychaeta
Number of species
Bivalvia
784
Holothuroidea
371
Maxillopoda
102
Polychaeta
2
0%
10%
20%
30%
EX
40%
CR
EN
50%
60%
VU
DD
70%
NT
80%
90%
100%
LC
Note: EX (Extinct); CR (Critically Endangered); EN (Endangered); VU (Vulnerable); DD (Data Deficient); NT (Near Threatened) and
LC (Least Concern).
Source: The IUCN Red List version 2017-2.
predominate) in all production systems except livestock grassland-based and irrigated crop systems,
where reports of negative trends predominate.
In the case of water-cycling services, reports of
positive trends predominate in planted forest, fed
aquaculture and irrigated (non-rice) crop systems.
Although few responses are provided for these
production systems, reports of stable trends predominate for non-fed aquaculture and decreasing trends for irrigated rice systems. In all the
remaining production systems trends are mixed.
Few countries provide information on trends in
nutrient-cycling services in aquatic production
systems. In the case of fed aquaculture systems,
increasing trends predominate. Decreasing
trends predominate for culture-based fisheries.
For other aquatic systems, trends are mixed. The
various reports of positive trends in aquaculture
systems may relate to the proactive introduction
of management techniques and strategies aimed
at addressing concerns about the environmental
impacts of these systems.
Reasons for negative trends are indicated in a
number of country reports. The most frequently
mentioned drivers include deforestation, expansion of the agricultural frontier and increased
livestock grazing in riparian or coastal areas.
152
China reports that water-purification services in
the Miyun Reservoir watershed in Beijing have
declined substantially as a result of the expansion of construction and other land-use changes.
Finland mentions that recent milder winters may
have disrupted the water-purification function of
vegetation on land surrounding waterbodies, an
effect reported to have arisen because soils are
increasingly unfrozen during the non-vegetative
period when plants are less able to intercept
eroded matter. Panama lists water-purification
services among those predicted to decrease as
a result of a net loss of forest area. The Gambia
notes that changes in land use are diminishing the
capacity of forests to provide water-purification
and waste-treatment services. The Cook Islands
mentions that the removal of trees from littoral
forests may be increasing algal growth and sedimentation in some lagoon areas. Switzerland, in
contrast, provides a more positive assessment of
trends in water-related ecosystem services, noting
that the capacity of lakes and rivers to purify
water has probably increased as a result of restoration efforts. The capacity of the country’s forests
to provide water-purification services is reported
to have been secured for decades through appropriate forest management.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
4.3.8 Associated biodiversity for
natural-hazard regulation
Introduction
Natural-hazard regulation is defined in the
guidelines for the preparation of country reports
as the “capacity of ecosystems to ameliorate
and reduce the damage caused by natural disasters.” Numerous mechanisms can contribute
(see Section 2.3) and it is difficult to distinguish a
clearly defined subset of associated biodiversity
that contributes to hazard regulation. Services of
this kind are often provided by whole ecosystems
or landscapes. However, within these systems
some species (wild or domesticated), or functional groups of species, may play a particularly
direct or significant role in hazard regulation,
and some of these may be managed specifically
in order to promote these roles. The country
reports mention a number of species or groups
in this regard (see Section 4.3.1). A large majority
of these are trees managed for storm protection
and as wind breaks, including mangroves for protection of coastal areas. Tree, grass and fodder
species that help to protect riverbanks and limit
landslides are also mentioned. Jordan reports
planting cypresses (Cupressus sempervirens) and
carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua) around forests
for fire-control purposes. Further discussion and
examples of the roles of BFA in natural-hazard
regulation can be found in Section 2.3. The
impacts of disasters on BFA are discussed in
Section 3.4.2.
Several types of ecosystem that are used in
food and agricultural production and/or provide
habitats for associated biodiversity and wild food
species are noted for their major contributions
to hazard regulation. For example, evidence
from many countries indicates the important
role of forests in flood prevention, and there is
also growing interest in their roles in mitigating
other hazards such as avalanches and rock falls
(UN Environment, 2010). The roles of wetland
and coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, coral
reefs and salt-marshes in flood control, shoreline
stabilization and storm protection are also widely
recognized, as is the importance of peatlands,
grasslands and floodplains in flood protection
(Bravo de Guenni et al., 2005; Ferrario et al.,
2014; GEAS, 2013; Narayan et al., 2016; Ramsar
Convention, 2011b, 2011c, 2015a). Soil biodiversity plays a particularly significant role in resilience to droughts and floods, via its influence
on the soil’s capacity to absorb and hold water
(FAO, 2011a). More information on the status
and trends of relevant ecosystems, and of soil
biodiversity, is provided in Sections 4.5 and 4.3.4,
respectively.
The frequency and intensity of many types
of natural disasters are expected to increase
as a result of climate change (IPCC, 2012). The
roles played by BFA in carbon sequestration (see
Section 2.2), and hence in climate change mitigation, thus also make an important contribution to
hazard regulation.
State of knowledge
A number of monitoring systems for natural disasters are in operation at global level, including the
Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System,50
the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT)51
and climate- and weather-related information
systems operated by the World Meteorological
Organization.52 Many countries have national
monitoring and assessment programmes for
various kinds of natural hazards. Generally,
however, these global and national initiatives do
not involve any particular focus on components
of BFA (or biodiversity in general) that provide
hazard-regulating services.
There are also a number of global and national
information systems devoted to ecosystems associated with food and agriculture that are recognized as playing an important role in hazard
regulation. In the case of forests, for example,
FAO’s CountryStat system53 makes available data
from the Global Forest Resource Assessment,
a five-yearly assessment of about 90 variables
50
51
52
53
http://gdacs.org
https://www.emdat.be
https://public.wmo.int/en
http://countrystat.org/default.aspx
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
153
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
covering the extent, condition, uses and values
of forests and other wooded land (FAO, 2016i).
Where wetland ecosystems are concerned, the
GEO-Wetlands Initiative 2017–2019, a global
partnership coordinated by the University of
Bonn (Germany), Wetlands International and
the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, is working
to establish a Global Wetlands Observing System
(GEO BON Secretariat, 2016). Further discussion
of relevant information systems can be found in
Section 4.5.
Status and trends
As discussed above, the role of BFA in naturalhazard regulation depends largely on the status
of whole ecosystems rather than on that of individual species. Global trends in the status of relevant ecosystem categories are often negative (see
Section 4.5 for further discussion).
Countries’ responses on trends in the supply
of hazard-regulation services are summarized
in Table 4.4. Reports of upward trends predominate in the case of fed aquaculture systems, while
reports of stable trends predominate in livestock
and irrigated rice systems. For most production
systems, however, trends are mixed (i.e. neither
positive nor negative nor stable trends predominate). Few countries provide further details on the
reported trends. It is possible that in some cases
reported upward trends indicate an increase in
the need for natural-hazard regulation rather
than an improvement in the capacity of ecosystems to deliver this service.
The limited extent to which countries were
able to provide information on the status and
trends of hazard regulation services in food and
agricultural systems reflects a general lack of
information on trends in this ecosystem service.
For example, as of 2010, trends in natural-hazard
regulation in most of the ecosystems in Europe
were reported to be unknown (EEA, 2015).
Delivery of this service in Europe was reported to
be in a mixed state in wetlands and in a degraded
state in lakes and rivers, with trends reported to
be stable in both cases (ibid.).
154
4.3.9 Associated biodiversity for
habitat provisioning
Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 2, the survival of any
species in the wild depends on its access to sufficient suitable habitat, i.e. to environments that
allow members of the species to meet their physiological needs, protect themselves from hazards
and reproduce. A habitat is typically created
and maintained via a wide range of interactions
among and between abiotic structures and processes (climate, geology, etc.) and components of
biodiversity. Habitat services are thus to a large
extent products of whole ecosystems rather than
of specific components within them. Some species
may, however, play a particularly significant role
in the supply of particular habitat services, either
because they play a key role in shaping and maintaining the overall characteristics of the ecosystem or because they are a key component of the
habitat of a specific species, for example providing
an animal species with a major source of food or
a nesting site. In turn, some habitats are particularly significant, for example because of the exceptional richness of the biodiversity they support
or because of their role in supporting species at
key points in their life cycles, for example during
migration (TEEB, 2010).
The country reports note the importance of
various components of BFA, mainly at ecosystem
level, in habitat provisioning. Most frequently
mentioned are forests, followed by marine and
coastal ecosystems, such as mangroves and coral
reefs, non-marine wetlands (including waterbodies such as lakes and rivers), mountains, grasslands
and deserts. A few countries also mention crop
systems and specific components within them (e.g.
field margins) as important habitats. Countries
also report a number of species of associated biodiversity as being actively managed for the provision of habitat services. These are mostly tree
species, for example tamarind (Tamarindus indica),
acacias (Acacia spp.), eucalyptuses (Eucalyptus
spp.), African mahogany (Khaya senegalensis) and
whitebeams (Sorbus spp.) (see also Section 4.3.1).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
The status and trends of several key ecosystem
services, including wetlands, forests, coral reefs,
mangroves, seagrass beds and rangelands, are discussed in Section 4.5.
State of knowledge
Trends in the extent of various key ecosystems
of importance to food and agriculture that serve
as vital habitats for large numbers of species are
monitored at global, regional or national levels.
These monitoring efforts increasingly include
the use of satellite technologies/remote sensing
(Bunce et al., 2008; Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space, 2015; Lucas et al., 2015). For
example, the EU-funded project BIOdiversity multi-Source monitoring System: from Space to Species
(BIO_SOS) has developed the Earth Observation
Data for HAbitat Monitoring (EODHaM) system,
a standardized framework for habitat mapping
and monitoring (Lucas et al., 2015). The system
has been applied successfully to Natura 200054
sites and their surroundings in a few European
countries, but also at other locations in Europe
and beyond, and is expected to be more widely
adopted by the managers of protected sites (ibid.).
Weaknesses in habitat-monitoring programmes
are widely recognized in the country reports.
However, a range of monitoring activities targeting relevant ecosystems are reported (again
further discussion can be found in Section 4.5).
Several countries mention national habitat-monitoring schemes or refer to institutions that keep
track of the status of important habitats at national
or subnational levels. For example, Norway mentions that the Norwegian Biodiversity Information
Centre55 undertakes habitat risk assessments, disseminates information on the state of habitats
and manages the country’s Red List for habitat
types. The United States of America reports that
the databases of the State Natural Heritage
Programs operated by The Nature Conservancy,56
a non-profit conservation organization, contain
54
55
56
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm
http://www.biodiversity.no
http://www.nature.org
information on the occurrences of rare species
and their habitats. It notes that the databases list
species, natural communities and ecosystems in
need of protection and contain information on
the vegetation structure and composition, succession patterns, natural disturbances, distribution
and rarity of specific community types throughout
their geographic ranges. China mentions using a
habitat-quality index to evaluate the biodiversity
maintenance function of habitats. A number of
countries also mention habitat-monitoring activities implemented in the context of specific projects, particularly in the field of conservation.
Status and trends
Countries’ responses on trends in the supply of
habitat services in particular production systems
are summarized in Table 4.4. Reports of positive
trends predominate in forest production systems.
In all fisheries and aquaculture systems, trends
are mixed (i.e. neither positive nor negative nor
stable trends predominate). Reports of negative
trends predominate in crop and livestock systems,
reflecting both the analysis of trends in major ecosystem categories presented below in Section 4.5
and the analysis of drivers of change presented
in Chapter 3. Many countries highlight ongoing
habitat degradation or destruction, or note the
continued precariousness of many habitats despite
the introduction of conservation programmes. For
example, China reports that its above-mentioned
habitat-quality indexes show that for the period
2000 to 2010 a large proportion of studied ecosystems were estimated to be of low habitat quality
and that the extent of ecosystems with higher
habitat quality was declining. Switzerland mentions that almost half of its habitats are listed as
threatened on its red lists and notes that “negative developments outweigh the positive developments in terms of the area and quality of habitats
that merit special conservation efforts.” The findings of the European Union’s monitoring activities for a number of habitats relevant to food and
agriculture are discussed in Box 4.8.
Figure 4.8 presents the risk status of species
included on The IUCN Red List, broken down by
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
155
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
Box 4.8
Trends in the state of habitats in the European Union
The European Union’s Habitats Directive, adopted in 1992,1
aims to protect biodiversity by promoting the conservation
of habitats and wild flora and fauna. Member states are
required to report every six years on their implementation of
the directive. The most recently completed round of reporting
covered the 2007 to 2012 period. Findings were published
in 2015. The conservation status and trends of major habitat
groups are summarized in the following figure.
Only 16 percent of all habitat assessments undertaken in
this round of reporting indicated a “favourable” status. Most
found the status of ecosystems to be either “unfavourable –
inadequate” (47 percent) or “unfavourable – bad”
(30 percent). Unfavourable assessments were particularly
common in the case of dunes, grasslands, coastal habitats
and wetlands.
Where trends are concerned, 30 percent of all assessed
habitats fell into the “unfavourable – deteriorating”
category and 33 percent into the “unfavourable – stable”
category. Only 4 percent were classified as “unfavourable –
improving”. Wetland habitats, followed by grasslands,
were the categories for which the highest proportion of
assessments indicated negative trends.
1
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (available at http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm).
Conservation status of habitat types
by main habitat group
Conservation status trends of
habitat types by main habitat group
Dunes habitats
Coastal habitats
Grasslands
Bogs, mires
and fens
Forests
Freshwater
habitats
Heath and scrub
Sclerophyllous
scrub
Rocky habitats
0%
20%
40%
60%
Unknown
Favourable
Unfavourable – inadequate
80%
100%
Unfavourable – bad
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Favourable
Unfavourable – improving
Unfavourable – unknown trend
Unknown
Unfavourable – stable
Unfavourable – declining
Source: European Commission, 2015.
habitat type.57 Habitats of particular interest to
food and agriculture include artificial aquatic
(which includes aquaculture ponds, irrigated land,
seasonally flooded agricultural land, mariculture
cages and mari/brackishculture ponds), artificial
57
More information on the Habitats Classification Scheme
(version 3.1) is available at http://www.iucnredlist.
org/technical-documents/classification-schemes/
habitats-classification-scheme-ver3
156
terrestrial (which includes arable land, pastureland, plantations and rural gardens), forests, grasslands, marine coastal, marine intertidal (which
includes mangroves), marine neritic (which includes
macroalgal/kelp habitats, coral reefs and seagrass
habitats), savannahs, shrublands and wetlands. Of
these, the habitats with the highest proportion
of species classed as Extinct, Extinct in the Wild,
Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 4.8
Global risk status of species included in The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, by habitat
Number of species
Artificial - aquatic
3 214
Artificial - terrestrial
10 037
Caves and
subterranean habitats
753
Desert
1 355
Forest
31 850
Grassland
8 060
Marine coastal
1 834
Marine
deep ocean floor
1 461
Marine intertidal
2 365
Marine neritic
8 660
Marine oceanic
2 148
Rocky areas
4 349
Savannah
4 950
Shrubland
12 512
Wetlands
24 331
Other
314
Unknown
2 185
0%
10%
20%
EX
30%
EW
40%
CR
50%
EN
60%
VU
70%
DD
80%
NT
90%
100%
LC
Notes: EX (Extinct); EW (Extinct in the Wild); CR (Critically Endangered); EN (Endangered); VU (Vulnerable); DD (Data Deficient);
NT (Near Threatened) and LC (Least Concern). Species can be assigned to more than one habitat.
Source: The IUCN Red List version 2017-3.
are forests (29 percent of species), marine coastal
habitats and wetlands (both 22 percent).
4.3.10 Associated biodiversity for
air-quality and climate regulation
Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 2, BFA plays a significant role
in air-quality regulation. Plants, and in particular
trees and shrubs, are the direct providers of this
service, as they are able to trap particulate and
gaseous pollutants from the surrounding air.
Capacity to do this varies from species to species
depending on characteristics such as leaf structure,
size and growth rate, evergreen versus deciduous
character, and pollution tolerance (Baró et al.,
2014; Smith, 2012; Yang et al., 2005). A wider range
of species contribute indirectly, for example the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
157
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
pollinators and soil organisms that plants depend
upon in order to reproduce and grow. The supply of
this service is particularly significant in urban areas,
where pollution levels tend to be high and where
large numbers of people are potentially exposed to
harmful effects (e.g. Gupta, Chaudhari and Wate,
2008; Nowak et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2005b).
Climate-regulating services operate at both
global and local levels. Ecosystems such as forests,
grasslands, wetlands and aquatic ecosystems –
both marine and freshwater – play a key role in
the Earth’s carbon cycle and hence in controlling
the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Complex mechanisms and interactions, involving a
wide range of different components of biodiversity, govern the uptake and release of carbon in
these ecosystems (Beed et al., 2011; Cock et al.,
2011; Laffoley and Grimsditch, 2009; Nellemann
et al., 2009; Pullin and White, 2011). For further
discussion, see Section 2.2.
The country reports mention a number of
species that are actively managed for the provision
of air-quality and climate-regulation services (see
Section 4.3.1). The species in question are almost
exclusively trees. The vast majority of reporting
countries also mention forest ecosystems as major
carbon sinks, in some cases (e.g. Cameroon and
the United Arab Emirates) referring specifically
to the role of mangroves. A number of countries
highlight the contributions of grasslands, and/or
marine or freshwater ecosystems. A few examples
of the roles of individual species other than trees
are mentioned. For example, Finland and Panama
mention the potential significance of the role of
dung beetles in reducing the release of greenhouse gases from bovine excreta (for further
information on this effect, see for example Piccini
et al., 2017 and Slade et al., 2016). Spain mentions the role of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) in crop
systems, noting that crop rotations that include
forage legumes reduce the use of fertilizers and
therefore limit greenhouse-gas emissions. The
United States of America notes that the pollination activities of native wild bees maintain plant
communities that provide valuable ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration.
158
State of knowledge
As noted above, climate-regulation services are
normally regarded as the outcome of complex
processes within ecosystems such as forests, grasslands, wetlands and oceans (or within subcomponents such as soils) that involve the combined
effects of many different species and taxonomic
and functional groups of organisms. The state
of knowledge on the status and trends of relevant ecosystems is discussed in Section 4.5 and on
the status and trends of biodiversity contributing to the formation and maintenance of soils in
Section 4.3.6.
The availability of high-resolution satellite
imagery means that it is becoming easier to monitor
changes in the extent of tree cover, including in
urban areas, where air-quality regulation services
are particularly significant (e.g. McGee et al.,
2012). Air quality and atmospheric greenhousegas concentrations are monitored under various
national and international initiatives. For
example, the 2016 version58 of the World Health
Organization’s Global Ambient Air Pollution
Database59 records annual mean concentrations
of particulate matter from over 3 000 human settlements, mostly cities, in 103 countries (WHO,
2016). Real-time air-quality data collected by
environmental-protection agencies at more
than 10 000 stations60 in 1 000 major cities in
80 countries can be accessed via the World Air
Quality website61 (World Air Quality, 2018). The
United States of America’s National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Global Greenhouse
Gas Reference Network62 measures the atmospheric distribution and trends of carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide, as well as carbon
monoxide, an important indicator of air pollution (Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network,
2017). Clearly, however, changes in air-quality indicators do not necessarily correspond to changes in
58
59
60
61
62
The latest version available as of October 2018.
http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/
cities/en/
As of September 2018.
http://aqicn.org/here/
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 4.9
Soil carbon assessment initiatives – examples from the United States of America
Soils act as either a sink or as a source of atmospheric
carbon dioxide, depending on their use and management.
Soil properties such as texture, mineralogy, drainage class
and depth affect how much carbon is retained and released.
The Rapid Carbon Assessment project was developed to
obtain statistically reliable estimates of current carbon
stocks in soils in the United States of America, taking into
consideration ecosystem properties, soil type with respect to
carbon retention, land cover and agricultural management.
Approximately 32 500 soil profiles have been sampled at
6 500 locations to develop the largest soil-carbon dataset in
the world. Reports are available for total carbon stocks for
cropland, Conservation Reserve Program land, forestland,
pasture, rangeland and wetland. The data will be valuable
for calibrating models such as COMET (see below) and
quantifying land-management impacts on soil carbon for
environmental markets.
The CarbOn Management Evaluation Tool (COMET)
is an online tool developed through a partnership between
the capacity of ecosystems to provide regulating
services. They are also affected by emissions levels
and by climatic effects.
The country reports provide little indication that
efforts are being made to evaluate the impact of
population trends in specific components of BFA
on the supply of air-quality or climate-regulation
services. With regard to the above-mentioned
dung-beetle example, Finland notes that although
50 percent of its dung-beetle species are redlisted, it has not been determined whether their
decline has affected climate regulation or nutrient cycling in pastures. More generally, it notes
that data on population changes in many functionally important species in agricultural and
forest systems are unavailable. Several countries,
however, mention initiatives related to the monitoring of carbon stocks in forest and agricultural
systems. For example, Zambia reports the establishment of a national forest-monitoring system
that, inter alia, keeps track of changes in forest
the National Resources Conservation Service and Colorado
State University. It helps farmers and ranchers understand
and assess the impacts of changes in land management.
The latest version, COMET-FARM™, is a whole-farm/ranch
carbon and greenhouse-gas accounting and reporting
system that can estimate the “carbon footprint” for all or
part of a farm/ranch operation and allows users to evaluate
different options for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions
and sequestering more carbon. As it uses detailed spatially
explicit data on climate and soil conditions for specific
locations, and allows farmers and ranchers to enter detailed
information on their field and livestock operations, it is able
to produce accurate estimates tailored to specific situations.
Source: Adapted from the country report of the United States of America,
with additional information from the COMET-Farm website (http://
cometfarm.nrel.colostate.edu/Home).
Note: For further information on the Rapid Carbon Assessment, see the
project website (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_054164).
carbon stocks. Some examples from the United
States of America are presented in Box 4.9.
Status and trends
The status and trends of various ecosystems that
play a major role in the supply of services in this
category (particularly climate regulation) are discussed in Section 4.5.
Countries’ responses on trends in the supply
of air-quality and climate-regulation services in
particular production systems are summarized in
Table 4.4. Reports of downward trends predominate in livestock systems and upward trends in
planted forest systems, irrigated crops (non-rice)
and non-fed aquaculture. Trends are mixed for
other production systems (i.e. neither positive nor
negative nor stable trends predominate). Several
countries note the significance of trends in forest
area to the supply of air-quality and climateregulation services. For example, Burkina Faso
mentions that its net carbon emissions from the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
159
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
“land use, land-use change and forestry” sector63
are negative thanks to forest protection and
reforestation efforts. Malaysia mentions that its
policy of retaining at least 50 percent of its land
under permanent forest cover in perpetuity has
contributed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and maintaining and enhancing carbon
sequestration.
4.4 Wild foods
• The country reports refer to over 2 800 distinct wild
species as being used for human food. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species contains over 9 600 wild
species reported to be used for this purpose.
• Close to 20 percent of the species recorded in The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as sources of
human food are classed as threatened.
• The main threats to wild foods reported by countries
are overexploitation, habitat alteration or loss,
pollution and change in land use.
According to the definition provided in Section 1.5,
wild foods are food products obtained from
non-domesticated species. However, the distinction between wild and domesticated foods
is not clear cut: wild foods lie “along a continuum ranging from the entirely wild to the semidomesticated, or from no noticeable human
intervention to selective harvesting, transplanting, and propagation by seed and graft” (Harris,
1989). Wild food products are obtained from
a variety of sources including plants, bacteria,
animals and fungi. They may be harvested (gathered or hunted) from within cultivated production
systems or from natural or semi-natural ecosystems. As noted in Section 2.6.6, capture fisheries
in marine and freshwater ecosystems are probably the largest example of the human use of wild
foods, providing a total of 90.9 million tonnes of
aquatic animals and plants in 2016 (FAO, 2018a).
63
“A greenhouse gas inventory sector that covers emissions and
removals of greenhouse gases resulting from direct humaninduced land use, land-use change and forestry activities”
(UNFCCC, 2017a).
160
In discussions of wild foods, a distinction is
sometimes drawn between subsistence and commercial fishing. In the case of forests, wild foods
are often referred to as a category of non-wood
forest products, and include plants, mushrooms,
wild meat, and insects and other invertebrates.
Contrary to what is often assumed, evidence
demonstrates that a significant proportion of
wild food comes from areas used for crop and/
or livestock production, or from around the home
(Powell et al., 2014). In crop and mixed production systems, a large variety of wild herbs, insects,
fish (e.g. in rice fields), weeds and unmanaged
plants are often harvested for food: see Bharucha
and Pretty (2010) and Halwart (2006) for example.
Because of the relative abundance of food sources,
several game species thrive in habitat mosaics of
swiddens and forest, and can serve as valuable
sources of protein (Parry, Barlow and Peres, 2009).
The contribution of wild foods to food security
and nutrition is discussed in greater detail in
Section 2.6.6.
4.4.1 State of knowledge
Information on the use, state and conservation of
wild foods remains limited, as few assessments of
wild foods are conducted at national, regional or
global levels, even though these foods represent an
important part of the global food basket (Bharucha
and Pretty, 2010). Information on non-wood forest
products is available to varying degrees in national
databases, depending on the importance of such
products to the respective country (Sorrenti, 2017).
However, as wild foods are often collected informally, they are usually overlooked in inventories and economic assessments (Schulp, Thuiller
and Verburg, 2014). Commercial fisheries are an
exception. However, fisheries may not be monitored closely when they are conducted as artisanal,
subsistence or recreational activities.
Information on wild foods often comes from
ethnobiological/ethnobotanical inventories,
usually carried out by universities or research
institutes. Many such assessments are conducted.
However, they tend to be localized and one-off
studies. Other sources of information include
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
scientific literature from other fields of research
(e.g. nutrition), game-bag statistics from national
organizations, and local cookbooks (which can be
used to identify wild food species and their uses).
Although wild-food use may not be particularly
high in the Europe and Central Asia and North
America regions, the status and trends of wild food
resources are better monitored in these regions
than elsewhere. Fish and game species seem to be
systematically monitored in most of the reporting
countries in these regions. Monitoring levels for
fungi, wild berries, medicinal plants and herbs
vary from country to country.
Several country reports refer to sources of information on the use of wild foods. The United States
of America, for example, mentions data on participation in hunting and fishing, the value of capture
fisheries and the value of various other commercially harvested wild foods such as mushrooms,
maple syrup, blueberries, ginseng, herbs, and kelp
and other seaweed. Data on some wild foods are
included in national statistics in some countries,
for example on the hunting of small game and
deer and on catches of wild fish in Norway and
on marketed wild mushrooms, berries, other fruit
and medicinal plants in Belarus. Data may also be
kept by organizations such as angling associations
(as reported by Poland). Data on wild-food use do
not, however, necessarily provide a good indication of the status of the targeted species. For
example, Slovenia notes that trends in data on the
harvesting of wild mushrooms do not significantly
reflect changes in the environment but rather
indicate changes in market prices and interest in
trading fungi; year-to-year changes may reflect
specific conditions for fructification.
The IUCN Red List flags species that are consumed (or have any parts or products that are
consumed) by humans in any part of the species’
geographic ranges. However, not all described
species have been assessed for The IUCN Red List,
and, among those that have, not all those that
are utilized for food will necessarily be flagged as
such in the dataset. Global inventories and assessments have been undertaken for wild edible
fungi (Boa, 2004) and edible insects (van Huis
et al., 2013). Regular assessments are conducted
for key commercial marine fish stocks (FAO’s
biennial assessment The State of World Fisheries
and Aquaculture). However, no equivalents exist
from the many smaller-scale fisheries and minor
stocks present in marine and freshwaters. Global
overviews of the status, trends and use of wild
foods are provided in the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MEA, 2005b) and in a number of
other recent reports (Bioversity International,
2017; WHO and CBD, 2015; HLPE, 2017a; Vinceti
et al., 2013).64
4.4.2 Status and trends
Wild-food diversity
Providing definitive figures on the number of wild
species used for food worldwide is challenging for
several reasons, including difficulties in the identification of the species in question. In many cultures, and even from one village to the next, more
than one common or vernacular name is used for
the same species (Powell et al., 2014). Nonetheless,
thousands of wild species used for food have been
documented and recorded. For example, studies in
Asia, the Near East and Africa, conducted at various
locations and at levels ranging from communities to
entire countries, have recorded the use of between
6 and 800 wild food species, with an average of 90
to 100 species recorded in the community-level and
other below country-level studies (Bharucha and
Pretty, 2010). A total of 1 154 species and genera of
wild mushrooms used for food have been recorded
from 85 countries (Boa, 2004). An inventory of
the literature conducted in 2017 enumerated
2 111 edible insect species worldwide (Jongema,
2017). As noted in Section 4.2.4, over 1 800 species
items feature in FAO capture-fisheries data, including fish, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, coelenterates and aquatic plants, most of them used
as food or feed (FAO, forthcoming, 2018i). As of
December 2017, 9 627 species on The IUCN Red
64
In addition, the draft of a first evaluation of the scale and
drivers of subsistence and commercial harvesting of wild
terrestrial vertebrates for food in tropical and subtropical
regions was submitted to CBD SBSTTA 21 (Coad et al., 2017).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
161
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.9
Number of wild food species reported, by type and region
Number of responses
Africa
1 322
Asia
559
Europe and
Central Asia
Latin America and
the Caribbean
Near East and
North Africa
724
North America
26
Pacific
135
World
3 980
0%
904
310
20%
40%
Reptiles and amphibians
Plants
Other
Molluscs
60%
Mammals
Insects
Fungi
80%
100%
Fish
Crustaceans
Birds
Notes: A “response” is the report of a given wild food species by a given country. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
List (11 percent of the total) were recorded as
being used for human food. Almost half of these
species (4 617) were bony fishes. Large numbers of
bird (1 646) and mammal (1 237) species were also
recorded as being used for food.
In their reports prepared for The Second State
of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (FAO, 2010a), several countries
included lists of wild species used for food and
other purposes. At least 800 unique species (from
55 countries) were explicitly mentioned as being
used for food.
The country-reporting guidelines65 invited countries to provide information on wild foods known
to be harvested, hunted, captured or gathered.
The 4 323 responses (from 69 countries) feature
over 2 822 distinct species.66 The number of wild
65
66
This refers to the country-reporting guidelines for The State of
the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
Additionally, 205 distinct genera were reported without the
species being indicated.
162
foods reported in each region is presented, by
type, in Figure 4.9. In addition to these responses,
several countries provided information on the use
of wild foods without indicating individual species
by their scientific names. For example, the report
from the United States of America mentions that
a study in the state of Maine found that the target
population, which included Native Americans, utilized 55 different types of wild foods from forests,
including blueberries, cranberries, chives, fiddlehead ferns, young dandelion leaves and beaked
hazelnuts. Spain mentions that 138 crop wild relatives have been identified as being used for food.
The number of wild foods reported by countries does not reflect the full global picture. For
example, more than 2 000 species of insects are
known to be used as human food worldwide (van
Huis et al., 2013), while only 21 species are reported
by countries. Reasons for this include the fact that
a number of country reports (22 out of the 91
submitted) provide no information on wild foods
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 4.9
Selected examples of wild food species and genera reported by countries
Type (number of species
reported)
Examples
Plants (1955)
Adansonia digitate, Allium spp., Amaranthus spp., Annona spp., Artocarpus altilis, Capparis spp., Colocasia
esculenta, Cordia spp., Crataegus spp., Dioscorea spp., Diospyros spp., Ficus spp., Garcinia spp., Grewia spp.,
Moringa oleifera, Morus spp., Opuntia spp., Passiflora spp., Portulaca oleracea, Prosopis spp., Prunus spp., Rosa
spp., Rumex spp., Rubus idaeus, Sclerocarya birrea, Solanum spp., Sorbus spp., Syzygium spp., Tamarindus
indica, Vaccinium spp., Vachellia spp., Vitellaria paradoxa, Ximenia americana, Ziziphus mauritiana
Fungi (117)
Armillaria spp., Boletus spp., Cantharellus spp., Craterellus spp., Hydnum repandum, Lactarius spp., Leccinum
spp., Lentinus spp., Morchella spp., Russula spp., Termitomyces spp., Tricholoma spp., Tuber spp.
Mammals (187)
Alces spp., Axis axis, Capra spp., Capreolus spp., Cervus spp., Cuniculus spp., Dama spp., Dasypus
novemcinctus, Hystrix cristata, Lepus spp., Mazama spp., Odocoileus spp., Oryctolagus spp., Ovis spp., Pecari
spp., Pteropus spp., Sus spp., Sylvilagus spp., Syncerus caffer, Tragelaphus spp.
Birds (156)
Alectoris spp., Anas spp., Anser spp., Aythya spp., Callipepla spp., Coturnix spp., Ducula spp., Francolinus spp.,
Lagopus spp., Mareca spp., Meleagris spp., Numida meleagris, Ortalis spp., Patagioenas spp., Phasianus spp.,
Scolopax spp., Streptopelia spp., Struthio camelus
Insects (21)
Apis spp., Atta laevigata, Brachytrupes membranaceus, Gonimbrasia belina, Gryllus bimaculatus, Olethrius
tyrannus, Parides alopius, Raphia spp., Rhynchophorus phoenicis, Samia cynthia, Vespa cincta
Crustacea (30)
Birgus spp., Cardisoma spp., Farfantepenaeus duorarum, Homarus gammarus, Litopenaeus vannamei,
Macrobrachium spp., Nephrops spp., Pacifastacus leniusculus, Pandalus spp. , Palinurus spp., Procambarus
clarki, Scylla spp.
Molluscs (38)
Achatina achatina, Anadara spp., Anadara tuberculosa, Archachatina spp., Helix spp., Mytilus spp., Octopus
spp., Ostrea edulis, Perna viridis, Potadoma spp., Scutellastra flexuosa, Sepia spp., Tivela stultorum
Fish (262)
Acanthocybium solandri, Anguilla spp., Aphareus rutilans, Barbus spp., Carasobarbus luteus, Channa spp.,
Clarias spp., Coptodon spp., Coryphaena hippurus, Epinephelus spp., Gadus morhua, Heteropneustes fossilis,
Labeo spp., Prochilodus lineatus, Salmo spp., Siganus spp., Sorubim lima, Tenualosa ilisha, Thunnus spp.,
Tilapia spp.
Reptiles and amphibians (45)
Crocodylus spp., Iguana iguana, Melanochelys trijuga, Varanus spp.
Others (5)
Holothuria atra, Isostichopus fuscus, Loxechinus albus, Spirulina platensis
Note: Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
and others do not provide an extensive inventory,
in some cases because wild foods are not seen
as contributing significantly to food security and
nutrition in the respective countries. There is also a
bias in the distribution of reporting countries across
the regions of the world. For example, many more
countries from the Europe and Central Asia region
contributed country reports than countries from
the Asia or the Near East and North Africa regions.
The reported figures therefore clearly need to be
interpreted with caution.
Several countries report very high numbers
of wild food species. For example, Peru alone
reports 523 species of edible fruits, of which only
66 are domesticated. Nicaragua reports a series of
studies that provide information on some 150 wild
and domesticated plant species, found mostly in
well-conserved forests and used mainly by indigenous communities and by communities of African
origin living on the country’s Caribbean coast.
The 12 genera most frequently reported by
countries are all plants – Ficus (64 mentions), Rubus
(47), Dioscorea (45), Amaranthus (39), Prunus (39),
Grewia (36), Solanum (35), Ziziphus (30), Annona
(29), Vaccinium (27), Garcinia (26) and Sorbus (26).
Anas (a genus of ducks) is also frequently reported
(25 mentions). Examples of species reported are
listed in Table 4.9. Photos of some examples of wild
foods are presented in Figure 4.10.
The production systems and environments
from which the reported wild food species are
harvested are not known or not specified for
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
163
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.10
Examples of wild plants reported to be used for food
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Notes: 1. Fernaldia pandurata (ioroco) (Source: Country report of El Salvador, © Eduardo Funes); 2. Vaccinium vitis-idaea (cowberry)
(Source: NIBIO, © Michael Angeloff); 3. Aronia melanocarpa (black chockeberry) (Source: Country report of Belarus, © Institute of Food
Growing of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus); 4. Salacca affinis (Source: Country report of Malaysia, © Mohd Norfaizal
Ghazalli); 5. Spondias pinnata (wild mango) (Source: Country report of Malaysia, © Mohd Norfaizal Ghazalli); 6. Ficus roxburghii
(Source: Country report of Malaysia, © Mohd Norfaizal Ghazalli); 7. Musa sp. (Source: Country report of Malaysia, © Mohd Norfaizal
Ghazalli); 8. Garcinia hombroniana (Source: Country report of Malaysia, © Salma Idris); 9. Baccaurea polyneura (Source: Country report
of Malaysia, © Khadijah Awang); 10. Irvingia gabonensis (African mango) (Source: Country report of Cameroon, © Oben); 11. Gum
product from Senegalia senegalensis (gum acacia) (Source: Country report of Niger, © Idrisa Noma); 12. Dioscorea hispida (intoxicating
yam) (Source: Country report of Malaysia, © Mohd Norfaizal Ghazalli).
40 percent of the responses.67 Among the remaining 2 530 responses, the largest numbers of species
67
A “response” is the report of a given wild food by a given country.
164
are reported to be obtained from forest production systems (including planted and naturally
regenerated forests) (26 percent), capture fisheries, aquaculture and other aquatic environments
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 4.11
Production systems and environments in which wild food species are present and harvested, by type
Number of responses
Birds
241
Crustaceans
36
Fish
349
Fungi
161
Insects
24
Mammals
321
Molluscs
46
Other
6
Plants
2 733
Reptiles and
amphibians
63
Total
3 980
0%
Aquatic PS
20%
Crop PS
Forests
40%
Livestock PS
60%
Mixed PS
Multiple PS
80%
Not known/specified
100%
Other
Notes: PS = production systems. A “response” is the report of a given wild food species, by a given country, in a given production
system. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
(rivers, canals, ponds, etc.) (9 percent), multiple
production systems (9 percent), other environments (roadsides, home gardens, etc.) (7 percent),
crop production systems (6 percent), mixed production systems (1 percent) and livestock production systems (1 percent) (Figure 4.11).
Trends in the status of wild foods
Countries were invited to provide information
on trends in the status of the wild foods they
reported. In 60 percent of the 4 323 reported
cases, trends are either not reported or not known
(Figure 4.12). In 24 percent of cases, the respective wild food is reported to be decreasing in
abundance. Abundance is reported to be stable
in 8 percent of cases and increasing in 7 percent
of cases. Asia is the region with the highest
proportion of cases (46 percent) in which abun-
dance is reported to be decreasing, followed by
the Pacific (44 percent) and Africa (33 percent).
The taxonomic groups with the highest number
of cases in which abundance is reported to be
decreasing are plants (714), followed by fish
(126). The highest proportions of cases of declining abundance are reported among crustaceans
(44 percent), fish (37 percent), molluscs and insects
(both 28 percent) (Figure 4.13). Among production systems and environments, forests have the
highest proportion of cases in which abundance is
reported to be decreasing (49 percent), followed
by aquatic production systems and environments
(36 percent).
Countries were also invited to report on wild
food species for which there is a significant threat
of extinction or loss of important populations,
using the categories and criteria of The IUCN Red
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
165
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.12
Reported trends in the status of wild food species, by region
Number of responses
Africa
1 322
Asia
559
Europe and Central Asia
724
Latin America and the Caribbean
904
Near East and North Africa
310
North America
26
Pacific
135
World
3 980
0%
20%
Decreasing
40%
Stable
60%
Increasing
80%
100%
Not known/reported
Notes: A “response” is the report of a given wild food species, by a given country. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
FIGURE 4.13
Reported trends in the status of wild food species, by type
Number of responses
Birds
241
Crustaceans
36
Fish
349
Fungi
161
Insects
24
Mammals
321
Molluscs
46
Others
6
Plants
2 733
Reptiles and amphibians
63
Total
3 980
0%
20%
Decreasing
40%
Stable
60%
Increasing
80%
Not known/reported
Notes: A “response” is the report of a given wild food species, by a given country. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
166
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
100%
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 4.14
Risk categories of wild foods for which a significant threat of extinction or loss is reported, by region
Number of responses
Africa
142
Asia
223
Europe and
Central Asia
Latin America
and the Caribbean
Near East
and North Africa
282
World
740
0%
78
15
10%
EX
20%
EW
30%
CR
40%
EN
50%
VU
60%
Threatened
70%
DD
80%
NT
90%
100%
LC
Notes: Countries reported according to the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: EX (Extinct); EW (Extinct in the Wild); CR (Critically
Endangered); EN (Endangered); and VU (Vulnerable); NT (Near Threatened) and LC (Least Concern). The DD (Data Deficient) category
includes cases where risk status is not reported or not known. In addition, several species were reported to be to be “threatened”,
without further specification of the IUCN Category. Not represented in the figure are data from the country reports of the United
States of America, which noted five populations of salmon that have been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and
23 populations listed as threatened, and the countries of the Pacific region, which reported a total of 12 species, all of unknown risk
status. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
List (IUCN, 2012) as reference. Overall, 34 country
reports provide a total 725 assessments of the
risk status of wild food species, representing
648 distinct species (some of which are reported
by more than one country). Four responses indicate Extinct status, 64 Critically Endangered status,
70 Endangered status, 168 Vulnerable status, 244
Threatened status without further specification
of the IUCN category, 74 Near-Threatened status,
45 Least-Concern status and 56 Data-Deficient or
unknown status. The responses are summarized,
by region, in Figure 4.14. The largest numbers
of threatened wild food species are reported by
countries from Latin America and the Caribbean,
followed by those from Asia and Africa. These
figures can be expected to differ from global
figures based on IUCN data, such as those presented in Figure 4.16, as the latter apply to species
across their entire ranges rather than to national
populations, are not restricted to the 91 reporting
countries, and do not focus specifically on species
considered to be under threat.
Several countries that list wild foods do not
explicitly report any of them as being threatened.
At the other end of the spectrum, Cameroon
reports that most of its wild foods are threatened
with extinction. It indicates that this applies mostly
to species that are found in locations that do not
have protected-area status and are affected by
agriculture, hunting, grazing and other human
activities. Bangladesh notes that a number of
wild animals, such as the swamp deer (Cervus
duvaucelii), the Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) and the wild water buffalo (Bubalus
arnee), that were once abundant and used as food
have become extinct in the country.
The main threats to wild foods reported by
countries are summarized in Figure 4.15. Together,
overexploitation (27 percent), habitat alteration or
loss (17 percent), pollution (9 percent) and change
in land use (9 percent) account for 62 percent of
the threats reported.
Figure 4.16 shows the risk status of species
recorded on The IUCN Red List as being used for
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
167
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.15
Reported threats to wild foods species
Overexploitation 27%
Lack of regulations 2%
Pests, diseases and invasive species 3%
Other 3%
Infrastructure development 3%
Habitat alteration and loss 17%
Climate change 4%
Water-cycle alteration 4%
Agricultural intensification
and expansion 6%
Pollution 9%
Hunting and poaching 6%
Deforestation 7%
Changes in land use 9%
Notes: Percentages are calculated on a total of 1 214 mentions of threats for 648 distinct species. More than one threat from more than
one country may be reported for the same species. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
human food. Although the number of species
assessed is low in the first two categories, reptiles and mammals have the highest proportion
of species classified as Critically Endangered,
Endangered or Vulnerable. Overall, 62 percent of
species are classified as being of Least Concern,
13 percent as Data Deficient, 9 percent as
Vulnerable, 6 percent as Endangered, 6 percent
as Near Threatened, 4 percent as Critically
Endangered and 1 percent as Extinct. It should be
noted that insects and other terrestrial invertebrates, whether used for food or not, are poorly
represented in The IUCN Red List.
As discussed above, capture fisheries are a
major commercial industry, and as such are
subject to relatively comprehensive monitoring.
As noted in Section 4.2.4, as of 2015, 33 percent
of fish stocks were estimated to be overfished,
60 percent to be maximally sustainably fished
and 7 percent to be underfished (FAO, 2018a).
Compared to the situation in the 1970s, this
is a clear deterioration, although there have
been some improvements at regional scales
(ibid.). For other types of wild foods, evidence
168
for trends in rates of exploitation and for
their impacts on biodiversity is generally limited.
As noted in Section 4.4.1, some data are available on other commercially used wild foods.
In other cases, there are anecdotal indications
or sometimes surveys of relevant stakeholders.
A range of other drivers of change, including
land-use change, climate change, natural disasters and invasive alien species, are recognized
as threats to wild food species (see Chapter 3
for further discussion). However, knowledge of
the extent of such impacts is generally limited.
Relevant examples from the country reports are
provided below.
The country reports indicate that recent
decades have seen a decline in the availability and
diversity of a range of wild foods. For example,
Nepal reports that the status of its wild edible
plant species is believed to have deteriorated as
a result of the (often cumulative) effects of landuse changes (e.g. expansion of agriculture and
infrastructure development), habitat destruction
(resulting from timber harvesting, fuelwood
collection and forest fires), overharvesting,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 4.16
Number of species classified as used for human food on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,
by type and risk category
Number of species
Bony fishes
4 617
Birds
1 646
Mammals
1 237
Dicotyledons
501
Sharks and rays
287
Crustaceans
263
Amphibians
238
Monocotyledons
225
Molluscs
191
Reptiles
127
Gastropods
109
Sea cucumbers
75
Conifers
39
Gnetopsida
24
Cycads
15
Ferns
10
Lampreys and hagfishes
9
Fungi
8
Insects
1
Total
0%
9 622
10%
20%
EX
30%
EW
40%
CR
50%
EN
60%
VU
70%
DD
80%
NT
90%
100%
LC
Note: EX (Extinct); EW (Extinct in the Wild); CR (Critically Endangered); EN (Endangered); VU (Vulnerable); DD (Data Deficient);
NT (Near Threatened) and LC (Least Concern).
Source: IUCN, 2017a.
overgrazing and invasive species. At the same time,
land-use changes, such as infrastructure development, are reported to have contributed to
increasing the availability of wild foods by
improving access to remote areas. Yemen mentions that, although it difficult to assess losses
accurately, its wild food species are believed
to be declining as a result of overharvesting,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
169
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
overgrazing, deforestation and woodland degradation. Oman reports that the supply of wild
foods, such as figs and berries, from forest trees
has declined over time. It indicates that this has
probably occurred because of the loss of pollinator populations (driven in turn by extreme heat
associated with climate change) and the effects
of pests and diseases.
Invasive species are reported to be affecting
wild food stocks in a number of countries. For
example, the United States of America notes that
data from the 1990s and 2000s show 44 native
species of fish to be threatened or endangered
by invasive alien species. It also refers to a further
27 native fish species negatively affected by introductions.68 Invasive mussels, such as zebra mussels,
are reported to compete with native mussels,
clams and snails, and to reduce oxygen availability
for fish and other aquatic species.
Saint Lucia reports that it does not depend
greatly on wild foods or hunting, but mentions
that anecdotal information indicates that the
supply of wild meat from animals such as agoutis,
opossums and wild pigs declined as a result of
the effects of hurricane Tomas. It further notes,
however, that populations of wild pigs and redrumped agoutis (Dasyprocta antillensis) have
recovered to such extent that they are disrupting production on farms. Efforts are being made
to domesticate the agouti and control the pigs.
Another example from Saint Lucia of how overabundance of a wild food species can be problematic is the case of the lionfish (Pterois volitans), an
invasive alien species that grows and reproduces
quickly and feeds predominantly on reef species
such as snappers, parrotfish and grunts. Its only
known natural predator is the grouper fish. The
lionfish has become common in local waters and
the country’s Fisheries Department is now promoting its consumption.
Some countries, Switzerland for example,
indicate that no declines in the availability of
wild foods that have affected the livelihoods of
those that depend on them have been recorded
68
The country report cites Pimentel, Zuniga and Morrison (2005).
170
in recent decades. Other countries, however,
report that declines in the availability of wild
foods have had significant impacts. The Gambia,
for example, mentions that massive losses of
wild foods have obliged communities to turn to
alternatives (often industrially produced foods)
to supplement their diets. Finland notes that the
collapse of freshwater populations of native salmonids has meant that food from these sources
has been replaced by imported farmed salmon.
Similarly, wild berries harvested from farmlands
and forests have been replaced by commercially
produced cultivars and imports. In Cameroon, the
impacts of the loss of wild foods are reported to
be numerous: (i) local communities lose income
from the sale of wild food products, as well as valuable nutritional benefits; (ii) migration increases
among these populations as they can no longer
make a livelihood from the wild food products;
(iii) population movements may lead to problems
with land acquisition and co-existence with local
communities, and may cause intertribal conflicts;
(iv) loss of income sources may lead to poverty,
misery and crime; (v) people may have difficulty
adapting their diets and lifestyles to the loss of
traditional products.
Many countries express the need for an inventory of their wild food species and for the development of plans and strategies that ensure these
species are conserved and used sustainably. This
will require technical skills and equipment, as well
as financial resources, all of which are currently
in short supply in this field. Bangladesh mentions
that, while wild food species have been used by
rural communities across the region for centuries, there are still no organized programmes or
projects that highlight, for example, the value of
crop wild relatives and edible wild plants to food
security and nutrition, both in normal times and
in times of food crisis. It reports that, with a large
number of wild edible plant species disappearing
as a result of the expansion of agricultural land,
development projects and other factors, there
is a need to develop breeding programmes and
activities that will help to maintain and sustainably use these species.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
4.5 Ecosystems of importance to
food and agriculture
• Ecosystems provide countless services that are
essential to food and agriculture, for example
providing habitats for a wide range of species that
contribute to production, maintaining flows of
freshwater, removing pollutants from water supplies
and providing protection against hazards.
• Most key ecosystems of importance to food and
agriculture are in decline globally.
• Inland and coastal wetlands are declining rapidly.
Recent years have seen massive losses of corals. The
global area covered by seagrass beds is contracting.
The world’s mangrove area decreased by an estimated
20 percent between 1980 and 2005; although the rate
of loss has slowed, these vital ecosystems remain
widely threatened.
• Global forest area continues to decline, although the
rate of loss decreased by 50 percent between the
periods 1990–2000 and 2010–2015.
• Rangelands cover at least 34 percent of global land
area. They are often among the ecosystems most
affected by land-use changes and land degradation.
As discussed in the sections above, the supply of
ecosystem services is often more affected by trends
in the extent and quality of whole ecosystems
than by trends in the status of individual species or
groups of species. This section is intended to complement those above by providing overviews of
the status and trends of the ecosystem categories
most frequently reported in the country reports to
be important to the supply of ecosystem services.
The overviews are based on the wider literature.
Information from the country reports on the significance of ecosystems and their status and trends
to the supply of particular ecosystem services is
presented in the sections above.
permanent or temporary, with water that is static
or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas
of marine water the depth of which at low tide
does not exceed six metres” (Ramsar Convention,
2016). It is estimated that inland and coastal wetlands cover more than 12.1 million km2 globally,
54 percent of which is permanently inundated
and 46 percent seasonally inundated (Ramsar
Convention, 2018).
Wetlands are vital to food production. For
example, wetland habitats such as mangroves,
seagrass beds and coral reefs (these three ecosystem categories are discussed in more detail
in Sections 4.5.2, 4.5.3 and 4.5.4, respectively)
provide critical habitats for species targeted by
small-scale fisheries that provide food and jobs for
millions of people worldwide. Wetlands underpin
the supply of rice, one of the world’s major staple
food crops and a particularly significant source
of food in many low-income and lower-middleincome countries (GRISP, 2013). Wetlands also
maintain flows of freshwater, remove pollutants
from water supplies, store carbon and provide
protection against flooding (Kumar et al., 2017;
Russi et al., 2013; Ramsar Convention, 2015b;
Mitsch and Gosselink, eds., 2015; WWF and IES,
2004). Coastal wetlands act as frontline defences
against natural disasters, resist erosion by wind
and waves, and provide physical barriers that slow
storm surges and tidal waves (UNEP-WCMC, 2014).
Wetlands provide habitat for a wide range of
species. For example, freshwater wetlands are home
to more than 125 000 species, almost 10 percent
of all the world’s described species (Strayer and
Dudgeon, 2010). Wetlands underpin the annual
migrations of vast numbers of birds, providing them
with critical stopover habitats that offer food and
protection (Ramsar Convention, 2015a).
Status and trends
4.5.1 Wetlands
Introduction
As defined by the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar
Convention), wetlands are “areas of marsh, fen,
peatland or water, whether natural or artificial,
Wetlands are in serious decline globally. Davidson
(2014) estimates that between 64 percent and
71 percent of wetlands have been lost since
the beginning of the twentieth century. Both
inland and coastal natural wetlands are declining. Between 69 percent and 75 percent of the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
171
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
former and between 62 percent and 63 percent
of the latter are estimated to have been lost
over this period (ibid.). The rate of loss of natural
wetlands is estimated to have increased from
between 0.68 percent and 0.69 percent a year
between 1970 and 1980 to between 0.85 percent
and 1.60 percent a year since 2000 (Ramsar
Convention, 2018).
Land-use change for commercial development,
drainage schemes, extraction of minerals and
peat, overfishing, tourism, siltation, pesticide
discharges from intensive agriculture, toxic pollutants from industry, and the construction of
dams and dykes (often in an attempt to improve
flood protection) are major global threats to wetlands (Adams, 2012; Ramsar Convention, 2015a;
UNCCD, 2017). Climate change threatens wetlands
via changes in water levels, increases in temperature and the effects of abnormal weather patterns
(Adams, 2012; IPCC, 2014). In many places, the
amount of water being taken from aquifers far
exceeds replenishment rates (Ramsar Convention,
2015a). Water demand is now greater than supply
in many parts of the world and this is expected to
be the case in many more areas in the near future
(Burek et al., 2016; Mekonnen and Hoekstra,
2016). Hundreds of thousands of hectares of wetlands have been drained for agriculture. Globally,
agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the total
water withdrawal on Earth (FAO, 2016j). Along
with other industries such as paper making, agriculture is often very wasteful and inefficient in its
use of water (WWF International and Institute for
Environmental Studies, 2004).
Although almost 2.5 million km2 of wetlands (as
of 2018) are protected as Ramsar Sites (Davidson
and Finlayson, 2018), additional wetland areas are
protected under other mechanisms, and various
wetland restoration activities are under way
in Asia, Europe and North America (Ramsar
Convention, 2015c; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2015),
coverage is still inadequate and many wetlands
remain threatened (Leadley et al., 2014; Ramsar
Convention, 2018). Loss and degradation of wetlands are often caused or exacerbated by a lack of
strong land-protection frameworks, inadequate
172
land-planning policies and insufficient enforcement of existing policies (Mediterranean Wetlands
Observatory, 2012).
4.5.2 Mangroves
Mangroves are a group of woody plants found
mainly in intertidal environments in tropical and
subtropical areas (Spalding, Kainuma and Collins,
2010). They have developed a number of physiological and morphological characteristics that
enable them to survive in these environments,
including aerial roots, propagules adapted for tidal
dispersal, rapid rates of canopy production, highly
efficient nutrient-retention mechanisms, and
the ability to cope with salinity and maintain an
appropriate water and carbon balance (Hogarth,
2015; UNEP-WCMC, 2014). The term mangrove
is also applied to the ecosystems in which these
plants grow. Mangrove habitats are highly productive and biodiverse areas that provide shelter
and feeding grounds for a large number of invertebrate, fish and bird species, many of which are
in danger of extinction (FAO, 2003b; UNEP-WCMC,
2014). Mangroves are found in 123 of the world’s
countries (Spalding, Kainuma and Collins, 2010).
Their global distribution is shown in Figure 4.17.
Mangroves make enormous contributions to
food security and livelihoods. The litter that falls
from the mangrove plants, estimated to amount
to 10 tonnes/ha/year, decomposes in the water
into small particles of organic matter (Ezcurra,
Aburto and Rosenzweig, 2009). Along with the
sediments trapped by the root system and the
fauna and epiphytic flora that flourish in this part
of the ecosystem, these particles are consumed by
marine invertebrates such as lobsters, crabs, clams
and oysters and by fish such as tarpon, snook,
catfish and snapper and many other species valued
in industrial and artisanal fisheries (Badola and
Hussain, 2005; Daru et al., 2013; Ezcurra, Aburto
and Rosenzweig, 2009; Nagelkerken et al., 2008).
Many of these species find shelter in mangrove
systems as juveniles before migrating to seagrass
beds in deeper water and finally to rocky and coral
reefs (Figure 4.18). Mangrove-supported aquatic
food production (fishes, shrimps, crabs and
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 4.17
Global distribution of mangroves
30°
45°N
135°W
90°W
45°W
0°W
45°E
90°E
135°E
180°E
0°
45°S
Note: Global Mangrove Watch mangrove baseline for 2010 and distribution of mangroves by longitude and latitude.
Source: Bunting et al., 2018.
FIGURE 4.18
Interconnectivity between coastal ecosystems
Coral reef
Seagrass bed
Mangrove
Fish and invertebrates migrate out to neighbouring habitat as adults, supporting local and offshore fisheries
Upland
Runoff of:
– sediments
– nutrients and pollutants
– freshwater
Export of organic material and nutrients provides food to offshore organisms
Fish and invertebrates come in to feed, supporting local fisheries
Reduces wave energy
Reduces wave energy
Stabilizes and binds sediments, absorbs pollutants and excess nutrients
Source: UNEP-WCMC, 2014.
molluscs) sustains the nutrition and livelihoods of
millions of poor people, contributing immense
amounts of protein to diets (UNEP-WCMC, 2014).
For many people, hand collecting of aquatic
products, hunting and wood harvesting in mangroves are the only available sources of livelihood
support. UNEP-WCMC (2006) estimated that the
annual value of commercial fish harvests from
mangroves ranged from USD 62/ha in the United
States of America to USD 600/ha in Indonesia.
Mangrove forests, together with seagrass
meadows (see below) and salt-marshes, are among
the most effective ecosystems on Earth at carbon
capture and storage, and for this reason are
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
173
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
sometimes referred to as “blue carbon ecosystems”
(Alongi et al., 2016; McLeod et al., 2011; Pendleton
et al., 2012). They not only store large amounts of
carbon in their living biomass, but also sequester
it long term in the soil (Spalding, Brumbaugh and
Landis, 2016). It has been estimated that mangroves store up to four times more carbon than
other major types of forest (Donato et al., 2011).
Preventing mangrove loss and degradation is thus
an important component of efforts to mitigate
climate change (Murdiyarso et al., 2015; UNEPWCMC, 2014). Mangroves also provide waterpurification and erosion-prevention services,
protect coastal areas against storms, and offer
opportunities for educational and recreational
activities, including ecotourism (Barbier et al.,
2011; UNEP-WCMC, 2014). They provide a potential refuge for corals threatened by rising temperatures and ocean acidification. A study carried out in
the United States Virgin Islands (Yates et al., 2014)
found more than 30 species of coral thriving among
mangroves in an area where nearby reefs had been
seriously affected by bleaching. Costanza et al.
(2014) estimated that the economic value of ecosystem services provided by mangroves and tidal
marshes amounted to USD 194 000/ha/year.
State of knowledge
Over recent years there have been a number
of efforts to assess the global status and trends
of mangrove ecosystems. The World Mangrove
Atlas, the first global assessment of the state of
the world’s mangroves, was published in 1997
and updated version published in 2010 (Spalding,
Blasco and Field, eds., 1997; Spalding, Kainuma and
Collins, 2010). The increasing availability of openly
accessible high spatio-temporal resolution data has
allowed the emergence of a systematic approach to
mangrove mapping that reduces uncertainties and
promotes consistency in the reporting of status and
trends (see examples and references below).
Status and trends
Global mangrove area declined markedly during
the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, with an estimated 20 percent loss during
174
the period between 1980 and 2005 (FAO, 2007e).
Losses continue in many regions, although at
a slower rate globally (Hamilton and Casey,
2016; Strong and Minnemeyer, 2015). Numerous
attempts have been made over recent decades to
estimate the total global area covered by mangroves. Results have varied due to the multiplicity of different datasets used and methodologies
applied. Using the highest spatio-temporal resolution data available, Hamilton and Casey (2016)
found a global mangrove area of 81 849 km2 in
2012 and projected a figure of 81 485 km2 for
2014. The same authors report a loss of 1 646 km2
globally over the period 2000 to 2012, which
amounts to 1.97 percent of the estimated global
total at the start of this period. The region with
the greatest rate of loss is Southeast Asia, where
an estimated 3.58 percent of mangrove area was
lost over the same period (ibid.).
Mangrove losses are driven by high levels of
human pressure, including from coastal development, agriculture, fishing, aquaculture, timber
extraction, water diversion and overexploitation
(FAO, 2007e; Van Lavieren et al., 2012; UNEPWCMC, 2014). Valiela, Bowen and York (2001) estimated that aquaculture accounted for 52 percent
of mangrove loss globally during the 1980s and
1990s, with shrimp farming alone accounting for
38 percent. However, faced with the social and
environmental problems associated with intensive shrimp farming, and with growing interest
in the carbon-sequestration and protective roles
of mangroves and the other ecosystem services
they supply, many countries are now receptive
to adopting integrated mangrove–aquaculture
systems (Ahmed, Thompson and Glaser, 2018). This
provides real opportunities to reforest abandoned
shrimp farms and other degraded mangrove areas
so that they can again support productive coastal
fisheries and aquaculture. For example, under
the so-called Tambak Tumpangsari system in
Indonesia, mangroves supply nutrients to plankton in aquaculture ponds and also reduce the
vulnerability of the ponds to strong winds and
tidal floods during at least part of the life cycle
of the aquaculture venture (Van Lavieren et al.,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
2012). Climate change is also a threat, as rising sea
levels, erosion and increased frequency of storms
all have serious impacts on mangrove ecosystems
(Blankespoor, Dasgupta and Lange, 2017; Mumby
et al., 2004).
The most recent available review (Polidoro et
al., 2010) indicates that 11 out of the 70 mangrove species assessed for The IUCN Red List are
classed as Threatened – two of these are classed
as Critically Endangered (Sonneratia griffithii,
found in parts of India and Southeast Asia, and
Bruguiera hainesii, found in fragmented locations in Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua
New Guinea, Singapore and Thailand), three as
Endangered and six as Vulnerable. A further seven
species are considered Near Threatened or Data
Deficient (ibid.).
4.5.3 Seagrasses
Seagrasses are submerged flowering plants found
in shallow nearshore marine and estuarine waters
in almost every part of the world except Antarctica
(Green and Short, 2003). Seagrass beds support
high rates of production in valuable commercial
and artisanal fisheries, including those targeting
finfish such as snappers, emperors, rabbitfish,
surgeonfish and flounder, molluscs such as conch,
oysters, mussels, scallops and clams, crustacea such
as shrimp, lobster and crab, and echinoderms such
as starfish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers (Barbier
et al., 2011; Green and Short, 2003; Nordlund et
al., 2018; Saenger, Gartside and Funge-Smith,
forthcoming). A global-scale review of the contribution of seagrass ecosystems to commercial, artisanal and recreational fisheries (Nordlund et al.,
2018) concludes that most fishing in these ecosystems is small scale and thus that they are of major
importance to livelihoods in many coastal communities in developing countries. According to
Jackson et al. (2015), seagrass-associated species
contribute 30 to 40 percent to the value of commercial fishery landings in the Mediterranean.
Declines in fish production following the loss of
seagrass beds have been recorded, for example in
Australia (Coles et al., 2007). However, there have
been cases in which loss of seagrass did not lead
to a loss of fishery yield (Saenger, Gartside and
Funge-Smith, forthcoming). For example, largescale losses of common eelgrass (Zostera marina)
meadows in Europe and North America in the
1930s, attributed to a slime mould parasite, did
not cause a decline in fish catches as the loss of
the eelgrass led to the exposure of rocky substrate
that was colonized by macro-algae that served as
an alternative habitat (Heck, Hays and Orth, 2003).
Seagrass beds contribute to nutrient cycling
and water purification, help to protect coastal
areas by stabilizing sediments, sequestrate carbon
and serve as key habitats for marine biodiversity
(Barbier et al., 2011; Coles et al., 2007; Green
and Short, 2003; Saenger, Gartside and FungeSmith, forthcoming). According to Fourqurean et
al. (2012), the global loss of seagrasses since the
beginning of the nineteenth century has resulted
in a decrease in carbon sequestration of between
6 million and 24 million tonnes of carbon per
year, with current rates of seagrass loss annually
exposing soils containing an estimated 63 million
to 297 million tonnes of carbon. Costanza et al.
(2014) estimated that as of 2011 a hectare of
seagrass or algae bed delivered ecosystem services worth USD 28 916 per year on average,
which amounted to an estimated global total of
USD 6.8 trillion per year.
State of knowledge
A number of initiatives are helping to build knowledge of the status and trends of the world’s seagrass ecosystems. For example, UN Environment
World Conservation Monitoring Centre’s (UNEPWCMC’s) Global Distribution of Seagrasses dataset
was used to compile the World atlas of seagrasses
(Green and Short, 2003), the first official global
assessment of the distribution, status and trends
of seagrasses and the threats affecting them. The
latest dataset69 can be viewed in mapped form
via UNEP-WCMC’s Ocean Data Viewer.70 National
and subnational assessments are also published
(e.g. Coles et al., 2007 and McKenzie et al., 2017).
69
70
At the time of writing, version 6, dated November 2018.
http://data.unep-wcmc.org
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
175
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.19
Global distribution of seagrasses
Source: UNEP-WCMC and Short, 2017.
The international monitoring programmes Seagrass
Watch71 and Seagrass Net72 keep track of the status
of seagrass resources at sites around the world
(335 sites in 19 countries and 122 sites in 33 countries, respectively).73 Both programmes involve
contributions from coastal communities, academia,
NGOs, research institutions and national and local
government. Improving knowledge of the status
and trends of seagrass ecosystems will require
better standardization of sampling and monitoring methods (Duarte et al., 2008; Orth et al., 2006;
Short et al., 2011). There is also a great need for
more detailed research on specific seagrass habitats, their links to other ecosystems such as mangroves and their influence on fisheries (Saenger,
Gartside and Funge-Smith, forthcoming).
Status and trends
Seagrass beds cover an estimated 344 958 km2
across 128 countries and territories globally
(Figure 4.19) (UNEP-WCMC and Short, 2017;
71
72
73
www.seagrasswatch.org
www.seagrassnet.org
Figures from the respective programme websites as of
November 2018.
176
Weatherdon et al., 2017). There is a general consensus that the global extent of seagrass beds is
contracting and that a range of human activities
and natural factors are driving this process (Coles
et al., 2007; Green and Short, 2003; Orth et al.,
2006; Waycott et al., 2009). However, changes
in the extent of seagrass habitat are well documented only in areas such as Europe, the United
States of America and Australia and a few specific
locations in Africa, Asia and South America (Duarte
et al., 2008; Duarte, 2017). It has been estimated
that the area covered by seagrass has declined by
29 percent in the last 100 years (Waycott et al.,
2009), with the lost seagrass beds being replaced
by naked mud and sandy soils or in some cases by
algae beds (Fourqurean et al., 2012; Heck, Hays
and Orth, 2003). Waycott et al. (2009) report that
there have been some increases in seagrass area at
local scales in recent decades, but that these seem
to be small relative to global losses.
Where individual seagrass species are concerned, out of 70 assessed by IUCN, 7 are classed as
Vulnerable and 3 as Endangered. Of the remainder, 48 are classed as being of Least Concern, 5 as
Near Threatened and 7 as Data Deficient (IUCN,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
2017a). Twenty-two of the assessed populations
show a decreasing trend, 3 an increasing trend
and 31 a stable trend. Trends for the remaining
14 are unknown.
Climate change is considered to be the main
threat to seagrass ecosystems globally: changes in
temperature and rainfall are reducing seagrasses’
access to light and hence affecting their growth
and their role as primary producers (Coles et
al., 2007). Extreme climate events such as hurricanes can destroy seagrass beds. Threats such as
eutrophication, turbidity and sediment discharge
are often being exacerbated by poor land-use and
water-use practices, including watershed deforestation, clearing of coastal forests, inappropriate
management of fertilizers, dredging and destructive fishing practices (Ocean Health Index, 2018;
Waycott et al., 2009). Aquaculture can give rise to
threats such as invasive-species escapes, eutrophication, shading and excessive influxes of organic
matter (Duarte et al., 2008; Green and Short, 2003;
Waycott et al., 2009). Loss of predators as a result
of overfishing can cause a cascade through the
food web that leads to the loss of herbivores that
cleanse seagrasses of fouling algae (Waycott et
al., 2009). Disease outbreaks such as the “wasting
disease” and stand diebacks that affected seagrasses in North America and Europe in the last
century are another threat (Duarte et al., 2008;
Green and Short, 2003; Waycott et al., 2009).
4.5.4 Coral reefs
Coral reefs are highly diverse aquatic ecosystems
that host vast numbers of species of algae, invertebrates, fish and reptiles (Karr et al., 2015). Corals
themselves are colonial animals consisting of
merged fleshy polyps that live in symbiotic association with algae known as zooxanthellae: the polyp
protects the algae and provides them with some
essential nutrients and the algae provide food and
oxygen to the polyp (Buddemeier, Kleypas and
Aranson, 2004; Kemp et al., 2012). The structure of
a coral reef consists of calcium carbonate secreted
by certain coral species (referred to as reef-building
or hermatypic corals) to provide themselves with
a protective exoskeleton (Dubinsky and Stambler,
eds., 2011). Reefs come in three main types: atoll
reefs (ring-shaped reefs surrounding lagoons);
barrier reefs (separated from the mainland by a
channel of deep water); and fringing reefs (separated from the shoreline only by shallow waters)
(Spalding, Ravilious and Green, 2001).
Corals are found in all the oceans of the world,
from the tropics to polar regions, but form reefs
only in waters with temperatures above 18 ºC,
which generally limits the distribution of reefs
to latitudes below 30º. It has been estimated
that coral reefs cover approximately 250 000 km2
globally (Burke et al., 2011), less than 0.1 percent
of the Earth’s surface or 0.2 percent of the ocean
surface, and that reefs protect around 150 000 km
of shoreline in 100 countries and territories (ibid.).
The value of the ecosystem services provided by
coral reefs is enormous. They provide vital habitat
for 25 percent of the world’s known marine
species (Cesar, Burke and Pet-Soede, 2003; Karr
et al., 2015). Many marine fish and invertebrates
targeted by commercial and artisanal fisheries
(including groupers, snappers, sharks, sea cucumbers and lobsters) use reefs for feeding, reproduction and breeding (Burke et al., 2011; Jackson
et al., 2014; Del Monaco et al., 2010). Coral reefs
also protect shorelines, coastal communities and
coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and seagrass beds that serve as nurseries for a wide range
of species (Buddemeier, Kleypas and Aranson,
2004; Ferrario et al., 2014; Saenger, Gartside
and Funge-Smith, forthcoming). Reef fisheries
are fundamental to the nutrition of millions of
people in coastal areas in developing countries
(Cesar, Burke and Pet-Soede, 2003). It has been
estimated that one-eighth of the world’s population live within 100 km of a coral reef (Burke et
al., 2011). Costanza et al. (2014) estimated that,
if all categories of ecosystem services are taken
into account, the total value of coral reefs’ contributions to humanity amounts to approximately
USD 350 000/ha/year.
State of knowledge
A number of global initiatives contribute to monitoring and reporting on the state of the world’s
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
177
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
coral reefs. For example, the International Coral
Reef Initiative,74 an informal partnership of governments, non-governmental organizations and
international organizations, published five Status
of the Coral Reefs of the World reports between
1998 and 2008, drawing on data and information
provided by a large number of experts around
the world (e.g. Wilkinson, 2008). It has also published several reports on the status of coral reefs
at regional or subregional levels (e.g. Chin et al.,
2011; Jackson et al., 2014) and on the impacts of
various threats and drivers of change (e.g. Salvat
and Allemand, 2009).
The Reefbase information system 75 features
a global database of country-level information
on coral-reef resources, their status, threats
affecting them, and the status of management
activities such as monitoring programmes and
the establishment of protected areas. Its Online
Geographic Information System (ReefGIS) allows
coral reef-related information (e.g. locations of
protected areas, areas covered by monitoring
programmes, bleaching events, disease outbreaks
and threats such as coastal developments and
marine pollution) to be displayed on interactive
maps. The Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project
Seascape, a global coral-reef database compiled
from a number of sources by UNEP-WCMC and
the WorldFish Centre, in collaboration with
the World Resources Institute and The Nature
Conservancy, records the global distribution of
tropical and subtropical coral reefs (UNEP-WCMC,
2010). Global Reef Record76 makes available highdefinition imagery shot along transects at numerous coral-reef sites around the world by the XL
Catlin Seaview Survey.77 The Ocean Health Index78
has been assessing oceans globally every year since
2012 by synthesizing data on a range of components, including coral reef area and condition
,to provide index scores for 220 coastal nations
and territories (Halpern et al., 2012, 2017). The
74
75
76
77
78
https://www.icriforum.org
www.reefbase.org
www.globalreefrecord.org
531 transects from 305 reefs available as of December 2018.
http://www.oceanhealthindex.org
178
Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network79
monitors, and makes data available on, variables
related to ocean acidification and the responses
of ecosystems to this process (GOA-ON, 2016;
Newton et al., 2015b). Data on various categories of biodiversity are targeted, including data
specifically on the state of coral-reef biodiversity,
for example on changes in the biomass of corals,
coralline algae and other photosynthesizers in
coral reefs, changes in the population structure
of corals and other components of reef biodiversity, and changes in reef ecosystem processes and
habitat quality (ibid.).
Significant national initiatives include the
Coral Reef Information System (CoRIS), 80 the
information portal of the United States of
America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA’s) Coral Reef
Conservation Program, which provides access to
the organization’s coral reef information and
data products. NOAA’s coral reef-related activities
include mapping, monitoring and assessment,
along with natural and socio-economic research
and modelling (NOAA, 2018). The Australian
Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for
Integrated Coral Reef Studies81 has, since 2005,
been undertaking integrated research supporting the sustainable use and management of coral
reefs in Australia (ARC, 2018).
Status and trends
Recent decades have seen massive losses of corals
globally. Declines are attributed to anthropogenic pressures, particularly the effects of climate
change, coastal developments and misuse of
fishing gear (trawlers) (Buddemeier, Kleypas and
Aranson, 2004; Jackson et al., 2014). Rising temperatures affect the symbiosis between corals
and zooxanthellae (see above): a prolonged
increase of at least 1 °C affects the algae’s ability
to photosynthesize, which causes bleaching and
subsequent death of the corals (Heron, Eakin and
79
80
81
http://goa-on.org/home.php
https://www.coris.noaa.gov/
www.coralcoe.org.au
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Douver, 2017). Temperature variations are also
associated with higher frequency of hurricanes
(Bender et al., 2010; Holland, 2012), which can
negatively affect corals by increasing the amount
of sediment in the water (Cesar, Burke and PetSoede, 2003). Overfishing, illegal fishing and
destructive fishing practices such as the use of
explosives and cyanide pose a threat in some
parts of the world (Cesar, Burke and Pet-Soede,
2003). Declines or shifts in fish populations can
affect the ecological balance of reef communities, compromising their dynamics and processes
(Burke et al., 2011). For example, a decrease in
the number of herbivores can allow an increase
in the growth of macro-algae, which have a negative effect on corals (ibid.). A dramatic example
of this effect occurred in the 1980s, when a
collapse (due to overfishing) in the numbers of
parrotfish, one of the most important grazers of
Caribbean reefs, coincided with the disappearance of another grazing species, the long-spined
sea urchin Diadema antillarum (Buddemeier,
Kleypas and Aranson, 2004; Jackson et al., 2014;
Mumby et al., 2006). Other threats include coastal
pollution, invasive species, coral harvesting and
mining (Buddemeier, Kleypas and Aranson, 2004;
Jackson et al., 2014)
The precise extent of historical losses is difficult to estimate as records are incomplete.
Wilkinson (2008) concluded that the world had
lost 19 percent of its original coral-reef area
and that a further 35 percent was under threat
of loss in the coming decades. In some regions,
even greater losses appear to have occurred.
For example, based on data from 88 locations
in the Caribbean, covering the periods 1970 to
1983, 1984 to 1998, and 1999 to 2011, Jackson
et al. (2014) concluded that coral cover declined
from 34.8 percent in the first of these periods to
19.1 percent in the second and 16.3 percent in
the third, i.e. a decline of more than 50 percent
overall. Burke et al. (2011) rated 60 percent of the
world’s coral reefs as being under immediate and
direct threat from local effects (overfishing, pollution, etc.) and rated 75 percent as threatened
if thermal stress is also taken into account. These
FIGURE 4.20
Global status of reef-building corals
CR EN
1% 3%
DD
19%
VU
23%
LC
34%
NT
20%
n = 868 species
Note: CR (Critically Endangered); EN (Endangered);
VU (Vulnerable); DD (Data Deficient); NT (Near Threatened) and
LC (Least Concern).
Source: The IUCN Red List version 2018-2.
authors also estimated that by 2050, 95 percent
of reefs globally would be experiencing thermal
stress sufficient to cause severe bleaching in most
years (ibid.). Since these studies were published,
the world’s oceans haves experienced the longest
and most severe coral-bleaching event on record
(2014 to 2017) (Hughes et al., 2017, 2018). A 2017
assessment of coral-reef World Heritage Sites
concluded that all 29 such sites would cease to
exist as functioning coral reef ecosystems by the
end of the twenty-first century under a “business as usual” carbon-emissions scenario (Heron,
Eakin and Douver, 2017).
Where the risk status of reef-building coral
species themselves is concerned, data from IUCN
(IUCN, 2018) indicate that out of 868 species
of corals assessed, 1 percent (6) are classed
as Critically Endangered, 3 percent (26) as
Endangered and 23 percent (202) as Vulnerable (a
further 19 percent are classified as Data Deficient)
(Figure 4.20). Human assisted-evolution efforts to
restore coral reefs are discussed in Section 5.9.6.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
179
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
4.5.5 Forests
Introduction
The contributions of forests to the well-being of
humankind are extraordinarily vast and far reaching (FAO, 2016g). Forests are the world’s largest
repository of terrestrial biodiversity. They also
play a vital role in climate change mitigation and
contribute to soil and water conservation in many
fragile ecosystems. They make many significant
contributions to food security, livelihoods and
poverty alleviation. Millions of people depend on
food from forests and from trees located outside
forests to increase the nutritional quality and
diversity of their diets. This is particularly important during seasonal food shortages, extreme
climatic events and conflicts. Employment in the
production of forest goods and services provides
a source of income for many (FAO, 2014a). Around
one-third of the world’s population, or about
2.4 billion people, use wood as a source of energy
for basic needs such as cooking, boiling water and
heating (FAO, 2018b).
FAO has a long tradition of monitoring the
world’s forests. It periodically collects and analyses data on forest resources through several wellestablished processes, including the Global Forest
Resources Assessment (FRA) (FAO, 2012c, 2017k).
Many countries conduct national assessments
of their forest areas and other forest variables,
increasingly using remote sensing to complement
ground-level forest inventories. The data generated
by such assessments are reported periodically to the
FRA. The FRA has contributed greatly to improving
Box 4.10
FAO global definition of forest
FOREST
Land spanning more than 0.5 ha with trees higher than
5 m and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees
able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include
land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban
land use.
Explanatory notes
1. Forest is determined both by the presence of trees and
the absence of other predominant land uses. The trees
should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 m in situ.
2. Includes areas with young trees that have not yet
reached but which are expected to reach a canopy cover
of 10 percent and tree height of 5 m. It also includes
areas that are temporarily unstocked due to clear-cutting
as part of a forest management practice or natural
disasters, and which are expected to be regenerated
within five years. Local conditions may, in exceptional
cases, justify that a longer time frame is used.
3. Includes forest roads, firebreaks and other small open
areas; forest in national parks, nature reserves and other
protected areas such as those of specific environmental,
scientific, historical, cultural or spiritual interest.
180
4. Includes windbreaks, shelterbelts and corridors of trees
with an area of more than 0.5 ha and width of more
than 20 m.
5. Includes abandoned shifting cultivation land with a
regeneration of trees that have, or are expected to reach,
a canopy cover of 10 percent and tree height of 5 m.
6. Includes areas with mangroves in tidal zones, regardless
whether this area is classified as land area or not.
7. Includes rubber-wood, cork oak and Christmas tree
plantations.
8. Includes areas with bamboo and palms provided that
land use, height and canopy cover criteria are met.
9. Includes areas outside the legally designated forest land
which meet the definition of “forest”.
10. Excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems,
such as fruit-tree plantations, oil-palm plantations,
olive orchards and agroforestry systems when crops
are grown under tree cover. Note: Some agroforestry
systems such as the “Taungya” system where crops are
grown only during the first years of the forest rotation
should be classified as forest.
Source: FAO, 2018j.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 4.10
Global forest area change (1990–2015)
Annual net change
Year
Forest (thousand ha)
Period
Area (thousand ha)
1990
4 128 269
2000
2005
Ratea (%)
4 055 602
1990–2000
-7 267
-0.18
4 032 743
2000–2005
-4 572
-0.11
2010
4 015 673
2005–2010
-3 414
-0.08
2015
3 999 134
2010–2015
-3 308
-0.08
Note: Calculated as the compound annual growth rate.
Source: FAO, 2016g.
a
concepts, definitions and methods related to the
assessment of forest resources (FAO, 2012c).
Results from the FRA show a steady decrease
in the rate of forest loss globally. Other sources
have, however, reported that the rate of forest
loss is increasing. The discrepancy in the findings
is explained mainly by the fact that FAO defines
forest as a combination of tree cover and land
use (see Box 4.10), while some define forest only
in terms of tree cover. Datasets based solely on
remote-sensing sources such as Landsat imagery
cannot differentiate between tree cover in agricultural production systems (oil-palm plantations,
coffee plantations, etc.) and tree cover on land
that is not predominantly under agricultural or
urban land use. In addition, areas with tree cover
that has been temporarily removed as part of a
forest-management scheme or temporarily lost
through natural disturbances are still considered
forest according to the FAO definition, while a
remote-sensing analysis of tree cover will interpret
these areas as forest loss. Moreover, newly established forest cannot easily be detected by remote
sensing (FAO, 2016g).
Status and trends
Forests and forest management have changed substantially over the past 25 years. Overall, this period
has seen a number of positive developments.
For example, although the extent of the world’s
forests continues to decline as human populations
continue to grow and demand for food and land
increases, the rate of net forest loss fell by over
50 percent between the periods 1990 to 2000 and
2010 to 2015 (Table 4.10) (FAO, 2016g).82 Globally,
natural forest area is decreasing and planted forest
area is increasing. However, the bulk of the world’s
forest is natural forest, with reported natural forest
area accounting for 93 percent of the total global
forest area, or 3.7 billion ha, in 2015. The annual
net loss of natural forest area declined from
10.6 million ha per year during the period 1990 to
2000 to 6.5 million ha per year during the period
2010 to 2015.
Forest designated primarily for biodiversity conservation accounts for 13 percent of the world’s
forest area, or 524 million ha, with the largest
areas reported in the United States of America and
Brazil. This area has increased by 150 million ha
since 1990, although the rate of increase slowed
during the 2010 to 2015 period. Over this latter
period, Africa, Asia and South America each
reported an increase of about 1 million ha per
year of area designated for the conservation of
biodiversity, while Europe, North and Central
America and Oceania together reported an
increase of about 600 000 ha.
Seventeen percent of the world’s forest area is
located within legally established protected areas,
accounting for a total of 651 million ha. South
82
The description of status and trends presented here draws
on FAO (2016g). Except where otherwise indicated, all the
statistics presented are taken from this source and refer to the
state of forest resources as of 2015.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
181
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.21
Annual change in forest area (1990–2015)
1 000 ha
Net gain
50–250
250–500
>500
Net loss
>500
500–250
250–50
Small change (gain or loss)
<50
No data
Source: FAO, 2015d.
America has the highest proportion (34 percent)
of protected forest, largely because of the contribution of Brazil, where 42 percent of forest area is
located within the protected areas network. The
area of forest within protected areas increased by
200 million ha between 1990 and 2015, but the rate
of increase slowed during the 2010 to 2015 period.
The increase in the area of forest within protected
areas was particularly evident in the tropics, where
an additional 143 million ha of forest were put
under protection between 1990 and 2015.
The forest-area changes summarized in
Table 4.9 amounted to a decline in forest area
from 31.6 percent of global land area in 1990 to
30.6 percent in 2015. Such figures, however, do not
fully reflect the complicated nature of deforestation or forest conversion to other land use. Forest
gains and losses occur continuously, and while
deforestation can be easily detected with remote
sensing, forest gains are difficult to monitor even
182
with high-resolution satellite imagery and require
a long time period to assess reliably. Changes in
forest area, by country, for the period 1990 to
2015 are summarized in Figure 4.21.
There are also differences between the
impacts of large-scale commercial agriculture
and those of subsistence agriculture as deforestation drivers. An analysis of national data for
46 tropical and subtropical countries representing about 78 percent of the forest areas in these
domains (Hosonuma et al., 2012) revealed that
large-scale commercial agriculture is the most
prevalent driver of deforestation, accounting
for 40 percent. Local subsistence agriculture was
found to account for 33 percent of deforestation,
urban expansion for 10 percent, infrastructure for
10 percent and mining for 7 percent. Moreover,
although it may bring other economic benefits
and enhance global food security, the largescale, export-focused commercial production
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
of agricultural commodities may contribute little
to food security at the local or national level.
Hosonuma et al. (2012) note that, in some cases,
land-use change was preceded by forest degradation, for example caused by unsustainable or
illegal wood removal.83
Natural forest expansion may occur when agricultural land is abandoned, for example when a
rural population declines, when land becomes so
degraded that it becomes unproductive as agricultural land or when more productive agricultural
land becomes available elsewhere. Forest policies
may be put in place to encourage tree planting
with the aim of meeting anticipated future needs
for forest goods and environmental services. The
impact on forest area of “reverse drivers” such
as afforestation policies is particularly evident in
high-income countries such as the United States of
America and those in western Europe, where net
deforestation bottomed out many decades ago.
However, there is now evidence of a similar trend
in some developing countries.
In the period 1990 to 2015, 93 countries
recorded net losses in forest area (totalling
242 million ha), while 88 countries recorded net
gains (totalling almost 113 million ha) (FAO,
2016e). In Asia, 24 countries experienced a net
increase in forest area over this period, amounting
to 73.1 million ha, mainly a result of large-scale
afforestation programmes in China. In Europe,
35 countries recorded a net increase in forest
area, totalling 21.5 million ha. Thirteen countries
in Africa, eight in Oceania, six in North and Central
America, and two in South America also recorded
net increases in forest area over this period.
Although there have been significant advances
in recent years in the capacity of countries to
monitor their forests, and an unprecedented
increase in the availability of satellite imagery
and monitoring tools, there are still important
gaps and needs in forest monitoring. For example,
there is still no agreed operational global definition of forest degradation, and consequently no
established methods for measuring and monitoring this indicator. Status and trends in forest biodiversity are still difficult and costly to monitor, as
this requires substantial fieldwork, and countries
lack the necessary financial resources. Similarly,
data on the socio-economic aspects of forests, for
example on their contribution to livelihoods and
food security, are scarce.
4.5.6 Rangelands
Rangeland has been defined in many ways,84
usually based on land cover or land use (Lund,
2007). According to the Society for Range
Management, rangelands are “lands on which
the indigenous vegetation (climax or natural
potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like
plants, forbs, or shrubs and is managed as a
natural ecosystem. If plants are introduced,
they are managed similarly. Rangelands include
natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, many
deserts, tundras, alpine communities, marshes
and meadows” (Society for Range Management,
1998). Rangelands are found from the Asian
steppes to the Andean regions of South America
and from the mountains of western Europe to the
African savannahs. Land-cover types or biomes that
can be classified as rangelands make up between
6.4 billion ha (if deserts and other barren lands
are included) and 4.5 billion ha (without barren
lands) globally,85 amounting to 49 percent and
34 percent of global land area, respectively. Many
of the world’s grazing systems, including those in
African savannahs, North American prairies and
Asian steppes, were established in natural grasslands or open woodlands long grazed by large
herds of wild ungulates (hoofed animals). Most
European grasslands were developed from forests
many centuries ago.
Livestock production is the major land use in
the world’s grasslands. Grasses and leaves constitute the most important livestock feed resources
84
85
83
This and the following two paragraphs are adapted from FAO
(2016e).
For a compilation of definitions of rangelands see Lund (2014).
Calculated from FAOSTAT land cover data for 2015, including
the following categories: grassland; shrub-covered areas;
shrubs and/or herbaceous vegetation, aquatic or regularly
flooded; and sparsely natural vegetated areas.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
183
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.22
Global distribution of ruminant livestock production systems
Grassland-based system hyperarid
Grassland-based system arid
Grassland-based system humid
Grassland-based system temperate
Mixed rainfed hyperarid
Mixed rainfed arid
Mixed rainfed humid
Mixed rainfed temperate
Mixed irrigated hyperarid
Mixed irrigated arid
Mixed irrigated humid
Mixed irrigated temperate
Urban
Tree-based systems
Unsuitable
Note: Global Livestock Production Systems based on a modified version of the GLC-Share (FAO, July 2014).
Source: Robinson et al., 2018.
globally, making up between 46 percent and
50 percent of the livestock diet (Herrero et al.,
2013; Mottet et al.; 2017). Figure 4.22 shows the
global distribution of livestock production systems.
However, not all rangelands are used for grazing.
Alkemade et al. (2013) estimate that the proportion lies between 10 percent and 60 percent,
depending on the biome. Even the FAO landuse classification “permanent grasslands”, which
accounts for about 3.5 billion ha globally (2016
figures), includes about 1.5 billion ha of very marginal rangelands and shrubby ecosystems that
host no livestock (Mottet et al., 2017).
Today’s rangeland production systems include
both traditional pastoralist systems and fenced-in
ranching systems. Rangelands provide a livelihood
for more than 600 million people (FAO, 2011a).
Pastoralism is the only feasible agricultural
strategy in many dry areas (Davies et al., 2010).
Pastoralists in some of these areas operate mobile
systems in which herds are moved, sometimes
184
over long distances, to track changes in the availability of vegetation and other resources (ibid.).
Precise figures for the number of nomadic and
transhumant pastoralists are hard to come by,
partly because of the difficulties involved in
defining these categories and tracking them
in national censuses. A figure of 100 to 200
million people globally is often cited (e.g.
IUCN, 2011). Grassland-based systems (including grazed tree-covered areas), which harbour
37 percent of all the world’s cattle, contributed 22 percent of global beef production and
16 percent of global milk production in 2005,
respectively (MacLeod et al., 2013). In Africa and
the Near and Middle East, arid and semi-arid
grassland-based systems accounted for around
20 percent of the ruminant-meat production in
2000 (Herrero et al., 2014). Output from grazing
systems in developing countries, especially in
arid regions is low, due to limitations in feed
availability and quality and, consequently, low
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
livestock growth rates. However, food and
income from livestock play a crucial role in supporting livelihoods in pastoral and other extensive livestock systems (Herrero et al., 2013).
In addition to food, rangelands provide fibre,
fuel and other ecosystem services, including
carbon sequestration, control of water cycles and
provision of habitats for wildlife (FAO, 2011a,
2014c; Sala et al., 2017). Marshall et al. (2018)
found that the nutrient diversity and increased
spatial heterogeneity created by Neolithic pastoralists enriched and diversified African savannah landscapes over three millennia. Many
of today’s rangeland areas offer potential for
increasing the supply of supporting and regulating ecosystem services. However, when they
are not managed appropriately, rangelands are
prone to loss of biodiversity, stored carbon and
water-retention capacity and declines in productivity (FAO, 2011a).
Globally, there are about 780 genera and 12 000
species of grass (Christenhusz and Byng, 2016).
Rangelands are not only rich reservoirs of grasses,
shrubs and trees, but also important for many
kinds of fauna. For example, grasslands contain
11 percent of the world’s Endemic Bird Areas86
(White, Murray and Rohweder, 2000) and contribute to the maintenance of pollinators and other
insects that have important regulating functions
(FAO, 2005a). The importance of grasslands for
biological diversity is evident from the biological
distinctiveness index developed by WWF, which
considers species richness, species endemism, rarity
of habitat type and ecological phenomena, among
other criteria. For North America and Latin America,
respectively, 10 out of 32 and 9 of 34 regions rated
as “globally outstanding” for biological distinctiveness are in grassland ecosystems (WRI et al., 2000).
Grasslands provide ecosystem services estimated
to be worth USD 18.4 trillion per year globally
(Costanza et al., 2014). Grasslands are also the
86
An Endemic Bird Area (EBA) is “an area which encompasses
the overlapping breeding ranges of restricted-range species,
such that the complete ranges of two or more restricted-range
species are entirely included within the boundary of the EBA”
(Stattersfield et al., 1998).
locations of origin of many domesticated livestock
breeds and many of the world’s cultivated plants,
including wheat, maize, rice, rye, millet and
sorghum, as well as of forage species, for which
they remain important genetic reservoirs.
Although a figure of 10 percent to 20 percent
rangeland degradation is often cited, there is no
scientific consensus about the definition or the
extent of rangeland degradation (Sayre et al.,
2017). A review by Gibbs and Salmon (2015) found
that global estimates of total degraded area vary
from less than 1 billion ha to over 6 billion ha.
IPBES (2018a) notes that rangelands are among
the ecosystems most affected by land degradation
and that, in many rangelands, livestock stocking
density is at or above the land’s long-term carrying capacity, leading to long-term declines in plant
and animal production. It concludes that “the
capacity of rangelands to support livestock will
continue to diminish in the future, due to both
land degradation and loss of rangeland area.” The
effects of climate change, including greater climatic variability, are exacerbating these problems
and can be expected to add to future pressures on
rangelands (ibid.).
Herrero et al. (2013) note that grasslands are
often at the epicentre of land-use change processes, and conclude that detailed studies on the
role and fate of grasslands as a multifunctional
resource require urgent attention. One key area
in this regard is Latin America, where forest conversion into human-made grasslands has been
widespread in recent years. Globally, the extent
of rangeland area changes over time due to
conversion of forests into grassland, the conversion of rangeland into cropland and improved
grasslands, and the replacement of abandoned
rangeland with forests. Between 2000 and 2016,
the global land area under permanent meadows
and pastures declined by 4 percent (FAOSTAT).
The rates of land conversion and the intensity
of rangeland use are likely to continue changing
over the coming decades. Mottet et al. (2017) estimated that of the 2 billion ha of grassland currently used for grazing, 1 billion ha can be considered non-convertible into cropland because they
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
185
4
DRI V ER S, S TAT US A N D TREN DS
PART B
FIGURE 4.23
Global grasslands suitable and unsuitable for crop production and share of land use
Grassland suitable for crops, with animals (1 085 million ha)
Grassland suitable for crops, without animals (197 million haa)
Grassland unsuitable for crops, with animals (1 082 million ha)
Grassland unsuitable for crops, without animals (758 million ha)
0
100
Grassland percentage per cell
Notes: Threshold of 25% ratio of actual/potential yield used for suitability, as defined by IIASA and FAO (2012). Livestock distribution
based on Gridded Livestock of the World (Robinson et al., 2014).
Source: Mottet et al., 2017.
are too arid or otherwise marginal (Figure 4.23).
For some of the remaining 1 billion ha, the ecological costs of conversion would be prohibitive
(Searchinger et al., 2015). These areas thus offer
potential for biodiversity conservation.
Although approximately 9 percent of drylands
are under formal protection, these areas are not
representative of all dryland subtypes. For example,
deserts are disproportionately represented, while
temperate grasslands have among the lowest levels
of protection of all biomes (4 to 5 percent). To some
extent, this is because, traditionally, areas with the
lowest economic value were the ones designated
as protected areas. Large areas of drylands are
protected informally by local communities either
consciously (e.g. as sacred sites) or as a by-product
186
of traditional sustainable management practices
(e.g. as seasonal grazing reserves). This indigenous
protection is rarely recognized by government
and is often undermined by government policies
(Davies et al., 2012).
4.6 Needs and priorities
Across all categories of BFA, the country reports
and/or the previous global assessments of genetic
resources make it clear that there are substantial knowledge gaps with respect to status and
trends. The extent and character of these gaps
vary from category to category of BFA. In the
case of domesticated species and those that are
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT US A N D TREN DS O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
widely harvested from the wild, species inventories are largely complete and the range of
within-species populations (breeds, varieties,
etc.) is also often well documented, although to
varying degrees across the regions of the world.
In contrast, many associated biodiversity species,
particularly micro-organisms and invertebrates,
have never been documented. An inventory of
the world’s tree species also remains to be completed. Population trends are relatively well documented for some taxonomic groups (particularly
vertebrates), but in others knowledge is almost
non-existent at species level and very limited even
in general terms. Where associated-biodiversity
species are monitored, data are often not linked
to spatial data on the distribution of production
systems, and hence their potential significance to
particular categories of production can be difficult to evaluate. In many cases, the contributions
of specific components of BFA to the supply of
ecosystem services are poorly understood, as are
the effects of particular drivers (including climate
change) on population sizes and distributions and
on the ecological relationships that underpin the
supply of ecosystem services.
The main need and priority identified in the
country reports is improving the availability of
data in all the above fields. Also significant is the
need to strategically plan data-collection efforts
so that they provide the data needed to support
management decisions that support the sustainable use and conservation of components of BFA
and promote their roles in the supply of ecosystem
services in food and agricultural systems. More specific priorities noted include improving methodologies for recording, storing and analysing data
on changes in the abundance and distribution of
species and the distribution of ecosystems (including geographic information system facilities)
and increasing the supply of skilled taxonomists.
Establishing or strengthening relevant research,
education, capacity-building and cooperation
programmes (including cooperation between the
public sector and other stakeholders) is widely
emphasized (see Chapter 8 for further discussion of needs and priorities in all these fields). As
noted in some of the sections above, certain types
of associated biodiversity are monitored through
citizen-science projects and a number of countries
note the potential benefits of expanding activities
of this kind. Many countries emphasize the point
that effective monitoring requires systematic and
long-term commitment, noting in some cases the
need to clarify responsibilities including, where
relevant, establishing national bodies to organize
or oversee monitoring activities.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
187
4
Part C
STATE OF
MANAGEMENT
Chapter 5
The state of use of biodiversity
for food and agriculture
Key messages
• The sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity
for food and agriculture (BFA) calls for approaches
that involve the integrated management of genetic
resources, species and ecosystems in the context of
production systems and their surroundings.
• A wide range of management practices and
approaches make use of various components of BFA
and thus potentially contribute to its sustainable
use. However, in most cases it is difficult to evaluate
the extent to which these practices and approaches
are being used owing to the variety of scales and
contexts involved and the absence of data and
appropriate assessment methods.
• Eighty percent of reporting countries indicate
that one or more of the BFA-focused practices
on which they were invited to report are being
used in one or more types of production system.
A much higher proportion of OECD countries
than non-OECD countries report the use of these
practices. Seventy-five percent of countries report
the adoption of one or more types of ecosystem,
landscape or seascape approach.
• Countries indicate that there is an upward trend
in the adoption or use of all the BFA-focused
5.1 Introduction
This chapter considers the state of use of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA). Use is
here taken to comprise the various actions that
can be undertaken to maintain or enhance the
capacity of BFA to supply ecosystem services of
practices and approaches on which they were
invited to report.
• Although countries generally indicate that the
impacts of the BFA-focused practices on biodiversity
are perceived to be positive, they emphasize the
need for more research in this regard, even for
practices where research on management issues is
well established.
• Many BFA-focused practices are relatively
complex and require good understanding of
the local ecosystem. They can be knowledge
intensive, context specific and provide benefits
only in the relatively long term. Many countries
note major challenges in up-scaling such
practices and the need to promote them through
capacity development and strengthening
policy frameworks.
• A number of management practices targeting
micro-organisms used in food processing and
agro-industrial processes, or found in the rumens
of livestock species, contribute to improving
food security and nutrition while reducing the
environmental footprint of food production.
one kind or another. It encompasses activities at
many levels, including the ecosystem, landscape
and seascape, the farm (or forest, livestock or
aquaculture holding), the plot (or pond, greenhouse, etc.), the biological community and the
population (at species or within-species level).
Conservation (i.e. actions specifically focused
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
191
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
on preventing the loss of BFA) and characterization (activities specifically focused on improving knowledge of BFA) are discussed separately
(Chapters 6 and 7), although they are clearly
often closely linked to use. The policy, legal
and institutional frameworks (including fields
such as education and training, research, cooperation and the implementation of incentive
measures) for use (and other aspects of BFA
management) are discussed in Chapter 8. The use
of BFA in building resilient production systems
and livelihoods, promoting food security and
nutrition, and sustainably intensifying production is discussed in Chapter 2. Inevitably, there
is some overlap in the scope of these various
chapters. For example, many of the methods and
approaches described in this chapter are relevant
to in situ conservation. Policy and legal frameworks related to specific management practices
are also mentioned at several points. Similarly,
there are many linkages and overlaps between
the various approaches and practices discussed in
the sections of this chapter.
The chapter is structured as follows. Section 5.2
presents a short overview of the information
provided by countries on the implementation of
the various practices and approaches on which
they were invited to report. Section 5.3 discusses
approaches at ecosystem, landscape and seascape
scales. Section 5.4 discusses restoration practices
in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Section 5.5
considers diversification (in terms of the range
of species, breeds, varieties, etc. raised) at farm
level (or at the level of equivalent holdings or
operations in other sectors). Section 5.6 considers a number of specific management practices
and approaches at farm or within-farm level (or
equivalent levels in other sectors) that favour or
involve the use of BFA. Section 5.7 discusses the
use of micro-organisms in food processing and
agro-industrial processes. Section 5.8 discusses
rumen microbial diversity. Section 5.9 discusses
the management of populations at genetic level
(domestication, breeding programmes, etc.).
In line with the rest of the report, particular
attention is paid to associated biodiversity and
192
to presenting the information provided in the
country reports.1
5.2 Overview of management
practices and approaches
This section provides an overview of the information provided by countries on their implementation of the various management practices and
approaches that are further discussed in the other
sections of the chapter. Countries were invited to
report on the extent of use of a range of management practices and approaches considered to
favour or involve the use of BFA and on trends
in their use over the preceding ten years. Out of
the 91 country reports, 73 (80 percent) refer to
the implementation of one or more of the management practices and approaches in one or more
production systems. The remaining 18 (20 percent)
do not make any explicit reference to any of the
practices or approaches. Some countries report as
many as 21 different practices and approaches.
Findings are summarized by region in Table 5.1.
The table should, however, be interpreted with
caution as variations in the levels of detail provided in the country reports mean that the figures
probably underestimate the actual frequencies of
adoption. It should also be noted that the figures
do not take into account the levels of adoption
(importance in terms of land area or production
output) within countries, i.e. a country with a
low but non-zero level of adoption in only one
production-system category is counted in the
same way as a country with a high level of adoption across many production-system categories.
Bearing the above caveats in mind, general
highlights from Table 5.1 are that a large proportion of countries globally (75 percent) report
one or more types of ecosystem, landscape or
seascape approach. More than half report some
1
Throughout this chapter, unless noted otherwise, the term
“country reports” refers to the country reports submitted as
contributions to The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food
and Agriculture. See “About this publication” for additional
information.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 5.1
Reported levels of adoption of selected management practices and approaches, all production systems aggregated
Africa
Number of reporting countries
Practices and approaches
Asia
19
n
Europe
and
Central
Asia
9
%
n
Latin
America
and the
Caribbean
23
%
n
16
%
n
North
America
Near East
and North
Africa
13
%
n
Pacific
1
%
n
Non-OECD
10
%
n
OECD
72
%
n
World
19
%
n
91
%
n
%
Ecosystem, landscape and seascape management
Any ecosystem, landscape or seascape
approach
14
74
7
78
20
87
12
75
5
38
0
0
10
100
52
72
16
84
68
75
9
47
4
44
15
65
6
38
3
23
1
100
1
10
24
33
15
79
39
43
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
100
11
15
0
0
11
12
Sustainable forest management
6
32
2
22
7
30
4
25
0
0
0
0
1
10
15
21
5
26
20
22
Ecosystem approach to fisheries and
aquaculture
7
37
5
56
15
65
5
31
1
8
1
100
2
20
22
31
14
74
36
40
Agroecology
2
11
1
11
5
22
9
56
3
23
0
0
0
0
14
19
6
32
20
22
11
58
5
56
14
61
6
38
2
15
1
100
1
10
27
38
13
68
40
44
Restoration practices
Restoration practices
Diversification in production systems
Diversification
9
47
6
67
11
48
6
38
4
31
1
100
3
30
28
39
12
63
40
44
Home gardens
8
42
5
56
7
30
5
31
4
31
0
0
2
20
25
35
6
32
31
34
Agroforestry
10
53
5
56
9
39
6
38
4
31
1
100
3
30
29
40
9
47
38
42
Polyculture/aquaponics
5
26
3
33
10
43
4
25
2
15
0
0
1
10
17
24
8
42
25
27
(Cont.)
193
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Landscape management
Integrated land- and water-use planning
5
194
TABLE 5.1 (Cont.)
Reported levels of adoption of selected management practices and approaches, all production systems aggregated
Number of reporting countries
Practices and approaches
Asia
19
n
Europe
and
Central
Asia
9
%
n
Latin
America
and the
Caribbean
23
%
n
16
%
n
North
America
Near East
and North
Africa
13
%
n
Pacific
1
%
n
Non-OECD
10
%
n
OECD
72
%
n
World
19
%
n
PART C
91
%
n
%
Management practices and production approaches
Organic agriculture
7
37
6
67
18
78
8
50
4
31
1
100
3
30
31
43
16
84
47
52
Low external input agriculture
7
37
5
56
11
48
5
31
4
31
0
0
1
10
24
33
9
47
33
36
Sustainable soil management
9
47
5
56
11
48
9
56
3
23
1
100
1
10
27
38
12
63
39
43
Management of micro-organisms
8
42
5
56
6
26
4
25
3
23
0
0
1
10
22
31
5
26
27
30
Conservation agriculture
9
47
4
44
9
39
9
56
4
31
0
0
1
10
28
39
8
42
36
40
Integrated plant nutrient management
8
42
5
56
15
65
8
50
3
23
1
100
2
20
28
39
14
74
42
46
Integrated pest management
7
37
6
67
15
65
8
50
5
38
1
100
3
30
30
42
15
79
45
49
Pollination management
5
26
3
33
12
52
7
44
3
23
1
100
0
0
19
26
12
63
31
34
Enrichment planting
7
37
5
56
8
35
6
38
4
31
0
0
1
10
24
33
7
37
31
34
Reduced impact logging
7
37
3
33
10
43
4
25
1
8
0
0
1
10
18
25
8
42
26
29
Genetic improvement
Domestication
7
37
6
67
10
57
4
25
2
15
0
0
1
10
20
28
10
53
30
33
Base broadening
6
32
6
67
10
43
5
31
3
23
0
0
2
20
22
31
10
53
32
35
Notes: The figures indicate the number (and percentage) of countries reporting the respective practice or approach in one or more production-system categories. Blue-coloured cells
indicate cases in which 50 percent or more of the countries report the practice or approach. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Africa
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
implementation of organic agriculture in one of
more production-system categories. Overall, there
is a marked difference in reporting between countries that are members of the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
and those that are not. With the exception of
integrated land- and water-use planning, home
gardens and management of micro-organisms,
for which more non-OECD countries report implementation, every practice or approach is reported
by a higher proportion of OECD countries. A few
practices are reported by more than half the reporting countries in a particular region. For example,
all countries from the Pacific region report implementation of integrated land- and water-use
planning, 67 percent of Asian countries report
adoption of diversification practices, 56 percent of
countries from Latin America and the Caribbean
report agroecological approaches, and 65 percent
of European countries report implementation of
landscape management.
Qualitative assessments provided by countries2
on trends in the use of management practices and
approaches over the preceding ten years are summarized in Table 5.2. Here again, the table should
be interpreted with caution, as variations in the
levels of detail provided in the country reports
mean that the figures probably underestimate
the actual frequencies of adoption. Reports of
increasing trends outnumber reports of negative
or stable trends in almost every combination of
management practice/approach and production
system. The status and trends of the adoption of
the management practices and approaches featured in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 (among others)
are further discussed in the remaining sections
of this chapter, drawing on information from the
country reports and other sources.
Countries were also invited to report on the
effects the various management practices and
approaches are having on BFA. Responses are summarized in Figure 5.1. Impacts are largely perceived
2
More specifically, countries were invited to provide qualitative
assessments of trends (strongly increasing, increasing, stable,
decreasing and strongly decreasing) or to indicate that
information was not known or not applicable.
to be positive. However, countries very clearly
express the need to improve understanding of the
impacts of different management practices and
approaches, at various scales from local to global,
on BFA and the supply of ecosystem services, as a
basis for better decision-making among relevant
stakeholders. Integrated pest management, integrated plant nutrient management, management
of micro-organisms, sustainable soil management
and landscape management are the practices with
the highest proportions of responses specifically
indicating that impacts on BFA are not known.
Although for presentation purposes this
chapter devotes a separate section to each of
the main management practices and approaches
that countries were invited to report on, in reality
these practices and approaches do not exist in
isolation from each other. In order to implement
them effectively, attention needs to be given to
any potential synergies, complementarities and
trade-offs that may exist between them. Given
the current gaps in knowledge on the nature of
these linkages, the multiple scales on which they
operate and the many different stakeholders that
may benefit or lose out, this is a substantial challenge. Adoption or further development of all
the various approaches and practices discussed
below requires producers, and often also other
stakeholders, to change how they operate. Such
changes normally require overcoming a number
of obstacles and involve a degree of risk. In many
cases, there may be conflicts of interest.
The need to develop and share knowledge on
specific techniques and to build capacity to implement them, where appropriate, is recognized as a
priority across all the practices and approaches discussed below. Successfully implementing them will
generally require addressing knowledge gaps at all
levels, from identifying relevant research questions,
through identifying appropriate support and advice
to be delivered by national programmes and extension workers, to addressing specific constraints to
adoption faced by producers in different contexts.
Little information is generally available on strategies for transitioning to more sustainable management at farm (or other holding), community
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
195
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 5.2
Reported trends in the adoption of selected management practices and approaches,
by production system
Diversification
↗
Home gardens
Agroforestry
Mixed systems
↗
Rainfed crop systems
Restoration
↗
Irrigated crop systems
(other)
↗
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
↗
Non-fed aquaculture
↗
Fed aquaculture
↗
Culture-based fisheries
Planted forests
↗
Ecosystem approach to
fisheries
Self-recruiting capture
fisheries
Naturally regenerated
forests
Landscape management
Livestock landless systems
Management
practices and
approaches
Livestock grassland-based
systems
Production systems (PS)
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↔
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
0–9
↗
10–19
Organic agriculture
↗
↗
↗
↗
↔
↗
↗
↗
20–29
Low external input
agriculture
↗↙
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗↙
↗
30–39
Sustainable soil
management
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
Management of microorganisms
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
Conservation agriculture
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
Integrated plant nutrient
management
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
Integrated pest
management
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
Pollination management
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
Polyculture/aquaponics
Enrichment planting
↗
↗
Domestication
↗
↔
↗↙
↗
Base broadening
↗
↗
↗↙
↗
Reduced impact logging
↗
↗
Proportion
of countries
reporting the PS
that report any
trends (%)
↔
↗
↘
↗↙
Stable
Increasing
Decreasing
Mixed
trends
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
↗
Notes: Countries were invited to report trends (increasing, stable or decreasing) in the adoption of selected management practices and
approaches in each production system in the past ten years. If 50% or more of the responses for a given combination of production system
and practice or approach indicate the same trend (increasing, decreasing or stable) then this trend is indicated in the respective cell of
the table. In other cases, mixed trends are indicated. The empty cells correspond to cases in which fewer than five countries provided a
response. The colour scale indicates the proportion of countries reporting the presence of the respective system that report any trends in
the state of the respective practices and approaches (increasing, stable or decreasing). See Section 1.5 for descriptions of the production
systems and Sections 5.2 to 5.9 for a discussion of the management practices and approaches. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
196
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 5.1
Perceived impacts on biodiversity for food and agriculture of various management practices
and approaches
Number of responses
Landscape management
90
Ecosystem approach to fisheries
62
Restoration practices
70
Diversification
111
Home gardens
61
Agroforestry
68
Polyculture/aquaponics
36
Organic agriculture
111
Low external input agriculture
69
Sustainable soil management
92
Management of micro-organisms
39
Conservation agriculture
67
Integrated plant nutrient management
91
Integrated pest management
105
Pollination management
50
Enrichment planting
35
Reduced impact logging
27
Domestication
57
Base broadening
57
Total
904
0%
10%
20%
Negative
30%
Neutral
40%
50%
Positive
60%
70%
Not known
80%
90% 100%
Not reported
Notes: A “response” is the report of an impact by a country for a given combination of practice and production system. Countries were
invited to indicate the extent of use of each practice and approach, by production system. For production systems where a given
practice or approach is implemented, countries were invited to indicate its perceived effects on BFA. This figure shows the distribution
of impacts reported for all combinations of practices and production systems. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
or country level. Approaches such as farmer field
schools are being used to promote shared learning on some of the practices and approaches
discussed below (see also Section 8.4). Creating
greater opportunities for cross-sectoral learning by
promoting closer links and greater collaboration
among the actors involved in implementing the
various practices and strategies discussed is another
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
197
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
widespread priority. The importance of comprehensive stakeholder involvement in planning
implementation activities is, likewise, common
across nearly all the approaches and practices (and
is among the defining features of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches). The significance
of adopting a more cross-sectoral approach at
policy level as a means of promoting linkages at
the more practical level is also widely recognized.
Another theme common to several of the practices
and approaches discussed is the need to address
constraints related to land-tenure issues.
5.3 Ecosystem, landscape and
seascape approaches
• Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches have
been adopted in many countries around the world,
at various scales, to improve livelihoods, sustain or
enhance ecosystem services, ensure the supply of
food and other products, and promote efficient and
sustainable use of resources.
• Seventy-five percent of reporting countries indicate
the adoption of one or more types of ecosystem,
landscape or seascape approach. Positive trends in
the adoption and implementation of landscape and
ecosystem approaches are reported. However, the
extent of use of these approaches and their effects on
biodiversity for food and agriculture remain unclear.
• Indicators show that adoption and application
of sustainable forest management is increasing.
The global area under forest management plans
has increased steadily in recent decades, reaching
2.1 billion ha in 2010. The forest area covered by
international certification schemes has also increased.
• Among the 127 countries that reported on their
progress in the implementation of the Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 2018, 77 percent
indicated that they had started to implement the
ecosystem approach to fisheries.
• Although estimates of the state and trends of
implementation of agroecological practices at global
level are lacking, an increasing number of countries
(28 as of July 2018) have introduced laws, regulations
and policies in support of agroecology.
198
• Information and knowledge gaps, lack of crosssectoral institutional frameworks, lack of financial and
political commitment, and a lack of skilled personnel
in public institutions are among reported constraints
to the adoption and implementation of landscape,
seascape and ecosystem approaches.
Interactions between people and the natural
environment shape the characteristics of terrestrial and aquatic production systems and their
surroundings. Within these areas, a wide range
of ecosystem components, both biological and
physical, interact with each other across a range
of scales. This means that planning the use and
management of one component – or one relatively small area of land such as a single farm – in
isolation may lead to negative impacts on other
components or to missed opportunities to benefit
from positive interactions. Effects of this kind
mean that management decisions will normally
affect the interests of a range of stakeholders,
including in potentially conflicting ways.
Awareness of the importance of taking a more
holistic approach to the management of ecosystems and landscapes has been increasing, and has
led to the development and adoption of a range
of integrated, multiscale approaches that aim to
allow the interests of multiple stakeholders to be
taken into consideration, synergies identified and
trade-offs negotiated (CGIAR, 2016).
This section begins by presenting an overview
of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches
and then provides a more detailed description of
the specific approaches most frequently referred
to in the country reports as having been adopted
in food and agricultural production systems. For
each approach, the reported status and trends of
adoption are presented and gaps and priorities in
terms of adoption and implementation discussed.
5.3.1 Overview
The ecosystem approach has been defined in
various ways, both in the literature and in international agreements. In 2000, the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) officially
defined the ecosystem approach as “a strategy for
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.1
The Convention on Biological Diversity’s principles and operational guidelines for
the ecosystem approach
The ecosystem approach is the primary framework for
action under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
At its fifth meeting, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2000, the
Conference of the Parties to the CBD endorsed the following
twelve interlinked principles, first identified during a
workshop held in Lilongwe, Malawi, in 1998:
1. The objectives of management of land, water and
living resources are a matter of societal choices.
2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest
appropriate level.
3. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects
(actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent
and other ecosystems.
4. Recognizing potential gains from management,
there is usually a need to understand the ecosystem
in an economic context. Any such ecosystemmanagement programme should: (a) reduce those
market distortions that adversely affect biological
diversity; (b) align incentives to promote biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use; and (c) internalize
costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the
extent feasible.
5. Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning,
in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a
priority target of the ecosystem approach.
6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits to
their functioning.
7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the
appropriate spatial and temporal scales.
the integrated management of land, water and
living resources that promotes conservation and
sustainable use in an equitable way.” As the term
ecosystem can refer to any functioning unit – it
could, for example, be a grain of soil, a pond, a
forest, a biome or the entire biosphere – the ecosystem approach can be applied at various scales
(CBD, 2000a). In 2000, the Parties to the CBD also
formally adopted the approach, together with
twelve governing principles (also referred to as
8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lageffects that characterize ecosystem processes,
objectives for ecosystem management should be set
for the long term.
9. Management must recognize that change is
inevitable.
10. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate
balance between, and integration of, conservation
and use of biological diversity.
11. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms
of relevant information, including scientific and
indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and
practices.
12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant
sectors of society and scientific disciplines.
The fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
CBD also endorsed following five operational guidelines for
the ecosystem approach:
1. Focus on the functional relationships and processes
within ecosystems.
2. Enhance benefit-sharing.
3. Use adaptive management practices.
4. Carry out management actions at the scale
appropriate for the issue being addressed, with
decentralization to lowest level, as appropriate.
5. Ensure intersectoral cooperation.
Source: CBD, 2000a.
the Malawi Principles) and five operational guidelines, as the primary framework for action under
the Convention (see Box 5.1). Both before and
after 2000, a number of more specific ecosystem
approaches targeting (or relevant to) particular
sectors of food and agriculture were also developed, for example sustainable forest management,
integrated coastal management and integrated
water resources management. The application of
such approaches has been particularly effective in
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
199
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 5.2
The ten principles that characterize
the landscape approach
Strengthened
stakeholder
capacity
Continual
learning
and adaptive
management
Shared
interest in
an issue
or problem
Multiple
scales
Resilience
Landscape
approach
Participatory
and
user-friendly
monitoring
Clarification of
rights and
responsibilities
Multifunctionality
Negotiated
and
transparent
change logic
Multiple
stakeholders
Source: van Oosten (2015) based on Sayer et al. (2013).
forestry and fisheries (see Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3)
and in specific fields such as integrated pest management (see Section 5.6.6) (FAO, 2007f). At the
ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the CBD, in 2008, it was noted that “global assessments suggest that the ecosystem approach is not
being applied systematically to reduce the rate
of biodiversity loss, but there are many examples
of successful application at the regional, national
and local scales which should be widely promoted
and communicated. Most of these examples can
be considered as positive outcomes for both biodiversity and human well-being” (CBD, 2008a).3
Although the term “landscape approach” has
come to be widely used, it remains difficult to
define it precisely or to distinguish it clearly from
the range of other landscape-scale management
methodologies and frameworks that have emerged
under various names in recent years (Reed,
Deakin and Sunderland, 2015; Scherr, Shames and
Friedman, 2013). The term “landscape” itself has
3
The global assessments referred to in the quote are CBD
(2007a) and CBD (2007b).
200
numerous connotations, but in the field of landuse management typically refers to an area of land
that can be regarded as a “whole” composed of a
number of interlinked components. For example,
Forman (1995) defines a landscape as a “heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems that is repeated in similar form.”
In the context of (terrestrial) food and agricultural production systems, the landscape is taken
to include not only the fields, pastures and agroforests themselves, but also managed or unmanaged fallow and wild land in and around them
(Brookfield, 2002; Kremen and Merenlender,
2018; Landis, 2017). Generally speaking, landscape
approaches intended to support the maintenance
and use of BFA aim both to balance diverse, and
often competing, land uses within the landscape
and to manage the biodiversity associated with
each of these individual land uses (ibid.).
It is possible to distinguish three basic characteristics of landscape approaches:
• Multiple objectives: landscape approaches
provide a framework for allocating and
managing land in areas where land uses such
as agriculture, forestry and mining compete
with environmental and biodiversity goals
(Sayer et al., 2013).
• Multiple stakeholder engagement and dialogue within and beyond the landscape: management goals need to be negotiated among
those with a stake in the landscape (e.g.
farmers and their communities, businesses,
civil society and government agencies) and
build on their experiences, knowledge and
aspirations (Scherr, Shames and Friedman,
2013). At national and institutional levels,
cross-sectoral collaboration in policy development is essential.
• Adaptive management: landscapes themselves are dynamic, and hence landscape
approaches also need to be flexible and
dynamic (Reed, 2014).
Figure 5.2 shows a more detailed guiding
framework for the landscape approach, consisting
of ten complementary and interlinked principles,
developed by the Center for International Forestry
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Research (CIFOR) and partner institutions (Sayer
et al., 2013).
To date, there is very little information available on where, or how effectively, landscape
approaches have been implemented in practice.
CIFOR has been trying to address this knowledge
gap through a systematic mapping exercise using
aggregated data from published scientific literature (Reed, Deakin and Sunderland, 2015). As
well as geographically mapping where and how
such approaches are being implemented in the
field, the review is aiming to document evidence
of positive and/or negative effects of landscape
approaches in practice on social, agronomic, environmental or economic outcomes (ibid.).
As the word “landscape” implies a terrestrial
focus, the term “seascape” or “oceanscape”
approach is sometimes used to describe a similar
approach in marine environments. Seascape
approaches are often referred to in the context of
efforts to manage marine and terrestrial areas in
an integrated way, for example the Pacific Ridge
to Reef initiative4 or the Source to Sea approach.5
Based on the descriptions of ecosystem 6
and landscape 7 approaches provided in the
country-reporting guidelines, 75 percent of the
4
5
6
7
https://www.pacific-r2r.org
http://www.fao.org/land-water/water/watergovernance/
source-to-sea/en
“An ecosystem approach is generally understood to encompass
the management of human activities, based on the best
understanding of the ecological interactions and processes,
so as to ensure that ecosystems structure and functions are
sustained for the benefit of present and future generations.
Ecosystem approaches include the Convention on Biological
Diversity’s Ecosystem Approach, Integrated Land Use Planning,
Integrated Water Resource Management, Sustainable Forest
Management, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, [and
the] Ecosystem approach to fisheries management.”
“A landscape approach means taking both a geographical and
socio-economic approach to managing the land, water and
forest resources that form the foundation – the natural capital
– for meeting our goals of food security and inclusive green
growth. By taking into account the interactions between these
core elements of natural capital and the ecosystem services
they produce, rather than considering them in isolation from
one another, we are better able to maximize productivity,
improve livelihoods, and reduce negative environmental
impacts.” (wording taken from World Bank [2012]).
91 reporting countries indicate that ecosystem,
landscape and/or seascape approaches have
been adopted, at least to some extent. A large
majority of these countries indicate that they
consider these approaches to be of major importance to the development of management strategies for BFA.8 A few European countries specifically mention that ecosystem and landscape
approaches are at the basis of their agricultural
policies. Table 5.3 lists the ecosystem, landscape
and seascape approaches most commonly mentioned9 in the country reports. A number of
these approaches were among the management
practices that countries were specifically invited
to report upon elsewhere in their reports.10
The table, therefore, also shows the number
of countries reporting the use of the respective approaches/practices in these contexts.
Sustainable forest management, the ecosystem
approach to fisheries and aquaculture, agroecology, landscape and seascape approaches as a
general category and integrated land-use planning, are briefly introduced below (Sections 5.3.2,
5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.6), along with information
on their status and trends. More detailed information on the remaining approaches/practices
and on their reported levels of implementation
can be found in the respective subsections of
Sections 5.5 and 5.6, and in Chapter 7.
5.3.2 Sustainable forest management
Introduction
Sustainability was identified as an important
principle in forest management theory as early
as 1713, when Hans Carl von Carlowitz published
his book Economics of silviculture in Germany
(Schmithüsen, 2013). Today sustainable forest
8
9
10
Countries were invited to indicate whether “major
importance”, “some importance” or “no importance” is
assigned to the reported ecosystem approaches.
The table shows approaches mentioned by five or more
countries in response to a question specifically seeking
information on the adoption of ecosystem and/or landscape
approaches.
Specifically, integrated pest management, agroforestry,
sustainable soil management and organic agriculture.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
201
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 5.3
Reported ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches
Approach
Number of countries
reporting
the approach1
Number of countries
reporting the approach
as a management
practice2
Production systems
where reported3
Protected areas management4
22
–
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
Naturally regenerated forests
Livestock grassland-based systems
Livestock landless systems
Irrigated crop systems (non-rice)
Rainfed crop systems
Mixed systems
Culture-based fisheries
Sustainable forest management
21
–
Naturally regenerated forests
Planted forests
Ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculture
19
36
Self-recruiting capture fisheries
Culture-based fisheries
Fed aquaculture
Non-fed aquaculture
Integrated pest management
14
45
Irrigated crop systems (non-rice)
Rainfed crop systems
Livestock grassland-based systems
Naturally regenerated forests
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
Mixed systems
Family farms
Agroforestry
12
38
Mixed systems
Rainfed crop systems
Planted forests
Livestock grassland-based systems
Mixed systems
Naturally regenerated forests
Planted forests
Rainfed crop systems
Irrigated crop systems (non-rice)
Livestock landless systems
Landscape approaches and management
10
39
Integrated land- and water-use planning5
11
–
–
Sustainable soil management
7
39
Irrigated crop systems (non-rice)
Rainfed crop systems
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
Naturally regenerated forests
Planted forests
Ecosystem approach to aquaculture
7
–
Fed aquaculture
Non-fed aquaculture
Organic agriculture
6
47
Rainfed crop systems
Irrigated crops (non-rice)
Mixed systems
Livestock grassland-based systems
Irrigated crop systems (rice)
Other ecosystem approaches to agriculture
(integrated crop management and agroecology)
6
–
–
Notes: 1. This column shows the number of countries reporting the respective approach in response to a question about whether, and
to what extent, ecosystem and/or landscape approaches are being implemented in their production systems. The question was open
ended, i.e. countries could mention any ecosystem approach they wished. 2. This column shows the number of countries reporting
the implementation of the respective approaches in response to questions on the level of implementation of specific management
practices. 3. This column shows the production systems for which the approaches were reported. 4. The kinds of protected areas that
were reported on by countries include national parks, nature reserves and conservation areas, including marine and forest protected
areas and high nature value farmlands. For further information see Section 7.5. In most cases this refers to the Pacific Ridge to Reef
approach (https://www.pacific-r2r.org). Analysis based on a total of 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
202
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
management is a globally accepted concept that
guides the development and implementation of
policies and practices that aim to maintain and
enhance the economic, social and environmental
values of forests.
International policy dialogue on forests was
initiated by the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992.
In addition to adopting the United Nations conventions on biodiversity, climate change and
desertification, UNCED also released a non-legally
binding statement called “Forest Principles”
(UNCED, 1992) in which countries affirmed their
commitment to the conservation, management
and sustainable development of all types of
forests. After UNCED, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests (IPF) (1995–1997) and the
Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) (1997–
2000) facilitated follow-up discussions to the
Forest Principles. Since 2000, the United Nations
Forum on Forests (UNFF) has continued the IPF/IFF
work and sought ways to strengthen long-term
political support for sustainable forest management. As a result of the work of UNFF, the United
Nations General Assembly adopted, in 2007, the
Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of
Forests (United Nations, 2007), which provides a
global definition for sustainable forest management (Box 5.2).11
Following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable
Development Goals in 2015, the United
Nations Economic and Social Council agreed on
International Arrangements on Forests beyond
2015 (United Nations, 2015b). It also decided to
change the name of the Non-Legally Binding
Instrument on All Types of Forests to the United
Nations Forest Instrument, and requested UNFF
to develop a strategic plan for the period 2017
to 2030 (ibid.). In 2017, a special session of UNFF
agreed on the United Nations Strategic Plan for
Forests 2017–2030 (United Nations, 2017c), which
provides a global framework for actions at all
11
Further information on these processes can be found via the
UNFF website https://www.un.org/esa/forests/index.html
Box 5.2
The concept of sustainable forest
management
In Resolution 62/98 (2007) (United Nations, 2007), the
United Nations General Assembly recognized that forests
and trees outside forests provide multiple economic,
social and environmental benefits, and emphasized
that sustainable forest management contributes
significantly to sustainable development and poverty
eradication. It further recognized sustainable forest
management as a dynamic and evolving concept that
is intended to maintain and enhance the economic,
social and environmental value of all types of forests,
for the benefit of present and future generations.
The resolution lists the following seven elements of
sustainable forest management: (1) extent of forest
resources; (2) forest biological diversity; (3) forest health
and vitality; (4) productive functions of forest resources;
(5) protective functions of forest resources; (6) socioeconomic functions of forests; and (7) legal, policy and
institutional framework.
levels to sustainably manage all types of forests
and trees outside forests and halt deforestation
and forest degradation. The strategic plan includes
six global forest goals and 26 associated targets
to be achieved by 2030. These voluntary goals
and targets contribute to the implementation of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
the Paris Agreement of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change,
the CBD and the United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification.
In parallel with the international policy dialogue
on forests, a total of nine regional and eco-regional initiatives or processes were launched by
countries in the period after 1992 with the aim
of translating the concept of sustainable forest
management into practice (Wilkie, Holmgren and
Castañeda, eds., 2003). These regional and ecoregional processes developed criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Although
the various processes carried out their work
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
203
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
independently, they had similar objectives. They
also shared information and experiences, and
some countries participated in more than one
process. This paved the way for consensus on
sustainable forest management and its seven elements in the context of the United Nations Forum
on Forests. Additionally, the regional processes
on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management were instrumental to the evolution
of certification schemes for wood-based products
traded in international markets. The major global
certification schemes for wood sourced from sustainably managed forests are the Programme for
the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC)12
and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).13
Sustainable forest management requires action
at all levels from the field (i.e. forest management
unit), where it involves the implementation of practices based on science and knowledge of local conditions and traditions, to the levels of policy, legislation and governance. In the forest sector, it has
long been recognized that sectoral policies should
contribute to achieving the development goals of
the whole society and should take other sectors into
consideration (e.g. FAO, 2003c). Consequently, the
development and implementation of forest policy
in many countries have been based on a holistic
and cross-sectoral approach (e.g. Husch, 1987).
A forest policy is typically a government document that sets out objectives for the forest sector’s contributions to sustainable development. A
national or subnational forest strategy describes
how these goals and objectives will be achieved.
In many countries, a legal framework has been
established to support the implementation of
the forest strategy. Action plans are developed
to translate the forest policy into concrete activities. A national forest programme (NFP) or similar
arrangement is commonly used as the mechanism
for developing forest policy and related strategies
and action plans and for facilitating and monitoring their implementation (FAO, 2010b). An NFP
involves a continuous process of communication
12
13
https://www.pefc.org
https://ic.fsc.org/en
204
and dialogue (FAO and NFPF, 2006). In many
cases, a forest forum or similar multistakeholder
platform is established to provide an opportunity
for all relevant stakeholders within and outside of
the forest sector to express their views on forest
policy. It is widely acknowledged that NFPs play an
important role in the implementation of sustainable forest management (NFPF and FAO, 2012).
Status and trends
Over the past two decades, many countries have
made considerable progress in implementing sustainable forest management by strengthening
policy and legal frameworks and by improving the
application of management practices in the field.
Several indicators based on the global forest statistics assembled by FAO show positive trends for this
period (FAO, 2016g). Although global forest area
continued to decline between 1990 and 2015, the
rate of annual loss of forest area decreased significantly (see Section 4.5.5. for further discussion).
Several countries had significant annual net gains
in forest area between 2010 and 2015, including
China (1.5 million ha), Chile (301 000 ha), the
Philippines (240 000 ha) and Gabon (200 000 ha)
(ibid.). As of 2008, 135 countries and areas14 had
developed a forest policy and 131 had established
an NFP (FAO, 2010c).
The widespread existence of policy, legal and
regulatory frameworks facilitating the implementation of sustainable forest management
is also reflected in the country reports. A range
of specific issues addressed by these frameworks
are highlighted, including the maintenance and
restoration of natural forests, timber-harvesting
practices and the conservation of forest biodiversity (e.g. deliberately leaving dead wood in place),
aesthetic values, water quality and soil conditions.
Some countries also refer to the implementation
of sustainable forest management within the
context of specific projects. For example, the
Gambia mentions the Expansion of Community
Participation in the Management of Forests and
Protected Areas project, which aimed to manage
14
Out of a total of 233 countries and areas assessed.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
forest resources in the interests of sustainable livelihoods, including by enhancing the conservation
of biodiversity in forest and woodland ecosystems.
Where field-level operations are concerned,
forest management plans are the main instruments for ensuring that forests are managed
sustainably. Increasingly, such plans integrate a
wide range of management practices associated
with multiple objectives, including the supply of
wood and non-wood products and various cultural, supporting and regulating ecosystem services. The global area under forest management
plans has increased steadily since 1990, reaching
2.1 billion ha in 2010 (FAO, 2016g). Similarly, the
forest area covered by the two above-mentioned
international certification schemes increased
from 14 million ha in 2000 to 438 million ha in
2014 (ibid.). As of September 2018, PEFC indicated
that it had certified 307 million ha (PEFC, 2018)
and FSC that it had certified 200 million ha (FSC,
2018).15 Several country reports emphasize the
importance of forest management plans. Belgium,
for example, reports mandatory implementation
of forest management plans, noting that particular attention is paid, inter alia, to the diversity of
planted forest tree species and the maintenance
of trees of biological interest. Ethiopia reports
that its area under sustainable forest management is expanding and that the main objectives
of its forest management plans include increasing
forest coverage through massive tree planting.
5.3.3 Ecosystem approach to fisheries
and aquaculture
Introduction
In the mid-1970s, growing concerns over the health
of the oceans, the regulation of human activities
affecting them, and the allocation of resources,
rights and responsibilities in their use began to
shift global approaches to fisheries management
and led to the introduction of exclusive economic
zones and the adoption, in 1982, of the United
15
These figures include some double accounting, as some forest
owners have opted to certify their forests under both schemes.
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (FAO,
2003d, 2005b). While these steps were important,
they were not sufficient to ensure the effective
management and sustainable development of
fisheries, and by the late 1980s it had become
clear that a new approach was needed (FAO,
2005b). In October 1995, the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995a) was adopted by
the Conference of FAO to provide a framework for
national and international efforts to ensure the
sustainable exploitation of aquatic biodiversity.
The early years of the twenty-first century saw
the emergence of the term “ecosystem approach
to fisheries” (FAO, 2003d). A FAO technical consultation held in 2002 agreed that the purpose of an
ecosystem approach to fisheries is
to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a
manner that addresses the multiple needs and
desires of societies, without jeopardizing the
options for future generations to benefit from
the full range of goods and services provided
by marine ecosystems
and that such an approach
strives to balance diverse societal objectives,
by taking account of the knowledge and
uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and
human components of ecosystems and their
interactions and applying an integrated
approach to fisheries within ecologically
meaningful boundaries (FAO, 2003e).
The ecosystem approach to fisheries involves a
range of inter-related guiding principles and concepts that have been summarized as follows:
• fisheries should be managed to limit
their impact on the ecosystem to the
extent possible;
• ecological relationships between
harvested, dependent and associated
species should be maintained;
• management measures should be
compatible across the entire distribution
of the resource (across jurisdictions and
management plans);
• the precautionary approach should
be applied because the knowledge on
ecosystems is incomplete; and
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
205
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
• governance should ensure both human
and ecosystem well-being and equity
(ibid.).
The ecosystem approach concept has also been
applied to aquaculture. According to FAO (2010d),
an ecosystem approach to aquaculture
is a strategy for the integration of the
activity within the wider ecosystem such
that it promotes sustainable development,
equity, and resilience of interlinked
social-ecological systems.
Current efforts to promote an ecosystem
approach to aquaculture focus on developing
tools to improve decision-making processes, with
the aim of minimizing impacts on natural ecosystems, improving knowledge of interactions
between aquaculture and the supply of ecosystem services and strengthening communication
between scientists and decision-makers (Bricker
et al., 2016; Kluger et al., 2016; Lithgow, de la
Lanza and Silva, 2017).
Status and trends
FAO’s 2018 report on progress in the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries (FAO, 2018k) indicates that among
127 reporting countries, 77 percent stated that
they had begun to implement the ecosystem
approach to fisheries. Among these, 97 percent
had established ecological, socio-economic and
governance objectives, 95 percent had identified
key issues to be addressed by management actions
and 67 percent had established monitoring mechanisms (ibid.).
Although the ecosystem approach to fisheries has spread to all regions of the world, practical adoption can be challenging (Fletcher and
Bianchi, 2014; Hilborn, 2011). Pitcher et al. (2009)
evaluated progress in the implementation of
ecosystem-based management16 of fisheries in
16
The authors note the existence of a range of terms and
definitions in this field and state that they use the term
ecosystem-based management “to denote a holistic approach
to the management of fisheries, but not the management nor
control of pollution, shipping lanes, recreation and other nonfisheries issues.”
206
33 countries using a scoring framework based on
key principles, elements and steps associated with
the implementation of the approach. Only two
countries were judged to have a “good” performance and four countries to have an “acceptable”
performance. Sixteen were assigned “fail grades”
(ibid.). Van Hoof (2015) notes that, in the case
of the European Union, although a number of
regional marine policies recognize the need for an
ecosystem approach, practical implementation has
run up against various constraints associated with
the complexities of the institutional and policy
framework and the difficulty of ensuring adequate stakeholder involvement. Where impacts
are concerned, there is evidence that implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries over
any extended area tends to increase fish catches
(Bundy et al., 2017).
Thirty-six out of the 91 country reports mention
the adoption of an ecosystem approach in at
least one category of aquatic production system.
Adoption is reported by a higher proportion of
non-OECD countries (74 percent) than of OECD
countries (31 percent). While many country
reports provide few details of their reported
implementation efforts, some report a diverse
range of measures. For example, Burkina Faso
mentions the establishment of co-management
regimes for water bodies of economic interest,
with multistakeholder management committees
operating specifically formulated development
plans. It describes procedures for the granting
of fishing concessions, and notes the benefits of
having favourable legal and institutional frameworks in place (including consultative bodies and
grassroots community organizations). Practical
measures mentioned include establishment of
spawning grounds (habitat improvement) and
temporary closures of fisheries. An example from
Panama of the implementation of the ecosystem
approach to fisheries at project level is presented
in Box 5.3. Actions taken to ensure the adoption
of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and a code of conduct on sustainable fisheries in Saint Lucia are presented in Box 5.4. With
reference to aquaculture, Malta reports that an
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.3
Application of the ecosystem approach in capture fisheries – an example from Panama
The project Development of Sustainable Economic
Alternatives and Conservation Strategies in Marine
Protection areas of the Gulfs of Chiriquí and Montijo,
implemented by Fundación MarViva, has contributed
to improving the livelihoods of eight coastal fishing
communities in Panama by training local people
(300 families, comprising more than 1 634 individuals)
on better fishing practices and promoting alternative
businesses (whale watching and rural tourism) that
sustainably use marine and coastal resources. Twentyfive microbusinesses have implemented environmentalmanagement plans, which in 2013 won the county’s Clean
Production Award. Other achievements have included
the generation of microcredit opportunities for very poor
communities and the formulation of fishing agreements
with three artisanal fishers’ groups. Mollusc and lobster
harvesters have been trained in marketing and product
management. Value chains in fisheries and tourism have
been created through strategic alliances between the
private sector and beneficiary groups, which have worked
together to establish more responsible approaches to
fishing and tourism.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Panama.
Box 5.4
Ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Saint Lucia
An ecosystem approach to fisheries management and
a code of conduct on sustainable fisheries adopted in
Saint Lucia led to widespread compliance among fishers
with measures aimed at improving the management
and development of the industry. This led to increased
biomass of fishery species, greater marine biodiversity
and enhancements to marine ecosystems. However,
achieving these results required a long series of actions
and political investments. Specific actions taken to ensure
adoption included:
• signing the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism
2010 Castries (St. Lucia) Declaration on Illegal,
Unreported or Unregulated Fishing;
• accession to the 2009 FAO Port State Measures
Agreement to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal,
Unreported or Unregulated Fishing (Saint Lucia
officially acceded on 17 June 2016);
• signing the 2015 St. George’s Declaration on the
Conservation, Management and Sustainable Use of
the Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus);
• endorsement of the Draft Management Plan for
Blackfin Tuna;
• endorsement of the Draft Management Plan for Fish
Aggregating Device Fishery;
• endorsement of the Management Plan for Queen
Conch;
• promotion of consultative processes among fishers
and other stakeholders in every aspect of fisheries
planning, development, management, conservation
and sustainable utilization;
• expansion of the marine protected areas programme
as a tool to enhance fisheries management;
• adoption of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries
Mechanism Regional Management Plan for Flying
Fish Fishery; and
• promotion of fisherfolk organizations at local and
national levels.
Lesson learned
Engaging in meaningful consultation and building
partnerships with fishers and other stakeholders, including
development agencies and partners at regional and
international levels, proved key to strengthening fisheries
management and development.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Saint Lucia.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
207
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
ecosystem approach is implemented in bluefin
tuna mariculture. Actions undertaken include
the establishment of a quota on the amount of
wild fish that can be captured for breeding and
a size threshold below which individuals cannot
be recruited.
Several countries mention the significance of
national or regional policy and legal frameworks
supporting the implementation of the ecosystem
approach. For example, Mexico notes that its
Sectoral Programme for Agricultural, Fishing and
Food Development (2013–2018) and General Law
for Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture,17 which
guide its fishing policies, were developed based
on ecosystem approaches. A number of European
Union member countries mention the Common
Fisheries Policy and/or the European Marine
Strategy Framework Directive in this regard.
Several countries from the Pacific Region mention
the Noumea Strategy (A New Song for Coastal
Fisheries: Pathways to Change) (SPC, 2015), which
highlights the central role of community-based
ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in
ensuring the future sustainability of coastal fisheries across the region and sets out a pathway for
change involving (inter alia) empowering coastal
communities, generating the information needed
to guide management and policy, strengthening
policy and legal frameworks, enhancing collaboration among stakeholders, promoting equitable
access to benefits and decision-making, and diversifying livelihood activities.
5.3.4 Agroecology
Introduction
Agroecology has been variously defined as a scientific discipline, a set of farming practices, a social
movement or as all three (Altieri, 2002; Dalgaard,
Hutchings and Porter, 2003; Francis et al., 2003;
Gliessman, 1997, 2015; Timmermann, Félix and
Tittonell, 2018; Tomich et al., 2011; Vandermeer,
17
Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables. Nueva Ley
publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 24 de julio
de 2007 (available, in Spanish, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/
results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC072880).
208
2011; Wezel, et al., 2009, 2015). Definitions have
ranged from the more ecological concept initially
proposed by Gliessman (1997), in which principles such as diversity, integration, synergies and
natural regulation were used to characterize agroecological management, to more recent variants
that stress the social and cultural aspects of agroecological farming and agroecological movements
(e.g. Dumont et al., 2016; Timmermann, Félix and
Tittonell, 2018). According to the High Level Panel
of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition,
from a scientific and technical perspective,
agroecology applies ecological concepts
and principles to food and farming systems,
focusing on the interactions between
microorganisms, plants, animals, humans
and the environment, to foster sustainable
agriculture development in order to ensure
food security and nutrition for all, now and in
the future. Today’s more transformative visions
of agroecology integrate transdisciplinary
knowledge, farmers’ practices and social
movements while recognizing their mutual
interdependence (HLPE, 2016).
Ten elements of agroecology elaborated on
the basis of regional seminars on agroecology
organized by FAO18 and consultations with various
stakeholders are listed in Box 5.5.
The focus on the food system means that agroecology extends beyond the individual farm or rural
community and encompasses not only production
or ecological dimensions but also social, economic,
geographical and cultural dimensions (Dumont et
al., 2016; Duru, Fares and Therond, 2014; Sevilla
Guzmán, 2002; Tittonell et al., 2016; Warner,
2005). Structural and functional diversification of
18
In September 2014, FAO hosted the First International
Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition.
Building on the outcomes, FAO convened a series of regional
meetings to better understand the different contexts and
specific local needs of agroecology. From 2015 to 2017, multiactor regional seminars were held in five regions (sub-Saharan
Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific,
Europe and Central Asia, and the Near East and North Africa),
involving 1 400 participants from 170 FAO member countries.
In April 2018, FAO hosted the Second International Symposium
on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.5
The ten elements of agroecology
Between 2015 and 2017, FAO held several multi-actor
regional meetings on agroecology, which led to the
elaboration of ten elements of agroecology. Based on
scientific literature, in particular Altieri’s five principles of
agroecology (Altieri, 1995) and Gliessman’s five levels of
agroecological transitions (Gliessman, 2015), and aligned
with civil-society values on agroecology, the ten elements
identify important properties of agroecological systems
and approaches, as well as key considerations in the
development of an enabling environment for agroecology.
They serve as a guide for policy-makers, practitioners and
other stakeholders in planning, managing and evaluating
agroecological transitions.
The ten elements of agroecology are interlinked and
interdependent (see figure below). They can be grouped by
their characteristics as follows:
• Diversity, synergies, efficiency, resilience, recycling and
co-creation and sharing of knowledge are common
characteristics of agroecological systems, foundational
practices and innovation approaches.
• Human and social values and culture and food
traditions are context-specific elements.
• Responsible governance and circular and solidarity
economy constitute an enabling environment.
Source: FAO, 2018l.
DIVERSITY
RESPONSIBLE
GOVERNANCE
RECYCLING EFFICIENCY
HUMAN AND
SOCIAL VALUES
SYNERGIES
RESILIENCE
CO-CREATION AND
SHARING KNOWLEDGE
CULTURE AND
FOOD TRADITIONS
the biological components of production systems
in space and time (e.g. intercropping, polycultures,
crop–livestock integration, agroforestry, multispecies livestock keeping) is at the core of agroecological design and management. This means that,
although no types of production systems are specifically excluded from the scope of agroecology,
practical application is largely confined to systems
CIRCULAR AND
SOLIDARITY
ECONOMY
that are cultivated or otherwise actively managed
(i.e. as opposed to unmanaged ecosystems from
which products are harvested, for example ocean
ecosystems used for capture fishing).
Agroecology combines producers’ knowledge,
including local and traditional knowledge, with
formal scientific knowledge. Distinctive features
of the science of agroecology include a focus on
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
209
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
ecological communities (rather than individual
species populations), complex feedback mechanisms, randomness and hysteresis (non-linearity,
irreversibility and discontinuity), and emerging properties and interactions rather than
simple aggregations (Tittonell, 2014). Diversity is
regarded as an asset – a source of synergies and
risk-spreading and the basis for ecological interactions that sustain essential ecosystem services.
Status and trends
In describing the state of methods and broader
approaches in the management of BFA, many of
the sections in this chapter attempt to provide
an indication of how widely these methods and
approaches have been adopted and what the
trends are in this regard. Agroecology, however,
is not a technology or a single practice, but rather
the context-specific application of ecological and
social principles. Arguably, therefore, the concept
of “adoption”, as used in agricultural economics
to assess the diffusion of practices or technologies
(agricultural inputs, tillage systems, credit, etc.),
may not be useful in discussions of agroecology.
Moreover, there are very few registries of agroecological farms (or other types of agroecological
holding), i.e. registries of the kind that exist, for
example, in many countries for organic farms, and
thus no handy sets of statistics that can be quoted
to give an indication of trends. While there is a
growing body of evidence demonstrating the
holistic benefits of agroecology across the environmental, social and economic dimensions of
sustainability, one of the challenges is that agroecology is heterogeneous and location specific.
FAO is working with partners to coordinate efforts
and build a more consolidated evidence base
through the development of a global knowledge
product and community of practice. One indicator
that may be more amenable to monitoring is the
extent to which legal and policy frameworks that
specifically seek to create an enabling environment that promotes agroecology have been put in
place (see for example Figure 5.3), although usage
of the term in this context will inevitably vary from
country to country.
210
A substantial share of smallholder farmers and
pastoralists around the world practise some form
of agroecology, or follow some agroecological
principles. However, it is difficult to determine
both how many producers there are in these
categories (e.g. Lowder, Skoet and Singh, 2014)
and what proportion of their farms or holdings might reasonably be described as agroecological. According to Lowder, Skoet and Singh
(2014), family farms account for 90 percent of the
570 million farms worldwide and produce more
than 80 percent of the world’s food in value terms.
Moreover, 84 percent of all farms are smaller than
2 ha, although these account for only 12 percent
of total agricultural land (ibid.). Some estimates
(e.g. Tittonell et al., 2016) have suggested that at
least a third of family farms follow agroecological
principles in full or in part, which would mean that
a substantial proportion of global food output
comes from agroecological production.
Although the country-reporting guidelines did
not include any specific question on agroecology
per se, a substantial number of country reports
(approximately 20 out of the 91) include explicit
references to agroecological approaches in
the context of one or more of the various BFArelated activities and provisions reported. Many
more refer to activities that while not specifically
described in these terms are relevant to agroecology. France, for example, mentions a range of
initiatives specifically promoting agroecology. It
notes, for instance, that as of 2016 about 300 000 ha
(which amounts to approximately 1 percent of the
country’s agricultural land)19 were being managed
in accordance with agroecological principles, by
about 4 000 farmers belonging to 246 Economic
and Environmental Interest Groups (Groupements
d’Intérêt Économique et Environnemental).
Policies and legal frameworks that specifically
aim to promote agroecological approaches are
mentioned in several reports. For example, Brazil
refers to its National Policy of Agroecology and
Organic Production, which, among other objectives, aims to promote food and nutritional
19
Based on 2014 data recorded in FAOSTAT.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 5.3
Legal and policy frameworks on agroecology
CUBA
MEXICO
NICARAGUA
GUATEMALA
EL SALVADOR
COSTA RICA
PANAMA
COLOMBIA
ECUADOR
VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF
PERU
BOLIVIA, PLURINATIONAL STATE OF
BRAZIL
PARAGUAY
CHILE
ARGENTINA
DENMARK
GERMANY
AUSTRIA
LUXEMBOURG
FRANCE
SWITZERLAND
ITALY
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
CHINA
CAMBODIA
CÔTE D’IVOIRE
MAURITIUS
Notes: Countries that have implemented laws, regulations and policies in support of agroecology (based on data available in FAOLEX
[http://www.fao.org/faolex/en] in April 2018) are highlighted in dark blue. Detailed information and links to the documents can be found
in the Agroecology Lex database, part of FAO’s Agroecology Knowledge Hub (http://www.fao.org/agroecology/policies-legislations/en).
sovereignty and security and the human right to
adequate and healthy food, by means of the provision of organic and agroecological products (see
Box 7.19 for further information on the National
Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production
[PLANAPO] and related instruments). The report
from Nicaragua indicates that the country’s
National Biodiversity Strategy includes two targets
specifically related to the promotion of agroecological production.
Some reports mention the work of NGOs that are
promoting agroecology. Zimbabwe, for example,
mentions the Participatory Ecological Land Use
Management (PELUM) Zimbabwe,20 whose members
20
Part of the PELUM Association, a regional network that was
founded in 1995 to promote participatory ecological land-use
management practices for improved livelihoods.
are “advocating, promoting and provoking debate,
sharing information, and lobbying around issues
relating to the way forward for sustainable agriculture and land use practices in Zimbabwe.”
The other main areas of agroecology-related
activity noted in the country reports are research
and education, the latter mostly carried out by
universities, although the report from Niger mentions training for farmers provided by the Peasant
Platform of Niger (Plateforme Paysanne du Niger).
See also Box 8.15 for an example of participatory
workshops on agroecological management and
biodiversity conservation in Chile. Where research
is concerned, Argentina mentions that its National
Agricultural Technology Institute (Instituto
Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) 21 has
21
https://inta.gob.ar
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
211
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
conducted several research projects related
to agroecology and in 2013 established an
Agroecology Network,22 with the objective of
compiling existing knowledge, supporting agroecological research in a comprehensive manner,
and linking research and extension at national,
regional and local levels. The country report notes
that within this framework a system has been
developed to monitor soil quality and soil management on agroecological farms and conduct
long-term trials. Research themes are prioritized
by a coordination team in consultation with the
crop, livestock, aquaculture and forest sectors.
China mentions that the Twelfth Five-year Plan
for Agricultural Technology Development, compiled
by the Ministry of Agriculture, includes monitoring
of biodiversity in agroecological systems. It further
notes that a demonstration project focused on
changing production patterns in ecologically fragile
zones in northwestern China promotes agroecology, along with ecotourism and rotational grazing,
to improve the living standards of local farmers and
livestock keepers while conserving biodiversity.
5.3.5 Landscape and seascape
approaches and management
Ten reporting countries, located across various
regions, indicate the implementation of landscape approaches.23 Such approaches are reported
to have been adopted, at least to some extent,
in each of the terrestrial production system categories listed in the country-reporting guidelines. However, the approaches described in the
country reports are quite diverse, both in terms
of the scale at which they are applied and their
objectives. Bhutan, Germany and Switzerland, for
example, report that the landscape approach is
the very basis of national policies for the conservation and sustainable use of BFA. Other countries
mention applying landscape approaches for more
specific purposes. For example, the United States
of America mentions its use in pest management.
22
23
https://inta.gob.ar/proyectos/red-de-agroecologia-0
Countries were not specifically invited to report on seascape
approaches, but nonetheless reported relevant initiatives.
212
Among examples of the implementation of
landscape or seascape approaches at a multicountry scale, Kiribati refers to the Framework
for a Pacific Oceanscape,24 a collaborative agreement between 15 Pacific Island nations for the
integrated management of 38.5 million km2 of
ocean (four times the size of continental Europe)
surrounding their territories. It notes that the
agreement covers ocean health and security,
governance, sustainable resource management,
research and knowledge, and facilitation of the
partnerships and cooperation needed to support
the conservation of such vast ecosystems.
The information provided in the country
reports does not allow conclusions to be drawn
as to the extent of the area covered by landscape
approaches or the effect that such approaches are
having on BFA. However, most of the reporting
countries indicate that adoption and implementation are becoming increasingly widespread.
As well as including a question on landscape
approaches per se, the country-reporting guidelines
also invited countries to report on “landscape management”, i.e. practices that support the maintenance of biodiversity-friendly farming systems and
diversity of landscape mosaics within and around
production systems, for example the management
of riparian corridors, hedges, field margins, windbreaks, woodland patches, clearings in forests,
waterways, ponds or other biodiversity-friendly
features of the production environment. The
practices most commonly reported in this context
include agroforestry and (mainly by European countries) the use of herbivorous animals to manage and
maintain open and diverse semi-natural landscapes.
Several countries mention the relevance of protected areas (see Chapter 7). Some note that they
have adopted environmentally friendly farming
practices (sometimes encouraged by incentive programmes) for the maintenance of landscape diversity, including the maintenance of hedgerows, grass
strips and vegetated field margins.
24
http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/strategic-partnershipscoordination/pacific-oceanscape/pacific-oceanscapeframework.html
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
More than 40 percent of the country reports
indicate the implementation of practices considered to fall into the landscape-management category (Table 5.1 and Table 5.3).25 Approximately
50 percent of these countries indicate that the
practices in question are applied in livestock
grassland-based production systems. A similar
proportion mention their use in mixed production systems. Their use in forest and rainfed crop
systems is reported somewhat less frequently.
For all these categories of production system,
most countries report a positive trend in the
use of the landscape-management practices.
Use is reportedly increasing most markedly in
mixed systems and in naturally regenerated and
planted forests (Table 5.2).
5.3.6 Integrated land- and water-use
planning
Like many other integrated approaches, integrated land- and water-use planning is an evolving concept for which there is no generally agreed
definition. FAO (2018m) describes integrated landuse planning as the “allocation of land to different uses across a landscape in a way that balances
economic, social and environmental values.” It
notes that the objective of the approach is “to
identify, in a given landscape, the combination of
land uses that is best able to meet the needs of
stakeholders while safeguarding resources for the
future” and that “effective land-use planning provides direction on the manner in which land-use
activities should take place and encourages synergies between different uses.” Management of this
kind can be carried out at various scales, including
the landscape, subnational, national or regional.
At the landscape level, it is often an integral part
of a landscape approach, which (as discussed
above) will involve comprehensive stakeholder
participation aimed at harmonizing different uses
and minimizing the risk of conflict. Land-use planning generally takes place within a framework of
25
Several countries note that these practices are difficult
to distinguish from each other and from other types of
intervention they were invited to report on, for example
restoration practices (see Section 5.4).
Box 5.6
The Pacific Ridge to Reef approach –
an example of integrated land- and
water-use planning
The Pacific Ridge to Reef approach is a Global
Environment Facility programmatic initiative involving
multiple United Nations agencies, the Pacific Community
and 14 Pacific Small Island Developing States (PacSIDS)
(GEF, 2016). The overall objective of the projects
undertaken in PacSIDS under this initiative is to maintain
and enhance ecosystem goods and services contributing
to poverty reduction, sustainable livelihoods and climate
resilience, through integrated approaches to land, water,
forest, biodiversity and coastal-resource management
that span the whole landscape from the ridges of the
hills to the fringing reefs of the coasts. The importance of
actively engaging multiple stakeholders in the planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
projects is broadly acknowledged throughout the Pacific
Island region, where the Ridge to Reef approach is
referred to as the “community to cabinet” approach.
Note: For further information, see the Pacific R2R - Ridge to Reef website
at https://www.pacific-r2r.org
laws, policies and customary norms that guide the
uses to which land may be allocated (ibid.).
As far as the country reports are concerned, the
specific integrated land-use planning approach
most frequently mentioned is the Pacific Ridge to
Reef approach (see Box 5.6). A number of Pacific
Island countries indicate that this approach is a
key means of promoting the conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources at all levels
from community to regional. Some explicitly highlight the importance of Ridge to Reef projects as
a means of promoting community involvement
and empowerment. The projects implemented
under the Pacific Ridge to Reef approach mainly
aim to strengthen national and local capacities to
effectively manage national systems of protected
areas in order to promote the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of natural resources and
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
213
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
safeguarding of ecosystem services. Countries note
that the approach needs to be better integrated
into policy planning, and mention a number of
potential means of promoting its adoption and
strengthening its implementation, including
capacity-building based on lessons learned from
implementation to date and awareness raising
among decision-makers. Other integrated planning approaches mentioned include integrated
coastal zone management.
5.3.7 Needs and priorities
Many country reports include information on the
challenges countries face in the implementation
of ecosystem and landscape approaches. The
country-reporting guidelines specifically invited
countries to report on gaps and constraints in the
fields of information and knowledge, resources
and capacity, and policy and institutional frameworks, and to indicate priority actions needed to
address these issues.
Information and knowledge
Several countries report that both a lack of data
on the characteristics of their ecosystems (their
extent, temporal and spatial variations, etc.) and
limited understanding of ecosystem function and
services, including specifically the roles of BFA in
this context, are major constraints to the development and adoption of ecosystem approaches.
Some note that a lack of clarity regarding the
nature of ecosystem and landscape approaches is
also an issue, in some cases suggesting that the
multiplicity of confusing terminology in this field
needs to be harmonized. Several developing countries indicate that information on the application
of ecosystem approaches and other innovative
practices that may be beneficial to BFA often does
not reach producers or only does so after significant delays. Most countries that have adopted
ecosystem and landscape approaches mention
that there is little concrete evidence as to how
successful these approaches are in practice.
Proposed actions in this context include the
development of guidelines providing definitions
of terms and elucidating the potential benefits of
214
developing and adopting ecosystem, landscape
and seascape approaches. Countries emphasize
the importance of enhancing research on (i) the
functional roles of the various components of
BFA in key ecosystem processes and in the supply
of ecosystem services at production system, ecosystem and landscape levels and (ii) the effects
of adopting ecosystem or landscape approaches
(as opposed to more conventional approaches)
on components of BFA. Measuring success in
landscape or ecosystem approaches also remains
challenging. Some countries note the need for
baseline surveys, indicators and monitoring
systems that allow impacts to be evaluated. Some
mention the need to establish national databases
for mapping and monitoring components of BFA
and the production systems in which they occur,
including for the purposes of valuating them and
assessing linkages and trade-offs between different ecosystem services. Several European countries state that exercises of this kind are crucial
for the development of payment for ecosystem
services schemes.
Resources and capacity
Across all regions, most reporting countries
indicate that the financial resources needed to
develop and implement ecosystem approaches
are insufficient or insecure. The absence of adequate funding is reported to constrain a range
of key activities, including research (see above),
education and training, and the implementation
of existing legislation, strategies and programmes.
A lack of trained and qualified technical and scientific personnel (both specialists, such as taxonomists and entomologists, and experts with
cross-disciplinary knowledge) is widely regarded
as a constraint. Several countries indicate that
inadequacies in transport and communications
infrastructures also hamper implementation.
Aside from stepping up efforts to mobilize
funds to build the institutional and technical
capacity needed (including long-term funding –
essential in this context, as average project length
is too short), reported priorities in this field include
capturing and disseminating lessons learned,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
including success stories, in the development and
implementation of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches. Many countries also note the
importance of integrating (or strengthening the
integration of) such approaches into education
and training programmes at all levels.
Policy and institutional environment
Landscape and ecosystem approaches are integrated approaches that require cross-sectoral
thinking and governance. However, relevant
institutional frameworks (policies, laws and regulations) are reported still to be very compartmentalized. Many countries indicate that the lack of a
holistic, multidisciplinary approach at policy level
is one of the major constraints to the adoption of
ecosystem approaches. Many countries indicate
that they have a range of relevant sectoral policies in place but note that these are operated by
different agencies and are not integrated into a
broader institutional framework. Some report that
they have made significant efforts to address this
constraint, for example by strengthening collaboration and consultation between environmental and
agricultural authorities.
Several countries note the potential for conflicts
in the planning and implementation of ecosystem approaches and emphasize the importance
of involving diverse stakeholders with diverse
values and perceptions in planning processes.
Some, however, note that such processes can be
difficult and time consuming and may give rise
to “fudged” compromises rather than effective
plans. Some also mention a lack of consultation
between policy-makers at national or regional
levels and stakeholders at local level, noting that
this leads to a degree of disconnection between
political and operational levels. Policy development and implementation related to ecosystem,
landscape and seascape approaches are frequently
reported to be hampered by knowledge gaps and/
or by shortages of financial resources and trained
personnel (see the subsections above).
Reported priorities in this field include:
• reviewing, and if necessary updating, relevant
policies and legal instruments, across sectors,
and, where needed, developing integrated
policies, plans or strategies that facilitate more
holistic and multidisciplinary approaches;
• promoting interdisciplinary consultation and
cooperation, including between agricultural
and environmental authorities; and
• better integrating the outcomes of valuation
exercises for biodiversity and ecosystem services into policy-making.
5.4 Restoration practices
• Restoration has acquired a prominent place on the
global environmental agenda since 1990.
• If well planned, restoration practices can provide
simultaneous benefits for agricultural productivity,
biodiversity conservation and the supply of
ecosystem services.
• In recent years, the concept of forest landscape
restoration, with its emphasis on the restoration of
a balanced set of ecosystem functions, has inspired
ambitious pledges from governments and subnational
jurisdictions.
• Many countries report successful examples of
restoration practices and their benefits in both
terrestrial and marine environments. However, more
research is needed into the long-term impacts of
restoration, and national policy frameworks that allow
restoration practices to be scaled up need
to be developed.
5.4.1 Overview
The term “restoration practices” can be applied
to a variety of techniques employed for a range
of different objectives. It is defined as follows in
the country-reporting guidelines: “restoring functionality and productive capacity to ecosystems,
forests, landscapes, waterways, grasslands and
rangelands in order to provide food, fuel, and
fibre, improve livelihoods, store carbon, improve
adaptive capacity, conserve biodiversity, prevent
erosion and improve water provisioning and
quality.” This focus on functionality and productive capacity can, however, be contrasted with
notions of ecological and ecosystem restoration
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
215
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
that aim to “assist the recovery of a degraded
ecosystem towards a reference native ecosystem”
with “specific composition, structure and functions” (McDonald et al., 2016).
Recent global policy discourse around restoration of terrestrial ecosystems has focused on
the concept of forest and landscape restoration,
defined as “the long-term process of regaining
ecological functionality and enhancing human
well-being across deforested or degraded forest
landscapes” (IUCN and WRI, 2014). Like other landscape approaches (see Section 5.3), forest and landscape restoration seeks simultaneously to improve
both ecological integrity and human well-being
(Holl, 2017), balancing different goals by creating a
mosaic of interdependent land uses, including crop
and livestock production, agroforestry, improved
fallow systems, ecological corridors, discrete areas
of forest and woodland, and riparian plantings
that protect watercourses (IUCN, 2016b). It aims to
use comprehensive spatial planning, undertaken
in consultation with landowners and other stakeholders, to allocate land uses more efficiently and
improve their individual and overall sustainability.
For example, ecological intensification techniques
can increase agricultural productivity in those parts
of the landscape identified as being the most suitable for production while allowing natural regeneration to occur elsewhere (Latawiec et al., 2015).
Restoration of mixed-use agricultural land between
areas of primary forest can create habitat corridors
for wildlife (IUCN, 2016b).
Numerous restoration projects have shown that
it is possible to recover elements of the original
composition, function and structure of natural
ecosystems at specific sites (Wortley, Hero and
Howes, 2013). Some argue, however, that the
high costs and long time frames often associated
with ecological restoration efforts mean that such
approaches cannot achieve recovery at the large
spatial scales that would be required in order to
have a substantial impact in global terms (Murcia
et al., 2015). Landscape-scale restoration efforts
focus on recreating conditions that allow natural
regeneration to take place, aided where necessary by judicious planting or other interventions.
216
In conditions where resources are limited, restoration can be implemented in a number of steps,
for example restoring forest cover first and later
focusing on the wider aspects of ecosystem complexity required for resilience against climate
change and other pressures (Dudley and Maginnis,
2018). The effects of large-scale restoration measures typically extend beyond the immediate area
targeted: for example, at the scale of a watershed, restoration practices in upstream areas
may provide positive effects downstream, such
as reduced sedimentation and siltation of river
courses and lower risk of flooding.
Restoration can play a vital role in wetland and
other aquatic ecosystems (Speed et al., 2016),
although (as in the example above) improving
the state of aquatic ecosystems generally requires
action in connected terrestrial ecosystems. In the
case of lakes, restoration typically focuses on
reducing eutrophication (generally this requires
action on land to reduce runoff from agriculture)
and, in the case of rivers, on habitat improvement,
creation of riparian buffers and removal of weirs
and other barriers to connectivity (Verdonschot et
al., 2013). Efforts in marine ecosystems typically
focus on the removal of sediment barriers, restoration of water flow and salinity balance, direct creation of habitat features and reduction of nutrient concentrations (ibid.). Key restoration measures and their objectives are listed in Table 5.4.
It is relatively easy to “restore” fish populations by restocking waterbodies where capacity to
expand stocks naturally has been lost because of
destruction of spawning grounds or loss of ecosystem connectivity – and this tends to be a popular
option given that it can be done with short-term
funding and provides results that are immediately
visible. It is far harder and more time consuming
to restore the functioning of the ecosystem, as
this requires re-establishing connectivity or at least
removing source(s) of ongoing damage to the ecosystem. The latter is very challenging when the
problems are being caused by runoff or other forms
of pollution (see Chapter 3 for further discussion of
the impacts of pollution, land-use change and other
drivers on aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 5.4
Restoration measures for wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems
Component of the
ecosystem
Catchment
Restoration measure
Catchment management
Altering the entry of water, sediment and other matter into
the river channel.
Restoration of ecological flows
Changing the volume, timing, frequency and duration of flows.
Storm-water management
Altering the flow pattern of water runoff from urban areas
(e.g. altering flood peak).
Removal/retrofitting and management of dams and
other barriers to water connectivity and flow (weirs,
gates, culverts, etc.)
Improving flows and ecological outcomes, including improving
the movement of sediment and fish.
Flood management
Managing flooding to improve ecosystem services, but prevent
flooding of key infrastructure or cropland.
Improving flood management through increasing the capacity
of the river system and associated floodplain to store and
release floodwaters.
Reconnection of floodplains and wetlands
Allowing the movement of biota, sediment and other matter
between the channel and the floodplain.
Water-quality improvement
Protecting or improving water quality, including chemical
composition and particulate load.
Increasing capacity for biological degradation and/or assimilation
of pollutants.
Groundwater
Groundwater recharge.
Riparian management
Altering the entry of water, sediment and other matter into
the river channel.
Creating or fostering habitat features.
Altering water temperature through shading.
Facilitating migration along the river corridor.
Land acquisition
Acquiring riparian lands to control land use and/or allow
restoration work.
Flow regime
Regulatory function
Habitat (riparian)
Habitat improvement
Fostering or creating habitat features.
Bank stabilization
Reducing erosion/slumping of bank material into the
river/coastal water.
Channel reconfiguration
Altering the channel planform or the longitudinal profile,
increasing hydraulic diversity and habitat heterogeneity and
decreasing channel slope.
Habitat (aquatic)
Biodiversity
Other
Objectives
Species management
Maintaining or increasing the number/diversity of key species.
Aesthetic/recreation/education
Increasing community value, e.g. by improving appearance,
access or knowledge.
Source: Adapted from Speed et al. (2016).
Although all types of ecosystem can potentially be restored, restoration interventions may
in practice favour some at the expense of others
(Veldman et al., 2015). Focus on a single function –
for example climate change mitigation – may lead
to the conversion of ecosystems that are valuable
for other reasons. For instance, old-growth grassy
biomes may be at risk of afforestation as they
store less carbon than forested land (Miles and
Kapos, 2008; Veldman et al., 2017). This risk can be
addressed by analysis at finer scales in the planning
of restoration strategies (Chazdon et al., 2016).
Taking account of genetic diversity in the design
and implementation of restoration initiatives can
significantly increase the chance of success over the
long term (Huenneke, 1991). The effects of genetic
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
217
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
homogeneity in a reintroduced population may not
be immediately evident, but over a period of years
the population may have lower rates of growth,
survival and reproduction, and may be less able
to cope with periods of environmental variability.
For example, if all individuals in a population are
of a genotype that has limited drought tolerance,
a single drought may destroy the entire population (Falk, Knapp and Guerrant, 2001). Introducing
hatchery-bred fish can lead to genetic introgression into wild populations (Bekkevold, Hansen and
Nielsen, 2006; Naish et al., 2007; White et al., 2018).
5.4.2 Status and trends
Many of the world’s managed and natural ecosystems are degrading. Over the last two decades,
approximately 20 percent of the Earth’s vegetated
surface has persistently declined in productivity
(UNCCD, 2017). According to a global assessment
of restoration potential carried out for the Global
Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration, there
may be more than 2 billion ha of deforested and
degraded forest land around the world where
there may be opportunities for some type of restoration (WRI, 2014). Further information on the
status and trends of forests and other ecosystems of
importance to food and agriculture can be found
in Section 4.5.
Increasing the functionality and productivity
of degraded lands has become a global priority
(Aronson and Alexander, 2013), and is reflected
in a number of global policy commitments.
The Bonn Challenge, launched in 2011, aims to
bring 150 million ha of degraded and deforested land under restoration by 2020. The initiative was endorsed – and its target extended
to 350 million ha by 2030 – by the 2014 New
York Declaration on Forests (United Nations,
2014b). As of May 2018, 47 national and subnational jurisdictions, private entities and nongovernmental initiatives had made pledges under
the Bonn Challenge, amounting to a total of over
160 million ha (see Figure 5.4).26
26
Up-to-date information on these commitments can be found at
http://www.bonnchallenge.org/commitments
218
The restoration and sustainable management of
ecosystems have proven to be a cost-effective, safe
and immediately available means of sequestering
carbon and preventing the emission of greenhouse gases (Epple et al., 2016). Many countries
have therefore included ecosystem-based solutions, including ecosystem restoration, in their
“nationally determined contributions” to the
objectives of climate change mitigation and adaptation under the Paris Agreement27 (Laurans, Ruat
and Barthélemy, 2016). Sustainable Development
Goal 15.3 calls on governments to “strive to
achieve a degradation neutral world.” In response
to the adoption of this goal, the United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification’s Land
Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme
has received commitments from 114 countries to
date, and is rolling out technical support to refine
these commitments and plan their implementation
(Orr et al., 2017). Restoration is also a key component of the CBD’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and
the Aichi Targets. Target 5, for example, calls for
the restoration of 15 percent of degraded ecosystems (CBD, 2010a). A review covering 62 countries
in Asia, Africa and Latin America found that more
than 50 percent of countries in each region had
a restoration target in their National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan or a preliminary target
in their Fifth National Report to the CBD (CBD,
2016b). However, in many cases, targets lacked
specificity or quantitative elements (ibid.). Some
examples of national policy and legislative initiatives related to the contributions of agroforestry to
restoration efforts are described in Box 5.11.
While restoration has gained momentum in
terms of policy commitments, implementing
these commitments is still a challenge. Because
of the complexity involved in developing restoration activities, and the amount of data and
technical capacity required, many countries are
still in the process of planning interventions and
land-use transitions (see Figure 5.4). There have,
27
UNFCCC (2015). For further information on nationally
determined contributions, see https://unfccc.int/process/
the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions/
ndc-registry
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 5.4
Commitments to the Bonn Challenge
Notes: Dark green indicates countries that have made a commitment to the Bonn Challenge and have completed or are in the process of
implementing a Restoration Opportunities Assessment. Mid green indicates countries that have made a commitment to the Bonn
Challenge. Light green indicates countries that have completed a Restoration Opportunities Assessment at national scale. The map does
not reflect subnational pledges to the Bonn Challenge.
Source: Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration, 2018.
nonetheless, been several examples of successful
large-scale restoration efforts (particularly restoration of forest cover) that have been shown to
deliver social, environmental and economic benefits. For example, forest cover in the Republic of
Korea was significantly increased as the result of
an ambitious government-led forest policy (Soo
Bae, Won Joo and Kim, 2012). Similarly, forest
cover in Costa Rica increased by over 500 000 ha
between 1992 and 2013, thanks to a governmental payment for ecosystem service scheme
(SINAC-MINAE, 2014). In the West African Sahel,
200 000 ha of degraded land were reclaimed
over three decades through the improvement
and diffusion of indigenous soil and water conservation practices and, in another example,
land productivity increased over an estimated
5 million ha through farmer-managed natural
regeneration using local agroforestry practices
(Reij, Tappan and Smale, 2009b).
Most countries that have committed to ambitious forest and landscape restoration strategies
are still in the early stages of implementing their
commitments, and data are often lacking on the
impacts of actions undertaken to date. However,
there are some cases in which the effects of
forest and landscape restoration on biodiversity
and ecosystem services have been quantified.
For example, in Colombia, partnerships between
land owners and the government are seeking to
increase cattle productivity per hectare so that
grazing can be stopped on steep slopes and along
streams to allow the restoration of riparian forest
and improvements to water quality and habitat
connectivity (Calle et al., 2013). Results across
several farms show that it has been possible to
reconcile the goals of improving agricultural productivity, conserving biodiversity and promoting
the supply of other ecosystem services: cattle
productivity improved by 44 percent, the number
of bird species present increased by 32 percent
and soil erosion declined by 45 percent (LazosChavero, 2016).
Wetland restoration has been on the global
environmental agenda for more than three
decades (Ramsar Convention, 1990). A large
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
219
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.7
Needs and challenges in coral-reef
restoration
Restoration programmes globally are at various
stages of maturity, with the largest concentration
of efforts in the Caribbean, where many partners
(various governmental and non-governmental research
and conservation organizations) are producing the
equivalent of 100 000 moderate-sized coral outplants
per year. Globally, work is showing that restoration
of reefs is possible, and the spatial scale of success is
steadily increasing. However, to matter at an ecosystem
level, major upscaling is needed in terms of resources
dedicated to the task and in terms of efficiency in
production. While some biological challenges remain
to be overcome, most of the challenges to upscaling
are engineering ones, and are very similar to hurdles
that over been overcome in other fields. Working to close
the gap between success at the local level and impact
at the ecosystem level will not be easy or quick,
but it is the current goal and trajectory of the coral-reef
restoration community.
Source: Provided by Tom Moore.
number of restoration projects have been
undertaken, primarily in Europe and the United
States of America (Speed et al., 2016), and many
organizations have been involved. The Ramsar
Convention adopted principles and guidelines for
wetland restoration in 2002 (Ramsar Convention,
2002), and has long been supporting restoration
initiatives through alliances with other organizations.28 Examples of significant projects and initiatives in Europe and North America in the past
decade include: REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR
effective catchment Management)29 (Friberg et
al., 2016); the MARS project (Managing Aquatic
ecosystems and water Resources under multiple
Stress); 30 AMBER (Adaptive Management of
Barriers in European Rivers);31 the WISER project
(Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems
to assess Ecological status and Recovery);32 the
MERCES project (Marine Ecosystems Restoration
in Changing European Seas);33 the Reef Resilience
Network;34 the Coral Restoration Foundation;35
and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s work on wetlands protection and restoration.36 Needs and challenges involved in coralreef restoration are discussed in Box 5.7.
Information provided in the country reports on
the status and trends of restoration practices is
summarized in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. Restoration
practices are more frequently reported for terrestrial than aquatic systems, most commonly for
forest (both naturally regenerated and planted),
grassland-based, crop and mixed systems. Among
aquatic systems, restoration practices are relatively
frequently reported for self-recruiting capture
fisheries. In all cases, reports of increasing trends
outnumber reports of stable or negative trends.
Countries providing examples of restoration practices in forest ecosystems include the
Netherlands, which mentions that a shift in forest
management objectives towards multiple goals
– including recreation and nature conservation –
has led to a greater focus on restorative practices
such as increasing the amount of dead wood in the
forest, the number of large and thick trees, structural and age-class diversity and the number of
native trees. These changes are reported to have
led to increases in the numbers of certain forest
birds, bats, invertebrates and mushrooms. Finland
reports that a forest-biodiversity programme run
collaboratively by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry and the Ministry of Environment that uses
conservation agreements with private landowners
to incentivize voluntary forest conservation and
30
31
32
28
29
For further information on partnership agreements entered into
by the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, see https://www.
ramsar.org/about/formal-partnership-agreements
http://www.reformrivers.eu/about
220
33
34
35
36
http://mars-project.eu/index.php/aims.html
https://amber.international
http://www.wiser.eu
http://www.merces-project.eu
http://www.reefresilience.org
https://www.coralrestoration.org
https://www.epa.gov/wetlands
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
restoration actions covers an estimated 50 000 ha.
Some countries (e.g. El Salvador, Fiji and Viet Nam)
mention the significance of (ongoing or planned)
restoration activities in coastal forest ecosystems, in
particular mangroves, in terms of reducing coastal
erosion and providing protection against disasters
caused by extreme weather events or tsunamis.
With regard to restoration practices aimed at
agricultural systems, some country reports from
Africa note the importance of assisted-fallow
systems involving the planting of shade and fruit
trees (United Republic of Tanzania) or nitrogenfixing leguminous species for restoring soil fertility (Chad). The report from the United States
of America provides an example of a production
system being managed to provide a substitute for
natural habitat. It notes that in California many
farmers now allow their rice fields to flood in the
winter instead of burning them after the growing
season, which provides 275 000 acres (approximately 111 000 ha) of surrogate wetlands and
open space for 230 bird species along the Pacific
Flyway, many of which are at risk of extinction.37
It further notes that this is especially important
as 95 percent of California’s traditional wetlands
have been lost.38 Many species are reported
to have begun to increase in numbers and the
number of ducks to have doubled.
Countries from all regions report restoration
practices of one kind or another in aquatic ecosystems. A range of different objectives are mentioned. Supporting wildlife, and in particular
migratory species, is emphasized by a number of
countries. Finland, for example, reports measures
taken to improve migration passages through
dams and to regulate water levels in rivers and
lakes to accommodate the needs of wild species.
It mentions that under its Fishing Act,39 extensive river restoration has been carried out across
the country, but notes that the impacts of these
measures have only been partially evaluated. It
37
38
39
The report cites Cline (2005).
The report cites California Rice Commission (2015).
Fishing Act (379/2015) (available, in English and
Swedish, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/
en/?details=LEX-FAOC169562).
further mentions various policies and programmes
that promote practices such as the restoration of
potential spawning and nursery areas, construction of fishways, maintenance of natural bypass
channels, removal of obstacles to fish migration,
and use of natural hydrological-engineering
methods. Similarly, the Netherlands notes that
measures such as the construction of fish passages and the restoration of waterway banks to
create spawning habitats have had positive effects
on species population sizes. Poland reports that
hydrographic network restoration activities are
being implemented in the Biebrza National Park
with the aim of improving water conditions,
nesting habitats and feeding and resting grounds
used by birds during migration and wintering. It
notes, however, that in general it has paid too
much attention (in relative terms) to restocking
measures and too little to improving aquatic habitats by restoring the ecological continuity of rivers.
A number of European Union member countries
mention the Water Framework Directive,40 which
requires member countries to “protect, enhance
and restore all bodies of surface water… [and] all
bodies of groundwater.”
Several countries provide examples of restoration activities that have had positive impacts
on livelihoods or on the supply of supporting
or regulating ecosystem services. For example,
Bangladesh mentions its Wetland Biodiversity
Rehabilitation Project, which between 2009 and
2015 helped to increase biodiversity and fish
production and improve the livelihoods of local
people by restoring wetland habitats and the
functions of floodplain ecosystems. Nepal refers
to the Rupa Lake Restoration Cooperative, the
largest agriculture-sector cooperative in the
country, which successfully restored the degraded
Lake Rupa in the late 1990s by “biomanipulating”
it through fish stocking. It notes that the lake
has now been restored and cleaned and serves
40
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
for Community action in the field of water policy
(available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
221
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
as a source of livelihood for about 740 families. Rwanda describes the Gishwati Water and
Land Management Project and the Landscape
Approach to Forest Restoration and Conservation
Project, which have tackled flooding disasters by
establishing buffer zones for lakes and rivers and
restoring lakeshores and riverbanks. These measures are reported to have also benefited local biodiversity, especially fish stocks.
While most of the reported examples of aquatic
restoration practices relate to freshwater ecosystems, a few examples from marine ecosystems are
also mentioned. For example, Tonga notes that its
national Ridge to Reef projects (see Section 5.3.6)
include one that seeks to conserve the ecosystem
services supplied by the Fanga’uta Lagoon catchment on Tongatapu (the country’s main island) by
(inter alia) improving the state of critical habitats.
Grenada notes that its integrated climate-smart
adaptation strategy is targeting the restoration
of marine ecosystems, and specifically mentions a
project that is restoring coral reefs.
Finally, a number of country reports describe
policy frameworks used to support restoration
practices. For example, Senegal mentions that
restoration of degraded ecosystems takes place
within the framework of community-based plans
for land use and land designation. Mexico reports
that its government supports forest restoration
actions through the provision of subsidies, with
eligibility being determined based on levels of
degradation, the extent of perturbation caused
by natural disasters and the environmental importance of catchment areas. The programme is estimated to have brought about the restoration of
over 400 000 ha of forest between 2013 and 2014.
France mentions the difficulty of attributing restoration practices to a particular production system,41
noting that many restoration projects and programmes in terrestrial production systems adopt a
landscape approach that involves a mosaic of land
uses. It also highlights the fact that 30 percent of
agricultural subsidies from the European Union
41
Countries were invited to report restoration activities
production system by production system.
222
are now conditional upon a percentage of arable
land being set aside to allow the recovery of
natural grasslands and other habitats of ecological interest, and notes that these are monitored
though a GIS-based online register.
5.4.3 Needs and priorities
Countries note a number of needs and priorities
in the field of restoration. Some of these relate to
the types of ecosystems or specific objectives that
need to be targeted. Restoration of forest ecosystems is widely highlighted as a priority, including in some cases restoring connectivity between
forest fragments. Spain, for example, mentions
the importance of restoring forest cover in areas
that are important to the supply of hydrological
and erosion-control ecosystem services. Mexico
mentions the need for genetic improvement of
priority forest species, taking into account the predicted effects of climate change, and promotion
of their use in the restoration of degraded forest
areas. Countries also highlight a range of freshwater, marine and coastal ecosystems as priorities,
including dunes, mangroves, seagrass beds, coral
reefs, coastal sand dunes, lakeshores and riverbanks. The need to improve connectivity between
ecosystems and to account for threats posed by
climate change is again noted. Some countries
emphasize the importance of improving habitat
ecosystem services, including the restoration of
fish-spawning sites.
A number of countries note the need to improve
policy and legal frameworks in this field, including with respect to identifying responsibilities for
restoration activities, streamlining procedures
for the use of protected species in restoration
programmes and introducing or strengthening
incentive measures for restoration. Reflecting the
wider literature on forest-landscape restoration
(e.g. Holl, 2017), several countries note the need
to strengthen the involvement of stakeholders,
including local communities, in planning and
implementing restoration activities. Research on
the effectiveness of restoration activities, including over the long term, is also highlighted as a
priority. This is again consistent with the wider
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
literature, for example Wortley, Hero and Howes
(2013), whose review of ecological restoration
projects underlined the need for further investment in monitoring the impacts of restoration,
especially with regard to quantifying ecosystem
services and other socio-economic outcomes.
5.5 Diversification in production
systems
• Countries generally report upward trends in the
implementation of various diversification practices in
food and agriculture (approaches combining different
varieties, species and groups of organisms within
the production system).
• Integrated crop–livestock systems are major
contributors to global food production and can
provide opportunities to reduce waste and the use
of external inputs. Despite the spread of “landless”
livestock systems, low-income countries have seen a
general trend towards greater integration of crop
and livestock production activities as population
density has increased.
• Home gardens are often vital reservoirs of biodiversity
for food agriculture (BFA), particularly in the case
of plants, but there are no comprehensive global
statistics on their distribution. Countries that report
the presence of home gardens generally note
increases in their use.
• Agroforestry is reported to be increasing in every
region: it is estimated that more than 5 million km2
of agricultural land (23 percent of the total) have at
least 20 percent tree cover. Global recognition of the
contributions of agroforestry has increased over the
past decade, as has the mainstreaming of agroforestry
into development and environmental agendas
and appreciation of its potential impact on rural
livelihoods, climate-smart agriculture, biodiversity
conservation and land restoration.
• While there is no systematic global monitoring of
diversification practices in aquaculture (integration
of different aquatic species and/or integration with
other components of BFA, such as crops,
livestock or trees), it is clear that the relative
contributions of different kinds of integrated systems
are changing in response to economic transformations,
technical developments, space constraints,
production-system intensification, climate change,
diseases and other drivers.
The discussion of ecosystem services, resilience,
sustainable intensification, livelihoods and food
security and nutrition presented in Chapter 2
provides numerous illustrations of the potential
benefits of increasing or maintaining the diversity
of the species, varieties or breeds raised in a production system, including by combining different
groups of species such as crops, livestock, trees
and aquatic organisms. Aside from being invited
to report on the significance of BFA in each of
the above-mentioned thematic areas, countries
were also specifically invited to report on the
status and trends of diversification practices and
on any impact they have had on BFA. In addition,
countries were invited to report on a number of
other management practices that by definition
involve diversification, namely agroforestry, home
gardens and diversification practices in aquaculture.42 This section provides an overview of
these practices and the information reported by
countries on each of them. Although countries
were not specifically invited to report on integrated crop–livestock systems as a distinct category, a short discussion of this type of production
system is also included.
According to the country-reporting guidelines,
diversification is “the introduction of new varieties, species and groups of organisms (e.g. livestock, crops, trees, fish) into a production system
or managed environment without replacement
or abandonment of other groups, or the maintenance of already-existing diversity in the case of
traditionally diverse production systems.” Based
on this definition, 40 country reports indicate
“diversification” in at least one category of production system (Table 5.1).
Across all types of production system, diversification is more frequently reported to be
increasing than to be decreasing. Unsurprisingly,
42
Specifically polyculture and aquaponics.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
223
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
diversification is most frequently reported for
mixed systems (32 percent of countries that report
the presence of such systems) (Table 5.2). If all
production systems are aggregated, the practice
is reported by 63 percent of OECD countries and
39 percent of non-OECD countries (Table 5.1).
Specific diversification practices mentioned
include intercropping, crop rotations, use of multiple crop varieties within a given species, multispecies aquaculture, and multispecies livestock
herds and flocks. Countries generally provide few
additional details about trends in diversification.
Some mention drivers of change that are influencing trends. Finland, for example, notes that
diversification is increasing as a result of increasing awareness among farmers of the benefits of
including additional crops in their rotations. The
Netherlands notes that consumer demand for
organic products is driving diversification in Dutch
agricultural systems. Poland mentions that in fed
aquaculture disease threats have led to the introduction of resistant fish species (e.g. Salvelinus
spp.). The floating gardens of Bangladesh, a traditional intercropping production system, are
described in Box 5.8.
5.5.1 Integrated crop–livestock systems
Introduction
Integrated crop–livestock systems are very widespread globally, can be found in many types of
environment, operate on a range of scales and
Box 5.8
The floating gardens of Bangladesh
The specific agroecological conditions of the wetlands of the
south central coastal districts of Bangladesh have led to the
development of a very particular production system known
as floating gardens, or locally as dhap.
The system involves growing a wide range of crops –
vegetables and spices – on beds made of water hyacinths
and other aquatic weeds such as tapapana, dulalilata and
khudipana, which are widely available locally. Crop seeds
are prepared separately in containers using a structure
called a tema, which is made of locally available peat
soil and wrapped in coconut coir. Grown seedlings are
subsequently transplanted into the floating garden beds. The
major vegetable crops grown in summer include okra, ribbed
gourd, Indian spinach, brinjal, cucumber, red amaranths,
stem amaranths and wax gourd. In winter the main crops
are turnip, cabbage, cauliflower, tomato and red amaranths.
Spices grown include turmeric and chili.
Mixed intercropping is the predominant form of production
in floating gardens. Pest and disease infestations are minimal.
As decomposed water hyacinths are used as fertilizer,
external-input requirements and production costs are low.
Under flooded conditions, the open water is used for fishing.
This production system is the only food production
and livelihood option for 60 to 90 percent of the country’s
224
local communities, providing them with a diversified and
nutritious diet thanks to the wide range of vegetables and
spices it produces. Given the very specific and difficult
growing conditions, production yields are satisfactory.
Options for further improving the production system
include strengthening the social organization and
distribution of activities at local level, improving product
marketing, development of scientifically recommended
adapted crop-production packages and development of ad
hoc agroprocessing activities.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Bangladesh. Picture provided by
Aziz Zilani Chowdhury.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
involve many different combinations of crop
and livestock species. There are multiple links
between crop and livestock production. Livestock
are often fed on crop residues, such as straw or
leaves, and by-products of crop-processing, such
as bran, molasses and pulps, that might otherwise
be discarded. These residues and by-products represent about one-third of the total feed intake of
livestock globally (considering cattle, buffaloes,
sheep, goats, chickens and pigs across all production systems) (Mottet et al., 2017). Livestock,
as well as producing milk, meat and offspring,
provide draught power for farm operations, transportation and pumping water. Their dung and
urine can be applied to fields as fertilizers. Animal
manure can be used as a source of energy in the
FIGURE 5.5
Livestock and crop integration: from a linear to a circular bioeconomy
LINEAR
30% of global cereal production is used as livestock feed
Crops
Animals
People
Grain
Fruit
Residues
Processing
Products
Waste
Products
Waste
Grass
Processing
Waste
Manure
CIRCULAR
Total nitrogen in livestock manure is higher than nitrogen from synthetic fertilizers
Crops
Grain
Fruit
Residues
Animals
People
Processing
Products
By-products
Products
By-products
Grass
Processing
Waste
Manure
Crop residues and by-products account for 25% of livestock feed intake
Source: FAO, 2018o.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
225
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
form of biogas or dung cakes that can replace
charcoal and wood. Figure 5.5 illustrates how the
relationship between crop and livestock production can either be “linear”, with the by-products
of each activity being wasted, or “circular” with
the by-products of each component of the system
serving as inputs to the other. Integration of
this kind can occur within an individual farm or
between separate farms. As well as providing biophysical benefits, crop–livestock integration can
also provide a buffer against economic risks associated with the failure in one component of the
system caused, for example, by climatic shocks or
pest or disease outbreaks (see also Section 2.3).
Historically, crop–livestock integration has been
strongly driven by population growth and the need
to generate more food from the same amount of
land and hence to intensification through ploughing with draught animals and the use of animal
manure as fertilizer (Boserup, 1965; Mazoyer and
Roudart, 2006; McIntire, Bourzat and Pingali, 1992).
Although the environmental impacts of mixed
systems vary greatly, integration creates opportunities to reduce environmental problems (including impacts on biodiversity) associated with waste
disposal or the supply and use of external inputs.
Appropriately used livestock manure can benefit
soil biodiversity (FAO, 2018f). If a farm contains a
combination of crop fields and pastures, this will
add some diversity to local habitats and may help
support a more diverse range of pollinators, biological control agents and other components of
associated biodiversity. Where domesticated biodiversity is concerned, while the crop or livestock
components of mixed farms are not necessarily
diverse in terms of their species and within-species
composition, overall such systems can be assumed
to create a variety of “niches” that do not exist
in specialized crop or livestock systems and hence
to promote the maintenance of a relatively
diverse range of genetic resources. For example, a
mixed farm may require animals that can provide
draught power and thrive on diets that are heavy
in crop residues.
Agropastoral systems are a specific form of crop–
livestock integration. They are found mainly in
226
drylands and are characterized by the integration
of crop production with rangeland grazing, in
some cases involving transhumance, i.e. the movement of herds/flocks away from the farm for part
of the year. This kind of integration can involve the
herds and croplands belonging to a single household, but can also involve arrangements between
households. For example, transhumant Fulani
pastoralists in West Africa arrange to graze their
animals on the stubble left in fields after farmers
have harvested their crops, the animals benefiting
from the feed and the fertility of the cropland benefiting from the droppings left by the animals.
Integration of trees with livestock production
(a form of agroforestry, see also Section 5.5.3) is
widespread globally. Systems in which perennial
trees or shrubs are grown together with herbaceous crops and integrated with livestock production are referred to as agrosilvopastoral systems.
These systems are particularly common in parts of
Africa, where uncertain weather conditions mean
that crop production is risky. Multipurpose trees
(e.g. Leucaena and Gliricidia) grown in hedges
between crop plots enhance soil fertility, improve
crop yields, provide feed for animals and serve
as a source of fuelwood (Devendra and Ibrahim,
2004). Integration of trees and shrubs into pastures grazed by animals (silvopastoralism) is very
common in the tropics, particularly in small-scale
systems. Intensive silvopastoral systems in which
fodder shrubs planted at high densities are combined with improved pastures are also common,
especially in Latin America (Chará et al., 2018).
Grazing livestock can also be integrated with
various kinds of tree crops, for example coconut
trees in the tropics or fruit trees in Europe (see, for
example, Box 5.11).
Status and trends
Sources of information on the status of crop–
livestock integration are scattered and usually
not consolidated at regional or global level
(Herrero et al., 2007). National agricultural
statistics services collect data on crop and livestock in agricultural holdings, but these data
are often incomplete, especially in developing
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
countries. In addition, they include little specific
data about the integration between crops and
livestock (for example, on the use of crop residues or manure). These data gaps are a major
constraint to the understanding and assessment
of integrated production systems. Some initiatives are, however, attempting to address these
weaknesses. For example, the FAO/World Bank
project Improving Data for Better Policies undertook surveys and organized workshops in subSaharan Africa to collect, validate and disseminate data on livestock and integrated mixed
systems, with the goal of facilitating public
and private investments in such systems (PicaCiamarra et al., 2010). The Pastoralist-Driven
Data Management System project implemented
by FAO’s Pastoralist Knowledge Hub43 is collecting information on the complementarities
of crop and livestock production in household
economies in Argentina, Chad and Mongolia.
The Livestock Data for Decisions (LD4D)44 initiative brings together “data suppliers” and “data
users” to ensure data supply meets data demand.
In developed countries, official statistics on
the status of integrated crop–livestock farming
are more common, for example in the European
Union, where data on integrated systems are
available through the agri-environmental indicators on specialization. About 30 percent of
farms in the European Union can be classified as
mixed, a figure ranging from 3 percent in Ireland
(where most farms are specialized in livestock) to
62 percent in Lithuania (Eurostat, 2016). Mixed
farms in Europe occupy about 20 percent of the
agricultural area (ibid.), implying that they are, on
average, smaller than other farms.
When national statistics are not available,
limited household surveys can provide some
insight into the status of integrated crop–livestock
systems and, when repeated over time, on their
trends. However, livestock is inadequately represented in most surveys, and available data are
rarely sufficient to provide a systematic picture
43
44
http://www.fao.org/pastoralist-knowledge-hub/en
https://ld4d.org
of integrated crop–livestock systems in the areas
assessed. What is clear, however, is that livestock
keeping is widespread among the rural population
in many developing countries, many of whom will
also be crop producers. For example, an analysis of
data from household surveys in 14 (mainly developing) countries showed that around 60 percent
of rural households kept at least one species of
livestock (FAO, 2009a). Similarly, Arslan et al.
(2018) showed that in Zambia at least 60 percent
of rural households own livestock.
Modelling can also provide insights. For
example, the FAO Global Livestock Environmental
Assessment Model (GLEAM)45 provides information on livestock production systems, including
mixed crop–livestock systems, and (inter alia) the
numbers of animals raised within them, the production levels and feed intakes of these animals,
and the contributions of the systems to the
supply of livestock products and to greenhousegas emissions. Results from GLEAM (FAO, 2018n)
show that about 60 percent of ruminants in
the world are held in integrated crop–livestock
systems. This share varies from around 25 percent
in regions such as Central Asia and Central Africa,
where livestock are mostly kept in extensive,
specialized grazing systems, to over 66 percent in
regions such as West Africa, Southern Europe and
the Caribbean, where integrated crop–livestock
systems are predominant. Crop–ruminant integrated systems produce about two-thirds of all
meat and milk from ruminants at global level
(expressed in protein equivalent). Where monogastrics are concerned, results from GLEAM show
that backyard pigs, which are usually in integrated
systems, account for about 45 percent of pigs
and 27 percent of pig-meat production globally.
Backyard chickens account for 18 percent of all the
world’s chickens, about 14 percent of global egg
production and about 4 percent of global chickenmeat production.
Overall, integrated crop–livestock systems
make a larger contribution to livestock production than any other system (Gerber et al.,
45
http://www.fao.org/gleam/en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
227
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
2013). In 2000, integrated production systems
generated close to 50 percent of the world’s
cereals: 41 percent of maize; 86 percent of
rice; 64 percent of sorghum; and 67 percent of
millet (Herrero et al., 2012). These systems also
produced the bulk of livestock products in the
developing world (75 percent of the milk and
60 percent of the meat) and employed millions of
people on farms, in formal and informal markets,
at processing plants and at other stages of the
value chain (FAO, 2010e). Most of the world’s
430 million poor livestock keepers are found in
mixed systems (Robinson et al., 2011). The most
economically important livestock systems in Asia,
Latin America and North Africa are mixed systems
(Thornton and Herrero, 2001).
With regard to trends, the past four decades
have seen the expansion of specialized livestock
production systems in high-income countries
and those with emerging economies, mainly for
monogastrics but also to some extent for cattle
(FAO, 2009a). This has been accompanied by a
homogenization of crop production systems,
with greater use of synthetic fertilizers at the
expense of livestock manure. The consequences
of this have included decreases in soil organic
matter and high discharge of nutrients into the
environment in areas where large numbers of
animals are raised in intensive units, with negative impacts in turn on aquatic, soil and other
biodiversity (see also Chapter 3). Time-series data
for such changes are rare. However, data from
the above-mentioned Eurostat database on agrienvironmental indicators indicate that the number
of mixed crop–livestock farms in the European
Union declined by 45 percent between 2005 and
2013, and that the area under mixed crop–livestock
systems decreased by 26 percent over the same
period (Eurostat, 2016).
Low-income countries have, in contrast, seen a
general trend towards greater integration of crop
and livestock production activities as population
density has increased and the availability of land
has declined (Robinson et al., 2011; Thornton and
Herrero, 2001). The land area occupied by mixed
systems in developing countries is projected to
228
increase slightly by 2030, with most of the increase
occurring in sub-Saharan Africa (Herrero et al.,
2012). However, this will be far outweighed by
the increase in the human population associated
with these systems (ibid.). These high population
densities will place significant pressure on natural
resources and ecosystem services, including on
water supplies and biodiversity.
Needs and priorities
Livestock (and particularly ruminants) will continue to play key roles in providing draught power
and manure in the mixed production systems of
developing countries for the foreseeable future.
If productivity is to increase despite the limited
availability of land and other resources, there is
a real need for research into how complementarities between crop and livestock production can
be enhanced (Thornton and Herrero, 2001, 2015).
This will require greater emphasis on multidisciplinary approaches, both in research and in project
implementation. There will be a need to improve
assessment of the performance of crop–livestock
systems relative to that of specialized systems, not
only in terms of the supply of food and non-food
products, but also in terms of the supply of a range
of other ecosystem services. Attention also needs
to be paid to socio-economic dimensions such
as employment, income generation and gender
equity. As noted above, detailed information
on trends in the extent to which crop–livestock
integration is practised is often lacking. There is
therefore a need to improve data collection and
to provide concrete guidance to governments and
researchers on how to monitor and assess the evolution of mixed systems.
5.5.2 Home gardens
Introduction
The country-reporting guidelines defined a home
garden as follows: “an integrated system which
comprises different components in a small area
around the homestead, including staple crops,
vegetables, fruits, medicinal plants, livestock and
fish both for home consumption or use and for
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
income. [It] may include the family house, a living/
playing area, a kitchen garden, a mixed garden,
a fish pond, stores, an animal house [or other
elements].”46 In many parts of the world, home
gardens typically include trees and are considered
a type of agroforestry practice (see Section 5.5.3).
While such gardens are generally not among
households’ main sources of income or staple
food,47 they often serve as essential supplementary sources of food and income and contribute
to the overall diversity and security of livelihoods
(Galhena, Freed and Maredia, 2013; Landon-Lane,
2011). These roles can be especially significant
among disadvantaged sections of the population,
whose diets often consist largely of a limited selection of staple foods. Products from home gardens
can dramatically improve the quality of such diets
by increasing the availability and accessibility of
micronutrient-rich or protein-rich foods such as
leafy green vegetables, fish and eggs (Buchmann,
2009; Galhena, Freed and Maredia, 2013; LandonLane, 2011).
Species diversity in home gardens is often
very high (Nair, 2006). They are often also rich
in intraspecific diversity. For example, Thaman,
Elevitch and Kennedy (2006) documented the presence of 21 different coconut cultivars, 28 breadfruit cultivars and 37 banana cultivars in home
gardens in Yap, Federated States of Micronesia.
Home gardens can therefore be major reservoirs
of domesticated biodiversity, particularly in countries where commercial agricultural systems make
little use of landraces (Galluzzi, Eyzaguirre and
Negri, 2009). As discussed in Section 2.2, home
gardens in some areas serve as important habitats
for potentially threatened wild species. They can
also contribute a number of other environmental
benefits (e.g. carbon sequestration), particularly
when they replace more wasteful land uses such
as lawns in urban areas and are managed using
sustainable practices, for example using greywater
for irrigation (Cleveland et al., 2017).
46
47
Definition based on FAO (1995b).
There are some exceptions. For example, many households in
the Pacific Islands grow their main staple root crops in home
gardens (Galhena, Freed and Maredia, 2013).
While it is well recognized in the literature (e.g.
Landon-Lane, 2011) that home gardens are part
of the daily life of most communities – rural and
to some extent urban – worldwide, there are no
comprehensive global statistics on the distribution
and status of such systems. Kumar and Nair (2006)
report some attempts to compile statistics on
home gardens at national or subnational levels in
some South and Southeast Asian countries, citing,
for example, figures reported by Kumar (2006)
of 5.13 million ha of land under home gardens
in Indonesia, 1.05 million ha in Sri Lanka and
1.44 million ha in Kerala, India. Some studies have
looked at the ways in which drivers of change
are affecting the extent and characteristics of
home gardens. For example, Mohri et al. (2013),
again referring to parts of South and Southeast
Asia, note that a range of factors including socioeconomic drivers are promoting a shift from
subsistence to commercial production in home
gardens, with more land area being dedicated to
such systems, but also an increasing focus on the
cultivation of cash crops.
Status and trends
Analysis of the country reports shows that 31 countries indicate the presence of home gardening
(Table 5.1). The practice is reported mainly in the
context of irrigated and rainfed crop systems,
but also for mixed, forest and livestock-based
systems. Only a few countries provide information
on whether the use of the practice is increasing,
decreasing or stable. However, to the extent that
information is available, it indicates that the use
of home gardens is increasing across most systems
(Table 5.2). Trends appear to be either stable or
increasing across most regions, with no instances
of downward trends reported from Africa, Asia or
the Pacific and only a few from Europe, the Near
East and Latin America and Caribbean.
Significance in terms of biodiversity
and livelihoods
The country reports indicate that home gardens
are important reservoirs of biodiversity, particularly plant biodiversity. Some reports from Asia
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
229
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.9
Promotion of home gardens for healthy diets in Solomon Islands
The people of Solomon Islands have a long tradition of
maintaining home gardens as sources of food and nutrition
security and income diversification. While, like the people
of other Pacific Island nations, Solomon Islanders have
increasingly come to rely on imported foods, subsistence
home gardens are still the main source of many staple and
vegetable foods for most of the population. The importance
of home gardens is not confined to rural areas – there is a
well-established tradition of tending urban home gardens
(sup sup gardens, as they are known locally), where food
crops are grown in association with fruit trees.
Recognizing the value of home gardens to the health
of the local population, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Livestock and the Ministry of Health of Solomon Islands
have, over the years, promoted the role of these systems
as a means of increasing people’s access to fresh produce
and countering the rising occurrence of chronic diseases.
Measures have included the provision of training on the
cultivation of crop and tree species that are easily adaptable
to urban conditions and require little maintenance, including
Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa), pak choi (Brassica rapa
subsp. chinensis), peppers (Capsicum spp.), papaya (Carica
papaya), guava (Psidium guajava) and star fruit (Averrhoa
carambola).
Sources: Country report of Solomon Islands and FAO et al., 2016.
D
B
C
A
B
A
D
Wetland crops grown in old tyres. A: Cyrtosperma merkusii (giant swamp taro)
and B: Ipomoea aquatica (a leafy vegetable). ©Helen Tsatsia.
(the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal
and Viet Nam) describe how home gardens in the
region traditionally include fishponds, as well as
fruit and fuelwood tree species. Some countries
report quantitative data illustrating the high
levels of diversity that can be found in home
gardens. For example, Ecuador mentions the existence of home gardens in which 127 forest, crop,
livestock and aquatic species have been recorded
in 0.45 ha. Peru mentions gardens containing
up to 90 species used for food or medicinal purposes. However, the precise contributions of home
230
Mixed crops in backyard garden. A: Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato), B:
Cucurbita species (pumpkin), C: Carica papaya (papaya) and D: Abelmoschus
manihot (aibika, bele, slippery cabbage). ©Helen Tsatsia.
gardens to the maintenance of BFA are generally
difficult to assess on account of their diverse characteristics and/or a lack of comprehensive information on their size and distribution.
Countries report a range of specific ways in
which home gardens contribute to the sustainable
use and conservation of BFA. For example, Papua
New Guinea mentions that farmers bring crop wild
relatives into home gardens for cultivation, noting
in particular that “tulip” (Gnetum gnemon), a leafy
delicacy used in many traditional dishes, is widely
grown in home gardens. Among European countries,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Estonia reports that its Crop Research Institute
relies in part on home gardens as a source of seeds
for its gene bank. The Netherlands notes that while
most traditional plant varieties are not grown in
commercial systems, many survive in home gardens.
Some countries mention circumstances in which
home-gardening practices can threaten biodiversity. For example, Oman notes that cultivation of
exotic species, such as leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala), in home gardens is increasingly threatening local biodiversity. France mentions the need
to consider the impacts that agrochemicals used in
home gardens have on biodiversity, and refers to a
national law, intended to enter into force in 2017,48
that limits the use of such products to professional
producers and is expected to have a positive impact
on biodiversity associated with home gardens.
Similarly, Switzerland notes that in recognition of
the potentially harmful effects of pesticides on the
environment and human health, including when
used in allotment gardens, its Federal Office for
the Environment has issued guidance and recommendations on the handling of plant-protection
products by non-professional users. Poland reports
threats to biodiversity associated with the expansion of single-family housing areas and the related
uncontrolled use of groundwater for irrigation of
home gardens, which has led to decreases in local
groundwater levels and water flows into rivers.
Conversely, the same report notes that kitchen
gardens near pasture areas have a positive impact
on local biodiversity, including insect pollinators
and other invertebrates.
Countries that provide information on home
gardens generally seem to regard them as important contributors to livelihoods and to food
48
Under Law 2012-100 (LOI n° 2014-110 du 6 février
2014 visant à mieux encadrer l'utilisation des produits
phytosanitaires sur le territoire national – available, in
French, at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.
do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028571536&dateTexte=20160927)
use of pesticides in places open or accessible to the public
has been banned since 1 January 2017. A ban in private areas
came into force on 1 January 2019. The ban does not apply to
authorized biocontrol products, products that can be utilized in
organic agriculture and products classified as “low-risk” under
the relevant European Union legislation.
security and nutrition. A range of different initiatives aimed at supporting and extending these
roles are reported (see Box 5.9 and Box 5.10 for
examples). A number of countries note the significant role of women in the management of home
gardens, and hence as custodians of the BFA associated with them. Countries across several regions
(e.g. China, the Gambia, Panama and Slovenia)
note that it is usually women who are aware of
the edible and medicinal properties of plants and
who tend home gardens, including saving seeds
for the following season. This role is also well
documented in the literature (e.g. Nair, 2006).
Threats and drivers of change
Many countries provide information on threats
to home gardens and hence potentially to the
biodiversity found in these systems. Countries
from several regions mention threats associated
with the spread of invasive alien species. For
example, the Cook Islands reports that changing dietary preferences, particularly among the
younger generation, have led to increases in wild
pig and fowl populations and that this has led to
more frequent occurrences of serious damage to
home gardens. Both Nepal and Argentina report
that increasing populations of giant African
snails (Lissachatina fulica) present a serious
threat to home gardens in both urban and rural
areas. Estonia mentions that the Colorado potato
beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) has caused
severe damage in small-scale production systems,
including home gardens. Climate change is also
noted as a threat, particularly by some Pacific
Island countries, where home gardens are often
located in low-lying coastal areas.
Changes in farming systems, including shifts
towards intensive practices and a more marketfocused orientation – along with some broader
socio-economic drivers – are also mentioned.
Countries report a range of different challenges
in this regard. For example, Peru mentions that,
while family home gardens have traditionally
played a key role in the preservation of indigenous varieties and species (e.g. the tree tomato
[Solanum betaceum]), such plants are increasingly
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
231
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.10
Projects and initiatives targeting home gardens – examples from around the world
Argentina
The nationwide PROHUERTA programme has led the
development of home gardens in Argentina. The programme
was launched in 1990 and now extends to over 90 percent
of the country’s municipalities. The programme’s goals
are to increase access to fresh and nutritious foods, as
well as to increase incomes, particularly among the most
disadvantaged sections of the population. The programme
has created some 560 000 home gardens and 12 000 school
and community gardens, and has benefited 2.8 million
people. The programme has also included South–South
cooperation efforts involving exchange of information and
experiences with other countries, including Angola, Ghana,
Haiti and Mozambique. In addition, an interdisciplinary
group of experts from the University of Buenos Aires has
been set up to work, inter alia, on promoting agroecological
home gardens to improve community livelihoods and
establishing community nurseries to grow native plants
(including those used as foods) and improve soil health.
Finland
Finland has established a catalogue of horticultural species used
in home gardens and launched an online portal for recording
traditional and heritage cultivars, via which users can report and
provide information (including cultural/historical information)
on potentially valuable plants and possible landraces.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, small gardens have
been successfully established in schools for use in education
and awareness raising. The resulting increase in interest
in agrobiodiversity management led the Department of
Education of Xieng Khouang Province to develop a curriculum
for agrobiodiversity education, which was later approved by
the national ministry for use throughout the country.
Mexico
The NGO Visión Mujer focuses on promoting training for
women, including on the preservation and cultivation
of plants that have edible or medicinal uses. The first
experimental community garden was established at the
Fisheries Research Centre on Isla Mujeres to serve as a
232
reference centre for organic production practices and build
capacity on home and school gardening.
Nauru
In Nauru, the Horticulture and Livestock Breeding Project
promoted by the Taiwan Technical Mission and the
Department of Commerce, Industries and Environment
focuses on supporting horticultural and livestock production
in home gardens as a means of improving food and nutrition
security. The project has promoted sustainable management
practices, for example the use of composting to improve soil
fertility. Local farmers are encouraged to cultivate native tree
species for use in reafforestation programmes. The project has
successfully set up vegetable gardens with 50 farmers and
three schools and supplied vegetables for 800 schoolchildren
through the Nauru School Feeding Program. It has also raised
awareness and built capacity on vegetable growing and
cooking and on composting practices.
Nepal
A Swiss-funded project implemented by Local Initiatives
for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD),
in collaboration with national authorities, is promoting
the conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity
through home gardens. The project aims to increase families’
food security, dietary diversity and incomes by promoting
diversification in home gardens, including by combining
the cultivation of vegetables, fruits and mushrooms with
the rearing of livestock, fish and honey bees. As a result of
the project, over two-thirds of the 7 700 target households
have both diversified their diets by increasing consumption
of fresh garden produce and reduced their expenditure on
vegetables by 75 percent.
Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, the Department of Agriculture encourages the
cultivation of organic vegetables in home gardens using
traditional varieties that do not require chemical fertilizers
or pesticides. Activities have included the distribution of
the True Sri Lanka Taste seed pack consisting of traditional
vegetable varieties.
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.10 (Cont.)
Projects and initiatives targeting home gardens – examples from around the world
Tonga
The Tonga Health Promotion Foundation (TongaHealth)
promotes home gardens as a means of increasing the
consumption of a range of local fruit and vegetables. For
example, villages wishing to access resources such as
seedlings and fencing are provided with grants via the
Community Gardening Programme. The aim of this initiative
is to increase the consumption of healthy foods among
Tongan families. To ensure sustainability, each household
is encouraged to plant eight local vegetables and fruits in
their residential garden for easy access throughout the year.
Over 1 800 households have participated in the Community
Gardening Programme since 2009. Tonga’s 2015 Census
recorded a total of 2 888 home gardens in the country.
being replaced by more profitable crops. As
well as leading to genetic erosion, this trend is
reported also to be contributing to the loss of traditional knowledge. Nauru, in contrast, reports
renewed interest in home gardens but a lack of
relevant local knowledge and technical skills.
Panama mentions that, among other factors, the
increasing availability of ready-to-eat products
is reducing the use of food from home gardens.
China reports that rural families are increasingly
being drawn towards economically more attractive off-farm work, which leaves them little time
to tend to their home gardens, and notes that this
is negatively affecting BFA.
Zimbabwe
In 2001, the Municipality of Bulawayo, together with World
Vision, established urban allotment gardens to support
vulnerable groups such as people living with HIV/AIDS,
the elderly, widows and orphans. The main aims were to
address acute food shortages and nutritional imbalances,
raise awareness on HIV/AIDs, improve well-being and build
people’s capacities. As of 2008, more than 1 500 people had
already benefited from the gardens.
Sources: Country reports of Argentina, Finland, Mexico, Nauru, Nepal, Sri
Lanka, Tonga (with additional information from the website of the Tonga
Health Promotion Foundation – https://www.tongahealth.org/about_us)
and Zimbabwe, and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic Agrobiodiversity
Programme and Action Plan II (2015–2025). More information on PROHUERTA
can be found (in Spanish) at http://prohuerta.inta.gov.ar.
for adequate dissemination of the data collected.
Some countries mention priorities related to capacity development. For example, Panama identifies
the need to strengthen the capacity of extension
services to support home gardening. A few priorities related to the use of specific components of
BFA within home gardens are also noted. The Lao
People’s Democratic Republic mentions the potential of diversifying livestock and fish production in
home gardens, but notes that indigenous poultry
are poorly understood and need to be studied systematically. Belarus mentions the importance of
developing recommendations on the cultivation
of wild plant species used for food, including in
home gardens.
Needs and priorities
The main gap identified in the country reports in
relation to home gardening is a lack of information on the status and trends of home gardens
and on the contributions they make to the conservation of BFA and to the resilience of production
in the face of challenges associated with (inter
alia) climate change and socio-economic trends.
Reported priorities in this regard include the provision of funding for thorough assessments of
home-gardening practices and their impacts and
5.5.3 Agroforestry
Introduction
The country-reporting guidelines define agroforestry as “a collective name for land-use systems
where woody perennials … are integrated in the
farming system.” In practice, however, use of the
term varies from country to country, reflecting
local, national and regional contexts. Moreover,
since the word rose to prominence in the late
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
233
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
1970s (Bene, Beall and Côte, 1977), its usage has
evolved considerably. Van Noordwijk, Coe and
Sinclair (2016) describe three successive paradigms: the first focused on plot-level interactions
of trees with crops or livestock; the second based
on a landscape-level understanding of agroforestry as a land use with explicit (positive) impacts
(Leakey, 1996); and the third encompassing the
combination and interface of all agriculture and
forestry issues without reference to the institutional barriers that have traditionally separated
them. Van Noordwijk, Coe and Sinclair (2016)
propose a new definition of agroforestry that
recognizes all three paradigms and can be paraphrased as “land use that combines aspects
of agriculture and forestry, including the agricultural use of trees.” Moreover, usage of the
term by farmers and development practitioners is often more specific than usage in scientific circles. Generalizations about the state of
agroforestry are thus difficult to make, even at
country level. The following paragraphs provide
illustrative examples of the types of agroforestry
practised in various regions of the world.
In East and Southern Africa, agroforestry systems
include cereal-based systems that feature indigenous and introduced tree species valued for
timber (Grevillea robusta, eucalypts [Eucalyptus
and Corymbia spp.]), fruits (e.g. mango [Mangifera
indica] and avocado [Persea americana]), charcoal
(acacias [Acacia spp.]), fodder (Calliandra spp.)
and soil-fertility enhancement (e.g. winter thorn
[Faidherbia albida]). Systems include many indigenous and exotic tree species that are planted or protected in a variety of niches to supply various ecosystem services (Bein et al., 1996; Kindt et al., 2017).
Although many indigenous tree species also feature
in priority lists, farmers are increasingly replacing
them with exotics (Kehlenbeck et al., 2011).
Traditional “parkland” systems, i.e. mixed crop–
tree–shrub–livestock assemblages derived from
savannah ecosystems (Maranz, 2009), are the main
sources of food, income and environmental services
across the Sahelian zone of West Africa (Bayala et
al., 2011a). Their species richness ranges from monospecificity to more than 100 species of trees and
234
shrubs, although species-rich systems may be dominated by a few species (Bayala et al., 2011b; Kessler,
1992; Kindt et al., 2008). Shrubs in parklands may be
coppiced throughout the rainy (cropping) season.
Farmers actively manage and protect trees, including by protecting naturally regenerating trees from
livestock and during tillage operations (Brandt et
al., 2018; Hanan, 2018; Reij and Garrity, 2016). Tree
density is kept low so that canopy cover is not continuous. These practices contribute to agricultural
productivity and help to conserve plant and animal
biodiversity by offering diverse above-ground and
below-ground habitat niches.
In the humid tropics of West and Central Africa,
prevalent agroforestry practices include the following: home gardens; perennial tree crop-based
systems (cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber); slash-andburn agriculture where high-value species providing timber and non-timber forest products are
retained; improved fallows (e.g. with red calliandra
[Calliandra calothyrsus], leucaena [Leucaena leucocephala], gliricidia [Gliricidia sepium], ice-cream
bean [Inga edulis], mangium (Acacia mangium)
and Acacia auriculiformis, pigeon pea [Cajanus
cajan], Vogel’s tephrosia [Tephrosia vogelii], sesbania [Sesbania sesban]); boundary planting (mostly
in hilly areas); and small woodlots with Eucalyptus
spp., red stinkwood (Prunus africana) and grevillea
(Grevillea robusta) (Atangana et al., 2014).
Mosquera-Losada et al. (2012) identified six
main categories of European agroforestry: silvoarable practices; silvopasture; forest farming
(“forested areas used for production … of natural
standing speciality crops for medicinal, ornamental
or culinary purposes”); riparian buffers; improved
fallow; and multipurpose trees. They noted that
many practices that had declined during the
period of agricultural intensification that followed the industrial revolution are now reviving
as a consequence of policy changes. However, as
documented by den Herder et al. (2015), the dominant practices in terms of land area continue to
be those traditional practices that were relatively
unaffected by agricultural intensification, for
example the oak-based systems known as dehesa
(Spain) and montados (Portugal) and (particularly)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
reindeer-husbandry systems in Scandinavia. The
reindeer-husbandry systems are practised more
widely (41.4 million ha) than all other European
systems combined.
Agroforestry practice in Latin America is thousands of years old (Miller and Nair, 2006). Dominant
current types of agroforestry include the following: cacao and coffee systems (Somarriba et al.,
2014); silvopasture (Montagnini, Ibrahim and
Murgueitio, 2013); tree fallows (improved or
otherwise) in swidden agriculture (Cotta, 2017;
Smith et al., 1999); home gardens (Padoch and de
Jong, 1991); and native trees and shrubs in field
boundaries and along contour lines in mountain areas (Mathez-Stiefel, 2016). Use of both
natural regeneration – particularly timber and
shade species – and planted trees is common. The
acronym SAF (an abbreviation of the Portuguese
and Spanish words for “agroforestry system”) has
wide currency, and usually refers to multistorey
systems of varying complexity. In Brazil, marketoriented systems may consist of intercropping
three or more, mostly perennial, planted crops, for
example cacao (Theobroma cacao), açai (Euterpe
oleracea), black pepper (Piper nigrum), cupuaçu
(Theobroma grandiflorum) or some timber species
or oilseeds (Bolfe and Batistella, 2011), or much
more complex high-biodiversity systems in which
natural regeneration is managed, for example
cabruca49 systems (Sambuichi et al., 2012) and
successional agroforests (Cezar et al., 2015).
Agroforestry practice and concepts in Oceania
vary widely. Agroforestry has traditionally been
an important farming system for Pacific Islanders
(Thaman, Elevitch and Kennedy, 2006). On the
smaller, land-scarce Pacific islands, tree fruits
and nuts are important components in intensive
farming systems (Evans, 1999). In rural communities
in Papua New Guinea, native and exotic tree species
such as casuarina (Casuarina oligodon), betelnut palm (Areca catechu) and gliricidia (Gliricidia
sepium) provide important agroecological services
and products for sale or home consumption (Page
et al., 2016; Bourke and Harwood, eds., 2009). In
49
Cocoa trees grown under a thinned natural-forest canopy.
Australia, the term “agroforestry” is used broadly,
but with some emphasis on timber production and
agroforestry as “farm forestry” (e.g. Reid, 2017).
Prominent agroforestry systems in South Asia
include: poplar-based commercial agroforestry
(especially in India); fruit orchards; home gardens;
cardamom and alder mixtures (Bhutan, India and
Nepal); tree and shrub fodder production; silvopastoral systems; coastal shelterbelts (India and Sri
Lanka); shifting cultivation (“chena” in Sri Lanka);
trees interspersed on farmland; taungya (India,
Sri Lanka); and tea and coffee agroforestry. In
India, trees outside forests, of which trees grown
on farms are a subset, account for 65 percent of
timber production and almost half of fuelwood
production (Government of India, 2017).
Southeast Asian farmers use a rich variety of
agroforestry practices. These include: high-diversity
home gardens; improved fallow (e.g. with naturalized leucaena [Leucaena spp.] in the Philippines);
commodity-based agroforestry systems (in
Indonesia these smallholder mixed systems
produce 96 percent of the national coffee yield,
92 percent of the cacao, 80 percent of the rubber,
39 percent of the oil palm and 26 percent of the
tea – DGEC, 2012); agroforests such as the damar
agroforests and “jungle rubber” of Sumatra and
Kalimantan, taungya and tumpangsari in teak or
pine plantations in Indonesia and Thailand; trees
planted at wide spacing in open-field agriculture
(e.g. forest–rice terrace systems in the southern
and northern Philippines); SALT (sloping agricultural land technologies), for example hedgerow
planting, alley cropping and NVS (natural vegetative strips) on sloping land in Indonesia, the
Philippines and Viet Nam; and boundary planting
around farms and fields (e.g. of fodder trees in
Indonesia and the Philippines). In Indonesia, agroforestry has become one of the land-based strategies for the national climate change adaptation
and mitigation, and social-forestry, programmes.
Status and trends
Estimates of the global extent of agroforestry
have differed by orders of magnitude. Reasons for
this include the many different ways of using trees
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
235
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
in agriculture, the “invisibility” of agroforestry in
official statistics and differing understandings of
what constitutes agroforestry (see above). What
is clear is that where tree growth is not limited
by environmental factors – usually temperature
or precipitation (Runyan and D’Odorico, 2016) –
trees are ubiquitous in agricultural landscapes,
the most obvious exceptions being some agroindustrial landscapes.
Under a landscape-level definition of agroforestry, global datasets assembled for other
purposes can be used to estimate the extent of
agroforestry. For example, Zomer et al. (2014),
using 1 km2 resolution gridded data layers of
tree cover and land use, defined agroforestry
as occurring in pixels that are classified as “agricultural land” and have a certain level of tree
cover. They estimated the global land area under
agroforestry (based on three-year averages for
2008 to 2010) to be 3.1 million km2 if taken to
include agricultural land with ≥30 percent tree
cover, and 9.6 million km 2 if taken to include
agricultural land with ≥10 percent tree cover.50
These are vast areas, roughly equivalent, respectively, to the areas of India and China. Table 5.5
shows regional estimates of the area under agroforestry, using an intermediate (≥20 percent tree
cover) criterion. In absolute area, South America
and Southeast Asia are easily the most significant
“agroforestry regions”, together constituting
about 45 percent of the global total. In proportional terms, agroforestry is far more preponderant in Central America and Southeast Asia than
in any other region. It should be noted that in
50
Two aspects of the methodology used in this analysis should be
noted. First, pixels corresponding to 1 km2 area were used as
the basis for tree cover classification. A given percentage tree
cover in a given pixel may indicate various things. For example,
30 percent tree cover might mean 70 percent treeless and
30 percent forested or an intimate mixture of trees and crops in
which tree crowns overlay 30 percent of the area (or anything
in between). Although all pixels are located on land classified
as “agricultural”, it is possible that some pixels that consist of
contrasting treeless areas and closed canopy forest areas may
not constitute agroforestry as commonly understood. Second,
the estimates will have excluded some areas under agroforestry,
because these occur on land classified as non-agricultural
(Zomer et al., 2014).
236
some cases the regional values mask important
intraregional variation.
Global recognition of the contributions of
agroforestry has increased over the past decade,
as have the mainstreaming of agroforestry into
development and environmental agendas and
appreciation of its potential impact on rural livelihoods, climate-smart agriculture, biodiversity
conservation and land restoration. This higher
profile also reflects wider acceptance and adoption of agroecological practices in agriculture.
In individual countries and regions, the move
towards mainstreaming is related – as both cause
and effect – to policy and legal changes. Examples
from several regions are provided in Box 5.11. A
number of the country reports mention policies
and programmes supporting agroforestry, including through education and extension, research
and the provision of payments for ecosystem services. France’s Agroforestry Development Plan is
described in Box 5.12.
Increasing levels of awareness and support can
be expected to lead to increases in the land area
under agroforestry. Globally, there seems already
to have been a slight increase (Table 5.5), although
unravelling the causes of particular regional trends
would require more detailed analysis. Increases in
tree cover are not necessarily the result of policy
measures or other high-level support, i.e. they may
reflect wider macroeconomic and societal factors
(e.g. Redo et al., 2012).
Countries’ responses on the state of and trends
in the adoption of agroforestry practices are
summarized in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. Across all
systems, reports of increasing trends outnumber
reports of decreasing trends, in most cases by a
substantial margin. Many country reports mention
that agroforestry is a traditional element of local
production systems, in many cases noting its
importance to food security, to the supply of ecosystem services such as soil protection and carbon
sequestration and to the resilience of farms to
both biophysical (e.g. climatic) and economic
shocks and trends. Countries generally do not
provide detailed information about the causes of
the trends reported. A number, however, mention
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 5.5
Land area under agroforestry (2008–2010) and trends (2000–2010), by region
Region
Area
(million km2)
Proportion of total
agricultural land (%)
Increase
(2000–2010) (%)
Central America
0.2
79.0
8.2
East Asia
0.4
22.1
3.4
Europe
0.5
20.4
1.6
North Africa and Western Asia
0.1
5.5
0.3
North America
0.6
26.3
2.2
Northern and Central Asia
0.2
9.7
1.2
Oceania
0.2
23.8
3.4
South America
1.2
31.8
3.5
South Asia
0.1
7.8
0.9
Southeast Asia
1.0
62.9
2.0
Sub-Saharan Africa
0.6
15.0
0.0
World
5.1
23.1
1.8
Notes: Figures refer to agricultural land with ≥20 percent tree cover. Land area estimates are based on three-year averages for
2008 to 2010.
Source: Zomer et al., 2014.
policies that provide support to the development
of agroforestry via measures such as knowledge
transfer and the provision of subsidies.
Needs and priorities
At the turn of the millennium, regional studies
in Southeast Asia identified the following priority areas for support to agroforestry: germplasm
quality and availability; marketing and market
access; supportive policies; tree and system (particularly timber and fruit) management; and training and information dissemination (Gunasena and
Roshetko, 2000; Roshetko and Evans, 1999). A
global review by Leakey et al. (2012) found that,
while significant progress had been made, many
of those topics remained in need of attention.
The following subsections present gaps and needs
under five broad, partially overlapping, headings:
concepts; policy; development approaches; germplasm; and research.
Concepts of agroforestry
Although diversity of concepts and practices across
regions and countries is practically inevitable
and not necessarily undesirable, it becomes a
problem when limited concepts of agroforestry
– for example, agroforestry as only multistorey
systems – lead to limited understanding of its relevance to issues such as poverty, climate change
adaptation and mitigation and land degradation.
This underscores the importance of not only clarifying agroforestry definitions, but also of sharing
experiences of different types of agroforestry and
how they can successfully contribute to addressing
problems and opportunities.
Policy
Agroforestry often continues to occupy a “no
man’s land” between forestry and agriculture,
and benefits neither from specific supportive
policies nor from an institutional home. In many
cases, farmers are still not allowed to harvest
trees, or even tree products, on their land. Even
where such activities are allowed under current
law, the complexity or cost of fulfilling requirements may be beyond the capacities of resourcepoor farmers (Foundjem-Tita et al., 2013; Sears
et al., 2018).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
237
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.11
Policy and legislative frameworks promoting agroforestry – examples from around the world
East and Southern Africa
Policy changes have been key to wider inclusion of trees
on farms in East and Southern Africa. For example, Kenya’s
Agriculture (Farm Forestry) Rules of 20091 – a response to
deforestation, increased demand for agricultural land and
farmers’ desire to plant trees – require at least 10 percent tree
cover on all farms. The country’s government has allocated
funds to assist farmers to meet this requirement (Jamnadass
et al., 2013). Kenya and other East African countries have
pledged millions of hectares to the Bonn Challenge2 and
AFR1003 restoration initiatives (e.g. 15 million ha in Ethiopia,
5.1 million ha in Kenya and 2 million ha in Rwanda).
Agroforestry plays a prominent role in these pledges
(e.g. Ministry of Natural Resources – Rwanda, 2014).
West and Central Africa
Analysis suggests that both rainfall patterns and
land-management practices are responsible for the
“re-greening” of the Sahel (Ouedraogo et al., 2014). In the
case of Niger, widespread adoption of farmer-managed
natural regeneration (FMNR) (Reij, Tappan and Smale,
2009a) led the government to relax provisions in the Forest
Law, allowing farmers the right to harvest trees nurtured or
planted on their own land. This policy change is thought to
have contributed to the spread of FMNR to over 5 million ha
(Garrity et al., 2010). The trend towards increasing tree cover
is likely to continue, as a result of multiple international
initiatives to upscale on-farm natural regeneration and
tree planting, particularly those related to forest landscape
restoration (Minasny et al., 2017; Reij and Garrity, 2016).
Latin America
In Peru, the Forest and Wildlife Law of 20114 recognizes
and provides an official definition of agroforestry, and
created the Agroforestry Concessions mechanism (Robiglio
and Reyes, 2016), for which guidelines were issued in
1
2
3
4
Agriculture (Farm Forestry) Rules (available at http://www.fao.org/faolex/
results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC101360).
http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge
http://www.afr100.org
Ley Nº 29763 - Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. El Peruano, 22 de julio de
2011 (available, in Spanish, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/
LEX-FAOC104648/).
238
2017.5 This measure aims to formalize hitherto illegal
occupation of state forestland, based on the scaling-up of
sustainable management (including agroforestry) on about
1.2 million ha of land in the country’s Amazon region.
In Brazil, the Forest Law of 20126 established the principle
that agroforestry serves both social and environmental
functions in protected areas, allowing farmers to restore
Permanent Preservation Areas (riparian zones, springs,
hillsides and ridge tops) and conservation set-asides
(known as Legal Reserves), which are required on all rural
lands, through agroforestry (for which a legal definition is
provided). In these cases, farmers may include short-cycle
crops, legumes and some exotic species provided they are
intercropped with native trees and maintain basic ecological
functions (Miccolis et al., 2016).
Southeast Asia
Many countries in Southeast Asia have mainstreamed
agroforestry into agriculture, watershed management
and social-forestry programmes. For example, the
Government of the Philippines has been implementing
an upland-agroforestry programme since 2000. Viet Nam
is revising its Forestry Law, introducing provisions that
allow agroforestry to be practised in allocated forestlands,
which will pave the way for agroforestry to become
an official forest land-use type. At the regional level,
the 2016–2025 Vision and Strategic Plan of the Food,
Agriculture and Forestry Sector of ASEAN (Association of
Southeast Asian Nations) has a specific action programme
aimed at agroforestry expansion (Strategic Thrust 4, Action
Programme 5). In 2017, the ASEAN Working Group on
Social Forestry agreed to the preparation of ASEAN-level
guidelines on agroforestry development for Member States
(Finlayson, 2017).
(Cont.)
5
6
Resolución Nº 081-2017-SERFOR – Lineamientos para el otorgamiento de
contratos de cesión en uso para sistemas agroforestales. El Peruano, 31 de
marzo de 2017 (available, in Spanish, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/
details/en/c/LEX-FAOC171777/).
Lei de Proteção da Vegetação Nativa n. 12.727, de 17 de Outubro de 2012
(available, in Portuguese, at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato20112014/2012/lei/l12727.htm).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.11 (Cont.)
Policy and legislative frameworks promoting agroforestry – examples from around the world
South Asia
In 2014, India promulgated its National Agroforestry
Policy, backed with a capital outlay of USD 450 million
for four years (2016/17 to 2019/20) (Chavan et al., 2015).
The policy has been an effective instrument for promoting
agroforestry, has created an institutional “home” for
agroforestry (the Ministry of Agriculture) and constitutes
a negotiation platform for agroforestry in the country
(Singh et al., 2016). Its effect on sustainable utilization of
India’s vast stock of trees on farms (1.5 million m3) has
been notable, particularly the relaxation of tree-felling
and transit regulations, deregulation of sawmill opening
and inclusion of agroforestry in many central government
agricultural schemes. Twenty of 29 states have excluded at
least 20 tree species from felling and transit regulations.
Prior to approval and implementation of the agroforestry
policy, felling and transport of the majority of tree species
were prohibited through regulatory laws that discouraged
farmers from growing trees on farms.
Box 5.12
France’s Agroforestry Development Plan 2015–2020
In 2015, the French Ministry of Agriculture launched
the Agroecological Project, a policy aimed at rendering
production systems more effective with respect to
their economic, environmental and social dimensions.1
Sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity are key
elements of agroecology. One element of this policy
initiative is the Agroforestry Development Plan,2 which
consists of five axes:
• gaining better understanding of the diversity of
agroforestry systems and their functioning;
• improving the legal framework and strengthening
financial support;
• developing extension, training and promotion
of agroforestry;
1
2
http://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-projet-agro-ecologique-pour-la-france
http://agriculture.gouv.fr/un-plan-national-de-developpement-pourlagroforesterie
Approaches to agroforestry development
Agroforestry innovations often encounter problems in scaling up (Coe, Sinclair and Barrios, 2014;
Shiferaw, Okello and Reddy, 2009). A diverse
range of factors may be responsible. For example,
Porro (2009) lists 46 causes of failure in adoption
of agroforestry systems in the Amazon. Three specific areas stand out.
• increasing the economic valuation of agroforestry
production in a sustainable way; and
• promoting and disseminating agroforestry
internationally.
The axes comprise 23 actions that are coordinated by
the Ministry of Agriculture and implemented with a dozen
partners, including the National Institute for Agricultural
Research (INRA), the Ministry of the Environment, the
associations involved in the territories, and the network of
Chambers of Agriculture.
The objective of the Agroforestry Development Plan is
to develop existing agroforestry systems such as hedgerows
(about 1 million ha in France, but decreasing), tree
intercropping (about 5 000 ha), fruit-tree silvopasture and
silvopastoralism.
Source: Provided by Patricia Larbouret, Christophe Pinard and Pierre Velge.
First, rural advisory services, where they exist,
often struggle to address some forms of agroforestry, which can be knowledge intensive, context
specific and provide benefits in the long term
rather than the short term. Rural resource centres
(Degrande et al., 2015) – training and demonstration hubs that are managed by grassroots organizations and may operate outside the formal
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
239
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
extension model – are one promising approach.
The exchange of knowledge and experiences
between farmers should also be facilitated and
supported (Martini, Roshetko and Paramita, 2017).
Second, special attention needs to be paid
to gender differences in access to agroforestry
resources and potential to benefit from them.
Men and women often play different roles in production and along value chains, which means that
they have different knowledge about species and
management practices, and different perceptions
of the value of the potential benefits of agroforestry practices (Colfer et al., 2016; Kiptot, Franzel
and Degrande, 2014; Mulyoutami et al., 2015).
Third, support to agroforestry often tends to
neglect marketing, business practices and financial incentives such as credit (Blare and Donovan,
2016). This can apply to agroforestry commodities
(e.g. the principal beverage crops) (Donovan, Blare
and Poole, 2017), to companion crops grown in
agroforestry systems (e.g. Sears et al., 2018) and
to farmer-produced timber (Holding-Anyonge
and Roshetko, 2003; Perdana, Roshetko and
Kurniawan, 2012). When markets are considered,
the focus has often been on export markets rather
than on establishing more stable local and regional
demand (Blare and Donovan, 2016). A more integrated vision is needed, in which promotion of
agroforestry includes efforts to identify markets for
the mix of crop and tree species cultivated.
These and many other factors are part of a
general failure to adequately consider local
contexts (Coe, Sinclair and Barrios, 2014). The
latter authors propose an “options-by-context”,
co-learning approach in which different agroforestry interventions (potentially including innovation in policy, advisory services, institutions and
value chains, as well as in production systems) are
considered in relation to local social, economic,
biophysical and political contexts.
Wilson, 2014; Koffa and Roshetko, 1999; Roshetko,
Mulawarman and Dianarto, 2008; Walters et al.,
2005). Expansion of restoration initiatives implies
significantly higher demand for germplasm
(Broadhurst et al., 2016). For example, if half of
the area currently pledged to the Bonn Challenge
(140 million ha) (see Section 5.4) were to be
subject to relatively low-density planting averaging 100 trees per ha over a period of ten years, the
demand for seed would be around 1.4 billon seeds
per year.51 The quantities of seeds and the institutional frameworks required would be beyond the
current capacities of most, if not all, developing
countries (e.g. Atkinson et al., 2017).
In some cases, the market may respond adequately
to increased demand. However, profit-seeking
nursery producers will tend to concentrate on the
most profitable species, meaning that germplasmsupply systems based purely on the market are
unlikely to offer the diversity that tree planters
seek (Cornelius and Miccolis, 2018). Lillesø et al.
(2018) have argued for legislation that favours
public–private partnerships, with small-scale entrepreneurs becoming the major producers and distributors of quality tree-planting materials. Low
income may prevent resource-poor farmers from
purchasing planting stock (Harrison, Gregorio
and Herbohn, 2008; Murray and Bannister, 2004;
Osemeobo, 1987), and distribution of free or subsidized seedlings is an option in such cases. Although
there is a risk of undermining private nurseries
(Graudal and Lillesø, 2007), development agencies
that distribute free or low-cost planting material
can avoid this problem if they themselves purchase
from private nurseries (Cornelius and Miccolis,
2018). In this way, they can strengthen emerging
germplasm-supply systems by acting as intermediaries between nurseries and farmers that are too
poor or too distant to purchase from them.
Research
Germplasm
The availability of germplasm has long been
considered a constraint to the scaling-up of treeplanting by smallholders (Caveness and Kurtz,
1993; Franzel et al., 2001; Kakuru, Doreen and
240
Enumerating the full range of research needs in
agroforestry research is beyond the scope of this
51
7 million ha per year, 100 seedlings per ha, 2 seeds per
seedling produced.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
overview. It is important, however, to stress that
the agroforestry research agenda must reflect the
full scope of agroforestry, i.e. from landscape-level
effects (e.g. relationships between trees and water
supply, or optimum configurations for biodiversity objectives) to plot-level, and including socialscience research as well as the hitherto more dominant biophysical research.
Integration of research into development is
essential to the scaling up of agroforestry. As
noted above, potential agroforestry interventions
need to be adapted to specific local contexts. This
may require formal planned comparisons nested
within development activities (Coe et al., 2017).
5.5.4 Diversification practices
in aquaculture
Introduction
Recent decades have seen a general upward
trend in the share of aquaculture production in
total fish production across all continents (FAO,
2018a). Aquaculture accounted for 47 percent
of total world fish production in 2016, up from
42 percent in 2012 and 31 percent in 2004 (FAO,
2016k, 2018a). Given that production from
capture fisheries is fairly stable (FAO, 2018a), it is
likely that aquaculture will be the main source of
future growth in the fisheries sector.
Aquaculture is very diverse in terms of the range
of species, environments and production systems
utilized.52 It also includes a range of diversification practices. The country-reporting guidelines
invited countries to provide information both on
“diversity-based practices” in aquaculture, including specifically on polyculture and aquaponics,
and on “mixed systems”, including integrated
aquaculture, i.e. systems in which aquaculture is
integrated with crop or livestock production. The
first three subsections below present an overview
of such practices. The first two cover systems that
52
FAO estimates that about 598 aquatic species are currently
farmed around the world, including seaweeds, molluscs,
crustaceans, fish and other groups (FAO, 2018a). This number
is increasing very fast, as there were only 472 aquatic species
reportedly farmed in 2006 (ibid.).
involve combining aquaculture with other components (integrated aquaculture and the specialized
case of aquaponics) and the third covers the use
of multiple aquatic species (polyculture) in the
context of aquaculture itself. The final subsection
discusses trends in the use of diversification practices in aquaculture and presents findings from
the country reports on the levels of (and trends in)
the use of polyculture and aquaponics practices.
Integrated aquaculture
Much of modern aquaculture operates in relative
isolation from other types of food and agricultural
production and with little attention to its impacts
on, or interactions with, surrounding ecosystems
and biodiversity (see Chapter 3 for further discussion of the impacts on BFA). Traditional aquaculture,
in contrast, is not an isolated operation but rather
an integral component of local farming systems,
and is managed in accordance with farmers’ overall
strategies for the use of their labour capacity, land
and other resources (Dabbadie and Mikolasek,
2015). Such systems are often referred to as “integrated aquaculture” (Edwards, Little and Demaine,
2002; FAO, IIRR and WorldFish Center, 2001; Nhan
et al., 2007; van der Zijpp et al., eds., 2007).
A 2001 review of integrated agriculture–
aquaculture (FAO, IIRR and WorldFish Center,
2001) identified a wide range of systems within
this category:
• grass–fish and embankment–fish systems – fish
ponds integrated with vegetable crops and
grass. Grass, plant wastes and vegetable cuttings are fed to grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
idella) or other herbivorous fish species;
• seasonal ponds and ditches – components
of other farming systems that become inundated for a period of the year, allowing fish
stocking and culture;
• livestock–fish integration systems featuring
chickens, ducks or pigs – typically involving
the placement of a livestock pen or cage over
or next to a fish pond so that waste feed and
manure drop into the pond, directly feeding
the fish or fertilizing the water to increase
primary productivity;
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
241
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
• rice–fish systems – integration of fish and
other aquatic species into rice paddies. This
typically requires specific water-management
practices to provide sufficient water for the
aquatic species, which may be wild species
that enter the system of their own accord or
species (fish or shrimps) that are deliberately
introduced; and
• a few examples involving shrimp (in coastal
areas) and prawn (in freshwater areas) –
integration may involve rotational cropping,
i.e. alternation with rice production. In more
brackish water, shrimp may be integrated
with fish, seaweeds or molluscs. The more
traditional systems are tidal trap ponds that
capture wild aquatic species, which may or
may not be fed.
Integrated systems have been advocated as a
means of increasing land- and water-use efficiency
and nutrient recycling (Nhan et al., 2006). However,
studies have shown that integrated systems are
complex to manage, as maximizing benefits to
farmers while minimizing negative environmental
impacts not only requires good management of the
pond subsystem itself, but also effective integration of the subsystem with other farming activities
(Dabbadie and Mikolasek, 2015).
Rice–fish farming is probably one of the oldest
integrated fish–crop systems, and developed
through a kind of co-evolution between agriculture and aquaculture. Once found mostly in
Asia, it has now spread to other regions of the
world (Halwart and Gupta, 2004). In some countries, such as Madagascar, it is the dominant fishproduction system and plays a major role in diversifying diets and improving nutrition, particularly
in remote rural areas. The system has sometimes
been introduced in response to external drivers.
For example, in Senegal, after two decades of
drought had led to expansion of mangrove areas
and a resulting salinization of surface and ground
water, lowland rice farmers built fishponds along
the foreshore to protect their fields against the
inflow of salt water and began to produce fish
(Diallo, 1998; cited by Halwart and Gupta, 2004).
Among the country reports, Burkina Faso mentions
242
that it is testing the application of rice–fish
farming at three pilot sites to explore the system’s
potential for use on a larger scale.
Around the world, integrated aquaculture
remains the main gateway into sustainable fish production (or sustainable intensification of fish production) for small- or medium-scale farmers who
lack access to inputs such as good-quality feeds.
It is seen as an efficient way of recycling nutrients
and organic matter (Ahmed, Ward and Saint, 2014;
Billard, 1986; Edwards, 1980; Moriarty and Pullin,
eds., 1987) and can provide economic benefits at a
level similar to (and frequently much higher than)
those obtainable from alternative agricultural
or other rural activities (Berg, 2002; Nhan et al.,
2007; Simon and Benhamou, 2009). Despite these
benefits, the development of integrated aquaculture faces a number of challenges. The most
significant are probably commercial, cultural and
legal, as many consumers around the world regard
the use of manures and similar organic matter as
problematic. The use of such wastes in animal
production is forbidden by law in some countries.
Regulatory issues of this kind, along with the
complexity involved in the management of integrated systems and the increasing availability and
affordability of fish-farming feeds in Asia in recent
decades, may be responsible for the sharp decline
in integrated aquaculture observed in this region
and elsewhere (Edwards, 2015).
Another challenge to the development of integrated aquaculture is the fact that such systems
have upper yield limits associated with internal
effects such as decreasing oxygen levels, caused
by the addition of organic matter to the water,
and the possible accumulation of toxic compounds (ammonia, nitrite, etc.). While integrated
aquaculture is an economically viable activity in
many regions of the world, it is not expected to
be able to meet predicted future levels of demand
for fish. However, the current global imbalance
in the production and use of organic waste and
manures may create opportunities for integrated
aquaculture to reinvent itself through the development of technologies such as insect or plankton
production (Edwards, 2015).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 5.6
An example of an aquaponic system
The biological components in the aquaponic process: fish, plants and bacteria
Fish producing waste
(including ammonia)
Bacteria converting
ammonia to nitrate
H2O
+
Nutrients
Plants utilizing
nitrate
H2O
Air pump
H2O
Water flow
Oxygen for plants
and fish
Air
Fish tank
Source: Somerville et al., 2014.
Aquaponics
Aquaponics is the symbiotic integration of
aquaculture (fish farming) and hydroponics
(the cultivation of plants in water without soil)
within a closed recirculating system (FAO, 2016k)
(Figure 5.6). Given that it combines crop and
aquatic production, aquaponics can be regarded
as a specialized kind of mixed production system.
From the aquatic perspective, it can be considered a specialized kind of integrated multitrophic
aquaculture (IMTA) (see below).
Aquaponics is regarded as a potential way of
obtaining higher yields with less labour, less land,
less fertilizer, less pesticide and much less water
usage, and of overcoming some of the challenges
confronting traditional agriculture in the face of
freshwater shortages, climate change, soil degradation and the need to reduce the nutrient pollution of waterbodies (FAO, 2016k). It works well in
places where the soil is poor and water is scarce,
for example in urban areas (aquaponics systems
can be set up in locations such as backyards, rooftops and balconies), in arid zones and on low-lying
islands (ibid.).
Recirculating aquaculture systems and hydroponics have both become widespread because
of (among other benefits) the high yields and
high-quality products they supply, their efficient
use of land and water and their easy management
(including in terms of pollution control) (Somerville
et al., 2014). However, combining these two systems
(i.e. aquaponics) can be complicated and expensive,
and requires reliable access to electricity, fish seed
and plant seed (ibid.). Another factor that needs to
be considered before investing in large commercial
aquaponics systems is access to markets where consumers are willing to pay premium prices for locally
produced, pesticide-free vegetables (FAO, 2016k).
The main benefits and challenges of aquaponics
are summarized in Table 5.6.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
243
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 5.6
Major benefits and challenges of aquaponic food production
Benefits
• Sustainable and intensive food production
• Two products (fish and vegetables) produced from one nitrogen source
(fish food)
Challenges
• High initial start-up costs compared with soil vegetable production
or hydroponics
• Knowledge of fish, bacteria and plant production needed
• Extremely water efficient
• Fish and plant requirements do not always match perfectly
• Does not require soil
• Not recommended in places where cultured fish and plants cannot
• Does not use fertilizers or chemical pesticides
• High yields and high-quality products
• Organic-like management and production
meet their optimal temperature ranges
• Reduced management choices compared with stand-alone
aquaculture or hydroponic systems (no pesticides for the plants,
no antibiotics for the fish)
• High levels of biosecurity and low risks from external contaminants
• Mistakes or accidents can cause collapse of the system
• High control of production leading to lower losses
• Daily management mandatory
• Can be used on non-arable land such as deserts, degraded soil or
• Energy demanding
salty, sandy islands
• Creates little waste
• Daily tasks, harvesting and planting are labour-saving
• Requires reliable access to electricity, fish seed and plant seed
• Aquaponics alone will not provide a complete diet
• Provides economical production of either family food or cash crops
• Construction materials and information base are widely available
Source: Adapted from Somerville et al. (2014).
Polyculture in the context of aquaculture
In the context of aquaculture, the term polyculture
refers to the production of more than one aquatic
species in the same pond or system. The motivating
principle behind this approach is that raising a combination of species with complementary feeding
habits and niches in the same system means that
food and water resources can be utilized more efficiently and production per unit area maximized.
However, although the feeding niches of some
of the species used in polyculture are reasonably
well known, predicting synergies and antagonisms
between species remains difficult. The balance
between complementarity and competition among
the cultured species is therefore a key issue in polyculture (Azim and Little, 2006).
Polyculture originally referred to the practice
of raising multiple fish species in a pond-culture
system. However, the concept has expanded to
include the raising of multiple aquatic species
belonging to a range of taxa in a range of different contexts. A polyculture unit in this sense may
involve several diverse components, for example a
fish cage, a seaweed bed and shellfish lines. Goals
have shifted from a simple focus on maximizing
244
production efficiency to encompass other objectives such as improving water quality. Systems that
specifically target production at different trophic
levels are becoming more widespread. The first
subsection below discusses polyculture in its traditional sense in the context of fishponds. The next
subsection provides a brief overview of marine
polyculture systems and the next expands on the
concept of IMTA.
Fish-pond polyculture
Fish-pond polyculture involves a range of different practices. For example, Rahman, Varga and
Chowdhury eds. (1992) distinguish three main types
(extensive, semi-intensive and intensive systems),
based on levels of management (i.e. fish stocking
density and combination, nutritional inputs, etc.).
• Extensive polyculture involves no addition
of nutritional inputs (i.e. manure or feed) to
the system. The polycultured animals depend
solely on the food that is naturally available
in the environment. Such systems provide
lower fish production yields than intensive
systems, but they also require much less
effort and are less costly.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
• Semi-intensive practices involve the addition of manure to promote growth of phytoplankton, but do not involve adding feed
supplements, or only in very limited amounts.
Such systems, therefore, require additional
expenditure, but also provide higher output
than extensive systems.
• Intensive systems provide the highest levels
of output, but are also the most expensive
to operate. They involve the use of highquality pellet feed that covers all the nutritional requirements of the cultivated animals.
They also involve the use of water aeration and recirculation techniques to ensure
water quality remains high. Because of these
feeding and management methods, intensive
systems are able to maintain higher stocking
densities than the other types of system.
Another way of classifying polyculture systems
is on the basis of spatial organization. In this
respect, the three main types are direct, cage-cumpond and sequential.
• Direct polyculture involves housing two or
more species in the same pond or aquaculture unit, without partitioning. This means
that there may be direct contact between the
species, so extra aeration is often required
(depending on stocking densities) to ensure
there is sufficient oxygen in the system.
• Cage-cum-pond polyculture also involves
housing more than one species in the same
pond. However, at least one species is kept
within a cage or net-like enclosure to separate it from the other(s).
• Sequential polyculture is an integrated aquaculture system in which water flows through
a series of units, each housing a separate
species. This system requires more space
and greater energy input, and therefore has
higher costs. However, it can be very useful
in situations where there are antagonistic
relationships or competition between the
cultured species.
Where the country reports are concerned,
detailed descriptions of polyculture practices come
largely from Europe. Poland states that its aqua-
culture sector focuses mainly on freshwater fish, in
particular the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and
the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The
former is often bred in semi-intensive polyculture
systems and fed on non-processed grain. In these
systems, the most important species raised with
the European carp is the Chinese carp (Procypris
mera), followed by the crucian carp (Carassius
carassius), tench and sturgeons. Sturgeons are
the most important group of species raised with
trout. Hungary mentions the use of seven major
fish species in polyculture, with carp being the
most frequently used.
Fish-pond polyculture practices provide numerous benefits. The presence of multiple species
with different feeding habits promotes effective use of food resources. For example, partially
digested excreta from the macrovegetationfeeding grass carp can be eaten by the bottomdwelling coprofagous European carp (Rahman,
Varga and Chowdhury, eds., 1992). Multiple
predator species can reduce the prevalence of
trophic deadlocks53 (Lazard and Dabbadie, 2002).
Polyculture can also enhance the availability of
natural foods within the system. For example,
the feeding actions of fish such as the common
carp and the bottom-dwelling mrigal (Cirrhinus
mrigala) resuspend nutrients in the water and
aerate sediments, thus promoting nutrient cycling
(Rahman, Varga and Chowdhury, eds., 1992).
Polyculture can also contribute to improving
water quality and the control of undesirable
organisms. For example, stocking phytoplanktophagous silver and variegated carp helps to keep
harmful algal blooms (a very common phenomenon in most tropical manure-fed ponds) under
control. Various predators of tilapia fry are used
to control pond overpopulation in semi-intensive
polyculture systems (Bogne Sadeu et al., 2013;
Dabbadie, 1996; Kaewpaitoon, 1992; El Nagar,
2007). Another benefit of polyculture can be
an increase in the nutritional quality of the fish
harvest (Box 5.13).
53
A trophic deadlock is a component of the food web that is not
consumed by any other.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
245
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.13
Fish polyculture for improved nutrition – an example from Bangladesh
Studies in rural Bangladesh have shown that small fish
make up 50 percent to 80 percent of the total fish intake
of the local population in the peak fish-production season.
Although they are consumed in small quantities, the
frequency of small-fish intake is high. As many species are
eaten whole – complete with head, viscera and bones – they
are particularly rich in bioavailable calcium, and some are
also rich in vitamin A, iron and zinc. In areas where suitable
fish resources are available and fish is consumed on a
regular basis, there is scope for agricultural policies and
programmes to promote the production of micronutrient-rich
small fish and thereby increase people’s fish consumption
and improve their nutrition and health.
The results of many studies and field trials conducted
in Bangladesh with carps and small fish species in pond
polyculture have shown that the presence of the small,
native, vitamin A-rich mola carplet (Amblypharyngodon
mola) greatly improves the nutritional quality of the total
fish harvest, without affecting the growth of the carps.
Mola breed in the pond, and the frequent harvesting of
small quantities favours home consumption. Production
of only 10 kg of mola/pond/year in the estimated 4 million
small seasonal ponds in Bangladesh could meet the annual
recommended fish intake of 6 million children.
Challenges involved in fish-pond polyculture
include the need to strike the right balance
between complementarity and competition
among the fish species used (Lazard and Dabbadie,
2002). Stocking density has to be carefully controlled. If it is too high, fish yields decrease, as
there is less naturally available food per individual
animal. Another complicating factor is the need
to sort the different fish species at harvest time,
which involves extra work and negatively affects
the benefit−cost ratio of the system (ibid.).
Marine systems
Several types of marine aquaculture involve the
integrated use of multiple species (Troell, 2009).
Such systems include those in which several species
246
Bangladeshi woman showing mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) cultured
in her backyard pond. ©WorldFish.
Successful trials with the polyculture of small and large
fish species have also been conducted in rice fields and
wetlands. The approach, therefore, has the potential to be
widely implemented. However, to fully realize its potential
to improve nutrition, further data are needed on nutrient
bioavailability, on intrahousehold seasonal consumption
and on cleaning, processing and cooking methods for small
fish species.
Sources: FAO, 2016k and Thilsted, 2012.
are raised in a pond/tank/cage, those involving
sequential integration (in which a flow of wastes
is directed between culture units containing different species), and those involving temporal integration (in which species are housed sequentially
within the same holding site, with the species
housed later in the sequence benefiting from
the wastes generated by those housed earlier).
Sequential practices include systems that involve
the use of mangroves as biofilters. These latter
systems can be viewed as a kind of integrated
aquaculture in the sense discussed above (i.e. to
involve “cross-sectoral” integration of aquaculture
and forestry). Although integrated approaches
(whether cross-sectoral or within aquaculture)
generally appear to be less widely applied in
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
marine than in freshwater environments, the need
to mitigate the problem of excess nutrient/organic
matter generation in intensive aquaculture has
helped to drive interest in the concept of IMTA.
Integrated multitrophic aquaculture
As the name implies, the distinguishing feature of
IMTA is the explicit incorporation of species from
different trophic levels (Chopin and Robinson,
2004). Barrington, Chopin and Robinson (2009)
describe IMTA as an approach that combines the
cultivation of fed aquaculture species (e.g. finfish/
shrimp) with that of species (e.g. shellfish/herbivorous fish) that filter organic matter (e.g. uneaten
feed and faeces) from the water and species (e.g.
seaweed) that extract dissolved inorganic nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus).
IMTA is based on the premise that combining
aquatic production at different trophic levels can
allow aquaculture to have a minimal impact on
the environment while improving the profitability
of raising multiple species. Although it has been
demonstrated that, in many cases, IMTA provides
economic benefits, it may not always provide
significant benefit to fish farmers in terms of
directly increasing their profits (Troell, 2009). This
may not matter, however, if IMTA provides the
farmers with other benefits, such as improving
their ability to meet environmental standards. This
latter benefit may prove decisive from the commercial point of view, as it may increase market
access. Possible challenges to the expansion of
IMTA systems include issues related to the social
acceptance of the technology in some parts of the
world and those related to managing integration
at the level of the production area rather than at
the level of the individual operator. The ecological functioning of IMTA also needs to be better
understood. Much progress has been made in
recent years in terms of improving understanding
of nutrient recycling, mitigation of benthic impact
and various other benefits provided by IMTA
(e.g. control of diseases or sea lice). However,
there is a need for further research to support the
development of efficient site-specific guidelines
for sustainable operations.
Status and trends
There appears to be no systematic global monitoring of the status and trends in the application of
diversification practices in aquaculture. However,
it is clear that the relative contributions of the
various types of systems described in this section
are changing in response to economic transformations, technical developments, constraints on
space, system intensification, climate change,
diseases and other drivers (Chopin et al., 2001;
Edwards, 2015; Powell et al., 2018; Somerville et
al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015):
• Extensive integrated aquaculture is declining, mainly due to pressures on land and
water resources. There is a tendency towards
monoculture systems with higher-intensity
production.
• Some polyculture systems may be losing
ground, as the high value of certain species
and the specialization of operations tend to
favour the raising of single rather than multiple species.
• Water-quality, environment and health issues
are driving efforts to explore innovative
approaches to integration that help to limit
water exchange and reduce effluent impacts
in some freshwater and brackishwater systems.
• Health and disease issues are forcing some
intensive systems to mix species.
• Increasing interest in the use of marine space
for aquaculture and the environmental constraints to this are providing incentives for
integrated mariculture.
• Urbanization and interest in smallholder
vegetable and fish culture are helping to
drive the emergence of aquaponics.
Countries’ responses on the status and trends
of the adoption of polyculture and aquaponics in
different production systems are summarized in
Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. Nearly half of the 25 countries that report the adoption of polyculture and/
or aquaponics indicate that these practices are
used in fed aquaculture systems. One-third of
these indicate the use of these practices in mixed
production systems. While the number of countries
reporting these practices is low, increasing trends
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
247
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
are more commonly reported than decreasing
trends across all the production systems where
they are reported to be present.
5.5.5 Needs and priorities
Despite the diversity of the various practices
described in the subsections above, some common
needs and priorities can be identified. Obtaining
more-complete knowledge of where diversification is likely to bring the greatest benefits with
respect to production, sustainability and the delivery of ecosystem services is a key concern. Given
that diversification practices often cut across
the boundaries of traditional disciplines, crosssectoral collaboration is essential in this regard.
The further development and wider application of the “options-by-context” approach (see
Section 5.5.3) or of similar approaches that relate
general diversification concepts to specific benefits in particular situations may be helpful in
identifying desirable diversification pathways.
This needs to take account of the ways in which
diversification fits into the wider production landscape and to reflect not only the characteristics of
the production system and relevant markets, but
also stakeholder concerns and interests. The full
involvement of all stakeholders and the development of governance systems that can take account
of differences in objectives and interests is an
important aspect of effective diversification.
A major constraint identified for many types
of diversification initiative is a lack of availability
of the materials needed, whether crop varieties,
animal breeds or populations of aquatic or forest
species. The supply of planting materials is identified as particularly important for agroforestry
species, but is mentioned by countries in a range
of different contexts. There is a need for new and
imaginative supply systems – supported by relevant national institutions – that satisfy producers’
requirements for appropriate, high-quality material at the right time. This will require not only
improved delivery of diverse and well-adapted
materials to where they are needed – a major challenge in itself – but also conserving and developing
them. Many widely used varieties and breeds have
248
been developed for use in high-input, standardized production systems, and may not provide the
best returns under the approaches described in
this section and elsewhere in this chapter.
There are significant market issues involved
in diversification, and demand aspects are as
important as supply ones. Appropriate policies
can play an important role. The country reports
provide a number of examples of where and how
these can help. Improved partnerships between
the private and public sectors are also desirable.
Other important elements in the implementation of effective diversification strategies include
support from national agricultural extension
systems, clear identification of benefits for producers and a willingness to build producer capacity and knowledge. Also important is the need to
monitor the effectiveness of diversification projects and programmes from various perspectives,
including overall effectiveness in terms of productivity, livelihoods, sustainability and effects
on the status of BFA.
5.6 Management practices and
production approaches
• Countries report that management practices and
production approaches promoting the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and
agriculture (BFA) are increasingly being used.
• Organic agriculture continues to expand with
support from governments and NGOs. Certified
organic agriculture now (2018) covers 58 million ha
worldwide, more than 1 percent of global agricultural
land. Monitoring non-certified organic agriculture is
difficult and this reduces the accuracy of trend data.
• A wide variety of management practices are
increasingly being used to preserve and enhance soil
biodiversity, although global data on implementation
are uneven and limited. Countries generally identify
the need to expand monitoring of beneficial soil
species and improve the development and application
of sustainable soil management practices.
• Conservation agriculture (an approach based on
minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining soil cover
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
•
•
•
•
and crop diversification) is already practised on
180 million ha, over 12 percent of global arable land,
and has been increasing at a rate of 10 million ha/year
for the last decade.
Although countries appear to indicate an increase in
the uptake of integrated plant nutrient management,
data are too limited to allow firm statements about
trends. Better indicators are needed to support global
monitoring efforts.
Awareness of the benefits of integrated pest
management among consumers, farmers, governments
and international agencies is increasing and its use is
increasing in most production systems.
Pollination management is widespread and countries
report that it is increasingly being implemented.
Promoting pollinators can be done through a variety
of management choices at farm and ecosystem levels,
mainly by increasing habitat diversity, reducing
the use of potentially harmful products and avoiding
soil disturbance.
Many BFA-focused practices are relatively complex
and require a good understanding of the local
ecosystem. They can be knowledge intensive,
context specific and provide benefits only in the
relatively long term. Capacity development and
technical and policy support are needed in order
to overcome these challenges and promote wider
implementation.
This section discusses various management practices and production approaches that may favour
the conservation and sustainable use of BFA.
The practices and approaches in question were
presented in the country-reporting guidelines
as “practices that are considered to favour the
maintenance and use of BFA.”54 Countries were
invited to report on the extent of implementation
of each practice or approach, on trends in the level
of implementation over the preceding ten years
and on the impacts the practice or approach has
on BFA (see Table 5.1, Table 5.2 and Figure 5.1 for
summaries of responses).
54
Some of the practices and approaches included in the
guidelines in this context are discussed above in the sections on
ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches (Section 5.3)
and on diversification in production systems (Section 5.5).
The list of practices and approaches discussed
should not be considered exhaustive. Moreover, as
noted in the introduction to this chapter, although
each practice or approach is presented separately,
there are many linkages and overlaps between
them. Many are based on similar underlying principles. It should also be noted that the main objective
in this section is to review the status and trends of
implementation of each practice or approach rather
than to draw definitive conclusions regarding their
impacts on BFA. Each subsection introduces the
respective practice or approach, reviews literature
(where available) on its status and trends and discusses the respective country-report responses.
5.6.1 Organic agriculture
Organic agriculture is described in the countryreporting guidelines as “a production management system which promotes and enhances agroecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological
cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the
use of management practices in preference to the
use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that
regional conditions require locally adapted systems.
This is accomplished by using, where possible,
agronomic, biological and mechanical methods, as
opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfil any
specific function within the system.”55 While some
production systems managed in this way are certified as organic by official bodies, others – especially
in non-OECD countries – are not. Many farms that
practise de facto organic agriculture are not certified. Organic standards can be applied to any type
of production system, including crop, livestock,
aquaculture, beekeeping, forest and mixed systems.
Major commodities produced under organic standards include bananas, cocoa, coffee, cotton, forest
products, palm oil, soybeans, cane sugar and tea
(Willer and Lernoud, 2018), although most commodities are now available in certified organic form.56
Characteristics of organic agriculture include
maximized use of natural alternatives to synthetic
55
56
This definition is adapted from FAO and WHO (1999).
Statistics on organic production can be found on the FiBL
Statistics website: http://statistics.fibl.org/world.html
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
249
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
inputs (pesticides, fertilizers, veterinary products, etc.), a focus on soil health (use of compost,
minimal tillage, cover crops, green manure, etc.),
diversification of species, breeds or varieties (polyculture, rotations, companion crops, animal–plant
integration, etc.), maintenance or establishment
of semi-natural habitats (grass strips, flower strips,
hedges, etc.), livestock management that privileges animal welfare (cage-free management,
access to open fields, etc.), sustainable pasture
management and use of local feed sources
(IFOAM, 2017). The production of irradiated
products and genetically modified organisms,
and their use in animal feed, is not allowed (ibid.).
Because of the environmental benefits it provides,
organic agriculture is considered to be an (agri)
environmental indicator by institutions such as the
OECD, FAO, the European Environmental Agency
and Eurostat (EEA, 2016; Eurostat, 2011, 2018;
FAO, 2018p; OECD, 2013). Certification standards
for organic aquaculture remain controversial,
with debate continuing on issues such as recirculation or containment systems, feed sources, use
of hormones, breeding techniques and conversion
periods (Willer and Lernoud, 2018).
Production systems managed under organic
standards are tightly linked to the surrounding
ecosystems (except for those in high-containment
greenhouses). In organic crop production, for
example, management involves harnessing ecosystem services such as biological pest control,
pollination, nutrient cycling and water retention
as direct or indirect substitutes for off-farm inputs
such as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers (MEA,
2005b). Ecosystem services are delivered by associated biodiversity communities and several studies
have shown increases in the abundance and diversity of such communities in organic production
systems (Bengtsson, Ahnström and Weibull, 2005;
Costanzo and Bàrberi, 2013; Gaston and Spicer,
2004). The categories of associated biodiversity
that benefit most from organic management in
terms of abundance and diversity are birds, predatory and parasitoid insects, spiders, pollinators,
soil-dwelling organisms and field flora (FiBL,
2016; Reganold and Wachter, 2016). For example,
250
establishing permanent strips of flowering plants
at the margins of crop fields attracts pollinators
(see Section 5.6.7) and arthropod biological pest
control agents (see Section 5.6.6) by providing
them with shelter and alternative food sources
(Landis, Wratten and Gurr, 2000).
According to the Research Institute of Organic
Agriculture, 57.8 million ha of agricultural land
(1.2 percent of the global total), including at least
15 million ha of cropland and almost 38 million ha
of grassland,57 and involving 2.7 million producers,58 were under organic production or under
conversion to organic production in 2016.
Worldwide, the area of organic agricultural land
has increased five-fold since 1999 (Willer and
Lernoud, 2018). Certified organic products remain
a small percentage of the total volume of aquaculture production. As of 2016, the reported global
total was about 415 000 tonnes (an increase of
8 percent on the preceding year), although the
figures exclude a number of countries with major
aquaculture industries (ibid.). Organic beekeeping is reported in 63 countries and accounts for
2.1 million beehives59 (2.3 percent of the world’s
beehives based on FAOSTAT data for 2016) (ibid.).
Table 5.7 presents a number of indicators of the
status of organic agriculture globally.
The difficulty involved in monitoring non-official
organic production systems is an important factor
contributing to gaps in information on the status
and trends of organic agriculture. Many smallholder farms (e.g. low-input or traditional systems)
may produce according to organic standards but
not be recognized as such by official bodies, for
example because of a lack of regulatory frameworks, difficulties regulatory bodies may have in
reaching and assessing sites, or farmers’ inability to
pay certification fees or to access the international
57
58
59
The remaining area is accounted for by “other agricultural
land” (e.g. hedges) and agricultural land for which no details of
use are available.
The figures are considered to be underestimates, as some
countries report numbers of companies, projects or grower
groups that may involve a number of individual producers.
46 percent of these are reported in Latin America and
42 percent in Europe.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 5.7
Indicators of the status of organic agriculture worldwide
Indicator
World
Countries with organic production systems
Top regions
178
Organic agricultural land
57.8 million ha
Organic share of total agricultural land
1.2%
Number of producers*
2.7 million
Number of countries with organic regulations (2015)
87
Size of organic market
USD 89.7 billion
Oceania: 27.3 million ha
Europe: 13.5 million ha
Latin America: 7.1 million ha
Oceania: 6.5%
Europe: 2.7%
Asia: 1 080 000
Africa: 729 000
Latin America: 459 000
Europe: 39
The Americas and the Caribbean: 21
North America: USD 46.3 billion
Europe: USD 35 billion
Notes: Data as of 2016. *The number of producers may be an underestimate as some countries that contributed data reported numbers
of companies, projects or grower groups that may involve a number of individual producers.
Source: Willer and Lernoud, 2018.
organic market. Participatory guarantee schemes
and internal control systems are alternative certification frameworks recognized by some governments (e.g. India and Brazil) for internal markets
(Gould, 2007). Such frameworks allow groups of
smallholders to assert that their production follows
organic standards (or other rules such as fair trade)
in a self-organized way, enabling them to access
premium markets and to be recognized by official
bodies at relatively low costs (ibid.).
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries to provide information on the extent of use
of organic agriculture in different productions
systems.60 Reponses are summarized in Table 5.1
and Table 5.2. Forty-seven out of 91 countries
(84 percent of reporting OECD members and
43 percent of reporting non-OECD members) indicate that organic management is practised in at
least one production-system category. The systems
where organic agriculture is most frequently
reported are rainfed crop systems, irrigated (nonrice) crop systems and mixed systems. Organic
production is less frequently reported in livestock
and forest systems, and fewer than five countries
report organic aquaculture. For all productionsystem categories but one, upward trends in the
extent of organic production are more commonly
reported than downward trends.
The generally positive trends in the levels of
adoption of organic agriculture are reflected in
the fact that many country reports refer to policies
aimed at promoting the expansion of organic agriculture. For example, Bhutan notes its objective
of becoming 100 percent organic by 2020. Costa
Rica mentions that its National Development Plan
2014–2018 projects a 20 percent increase in the
area of organic farmland. Jordan reports that
expansion of organic agriculture is targeted in its
National Programme for Organic Farming (2009)
and that it has established a section in the Ministry
of Agriculture dedicated to organic production.
A number of countries mention long-standing
schemes supporting and monitoring organic agriculture, for example the Federal Programme for
Organic Farming and Other Forms of Sustainable
Agriculture in Germany and the National Organic
Program in the United States of America.
5.6.2 Low external input agriculture
60
The questionnaire did not draw a distinction between certified
and uncertified organic production.
The term “low external input agriculture” (LEIA)
was coined to refer to a set of agronomic practices
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
251
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
that involve reduced use of inputs (seeds, agrochemicals, irrigation water, fuel, etc.) from outside
the production system.61 The country-reporting
guidelines defined LEIA as “production activities
that use synthetic fertilizers or pesticides below
rates commonly recommended for industrial
tillage agriculture. It does not mean elimination
of these materials. Yields are maintained through
greater emphasis on agronomic practices, integrated pest management, and utilization of
on-farm resources (especially labour) and management.” LEIA in this sense refers to strategies
that aim to reduce the need for external inputs
rather than to the mere absence of their use, for
example because producers are unable to afford
or access them. The presence of “default” LEIA of
the latter kind is noted in a number of country
reports from Africa. There is a major difference
between systems that just mine natural resources
because inputs are unavailable, resulting in low
productivity and declining production, and those
that involve strategies that reduce losses from
the system and allow low use of external inputs
without sacrificing production or sustainability (see for example Box 5.17). The various LEIA
movements active in developing countries aim
to develop strategies that can help achieve food
security while maintaining a low ecological footprint (Graves, Matthews and Waldie, 2004) and
are well suited for implementation by resourcepoor farmers (Tripp, 2006; Vaessen and De Groot,
2003). In developed countries the term LEIA can
be applied to various strategies that depart from
“conventional” high external input practices.
Key LEIA methods include the use of green
and animal manures and crop diversification in
time and space (Graves, Matthews and Waldie,
2004; Liebman and Davis, 2000; Parr et al., 1990;
61
Low external input agriculture has been given a number of
different names, for example “low external input technology
(LEIT)” (Tripp, 2005, 2006), “low input farming systems”
(Parr et al., 1990), “low-external-input (LEI) farming systems”
(Liebman and Davis, 2000), “low external input agriculture
technologies” (Moser and Barret, 2003), “low external input
strategies” (Yengoh and Svensson, 2008) and “low external
input sustainable agriculture (LEISA)” (Mendoza, 2002).
252
Yengoh and Svensson, 2008). Herbicide, insecticide and fungicide use is limited or avoided so
as to increase the potential for biological control
by natural enemies (Geiger et al., 2010). Practices
such as crop rotation, intercropping and the use
of cover crops disrupt the life cycles and dispersal
of pests, diseases and weeds (Liebman and Davis,
2000). Crops and crop residues with allelopathic
effects can also be used to combat weeds (ibid.).
Crop diversification also promotes improvements
to soil structure, efficient nutrient cycling and
nitrogen fixation (if legumes are included) (Davis
et al., 2012; Duru et al., 2015; Power, 2010). The
use of these various techniques means that farms
managed under LEIA are likely to harbour higher
levels of associated biodiversity than conventional
farms (Geiger et al., 2010). LEIA approaches may
be more labour intensive and provide less output
than high external input alternatives (Graves,
Matthews and Waldie, 2004). However, in terms
of profitability lower output may be compensated
for by lower expenditure on inputs and higher
prices for products (Poux, 2008).
The uptake of LEIA systems (i.e. the deliberate
adoption of strategies such as those mentioned
above rather than the default absence of external inputs because of lack of availability) often
requires a redesign of the agroecosystem and
investment in items such as extra soil amendments, additional crops for diversification, extra
labour (human or animal) and training (Moser
and Barret, 2003; Tripp, 2005, 2006; Yengoh and
Svensson, 2008). The need for these extra investments explains, at least partly, why the adoption of proposed LEIA strategies has not always
been successful in developing countries (Graves,
Matthews and Waldie, 2004; Moser and Barret,
2003). For example, a LEIA scheme that was
shown to be capable of increasing rice yields in
smallholders’ fields in Madagascar from 2 tonnes/
ha to 4–6 tonnes/ha proved to be unattractive to
farmers, as it required additional labour (at a time
of year when demand was already high) and training (Moser and Barret, 2003).
Country responses on trends in the use of
LEIA are summarized in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Of the 91 reporting countries, 33 indicate that
LEIA is practised in one or more of their production system categories. LEIA is most frequently
reported (as a proportion of the total number
of countries reporting the respective system) for
crop and mixed systems. Where information is
provided on the extent to which LEIA is practised,
figures vary greatly across countries and production systems. However, the trends in adoption are
generally increasing or mixed.
5.6.3 Management practices
to preserve and enhance soil
biodiversity
The Revised World Soil Charter defines sustainable
soil management as follows:
Soil management is sustainable if the
supporting, provisioning, regulating,
and cultural services provided by soil are
maintained or enhanced without significantly
impairing the soil functions that enable those
services. The balance between the supporting
and provisioning services for plant production
and the regulating services the soil provides
for water quality and availability and for
atmospheric greenhouse gas composition is a
particular concern (FAO, 2015e).
The definition can encompass a wide variety of
specific management practices and broader production strategies or approaches. Working on the
basis of this definition, the Voluntary Guidelines
for Sustainable Soil Management (Box 5.14)
include a number of recommendations on how
to “preserve and enhance soil biodiversity.” This
section presents a short overview of the status of
adoption of practices and approaches that preserve and enhance soil biodiversity in the context
of food and agriculture. Many of the practices and
approaches mentioned are discussed in greater
detail in other sections in this chapter.
The presence of a range of species and organisms capable of supporting critical soil processes
is essential to soil health and productivity, particularly in the face of changing environmental conditions. Maintaining soil biodiversity is
thus a vital aspect of sustainable soil manage-
ment. Interventions can involve both the direct
manipulation of the biological community (e.g.
introduction of beneficial organisms) and indirect
interventions that alter or maintain the environment in ways that favour the presence of beneficial species or biodiversity in general. The impacts
of various management practices on soil biodiversity are reviewed by Beed et al. (2017), Briones
and Schmidt (2017), Cock et al. (2012), D’Hose et
al. (2018), FAO and ITPS (2015), Lehmann et al.
(2011), Orgiazzi et al., eds. (2016) and Tsiafouli
et al. (2015). Key means of benefiting soil biodiversity include reducing the use of synthetic
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, maintaining
or increasing soil organic matter, and minimizing
soil erosion and disturbance. No-tillage agriculture, agroforestry and diversified cropping practices, for example, help to provide stable habitats
for soil organisms (Clapperton, Chan and Larney,
2007; Prabhu et al., 2015).
Implementation of several of the management
practices and approaches mentioned in other
sections of this chapter that can contribute to
the sustainable management of soil biodiversity
is reported to be increasing globally, including
agroecological approaches (Section 5.3.4), agroforestry (Section 5.5.3), conservation agriculture
(Section 5.6.4), integrated pest management
(Section 5.6.6), integrated plant nutrient management (Section 5.6.5), LEIA (Section 5.6.2), push–
pull strategies (Box 5.18) and organic agriculture
(Section 5.6.1). However, while the extent of
implementation of organic agriculture and agroforestry is relatively well documented, data on the
implementation of many sustainable soil management practices at global or regional scales are
limited. Project data can provide snapshots of the
extent of adoption of particular practices in particular locations. For example, the Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa Soil Health Programme
led to the adoption of integrated soil fertility
management practices by 1.8 million smallholder
farmers (FAO and ITPS, 2015).
Countries were invited to report on the proportion of land on which sustainable soil management is implemented and on trends in the use
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
253
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.14
The Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management
The Voluntary Guidelines for
Sustainable Soil Management
(FAO, 2017l) aim to provide
generally accepted, practically
proven and scientifically
based principles that promote
sustainable soil management,
whether for farming,
pastoralism, forestry or more
general natural-resources
management. The guidelines were developed to serve as a
reference for a wide variety of stakeholders, ranging from
government officials and policy-makers to farmers. They
were adopted by the Fourth Meeting of the Global Soil
Partnership Plenary Assembly (May 2016), approved by the
Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Committee on Agriculture
(September 2016) and endorsed by the 155th Session
of the FAO Council (December 2016).
Because soils provide one of the largest reservoirs of
biodiversity on Earth, and soil organisms play key roles in
the delivery of many ecosystem services, Section 3.7 of the
Voluntary Guidelines is dedicated to addressing the issue
of preserving and enhancing soil biodiversity. Although little
is currently known about the precise relationships
between the diversity of soil biological communities and
the maintenance of core soil functions, new biochemical
techniques and tools for DNA analysis suggest significant
progress in this area is possible.
The recommendations provided in the Voluntary
Guidelines on how to preserve and enhance soil biodiversity
are presented below:
“3.7 Preserve and enhance soil biodiversity
• Soils provide one of the largest reservoirs of
biodiversity on earth, and soil organisms play key
roles in the delivery of many ecosystem services. Little
is known about the degree of biodiversity required
to maintain core soil functions, but new tools for
biochemical techniques and DNA analysis suggest
significant progress in this area is possible;
• Monitoring programs for soil biodiversity, including
biological indicators (e.g. community ecotoxicology)
and in-situ early warning signals, should be undertaken;
254
• Soil organic matter levels supporting soil biodiversity
should be maintained or enhanced through the
provision of sufficient vegetative cover (e.g.
cover crops, multiple crops), optimal nutrient
additions, addition of diverse organic amendments,
minimizing soil disturbance, avoiding salinization,
and maintaining or restoring vegetation such as
hedgerows and shelterbelts;
• The authorization and use of pesticides in agricultural
systems should be based on the recommendations
included in the International Code of Conduct
on Pesticide Management and relevant national
regulations. Integrated or organic pest management
should be encouraged;
• The use of nitrogen fixing leguminous species,
microbial inoculants, mycorrhizas (spores, hyphae,
and root fragments), earthworms and other beneficial
micro-, meso- and macro- soil organisms (e.g. beetle
banks) should be encouraged where appropriate, with
attention to limiting the risk of invasive processes by
promoting the use of local biodiversity and avoiding
the risk of disturbance in soil services;
• Restoring plant biodiversity in ecosystems, thereby
favouring soil biodiversity;
• In-field crop rotation, inter-cropping, and preservation
of field margins, hedges and biodiversity refuges
should be encouraged; and
• Any land use change in areas with high biodiversity
should be subject to land use planning and in line with
the UNCBD, UNCCD and other relevant international
instruments and with national law.”
Notes: UNCBD = United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity;
UNCCD = United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
of such practices.62 Of the 91 reporting countries,
39 reported the adoption of sustainable soil management practices. Responses are summarized in
Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. Sustainable soil management practices are reported for all land-based
production-system categories. In each case,
increases in implementation are indicated more
frequently than decreases. Depending on the
country and production system, the reported
percentage area currently under sustainable soil
management practices ranges from less than
0.002 percent to 100 percent.
A wide range of specific soil-management practices are reported. For example, countries report
beneficial effects on BFA from the implementation of organic agriculture, agroforestry, reduced
tillage, integrated soil fertility management,
cover cropping, crop diversification, crop rotation, crop associations and fallows. A few report
that shifting cultivation has a negative effect on
forest biodiversity. Chad, however, mentions that
if fallow periods are sufficiently long, the practice
offers opportunities to counteract deforestation
and forest degradation. Many countries report
management practices aimed at minimizing soil
erosion. For example, Peru and Cameroon both
mention the benefits of terracing and farming
along the contours of slopes. The United States of
America reports the use of windbreaks, shelterbelts and hedgerows to minimize the effects of
erosion by the wind. Several countries report the
use of various organic-matter inputs to improve
soil conditions, including compost, vermicompost,
biochar and mulch. For example, Niue mentions
62
Countries were provided with the following description and
examples of sustainable soil management practices based on
Swift (1999): “Management of soil biodiversity to enhance
agricultural production by both direct and indirect means,
including alteration of the abundance or activity of specific
groups of organisms through inoculation and/or direct
manipulation of soil biota. Indirect interventions may include
manipulation of the factors that control biotic activity (habitat
structure, microclimate, nutrients and energy resources) rather
than the organisms themselves such as the maintenance of
soil cover with organic mulch including crop residues, green
manure/cover crops including legumes, and compost to
increase soil organic matter, irrigation and liming, as well as
cropping system design and management.”
an initiative that included the establishment of
an organic-waste collection system to produce
compost for use as organic fertilizer. Burkina Faso’s
Operation Manure Pits is described in Box 5.15.
Countries were also invited to report on the
“management of micro-organisms”.63 Twelve countries report the use of such methods in crop production systems (irrigated and rainfed) and mixed
production systems, and ten countries report their
use in planted and naturally regenerated forests.
All these countries report that the use of the practice is increasing in these production systems.
A number of countries mention monitoring
programmes that assess soil conditions and thus
help to prevent the overuse of fertilizer. For
example, Switzerland describes the Swiss Soil
Monitoring Network, a long-term monitoring
programme for soils under various management
conditions that detects changes in soil properties
and thus helps promote long-term soil fertility
and allows the effectiveness of soil-protection
measures to be evaluated. Malaysia notes that
it monitors soil erosion and has elaborated an
erosion-risk map of Peninsular Malaysia. The
Netherlands’ soil biological monitoring programme is described in Box 4.6.
Several countries report policies and programmes aimed at supporting sustainable
soil-management practices. For example, both
Guinea and Senegal report that land-use and
land-allocation plans developed in collaboration
with various stakeholders provide frameworks for
the implementation of actions aimed at restoring
degraded soils. A number of countries report
that sustainable soil management is addressed
in their strategic plans for agriculture. A few
report payment schemes promoting the sustainable use of soil resources. For example, the United
Kingdom mentions that farmers benefiting from
the European Union’s basic payment scheme have
to fulfil certain soil-protection standards, such as
63
Defined in the country-reporting guidelines as the “intentional
incorporation, management or maintenance of … microorganisms into a production system e.g., inoculation of plants
and seeds with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, the addition of
probiotics in aquaculture and livestock, etc.”
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
255
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.15
Burkina Faso’s Operation Manure Pits
In 2001, the Government of Burkina Faso launched a national
programme known as Operation Manure Pits (Opération
Fosse Fumière) to increase the production of compost
using farmyard manure and crop residues. The aim of the
programme is to enhance or restore soil fertility by increasing
the application of compost to fields and hence to improve
yields. In the first phase of the programme, the government
helped smallholders acquire tools to construct manure pits
(with a recommended area of 3 m2 and a depth of 1.20 m), as
well as tools for the production and transport of compost.
During the growing season of 2006/2007, it was
observed that the production of organic matter did not meet
expectations in terms of quality and quantity. One of the
reasons was that livestock density per farm was too low to
produce sufficient manure to supply the fields with enough
fertilizer. In order to counteract the difficulties encountered,
the focus of the programme shifted from building pits to
enhancing the quality and quantity of compost. Training
was provided on aerobic composting in heaps, which was
minimizing soil erosion and maintaining appropriate
levels of organic matter. Poland mentions its rural
development programme, which includes agrienvironmental payments to farmers for appropriate soil management (see Section 8.7).
Awareness-raising projects intended to increase
the adoption of sustainable soil management
practices are reported by a number of countries.
For example, Fiji mentions a soil-health programme that taught farmers about alternative
nutrient sources, the use of the legume mucuna,
crop rotation and alley cropping, and trained
them in soil sampling, interpreting soil-test results
and producing compost.
5.6.4 Conservation agriculture
Conservation agriculture is described in the guidelines for the preparation of country reports as a
system that “aims to achieve sustainable and profitable agriculture and improve livelihoods of farmers
through the application of three … principles:
256
found to be well suited to farms located in areas of high
evaporation and low water availability. Guided field visits
were held at agricultural extension centres. Farmers were
encouraged to compost crop residues from cereal, banana
and cotton production close to the fields, thus limiting
transport and dependence on livestock. Additionally, farmers
were supplied with a compost starter (a substance designed
to speed up the composting process, usually in the form
of dry organic matter containing a mixture of dormant
soil micro-organisms that become active upon watering)
to increase the pace of decomposition, and phosphate
(a nutrient that is scarce in many of the country’s arable
soils) to increase the quality of the compost. A study in
2011 found that the application of compost following the
implementation of the programme led to significant yield
increases in grain crops (Zongo, 2011).
Source: Adapted from information and reports provided by Widegnoma Jean
de Dieu Nitiema.
no or minimal soil disturbance through direct
seeding into untilled soils, maintenance of permanent soil mulch cover through crop residues and
cover crops, and crop diversification through rotations, associations and sequences.” Implementing
each of these principles contributes to the supply
of a range of ecosystem services (Table 5.8), particularly if implemented together so as to create
synergistic effects.
Implementation of conservation agriculture
is based on locally developed sets of practices –
involving integrated management of crops, soil,
nutrients, water, pests, labour and energy – that
aim to enhance and sustain an optimum environment for efficient and resilient production (FAO,
2011c; Kassam et al., 2009, 2013). Soil, landscape
and cropping-system health are primary concerns.
Success requires a thorough understanding of
local soil and landscape ecology, and active cooperation among stakeholders, including researchers, advisers, service providers and farmers, to
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
formulate the most appropriate set of production
activities for the given location.64
It is widely reported that conservation agriculture increases the diversity and abundance of soil
and above-ground biota (e.g. Kassam et al., 2009;
Langellotto and Denno, 2004; Six et al., 2002,
2004). For example, reduced tillage can increase
the abundance of fungi (Thiele-Bruhn et al., 2012),
which can increase nitrogen retention in the agroecosystem (de Vries and Bardgett, 2012). It is also
generally considered that adopting conservation
agriculture provides financial benefits to farmers:
profit margins can be equal or higher than in conventional agriculture, as yields can be maintained
at similar or higher levels while the use of agrochemicals and labour and tractor hours is reduced
(Dumanski et al., 2006; FAO, 2013h, 2016l; Kassam
et al., 2009, 2013, 2015). However, benefits of this
kind will only be achieved if the three principles
of conservation agriculture are applied simultaneously (Jat, Sahrawat and Kassam, 2014; Kassam,
Saidi and Friedrich, eds., 2017). There are also concerns that the adoption of conservation agriculture
by smallholders can be constrained by high labour
requirements for hand weeding in the absence of
herbicides or by competition for the use of crop
residues as livestock feed rather than as mulch
(Giller et al., 2015). Complementary practices may
need to be introduced to make conservation agriculture systems more functional for smallholders
(Thierfelder et al., 2018).
In recent years, international research and development organizations, including FAO, the World
Bank the International Fund for Agricultural
Development and CGIAR, as well as a number of
bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, have
been supporting the adoption of conservation agriculture as a core component of climate-smart agriculture (Box 5.16). It is also an important element
of the Save and Grow approach (Box 5.17). Since
64
Some activities associated with conservation agriculture (e.g.
mulching and cultivation of cover crops) can be considered
“sustainable soil management practices” and are discussed in
Section 5.6.3. They may also contribute to other approaches
such as agroecology (see Section 5.3.4) and organic agriculture
(see Section 5.6.1).
2001, FAO has supported seven World Congresses
on Conservation Agriculture.
Severe soil erosion and land degradation linked
to soil-disturbing practices, such as tillage and lack of
maintenance of soil cover – along with the increasing costs and poor climate-change adaptability of
conventional tillage agriculture – have led to the
widespread introduction of conservation agriculture worldwide over the last three decades. Figures
presented by Kassam, Friedrich and Derpsch (2018)
for 2015/2016 indicate the use of conservation agriculture on an estimated 180 million ha of cropland
globally (12.5 percent of global arable land), up
from 2.8 million ha in 1973/74 and 106 million ha
in 2008/2009, although not all this land is necessarily being managed fully in line with all three of
the principles of conservation agriculture.65 South
America is the region where conservation agriculture is most widely practised (70 million ha or
63 percent of the region’s cropland), followed
by Australia and New Zealand (23 million ha or
45 percent of the region’s cropland) and North
America (63 million ha or 28 percent of the region’s
cropland) (ibid.). Expansion in these regions over
the last several decades has been facilitated, inter
alia, by the availability of no-till planters, effective
herbicides and, in some cases, herbicide-resistant
65
The following criteria are used to define conservation
agriculture (CA) for the purpose of data collection:
“(1) Continuous no or minimum mechanical soil disturbance:
Refers to permanent low soil disturbance no-tillage, and
includes no-till direct seeding and no-till weeding. The
disturbed area for crop establishment must be less than 15
cm wide or less than 25% of the cropped area (whichever
is lower). There should be no periodic tillage that disturbs a
greater area than the aforementioned limits. In special cases,
low soil disturbance strip or band seeding is allowed if the
disturbed surface area is less than the set limits. (2) Permanent
soil mulch cover with biomass: Soil mulch cover is achieved
with biomass from crop residues, stubbles and cover crops.
Three categories are distinguished: 30–60%, >60–90% and
>90% ground cover, measured immediately after the direct
seeding operation. Area with less than 30% cover is not
considered as CA. (3) Crop diversification through rotations/
sequences/association: Should ideally concern at least three
different crops. Repetitive wheat, maize or rice cropping is not
an exclusion factor for the purpose of this data collection, but
rotations/sequences/associations are noted where practised”
(Kassam, Friedrich and Derpsch, 2018).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
257
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.16
Conservation agriculture for climate-smart agriculture
The implementation of conservation agriculture leads to
significant improvements in soil biological, physical and
chemical properties, resulting in improved soil structure
and aggregate stability. Soil mulch cover with crop residues
increases soil organic matter and carbon sequestration,
which contributes to climate change mitigation. Conservation
agriculture also augments water-infiltration and water-
genetically modified crops (Giller et al., 2015).
Several regions with lower levels of adoption saw
major expansions in percentage terms over the
period between 2008/2009 and 2015/216, including
Asia (430 percent increase), West Asia and North
Africa (259 percent), Africa (211 percent) and
Europe (not including the Russian Federation and
Ukraine) (127 percent), although totals still remain
low – about 1 percent of cropland in Africa, for
example (Kassam, Friedrich and Derpsch, 2018). In
addition to arable cropland, conservation agriculture is being implemented on significant areas of
land under perennial crops (e.g. orchards, plantations and agroforestry systems) (ibid.).
The information provided in the country reports
on the extent of implementation of conservation
agriculture generally reflects the global patterns of
use described above. Of the 91 reporting countries,
36 report the implementation of conservation agriculture. It is reported to be applied in all terrestrial
production systems, most frequently in rainfed
crop systems, irrigated non-rice crop systems and
mixed systems (Table 5.1 and Table 5.2). As indicated in Table 5.2, in all systems where data on
trends are provided, more countries report that the
use of conservation agriculture is increasing than
report that it is remaining stable or decreasing.
Most of the countries that provide information
on conservation agriculture indicate that the practice has a positive effect on BFA in terms of both
taxonomic diversity and population abundance.
This is perceived to be the case in all production
systems where the practice is applied. Argentina,
258
retention capacity, and reduces runoff and direct evaporation
from the soil, thus improving the efficiency of water use and
the quality of water resources. Conservation agriculture is
therefore increasingly being recognized as climate smart.
Source: Provided by Amir Kassam.
Notes: For further information, see FAO, 2017c; González-Sánchez et al., 2017;
Kassam et al., 2013; Kassam, Friedrich and Derpsch, 2017.
for example, reports an increase in the diversity
and abundance of both vertebrates and invertebrates (especially detritivores such as millipedes,
woodlice and earthworms), although it notes that
effects vary depending on local conditions and
land-use history.
A number of countries provide information on
national policies that have fostered – or will foster
– the application of conservation agriculture.
For example, Nepal reports that the adoption
of conservation agriculture is being promoted
via farmer field schools (see Box 8.13 for further
information on farmer field schools in Nepal).
Spain mentions that relevant soil-conservation
measures have been receiving support since
the first set of agri-environmental regulatory
measures was introduced between 1994 and 1999
under European Union legislation. It further
notes that national legislative measures and
various programmes implemented by its
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and the
Environment have increased support for crop
rotation, soil cover and direct seeding. Finland
mentions support for reduced soil disturbance
under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development. The United States of America
reports that its Environmental Quality Incentives
Programme provides financial and technical
assistance to farmers who wish to implement
farm-tailored conservation agriculture systems
and practices. With regard to future priorities in
this field, Panama notes the need to improve the
extension services of the Ministry of Agricultural
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 5.8
Environmental and other benefits of implementing the three principles of conservation agriculture
Conservation agriculture principle
Benefits
No or minimal soil
disturbance
Soil mulch
cover
Crop
diversification
Increase and maintenance of nitrogen levels in root zone
•
•
•
Increase of cation-exchange capacity of root zone
•
•
•
Increase of rate of biomass production
•
•
•
Maintenance of natural layering of soil horizons by actions of soil biota
•
•
•
•
•
Maintenance of supply of soil organic matter as substrate for soil biota
Maximization of rain infiltration; minimization of runoff
Minimization of temperature fluctuations at the soil surface
•
Minimization of compaction by intense rainfall, passage of feet and
machinery
•
Minimization of oxidation of soil organic matter and CO2 loss
•
Minimization of soil loss in runoff or wind
•
•
Minimization of weeds
•
•
Improvement of pollination services
•
Rebuilding of damaged soil conditions and dynamics
•
•
•
Recycling of nutrients
•
•
•
•
•
Reduction of evaporative loss of moisture from soil surface
Reduction of evaporative loss of moisture from upper soil layers
•
Reduction of fuel-energy input
•
Reduction of labour input
•
•
•
Reduction of pests and diseases
Simulation of “forest floor” conditions
•
•
Increase in speed of soil porosity recuperation by soil biota
•
•
•
Source: Adapted from Kassam et al. (2013).
Development and farmer field schools to promote
the adoption of conservation agriculture, along
with other sustainable agricultural practices.
5.6.5 Integrated plant nutrient
management
The term integrated plant nutrient management
(IPNM) refers to soil, nutrient, water, crop and
vegetation management practices undertaken
with the aim of improving and sustaining soil
fertility and land productivity and reducing
environmental degradation, often tailored to a
particular cropping and farming system (FAO,
2018q). It is typically a combination of practices
and may include the use of farmyard manures,
organic and mineral fertilizers, soil amendments,
crop residues and farm wastes, agroforestry,
conservation tillage, green manures, cover
crops, legumes, intercropping, crop rotations,
fallows, irrigation and drainage, plus a variety
of other agronomic, vegetation-management
and structural measures designed to conserve
both water and soil. IPNM is a key component
of sustainable and systems approaches to agriculture, such as agroecology (Section 5.3.4) and
climate-smart agriculture.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
259
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.17
The Save and Grow approach
FAO’s model of ecosystem-based agriculture, Save and
Grow, addresses the need to intensify production and
achieve higher yields sustainably by drawing on nature’s
contributions to crop growth, such as soil organic matter
formation, nitrogen fixation, water-flow regulation,
pollination and biological control of pests and diseases. It
offers a toolkit of adoptable and adaptable practices that
can help smallholder farmers achieve higher productivity,
profitability and resource-use efficiency.
The model encourages the use of conservation
agriculture, which boosts yields while restoring
soil health. Save and Grow systems use diverse,
complementary groups of crops to achieve higher
productivity and strengthen food and nutrition security.
Pests are controlled by protecting their natural enemies
rather than by spraying crops indiscriminately with
pesticides. Judicious use of mineral fertilizer is promoted
in order to preserve water quality, and precision irrigation
is used to deliver the appropriate amount of water.
The Save and Grow approach often combines
traditional knowledge with modern technologies that are
adapted to the needs of small-scale producers. Practices
promoted include legume rotations, rice–fish systems and
“push–pull”’ systems (see Box 5.18). The Save and Grow
model is consistent with the principles of climate-smart
agriculture, as it builds resilience to climate change and
reduces greenhouse-gas emissions (see Box 5.16).
Sources: FAO, 2011c and FAO, 2016l.
As outlined in Section 2.2 and Section 4.3.6, soil
biodiversity has a strong influence on the soil’s physical and chemical properties. The micro-organisms
(e.g. bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes),
mesofauna (e.g. mites and springtails) and macrofauna (e.g. earthworms and termites) that constitute the living part of soil are essential to the
biogeochemical processes that maintain nutrient
cycles and flows in soils and provide nutrients to
plants (FAO, 2017m). At the same time, the physical
and chemical components of the soil also strongly
260
affect soil biodiversity through the provision of
suitable habitats (Schlüter, Weller and Vogel, 2011).
Some IPNM practices, such as returning crop residues, animal wastes and other organic materials to
the land, provide soil fauna with sources of food.
Others, such as promoting greater reliance on biologically fixed and recycled nutrients, judicious use
of mineral fertilizers, intercropping, conservation
tillage and careful management of fodder and
pasture plants, contribute to soil biodiversity via
effects on soil architecture, soil chemistry and nutrient cycles (Barrios, 2007; FAO, 2011c; Mbuthia et al.,
2015). In addition to promoting biodiversity within
the soil, IPNM can also help to ensure water quality
by reducing nutrient leaching into rivers, lakes and
coastal waters (Quemada et al., 2013; Sharpley et
al., 2013) and thus to protect aquatic biodiversity
and fisheries (Meals, Dressing and Davenport, 2010;
Woodward et al., 2012). Finally, IPNM can also help
to reduce nutrient losses to the atmosphere, in particular nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from
fertilizer application and methane from stored
organic fertilizers, such as manure (Galloway et
al., 2008; Snyder et al., 2009), thereby contributing
to climate change mitigation (Bellard et al., 2012).
Further information on the use of microbial biofertilizers, including research priorities in this field, can
be found in Section 5.7.2
Forty-two out of 91 reporting countries indicate that IPNM is practised (Table 5.1). Across all
production system categories, increasing trends
in the use of IPNM practices are more frequently
reported than decreasing trends (Table 5.2). A
number of countries note that it is difficult to
report on the status and trends of IPNM practices,
inter alia because of a lack of available data and
the fact that different practices are implemented
in different production systems. The country
reports provide little detailed qualitative information on the effects of IPNM on biodiversity.
5.6.6 Integrated pest management
FAO uses the following broad definition of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM):
IPM is the careful consideration of all available
pest control techniques and subsequent
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
integration of appropriate measures
that discourage the development of pest
populations and keep pesticides and other
interventions to levels that are economically
justified and reduce or minimize risks to
human health and the environment. IPM
emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop
with the least possible disruption to agroecosystems and encourages natural pest
control mechanisms (FAO and WHO, 2014c).
The guidelines for the preparation of country
reports note that relevant pest-management
methods include: “crop rotation; inter-cropping;
seedbed sanitation, [appropriate] sowing dates
and densities, under-sowing, conservation tillage,
pruning and direct sowing; … use of pest resistant/
tolerant cultivars, push–pull strategies and standard/certified seed and planting material; balanced
soil fertility and water management, making
optimum use of organic matter; … [prevention
of the spread] of harmful organisms by field sanitation and hygiene measures; [and] protection
and enhancement of important beneficial organ-
isms.” Practices of this kind are more knowledge
intensive than the calendar-based application of
pesticides and therefore farmers need to understand the ecology of their production systems
and to regularly monitor the environment. They
need to know how to maintain healthy soils and
healthy populations of biological control agents
(BCAs) (organisms that are harmful to pests − see
Section 4.3.5 for further details).
Almost all production systems benefit from
“natural biological control”, i.e. from the actions
of BCAs naturally present in the local environment (Cock et al., 2009, 2011). These contributions can be enhanced through the practice of
“conservation biological control” (modification
of the agroecosystem and/or its immediate surroundings so as to increase the impact of local
BCAs − Orr, 2009). Other forms of biological
control include augmentative (mass culture and
periodic release of specific BCA species) and classical biological control (permanent introduction
of a BCA into an area where it does not naturally
occur) (see Table 5.9) (Orr, 2009; Waage, 2007).
TABLE 5.9
Examples of integrated pest management measures
Measure
Integrated pest
management
practices
Biological control
Release of Trichogramma parasitoid wasps to control
lepidopteran pests
Knutson, 1998
Classical
Introduction of Cactoblastis cactorum (cactus moth) to
control Opuntia cacti
Zimmermann, Moran and Hoffmann,
2000
Permanent vegetation in
field margins
Maintenance or establishment of vegetation near
fields to attract natural enemies to the field
Sengonca, Kranz and Blaeser, 2002
Kremen and Miles, 2012
Growing multiple crops in rotation to disrupt the life
cycles of pests
Zehnder et al., 2007
Resistant crop varieties
Use of locally adapted varieties
Teetes, 1994
"Push–pull" systems
Integrating Cenchrus purpureus (Napier grass) and
Desmodium into the field to control maize and
sorghum stemborers
ICIPE, 2015
Soil sterilization
Solarization
Stapleton and DeVay, 1986
Barriers
Use of nets against birds
Briassoulis, Mistriotis and
Eleftherakis, 2007
Pesticides
If the pest surpasses the economic threshold
Alston, 2011
Crop rotation
Physical control
Chemical control
Source
Augmentation
Conservation
Cultural control
Examples and notes
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
261
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Cultural control (modifying the environment
to reduce its suitability for pests) and physical
control (use of physical barriers to keep pests
away) are also important components of IPM
strategies. An IPM approach can include chemical
control measures, for example highly localized
“spot” applications and the use of insecticides
that are relatively environmentally benign. Both
pest and BCA populations have to be constantly
monitored so that levels of yield damage can be
predicted and decisions taken as to whether pesticides need to be applied.
IPM prioritizes prevention over intervention. This requires a good understanding of the
local biodiversity and the trophic relationships
within the local ecosystem (see also Sections 2.2
and 4.3.5). IPM often leads to large-scale reductions in chemical pesticide use, which over time
can lead to greater species diversity in the agroecosystem, including among herbivore species.
However, any impact the additional herbivore
species may have is generally outweighed by the
decline of the dominant pest species (Cock et al.,
2011; Heong et al., 2007; Islam et al., 2012).
Cultural control methods include so-called
push–pull systems (originally developed in East
Africa to control sorghum and maize stemborers), which involve the use of a repellent
plant (e.g. Desmodium spp.) in the field and
an attractant plant (e.g. Napier grass [Cenchrus
purpureus]) at the field edges (ICIPE, 2015)
(Box 5.18). Other options include intercropping, use of cover crops and the establishment
of permanent wild-flower strips. Complex vegetation cover and the presence of alternative
food sources (e.g. nectar and pollen) attract
natural enemies and may make it easier for
them to survive the winter (Langellotto and
Denno, 2004). Examples of the roles of different components of associated biodiversity in
IPM in various production systems are shown in
Table 5.10. Additional information on pest and
disease regulation is provided in Section 4.3.5.
Livestock and aquatic animals can also be
protected using IPM tactics, mainly by using
biological control to replace the use of pesti-
262
cides. For example, the stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans, which causes skin lesions and stress in
mammalian livestock and may transmit pathogens, can be controlled using the parasitoid
wasp Spalangia endius (FAO and IAEA, 2016).
Some fungal species show promise as means
of controlling parasitic nematodes in small
ruminants (FAO, 2018r). The salmon louse
(Lepeophtheirus salmonis) can be controlled by
fallowing growing sites to disrupt its life cycle,
farming resistant varieties, such as the coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), instead of the
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) or using wrasses
(small fish that predate on the lice) (Ottesen
et al., 2011; Salmon Health Consortium and
PMRA, 2003). In turn, the use of fish to control
crop pests is widespread in Asian rice–fish
systems. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella),
common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) are actively introduced
into rice fields, where they feed on planthoppers
and leafhoppers (Halwart and Gupta, 2004). In
traditional rice cultivation, water-management
regimes promote aquatic species such as fish and
amphibians that predate on rice pests.
IPM strategies to control weeds and plant diseases (bacterial, viral, fungal and nematode-related)
involve crop, soil and, in some cases, water management. For example, mulching and use of allelopathic cover crops hamper weed growth in soil-based
systems. Application of certain organic amendments
has been shown to help reduce soil-borne diseases
by increasing the concentrations of ammonia
and/or nitrous acid and possibly by increasing the
overall abundance of soil micro-organisms (Bailey
and Lazarovits, 2003; Lazarovits, 2001). The mechanisms involved are diverse, complex and not fully
understood (Noble and Coventry, 2005). In rice−fish
systems, aquatic weeds and algae can be regulated
by the fish and by appropriate water-management
practices (Halwart and Gupta, 2004). Rabbitfish
(Siganus spp.) and scats (Scatophagus spp.) can be
introduced into marine fish cages to reduce fouling
by epiphytic algae.
Policy measures supporting IPM have been
introduced in various parts of the world. Measures
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.18
The push–pull approach
Push–pull is a cultivation and pest-control practice in
which pest-repelling (“push”) and pest-attracting (“pull”)
companion crops are grown to reduce pest damage in crops.
The strategy, also known as stimulo-deterrent diversion,
was documented in the late 1980s. However, the research
that resulted in the current system started in 1994 through
collaboration between the Kenya-based International Centre
of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) and Rothamsted
Research in the United Kingdom. The practice was developed
to reduce maize yield losses caused by lepidopteran
stemborers (Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus) in Africa,
which usually reach 20 to 40 percent.
The “push” component is desmodium (Desmodium
uncinatum), a short legume grown between maize rows,
which repels the adult stemborer by releasing volatile
chemicals (semiochemicals). Although molasses grass
(Melinis minutiflora) can also be used, desmodium is
preferred because it also supresses the parasitic weed Striga
hermonthica and increases soil fertility through nitrogen
fixation. The “pull” component of the system consists of
Napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus) or Sudan grass (Sorghum
sudanense) grown at the field margins. These plants attract
the stemborers and their natural enemies through the release
of semiochemicals. Napier grass secretes a sticky sap that
traps stemborers when they perforate the plant.
Mode of action of the push-pull system
By 2014, the push–pull technique had been adopted by
nearly 97 000 farmers in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and the
United Republic of Tanzania. The desmodium–Napier grass
combination has doubled maize yields by reducing stemborer
and striga damage while increasing soil fertility. In addition,
farmers obtain economic benefits by selling Napier grass as
fodder, if it is not used for their own livestock, and by reducing
expenditure on pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. The
push–pull system can be used with a variety of other crops
including sorghum, millet and upland rice. The large initial
investments required to start the system and in some cases a
lack of infrastructure (e.g. storage units for yield surplus) are
the major constraints to its wider adoption.
Source: Adapted from ICIPE (2015).
‘Push’
‘Pull’
Volatile chemicals from
Desmodium intercrop
repel stemborers
Volatile chemicals from
border plants attract
stemborers to lay eggs
Maize
Maize
Desmodium
Napier
grass
Chemicals secreted by desmodium
roots control striga and
deplete striga seed bank in the soil
Desmodium
Maize
Napier
grass
Desmodium roots fix atmospheric
nitrogen in the soil; shoot and root
biomass increases soil organic matter
Source: ICIPE, 2015.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
263
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 5.10
Examples of the roles of associated biodiversity in integrated pest management
Integrated pest
management
practice
Component
of associated
biodiversity
Species protected
Source
Rice-field pests
Oryza sativa
(Asian rice)
Halwart and Gupta,
2004; Hocking and
Babbitt, 2014
Ladybird beetles
(Coccinellidae,
Coleoptera)
Aphids (Aphidoidea
superfamily)
Citrus spp., apples and
several annual crops
Roy and Migeon, 2010
Parasitoid wasps
(several
Hymenoptera
families)
Cnaphalocrocis
medinalis
(rice leaffolder)
Oryza sativa
(Asian rice)
Gurr et al., 2011
Bacteria*
Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt formulations)
Helicoperva spp.
Solanum lycopersicum
(tomato)
Zhang et al., 2013
Birds
Ficedula hypoleuca
(European pied
flycatcher)
Lepidopteran larvae
Forest vegetation
Unwin, 2011
Fish
Labridae (wrasses)
Lepeophtheirus
salmonis
(salmon louse)
Salmo salar
(Atlantic salmon)
Ottesen et al., 2011
Leptinotarsa
decemlineata
(Colorado potato
beetle)
Solanum tuberosum
(potato)
Wraight and Ramos,
2002
Fungi*
Beauveria bassiana
(white muscardine
fungus)
Metarhizium
anisopliae
Agriotes sputator
(common click beetle)
Zea mays (maize)
Eckard et al., 2014
Nematodes*
Steinernema
carpocapsae
Prionoxystus robiniae
(carpenter moth)
Castanea spp.
(chestnut)
Hannon and Beers,
2007
Plants
Cenchrus purpureus
(Napier grass) and
Desmodium spp.
Chilo partellus
(spotted stalk borer)
Sorghum spp.
ICIPE, 2015
Arthropods
Cultural control:
“push–pull” system
Pests controlled
Fish, amphibians
Aquatic species
Biological control
Control agents
Note: *Usually applied as biopesticides.
of this kind can lead to economic benefits and
help to reduce countries’ dependence on pesticide imports. For example, during the 1980s
Indonesia adopted an IPM policy and introduced
strong regulation of pesticide use, leading to a
decline of two-thirds in the country’s pesticide
imports (Bottrell and Schoenly, 2012; Islam et
al., 2012). Under legislation introduced in 2009
(Directive 2009/128/EC),66 the European Union
66
Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for
Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides
(available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
ALL/?uri=CELEX:02009L0128-20091125).
264
requires its Member States to reduce pesticide
application and implement the principles of IPM
(see example in Box 5.19).
One striking weakness is the virtual absence
of adequate human health and environmental risk assessment studies for pesticide use in
developing countries. Without such studies,
national and regional legislation efforts are
working essentially in the dark. Perhaps the only
field study to have touched on this at a multiscale level with advanced technical methods
(Jepson et al., 2014) showed a high level of
pesticide-related ecological and health risks along
two major rivers in West Africa. There is no reason
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.19
Integrated pest management in horticultural production in Almería, Spain
The Province of Almería in southeastern Spain has
one the world’s largest horticultural areas (approximately
36 000 ha). Globally, it is also the location where
integrated pest management (IPM) is most widely
applied. In 2013, pests were regulated using biological
control on 27 000 ha (75 percent of the total area). In 2016,
10 000 ha of peppers (nearly 100 percent of the total),
9 500 ha of tomatoes (more than 80 percent), 3 500 ha
of cucumbers and substantial areas of zucchini, eggplant,
melon and green beans, among other crops, were managed
under biological control practices. IPM is also important
in the citrus and grape sectors. Examples of the biological
control agents (BCAs) used are presented in the table below.
Spanish authorities have been actively promoting
IPM programmes to reduce the use of phytosanitary products
through national and international legal frameworks.
Exotic invasive species and pests are strictly monitored
(Law 42/2007; Royal Decree 630/2013), while the release
of exotic BCAs requires authorization and an assessment of
their environmental and biodiversity impacts (Law 43/2002;
Royal Decree 951/2014). The use of non-exotic BCAs is also
regulated under the latter law. The use of BCAs must comply
with good agricultural practices as set out in the European
Union’s Directive 2009/128/EC, which promotes IPM.
Additionally, the European Union enforces ecotoxicological
assays before registration of new phytosanitary products
(Regulation [EC] No. 1107/2009), and prevention and
management measures for invasive alien species (Regulation
[EU] No. 1143/2014).
Examples of biological control agents used in Almeria, Spain, for horticultural production
Crop
Pest
Biological control agent
Chestnut trees
Dryocosmus kuriphilus (gall wasp, exotic from China)
Torymus sinensis (a parasitoid wasp, exotic from China)
Citrus trees
Aonidiella aurantii (red scale)
Aphytis melinus (a parasitoid wasp)
Aphids
Aphidius colemani (a parasitoid wasp)
Cucumber, pepper
Bemisia tabaci (whitefly)
Amblyseius swirskii (a predatory mite)
Cucurbits
Tetranychus urticae (red spider mite)
Phytoseiulus persimilis (a predatory mite)
Eucalyptus
Gonipterus scutellatus (eucalyptus weevil, exotic from
Australia)
Pepper
Frankliniella occidentalis (western flower thrips)
Anaphes inexpectatus (a parasitoid wasp, under research)
Anaphes nitens (a parasitoid wasp, exotic from Australia)
Anaphes tasmaniae (a parasitoid wasp, under research)
Frankliniella occidentalis (western flower thrips)
Planococcus citri (citrus mealybug)
Table grape
Orius laevigatus (a predatory bug)
Amblyseius cucumeris (a predatory mite)
Amblyseius swirskii (a predatory mite)
Anagyrus pseudococci (a parasitoid wasp)
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (a predatory beetle)
Amblyseius andersoni (a predatory mite)
Tetranychus urticae (red spider mite)
Neoseiulus californicus (a predatory mite)
Amblyseius swirskii (a predatory mite)
Tomato
Bemisia tabaci (whitefly), Tuta absoluta (tomato
leafminer)
Nesidiocoris tenuis (a predatory bug)
Source: Information provided by Gonzalo Eiriz.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
265
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
to suppose that similarly high levels of risk do not
exist in most, if not all, developing countries.
Out of 91 reporting countries, 45 indicate that
IPM is practised in at least one production-system
category (Table 5.1 and Table 5.2). Another six countries mention that it is practised in their territories
without specifying the production system. IPM is
reported in 79 percent of reporting OECD member
countries and in 42 percent of reporting non-OECD
member countries. The production systems for
which IPM is most frequently reported are crop
systems (rainfed and non-rice irrigated) and mixed
systems (Table 5.2). A few countries, predominantly
in Europe, report IPM in aquaculture systems.
In almost every production-system category
for which trends are reported, increases in the
use of IPM are indicated more frequently than
decreases (Table 5.2). These findings reflect longterm (albeit slow) upward trends in the use of the
technology globally (FAO et al., 2016). Countries
generally do not provide details of the levels of
adoption within particular production-system
categories. The Netherlands, however, notes that,
as of 2010, 60 percent of growers of arable crops,
fruit crops and vegetables and between 65 percent
and 70 percent of tree nurseries and flower-bulb
farms used IPM. Where countries elaborate on the
causes of the trends reported, it is mainly to note
policy or legal measures put in place to promote
IPM or policy-level or institutional constraints
to adoption. Among European countries for
example, Denmark notes that it has implemented
a national action plan for the 2013 to 2020 period
to make the adoption of IPM compulsory in cropbased systems. Malta reports a rural development
programme (Agri-Environment-Climate Measures)
for 2014 to 2020 that promotes IPM in vineyards
and orchards. Among Asian countries, Bhutan
mentions that the Pesticides Act of Bhutan, 2000,67
which enables tight centralized regulation of the
import, sale and use of pesticides, also promotes
the use of IPM.
67
Available (in English) at http://faolex.fao.org/cgi-bin/
faolex.exe?rec_id=028426&database=faolex&search_
type=link&table=result&lang=eng&format_name=@ERALL
266
Among Latin American countries, Argentina
and Brazil report the application of IPM in a
variety of production systems, particularly in
crop and mixed systems. However, Argentina
indicates that progress in the implementation
of IPM, which started in the 1980s, has been
mixed owing to a lack of adequate agricultural
extension programmes in some regions. Several
country reports from the region mention policies
that, directly or indirectly, facilitate the adoption
of IPM. For example, Panama notes that it aims
to stimulate IPM practices through its Executive
Decree No. 121 of 2015, 68 which promotes
organic production and the use of biological pestcontrol measures. Mexico reports that its National
Forestry Commission monitors about 50 000 ha of
pest-affected systems every year and recommends
the adoption of IPM. Argentina mentions that it
has established IPM partnerships (Consorcios de
Manejo Integrado de Plagas) at regional level
through the National Agricultural Technology
Institute’s National Programme on Crop Protection
(Programa Nacional de Protección Vegetal). These
partnerships bring stakeholders together to find
common ground on IPM approaches. In Africa,
Burkina Faso identifies a lack of appropriate agricultural advice and a lack of awareness of the
adverse effects of the misuse of pesticides on ecosystem services as major factors limiting the wider
adoption of IPM.
Globally, although awareness of the benefits of IPM among consumers, farmers, governments and international agencies is increasing
and the use of IPM practices is becoming more
widespread, insecticide use is still at a high level.
Reasons for this include aggressive marketing,
the absence of public-sector advisory or extension services, insufficient legal regulation and the
68
Decreto Ejecutivo N°121 (De martes 08 de septiembre de
2015) Aprueba el Nuevo Reglamento Para la Producción,
Transformación y Comercialización de Productos Agropecuarios
Orgánicos de Panamá y Deroga el Decreto Ejecutivo
No. 146 de 11 de agosto de 2004, Que Reglamenta la
Ley 8 del 24 de enero de 2002 (available in Spanish at
https://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp/27876_A/
GacetaNo_27876a_20150925.pdf).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
knowledge-intensive nature of IPM (Islam et al.,
2012; Waage, 2007). Pesticides may seem attractive to growers because of their low costs and
simplicity of use (Islam et al., 2012). IPM systems
require training and monitoring (by trained
farmers or extension workers) and this can be
costly (Waage, 2007). Frequent release of natural
enemies in places with high pest pressures can
also be prohibitively expensive (Cock et al., 2009).
The effectiveness of IPM strategies can also be
limited by the fact that they are often based on
single control measures rather than an ecosystem
approach (FAO and CBD, 2016). Needs and priorities related to facilitating the use of biopesticides
(and to research priorities in this field) are discussed in Section 5.7.2.
5.6.7 Pollination management
Growing demand for fruit, nut and vegetable
crops means that the dependence of agriculture
on pollination is increasing (Aizen et al., 2008,
2009). Efforts are being made to improve understanding of the relative benefits of different
pollination-management strategies involving
both wild and managed pollinators (Potts et al.,
2010) and to identify best practices and tools that
can be used by farmers and others (Isaacs et al.,
2016). This section presents a short overview of
the main groups of managed pollinators (various
types of bees), the practices and approaches
that can be used to maintain and support them,
and the status of adoption of these practices
and approaches. Many of the practices and
approaches mentioned are discussed in greater
detail in other sections in this chapter.
Bees managed for pollination
Various types of bees (mainly honey bees, and
some species of bumble bees, solitary and stingless
bees) are managed to provide pollination services
in crop production (and in some cases for other
purposes such as supplying honey).
Honey-bee management
The two major honey-bee species managed
around the world are the western honey bee (Apis
mellifera) and the eastern honey bee (Apis
cerana) (IPBES, 2016b). Managed honey bees
are kept in human-made, portable containers,
known as hives, that can be easily managed and
transported (Crane, 1983). Migratory beekeeping
allows beekeepers to target demand for pollination services and/or to maximize honey production (IPBES, 2016b). However, it can affect local
bee populations as it facilitates the spread of bee
diseases and pests and can cause pathogen spillover into native bee populations (Fürst et al., 2014;
Goulson, 2003; Moritz, Hartel and Neumann,
2005; Smith et al., 2014).
Renting managed honey-bee colonies to
increase pollination services for intensive production of fruit, vegetable, oilseed and nut crops is
a common practice in many countries (Delaplane
and Mayer, 2000; Isaacs et al., 2016). In the United
States of America, for example, 1.5 million or
more colonies are moved across the country to
California each year to pollinate almond trees in
February and March (Sumner and Boriss, 2006).
However, in some parts of the world, crop producers and farmers do not always have the skills
needed, or access to the resources needed, to
ensure adequate pollination services through the
addition of managed honey-bee colonies (Isaacs
et al., 2016).
The advantages of managed honey-bee colonies include the ability to control and increase the
abundance of foraging bees in a specific area at
the time of crop bloom, even if honey bees may
not be the most efficient pollinators of many
crops (ibid.). Recent years have, however, seen
growing interest in wild pollinators as potential
complements to managed bees in the supply of
pollination services in crop production (Garibaldi
et al., 2013, 2016; Winfree et al., 2018). Both wild
pollinators and other managed bee species, such
as bumble bees (Bombus spp.) and solitary bees
(e.g. Osmia spp.), have been found to be equally
or more efficient pollinators for some crops and
could complement, or in some cases even replace,
honey-bee pollination (Banda and Paxton, 1991;
Freitas and Paxton, 1998; James and Pitts-Singer,
2008; Vicens and Bosch, 2000).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
267
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Bumble-bee management
In the past few decades, bumble bees (the genus
Bombus) have increasingly been traded commercially for use as pollinators (Velthuis and van Doorn,
2006). Five Bombus species are currently used for
crop pollination (B. terrestris [buff-tailed bumble
bee], B. lucorum [white-tailed bumble bee], B.
ignitus, B. occidentalis [western bumble bee] and
B. impatiens [common eastern bumble bee]), the
major ones being the European species B. terrestris
and the North American B. impatiens (ibid.).
The massive introduction of colonies, both
within and outside the natural range of the
respective species, is one of the main threats to
native bees, particularly bumble bees (Cameron
et al., 2011). These introductions can lead to (i)
competition for resources (including forage and
nesting sites), (ii) reproductive interference due
to interspecific mating between introduced and
native species (Kanbe et al., 2008), (iii) greater
threat from parasites (Meeus et al., 2011) and (iv)
transmission of diseases and pathogens (Colla et
al., 2006). It has been relatively well documented
that the spread of pathogens and diseases associated with bumble-bee management can occur
at large scales as well as locally (Goka, Okabe and
Yoneda, 2006). For example, “chronic pathogen
spillover” from commercial bumble-bee colonies
has caused declines in some wild bumble-bee populations in North America (e.g. Szabó et al., 2012).
honey-bee populations (Brown and Paxton, 2009;
Van Engelsdorp and Meixner, 2010; Jaffé et al.,
2010) and thus ensure adequate levels of pollination in target crops (Aizen and Harder, 2009). For
some plants and crops, stingless bees have been
found to be more effective pollinators than honey
bees (Slaa et al., 2006).
Stingless beekeeping (meliponiculture) remains
underdeveloped compared to apiculture. However,
while managing stingless bees for crop pollination
remains relatively uncommon, efforts are being
made in several countries to promote the practice.
In Brazil, for example, Melipona fasciculata has
been found to be an efficient pollinator of eggplant
(Nunes-Silva et al., 2013) and M. quadrifasciata
anthidioides to increase seed and fruit production
in apples in the presence of honey-bee hives (Viana
et al., 2014). In Mexico, it has been found that the
stingless bee Nannotrigona perilampoides could
act as an alternative to honey bees and bumble
bees in the pollination of greenhouse tomatoes
(Cauich et al., 2004; González-Acereto, QuezadaEuán and Medina-Medina, 2006). In Australia,
meliponiculture has acquired a foothold in crop
(mainly macadamia) production, mainly using
Trigona carbonaria, T. hockingsi and Austroplebeia
australis (Cortopassi-Laurino et al., 2006; Heard
and Dollin, 2000; Heard, 1999). Developments in
Malaysia are described in Box 5.20.
Solitary-bee management
Stingless-bee management
In most areas where they occur, stingless bees
(tribe Meliponini) were traditionally a source of
honey, propolis69 and wax (Cortopassi-Laurino
et al., 2006; Heard and Dollin, 2000; Kwapong
et al., 2010; Nates-Parra, 2001, 2004). Recently,
however, there has been increasing interest in
their potential role as managed pollinators in crop
production (Giannini et al., 2015; Slaa et al., 2006),
as they could compensate for local declines in
69
Propolis is a mixture of beeswax, plant resins collected by bees
from plants (particularly from flowers and leaf buds) and bee
saliva (Krell, 1996). Bees use it as a sealant within the hive. It is
harvested for use in (inter alia) the production of cosmetics and
alternative medicines (ibid.).
268
Their ease of handling and their ability to adapt to
new environments (in the field or in greenhouses)
mean that solitary bees have considerable potential as providers of additional or complementary
pollination services (Bosch and Kemp, 2000;
Wilkaniec and Radajewska, 1997). Several solitary-bee species are being used to provide pollination services, the most widely reported being
the alfalfa leafcutter bee (Megachile rotundata).
Greenhouse experiments have shown that this
species is far superior to honey bees as a pollinator
of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) (per single floral visit)
(Cane, 2008). It is estimated that alfalfa leafcutter
bees have tripled seed yields in North America
and contribute to over 50 percent of alfalfa-seed
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 5.20
Management of stingless bees in Malaysia
Stingless bees are important pollinators of forest species
in Malaysia (Momose et al., 1998). The value of pollination
services provided by the country’s stingless bees has been
estimated to amount to USD 19 million per year (Mohd et
al., 2010). According to the latest inventories, there are
35 stingless-bee species in Peninsular Malaysia (Mohd
Fahimee et al., 2016) and 45 in East Malaysia (unpublished
data). Heterotrigona itama, Geniotrigona thoracica,
Tetragonilla atripes and Tetrigona peninsularis have been
identified as pollinator species for many important crops in
Malaysia (Mohd et al., 2010).
Bees raised in captivity to provide pollination services
need to be well adapted to secondary forest and agricultural
ecosystems, i.e. to using the food sources and nesting
material found in these ecosystems. The ecosystems, in turn,
need to be managed so as to ensure that they support and
sustain stingless-bee colonies and allow them to flourish,
expand and multiply.
In 2012, the Malaysian Agricultural Research and
Development Institute launched an initiative to promote the
keeping of Heterotrigona itama and Geniotrigona thoracica, as
these two species are commonly found in agricultural areas and
pollinate many crops, including mango, starfruit and cantaloupe
(Mohd Fahimee, 2012; Mohd Fahimee et al., 2016). Stingless
beekeeping (meliponiculture) is an attractive option for many
farmers, not only because of the pollination services the bees
provide, but also because of the high demand for stingless-bee
honey, known for its high antioxidant content. To control the
quality of stingless-bee honey, a Malaysian standard for the
specification of the product was published in 2017 (Department
of Standards Malaysia, 2017).
With proper maintenance, a stingless-bee colony can last
many years. In a conducive environment, a parent colony can
be split into two colonies once a year. Another method is to
use pheromone bait (using dissolved stingless-bee propolis)
during the swarming season to attract bees to make their
nests in designated places. However, this method is not very
effective at present. On average, farmers can harvest
0.5 kg of honey per month from a mature stingless-bee
colony. The price of stingless-bee honey on the retail market
is three times higher than honey-bee honey. Apart from
honey, many cosmeceutical and nutraceutical products
made using propolis and bee bread from stingless bees can
generate extra income for farmers.
Future priorities include developing the mass rearing of
stingless-bee queens through in vitro techniques. Further research
is required on a number of factors influencing the success of
this technique, including the formulation of the queens’ diet
and the behaviour of drones in mating virgin queens.
Heterotrigona itama.
Stingless-bee mini farm/garden.
The colony.
Source: Provided by Rosliza Jajuli and Mohd Fahimee Bin Jaapar.
Pictures provided by Rosliza Jajuli.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
269
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
production in parts of the region (Pitts-Singer
and Cane, 2011). They nest in large numbers in
above-ground holes that they line and plug with
parts of leaves (ibid.). These nesting holes can be
human-made, which along with the fact that the
bees’ emergence coincides with alfalfa blooms,
makes this species highly suitable for management as pollinators in alfalfa production (ibid.).
Many mason bees (Osmia spp.) have also been
managed for commercial-crop (orchard/fruittree) pollination. Osmia cornifrons (the hornfaced
bee) has been used widely in Japan to pollinate
apple (Bosch and Vicens, 2000) and sweet pepper
(Kristjansson and Rasmussen, 1991), among other
crops. O. lignaria (the blue orchard bee) has
been used in the United States of America and
Canada to pollinate apple (Torchio, 1984), commercial sweet cherry (Bosch, Kemp and Trostle,
2006) and almond (Bosch, Kemp and Peterson,
2000). O. cornuta has been used in Europe (Bosch
and Kemp, 2002) for pear (Pyrus communis) pollination (Maccagnini et al., 2003). These cavitynesting bees readily set up home in artificial
nests, which can easily be placed in strategic positions within fields.
The only ground-nesting bee intensively
managed for pollination services, mainly for alfalfa,
is the alkali bee (Nomia melanderi) (Cane, 2002,
2008). This species nests in large aggregations in
certain soil types (Johansen, Mayer and Eves, 1978)
that can be created artificially (Stephen, 1960).
Management practices promoting the
abundance of wild bees in and around
production systems
Wild bees, which make up the overwhelming
majority of the over 20 000 described bee species
(Michener, 2007), contribute significantly to pollination services worldwide. Their importance to
pollination varies from crop to crop and according to the production system, with contributions
ranging from very little to providing most of the
pollination services (Isaacs and Kirk, 2010; Rogers,
Tarpy and Burrack, 2014; Winfree et al., 2008). A
wide-ranging meta-analysis of the data on more
than 40 crops grown in 600 fields across every
270
populated continent (Garibaldi et al., 2013) found
that wild pollinators were twice as effective as
honey bees in producing seeds and fruit in crops
including oilseed rape, coffee, onions, almonds,
tomatoes and strawberries.
Diversity
Ensuring high diversity and abundance of wild
pollinator species will increase the probability of
complementarity or synergy in pollination services within a given area (whether used for agriculture or natural/semi-natural) (Blüthgen and
Klein, 2011; Garibaldi et al., 2013), even in the
presence of abundant managed bees (Garibaldi
et al., 2011). Relatively high diversity and abundance of insect visitors to a plant ensures (i)
that visits occur with greater frequency and at
a greater range of times (during the day) and
(ii) greater diversity of body sizes (i.e. for stigma
contact and pollen delivery).
There are various ways of promoting high
diversity and abundance in pollinator assemblages within and around production systems
(see examples below). In regions such as Europe
where farms themselves do not support high
levels of pollinator diversity, maintaining or creating grasslands or other semi-natural habitats near
farms (within 3 km) is generally essential (Carré
et al., 2009; Carvalheiro et al., 2011; Klein et al.,
2012; Öckinger and Smith, 2007; Ricketts et al.,
2008b; Rollin et al., 2013).
Nesting resources
Research indicates that the abundance and composition of bee communities on farms may be
sensitive to the availability of nesting resources
(Forrest et al., 2015; Potts et al., 2005). Most
wild bees nest in the ground, in plant stems or
in pre-existing cavities of various kinds (Winfree,
2010; Hudewenz and Klein, 2013). Ensuring that a
range of nesting sites, either natural or artificial,
are available will encourage wild bees to move
into an area and remain there. For example, in
the case of ground-nesting bees, bare patches of
soil and minimal tilling activity will encourage
nesting. Hedgerows can supply nesting resources
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
for many pollinators, for example in the form of
dry branches, stems, logs, or exposed soil banks
or other patches of bare ground (IPBES, 2016b;
Willmer, 2011). Generally, increasing the heterogeneity of any landscape increases the potential
for pollinator richness (Blüthgen and Klein, 2011;
Kennedy et al., 2013; Kremen and Miles, 2012;
Shackelford et al., 2013).
create competition for pollinators (Free, 1993)
and to sustain pollinator populations when the
focal-crop flowers are not available (Blüthgen
and Klein, 2011; Mandelik et al., 2012). As well
as providing nesting sites and nesting material
(see above), hedgerows and flower strips also
provide food resources for pollinator communities (Garibaldi et al., 2014; Isaacs et al., 2009;
Pywell et al., 2005).
Foraging resources
Highly diverse plant communities can provide
ideal foraging resources for pollinators. Enhancing
plant diversity by intercropping and/or leaving
weedy herbaceous ground cover can increase
the availability of nectar and pollen resources for
wild bees within agricultural landscapes (Altieri
et al., 2015b). Normally, for both strategies, the
non-crop forage plants should flower outside the
flowering period of the focal crop, so as not to
Farm-management practices
There are several ways in which farm management can be adjusted to reduce adverse effects
on pollinators, for example by reducing pesticide,
including herbicide, use to reduce direct impacts
on pollinators and impacts on the flora on which
pollinators depend (e.g. via integrated pest management – see Section 5.6.6), introducing no-till
or organic agriculture or diversifying the system in
Box 5.21
Enhancing pollinator presence in cassava fields in Ghana
For many years, Ghanaian farmers have been applying
management practices that enhance crop production by
promoting the presence of pollinators in their fields. To
mark field boundaries between neighbouring farms, some
vegetable growers line their field margins with one or two
rows of cassava plants. The practice has both socio-economic
and ecological value. Socio-economically, the farmers gain
from being able to harvest some cassava from the boundary
areas in addition to the vegetables in the fields. This multiple
cropping contributes to food security and mitigates the
potential risk of crop failure. However, there is a further
benefit of having a cassava border crop around a vegetable
field. Cassava flowers produce profuse amounts of nectar,
which attracts bees and other species (Nassar, 2003). In
Ghana, the most commonly attracted bee species include
Apis mellifera and a host of stingless bees that forage for
both nectar and pollen. Because of the attractiveness of
cassava plants to pollinators, vegetable crops growing
within a field bounded by cassava stand a greater chance
of being visited by pollinators. Although the phenomenon is
still under investigation, it is likely that vegetable crops such
as eggplant, tomato and pepper – none of which are highly
attractive to pollinators – benefit from visits by pollinators
initially attracted to the cassava flowers at the field borders.
Aside from the benefits provide by cassava flowers, cassava
stems are pithy and serve as nests for many carpenter bees
and other wood-boring bees and wasps. Moreover, cassava
plants provide the delicate stems of vegetable crops with
some protection against wind storms.
Other on-farm practices in Ghana that are “pollinator
friendly” include leaving bushes within the farming area that
serve as refugia for pollinators and as forage resources when
crop fields are not in bloom. The high diversity of plants in
many smallholder farms – whether bushes, crop borders
or weedy areas – may provide benefits both by producing
flowers early, and thus attracting pollinators into the fields
before the crop flowers bloom, and by producing flowers
after the crop has been harvested, and thus helping to retain
and support pollinators until the next cropping season.
Source: Adapted from Isaacs et al. (2016).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
271
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
ways that favour pollinator habitat (see examples
above) (IPBES, 2016b; Tuell and Isaacs, 2010).
Ground-nesting bee species normally place their
brood cells in the top 30 cm of the soil (Roulston
and Goodell, 2011; Williams et al., 2010), which
means that they may benefit from no-till systems
or conscious tilling (appropriate timing and
depth). Organic farming practices can provide
multiple benefits for pollinators at local and landscape scales (IPBES, 2016b). Although these relationships have not been researched extensively,
some studies have found greater bee, hoverfly
and butterfly diversity in areas where organic
production is practised than in areas where it
is not (Gabriel et al., 2013; Holzschuh, SteffanDewenter and Tscharntke, 2008; Kennedy et al.,
2013; Kremen and Miles, 2012; Nicholls and Altieri,
2013; Rundlöf, Bengtsson and Smith, 2008).
For example, Holzschuh, Steffan-Dewenter and
Tscharntke (2008) examined bee species richness
and abundance in fallow strips adjacent to organic
and conventional wheat fields and found that an
increase in organic cropping in the surrounding
landscape from 5 percent to 20 percent enhanced
bee species richness by 50 percent. Such effects
are probably caused by the absence or limited use
of chemical inputs and the presence of additional
non-crop floral resources (Holzschuh, SteffanDewenter and Tscharntke, 2010; Kennedy et al.,
2013; Rundlöf, Bengtsson and Smith, 2008).
Status and trends
As discussed in other sections of this chapter, many
management practices that can be considered
favourable to pollinators, including integrated
pest management, organic agriculture, conservation agriculture and agroforestry, as well as
landscape-management and restoration initiatives, are reported to be becoming more widespread. Increasing awareness of the importance of
pollinators and the need to address their decline
has led to a range of developments at national
and regional levels, under the umbrella of the
International Initiative on the Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Pollinators, aimed at addressing the decline of pollinators and contributing to
272
global conservation efforts. In 2018, the Plan of
Action 2018–2030 of the International Pollinator
Initiative was adopted at the fourteenth meeting
of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD.
Regional initiatives have been established in
Africa,70 Oceania,71 Europe72 and North America.73
National initiatives in other regions include the
Brazilian Pollinators Initiative74 and the Colombian
Pollinators Initiative.75 Promote Pollinators, the
Coalition of the Willing on Pollinators,76 was
established in 2016 and today (late 2018) has
23 member countries.
Thirty-one out of the 91 country reports indicate that pollination-management practices are
being implemented. The proportion is higher
among OECD countries (63 percent) than among
non-OECD countries (26 percent) (Table 5.1). The
reports indicate that such practices are most commonly used in crop production systems, including rainfed and irrigated systems, and in mixed
systems. For example, Norway notes that honeybee rental is important to the production of rapeseed, cherries, apples, pears, plums, raspberries,
strawberries and blackcurrants, particularly in
areas where the density of feral honey-bee colonies is low. Somewhat lower figures are reported
for livestock grassland-based systems and for
naturally regenerated and planted forests. Most
countries do not indicate the extent to which
pollination-enhancing practices are being applied.
However, upward trends in adoption are reported
across production-system categories (Table 5.2).
5.6.8 Forest-management practices
More than 60 000 tree species are currently
known to science, over 90 percent of which are
found in the tropical and subtropical biomes
(Beech et al., 2017). Tropical forests maintain
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1490e/a1490e00.htm
http://www.oceanicpollinators.org
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/
pollinators/index_en.htm
http://pollinator.org/nappc
http://www.webbee.org.br/bpi/ibp_english.htm
http://www.uneditorial.com/pageflip/acceso-abierto/pdf/abejaspolinizadoras-ebook-40217.pdf
https://promotepollinators.org/
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
high levels of biomass, but because of their
high species diversity, they typically provide
much lower volumes of merchantable wood per
hectare than temperate or boreal forests, which
are dominated by fewer tree species. This means
that selective logging is a common harvesting
method in tropical forests, typically targeting
fewer than ten individuals of timber species per
hectare and providing rather low volumes of
wood (<30 m3 per ha) (FAO, 1993).
By the early 1990s, it was widely recognized that
the mechanization of timber harvesting represented a major challenge to the implementation of
sustainable forest management (see Section 5.3.2),
especially in the tropics (e.g. Dykstra, 2002). After
the 1950s, mechanized logging technologies
using heavy machinery had been introduced
rapidly from temperate and boreal regions into
the tropics, and the scale and intensity of logging
operations had increased considerably relative to
those of operations that relied largely on human
and animal power (ibid.). As a consequence,
logging operations in the tropics spread across
large areas, and the high density of skid trails and
roads needed to extract scattered timber species
heavily affected non-commercial species and
degraded forest ecosystems in general. In parallel with post-1992 efforts to advance sustainable
forest management, various concepts and practices were proposed for making logging operations more environmentally friendly. “Reducedimpact logging” (RIL) emerged as the most widely
used term referring to such practices.
RIL has been described as a set of logging
practices implemented to reduce the residual
damage, biodiversity loss and carbon-dioxide
emissions associated with conventional logging
practices (Edwards et al., 2012). There are several
other definitions of RIL, but they all emphasize
the importance of well-planned, carefully implemented and closely supervised logging operations, carried out by trained personnel, that minimize impacts on forest stands and soils (Dykstra,
2002) (see Box 5.22 for a list of practices typically
involved in RIL). Many of these measures were
common practices in temperate and boreal forests
long before the invention of RIL in the 1990s.
Moreover, although RIL and tropical forests were
a major focus of attention in the 1990s, there were
also broader efforts to make timber-harvesting
practices more sustainable in all forest biomes
(e.g. Dykstra and Heinrich, 1996).
RIL needs to be part of a silvicultural system
within which specific measures aimed at achieving specific objectives are prescribed and scheduled in a management plan. The management
plan should also set out the method to be used to
regenerate the forest, artificially or naturally, after
wood harvesting. In tropical forests in particular,
Box 5.22
Measures or steps typically included in
reduced-impact logging
• Preharvest planning of roads, skid trails and
landings to provide access to trees that will be
harvested and to minimize damage to remaining
trees and environmental impacts.
• Preharvest vine/climber-cutting in areas where
vines bridge tree crowns.
• The use of appropriate felling and bucking
techniques, including directional felling, cutting
stumps low to the ground to avoid waste, and
optimal crosscutting of tree stems into logs in a
way that maximizes the recovery of useful wood.
• Construction of roads, landings and skid trails
following engineering and environmental-design
guidelines.
• Winching of logs to planned skid trails and ensuring
that skidding machines remain on the trails at all
times.
• Where feasible, utilizing yarding systems that
protect soils and residual vegetation by suspending
logs above the ground.
• Conducting a post-harvest assessment to provide
feedback to the forest manager and logging crews
and to evaluate the degree to which reduced impact
logging guidelines were successfully applied.
Source: Dykstra, 2002 (based on Sist et al., 1998).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
273
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
silvicultural measures implemented after selective
logging often include (FAO, 1998):
• enrichment planting using nursery-raised
seedlings or so-called wildings (wild seedlings) transplanted from another forest;
• weeding and clearing of forest undergrowth
to reduce competition with planted or naturally established seedlings; and
• liberation cutting in dense stands of trees of
both commercial and non-commercial species.
“Enrichment planting” is a term used to
describe “the planting of desired tree species in
a modified natural forest or secondary forest or
woodland with the objective of creating a high
forest dominated by desirable (i.e. local and/or
high-value) species” (ITTO, 2002). This practice is
implemented in forests managed to supply both
wood and non-wood products, as well as in traditional agroforestry systems and in degraded
forests under restoration efforts. Areas where
selective logging and enrichment planting have
been practised to increase the abundance of
useful species for food, medicine and timber
can be referred to as “enriched forests” (Peters,
Nepstad and Schwartzman, 1992).
Reported adoption of reduced-impact logging
and enrichment planting
Countries were invited to report on the proportion of production area under RIL77 and changes
in this proportion over the preceding ten years.
Twenty-six country reports indicate that the practice is implemented (Table 5.1). Eleven of these
also provide the percentage of the total production area on which the practice is applied. Several
European countries indicate that 100 percent of
their forest area is under reduced-impact logging,
some specifying that the practice is part of their
77
Reduced-impact logging is described in the country-reporting
guidelines as “a series of practices to improve logging
practices such as vine removal, directional felling, limiting
skid trails, logging roads and stumping grounds, restrictions
on the size and number of trees felled, and post felling
removal of waterway blockages, to reduce the residual
damage, biodiversity loss and excess CO2 emissions associated
with conventional logging practices” (based on Edwards
et al. 2012).
274
forestry policy. Most countries indicate that the
area under the practice is increasing or stable
(Table 5.2). Reduced-impact logging is most commonly reported to be practised in naturally regenerated forests (22 countries), followed by planted
forests (14 countries). A few countries provide
more-detailed information on how the practice
is implemented. For example, Cameroon reports
that skidding trails are constructed so as to reduce
the destruction of vegetation. Norway reports
that measures include leaving strips of forest close
to ponds, lakes, mires and rivers, leaving single
selected trees, snags and logs on clear cuts, and
leaving small set-aside areas. It also notes that
there are restrictions on the use of specific tree
species and that there are areas where there is
only selective cutting of trees.
Countries were also invited to report on the
proportion of production area under enrichment
planting,78 and changes in this proportion over
the preceding ten years. Thirty-one countries
report this practice, 11 of which also specify the
proportion of forest area on which it is practised
(Table 5.1). Responses range from 0.01 percent to
100 percent. The majority of countries report that
the area where enrichment planting is practised
is increasing (Table 5.2).The production systems
where enrichment planting is most commonly
reported to be practised are naturally regenerated forests and planted forests (reported
by 16 countries in both cases). A few countries
provide more-detailed information on how
enrichment planting is practised. Finland notes
that forests under continuous-cover forestry,
which is currently practised only on 50 000 hectares, can be considered enriched forests. Norway
reports that forests are enriched by maintaining a
proportion of at least 10 percent of broadleaved
species in coniferous stands. Costa Rica notes
that since 1979 it has had a reforestation policy
that includes traditional medicinal and edible
78
Enriched forests are described in the country-reporting guidelines
as “selective logging and enrichment planting to increase the
abundance of useful species for food, medicine and timber,
often a feature of traditional management practices,” (based on
Peters, Nepstad and Schwartzman, 1992).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
species such as ice-cream bean (Inga edulis),
earpod (Enterolobium cyclocarpum) and copperwood (Bursera simaruba).
5.6.9 Needs and priorities
While the various management practices described
above are extremely diverse, and each has its own
specific set of issues to be addressed, some general
needs and priorities can be identified. Most, if not
all, of the management practices discussed are
knowledge intensive and often context specific.
Implementing them effectively often requires
a combination of traditional and new knowledge. The farmer field school approach has been
widely applied, and creates a framework in which
farmer knowledge and experience can be shared
and developed. It also allows traditional and
alternative practices to be tested and combined in
beneficial ways.
Adopting biodiversity-friendly practices often
involves some cost to the producer in terms of, for
example, labour, equipment or time spent acquiring knowledge. More needs to be done to support
the process of transition, including by developing
the capacity of agricultural extension services.
Strong social institutions are also important. The
implementation of many relevant practices has
a significant social or community dimension, for
example in the case of terrace building, establishing windbreaks or reducing the likelihood of
disease epidemics. Supporting cooperation and
strengthening social institutions within producer
communities are often as important as the dissemination of specific management practices.
A number of countries identify policies and
regulations as playing a key role in promoting
the adoption of desirable management practices.
These include both those that support specific
positive actions and those that place constraints
on unsustainable practices, for example those
that restrict inappropriate use of pesticides and
other inputs. Thus, governments can play an
important part in improving management practices and in providing adequate rewards for the
adoption of practices that support the maintenance of BFA. Certification schemes are one
approach currently playing a role. However, in
many contexts such schemes are not yet sufficiently robust, flexible or diverse.
5.7 The use of micro-organisms
in food processing and
agro-industrial processes
• Micro-organisms provide a wide variety of ecosystem
services and are put to a wide range of uses in the
food and agriculture sector. Important uses include
the production of biofertilizers and biopesticides,
composting of agricultural by-products, conversion
of lignocellulosic biomass into industrial products
(including biofuels), environmental bioremediation
and the production and preservation of many kinds of
foods and drinks.
• While countries note the potential of biofertilizers
and biopesticides to reduce the need for conventional
agrochemicals and report ongoing research activities
in this field, they also indicate that the use of such
products is not yet very widespread.
• Some countries mention the significance of microorganisms in efforts to adapt food and agricultural
production to the effects of climate change and other
environmental stressors, noting that strengthening
these roles will require better identification, inventory
and characterization of relevant microbial resources.
• Many countries emphasize the importance of foodprocessing micro-organisms. Priorities noted include
strengthening research into traditional fermentation
processes and establishing or improving the supply of
starter cultures to small-scale producers.
• Policy and institutional priorities related to the use of
micro-organisms in food and agriculture include:
– improving frameworks for quality control of
microbial products and for evaluating potential
risks to human health or the environment;
– improving registration policies for microbial
products;
– improving education and awareness raising,
including via extension programmes and
demonstrations in farmers’ fields; and
– improving relevant partnerships between the public
and private sectors.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
275
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Micro-organisms are vital to many of the management practices discussed elsewhere in this
chapter, and to the provision of a wide variety
of ecosystem services (see Sections 2.2 and 4.3).
They are also used in a range of agro-industrial
processes and environmental-management techniques. The most prominent of these uses are in
the formulation of biofertilizers and biopesticides, composting of agro-industrial by-products,
conversion of lignocellulosic79 biomass into industrial products (including biofuels), environmental
bioremediation and animal nutrition. In addition,
micro-organisms are vital to the preparation of
many types of food and drink, at industrial, artisanal or domestic scales. This section presents an
overview of these various uses, considering first
uses in food processing and then uses in agroindustrial processes. Further information on the
roles of micro-organisms in management at production-system level (e.g. their significance in
integrated pest management and sustainable
soil management) can be found in the respective
subsections above.
5.7.1 Micro-organisms
in food processing
Overview of the roles of micro-organisms
in food processing
Microbial fermentation has played an important
role in food processing for millennia. It contributes not only to food preservation and safety,
but also to the nutritional value and sensory
qualities of foods and to the diversity of people’s
diets.80 There may be more than 5 000 different
types of fermented foods and drinks consumed in
the world (Campbell-Platt, 1987; Tamang, 2010).
Classic examples include cheese, quorn, beer,
wine, vinegar, soy sauce, yoghurt and breads. The
main groups of micro-organisms involved are bacteria, yeasts and filamentous fungi, also known
as moulds (Tamang, Watanabe and Holzapfel,
79
80
Structural material found in the cell walls of plants.
This overview draws on the CGRFA Background Study Paper
prepared by Alexandraki et al. (2013).
276
2016). In addition to their roles in fermentation, micro-organisms are used to produce many
compounds used in food processing, including
enzymes, flavourings, fragrances and bacteriocins
(substances produced by bacteria that kill or
inhibit the growth of other bacteria). Microbial
food cultures whose metabolic activity helps
to inhibit or control the growth of undesirable
micro-organisms (e.g. pathogenic or toxogenic
bacteria) are referred to as “protective cultures”.
These cultures play a role in fermentation, but
can also be used to improve the safety of nonfermented foods, including meats, fruits, vegetables and seafood.
In some countries, fermented foods are major
components of local diets, often fortifying and
adding variety to otherwise bland starchy diets.
For example, gundruk, a fermented and dried vegetable product, is very important to food security
in many Nepali communities, especially in remote
areas and particularly during the off-season when
the diet consists primarily of starchy tubers and
maize, which tend to be low in minerals. In Africa,
fermented cassava products, such as gari and fufu,
are major foods for many people. The emergence
of alternatives such as refrigeration has reduced
the significance of fermentation as a preservation
technique in parts of the world. Where this is the
case, the main role of fermentation often lies in
the production of a variety of products with specific flavours, aromas and textures. It also remains
a relatively efficient, low-energy and cheap means
of preservation and its lack of reliance on the use
of chemical additives appeals to some consumers (Battcock and Azam-Ali, 1998; Guizani and
Mothershaw, 2007).
Recent decades have seen increasing interest
in foods containing so-called probiotics, which
have been defined as “live microorganisms which
when administered in adequate amounts confer a
health benefit on the host” (FAO and WHO, 2002).
Probiotic micro-organisms are mainly used in dairy
products such as cheese, yoghurt, ice cream and
other dairy desserts. They have to be able to survive
passage through the upper parts of the digestive
tract (i.e. to resist gastric juices and exposure to
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
bile) and to proliferate in and colonize the intestine. The most commonly used strains are lactic
acid bacteria (Lactobacillus spp., Enterococcus spp.
and Bifidobacterium spp.) (Ouwehand, Salminen
and Isolauri, 2002; Saad et al., 2013). However,
other bacteria, and even yeasts, have been developed as potential probiotics (Ouwehand, Salminen
and Isolauri, 2002). Micro-organisms and their
metabolites have also been used in the production
of nutraceuticals, or functional foods, i.e. foods,
or parts of foods, that provide medical or health
benefits, including the prevention and treatment
of disease (e.g. Wang et al., 2016).
Food-processing micro-organisms are used under
a wide variety of different circumstances, ranging
from small-scale production using long-established
traditional techniques to large-scale industrial
applications. Large-scale enterprises in industrialized countries are able to access established culture
collections (either internally within the company
or from public collections) in which precisely characterized and defined microbial strains are maintained. They generally have sufficient resources at
their disposal to support research and development
and to acquire the technologies they need. In contrast, food processing in the “informal” sector is
driven by the availability of raw materials and cultural traditions, with gradual development of technologies over time. Modern, large-scale production
depends almost entirely on the use of defined
starter strains, which have replaced the undefined
strain mixtures traditionally used in food processing. This has dramatically improved culture performance and product quality and consistency. It also
means that a relatively small number of strains are
intensively used and relied upon by the food and
beverage industries.
The majority of small-scale fermentations in
developing countries are still spontaneous processes: a range of micro-organisms present at the
start of the process compete – and those that are
best adapted to the food substrate and the conditions in which they are maintained eventually
come to dominate. In many cases, material from a
previous successful batch is used to facilitate the
initiation of a new process. This practice, known
as “backslopping”, shortens the initial phase of
the fermentation process and reduces the risk of
fermentation failure. However, as demand for traditional fermented products grows and manufacturing has to be scaled up, it tends to be necessary
to introduce the use of starter cultures (isolated
cultures that can be produced on a large scale).
This often reduces the uniqueness of the original
product and leads to the loss of the characteristics
that originally made it popular.
Although the country-reporting guidelines did
not include any questions specifically related to
the use of micro-organisms in food processing, a
number of country reports mention the significance of this role. The report from Ethiopia, for
example, notes that micro-organisms play pivotal
roles in the preparation of traditional foods, such
as injera, kocho, bulla and cheese, and local drinks
such as tella, tej, borde, cheka and areke, that
are sources of livelihood and income for millions
of rural and urban Ethiopians.81 It further notes
that with the growth of dairy and other food and
drink agro-industries the contribution of microbial
genetic resources to the national economy is set to
increase enormously. Viet Nam notes that (like the
country’s other microbial genetic resources) microorganisms used in the production of traditional fermented foods, such as sour fermented meat rolls,
soy sauce, pickles and Hue sour fermented shrimp,
are well adapted to tropical climates and that
strains isolated from such products can produce
aromatic substances, proteins and enzymes that
impart unique flavour. Mali mentions traditional
fermented products such as soumbala82 and local
beers and cheeses, and notes the potential use of
genetically modified micro-organisms to add value
81
82
Injera is a sour fermented bread made from tef, sorghum
or other grains; kocho and bulla are produced from the
Abyssinian banana (Ensete ventricosum); tella and borde are
drinks brewed from grains; cheka is brewed from grains and
vegetables; tej is a honey wine; areke is a distilled beverage
(Bacha, Mehari and Ashenafi, 1998; Battcock and Azam-Ali,
1998; Berza and Wolde, 2014; Haard et al., 1999; Worku,
Woldegiorgis and Gemeda, 2016).
Soumbala is a condiment traditionally produced from the seeds
of the African locust bean tree (Parkia biglobosa) (Lamien,
Sidibe and Bayala, 1996).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
277
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
to such products. Spain refers to a growing interest in the use of micro-organisms in the design of
new “functional foods” for sections of the population that have special nutritional requirements, for
example for the elderly and those suffering from
coeliac disease, noting the potential benefits both
of probiotics and of using micro-organisms to synthesize vitamins or to increase the bio-availability
of minerals in food products.
Priorities in the management of foodprocessing micro-organisms
As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, countries’
priorities in terms of enhancing the use and development of BFA tend to include improving the state
of knowledge of relevant components of biodiversity and how they can be used, disseminating this
knowledge, improving stakeholder cooperation at
both national and international levels and, where
relevant, strengthening policy and legal frameworks. The country reports include few priorities
specifically related to the use of food-processing
micro-organisms.83 The priorities listed below are
therefore largely based on expert opinion, in particular on a background study paper prepared for
the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture in 2013 (Alexandraki et al., 2013).
The latter paper identifies a number of challenges to the sustainable management of foodprocessing micro-organisms. With regard to drivers
of change, it notes that:
• traditional food-processing practices and
indigenous knowledge are in decline worldwide;
• agricultural practices are changing and urbanization is affecting dietary preferences; and
• product availability is being influenced by
the effects of climate change on production
and post-harvest storage.
With regard to the current state of use and
development, the paper notes that:
• there are food safety concerns about some
traditional foods; and
• the development of single-strain inoculations has tended to result in a lack of attention to the potential of mixed cultures and
their contributions to the attributes of traditional products.
With regard to institutional, policy and legal
matters, it notes that:
• local producers of fermented products are
often ignored or marginalized by government agencies and financial institutions; and
• legal frameworks related to intellectual
property rights, food safety and claims about
the health-promoting properties of particular products need to be strengthened.
The following paragraphs summarize the main
priorities identified.
Research and development
There is a need to facilitate and encourage in-depth
study of traditional food-fermentation processes
– improving the characterization of microbial
populations, identifying strains and species that
play key roles in conferring quality attributes to
products and selecting appropriate strains for use
in the development of starter cultures. So-called
“omics” approaches can provide important
insights. Another priority is to use knowledge of
the preservation mechanisms associated with food
fermentation to further the development and
application of “natural” processing methods that
can serve as alternatives to chemical and thermal
preservation. Studies are also needed on the functional properties of traditional fermented foods
to identify possible health-promoting (probiotic)
effects. “Functional genomics” can be a valuable
tool in this regard. Further research on the efficacy of nutraceuticals based on microbes is also
required. Methods for preserving these products
also need further study. In view of climate change,
there is a need to develop mathematical models
that can predict the behaviour of microbial communities under changing conditions.
Starter cultures for small-scale producers
83
The country-reporting guidelines did not invite countries to list
priorities in this field.
278
Introducing starter cultures for small-scale food fermentations is another priority area. The potential
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
benefits of this approach in terms of improving
product quality and safety have long been recognized. Use of starter cultures accelerates metabolic activities and means that fermentation can
be better controlled. Progress has, however, been
limited. Infrastructure and technical facilities need
to be improved. For example, in many regions,
basic laboratory equipment and biobank facilities
for preserving and storing microbial cultures are
often lacking. Industrial bioreactor design needs
to be improved, as does diagnostic equipment for
monitoring starter-culture performance.
Promoting small-scale starter-culture processing
in rural areas is likely to require the use of “lowtech” procedures and the provision of support
for local networking between the providers of
starter cultures and small-scale processors. Key
tasks include the development and implementation of simple but effective methods for preserving and maintaining traditional starter cultures
without refrigeration and the further development and standardization of traditional methods
so as to increase their ability to withstand climatic
fluctuations.
Coordination and information exchange
Although a degree of progress has been made
in establishing mechanisms for coordination
and information-exchange among stakeholders,
further work is needed at both national and international (regional and global) levels. For example,
efforts to improve the quality and safety of food
produced via traditional “low-tech” processes
would benefit from the creation of multistakeholder fora at local and national levels. Such
bodies would need to address a wide range of
tasks, including the following:
• promoting the exchange of general, scientific and technical information;
• facilitating access to specialized technical
information on food-processing biotechnology, including by promoting knowledge transfer between the public and private sectors;
• organizing training and educational activities;
• giving guidance to small-scale processors and
addressing their concerns;
• facilitating unbureaucratic, low-cost access
to microbial strains suitable for use in smallscale operations from culture collections;
• enabling communication and exchange
between local and central governments and
small-scale producers;
• providing guidance and support to governments on the application of food-processing
biotechnologies and on their role and importance in food safety and food security;
• providing technical advice and facilitating
access to science parks and other infrastructure; and
• supporting the dissemination of scientific
and technical information generated by collaborative research projects.
Many of these tasks have international dimensions and hence the work of country-level stakeholder bodies needs to be coordinated at regional
and global levels. There is a need, for example, to
develop a comprehensive global database in which
information on the nutritional and health-related
properties of fermented foods can be collected
and organized.
Much still needs to be done to improve cooperation within the research community. For example,
strains cited in the scientific literature should,
whenever possible, be secured for future use.
Project consortia such as the European Consortium
of Microbial Resource Centres (EMbaRC)84 and
organizations such as Microbial Resource Research
Infrastructure (MIRRI)85 and the Global Biological
Resource Centre Network (GBRCN)86 have tried
to address these issues, and several journals have
revisited their policies to try and ensure the biological material on which published information
is based is available for the future. Policies are
also in place to ensure that voucher specimens
underpinning microbial taxonomy are preserved
and made available for the long term. However,
the accessibility of key strains still needs to be
improved (Stackebrandt et al., 2014). Collections
84
85
86
http://www.embarc.eu/
http://www.mirri.org/home.html
http://www.gbrcn.org/
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
279
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
also need to work together to make the best use
of new technologies. Common policies are needed
to address regulatory issues such as the control of
access to dangerous organisms and access and
benefit-sharing under the Nagoya Protocol.
Training and education
Training and education for small-scale producers, both on practical techniques and on product
marketing, are another priority. Trainers need
to be trained to address the specific needs and
concerns of this group. In addition to providing
training per se, trainers can potentially also serve
as a vital link between the formal and informal
sectors, contribute to the work of national and
international stakeholder bodies and support
efforts to promote traditional fermented foods.
5.7.2 Micro-organisms
in agro-industrial processes
Overview of agro-industrial uses87
Biofertilizers
A biofertilizer is a substance that contains living
unicellular micro-organisms that, when applied to
seeds, plant surfaces or soil, colonize the rhizosphere88 or the interior of the plant and promote
growth by increasing the supply or availability of
primary nutrients to the host. Micro-organisms
used in biofertilizers come from a range of different taxa, ranging from bacteria to yeasts and
filamentous fungi. They perform a variety of
different functions, including nitrogen fixation,
production of phytohormones and plant growth
regulators, solubilization of phosphorus and other
elements, production of siderophores (substances
that facilitate the uptake of iron from the soil) and
the formation of mycorrhizae (symbiotic associations between fungi and plants that, inter alia,
facilitate the uptake of nutrients by the plants).
87
88
This overview draws on the CGRFA Background Study Paper
prepared by Chatzipavlidis et al. (2013).
The region of the soil surrounding plant roots that is influenced
by secretions from the roots and inhabited by distinctive
communities of micro-organisms.
280
Production of a biofertilizer involves the identification of micro-organisms that can perform the
desired functions in the targeted agroecological
conditions. These then have to be multiplied and
packed in carrier materials that allow them to be
stored and distributed effectively.
Advantages of biofertilizers over their synthetic
counterparts include their capacity to provide a
wide range of nutrients, particularly micronutrients, their contribution to increasing soil organic
matter content, their relatively low cost and the
fact that they do not contain harmful materials such as heavy metals (or only in negligible
amounts). Disadvantages include (i) much lower
nutrient density, (ii) the need for different machinery from that used to apply mineral fertilizers,
(iii) difficulties with supply in certain areas,
(iv) the need for special care in their long-term
storage (as they need to be kept alive), (v) finite
expiry dates, (vi) ineffectiveness if the soil is too
hot or dry, (vii) potential loss of effectiveness if
the carrier medium is contaminated by other
micro-organisms or if the wrong strain is used,
(viii) the need for the soil to contain sufficient nutrients for the biofertilizer organisms to thrive and
work, (ix) limited effectiveness in excessively acidic
or alkaline soils or if the soil contains an excess
of their natural microbiological competitors and
(x) constraints to availability caused by shortages
of particular strains of micro-organisms or shortages of growth medium.
Biopesticides
Microbial biopesticides are used to control a
variety of pests and diseases in food and agricultural systems. Their use can help reduce some of
the problems caused by conventional pesticides,
such as the loss of beneficial organisms (pollinators, etc.), damage to wildlife habitats and adverse
effects on human health (see Section 5.6.6).
However, there are some drawbacks, including
their susceptibility to environmental stress, the
fact that they need to be kept alive and their slow
kill rates (Chandler et al., 2011).
Biopesticides based on bacteria are used to
control plant diseases, nematodes, insects and
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
weeds. The bacterium most widely used is the
insect pathogenic species Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt). During spore formation Bt produces Bt
δ-endotoxin, a highly specific endotoxin that
binds to and destroys the cellular lining of the
insect’s digestive tract, causing the insect to stop
feeding and die. The δ-endotoxin crystals are mass
produced in fermentation tanks and supplied in
the form of a sprayable product. Bt sprays kill
caterpillars, fly and mosquito larvae, and beetles.
They are used on fruit and vegetable crops and
on broadacre crops such as maize, soybean and
cotton. Some other biopesticides are based on the
capacity of certain strains of bacteria to prevent
plant diseases by outcompeting plant pathogens
in the rhizosphere, producing anti-fungal compounds or promoting plant growth. Preparations
based on bacteria with these capacities are used
against a range of plant pathogens, including
damping-off and soft rots.
Fungal biopesticides can be used to control plant
diseases caused by fungi, bacteria or nematodes, as
well as against some insect pests and weeds. They
operate via competitive exclusion, mycoparasitism89
and the production of metabolites that adversely
affect the target organisms. The most common
commercial fungal biopesticides used in the nursery,
ornamental, vegetable, field-crop and forestry
industries are Trichoderma spp., Beauveria bassiana
and Metarhizium anisopliae. Trichoderma is able
to colonize plant roots and out-compete pathogenic fungi for food and space. Under certain environmental conditions it can attack and parasitize
plant pathogens. It can also stimulate the plant
host’s defences and affect root growth. Beauveria
bassiana has proved effective in controlling crop
pests such as aphids, thrips and pesticide-resistant
strains of whitefly. The entomopathogenic fungus
Metarhizium anisopliae is used against the desert
locust (Schistocerca gregaria).
Baculoviruses are a family of naturally occurring viruses that infect only insects and some
related arthropods. A virus of this kind is widely
used in Europe and the United States of America
89
Parasitism of fungi by other fungi.
to control the codling moth (Cydia pomonella),
a pest of apple and other fruit trees. Most applications occur in conventional orchards, where its
use can help minimize the risk of resistance to
chemical insecticides. In Brazil, the nucleopolyhedrovirus is used to control the soybean caterpillar Anticarsia gemmatalis.
Non-pathogenic yeasts have also been developed into biopesticides. For example, a pesticide
based on Candida oleophila strain O is used to
control post-harvest fruit rots. The yeast acts as an
antagonist to fungal pathogens such as grey mould
(Botrytis cinerea) and blue mould (Penicillium
expansum) that cause post-harvest decay.
Composting of agro-industrial by-products
Large quantities of agro-industrial by-products
are generated worldwide, including straw, stalks,
leaves, husks, shells, peel, lint, seeds/stones, fruit
pulp, sugar-cane bagasse, sweet-sorghum milling,
spent coffee grounds and brewers’ spent grains.
Much of this material is made up of cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin. Most is either used as
animal feed or burned. However, several groups
of fungi are able to decompose these substances
and convert them into compost that can be used
as a soil amendment. Various agro-industrial byproducts can also be used as substrates for medicinal or edible mushroom production.
Production of microbial metabolites
As well as producing compost, micro-organisms
cultured on agro-industrial by-products can
supply a number of other useful products including organic acids, chemical additives, pigments,
enzymes, food additives, antibiotics, biofuels, solvents and bioplastics.
Organic acids. Micro-organisms are widely used
to produce organic acids used in the food and
beverage industries and in the production of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, leather and textiles, biodegradable plastics and coatings, cleaning products,
herbicides and pesticides. Citric acid, for example,
the most important bio-industrial organic acid,
is produced commercially mainly via submerged
fermentation using the fungus Aspergillus niger.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
281
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Fermentation using this fungus cultivated on a
range of agro-industrial by-products including
corncob, sugar-cane bagasse, coffee husks, kiwifruit peels, wheat bran, rice bran, pineapple waste,
mixed fruit waste, sugar-beet molasses, sawdust
with rice hulls, cassava waste, apple pomace and
potato-starch residue has been intensively studied.
Microbial-strain selection is very important in the
production of organic acids. The micro-organisms
used must have stable characteristics, be able to
grow rapidly and vigorously, be non-pathogenic
and produce high yields of the desired product.
Aroma and flavour compounds. Microbial biosynthesis or bioconversion systems are emerging as
promising substitutes for synthetic methods of producing aroma compounds for use in the production
of food, drinks, perfumes and essential oils. Both
fungi and bacteria can be used to produce aroma
compounds via fermentation (Dastager, 2009).
Enzymes. Fungi and bacteria grown on agroindustrial by-products in large-scale fermenters are
an important source of enzymes used in a variety
of industries, including the food-biotechnology,
animal-feed, pharmaceutical, textile and paper
industries. Rising demand for economical production methods, new functionalities, improved safety
and reduced environmental impact is driving a trend
towards the replacement of traditional chemical
processes with enzyme-based processes. Microbial
diversity is important in enabling the production of a
range of enzymes suitable for various different uses.
Fructooligosaccharides. Various strains of species
belonging to the fungal genera Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium and Penicillium can be grown
on agro-industrial by-products such as corncobs,
coffee silverskin and cork oak to produce fructooligosaccharides (substances used as sweeteners and
as “prebiotic” substrates for beneficial microbiota
in the gut).
Bioactive compounds. Micro-organisms grown
on a variety of agricultural by-products, including
wheat straw, rice hulls, spent cereal grains, various
brans (e.g. wheat and rice) and corncobs, can be
used in the commercial production of bioactive
compounds (non-nutrient substances used as
ingredients in the food and cosmetics industries).
282
Surfactants. These substances are used to
decrease surface and interfacial tension in a
variety of industrial processes. Surfactants used
in industry are almost all derived chemically from
petroleum. However, they can also be produced
by micro-organisms. Microbially derived surfactants have several advantages, including low
toxicity and good biodegradability. However,
although interest in their use is increasing, they
are not economically competitive with synthetically produced alternatives. Agro-industrial
by-products with a high carbohydrate or lipid
content can be used as substrates for biosurfactant production. Potential options include
peat hydrolysate, effluent from olive-oil mills,
lactic whey, soybean-curd residue, potato-process
effluent and molasses.
Microbial pigments. There is growing interest
in microbially derived substitutes for synthetic
food colouring agents, some of which have been
banned on account of their potential carcinogenicity and teratogenicity.90 Currently, the cost of
natural pigments is higher than that of synthetic
colours, but this hurdle could be overcome by
mass production. The fast growth rates of microorganisms should help to give microbial pigments
a competitive advantage over pigments extracted
from plant or animal sources. Riboflavin (vitamin
B2) (a yellow pigment permitted in most countries and produced by Eremothecium ashbyii and
Ashbya gossypi) and pigments from Monascus
purpureus and M. ruber are already in commercial use. Carotenoids (yellow pigments) are produced by several types of micro-organisms, but
only microalgae have so far been used for commercial production. Spirulina spp. produce phycobiliproteins, such as phycocyanin (blue pigment),
used in food and cosmetics.
Protein-enriched feed. A wide range of microorganisms can be used to produce protein-enriched
livestock feed from agro-industrial by-products
(Ugwuanyi, McNeil and Harvey, 2009). Potential
substrates include cassava waste, coffee pulp,
wheat bran and straw, maize stover (straw), millet,
90
The ability to disturb the development of the embryo or foetus.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
sugar-beet pulp, citrus waste, mustard straw, agave
bagasse, perennial grass, apple pomace and pulp,
grape waste, pineapple waste, cactus-pear waste,
rice polishings, rice bran and straw, viticulture
waste, maize straw, sugar-cane bagasse, sawdust,
mango waste, palm-kernel cake, and cabbage and
Chinese-cabbage wastes.
Single-cell protein. Since ancient times, people
in Africa and Mexico have been harvesting the
cyanobacterium spirulina from water bodies,
drying it and using it as food. Several other
species of cyanobacteria can also be used in this
way. Single-cell protein can also be produced by
a range of different fungal species grown on
various agro-industrial by-products.
Biologically active polysaccharides. Many strains
of bacteria, yeasts and filamentous fungi are used
commercially to produce extracellular polysaccharides. For example, pullulan (a substance used in
the manufacture of foods and other products)
is produced from agro-industrial by-products by
the yeast-like fungus Aureobasidium pullulans
(Israilides et al., 1999). Medicinal mushrooms,
such as Ganoderma spp., are grown by solid-state
fermentation using agricultural by-products as a
source of polysaccharides.
Bioplastics. Micro-organisms can be used in
the production of several types of bioplastic. For
example, acetic acid produced through the microbial fermentation of sugar feedstocks (e.g. beets)
and by converting starch in maize and potatoes,
can be polymerized to produce polylactic acid, a
polymer that is used to produce plastic. Bioplastics
can also be made from compounds called polyhydroxyalkanoates, which are accumulated by
bacteria in the presence of excess carbon sources.
Biofuels. Micro-organisms are used to produce
both liquid and gaseous biofuels. Bioethanol, for
example, can be produced by simple fermentation processes using feedstocks such as sugar-cane
stalks, sugar-beet tubers and sweet sorghum, with
yeasts as biocatalysts.
Bioremediation
Bioremediation is the use of micro-organism metabolism to remove pollutants from, for example,
soils or water. The main advantage of bioremediation is its low cost compared to thermal
and physico-chemical remediation. It also often
offers a permanent solution, i.e. provides complete transformation (i.e. mineralization) of the
pollutant rather than transferring it from one
phase to another.
Bioremediation can be conducted in several
ways: in situ via methods such as bio-augmentation
(the addition of externally sourced micro-organisms
capable of degrading the targeted contaminant),
biosparging and bioventing (methods involving
the injection of air and, if necessary, nutrients
to increase the biological activity of indigenous
micro-organisms that can degrade the targeted
contaminant); ex situ via methods such as (i) landfarming (a process in which contaminated soil or
other material is transported to a designated site,
incorporated into uncontaminated soil and periodically tilled to aerate the mixture and promote
the degradation of contaminants), (ii) biopiles
(structures in which contaminated soils are mixed
with soil amendments and enclosed) and (iii) bioreactors (containers in which contaminated material and bioremediating micro-organisms can be
maintained under controlled conditions).
Ensiling
The use of lactic-acid bacteria to improve the
quality of silage is common in Europe and North
America. The practice can, inter alia, promote
faster fermentation and reduce the presence of
yeasts and undesirable filamentous fungi, and
thus increase the time that the silage remains
stable upon exposure to air (Muck, Filya and
Contreras-Govea, 2007; Tabacco et al., 2011).
Agro-industrial uses of micro-organisms
as described in the country reports
Among the agro-industrial uses discussed above,
the most frequently mentioned in the country
reports are those deployed directly in and around
production systems. Generally, the reports do
not include much information on manufacturing
processes involving micro-organisms. This probably reflects the content of the country-reporting
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
283
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
guidelines, which focused largely on the roles of
BFA at production-system level.
Many country reports note the contributions
that naturally occurring micro-organisms make to
the maintenance of soil fertility, to the control of
pests and pathogens or to traditional management
activities such as composting. Many also mention
growing interest in the use of micro-organisms
in biofertilizers and biopesticides or otherwise
to promote plant growth. The report from India,
for example, states that “this largely unexplored
reservoir of resources has begun to be harnessed
for innovative applications.” More specifically,
it mentions the use of biofertilizers containing
nitrogen-fixing bacteria, phosphorus-, potassiumand zinc-solubilizing bacteria, sulphur-oxidizing
bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.91 It also
notes that many formulations based on fungi or
bacteria have been developed for use in the control
of fungal pathogens and insect pests. Similarly,
Argentina mentions that the inoculation of maize,
tomato, sunflower and wheat plants with native
mycorrhizas produces positive effects in terms of
growth and nutrient uptake and that fungi from
the genus Trichoderma are used to control pathogens and solubilize phosphorus. Actions reported
by Costa Rica include the establishment of beneficial micro-organisms (mycorrhizal fungi) at sites
that have been subject to monoculture. Examples
of reported research activities related to the use of
micro-organisms in agriculture and agro-industries
can be found in Section 6.3.2.
Several countries refer to the potential of
biofertilizers and biopesticides to reduce the
need to use conventional agrochemicals that may
be environmentally unfriendly, harmful to human
health, expensive or demanding in terms of
energy. Some mention the significance of microbial genetic resources in efforts to adapt agriculture to the effects of climate change or other environmental stressors, often emphasizing the point
that developing effective adaptation strategies
91
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi form symbiotic relationships with
plants by penetrating roots and forming structures referred to
as arbuscules and vesicles.
284
will require better inventory and characterization
of micro-organisms.
Some countries note that the use of biopesticides and biofertilizers is not yet very widespread,
but report ongoing research activities in this field.
Some, however, mention the need to address constraints to research, such as insufficient funding
and shortages of trained specialists. Another
concern mentioned is the potential for harmful
effects if microbial inputs are utilized inappropriately. For example, Ecuador mentions that in
many cases the active ingredients of microbial
preparations are imported without the necessary
mechanisms having been put place to evaluate
them prior to distribution and commercialization.
It notes that this has probably led to the introduction of strains that have had damaging impacts on
native soil biodiversity. The same country report
notes the need to strengthen regulatory frameworks in order to better guarantee the quality
of commercial products (i.e. to ensure that the
product contains the types and concentrations of
micro-organisms claimed on the label and that the
organisms are in a viable state).
In addition to the use of biofertilizers and biopesticides, a number of countries mention the
use of micro-organisms in waste treatment and
bioremediation of soil and water. However, few
details are provided. Some countries also mention
the use of micro-organisms as bio-indicators in
environmental monitoring. As noted above, the
country reports do not focus heavily on the use
of micro-organisms in manufacturing industries. A
few mention roles in the production of biofuels.
For example, Sudan notes that several yeast strains
are used to produce ethanol from molasses and
Panama mentions the production of biogas using
biodigestors. A few other countries mention uses
in other sectors, such as pharmaceuticals.
Needs and priorities
The country reports provide little information on
priorities for action in terms of further developing the technologies discussed in this subsection.
Where priorities are indicated, they relate mainly
to improving knowledge of micro-organisms
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
and their potential for use in agro-industries or
to strengthening regulatory frameworks (see
examples above).92 More-detailed priorities are
presented in the background study paper prepared for the Commission on Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture in 2013 (Chatzipavlidis
et al., 2013). The material presented here is based
on the priorities highlighted in this paper. General
policy and institutional priorities identified
include improving frameworks for quality control
of microbial products and for evaluating potential risks to human health or to the environment,
improving registration policies for microbial products, improving education and awareness raising,
including via extension programmes and demonstrations in farmers’ fields, and improving relevant partnerships between the public and private
sectors. The following paragraphs discuss priorities related to specific products and processes.
Biofertilizers
Expanding the use of biofertilizers requires more
research into the interactions between plants and
rhizosphere micro-organisms. The rhizosphere is
a highly dynamic system in which a vast number
of micro-organisms interact simultaneously. A
better understanding of the ecological factors
that control the performance of nitrogen-fixation
systems in crop fields is essential. Priorities for
research and development include strain selection – strains need to be able to establish themselves effectively in the targeted soils, perform
well and be persistent in the field, tolerate environmental stressors (ultraviolet radiation, heat,
desiccation, etc.), survive well in storage and have
little harmful impact on the environment. Field
trials need to be organized to test multiple strain
inoculations. Potential objectives for geneticimprovement activities include higher yield, faster
growth, improved fermentation properties, better
tolerance of process conditions, less formation
of undesirable by-products, better resistance to
92
Micro-organism-related priorities in fields such as integrated
pest management and sustainable soil management are
discussed in the respective sections.
bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria), new
or modified activities and regulation of enzyme
synthesis. New and improved carrier materials for
bacterial inocula are also required. The potential
use of bacterial biofilms as carriers is a significant
emerging area of research. Promoting the use of
biofertilizers will require evaluation of the economics of using them in specific circumstances,
taking into account costs in terms of labour, equipment and other inputs and benefits in terms of
impacts on production. Ensuring quality control in
biofertilizer production is another priority. Critical
benchmarks need to be identified at all stages of
the production process.
Institutional frameworks also need to be
improved. Collaboration between research institutes and the biotechnology industry needs to
be strengthened, inter alia in order to allow for
industrial-scale testing of inocula. National and
international guidelines for inoculum production
and trade need to be established to protect end
users and ensure product safety. Effective use
of biofertilizers requires a high level of knowledge on the part of farmers. Improving education and training is therefore also important.
Advice offered to farmers needs to be appropriate to local circumstances and kept up to date
with ongoing technological developments. Links
between researchers and farmers need to be
improved. Local and traditional knowledge can
potentially play a role in enabling the effective
use of biofertilizers in local conditions.
Biopesticides
Increasing recognition of the need for safer
and more-environmentally friendly pest-control
methods should create opportunities to expand
the use of biopesticides. However, research
and development are costly, and biopesticides
are often not able to compete on the market
with synthetic alternatives. Continued investment in research needs to be ensured. Priorities
include the establishment and strengthening of
partnerships among and between public- and
private-sector organizations, the establishment
of appropriate legal frameworks in fields such
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
285
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
as intellectual property rights and safety regulations for the release of new products, and efforts
to educate and raise awareness among potential
users and suppliers of biopesticides. Achieving
better uptake of biopesticides may be easier
in segments of the market where conventional
pesticides have relatively poor efficacy (e.g. in
the control of slugs). The challenges involved in
introducing the use of biopesticides vary from
production system to production system. The
environmental constraints in horticulture systems
are typically fewer than in arable-crop systems
and the likelihood of success is therefore greater.
Biocontrol-based integrated pest management
has been adopted widely in the labour-intensive
and technically complex greenhouse-crop industry
and by growers that have a high level of knowledge and are used to technological innovation.
Priorities for research include ensuring that the
effectiveness achieved in the laboratory can be
reproduced in field conditions. Ultraviolet light,
for example, is a major cause of rapid loss of activity in biopesticides after application to leaf surfaces in the field. Inability to withstand rainfall
or dry conditions can also be a problem. Another
challenge is posed by the fact that the activity
spectra of biopesticides tend to be very narrow
in comparison to those of synthetic agrochemicals. Host range can be addressed by using conjugal mating to produce strains that combine the
host ranges of their parent strains. In addition to
improving effectiveness in the field, there is also a
need to improve the shelf-life of biopesticides so
that they can easily be distributed via the conventional distribution chains used for other products.
Improving knowledge of the genomes of pests
and their microbial natural enemies will provide
new insights into their ecological interactions
and open new possibilities for strain improvement. Other potential targets for research include
inoculation of plants with endophytic strains93 of
entomopathogenic fungi94 to prevent infestation
by insect herbivores, exploiting the volatile alarm
93
94
Strains that live inside plants.
Fungi that cause disease in insects.
286
signals emitted by plants as a means of recruiting microbial natural enemies as “bodyguards”
against pest attack and using novel chemicals to
impair the immune systems of crop pests to make
them more susceptible to microbial biopesticides.
Many microbial biological control agents produce
secondary metabolites that have properties relevant to the control of plant diseases. These metabolites should be studied in order to assess their
potential for use in product development and to
identify any potential harmful effects on the environment or on human health. Another potential
option is the development of a “total-system”
approach to pest management, in which the farm
environment becomes resistant to the buildup of
pests, and therapeutic treatments are used as a
second line of defence (Kaewchai, Soytong and
Hyde, 2009; Malusa, Sas-Paszt and Ciesielska, 2012;
Nakkeeran, Fernando and Siddiqui, 2005).
The use of fungi as biocontrol agents is relatively
underdeveloped. There is still a wide gap between
laboratory research and use in the field. Future
research efforts need to focus on developing fungal
products that have significant effects in the field
and are stable in storage. Specific areas requiring
research include the choice of fungal strains, cheap
and reliable methods for large-scale production,
potential detrimental effects on the environment
and human health, and the potential for combining the use of different types of beneficial fungi.
Better communication between researchers and
industry is needed in the early stages of product
development (Kaewchai, Soytong and Hyde, 2009;
Malusa, Sas-Paszt and Ciesielska, 2012; Nakkeeran,
Fernando and Siddiqui, 2005).
Biofuels
Rising demand for biofuels will mean that there
is a need to take greater advantage of low-cost
biomass (lignocellulosic material) from agriculture
and forestry as feedstock. This will require significant improvements in technology. With regard
to bioethanol production from lignocellulosics,
specific challenges include the need to develop
cost-effective pre-treatment strategies for various
lignocellulosic materials (e.g. increasing the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
digestibility of these by-products), reduce the
costs of producing cellulase enzymes, ensure the
availability of robust recombinant microbes (filamentous fungi, yeasts and bacteria) that provide
high ethanol yields from the sugars produced from
lignocellulosic substances, and develop products
and markets for non-reactive lignin by-products
(e.g. potential use in paints and adhesives). In
the case of biodiesel, which is generally produced
from vegetable oils, residual oil present in oil
cake (a by-product of oil extraction) has great
potential. Where biogas is concerned, one barrier
to more widespread production is the fact that
people in rural areas are often unable to afford
the initial investment needed to set up a biogas
plant. Thus, the development of biogas technology depends on political will. Governments and
administrative authorities can promote expansion
by providing access to technology and financial
resources and by establishing a supportive legal
framework. Governments can also play a supportive role in biogas research and in the dissemination of information. A further general priority
is acquiring more information on total carbon
balance of biofuel production, i.e. on when it will
result in a net gain and when a net loss of carbon.
Composting
The main priority in this field is promotion and
dissemination of information to farmers on the
benefits of vermicomposting (i.e. composting
using worms).
Microbial metabolites
Research into micro-organisms, their genomics
and their communities has great potential to allow
the development of novel products and processes
for use in agro-industries. Genetic sequencing and
“meta” approaches (i.e. analysis of genomes, transcriptomes,95 proteins, etc. from whole communities
of micro-organisms) are opening yet more opportunities. There may be a need for increased investment in “bioprospecting”, in which ecosystems
95
The set of messenger RNA molecules in a cell or a population
of cells.
are surveyed for micro-organisms that can be
tested for metabolite production of interest to
agro-industry (Paterson and Lima, eds., 2017).
5.8 Rumen microbial diversity
• Low-quality plant material is converted in the rumen
to energy and nutrients for the ruminant animal.
Rumen microbes have a major influence on feed
digestion and the release of greenhouse gases into the
environment.
• The diversity of rumen microbes is vast, but progress
is being made in understanding their functions. Better
knowledge of these microbes is the key to using
science to influence rumen-microbial function in
order to enhance animal productivity while reducing
environmental impacts.
• There are opportunities to develop practical and
effective microbial on-farm technologies or practices
that harness the potential of rumen microbes to
support sustainable livestock development that
contributes to food security while reducing its
environmental footprint.
5.8.1 Roles and drivers
The micro-organisms (bacteria, archaea, fungi,
protozoa and viruses) that live in the fore-stomach
(reticulorumen or rumen) of ruminant animals
have a major influence on feed digestion and
the release of end-products into the environment
(Figure 5.7). Ruminants are unable to produce the
enzymes required to use the lignocellulose component of plant material as an energy source. This
metabolic role is instead fulfilled by the rich and
dense set of anaerobic microbes that inhabit the
rumen. Ruminants and their microbial communities
have evolved to thrive on a range of plant species
and this has enabled them to occupy many different habitats, spanning a wide range of climates.
Bacteria, fungi and protozoa all contribute
to the microbial degradation of lignocellulose
and other plant polymers. Fermentation of the
released soluble sugars produces short-chain fatty
acids (acetate, propionate and butyrate) that are
absorbed across the rumen epithelium and used
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
287
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 5.7
Rumen microbial fermentation
Bacteria
109–1011
5
%
Protozoa
104–106
Viruses
107–109
Fungi
102–104
CH4
CH4
Methane
CH3X
H2
Methanogens
105–108
io
M
CO2
n
Acetate
Propionate
Butyrate
CHO2-
%
Methane
Methane CH4
Feed
95
icr
o
b i al
F er m
en
ta
t
Notes: Microbial numbers are listed per ml or gram of ruminal contents. Abbreviations: CO2 = carbon dioxide; H2 = hydrogen,
CHO2- = formate; CH3X = methoxy compounds or methylamines; CH4 = methane.
Source: Image courtesy of the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (www.nzagrc.org.nz).
by the ruminant as a source of energy. Microbial
cells pass from the rumen into the lower digestive tract where they become the main source of
protein and amino acids for the animal. Other
fermentation end-products, including hydrogen,
carbon dioxide, formate and methyl-containing
compounds, are important substrates for the
rumen’s methane-forming archaea (methanogens). Viruses infect the other microbial groups in
the rumen, probably influencing their population
balances and hence the structure of the rumen
community. The characteristics of these various
groups of rumen microbes are discussed in greater
detail below.
A wide range of different microbes inhabit the
rumen. This diversity is the net result of a myriad
288
of counteracting selective forces. Host species have
evolved rumen conditions that favour the growth
and retention of a community of microbes (microbiome) with the best combination of metabolic
pathways to mediate the breakdown of ingested
plant material, provide the greatest yield of microbial cells, carry out the maximum biochemical work
and deliver a mix of fermentation end products
for the nutrition of the host (Hungate, 1966). This
has led to the co-evolution of a set of microbes
(the “core microbiome”) common to all ruminant
species across different geographical locations
and climatic conditions (Henderson et al., 2015;
Ley et al., 2008). Running counter to this is the
heterogeneous composition of the feeds ingested
by ruminants in different production systems
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
across the world, which selects for microbial types
adapted to using plant components characteristic
of local ruminant diets. This results in diet-driven
changes in the relative abundance of the species
in the core microbiome, plus the proliferation of
less-abundant species that can use specific feed
components (Henderson et al., 2015).
Some microbes are specialists in attacking
certain plant components (e.g. cellulose degradation by the bacterial Ruminococcus spp.), while
others are generalists that use a wide range of
substrates (e.g. the bacterial Butyrivibrio spp.).
Moreover, the micro-environments provided
by the physical structure of the rumen and the
ingested plant material, trophic interactions
between microbial groups and changes over time
caused by feeding events or the aging of the
animal present a wide range of situations and
niches for colonization by different microbes.
Recent evidence also indicates that genetic variation between animals feeding on the same diet
gives rise to different microbiome types (called
ruminotypes) and that these in turn lead to significant differences in rumen metabolism (e.g. Shi
et al., 2014).
5.8.2 Methane emissions
Ruminant livestock contribute significantly to
current global anthropogenic greenhouse-gas
emissions through the production of methane
by their rumen methanogen communities. One
of the consequences of microbial diversity in the
rumen is that methane is not formed only by one
type of methanogen, but rather by a variety of
methanogens using different metabolic pathways
and producing methane from different precursors
(Figure 5.7).
Interventions aimed at reducing methane emissions can directly target rumen methanogens or
target microbes that produce the substrates necessary for methanogenesis. Technologies such as vaccines and inhibitors can be used to directly affect
specific methanogen species. However, there is a
need to understand whether non-targeted methanogens will expand to occupy the vacant niche
if only some species are eliminated, and also how
rumen function is changed by eliminating particular types of methanogen.
Targeted inhibition of methanogen activity
in the rumen requires the identification of features that are unique to methanogens and are
amenable to inhibition or interference. Such features can be discovered experimentally, but this
can be a hit-or-miss process. Generating genome
sequences of representative rumen methanogens
is a more direct way of identifying useful targets
for vaccine and inhibitor approaches (Leahy et al.,
2010). Knowledge of the function and structure of
the target gene product (i.e. the protein encoded
by the gene) can also help narrow the search for
inhibitory compounds that might interfere with
its function in the methanogen. This approach is
being used in several methane-mitigation programmes around the world. Specific targeting of
microbes that produce the substrates necessary for
methanogenesis requires a much better understanding of rumen-microbial function than is currently available. Projects such as the Hungate1000
(see Box 5.23) are providing new knowledge in
this field. Any attempts to reduce methane emissions via a microbiological route need to consider
ways of avoiding adverse effects on the role of the
rumen microbiome in animal nutrition.
5.8.3 State of knowledge
Bacteria
The Global Rumen Census (GRC) project (see
Box 5.23) allowed an assessment of rumen bacterial diversity to be made across animal species,
continents and diets, although any survey of this
kind is inevitably incomplete (Henderson et al.,
2015). This study, in conjunction with many local
surveys of rumen bacteria (synthesized by Creevey
et al., 2014), revealed that core bacterial groups
are found in all rumens. The largest part of the
bacteria in the rumen, some 90 percent, belong
to 30 groups, with a further 94 bacterial groups
making up another 9.5 percent. These groups are
nominally classified at the bacterial genus level,
but in many cases their taxonomy is incomplete.
At least 10 of the 30 dominant groups correspond
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
289
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.23
Global research efforts in rumen microbiology
Major global research efforts in rumen microbiology
have included the Global Rumen Census (GRC) and
the Hungate1000. The GRC (Henderson et al., 2015)
is the most extensive exploration of rumen microbial
communities to date, representing 742 samples from
32 animal species from 35 countries, and supported by
140 scientists from 73 research institutions worldwide.
A key finding of the GRC was that similar bacteria
and archaea dominated in nearly all samples, and that
diet is a key driver of microbial-community structure.
Building on the results of the GRC, the Hungate1000
project (Seshadri et al., 2018) used the culture
resources of multiple rumen microbiology laboratories
around the world (57 researchers, from 14 research
organizations in nine countries) to develop a reference
set of 501 rumen-microbial genome sequences and
cultures. The Hungate1000 has captured almost all
cultured rumen bacterial and archaeal species that have
been taxonomically characterized and several as yet
uncharacterized strains belonging to novel species and
genera. It represents the single largest effort to provide a
catalogued and curated culture and genome resource for
rumen microbes. Both projects have been collaborations
among members of the Rumen Microbial Genomics
Network (www.rmgnetwork.org).
to families or orders that may contain multiple as
yet undifferentiated and unnamed genera. This
lack of comprehensive classification needs to be
addressed, starting with the major groups.
The ten most abundant groups comprise half
of all rumen bacteria. Three of these ten have a
valid genus name (Prevotella, Fibrobacter and
Butyrivibrio), and some understanding of their
metabolism has been gained from decades of
laboratory study. Some isolates are available for
another four of the ten most abundant groups,
which has allowed genome sequences to be generated through the Hungate1000 Project (see Box
5.23). Analysis of the genomes in conjunction
with confirmatory laboratory investigations of the
290
physiology of the isolates will allow more-rapid
assessment of the roles and potential functions
of these bacteria. The remaining three of the
ten most abundant groups are currently not represented by any known cultured isolates, and so
their physiologies and roles are not understood.
More effort needs to be made to culture a more
representative set of isolates, especially for the
major taxa of rumen bacteria. Another approach
is to assemble genomes from total DNA extracted
from rumen samples. For example, reconstructed
genomes of the BS11 group have provided insights
into their possible roles as previously unrecognized cellulose-degrading bacteria (Solden et al.,
2017). The genomic approach allows progress to
be made in the absence of cultures that can be
studied in the laboratory.
Archaea
The archaea indigenous to the rumen all appear
to be methanogens, forming methane from
simple substances produced by other microbes
(Figure 5.7). The GRC showed that rumen methanogens are the same across the globe (Henderson
et al., 2015). The most abundant genus is
Methanobrevibacter, from which multiple strains
have been isolated and some genomes sequenced
(Seedorf, Kittelmann and Janssen, 2015). The main
species of Methanobrevibacter in the rumen fall
into two clades, M. ruminantium and its relatives
(also called the SO clade) and M. gottschalkii and
its relatives (the SGMT clade). Some host diets can,
however, result in members of a third clade, M.
wolnii and its relatives, becoming the dominant
group (Henderson et al., 2015). Exactly how many
species there are in each clade is not known. It is
also not known how multiple species with apparently the same physiology co-exist – but they may
occupy temporally or spatially separated niches.
Both of these questions require further investigation (St-Pierre et al., 2015). There are also other
taxa of methanogens in the rumen, some of
which have physiologies that are different from
Methanobrevibacter (e.g. Lang et al., 2015; Li
et al., 2016). Not all of these other methanogen
groups are well defined taxonomically. Some are
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
not represented by isolates and genomes, and
so their functions in the rumen are not known
(Seedorf, Kittelmann and Janssen, 2015).
Fungi
Anaerobic fungi (phylum Neocallimastigomycota)
account for up to 20 percent of the microbial
biomass in the rumen. To date, nine genera of
anaerobic fungi have been described, most of
which have been detected in ruminants (Edwards
et al., 2017). Further novel clades are known to
exist based on culture-independent molecular
surveys, but so far lack cultivated representatives.
Anaerobic fungal communities are more variable
than bacterial, archaeal and ciliate-protozoal communities, suggesting that different genera occupy
similar ecological niches and replace each other
even in the same host species. So far, however, little
is known about the full metabolic repertoires of
individual species and genera. Because of the high
level of variation, studies analysing a large number
of animals are needed in order to detect correlations of anaerobic fungal taxa with host physiology. Evidence is accumulating that anaerobic fungi
that co-exist in the rumen perform niche partitioning, for example in response to carbon source and
type of host (Edwards et al., 2017). However, the
specific niches of each species remain to be understood. Currently, research efforts are focused on
improving cryopreservation methods, establishing
a centralized culture collection, scoping possibilities
to use anaerobic fungi as direct-fed microbials to
increase digestibility and feed efficiency and using
genomics (for example the 1000 Fungal Genomes
project),96 proteomics and transcriptomics to reveal
the physiologies of individual species.
Protozoa
Ciliate protozoa of the subclass Trichostomatia can
account for up to 50 percent of the total microbial
biomass in the rumen. Currently, at least 15 genuslevel clades of rumen-inhabiting ciliates have been
described using molecular methods (Kittelmann et
al., 2015). However, as isolation, cultivation and
96
http://1000.fungalgenomes.org/home
cryopreservation of ciliate protozoa are challenging, there is considerable discrepancy between the
number of species that have been observed microscopically and the number for which an accompanying DNA reference sequence is known. Thus,
most knowledge of rumen ciliate diversity and
community structure is derived from microscopic
observations (Williams and Coleman, 1992).
Like those of anaerobic fungi, rumen ciliate
communities are highly variable. Despite some
limitations, next-generation sequencing is becoming a useful tool for studying them across large
numbers of animals (Ishaq and Wright, 2014;
Kittelmann et al., 2015). This approach allows
dominant members of the ciliate community to
be identified and communities to be classified
into the distinct types first described by Eadie
(1962). Further studies are needed to provide
more-detailed insights into the ecology and function of individual genera and species (isolation,
cultivation, [meta]genomics) and into the dynamics within the distinct community types ([meta]
transcriptomics).
Viruses
The viruses of the rumen are a highly heterogeneous group, and high-throughput methods based
on universal markers to assess viral community
structures do not exist. Moreover, as environmental viruses cannot be propagated in the laboratory,
sequencing the genetic material from the viral
particle fraction (the virome) is the most effective
way to explore viral diversity and function. Few
rumen-virome studies have been undertaken to
date (e.g. Berg Miller et al., 2012), but information from those that have is consistent with physical observations that the tailed bacteriophages
(order Caudovirales) are the most prevalent types.
Sequence data from rumen viromes suggest that
their genetic diversity is much greater than the
observed morphological diversity seen via electron
microscopy of rumen contents (Ross et al., 2013).
Viral genetic material is frequently observed in
rumen bacterial and archaeal genome sequences,
which provides information on viral function
and host specificity. Better understanding of the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
291
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
contributions of viruses to rumen microbial ecosystem function will require more detailed characterization of rumen viromes and viral genes.
5.8.4 Needs and priorities
Although the diversity of rumen microbes is vast,
considerable progress has been made in terms of
understanding the functions of microbial groups
for which cultured representatives exist, primarily through genome-sequence information and in
vitro characterization. However, there are highly
abundant groups for which cultures are still not
available. Targeted efforts to cultivate such groups
and characterize them genomically and physiologically are needed to fill the largest knowledge
gaps. The scope of this endeavour would require
concerted global efforts, similar to those described
in Box 5.23.
An understanding of a microbe’s functions
within its natural ecological context (i.e. the rumen
microbial community) is needed in order to understand its contribution to rumen functional dynamics and hence to host nutrition and methane production. Many rumen-microbiome studies have
highlighted an apparent overlap in functional
potential, particularly between closely related
microbes. Better understanding of ecologicalniche partitioning among microbial groups is
needed in order to help elucidate how species
with similar physiologies are able to co-exist, and
further resolve differences observed between the
activities of pure and/or co-cultures of microbial
groups in vitro and those exhibited in situ.
Significant new light has been shed on microbial activities in situ through deep metagenomic
and metatranscriptomic sequencing with metabolite analyses (Shi et al., 2014). Global efforts to
further collect such data from a wider range of
production animals and diets have been initiated
(e.g. Joint Genome Institute, 2017),97 but there is
enormous scope to extend these to a more extensive range of ruminants and production systems
worldwide. Considerable opportunities also exist
to further explore existing high-throughput
97
https://jgi.doe.gov/gene-function-rumen-microbes
292
sequencing-based datasets and integrate this
information with that on matter and energy flow
in the rumen. This will allow better understanding of specific metabolic pathways and genes that
may represent targets for rumen modification.
Fundamental gaps in knowledge of rumen
microbial diversity still remain to be addressed. A
more complete understanding of this diversity and
its function, both in vitro and in situ, will greatly
facilitate the development of effective technologies or practices that support sustainable livestock
development that contributes to food security
while reducing its environmental footprint.
5.9 Genetic improvement
• Public and/or private breeding programmes exist in
most countries, in particular for major commercial crop
and livestock species and breeds, aquacultured species
and farmed trees. While quantity of product output
remains a primary target for genetic-improvement
efforts, there is often an increasing focus on a wider
range of traits, including those related to resistance to
pests, diseases and abiotic stresses, nutrient density
and other aspects of product quality.
• More than a third of country reports note the value
of domestication and base broadening in addressing
threats to production caused by reduced diversity in
domesticated plant and animal populations. Reported
trends suggest a slight overall increase in such
activities, but countries note constraints associated
with a lack of resources and capacity.
• With the exception of honey bees and silk worms,
genetic-improvement activities for insects are
generally uncommon. The most important traits bred
for in the western honey bee (Apis mellifera) are high
honey production, docility, reduced swarming and,
increasingly, disease tolerance.
• Assisted evolution of climate resilience in corals has
emerged as a research topic in recent years and efforts
in this field are likely to intensify as pressures on
corals increase.
This section discusses the state of breeding
(genetic-improvement) activities for BFA. The first
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
subsection provides an overview of domestication
and base broadening – two management practices
that countries were specifically invited to report on
in their country reports. The remaining subsections
address genetic improvement activities for particular components of BFA, beginning with crop,
livestock, forest and aquatic genetic resources and
then considering various categories of associated
biodiversity for which genetic-improvement activities are being implemented.
5.9.1 Domestication and
base broadening
Domestication is described in the countryreporting guidelines as “the development of new
crop, aquatic, forest and animal species through
deliberate breeding programmes or the continued selection and improvement of existing species
from their wild progenitors.” Base broadening is
described as “increasing the amount of genetic
diversity used to produce new varieties or breeds
used in agricultural production” (see IPGRI and
FAO [2001] for a fuller discussion). Thus, while
domestication increases diversity through the
introduction of new species, base broadening
increases diversity within the varieties, breeds
and populations that are already being used in
production systems.
Domestication of crop and animal species
began over 12 000 years ago (FAO, 2015a; Fuller,
2007; Vigne, 2011). The extent to which species
used in crop and livestock production possess
the various attributes of “domestication” varies
(see e.g. Miller and Gross, 2011; Zeder, 2012). In
the case of crops, domestication is probably best
considered as a more or less continuous process
that in many cases is still ongoing, both through
formal crossing programmes (as in the generation
of new bread-wheat materials from their wild progenitors – Dreisigacker et al., 2008) or through
more informal processes such as the “domestication” of wild and feral types of yam in West Africa
(Scarcelli et al., 2006). Many animal species can
also be considered to be partially domesticated
(FAO, 2000, 2015a). In the case of fish, domestication was limited to a few species until about
100 years ago, but since then has expanded
very rapidly: Duarte, Marbà and Holmer (2007)
reported that 430 aquatic species (97 percent of
those in culture at the time) had been domesticated since the start of the twentieth century and
106 within the preceding decade. Many aquatic
species remain in a state of partial domestication,
with production still dependent on the availability
of wild resources (Teletchea and Fontaine, 2014).
New crop and animal species are being domesticated by public-sector programmes (see below),
by the private sector and by rural communities
and farmers (e.g. in home gardens) (Abizaid,
Coomes and Perrault-Archambault, 2016; Galluzzi,
Eyzaguirre and Negri, 2010; Jamnadass et al., 2010).
There is continuing progress in the domestication
of new oil crops, bioenergy species, fruits, vegetables, deer and a wide range of fish species around
the world (e.g. Montes and Melchinger, 2016;
Sedbrook, Phippen and Marks, 2014; Teletchea and
Fontaine, 2014). Work on the domestication of bee
species is also ongoing (see Section 5.9.4).
Base broadening seeks to address the increasingly low level of genetic diversity of many
modern varieties, breeds and populations of
crop, livestock and plantation-forest species. This
narrow genetic base can lead to vulnerability98
and has been responsible for significant production losses in recent times, for example in the case
of maize in the United States of America in the
1970s (NRC, 1972) and taro in the South Pacific
in the 1990s (Hunter, Pouono and Semisi, 1998b).
Base broadening may be required when there has
been a marked founder effect99 in the domestication of a crop, or subsequent genetic bottlenecks,
for example as a result of breeding programmes
with a narrow genetic base. Base broadening may
be needed if rates of progress in breeding programmes are low, if there are production failures
as a result of vulnerability or if farmers identify
98
99
Populations of a crop species are said to be genetically
vulnerable if they lack the diversity necessary to adapt to a
biotic challenge or to an abiotic stress.
The term “founder effect” refers to the reduced genetic
diversity that results when a population is descended from a
small number of colonizing ancestors.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
293
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
the need for a wider range of options than those
provided by currently available varieties (see IPGRI
and FAO [2001] for a more comprehensive discussion).The importance of base broadening in crops
is reflected in its inclusion in the Global Plan of
Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (FAO, 2011b; see also Mba, Guimaraes
and Ghosh, 2012).
Over 50 percent of the country reports refer to
base broadening or domestication activities, and
about 40 percent mention both. While a small
number of countries report only base broadening,
a larger number (13) report only domestication.
The information provided usually includes descriptions of specific activities (see examples below)
and in some cases estimates of the areas involved,
which range from a few hectares to many hundreds. Activities are most commonly mentioned in
crop and mixed systems, although all categories of
production system are referred to at least once.
The targets of domestication most commonly
mentioned in the country reports are wild
food species, medicinal plants, tree and shrub
species used in agroforestry and aquatic species.
Agroforestry species mentioned included Gnetum
(a plant grown for its edible leaves and for medicinal purposes), Senegal saba (Saba senegalensis)
(a plant used for food and to combat soil degradation) and Sterculia setigera (a food source
with medicinal and other properties). Support
from CGIAR centres is noted in the case of both
forestry and agroforestry species. Medicinal
plant species mentioned include flagroot (Acorus
calamus), spiny asparagus (Asparagus racemosus),
emblic myrobalan (Phyllanthus emblica), belleric
myrobalan (Terminalia bellirica) and chebulic myrobalan (T. chebula). Other plant species
mentioned include stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) (a
natural sweetener with anti-inflammatory properties). A few countries also report domestication
activities for animal species, including deer, wild
pigs, cane rats, quails and frogs. A small number
note the importance of maintaining traditional
knowledge on crops or animals as part of any
domestication-related activities. In the case of
fish species, mullet, carp and rainbow trout are
294
mentioned. The risks associated with narrowing
the genetic base as a result of domestication are
noted in a number of the reports, particularly, but
not exclusively, in relation to fish species. Some
countries that do not themselves report specific
domestication activities nonetheless recognize its
importance in increasing diversity within production systems and identify it as an activity that is
constrained by lack of resources and capacity and
is in need of greater support.
Over 30 country reports mention base broadening, referring variously to activities involving
animal, forest and crop species (Table 5.1). The
most commonly reported trend is a low level of
increase in base-broadening activities (Table 5.2).100
However, very few countries provide details of the
crop, animal, fish or forest species involved or the
type of activities undertaken. Where details are
provided, countries most commonly note the value
of maintaining traditional breeds or crop varieties
or of introducing new varieties, breeds or forest
provenances, i.e. a broader view of base broadening than that used in the country-reporting
guidelines. A few countries specifically mention
the use of crop wild relatives as part of their basebroadening programmes. Some mention the
institutions involved in base-broadening activities, which include both universities and national
research centres. Norway reports that in 2011 a
public/private partnership for prebreeding was
established at the regional level by the Nordic
Council of Ministers to increase genetic diversity and thus enhance the development of new
crop varieties. It notes that the partnership aims
to address the long-term needs of the agriculture and horticulture industries, specifically with
regard to adaptation to climate change, environmental targets and changing consumer and
market demands. A number of country reports
clearly recognize base broadening as desirable
and necessary, but also that it is a process that
requires resources on a long-term basis and time
100
Countries were invited to indicate whether the “production
area or quantity” had been strongly increasing, increasing,
stable, decreasing or strongly decreasing over the preceding
ten years. The most frequent response was “increasing”.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
to achieve the desired results. In this respect, the
above-mentioned regional public/private partnership may be a useful model.
5.9.2 Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
Plant genetic resources for food
and agriculture
Public and/or private plant-breeding programmes
of some kind exist in most countries. The Second
Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2010a)101
indicated that the number of programmes, particularly private-sector programmes, had increased
over the preceding ten years. Biotechnological
techniques had evolved considerably and there
was an increase in their use in plant breeding worldwide, although many breeding programmes, especially in developing countries,
lacked the capacity to apply them. In general,
investment in breeding programmes mirrored the
economic importance of the crop species. Thus,
major crops were receiving the bulk of breeding
investments, although several country reports102
highlighted the importance of giving attention
to underutilized crops. There appeared to have
been an increase in the use of wild species in crop
improvement, due in part to the increased availability of methods for transferring useful traits
from them to domesticated crops. The principal
traits targeted by plant breeders continued to be
those related to yield of primary product per unit
area. However, increasing attention was being
paid to tolerance and resistance to pests, diseases
and abiotic stresses. There was also reported to
be an increase in farmer participation in plantbreeding activities in all regions of the world.
Breeding programmes in most regions remained
constrained by shortages in funding, trained
Unless otherwise indicated, the material presented in this
subsection is based on this source.
102
The references to country reports in this subsection refer to those
submitted for The Second Report on the State of the World’s
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2010a).
personnel and technical facilities. Several country
reports also expressed concern about the lack of
fully effective linkages between basic researchers,
breeders, curators, seed producers and farmers.
Animal genetic resources for food
and agriculture
Breeding programmes for animal genetic
resources for food and agriculture (AnGR) are
implemented in a range of different circumstances
around the world. The stakeholders involved, the
organizational set-up and the sophistication of
the techniques applied vary greatly (FAO, 2015a).103
Breeding programmes for high-input production systems generally involve well-developed
systems for performance and pedigree recording and the use of advanced methods of genetic
evaluation to estimate the breeding value of
individual animals or families. Breeding programmes in the dairy sector have been revolutionized in recent years by developments in
genomics. With some variation from region to
region and from species to species, the main
operators of programmes in high-input systems
tend to be breeders’ associations, cooperatives
or private companies. The most advanced breeding programmes, particularly in the poultry, pig
and, to a lesser degree, dairy sectors, tend to
target only a limited number of breeds, generally originating from the temperate regions of
the world. Selection criteria often encompass an
increasingly wide range of traits, including those
related to product quantity and quality, reproduction and health. Cross-breeding strategies of
various kinds are widely used.
Breeding programmes for the low-input systems
of the developing world tend either to be centralized public-sector programmes or community-level
initiatives of some kind, often supported by outside
agencies. Establishing and sustaining breeding programmes for such systems has generally proved to
be challenging. For many breeds in developing
101
103
The material presented in this subsection is based on The
Second Report on the State of the Worlds Animal Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2015a).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
295
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
countries, breeding programmes are either nonexistent or in a rudimentary state. Nonetheless
there appear to be upward trends in the number
of breeds in developing countries covered by some
of the elements or “building blocks” of breeding
programmes, for example animal identification
and performance recording.
Use of exotic breeds to replace or cross with
locally adapted breeds is a popular strategy.
However, cross-breeding programmes need to
be well-planned so as to ensure that cross-bred
animals are suited to the production environments
in which they are to be raised and that locally
adapted AnGR are not lost. There is growing recognition of the value of the locally adapted breeds
of developing countries, for example in addressing challenges associated with climate change.
However, there are many constraints to the development of effective breeding programmes for
these breeds. In addition to the limited availability of financial resources and shortfalls in human
and technical capacity, organizational frameworks
that enable effective participation of livestock
keepers in the planning and operation of breeding programmes are often lacking. Systems and
infrastructure for distribution of superior genetic
material are also generally lacking, providing little
incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the business
of developing and marketing breeding stock.
Forest genetic resources
Trees have been the subject of informal selection
and germplasm transfer for centuries if not millennia (FAO, 2014a).104 More systematic research
and development efforts have been conducted for
a little over a century, and the first tree-breeding
programmes were initiated in the 1930s. Most
tree-breeding programmes aim to achieve gradual
improvement of breeding populations rather than
development of new varieties (exceptions include
breeding of eucalyptus and poplars).
Until recently, tree breeding focused on (comparatively few) species used for wood production
104
The material presented in this subsection is based on The State
of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources (FAO, 2014a).
296
and on improving a relatively small number of traits
that maximize economic gains (including growth
rate, volume, stem form, processing and product
quality). However, in recent decades government
agencies and the private sector have subjected a
wider range of tree species to domestication and
formal breeding programmes targeting the production of a variety of goods including timber,
pulp, fuelwood, fruits, nuts, oils, traditional medicines, dyes, resins and thatch, as well as various
service functions. In addition, tree-breeding
efforts have increasingly focused on adaptabilityrelated traits, such as those conveying resistance to drought, fire, pests and diseases. These
breeding programmes are primarily initiated by
public agencies. The main drivers of change have
included the increasing scale and unpredictability
of environmental change, and new demands for
trees for food and nutritional security, environmental restoration and carbon sequestration.
Increasingly sophisticated approaches and technologies are being applied to tree breeding to
generate faster rates of gain. Hybrid breeding,
involving interspecific hybrids and wide provenance crosses, is used in many countries to produce
trees with superior productive capabilities (and
also to introduce genes for disease resistance). New
molecular tools offer opportunities for markerassisted selection to shorten the long cycles of
breeding, testing and selection, and even for estimating quantitative genetic parameters directly
from natural tree populations (e.g. El-Kassaby et
al., 2011). In many developing countries, however,
a lack of skilled tree breeders constrains the use of
advanced breeding methods.
Overall, much remains to be done to realize
the full potential benefits of tree-breeding programmes and the genetic diversity of natural
tree populations, particularly in the tropics. In
most countries, priority requirements include the
establishment of national information systems
and better coordination among stakeholders –
within and between government agencies and
departments (especially departments of forestry,
agriculture and environment), research institutes
and universities and the private sector. Developing
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
a national FGR strategy is a key means of improving coordination between such actors.
Aquatic genetic resources for food
and agriculture
The majority of farmed aquatic species are very
similar to the wild type, i.e. to their wild relatives.
As noted elsewhere in this report, breeding and
domestication of aquatic species is generally a
relatively recent development, although a small
number of species were domesticated a few
thousand years ago, for example the common
carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Balon, 1995). The breeding of ornamental fish has been an important
aspect of Asian culture for millennia. Increasing
numbers of aquatic species are being bred under
farmed conditions and this has helped the aquaculture sector become the fastest-growing foodproducing sector (Duarte, Marbà and Holmer,
2007). Increasing numbers of ornamental species
are also being bred in captivity. Some wild types
can be bred in captivity through manipulation of
photoperiod, temperature, hormone treatment or
through natural processes.
Once controlled breeding has been established, a
number of different genetic improvement methods
can be applied to aquatic species. Among these,
selective breeding has the longest history of use in
aquaculture and is the form of genetic technology
most commonly reported in the country reports105
submitted for The State of the World’s Aquatic
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO,
forthcoming). Other approaches include monosex
production, hybrid production and triploid/
polyploid production through chromosome-set
manipulation. Gene transfer and other geneticengineering technologies have been successful
under research conditions, but have not been used
commercially due to consumer resistance and environmental concerns. Genomic selection and gene
editing show promise and may become increasingly
important in the genetic improvement of farmed
aquatic species (Dunham, 2011).
105
All references to country reports in this subsection refer those
on aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture.
The country reports indicate that the use
of genetic technologies and genetic-resources
management of some kind is occurring in about
50 percent of farmed species. Approximately half
indicate that genetically improved aquatic organisms contribute at least to some extent to national
aquaculture production. All the reports indicate at
least some use of selective breeding in aquaculture:
35 percent to a great extent; 53 percent to some
extent; and 13 percent to a minor extent. Genetic
improvement of aquatic genetic resources is often
the result of advanced breeding programmes conducted by large private companies in areas outside
the natural distribution range of the species.
The objective of most genetic-improvement
programmes in aquatic species is to increase
growth rate. However, colour, body shape, spawning time and fecundity can also be improved.
Disease resistance is an important trait, especially
in marine shrimp aquaculture, and is being targeted by genetic improvement programmes in
various species (Lightner, 2011).
Genetic improvement creates tremendous
opportunities to increase food production from
aquaculture (Gjedrem, Robinson and Rye, 2012).
However, there are challenges. Genetic data are
technically demanding and costly to collect. The
availability of funding for breeding programmes
is often inadequate. Expanding the role of
public–private partnerships is a potential means
of addressing some funding constraints.
5.9.3 Associated biodiversity –
overview
Introduction
Although most associated-biodiversity species
are not domesticated or even maintained outside
their natural habitats, some are reared in captivity in order to maintain or increase their numbers
for conservation purposes, so that they can be
readily deployed to promote the supply of ecosystem services or for purposes such as use as
fishing bait. Comprehensive information on mass
production of beneficial invertebrates and entomopathogens for biological control, protein for
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
297
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
human and animals (including fish) and pollination is compiled in Morales-Ramos, GuadalupeRojas and Shapiro-Ilan (2014). Only a few such
species are subject to genetic-improvement
programmes. However, even if no deliberate
genetic improvement activities are implemented,
inbreeding depression, founder effects, genetic
drift and adaptation to the captive environment
often mean that animal populations in captivity
differ genetically from their wild counterparts
(van Huis et al., 2013). A number of country
reports mention captive breeding of associated
biodiversity species among ex situ conservation
activities (see Section 7.3).
Even though most insects used in food and agriculture are collected from the wild, a few species
have been domesticated, for example the silkworm (Bombyx mori) and some pollinators (particularly Apis spp. and Bombus spp.). Literature
on genetic improvement efforts aimed at improving the efficacy of arthropod BCAs is very limited
(Henry et al., 2010). However, there have been a
few cases in which such species have been bred
for pesticide resistance so that they can be used
in conjunction with pesticides (Orr, 2009). In
2015, the European Union started the Breeding
Invertebrates for Next Generation BioControl
(BINGO)106 project (within the EU Horizon 2020
programme), an international initiative targeting research and training on breeding and trait
improvement in arthropod natural enemies such
as the mite Phytoseiulus persimilis, the mirid bug
Nesidiocoris tenuis and the parasitoid jewel wasp
Nasonia vitripennis.
In the case of soil biodiversity, considerable
work is being undertaken on the selection of
naturally occurring beneficial micro-organisms
that play roles in plant nutrition (e.g. Rhizobium,
Trichoderma, Beauveria and Bacillus spp.), biological control of weeds, pests and pathogens,
biological control of aflatoxin-producing fungi
(e.g. using Aflasafe)107 and post-harvest management (e.g. Card et al., 2016; Trognitz et al.,
106
107
https://www.bingo-itn.eu/en/bingo.htm
https://aflasafe.com
298
2016; Yin et al., 2008). Some soil-dwelling invertebrates can be cultivated to supply horticultural
products (vermicompost) or for protein production for use in animal feed or human food (Lowe,
Butt and Sherman, 2014). However, there are no
reports of genetic-improvement activities for soil
invertebrates.
Unlike other components of associated biodiversity, micro-organisms for food processing are
generally maintained by companies and kept
under controlled conditions to ensure the purity
of strains. Breeding is undertaken to develop
strains with desirable properties such as increased
productivity or tolerance of particular chemical
compounds.
5.9.4 Pollinators
Introduction
Among honey-bee species, only one, the western
honey bee (Apis mellifera), has been widely
managed and transported across the world. A few
other pollinator species are managed on a more
limited scale, including solitary bees, such as the
alfalfa leafcutter bee Megachile rotundata in the
United States of America and Canada and the red
mason bee Osmia bicornis in Europe (IPBES, 2016b)
(see also Section 5.6.6). The commercially most
significant managed pollinators other than honey
bees are bumble bees (Bombus spp.) (Velthuis and
van Doorn, 2006). Apis mellifera has been the main
target of genetic selection and breeding efforts
and is the main focus of this section.
Honey bees (Apis spp.) are eusocial insects,
meaning that they live in colonies comprising one
queen, tens of thousands of workers and thousands
of males (referred to as drones) (Seeley, 1985). The
workers collect nectar from flowers and convert it
into honey using self-excreted enzymes. They also
excrete wax scales from abdominal wax glands and
form it into combs used to store honey and pollen
and for rearing offspring (Winston, 1987).
Prior to the development of moveable frame
hive beekeeping for the western honey bee in
the middle of the nineteenth century (Crane,
1999), which allowed the rearing of queens from
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
chosen colonies, there were no conscious efforts to
breed honey bees. However, once this method had
become established, numerous commercial enterprises were set up in North America, Europe, Asia
and Australasia to produce Apis mellifera queens
for sale to beekeepers. The most important traits
bred for by such companies have been high honey
production, docility, reduced swarming and – especially in the last two decades – disease tolerance.
Companies, however, reveal few details of their
breeding efforts or the degree of success achieved.
A peculiarity of honey bees is that the queen
only mates within the first few days of emergence
as an adult and does so only with 10 to 20 drones
from surrounding colonies at a “drone congregation area” situated at 10 to 50 metres above
ground and up to several kilometres from her
natal colony – a mechanism that is likely to reduce
inbreeding (Koeniger et al., 2014). Honey-bee
mating is therefore difficult to control, and this
hampers selection. Instrumental (artificial) insemination overcomes these drawbacks (Laidlaw,
1977). However, it is complicated, requires expensive specialist equipment, and is rarely practised
outside academic laboratories.
Objectives of bee-breeding programmes
Research in the mid-twentieth century
(Rothenbuhler, 1964) led to the discovery of two
behavioural traits, “uncapping” and “removal”
of diseased larvae, that give honey-bee colonies a level of tolerance to the virulent brood
disease American foulbrood (causative agent:
Paenibacillus plutonius). Another trait that has
been successfully selected for is “pollen hoarding”
(Page, 2013). Other traits such as honey production, defence behaviour, swarming and disease
resistance are heritable, i.e. can be selected for
and improved (Bienefeld, 2016), although little is
known about their genomic underpinning.
Arguably the most serious problem facing
honey bees is the highly prevalent and virulent
varroa–virus nexus, i.e. the ectoparasitic mite
Varroa destructor and the viruses it transmits
(Le Conte, Ellis and Ritter, 2010; McMahon et
al., 2016; Natsopoulou et al., 2017; Rosenkranz,
Aumeier and Ziegelmann, 2010). Recent attention in honey-bee selection has focused on local
populations that seem to exhibit tolerance to the
varroa–virus nexus (Locke, 2016) and on the search
for the genetic basis of varroa resistance (Spötter
et al., 2016). Evidence for the heritability of traits
conferring tolerance provides the scientific rationale for efforts to breed for tolerant honey bees.
Status and trends of bee-breeding
programmes
Estimating the number of bee-breeding programmes is difficult because most or all are in the
hands of commercial enterprises, whose numbers
vary as new companies become established and
others shut down. There are probably around 100
such commercial enterprises worldwide, including
a few long-term programmes that over the past
20 years have selected for honey bees tolerant to
the varroa–virus nexus, for example in the United
States of America (Ibrahim, Reuter and Spivak,
2007; Rinderer et al., 2010) and in Europe (Kefuss et
al., 2015). There is growing interest among institutions and beekeeper groups in selecting local (particularly endemic) honey bees that are tolerant to
the varroa–virus nexus (e.g. the SmartBees project
funded by the European Union – see Box 5.24).
Such efforts are generally devolved to regional
or local beekeeper groups and institutes, but may
number well over 100 worldwide.
The performance of the queens (and colonies
they head) generated by commercial breeding companies is rarely quantified, and therefore rigorous
data on the success of breeding programmes are
unavailable, although an improvement in honey
production and pollination potential is likely.
Current breeding and selection efforts for honey
bees tolerant to the varroa–virus nexus are in too
early a stage to have had their success quantified.
If successful they could reduce reliance on commercial acaricides, which would provide an immediate
environmental-health benefit by reducing the risk
of these pesticides entering honey and the human
food chain (Mullin et al., 2010).
The small number of companies in Australasia,
East Asia, North America and Europe that rear
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
299
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 5.24
SmartBees: a European project for the conservation of endangered honey-bee subspecies
Adaptation of honey-bee populations to the climate and
diseases of their particular local environments has given rise
to approximately ten different subspecies across Europe. This
diversity is, however, under pressure. One reason for this is
the effects of the varroa mite (Varroa destructor), which has
led to catastrophic losses of honey-bee colonies. Another is
the systematic replacement of many native European honeybee populations with two races that have been bred for
productivity, gentle behaviour and disease resistance. Both
these factors are drastically reducing the genetic diversity
of honey bees in Europe and endangering sustainable,
regionally acclimated beekeeping.
Under the European Union-sponsored SmartBees project,
which ran from 2014 to 2018, 16 institutes from 11 countries
cooperated to address this problem. One achievement of
SmartBees was an assessment of remaining honey-bee
diversity in Europe in unprecedented detail and quality.
Another major outcome was the characterization of the
genetic basis of factors conferring resistance to varroa mites.
Results from these studies were combined to produce a lowcost molecular tool that enables beekeepers and scientists
to easily check the subspecies affiliation and potential
bumble bees do not report on whether selection
is practised or if so what successes have been
achieved.
Constraints to bee breeding and key needs
and priorities
The selection of traits in honey bees requires performance testing of the entire colony. This can take
one or more years for traits such as honey yield or
overwinter survival and hence represents a time
constraint. The haplodiploid character of honey
bees (the male is haploid and the female is diploid)
and the fact that traits of interest to breeders, such
as the amount of honey stored, are colony-level
characteristics (i.e. relate to the products of the
workers, while it is only the queen that produces
offspring) also create challenges. However, these
have been largely overcome by population-genetic
300
resistance of a given bee or hive. The project also monitored
the attitudes and information needs of beekeepers with
respect to honey-bee biodiversity, and compiled a toolkit of
extension methods to address these needs.
SmartBees shed light on the intricate interactions
between varroa mites, viruses and bees, which will
hopefully allow the identification of new angles of attack
for preventing colony losses caused by diseases such
as varroosis. Moreover, breeding groups have also been
initiated for most of the endangered subspecies of Apis
mellifera. These have already completed three seasons of
performance testing, with the aim of adapting local bees
to the requirements of “preservation through utilization”.
Towards the end of the project period, the groups were
transformed into an international breeding association for
the conservation and improvement of local bee populations,
which will hopefully allow the success of the project to be
built on and its positive spirit to be carried into the future.
Source: Provided by Kaspar Bienefeld.
Note: For further information, visit the SmartBees website:
http://www.smartbees-fp7.eu
and selection theory (e.g. Rinderer, ed., 1986). An
approach to estimation of the breeding value of
honey bees that takes the eusocial colony into
proper consideration (best linear unbiased prediction [BLUP]-animal model) has been developed
(Bienefeld et al., 2007).
Across its native distribution, Apis mellifera is
genetically differentiated into diverse subspecies
(Wallberg et al., 2014), a pattern that is probably also true for the eight recognized Asiatic
Apis species. A key priority is to maintain the
genetic diversity of endemic populations that
may harbour locally adapted traits (Büchler et
al., 2014) in the face of the commercial transport
of colonies from one region to another. Though
beekeeping per se does not seem to negatively
affect the genetic diversity of honey bees (Harpur
et al., 2012), research is needed into the impact of
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
hybridization between subspecies of A. mellifera,
which could lead to the loss of genes underpinning local adaptations.
Because beekeeper (as opposed to commercial)
breeding and selection proceed via the rearing of
queens from selected colonies and allowing them
to mate naturally with drones from surrounding
colonies, a key need is to encourage the local community of beekeepers to use selected stock in their
colonies. This has the benefit of maintaining the
genetic diversity of local endemic populations and
their adaptive potential. Engagement and participation of beekeepers are therefore essential to the
success of any long-term bee-breeding endeavour.
Another priority is to objectively quantify the traits
sought by beekeepers. This requires research into
efficient performance testing and estimation of the
heritability of these traits (and markers correlated
with them). Research also needs to address the following three outstanding questions: are local (particularly endemic) subspecies of honey bee better
adapted than other bees to local conditions? Does
heritable variance exist for tolerance not only to
varroa mites but also to co-transmitted viruses? Can
such tolerance be selected for within local (particularly endemic) subspecies?
5.9.5 Assisted evolution for
reef-building corals
Introduction
(Human)-assisted evolution is defined as the
acceleration of naturally occurring evolutionary processes to enhance certain traits (Jones
and Monaco, 2009; van Oppen et al., 2015). For
reef-building corals, the primary focus of this intervention is to increase resilience to climate change
(van Oppen et al., 2017), which is a major threat
to coral reefs worldwide (Hughes et al., 2018) (see
also Section 4.5.4). Assisted evolution is based on
several biological-engineering principles that are
successfully being applied to improve human
health and food production, but which are only
just beginning to be explored in the field of biodiversity conservation (Piaggio et al., 2017). While
genetic engineering or synthetic biology could
also potentially be used to increase the climate
resilience of corals, little work has been done on
this and such approaches are not discussed further
here. Assisted evolution can target the coral host
animal or any of the associated microbial symbionts (Figure 5.8). Research on assisted evolution
is in its early stages and the few results that have
been published are summarized below.
Host manipulations
Host manipulations currently being explored are
based on genetic (points 1 to 3 below) or epigenetic (point 4) manipulations:
1. Assisted gene flow is the intentional translocation of individuals within a species range to
facilitate adaptation to anticipated local conditions (Aitken and Whitlock, 2013). Coral populations in relatively cooler regions can theoretically
be prepared for further ocean warming by translocating coral colonies from warmer reef locations
to the cooler ones. Translocated colonies may
propagate asexually and sexually, in the latter
case breeding among themselves or interbreeding with the native population. It is anticipated
that interbreeding will lead to the introgression
of thermal tolerance alleles into the genetic background of the local corals. This will give rise to
offspring that have increased thermal tolerance
relative to the native population while still being
sufficiently adapted to other environmental
parameters to maintain overall higher fitness. As
a variation on assisted gene flow, interbreeding
between colonies from cool and warm locations
can be conducted ex situ, with the hybrid offspring subsequently deployed on the cooler reefs
(van Oppen et al., 2014).
Progress: Recent work found that F1 hybrid
larvae bred ex situ from conspecific parents collected in different thermal environments had
higher thermal tolerance (tested only under laboratory conditions) if the mother or both parents
were sourced from the warmer location (Dixon
et al., 2015). Further, regional F1 hybrid recruits
reared in the laboratory but grown at the cooler
field location showed survival intermediate
between that of the pure-bred recruits reared
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
301
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 5.8
Motivation for and steps involved in the assisted-evolution approaches in corals
Coral host animal
Approaches
Actions
Coral-associated microbes
Assisted
gene flow
Selective
breeding
Interspecific
hybridization
Conditioning
Probiotics
Experimental
evolution
Translocate
individuals within
their distribution
range to facilitate
adaptation
Select stock
using ambient
environment,
phenotype, genetic
markers
Cross species to
increase genetic
diversity and
produce new gene
combinations
Expose ≥1
generations of
natural stocks to
sublethal stress
conditions
Inoculate
coral with
stress-tolerant
microbial symbionts
Select on random
mutation in
the laboratory;
infect coral early
life stages
Possibly
combine
from parents collected from the cooler location
and those reared from parents collected from the
warmer location (van Oppen et al., 2014). These
early findings point to the promise of assisted
gene flow as a means of preparing coral populations in relatively cool regions for further climate
warming. Further research is required into possible negative impacts of assisted gene flow in later
generations, for example outbreeding depression.
2. Selective breeding is the intentional breeding
of organisms with desirable traits in an attempt to
produce offspring with similar desirable or improved
traits. A common way of selecting brood stock is
the use of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for relevant
phenotypic traits. A small number of QTLs have
been identified for coral-bleaching tolerance and
antioxidant capacity (Bay and Palumbi, 2014; Jin et
al., 2016; Lundgren et al., 2013). Another approach
is to breed survivors from recent bleaching events.
The rationale here is that natural selection will have
removed the more thermally sensitive individuals
and that the survivors will have genetic characteristics underpinning high thermal tolerance.
Progress: No QTL-guided selective breeding of
coral has been conducted, but bleaching survivors
are currently being used in breeding experiments.
3. Interspecific hybridization is a process
whereby egg and sperm from two different species
produce viable young. In coral, this process occurs
302
only occasionally in nature, i.e. it is only relevant
over evolutionary time scales (with the exception of the Caribbean Acropora discussed below).
However, hybrids can also be created in the laboratory (Isomura, Iwao and Fukami, 2013; Isomura et
al., 2016; Willis et al., 1997). This process increases
genetic diversity and makes novel genetic combinations that may be beneficial for adaptation.
Artifical (i.e. in the laboratory) or natural (i.e. in
the field) selection can be used to identify hybrid
genotypes that have augmented climate resilience
relative to pure-bred corals.
Progress: The natural hybrid between the
Caribbean species Acropora palmata (elkhorn coral)
and A. cervicornis (staghorn coral), A. prolifera
(fused staghorn), has equivalent or higher fitness
relative to its parent species, and has increased
its distribution and abundance in recent times of
massive coral-reef degradation (Fogarty, 2012).
Similarly, experimentally produced F1 hybrids
between A. pulchra and A. millepora (fluro scale
cushion coral) from the Great Barrier Reef grew
faster than their parents in some reef environments
(Willis et al., 2006). Some F1 hybrid genotypes of
several other Acropora species pairs from the Great
Barrier Reef produced in the laboratory had equal
or higher fitness (growth, survival and climate
resilience) relative to at least one of the pure-bred
parent species (Chan et al., 2018). While it remains
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F USE O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
to be demonstrated that these fitness advantages
are also expressed in later generations, these findings suggest that interspecific hybridization is a
useful means of maintaining or restoring genetic
diversity and hence adaptive capacity. Genetic
diversity will undoubtedly decrease if high mortality events, such as those seen on the Great Barrier
Reef in 2016 and 2017, become more frequent, and
ex situ hybridization followed by deployment of
hybrids in the field may help combat this decline.
4. Conditioning is the exposure of an organism to sublethal levels of stress with the goal of
inducing a change in its phenotype (here, an
increase in climate resilience or stress tolerance).
This is sometimes also referred to as epigenetic
programming or stress memory, and refers to nongenetic changes. If adaptive epigenetic changes are
passed on to later generations, then conditioning
(i.e. transgenerational acclimatization) may be a
potential means of increasing climate resilience in
corals. A possible approach would be to condition
adult coral broodstock with the aim of producing
larval material that has an increased chance of surviving its early life stages, during which levels of
mortality are typically high, and hence enhancing
the success of coral reef restoration efforts.
Progress: The extent to which adaptive epigenetic changes are heritable in corals is currently
poorly understood (Putnam and Gates, 2015; Torda
et al., 2017). Experiments to test this are under way.
Manipulation of coral-associated microbes
Manipulations of coral-associated microbes aim
to increase coral’s climate resilience, either by
changing the composition of microbial communities (point 1) or by manipulating the genomes of
a small number of microbial symbionts (point 2).
1. Probiotics are live micro-organisms that
when administered in adequate amounts confer
a health benefit to the host. Where increasing
coral resilience is concerned, relevant organisms
are likely to include bacteria, algal endosymbionts
(Symbiodinium spp.) and fungi.
Progress: Coral larvae or early recruits can
establish symbiosis with a range of Symbiodinium
strains, often with far-reaching consequences for
the thermal tolerance of the coral (reviewed in
Quigley et al. [2018]). However, the temporal stability of manipulated Symbiodinium symbioses is
variable and therefore the efficacy of probiotic
treatments with Symbiodinium is questionable.
Little research has been done on the potential
of manipulating coral-associated prokaryotic or
fungal community composition as a means of
increasing coral stress tolerance. However, preliminary findings are promising. For example,
Damjanovic et al. (2017) found that prokaryotic
communities differed significantly in four-month
old juveniles of the coral Acropora tenuis (purple
tipped acropora) that were inoculated at the
larval stage with microbiomes isolated from the
mucus of four different coral species and kept
under ambient conditions in experimental aquariums, suggesting manipulation of coral prokaryotic
communities is feasible. Inoculation of the coral
model the anemone Aiptasia pallida with a cocktail of bacteria able to inhibit biofilm formation
and swarming in a bacterial coral pathogen prevented the progression of the disease caused by
the pathogen (Alagely et al., 2011). Exposure of
experimental corals to oil and a cocktail of bacteria
with the ability to degrade hydrocarbons resulted
in a change in the coral-associated prokaryotic
communities and reduced the negative effects of
oil compared to those in corals that were exposed
to oil but not inoculated with the bacteria (dos
Santos et al., 2015). These findings are particularly
encouraging given that evidence that prokaryotes
have a role in coral thermal tolerance is growing
(Liang et al., 2017; Ziegler et al., 2017).
2. Experimental evolution is the directed evolution of a population across multiple generations
under defined and reproducible conditions. This is
mostly done in the laboratory.
Progress: Exposure of cultures of algal endosymbionts of corals to increasing temperatures
over 55 to 80 generations has been shown to cause
a stable and adaptive increase in temperature
tolerance (Chakravarti, Beltran and van Oppen,
2017; Huertas et al., 2011). Corals have been
found to be able to establish symbiosis with the
evolved algal strains, but the increase in bleaching
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
303
5
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
tolerance in corals associating with the evolved
strain was limited and smaller than that observed
for the algae in vitro (Chakravarti, Beltran and van
Oppen, 2017). There is a need to develop methods
that transfer thermal tolerance more efficiently
from the cultured to the in hospite situation.
Naturally thermally tolerant Symbiodinium strains
tend to be less effective as suppliers of nutrients to
the coral host than thermally sensitive strains, and
it is currently unknown whether this trade-off can
be overcome via experimental evolution.
Concluding remarks
As of 2018, assisted evolution for coral-reef restoration remains in the early stages of research and
development. Following the publication of the
concept in 2015 (van Oppen et al., 2015), various
research groups around the world have been
developing research programmes and projects
in this field,108 and considerable progress can be
expected over the next five years. This will need
to be accompanied by research on the public and
political acceptance of these approaches. Practical
application will require legislative approval for
the deployment of manipulated coral stock or its
symbionts onto reefs. Research on the upscaling
of coral-rearing facilities, assessment of ecological
risks and benefits, economic (cost) analyses and
the development of decision-making frameworks
for the timing and spatial scale/location of deployment are also needed (van Oppen et al., 2017).
5.9.6 Needs and priorities
Genetic improvement requires sustained selection
over several generations and thus involves rela-
108
tively long periods of time. Ensuring the long-term
availability of the necessary financial, technical
and human resources is a major need identified
by countries across all sectors. Skilled capacity and
access to the technical resources needed to deploy
the tremendous advances that have been made
in characterization and genetic-improvement
methods are widely recognized as priorities. An
underlying concern is that a few favoured crop
species and livestock species and breeds receive
a very large proportion of the resources put into
genetic improvement, thus amplifying the relative
neglect of other species and breeds. A number
of countries identify public–private partnerships
as a way of securing long-term support and
spreading genetic-improvement efforts to a wider
range of species.
Limited use of available genetic diversity is
another issue highlighted across sectors. Again,
the need for long-term support and improved
capacity to explore the range of diversity available and begin to introduce it into improvement
programmes is noted. The need for improved
links between research, genetic-improvement programmes and producers is another frequently mentioned concern. Assisted-evolutionary approaches
of the kind being explored for corals might prove
useful for other types of associated biodiversity, for
example through assisted gene flow or population
selection. While consideration would need to be
given to possible unintended consequences, such
approaches provide options that do not require the
full apparatus associated with long-term breeding
programmes of the kind implemented in crop and
livestock species.
For more information, visit the following websites:
https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-recovery/assisted-evolution
https://www.researchgate.net/project/CORALASSIST-AssistingCoral-Reef-Survival-in-the-Face-of-Climate-Change
http://coralassistedevolution.com
https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-recovery/rrap;
https://www.microbial-symbiosis.com/research
304
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Chapter 6
The state of characterization of
biodiversity for food and agriculture
Key messages
• Characterization of the components of biodiversity
for food and agriculture, for example the
acquisition of data on the morphological and
physiological characteristics of species (or varieties
or breeds) or on their geographical distributions,
production levels in particular environments,
demographics or ecological functions and
relationships, is vital to the sustainable use and
conservation of these resources.
• While a large amount information has been
accumulated on the characteristics of the
domesticated species used in food and agriculture,
many information gaps remain, particularly for
species, varieties and breeds that are not widely
used commercially. Information on wild food
species is also often limited.
6.1 Introduction
Effective management of components of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) (e.g. particular species, or breeds or varieties within species)
requires information on their characteristics.
However, the use of the term “characterization”
varies from one sector of food and agriculture to
another. Broader definitions encompass not only
the tangible characteristics of the organisms themselves, but also their geographical distributions, the
size and structure of their populations, their uses in
food and agriculture, their other roles within the
ecosystem, and potential threats to their survival.
Molecular genetic data can be used, inter alia, to
• Many associated-biodiversity species (the
biodiversity present in and around production
systems that contributes to the supply of regulating
and supporting ecosystem services) have never
been identified and described, particularly in
the case of invertebrates and micro-organisms.
Information on the characteristics and functions of
many other components of associated biodiversity
is extremely limited.
• For several types of associated biodiversity,
including soil micro-organisms and those used for
food processing, advances in molecular techniques
and sequencing technologies are facilitating
characterization. In many countries, however, gaps
in terms of skills, facilities and equipment constrain
opportunities to benefit from these developments.
assess genetic variability within and between
populations and to investigate the genetics underlying particular traits (e.g. physical appearance,
productivity, disease resistance and other adaptive
characteristics). Clearly, factors such as geographical distribution and population size and structure can change significantly over relatively short
periods of time. Repeated measurement to keep
track of changes of this kind is often referred to
as monitoring. Monitoring programmes for various
components of BFA are discussed in the “state of
knowledge” subsections of Chapter 4.
This chapter presents an overview of the state
of characterization efforts for each of the main
categories of BFA discussed in this report. It begins
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
305
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
with an overview of the state of characterization
of plant (crop), animal (livestock), forest and
aquatic genetic resources, drawing on the respective global assessments prepared by FAO (FAO,
forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a). The next
sections discuss associated biodiversity and wild
foods, drawing mainly on the information provided in the country reports.1 The chapter ends
with a short discussion of needs and priorities,
focusing on the latter two categories of BFA.
6.2 Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture
• Characterization of genetic resources is essential to
their sustainable use and conservation, providing
information on, inter alia, genetic diversity and the
presence of useful traits in species, breeds or varieties,
on the size, structure and geographical distribution of
populations, and on threats affecting them.
• A significant proportion of crop accessions conserved
ex situ, particularly underutilized crops and crop
wild relatives, remains incompletely characterized
and evaluated for morphological and agronomic
traits. The limited availability of characterization and
evaluation data in publicly available databases is a
major constraint to the use of plant genetic resources
in breeding programmes.
• In the case of animal genetic resources, while
recent years have seen some improvement in the
state of inventory, characterization and monitoring
activities, major gaps remain, particularly in the
developing regions of the world. Breed inventories
are often incomplete and population trends
inadequately monitored. Data on breeds’ phenotypic
characteristics are often lacking, constraining their use
in breeding programmes.
• In the case of forest and aquatic genetic resources,
characterization at within-species level is often
1
Throughout this chapter, unless noted otherwise, the term
“country reports” refers to the country reports submitted as
contributions to The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food
and Agriculture. See “About this publication” for additional
information.
306
absent or limited to information on distribution and
origins. Characterization data that exist often remain
scattered and difficult to obtain. There is an urgent
need to develop effective information systems and to
encourage the use of agreed protocols and practices in
characterization activities.
6.2.1 Plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture
Where plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) are concerned, the term “characterization” is used to describe the process by which
genebank accessions are described with respect to
a particular set of universally agreed morphological
traits, known as descriptors (FAO, 2010a, 2014f).2
These traits are usually highly heritable, easily
measured or assessed, and expressed the same
way in all environments. “Evaluation”, on the other
hand, provides data about traits that are generally
considered to have actual or potential agronomic
utility. Often, the expression of these traits varies
with the environment, so valid conclusions require
evaluation in different environments.
The state of characterization and evaluation is
typically assessed on the basis of the proportion
of accessions that have been characterized and
evaluated. Table 6.1 provides an indication of the
level of implementation of various components of
characterization and evaluation as of 2008 (at the
time of writing, the most recent available dataset
providing information at this level for a large
sample of countries globally).
In reporting on activities undertaken to implement the Second Global Plan of Action for Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
between January 2012 and June 2014, 27 countries
provided information on the level of morphological characterization of their ex situ collections.
Table 6.2 shows the percentage of accessions
characterized for at least one morphological trait
and the average number of morphological traits
per conserved accession for the five crops with
2
The material presented in this subsection is largely based on
The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2010a).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
TABLE 6.1
Traits and methods used for characterizing germplasm: percentage of accessions characterized
and/or evaluated, by region
Region
Number of
collections
Morphology
(%)
Molecular
markers (%)
Agronomic
traits (%)
Biochemical
traits (%)
Abiotic
stresses (%)
Biotic
stresses (%)
Africa
62
50
8
Americas
253
42
7
38
9
14
24
86
23
18
Asia and the
Pacific
25
337
67
12
66
20
27
41
Europe
31
Near East
229
56
7
43
8
22
23
76
64
77
57
63
69
Notes: The figures are based on responses from 323 stakeholders from 42 developing countries to a question on the percentage of
accessions characterized and/or evaluated for the various traits. Percentages are averaged across countries in each region.
“Number or collections” = total number of ex situ collections surveyed for which characterization data exist.
Source: FAO, 2010a.
TABLE 6.2
Degree of characterization for the five largest crop collections conserved by 27 reporting countries
Crop
Number of accessions
conserved
Accessions characterized
(%)
Average number of traits
per conserved accession
Wheat
138 873
53
9.9
Barley
67 591
81
16.6
Rice
31 871
73
18.1
Sorghum
16 293
80
16.1
Beans
21 105
55
12.2
Source: FAO, 2016m.
the largest collections in these countries (FAO,
2016m). Highest levels of characterization are
reported for barley, sorghum and rice collections,
both in terms of the proportion of accessions
covered and in terms of the average number of
traits characterized.
Despite ongoing work on the part of genebanks
and associated programmes, often involving
regional and international collaboration, a significant portion of germplasm accessions remains
uncharacterized or not properly documented.
Lack of standardization in data collection, storage
and dissemination, and suboptimal access to data,
are also constraints. Many countries regard a lack
of readily available characterization and evaluation data as a major constraint to the greater
use of PGRFA in breeding programmes. Problems
are particularly acute for underutilized crops and
crop wild relatives, some of which are likely to
become increasingly important in the context
of climate change. Molecular characterization
of germplasm has become more widespread
across regions and crops. However, much remains
to be done both to generate more data and to
make them more readily available. Systematic
surveying and inventory of PGRFA in situ remain
underdeveloped. This area of work tends to be
constrained by a lack of funding, human resources,
knowledge and coordination.
6.2.2 Animal genetic resources
for food and agriculture
Characterization of animal genetic resources
for food and agriculture (AnGR) encompasses a
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
307
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
range of data-gathering activities (FAO, 2015a).3
The unit of management for AnGR is generally the
breed. A primary task of characterization activities is therefore to identify (if this has not already
been done) the distinct breed populations present
in the targeted area. Countries interested in promoting sustainable management of their AnGR
generally seek to establish complete national
inventories of their breeds. Both phenotypic and
molecular genetic studies can contribute to the
process of breed inventory and to the further
accumulation of knowledge on breeds (including
breeds not included in official inventories) and the
relationships among them.
Phenotypic characterization encompasses
description of breeds’ morphological and physiological traits, production performance and adaptive
characteristics (FAO, 2012d). If data on production
levels are to be interpreted properly, data are
also needed on the production environments in
which the animals are raised. Data of this kind
may also allow inferences to be drawn regarding
the breeds’ adaptive characteristics and help in
the development of plans for their sustainable
management. Data on breeds’ geographical distributions can be useful in increasing the precision
of estimates of their risk status4 and in identifying the characteristics (climate, terrain, etc.) of
the production environments in which breeds are
raised. The term “landscape genomics” has been
coined to describe studies that relate detectable
genetic variation to geographical locations and
their characteristics (Joost et al., 2007).
A survey that collects data on the size and structure of a breed’s population and its geographical
distribution and hence allows its extinction risk
status to be determined is often referred to as
a baseline survey (FAO, 2011f). Baseline surveys
need to be followed up by regular monitoring of
3
4
The material presented in this subsection is largely based on
The Second Report on The State of the World’s Animal Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2015a).
For example, breeds whose populations are concentrated in a
limited geographical area tend to be at greater risk of losing a
large proportion of their populations to events such as disease
outbreaks and climatic disasters.
308
population demographics so that trends in risk
status can be tracked over time. Potential threats,
such as changes in production practices, markets or
disease epidemiology, also need to be monitored.
Various types of genetic markers have been used
in characterization studies over the years, starting
with blood groups or other proteins, followed by
microsatellite markers. Genomic approaches, such
as the use of single nucleotide polymorphism
markers and whole-genome sequencing, are
now increasingly used. One shortcoming of many
genetic characterization studies, however, has
been that they have been undertaken as academic
activities, with the results destined to appear in
the scientific press, rather than undertaken to
provide information targeted for use by stakeholders directly involved in the management of
AnGR. Exceptions include cases in which studies
have revealed high levels of inbreeding within a
given breed or high levels of similarity between
breeds previously believed to be more distinct.
Specifically designed molecular-characterization
studies have also been used to identify the genetic
basis (or at least to develop genetic tests) for
various defects or other simply inherited traits.
While recent years have seen some improvements in the state of inventory, characterization
and monitoring activities for AnGR, major gaps
remain, particularly in the developing regions of
the world (Figure 6.1). Many countries consider
that their breed inventories are not yet complete.
Many breed populations are not subject to monitoring activities that are sufficiently comprehensive and regular to allow risk status to be tracked
over time. The phenotypic data needed to adequately compare the performance of different
breeds in specific production environments or to
take advantage of developments in molecular
genetics are often unavailable.
6.2.3 Forest genetic resources
Efforts to promote conservation and sustainable
use of forest genetic resources (FGR) require information on, inter alia, the following: levels of diversity, in particular tree populations and the extent of
the risks facing them; the location of populations
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
FIGURE 6.1
Reported progress in the implementation of (A) phenotypic and (B) molecular characterization
in livestock species of economic importance
A
Number of countries
Africa
40
Asia
20
Europe and the Caucasus
35
Latin America and the Caribbean
18
Near and Middle East
7
North America
1
Southwest Pacific
7
World
128
0%
20%
40%
60%
B
80%
100%
Number of countries
Africa
40
Asia
20
Europe and the Caucasus
35
Latin America and the Caribbean
18
Near and Middle East
7
North America
1
Southwest Pacific
7
World
0%
128
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Comprehensive studies were undertaken before the adoption of the GPA
Sufficient information has been generated because of progress made
since the adoption of the GPA
Some information has been generated (further progress since the adoption of the GPA)
Some information has been generated (no further progress since the adoption of the GPA)
None, but action is planned and funding identified
None, but action is planned and funding is sought
None
Notes: Analysis based on 128 reports prepared by countries in 2014 on their implementation of activities relevant to the
implementation of the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources (GPA). Part A of the figure summarizes answers to a
question on “progress in implementing phenotypic characterization studies covering morphology, performance, location, production
environments and specific features in all livestock species of economic importance.” Part B of the figure summarizes answers to a
question on “progress in molecular characterization of [the respective country’s] animal genetic resources covering all livestock species
of economic importance.”
Source: FAO, 2014g.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
309
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 6.3
Characters most frequently assessed in 692 evaluations of forest-tree genetic variability
reported by countries
Character
Type of character
Proportion of total evaluations
assessing this character (%)
Morphological
17.5
Adaptive/productive
13
Morphological
7
Bole/stem diameter
Productive
7
Growth rate
Productive
5.5
Biomass/fodder productivity
Productive
5
Characters least subject to phenotypic
variation, i.e. seed, fruits, cones and pods
Disease and pest resistance
Leaf anatomy
Height
Drought resistance
Phenology
Bark
Chemistry/exudates
Productive
5.5
Adaptive/productive
5
Adaptive
5
Morphological
5
Biochemical
3
Source: FAO, 2014a.
or individuals with rare alleles; relationships
between genetic variability and environmental parameters; and trends in genetic variability,
for example in response to silvicultural regimes
and environmental changes (FAO, 2014a).5 Treebreeding programmes require information on
the identity of species and populations with the
greatest potential for commercial development,
on desirable productive or adaptive traits in priority species (including those relevant to climate
change), on genetic markers linked to adaptive
or other desirable characteristics and on sources
of propagation materials. Data can be gathered
through studies of morphological characteristics,
field-based studies, provenance and progeny trials,
the use of various biochemical and DNA markers,
and other laboratory-based investigations. At
interspecific level, characterization data are often
captured through forest inventories undertaken
in the course of resource-management activities.
However, such surveys often fail to capture and
5
The material presented in this subsection is largely based on The
State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources (FAO, 2014a).
310
document the genetic resources present in circa
situm environments.6 Characterization of intraspecific diversity is recognized as a central component of the conservation and use of individual
tree species. However, the sheer number of species
present in many countries makes characterizing
more than a small fraction of species at this level
extremely challenging. The impracticality of measuring changes in genetic variation in all or most
tree species means that monitoring of FGR is mainly
done either by monitoring only priority or model
species or by monitoring surrogate measures such
as forest area or tree cover (see Section 4.5.5).
Provenance testing – growing trees selected
from different locations (provenances) under the
same environmental conditions so as to determine
the extent to which observed variation among populations or individuals can be attributed to genetic
differences – has a long history and continues to be
used widely in tree-breeding and improvement programmes. Provenance testing is time consuming,
6
Heavily modified or fragmented landscapes, such as those of
traditional agroforestry and farming systems.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
expensive and vulnerable to risks associated with
natural disasters and other disruptions. However,
as it does not require advanced technical infrastructure, it is widely used in tropical countries, where
trees often have fast growth rates and relatively
short rotation periods. Great reductions in the costs
of gene sequencing and increases in computer processing speed and power have led to a proliferation
of DNA studies in tree species, including wholegenome sequencing, and rapid progress in identifying the location and function of genes.
The country reports prepared for The State of
the World’s Forest Genetic Resources refer to 27
characters assessed in the course of evaluating
genetic variability (in a total of 692 evaluations).
The most frequently mentioned are shown in Table
6.3. These data indicate that purely morphological
characters remain widely used in the evaluation of
variability, despite the increasing focus on molecular markers. They also highlight the importance
that countries place on identifying trees and genotypes for breeding for pest and disease resistance.
The level of monitoring efforts varies greatly
between countries. Developed countries with
well-established national forest inventories and
monitoring systems have comprehensively documented their forest resources and described
changes in their FGR. Several developing countries
have also made good progress in this regard during
the past decade. However, genetic monitoring of
forests is at a very early stage of development,
with only a small number of pilot studies having
been implemented to date. A substantial amount
of genetic information is available only on the most
widely planted genera globally: Acacia, Eucalyptus,
Populus and Pinus. Efforts to characterize species
that are less widely planted but important locally
or in naturally regenerated forests urgently need
to be strengthened. Even when FGR-related data
are collected, they often remain scattered and difficult for potential users to obtain. Thus, information
systems for FGR urgently need to be established or
strengthened. The use of common protocols for
FGR inventories, characterization and monitoring
would help to ensure that data collected from
different countries are comparable.
6.2.4 Aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture
Characterization and monitoring of aquatic
genetic resources for food and agriculture (AqGR)
occurs mainly at species level. Where monitoring
is concerned, the international standards for
reporting production from cultured and captured
species are the Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries
Information System (ASFIS) list and the classification system of the International Standard
Statistical Classification of Aquatic Animals and
Plants (ISCAAP). Member countries provide an
annual report to FAO on their fisheries and aquaculture production and this information can be
publicly accessed through FAO FishStatJ. 7 The
information is also summarized in FAO’s biennial
publication series The State of World Fisheries
and Aquaculture, which also provides information (at species level) on the status of aquaculture and marine capture fisheries resources (see
Section 4.2.4).
There is at present no global information
system on aquatic genetic diversity below species
level (FAO, 2016n). The international standard
classification for use in fishery statistics, (the
ASFIS list – see above), does not include any subspecies, stocks, or farmed types8 or their wild relatives. Powerful genetic-sequencing and geneticmapping technologies are now making it easier
and less expensive to characterize aquatic organisms at finer scales of resolution, such as at stock,
strain and even individual-pedigree levels (FAO,
2017n). Efforts are being made to find ways of
applying these tools in the assessment and management of capture-fishery stocks (Bravington,
Grewe and Davies, 2016). These various developments will enable more-refined reporting for
farmed types of cultured species, as well as for
some highly migratory capture-fishery stocks.
Although information on genetic diversity at
within-species level can be extremely useful in
AqGR management, little is collected or made
7
8
http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en
A farmed type may be a strain, hybrid, triploid, monosex
group, other genetically altered form, variety or wild type.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
311
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
available to potential users, except in the case of
some high-value species in developed countries.
About 70 percent of the country reports submitted for The State of the World’s Aquatic Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (SoW-AqGR)
(FAO, forthcoming) indicate that genetic information is used only to a minor extent or not at all in
managing farmed aquatic resources.
In the aquaculture sector, monitoring at the
level of the strain, as is done for breeds in the terrestrial livestock sector, is constrained by a lack of
standardized strain nomenclature and characterization, and the relatively recent history of strain
development in aquatic species (FAO, 2016n). In
capture fisheries, genetic diversity is sometimes
used in the management of high-value species.
For example, within-species data are available on
salmonids, and are used in managing populations
in the wild (NMFS, 2016). However, the financial
and technical capacity needed in order to establish
baseline data and conduct regular sampling, monitoring and analyses is lacking in many areas. Stock
identification in capture fisheries has traditionally
been based on geographic location, and production has been reported and monitored accordingly
(e.g. North Atlantic cod stocks, Lake Victoria Nile
perch, in-shore herring stocks and Columbia River
chinook salmon). If waters are to be stocked using
fish reared in captivity, characterization is critical
to efforts to avoid undesirable impacts on the
genetic diversity of wild populations.
For given countries or habitats, aquatic species
can be categorized as native or non-native
(sometimes called exotic or alien species). Nonnative species are important in aquaculture,
with approximately 200 species or species items9
being farmed in areas where they are non-native
(FAO, forthcoming). Nine of the ten most widely
cultured species are farmed in more countries
where they are non-native than countries where
they are native. Introductions of aquatic species
across national boundaries are recorded in FAO’s
9
A species item refers to a single species, a group of species
(where identification to the species level is not possible) or an
interspecific hybrid.
312
Database on Introductions of Aquatic Species
(DIAS).10 DIAS contains over 5 000 records from
inland and marine ecosystems, including fishes,
molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms and plants.
This database is not updated annually, and currently serves more as a historical record of introductions than as a monitoring system.
In addition to establishing or strengthening
surveying and monitoring systems and national,
regional and global information systems for
farmed AqGR and their wild relatives, priorities in
this field of AqGR management include improving
information on fish genetic diversity and adopting
standard nomenclature for its description. Neither
the SoW-AqGR process nor the FAO fisheries and
aquaculture databases have required countries
to list aquaculture farming systems or report on
the state of aquatic ecosystems. Monitoring and
characterization of these are therefore generally
missing from global fishery reports. Given that
many wild relatives of farmed aquatic species
are in decline due to habitat loss or degradation
(FAO, forthcoming), particular attention needs to
be paid to characterizing species found in ecosystems that are threatened by disturbances such as
wetland drainage and the construction of dams or
hydropower plants.
6.3 Associated biodiversity
• Characterization of associated biodiversity is
limited and mostly undertaken at species level.
While many larger species have been identified and
described, over 99 percent of bacteria and protist
species remain unknown.
• Molecular technologies, including metagenomics
and barcoding, are allowing rapid progress to be
made in identifying associated-biodiversity species,
especially those present in soils. Such techniques
also allow investigation of the functional attributes
of populations. Several countries have active
programmes for characterizing soil micro-organisms
using molecular methods.
10
http://www.fao.org/fishery/dias/en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
• A number of ex situ collections of associated
biodiversity are being characterized. Many of these
are species associated with food-production processes
(e.g. fermentation), with collections being maintained
in both the private and the public sectors.
6.3.1 Overview
While characterization of associated biodiversity11
is not such a well-established or clearly defined
area of activity as characterization of PGRFA,
AnGR, FGR or AqGR, understanding the characteristics of the species and ecosystems associated with food and agricultural production is a
vital part of efforts to promote their sustainable
use and conservation. A distinguishing feature
of associated biodiversity relative to crops, livestock, species raised in aquaculture or targeted
by capture fisheries and (to a lesser extent) forest
trees, is that many species remain unknown to
science. Mora et al. (2011) estimate that 86 percent
of the extant species on Earth and 91 percent of
those in the ocean are still undescribed.12 While
there are about 1 million described insect species,
an estimated 4 million species are undescribed
(Chapman, 2009). In the case of micro-organisms,
it is estimated that 99.999 percent of taxa remain
to be discovered (Locey and Lennon, 2016).
After a species has been formally described
and named, additional knowledge about its characteristics can be accumulated over time. In the
case of associated biodiversity, functional traits
– characteristics that affect a species’ responses to
the environment and its role in ecosystem functioning – are of particular interest. For example, knowledge of whether a species can perform particular
functions (pollination, control of pest species, roles
in soil formation, etc.) under particular ecological
11
12
A description of associated biodiversity can be found in
Section 1.5 and state and trends of associated biodiversity are
presented in Section 4.3.
Newly discovered species are considered scientifically described
when they have been given a two-part Latin name and have
had a description published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal. The description typically includes a thorough listing
of morphological characteristics, in particular of those
that distinguish the species from other species. For more
information, visit http://eol.org/info/467
conditions, for example during stressful events
such as droughts, may be useful. Data on biogeographical distribution and population size,
structure and trends are valuable in determining
species’ risk statuses and assessing the need for
conservation measures. The state of knowledge
of the status and trends of associated biodiversity
involved in the supply of various ecosystem services is discussed in Section 4.3.
As illustrated in Table 6.4, the vast majority world’s soil microfauna and micro-organism
species are thought to be undescribed. In general,
the percentage of species described decreases
with the size of the organisms. However, significant progress is currently being made in characterizing soil biodiversity through the application
of molecular technologies, which can be used
(inter alia) to characterize unculturable microorganisms (FAO and ITPS, 2015). The availability of
these technologies has led to an increased number
of studies characterizing soil biodiversity at large
spatial scales (Orgiazzi et al., 2015). Molecular
technologies are also revolutionizing taxonomic
research on larger organisms. For example, DNA
barcoding allows the identification of bee species
that are difficult to recognize using traditional
methods (Packer et al., 2016).
With regard to aquatic biodiversity, the Census
of Marine Life, a ten-year international effort to
assess the diversity, distribution and abundance
of marine species, completed in 2010, concluded
that nearly 250 000 valid marine species had been
described (Ausubel, Crist and Waggoner, 2010). The
census itself found more than 6 000 potentially
new species and completed formal descriptions
of more than 1 200 of them (ibid.). The Census of
Coral Reef Ecosystems, conducted as a part of the
project, developed methods of molecular analysis
and standardized sampling for organisms living
in coral reefs and led to the discovery of approximately 100 new species (McIntyre, ed., 2010).
Only a fraction of the estimated 5 000 types of
micro-organisms used in the production of artisanal (including indigenous) fermented foods
and beverages worldwide have been studied
scientifically. Moreover, studies have often merely
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
313
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 6.4
Known and estimated number of species of soil organisms and vascular plants
Type of organism
Vascular plants
Number of
described species
Estimated total number of
species
Proportion described (%)
350 700
400 000
88
Macrofauna
Earthworms
7 000
30 000
23
Ants
14 000
25 000 – 30 000
60 – 50
Termites
2 700
3 100
87
Mites
40 000
100 000
55
Collembolans (springtails)
8 500
50 000
17
Mesofauna
Microfauna and micro-organisms
Nematodes
20 000 – 25 000
1 000 000 – 10 000 000
0.2 – 2.5
Protists
21 000
7 000 000 – 70 000 000
0.03 – 0.3
Fungi
97 000
1 500 000 – 5 100 000
1.9 – 6.5
Bacteria
15 000
>1 000 000
< 1.5
Source: Orgiazzi et al., eds. (2016), updated from Barrios (2007).
identified the primary microbiota in the finished
product or undertaken some preliminary characterization of them. However, in-depth information
is now rapidly accumulating on microbial communities involved in food processing, including on
their structure, interactions, succession during the
fermentation process and influence on product
quality and safety.13
In the case of fermentation processes that are
already relatively well understood, the goals are
to further improve reliability and product quality
by optimizing starter-culture performance and
eliminating factors that impede the fermentation process. Some micro-organisms used in
food production have already been sequenced
genetically, and this has created new opportunities to improve culture performance. The use of
up-to-date analytical methods is providing detailed
information on the roles of individual strains and
species in fermentation processes. This is allowing
13
These paragraphs on food-processing organisms draw on
the CGRFA Background Study Paper prepared by Alexandraki
et al. (2013)
314
the choice of starter cultures and the management of the fermentation process to be finetuned to increase product quality and safety. One
challenge is to ensure that the manufacture of
traditional food products on a large scale under
conditions that favour product safety and provide
consistency in terms of quality do not lead to the
loss of the unique flavours and other characteristics associated with the original products. This
will require a more thorough understanding of
the types of micro-organisms involved and their
specific activities. The significance of advances in
the use of molecular techniques in the characterization of food-processing micro-organisms is
discussed in Box 6.1.
6.3.2 Country-report analysis
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries
to indicate whether the associated biodiversity
species they conserve ex situ have been characterized or evaluated. Fifty-one countries report ex
situ collections of species of associated biodiversity (see Section 7.3.2). Forty-five distinct species
within these collections are reported to have been
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
Box 6.1
The role of molecular techniques in the characterization of food-processing micro-organisms
High-throughput sequencing technologies are providing
new means of improving the functionality and safety of
microbial food processing (Alkema et al., 2016). Sequencing
technologies have evolved rapidly in recent years, and it is
now possible to sequence a bacterial genome in a few hours
and at a relatively low cost. Recent developments in singlecell sequencing allow the genomes of uncultured microorganisms to be sequenced (at present, the vast majority of
micro-organisms cannot be cultured in vitro) (Nawy, 2013).
Complete, annotated genome sequences are available for
thousands of bacterial and dozens of fungal species (NCBI,
2018). Comparative genomics uses these data to identify
biological similarities and differences and evolutionary
relationships between organisms. Partial genome sequencing
(random or targeted) and single nucleotide polymorphism
(SNP) microarrays allow genetic markers linked to traits of
interest to be identified more rapidly.
Technologies that target gene expression (RNA-seq, gene
expression microarrays), protein levels (mass spectrometry,
protein chips) and metabolites (chromatography, mass
spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance) are being used to
identify and quantify gene products and other molecules at
a high resolution. Data obtained using these methods can be
used to study the effects of the environment (temperature,
humidity, nutrients, etc.) on microbial physiological properties
and metabolic processes, and the impact of industrial
characterized or evaluated completely or partially
(15 species of fish, 10 of insects, 9 of plants, 9 of
bacteria and 1 each of crustaceans and mammals).
The status of characterization or evaluation of a
further 262 distinct associated-biodiversity species
maintained in ex situ collections is reported as not
known or not characterized (Figure 6.2).14 Only
two species (Rhizobium leguminosarum and the
western honey bee [Apis mellifera]) are reported
by more than one country to have been characterized or evaluated.
14
In addition, a single country reported 885 distinct plant species
as characterized or characterized partially.
production parameters on gene expression and metabolite
accumulation. Food-safety applications include risk analysis,
and detection and quantification of transcripts or proteins that
predict the presence of undesirable molecules (Giraffa and
Carminati, 2008; Postollec et al., 2011).
Metagenomics is the study of genetic material recovered
directly from complex samples to characterize the
diversity of microbial communities (Bokulich et al., 2016;
Handelsman, 2004; Nikolaki and Tsiamis, 2013). The ability
to clone large fragments of metagenomic DNA allows
entire functional operons (units of genomic DNA containing
clusters of genes) to be targeted and entire metabolic
pathways to be traced. Comparative metagenomics, in
which libraries (collections of DNA sequences) prepared
from different sites or at different times are compared, also
provides insights (Randazzo, Caggia and Neviani, 2009;
Riesenfeld, Schloss and Handelsman, 2004). Metagenomics
and metatranscriptomics can be very powerful means of
studying the microbiology of fermented foods, for example
critical fermentation parameters affecting quality, and
interactions between bacteria in fermentation ecosystems.
Work in these fields will be propelled forward by the
ongoing rapid advances in sequencing technologies and
bioinformatics (van Hijum, Vaughan and Vogel, 2013).
Source: Provided by François Fauteux, drawing on Alexandraki et al. (2013).
The country-reporting guidelines did not invite
countries to provide detailed descriptions of their
characterization studies or to report on studies
conducted outside the context of ex situ conservation programmes. However, the country reports
describe a number of initiatives targeting the characterization of components of associated biodiversity in a range of different contexts.15
Many countries highlight the need to address
gaps in knowledge on the characteristics of the
micro-organisms found in and around production
15
Examples of initiatives that assess trends in the status of various
components of associated biodiversity are presented in Section 4.3.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
315
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 6.2
Status of characterization or evaluation of associated biodiversity species reported to be conserved
ex situ, by region
Number of species
Africa
28
Asia
240
Europe and Central Asia
30
Latin America and the Caribbean
7
Near East and North Africa
17
World
325
0%
20%
Done
40%
Partially
Not done
60%
Not known
80%
100%
Not reported
Notes: Fifty-one countries out of 91 report conservation of associated biodiversity species in ex situ collections. Some species were
reported by more than one country.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
systems, and several projects and programmes in
this field are reported. For example, the United
Kingdom mentions a pilot project involving government and research institutions that is developing and applying genetic barcoding and metabarcoding approaches to the identification and
characterization of soil micro-organism communities. It notes that the outcome of this work may in
the future enable trends in soil micro-organisms to
be monitored. Sri Lanka mentions that the state
of its micro-organism diversity is poorly known
and not monitored, but that there are plans to
collect baseline data on micro-organisms (and
invertebrates) across production systems in order
to enable changes to be detected.
A number of countries highlight work related
to the roles of micro-organisms in the supply of
particular ecosystem services (e.g. pest control,
soil formation or improving/maintaining soil fertility, carbon sequestration and bioremediation)
or to the development of products such as biofertilizers, biopesticides and biofuels. For example,
Switzerland reports that the tasks of the Swiss
Collection of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi include
316
identification of arbuscular mycorrhizal species
and determination of spore densities, the extent
of root colonization and the infection potential
of crops with mycorrhizal fungi. Spain mentions
a study entitled Exploration of Microbial Diversity
and its Biotechnological Potential, which targets
the characterization of marine micro-organisms
and of lactic acid bacteria associated with traditional Andean fermented-food products, with
the most relevant strains being deposited at the
Spanish Type Culture Collection.
Ecuador highlights the Higher Polytechnic
School of Chimborazo’s BIOCENOSIS project, a
multidisciplinary initiative that focuses mainly
on the identification, characterization and evaluation of micro-organisms for potential use in
improving soil fertility, pest control and bioremediation. Outcomes have included the identification of phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria.
Techniques for controlling diseases such as sigatoka (a disease of bananas) and pests such as
the chocho borer (a pest of the Andean lupin
species tarwi [Lupinus mutabilis]) using microorganisms are reported to be in the final stages
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
Box 6.2
Characterization studies on micro-organisms – examples from Peru
Peru’s microbial biodiversity remains largely unknown.
However, a number of research programmes are targeting
the characterization of these resources.
The Marino Tabuso Biology and Biotechnology
Laboratory of National Agrarian University – La
Molina (UNALM) is studying, inter alia, the molecular
characterization of symbiotic and free-living nitrogen-fixing
bacteria, the optimization of biofertilizer production, the
beneficial effects of rhizobia and plant growth-promoting
rhizobacteria in crops such as beans, cotton, maize,
maca (Lepidium meyenii), tara (Caesalpinia spinose)
and aguaymanto (Physalis peruviana) and the microbial
interactions occurring in the rhizosphere of various crops.
UNALM’s Mycology and Biotechnology Laboratory has
been studying fungi and bacteria associated with the
nitrogen cycle since the 1970s, and is currently conducting
microbial and molecular bioprospecting of undisturbed
soils in the Amazon rainforest and in hot springs.
Several bacterial and fungal strains have been isolated
and evaluated for the production of alkalophilic and
thermophilic lignocellulase.
Researchers at the Laboratory of Microbial Ecology,
National University of San Marcos, are studying marine
organisms, especially actinomycetes with antibacterial
activities. The Biological Oceanography Unit of the
Marine Institute of Peru (IMARPE) is implementing research
on phytoplankton dynamics and on the
micro-organisms of marine sediments. IMARPE’s Aquatic
Organism Germplasm Bank aims to identify strains of
aquatic organisms, characterize them molecularly and
biochemically, conserve them and make them available
to the scientific community, private institutions and
universities for research (in the fields of aquaculture,
bioremediation, toxicity testing and food production) and
teaching. Research projects have investigated the potential
use of micro-algae in fuel production, in cosmetics and
for other biotechnological purposes. The Environmental
Biotechnology Laboratory of Cayetano Heredia University
is studying micro-organisms with the aim of developing
biotechnologies for the recovery of metals and for
bioremediation.
Phytophthora infestans, the micro-organism that causes potato blight,
seen through a microscope. © International Potato Center (CIP) and National
Institute of Agricultural Innovation (Peru).
Notes: This organism is conserved ex situ in the Division for Integrated Crop
Management of the International Potato Center for the Project Characterization of
Populations of Phytophthora infestans and in three Agroecological Regions of Peru
and Strengthening of INIA Capacities for Continuous Monitoring of the Principal
Pathogens of the Potato.
The country’s legislation related to the establishment
of a moratorium on the entry of living modified
organisms1 requires the development of a baseline of
data on biodiversity (explicitly including soil fungi and
bacteria present in crop fields) potentially affected by the
introduction of living modified organisms. The Ministry
of the Environment is implementing baseline studies
within this framework. In the case of maize production
systems, for example, specific objectives include surveying
and sampling air and soil organisms associated with
these systems in order to identify them and determine
their distribution, establishing methodologies for
characterization and monitoring, and developing
georeferenced databases that can be used to generate
thematic maps.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Peru.
1
Decreto Supremo Nº 008/12/MINAM - Reglamento de la Ley Nº 29.811, Ley
que establece la moratoria al ingreso y producción de organismos vivos
modificados (available, in Spanish, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/
details/en/c/LEX-FAOC117809/).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
317
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
of testing and to be showing good potential.
Panama mentions a project on the characterization of soil micro-organisms in biointensive16 production systems. A number of examples from Peru
are presented in Box 6.2.
Some countries mention work on the identification of micro-organisms that are well adapted to
particular harsh conditions or that have the potential to play a role in adapting production systems
to environmental change. For example, Costa Rica
notes that there is a lack of information on how
soil micro-organisms will be affected by climate
change and mentions initiatives targeting the
identification of micro-organisms that can help
plants cope under conditions of water stress. India
mentions projects focusing on bacterial genera
that predominate in extreme environments and
their use in agriculture and allied sectors and on
the role of archaea in alleviating salinity stress and
moisture stress in plants.
The country reports provide relatively little
information on efforts to identify the characteristics of associated biodiversity species belonging to other taxonomic groups. In the case of
invertebrates, reported examples include a study
on the functions of carabid beetles in quinoa
and potato agroecosystems in Peru’s Altiplano.
Ecuador reports that it has characterized coral
ecosystems and other vulnerable marine ecosystem and is implementing concrete actions aimed
at preventing, controlling and mitigating the
impacts that human activities and climate change
are having on them. Bulgaria mentions that it
has established a National Centre of Excellence
in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, which,
among other activities, has developed a laboratory for work on the taxonomy and phylogeny of
invertebrates. Numerous countries mention that
botanic gardens and herbaria play an important
role in taxonomic activities.
As noted above, reported examples of monitoring programmes for various components of
associated biodiversity are discussed in Section 4.3.
16
An organic production system focused on maximum yields using a
minimal area of land, while increasing biodiversity and soil fertility.
318
Several countries refer to the significant role that
citizen-science approaches can play in monitoring programmes and a number of initiatives of
this kind are reported. For example, the United
Kingdom mentions the involvement of nonspecialist members of the public in collecting data
on butterflies, bees and plants. Bhutan refers to
the web-based Bhutan Biodiversity Portal,17 which
features citizen-contributed observation data on
components of biodiversity. Ireland reports that
the Irish National Biodiversity Data Centre runs an
extensive annual programme of training and identification workshops for people involved in monitoring species from a range of taxonomic groups,
including bumblebees and butterflies.
6.4 Wild foods
• There is a growing body of literature on the nutrient
composition of wild foods and on their medicinal
properties. Other data (molecular-genetic data,
ecogeographical data, vernacular names, parts used,
modes of preparation, specific uses, seasonal patterns
in harvesting and use, and traditional knowledge
related to various aspects of management) can all
be important in planning the sustainable use and
conservation of wild food species.
• Within-species differences are reported to have been
identified and characterized in 27 percent of the wild
food species reported by countries.
• Half the countries reporting ex situ wild food
collections report the complete or partial
characterization or evaluation of accessions from a
combined total of 150 wild food species.
• Needs and priorities for the characterization of wild
foods include strengthening capacity, increasing the
availability of resources and improving mechanisms
for sharing and documenting knowledge.
6.4.1 Overview
The characterization of wild foods involves the
collection of various types of data. For example,
molecular genetic data (Box 6.3) and data on
17
https://biodiversity.bt
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
Box 6.3
Why undertake genetic data analysis of crop wild relatives and wild food plants?
The Voluntary Guidelines for the Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Crop Wild Relatives and Wild Food Plants
(FAO, 2017o) (see Box 7.16) list the following benefits of
molecular genetic diversity studies:
Identification and classification of populations.
Molecular markers can help distinguish between closely
related taxa and identify gene flow between taxa.
Provision of genetic baseline information. An
understanding of the pattern of allelic richness and evenness
across the geographic breadth of a species establishes a
relative baseline against which change can be measured
during later monitoring. By assessing genetic diversity
regularly over time, genetic erosion can be detected early,
and necessary population management measures can be
implemented before significant genetic loss occurs.
Identification of populations for conservation. The
amount and patterns of genetic diversity both within and
between the populations of a species can help identify
which crop wild relative and wild food plant populations
should be targeted for in situ and ex situ conservation.
Duplicate accessions, as well as novel genetic variability and
gaps in collections, can also be identified.
ecogeography (i.e. the effect of environment and
ecology on the distribution of species), vernacular
names, parts used, modes of preparation, specific
uses, seasonal patterns in harvesting and use, and
traditional knowledge related to these and other
aspects of management can all be important in
planning the sustainable use and conservation
of wild food species. Further information on the
characterization of species targeted by capture
fisheries is presented in Section 6.2.4.
There is a growing body of literature on the
nutrient composition of wild foods and on their
medicinal properties. The FAO/INFOODS Food
Composition Database for Biodiversity18 compiles
composition values for foods at within-species
level (i.e. variety/cultivar/breed level) and for wild
18
http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/en
Assistance in the identification of traits of interest
for crop improvement. Genetic diversity analysis can also
help detect particular populations for characterization and
evaluation. Genetic diversity analysis is a common approach
to establishing genebank core collections (van Hintum
et al., 2000).
Understanding of evolutionary forces. Genetic
diversity analysis can help to assess and understand how
natural selection and neutral evolutionary forces are
affecting populations targeted for conservation.
The Voluntary Guidelines were developed by FAO and
endorsed by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture. They are intended as reference material
for use by national governments when preparing National
Plans for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Crop
Wild Relatives and Wild Food Plants. The focus is on in situ
conservation and fostering linkages between in situ and
ex situ conservation, and ultimately the use of crop wild
relatives and wild food plants.
Source: FAO, 2017o.
and underutilized foods.19 The latest version (4.0)
contains data on 10 156 foods, of which 3 118
(31 percent) are identified as wild plant and
animal foods (belonging to a total of 1 289 species)
(Figure 6.3). Wild foods from 63 countries are
included in the database, with the highest
number of species entries based on studies in
the United States of America (27 studies, total
of 66 species) followed by Canada (12 studies,
total of 33 species), Turkey (23 studies, total of
27 species), Nigeria (20 studies, total of 22 species),
Mexico (7 studies, total of 17 species), Brazil
(12 studies, total of 16 species), India (9 studies,
19
It should be noted that most data are the results of targeted
searches on particular foods (potatoes, cassava, quinoa, pulses,
fish, beef, pork, insects and milk of underutilized species) while
other foods were included randomly. This explains the uneven
distribution of foods included.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
319
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 6.3
Wild foods in the FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for Biodiversity
A
B
Fish and
shellfish
Meat
Vegetables
11%
Starchy roots
and tubers
Fruits
Other
1%
Fish and
shellfish
39%
Starchy
roots and
tubers
12%
Vegetables
Nuts
and seeds
4%
Nuts and seeds
Legumes
Meat
16%
Cereals
Miscellaneous
Legumes
1%
Eggs
Milk
0
500
1 000
Wild foods
1 500
2 000
2 500
Fruits
16%
n = 1 289 species
All entries
Notes: In part A of the figure, ‘’All entries’’ (light blue bars) include wild foods, underutilized foods, and foods for which data are
available at the variety, cultivar or breed levels. In part B, ‘’Other’’ includes milk, eggs and miscellaneous wild foods.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on BioFoodComp 4.0, FAO/INFOODS.
total of 16 species), Italy (9 studies, total of
15 species), Australia (5 studies, total of 11 species),
China (6 studies, total of 10 species) and Greece
(10 studies, total of 10 species).
The wild food species with the largest number
of records in the database20 are the following:
(within the fish and shellfish group) Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus), Atlantic horse mackerel
(Trachurus trachurus), Arctic grayling (Thymallus
arcticus), European perch (Perca fluviatilis), lake
whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), burbot (Lota
lota), northern pike (Esox lucius), mola carplet
(Amblypharyngodon mola), Atlantic bonito (Sarda
sarda); (within the meat group) reindeer (Rangifer
tarandus), ringed seal (Phoca hispida), Eurasian
elk (Alces alces), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus),
20
Each record includes data from a specific nutritional analysis
targeting the respective species, for example from a study in
a specific country, of food from a specific breed or variety, of
food from a specific body part or of food subject to a specific
cooking process (e.g. raw vs cooked).
320
narwhal (Monodon monoceros), American beaver
(Castor canadensis); (within the starchy roots and
tubers group) various species of potatoes, including Solanum infundibuliforme, Commerson’s
nightshade (S. commersonii), S. jamesii, heartleaf
nightshade (S. cardiophyllum), S. microdontum,
S. spegazzinii, S. megistacrolobum, S. brachistotrichum and Chaco potato (S. chacoense).
In total, food-composition data for wild foods
are taken from 245 studies,21 70 of which characterize foods from two or more countries. In
most cases, data are available for macronutrients
and minerals. For fish, fatty acids and amino
acids are also included. Vitamin and phytochemical compositions, which are particularly relevant to the promotion of wild and biodiverse
foods, are rarely investigated. While the FAO/
INFOODS database contains only a very small
21
The list of studies can be found in the downloadable
BioFoodComp 4.0, available on the dedicated webpage.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
FIGURE 6.4
Status of identification and characterization of differences within wild food species
reported by countries, by type
Number of responses
Birds
241
Crustaceans
36
Fish
349
Fungi
161
Insects
24
Mammals
321
Molluscs
46
Plants
2 733
Reptiles and amphibians
56
Total
3 980
0%
20%
40%
No
60%
Yes
80%
100%
Not reported
Notes: A “response” is the report of a given wild food species by a given country. Yes = Identification and characterization of withinspecies differences have been conducted; No = not conducted; Not reported = characterization status is not indicated in the country
report. A single species may be reported by more than one country. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
fraction of all studies on the characterization
of wild food species, it is nonetheless the most
comprehensive of its kind.
6.4.2 Country-report analysis
Characterization of differences within
wild food species
Among the 2 822 wild food species reported
by countries (see Section 4.4), within-species
differences are reported to have been identified and characterized for a total of 772 species
from 23 countries (Figure 6.4). Fifty-one species
are reported by more than one country as
having been characterized at this level, with
the most frequently mentioned being brown
trout (Salmo trutta) (seven countries) and
jujube (Ziziphus mauritiana) (four countries). The
following species were each mentioned by three
countries: African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis);
governor’s plum (Flacourtia indica); Mysore gamboges (Garcinia xanthochymus); horseradish
tree (Moringa oleifera); white mulberry (Morus
alba); common purslane (Portulaca oleracea);
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar); pike-perch
(Sander lucioperca); Java plum (Syzygium cumini);
tamarind (Tamarindus indica); and grayling
(Thymallus thymallus).
The state of characterization of wild foods
varies by type of food and by country, with
insects, reptiles and amphibians having a higher
proportion of species characterized than other
categories. Overall, the highest number of species
reported to be characterized are plants.
Reported objectives for the characterization of
wild foods are diverse. For example, Argentina
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
321
6
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 6.4
Study and development of foods and natural products with potential health benefits in Paraguay
The Faculty of Chemical Sciences of the National University
of Asuncíon has been working since 1981 on the chemical,
nutritional and pharmacological properties of plant
resources and their extracts, with the objective of developing
foods and other products with potential health benefits.
Topics of research projects aimed at increasing nutritional
knowledge of indigenous, native and wild food resources as
a basis for enhancing their conservation and sustainable use
have included:
• characterization of native fruits (genus Campomanesia)
in Paraguay;
• nutritional value of pods of the South American
mesquite (Prosopis alba) and the Chilean mesquite
(P. chilensis) harvested in indigenous communities of
the Boquerón, Chaco Department;
• chemical composition and nutritional value of pigeon
pea (Cajanus cajan);
• nutritional value and aflatoxin content of Aloysia
polystachya (a kind of beebrush) extracts;
• nutritional composition of fresh common purslane
(Portulaca oleracea) growing in the city of Villa Hayes;
reports ongoing work on the taxonomic, phytochemical and morphological characterization of
native plants used for medicinal, aromatic and
nutritional purposes, including valeriana (Valeriana
sp.), peperina (Minthostachys mollis), incayuyo
(Lippia integrifolia), marcela (Achyrocline satureioides) and cedrón (Aloysia triphylla), with the
objective of improving food production and social
conditions in the regions where these species grow.
Paraguay reports that research programmes on the
chemical, nutritional and pharmacological properties of plant resources and their extracts are aiming
to develop products with potential health benefits
(Box 6.4). El Salvador mentions plans to work on
the identification, georeferencing, characterization
and inventory of plant genetic resources and their
underutilized wild relatives, with the objective of
exploring genetic and production potential on a
commercial scale.
322
• macronutrient composition of the spotted sorubim
(Pseudoplatystoma coruscans), barred sorubim (P.
fasciatum) and streaked prochilod (Prochilodus scrofa)
of the Paraguay River;
• physicochemical characterization, vitamin C content
and antioxidant capacity of native wild raspberry,
Rubus hassleri var. paraguariensis;
• nutritional value of fruits of tarumá (Vitex
megapotamica);
• physical characteristics, centesimal composition
and minerals in fruits of the macadamia (Macadamia
integrifolia) harvested in the Department of
Cordillera; and
• total antioxidant potential of two native fruits:
guavijú (Myrcianthes pungens) and pakurí (Rheedia
brasiliensis).
Source: Adapted from the country report of Paraguay.
Characterization of ex situ collections
of wild foods
With regard to the characterization of ex situ collections of wild foods (see Section 7.4.2), 16 countries (out of 32 countries reporting ex situ wild
food collections) report characterization or evaluation to have been completed or partially completed for at least one species or genus – amounting to a total of 150 species, of which 9 percent are
fungi, 27 percent animals (most frequently fish
and molluscs) and 64 percent plants. Together,
Asia and Europe represent over 65 percent of
the reports of partial and complete characterization or evaluation of wild food species conserved
ex situ. Countries refer to a range of different
types of characterization activities for wild food
species conserved ex situ, including phenotypic,
phylogenetic, genetic and chemical characterization. Few provide information on the specific
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CHAR ACT ERIZ AT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
traits characterized. Those that are mentioned
include traits related to food and nutrition
(starch content for example), responses to different water regimes and resistance to pests and
diseases. A number of countries note that ex
situ collections of some species have been developed with the aim of establishing national reference collections for comparison with unknown
samples and for documenting species distribution and within-species variation. For example,
Norway reports that some species of wild fruits
and medicinal and aromatic herbs conserved ex
situ have been investigated quite thoroughly
in the institutions that keep them. It notes,
however, that there is no common database that
assembles information on the characterization
and evaluation status of these collections.
6.5 Needs and priorities
Countries generally recognize the need to
strengthen the characterization of associated
biodiversity and wild foods, noting in some cases
that a lack of characterization data constrains the
implementation of activities in the fields of conservation and sustainable use. Several specifically
mention the need to collect data that can serve
as a baseline for the assessment of the status and
trends of associated-biodiversity species. Some
identify the need to establish biodiversity information systems. A few specific priorities in terms
of taxonomic or functional groups are mentioned.
For example, India refers to the need for studies
on the taxonomy of pollinators and detritivores.
The factor most commonly reported in the
country reports as a constraint to the characterization of associated biodiversity is a lack of resources.
Numerous countries mention a shortage of taxonomists, with many specifying the need to allocate
funds for training in this field, in particular on
molecular techniques. Some countries mention
that there is a diminishing interest in taxonomy
on the part of young scientists. Switzerland notes
that knowledge on systematics is being lost as a
result of the dissolution of relevant professorial
chairs. Kenya reports that knowledge is being lost
because of the transfer of experienced taxonomists from collection facilities such as museums
to universities without replacement. Countries
mention the need to invest in characterization
facilities and equipment, again particularly for
molecular characterization. A few mention that a
lack of policies or national programmes addressing
characterization is a constraint. Where wild foods
are concerned, lack of capacity and resources, and
the absence of mechanisms for sharing and documenting knowledge, are highlighted.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT U RE
323
6
Chapter 7
The state of conservation of
biodiversity
for food and agriculture
Key messages
• Crop, livestock, forest and aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture are conserved in situ through
a variety of approaches, including the promotion of
management strategies that involve the sustainable
use of these resources and the establishment of
protected areas. Although efforts are reported to be
increasing, coverage is often incomplete.
• Ex situ conservation efforts for genetic resources for
food and agriculture are increasing, in particular for
plant genetic resources, although many gaps remain.
Technical challenges persist with respect to the
ex situ conservation of some species. Conservation
programmes need to become more comprehensive
and research into conservation strategies and
techniques needs to be strengthened.
• Relatively few associated biodiversity species
(species such as pollinators, soil organisms
7.1 Introduction
Conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) comprises a diverse range of actions
taken with the aim of preventing the loss of diversity
at genetic, species and/or ecosystem level. These
actions can operate on a variety of scales, including
the individual plot, field, forest stand, aquaculture
pond or gene bank, the farm or holding, the ecosystem, landscape or larger geographical area, the
species migration route, the country, the region
or the whole world. They can involve, inter alia,
hands-on management activities in and around production systems, education and awareness-raising
and pest natural enemies found in and around
production systems) are specifically targeted by
in situ conservation programmes. Most conservation
occurs via the promotion of biodiversity-friendly
production practices, the establishment of
protected areas, and policy and legal measures
aimed at restricting activities that damage
biodiversity. Although limited, public-sector and
private-sector ex situ conservation initiatives
exist for some species of associated biodiversity,
with many countries having culture collections
of micro-organisms used in agriculture or in
agrifood industries.
• Where wild foods are concerned, 8 and 13 percent
of the number of wild species reported by countries
to be used for food are reported to be conserved
in situ and ex situ, respectively.
efforts, research, monitoring of species or ecosystems
or threats affecting them, provision of incentives
for biodiversity-friendly management activities, or
the development and implementation of policy
and legal measures that address threats to biodiversity or promote its sustainable use. Actions can
be specifically targeted (e.g. aiming to protect a
particular species) or more diffuse (e.g. aiming to
protect all the biodiversity in and around a given
production system or in a given geographical area).
They may or may not involve use of the targeted
components of biodiversity (e.g. farming or harvesting them, or deploying them to promote the supply
of supporting or regulating ecosystem services).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
325
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Practical conservation measures are typically categorized as in situ or ex situ (see Section 1.5),
although there are some differences in how these
terms are used in the different sectors of food and
agriculture (see below for further details). The two
approaches are generally regarded as complementary to each other.
This chapter discusses the state of conservation
measures for the various categories of BFA considered in this report. It begins with a short overview of
efforts to conserve plant (crop), animal (livestock),
forest and aquatic genetic resources, drawing on
the respective sectoral global assessments prepared
by FAO (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a).
This is followed by sections on the conservation of
associated biodiversity1 and wild foods, drawing
mainly on the information provided in the country
reports.2 Two cross-cutting issues are then discussed
in greater detail: first the role of protected areas
in the conservation of BFA and then the state of
efforts to maintain traditional knowledge related
to BFA. The chapter ends with a short discussion of
needs and priorities in the field of conservation,
focusing on associated biodiversity and wild foods.
Various aspects of BFA management that may
contribute to conservation efforts are discussed
in other chapters. Monitoring and characterization of BFA are discussed in Chapters 4 and 6.
Potentially “biodiversity-friendly” management
practices and approaches in food and agriculture
are discussed in Chapter 5. BFA-related education
and training, research, cooperation, incentive
measures, and policy and legal frameworks are
discussed in Chapter 8.
1
2
The biodiversity present in and around production systems
that supports food and agriculture through pollination, pest
and disease regulation, improving soil fertility and the supply
of many other ecosystem services – see Section 1.5 for a
discussion of this term.
Given the above-noted wide range of activities potentially
contributing to conservation – and the various ways in which
the boundaries between conservation and other aspects
of management can be drawn – there has inevitably been
some variation in how the concept of conservation has been
interpreted in the country reports prepared for The State of the
World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture and across the
various sectoral global assessments of genetic resources.
326
7.2 Plant, animal, forest
and aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture
• Plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources are
conserved through various in situ, ex situ and circa
situm approaches that seek to provide complementary
and effective coverage of the target genepools and
combine conservation of existing genetic diversity
with continuing evolution and adaptation.
• Ex situ collections are relatively well developed for
plant (crop) genetic resources. However, in only a
very few species (major staple crops) is it likely that a
substantial percentage of the total genetic diversity
present in the species is conserved ex situ. Much of the
diversity present in minor crops, and in livestock, forest
and aquatic species, is also not yet secured ex situ.
• Ex situ programmes are constrained by various
technical issues, including those related to the
cryoconservation of some animal reproductive
materials (particularly in the case of aquatic animals)
and those related to regeneration of stored seeds.
Biotechnological methods that do not involve the
storage of reproductive material may in future improve
coverage of ex situ conservation across sectors.
• In situ conservation measures for plant, animal, forest
and aquatic genetic resources are generally insufficient
to provide these components of biodiversity with
adequate protection. Various steps can be taken,
depending on the circumstances, to make conservation
efforts more comprehensive and effective, including
improving support for the production and marketing
of potentially threatened domesticated breeds
and varieties, and improving the targeting and
management of protected areas to better account
for crop and livestock wild relatives and for genetic
diversity within tree and aquatic species.
7.2.1 Plant genetic resources for
food and agriculture
Ex situ conservation is the most significant and
widespread means of conserving plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). Most
conserved plant accessions are kept in specialized facilities known as genebanks, maintained
by public or private institutions acting alone or
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.1
The World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture
The World Information and Early Warning System on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (WIEWS) is
the global information system on plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture (PGRFA) used by FAO for the
preparation of periodic, country-driven global assessments
of the status of conservation and use of PGRFA. WIEWS is
used to monitor the implementation of:
• the plant component of Indicator 2.5.1 of Sustainable
Development Goal 2, Zero Hunger; and
• the Second Global Plan of Action for PGRFA.
WIEWS data are conveyed via a global network of
national focal points appointed by governments.
WIEWS contains information on:
• the implementation by countries of the 18 priority
activities of the Second Global Plan of Action,
based on 63 indicators adopted by the Commission
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,
networked with other institutions. Orthodox
seeds are kept in specially designed cold stores.
Vegetatively propagated crops and those with
recalcitrant seeds are maintained as living plants in
field genebanks. In some cases, tissue samples are
stored through in vitro culture or cryogenically.
Pollen or embryos are also sometimes conserved,
and there is increasing interest in the conservation implications of storing DNA samples or digital
DNA sequence information.
Germplasm of crops and crop wild relatives is
conserved in more than 575 genebanks worldwide,
with a total of about 4.9 million accessions maintained under medium- and long-term conditions
globally (see Box 7.1). The 11 genebanks of the
CGIAR and the World Vegetable Centre maintain
over 800 000 accessions from over 600 different
genera. It is estimated that almost 2 million accessions have been added to ex situ genebanks with
medium- and long-term collections since 1995,
although gaps still remain (FAO, 2018s). There
are also substantial ex situ collections in botanic
addressing in situ conservation of crop wild relatives
and wild food plants, on-farm management of
farmers’ varieties/landraces, ex situ conservation,
management and sustainable use of PGRFA, and
human and institutional capacity building;
• more than 4.9 million accessions from over 6 900
genera conserved under medium- or long-term
conditions in over 575 genebanks in 90 countries and
16 international/regional centres; and
• more than 17 000 national, regional and international
institutes and organizations dealing with the
conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA, each
assigned a unique identifier as an ex situ germplasmholding organization.
Note: For more information see: http://www.fao.org/wiews/en
gardens, of which there are over 3 400 around
the world (BGCI, 2018). The Svalbard Global Seed
Vault,3 which opened in 2008, provides a secure
global backup of crop diversity held in genebanks
around the world. Concerted efforts have been
made to deposit duplicate samples of accessions
from the CGIAR global collections and many
national and regional collections.
For several staple crops, for example wheat
and rice, a large proportion of the genetic diversity within the species is represented in ex situ
collections.4 However, for many other crops, considerable gaps remain. Many countries still lack
adequate human capacity, facilities, funds or
management systems to meet their ex situ conservation needs, putting a number of collections
at risk. The documentation and characterization
3
4
https://www.croptrust.org/our-work/svalbard-global-seed-vault
Except where indicated otherwise, the material presented in
this subsection is based on The Second Report on the State of
the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(FAO, 2010a).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
327
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
of many collections is still inadequate, and where
information does exist it is often difficult to access.
The overall poor documentation of ex situ collections also constrains efforts to reduce duplication
of conservation measures and hence reduces
efficiency at global and regional levels. Greater
efforts are needed to build a truly rational global
system of ex situ collections. This requires, in particular, stronger regional and international trust
and cooperation.
Interest in collecting crop wild relatives, wild
food plants and neglected and underutilized
species is growing, and coverage in genebanks has
increased in recent years. However, there are concerns about possible losses in ex situ collections as
a result of a lack of funds for regeneration (FAO,
2016m). Given that the reproductive behaviours
and seed physiology of crop wild relatives and
wild food species are generally not well known
and that their regeneration is therefore more
difficult and demanding, it can be expected that
these species will increasingly be affected by such
budgetary constraints.
In situ conservation of PGRFA is often taken to
include both on-farm conservation of domesticated crop species and conservation of crop wild
relatives in natural or semi-natural ecosystems.
However, the term is sometimes used in a narrower sense to refer only to the latter (i.e. a distinction is sometimes drawn between in situ and
on-farm conservation). In situ conservation of crop
wild relatives generally occurs as a side-effect of
efforts to protect habitats or charismatic species,
rather than as a result of deliberate targeting.
The main mechanism involved is the designation
of protected areas of various types (see Section
7.5 for further discussion of the roles of protected
areas). The lack of specific measures targeting
crop wild relatives increases the risk that important resources will fall through gaps in conservation coverage.
Areas rich in crop wild relative diversity (e.g. areas
of origin) are less well covered by protected areas
than overall global figures would suggest. Wild
relatives are also often less comprehensively surveyed than other components of biodiversity,
328
although surveys targeting these resources are
becoming more common. A substantial amount of
crop wild relative diversity is located outside protected areas, including on farms. Protecting them
may require, for example, specific management
agreements between conservation agencies and
those who own, or have rights over, the respective sites. Such agreements are becoming more
common, especially in North America and Europe.
See Box 7.16 for information on the Voluntary
Guidelines for the Conservation and Sustainable
Use of Crop Wild Relatives and Wild Food Plants
endorsed by the Commission on Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture in 2017.
In reporting on activities undertaken to implement the Second Global Plan of Action for Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
between 2012 and 2014, countries indicated that
increased attention was being given to the in
situ conservation and use of crop wild relatives.
Overall, 9 percent of the over 30 000 in situ conservation sites that were reported in 39 countries
had management plans addressing crop wild
relatives and wild food plants (FAO, 2018t). A
total of 104 activities on in situ conservation and
management of crop wild relatives and wild food
plants implemented, with institutional support, in
32 countries were reported (ibid.).
On-farm conservation efforts, particularly
efforts to maintain traditional crop varieties, have
gained considerable ground in recent years. Many
programmes have been established and new tools
have been developed that allow better assessment
of this diversity and the mechanisms through
which it is maintained. Increasing attention has
been paid, for example, to the significance of particular types of management system (e.g. home
gardens), “informal” seed systems, the interface
between wild and agricultural plants and ecosystems, traditional knowledge and the roles of particular groups of farmers as custodians of diversity.
A number of different measures can be taken,
depending on the circumstances, to support
the maintenance of PGRFA on-farm. These
include adding value to local genetic resources
via improved characterization, improving them
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
through breeding and seed processing, increasing consumer demand through market incentives
and awareness-raising efforts, improving access to
PGRFA and information about them, and establishing supportive policies, legislation and incentives. Recent years have, to varying degrees, seen
positive developments in all these fields.
Despite the broadly upward trend in the level
of implementation of in situ conservation and
on-farm management activities for PGRFA, much
remains to be done. There continues to be a need
for more-effective policies, legislation and regulations governing the in situ conservation and
on-farm management of PGRFA, both inside and
outside protected areas. Closer collaboration and
coordination are needed between the agriculture and environment sectors. Many aspects of
in situ conservation and on-farm management
require further research. There is also a need for
more detailed surveys of crop wild relatives and
wild food plants, and for research on their morphological and molecular characterization and
evaluation, to allow better targeting of conservation actions.
7.2.2 Animal genetic resources
for food and agriculture
As noted above for BFA in general, in situ and
ex situ approaches to the conservation of animal
genetic resources for food and agriculture (AnGR)
are generally regarded as complementary to each
other. In situ conservation of AnGR has been
defined as follows: “support for continued use
by livestock keepers in the production system in
which the livestock evolved or are now normally
found and bred” (FAO, 2015a). However, a broader
definition would include actions targeting feral
populations or the wild relatives of domesticated
animals. In situ conservation strategies can involve
a wide range of actions, including those that aim
to increase demand for products and services from
at-risk breeds (e.g. market development or promotion of breeds’ roles in tourism or in habitat or landscape management), those that focus on supporting or incentivizing livestock keepers (e.g. incentive or subsidy payments, recognition or award
programmes, extension programmes or awareness raising), activities focused on breeding programmes, and activities focused on participation
and empowerment at community level (FAO,
2010a, 2013g). The benefits of in situ conservation are considered to include the opportunities it
provides for: livestock populations to continue to
evolve in response to changes in the production
environment; the maintenance of knowledge and
skills related to the management of these populations; and the ongoing supply of any ecosystem
services the populations may provide (FAO, 2015a).
Where ex situ conservation is concerned, a distinction is drawn between ex situ in vivo and ex situ
in vitro conservation (FAO, 2015a). Ex situ in vivo
conservation is achieved “through the maintenance of live animal populations not kept under
normal management conditions (e.g. in a zoological park or a governmental farm) and/or outside
the area where they evolved or are now normally
found and bred.” Ex situ in vitro conservation
(also referred to as cryoconservation) is achieved
“through the maintenance, under cryogenic conditions, of cells or tissues that have the potential to be used to reconstitute live animals and
populations at a later date.” The material most
commonly cryoconserved is semen, followed by
embryos. Oocytes, somatic cells and isolated DNA
are also sometimes stored. Ex situ in vitro conservation provides a source of genetic material that
can be drawn upon as a backup if a disaster (e.g.
a disease epidemic) strikes the live population or
used in other ways to support the genetic management of the live population (FAO, 2012e). Where
live animals are maintained, distinctions between
in situ and ex situ conservation are not always
clear cut. In vivo conservation can be regarded
as a spectrum ranging from the maintenance of
animals in very “artificial” environments such as
zoos, through maintenance in experimental farms
and farm parks, to actions taken to support the
maintenance of at-risk breeds by livestock keepers
in normal production systems (FAO, 2007a).
Most countries that participated in the reporting process for The Second Report on the State
of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
329
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.2
The Domestic Animal Diversity
Information System
The Domestic Animal Diversity Information System
(DAD-IS),1 maintained and developed by FAO, contains
data from 182 countries on a total of more than 8 000
livestock breeds belonging to 38 species. Data are
entered into the system by national coordinators for
the management of animal genetic resources, who are
nominated by their respective governments.
Data from DAD-IS have long been used in the
publication of periodic reports on the status and trends
of animal genetic resources. They are now also used to
monitor the animal-related components of Sustainable
Development Goal Indicators 2.5.1 (Number of plant and
animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured
in medium- or long-term conservation facilities) and 2.5.2
(Proportion of local breeds, classified as being at risk, notat-risk or at unknown level of risk of extinction).
DAD-IS can also be used to access detailed data
on the status and characteristics of individual breeds,
including on population size and structure, uses, origin
and development, notable adaptive features, morphology,
performance, management conditions and conservation
programmes. It contains a large number of photographs
of individual breeds. Users can access standard selfgenerated reports or export data for further analysis.
1
http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en
and Agriculture (FAO, 2015a) indicated that they
had at least some AnGR conservation activities in
place. In vitro genebanks had been established by
64 out of 128 reporting countries, and a further
41 countries were planning to do so. Many of
these genebanks were in the early stages of development and the collections often had many gaps
in their coverage of relevant breeds and populations. Based on data from the Domestic Animal
Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) (see Box 7.2),
Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 2.5.1
(Number of plant and animal genetic resources
for food and agriculture secured in medium- or
330
long-term conservation facilities) shows that
fewer than 1 percent of breeds are reported to
have sufficient genetic material stored in genebanks (3 percent are reported to have insufficient
material and the status of the others is unknown).
The coverage of in situ conservation activities was
also incomplete (i.e. many countries considered
that their conservation measures were insufficient
to adequately protect their breeds from the risk of
extinction). However, a diverse range of different
activities were reported. For example, countries
were increasingly developing niche markets for
speciality products as a means of increasing the
profitability of potentially threatened breeds.
Inadequate funding, infrastructure and technical skills often remain significant obstacles to
the establishment or further development of
genebanks for AnGR. More generally, in order to
strengthen both in situ and ex situ conservation
efforts, there is a need to strengthen the human
capacities and institutional structures that underpin conservation measures (and other aspects of
AnGR management), for example in the fields of
research, education and training, stakeholder participation (particularly livestock-keeper participation), policies and legal frameworks.
7.2.3 Forest genetic resources
In situ conservation is the preferred means of
conserving forest genetic resources (FGR), as it
is a dynamic approach that allows temporal and
spatial changes in genetic diversity. The main goal
is to maintain evolutionary processes (natural
selection, genetic drift, gene flow and mutation)
within tree populations, rather than to preserve
their current genetic diversity (e.g. Eriksson,
Namkoong and Roberds, 1993; FAO, FLD and
IPGRI, 2004a; Lande and Barrowclough, 1987).
Ex situ conservation, in contrast, is mostly static
(i.e. maintains one-off samples of genetic diversity). In most cases, it is easier and cheaper to conserve tree populations in their natural habitats
than under ex situ conditions. However, ex situ conservation of FGR (e.g. in seed banks, seed orchards,
field collections, provenance trials, planted conservation stands or botanic gardens) is a necessary
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
complement to in situ conservation, especially
when population size is critically low in the wild.
In the forest sector, where conservation largely
focuses on wild species, a third category – circa
situm conservation – is distinguished from in
situ and ex situ conservation. The term is used
to describe a type of conservation that emphasizes the role of regenerating saplings in linking
vegetation remnants in heavily modified or fragmented landscapes, such as those of traditional
agroforestry and farming systems (FAO, 2014a).
Conservation of FGR on farms often falls into this
category. In other cases, it constitutes a type of ex
situ conservation.
In situ conservation of FGR is typically carried
out in protected areas or managed natural forests
by designating conservation stands (FAO, DFSC and
IPGRI, 2001). Both protected areas and managed
natural forests may have some limitations from the
genetic conservation point of view. Most protected
areas are established to conserve endangered
animal and plant species or ecosystems, and rarely
to conserve the genetic diversity of forest trees.
Consequently, conservation of FGR is often given a
low priority or not recognized at all in the management of protected areas. Furthermore, silvicultural
treatments that may be necessary to maintain or
enhance genetic processes within tree populations
are often not permitted in protected areas. In the
case of managed forests, past or current utilization and management practices may have altered
the genetic composition of tree populations, and
some forest stands may have been established with
tree germplasm brought in from other locations.
Thus, the conservation value and suitability of a
given tree population located in a protected area
or a managed forest should be carefully evaluated
based on historical records, if available, or other
relevant information, before stands are designated for FGR conservation. Ideally, a network of
such conservation stands should cover the whole
distribution range of a tree species.
In forest trees that have orthodox seeds, ex situ
conservation can be implemented by drying and
storing seeds at low temperatures. The seeds can be
maintained for years without losing their viability.
However, many tree species produce seeds that
cannot be stored using this method. This is a major
constraint to ex situ conservation, especially in the
humid tropics, where more than 70 percent of
tree species have recalcitrant or intermediate seed
behaviour (Sacandé et al., 2004). Ex situ conservation of such species is based on field collections,
conservation stands and breeding populations
and on more sophisticated approaches, such as
cryopreservation, seedling conservation, in vitro
conservation, pollen storage and DNA storage
(FAO, FLD and IPGRI, 2004b).
Countries that contributed to The State of the
World’s Forest Genetic Resources (SoW-FGR) (FAO,
2014a) reported a wide variety of in situ conservation activities, covering a total of nearly 1 000 species
of trees, scrubs, palms and bamboo (including subspecies). However, interpretation of the concept
of in situ conservation varies from country to
country (e.g. whether or not the mere presence
of a given tree species in a protected area can be
regarded as sufficient grounds for stating that it
is subject to FGR conservation). For the SoW-FGR
process, countries were not asked to report on the
completeness of in situ conservation (i.e. whether
conservation efforts cover the whole distribution
range of a given species). These factors, along with
the general incompleteness of reporting, make the
global situation difficult to assess. However, out of
nearly 8 000 species reportedly used by countries
for various purposes, only about 12 percent were
reported to be subject to any form of in situ conservation. Although many countries reported that
protected areas represent their main in situ conservation activity for FGR, most of these areas had not
been designated with the aim of conserving FGR
and did not have management plans specifically
addressing this objective.
Most in situ conservation of FGR takes place
outside protected areas on a range of public,
private and traditionally owned lands, especially in multiple-use forests and forests primarily
designated for wood production (FAO, 2014a).
Unfortunately, in situ conservation of FGR within
the world’s many protected areas and managed
forests remains poorly documented, and countries
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
331
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
have developed their national strategies for
FGR conservation based on a variety of different approaches to, and interpretations of, in
situ conservation. Work in Europe offers a rare
example of the development of a regional strategy for FGR conservation based on a systematic assessment of existing conservation efforts
(Lefèvre et al., 2013; de Vries et al., 2015) and
a harmonized concept of conservation units
(Koskela et al., 2013).
Countries that contributed to the SoW-FGR
reported a total of 1 800 species to be conserved
ex situ, many conserved only in botanic gardens.
Of the 2 260 priority species listed in the country
reports,5 626 were reported to be subject to some
form of ex situ conservation. Only 135 were being
conserved in more than one country. Globally,
the total number of FGR accessions reported was
159 579, including an unknown number of multiple accessions. Most accessions are in field collections, including clone banks and provenance trials;
far fewer are in seed or in vitro collections.
In conclusion, there is a need to enhance all types
of FGR conservation. Priorities for action are set out
in the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation,
Sustainable Use and Development of Forest Genetic
Resources, adopted in 2013 (FAO, 2014b).
7.2.4 Aquatic genetic resources
for food and agriculture
In situ conservation measures in the aquatic
sector comprise actions taken to protect aquatic
genetic resources (AqGR) both in the wild and
in aquaculture. The main in situ measures for
wild aquatic biodiversity are the establishment of protected areas and the use of fisherymanagement methods that promote sustainable
fishing and conservation. As noted in Section 4.2.4,
in contrast to the crop and livestock sectors, where
producers have been maintaining a range of
breeds and for millennia, domestication of most
farmed aquatic species only started in the last
century. On-farm (i.e. in-aquaculture) conservation
5
This refers to the country reports submitted for The State of the
World’s Forest Genetic Resources (FAO, 2014a).
332
measures for such species are therefore less
common than the equivalent measures for terrestrial domesticated animals and plants. On-farm
conservation in aquaculture is not easily distinguishable from ex situ conservation in an in vivo
genebank. There are a few examples of managed
genebanks that maintain live genetically improved
farmed types under farming conditions that allow
continued evolution. Such facilities exist, for
example, for common carp in Hungary (Bakos and
Gorda, 2001).
At global level, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 call on
governments and other stakeholders to establish
protected areas in 17 percent of their terrestrial
and inland waters and 10 percent of their marine
areas by 2020 (see Section 7.5 for further discussion). Moreover, since 1996, criteria for identifying
wetlands for inclusion in the Ramsar Convention’s
List of Wetlands of International Importance have
included criteria related to fish biodiversity. The
list’s 2 200 sites represent one of the world’s largest
networks of protected areas and make a major
contribution to in situ conservation of AqGR.
Many studies have indicated that increasing fish
populations within a marine protected area leads
to spillover and increased fisheries catches outside
the protected area (Halpern, 2003). However, this
is not invariably the case and depends on numerous site-specific conditions (Charles et al., 2016;
Fletcher et al., 2015). Levels of protection in protected areas range from strict “no-take” areas to
multiple use areas that are managed for a variety
of purposes, including conservation and harvesting (see Section 7.5). The country reports submitted for The State of the World’s Aquatic Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (SoW-AqGR)
(FAO, forthcoming) generally bear out the view
that protected areas can be an effective means
of protecting aquatic biodiversity, with over 2 100
out of 2 300 protected areas mentioned in the
reports considered to be very or somewhat effective, although these results are heavily influenced
by a few countries reporting large numbers of
effective aquatic protected areas.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
The country reports6 listed several objectives for
in situ conservation of AqGR, including maintenance
of genetic diversity, maintenance of good strains
for aquaculture production, meeting consumer
and market demands, facilitating adaptation to the
impacts of climate change and providing material
for future genetic improvement in aquaculture.
Maintenance of genetic diversity was reported
to be the most important objective in both developed and developing countries. Meeting market
demands was reported to be the least important
objective. The ecosystem approach to fisheries
and aquaculture, an approach that aims to “plan,
develop and manage fisheries in a manner that
addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future
generations to benefit from the full range of goods
and services provided by marine ecosystem” (FAO,
2003d), is being adopted by fisheries managers
around the world (FAO, 2016h) (for more information see Section 5.3.3). However, only a minority of
reporting countries were able to indicate the existence of policies that clearly address the objective
of conserving AqGR in fisheries and aquaculture.
The country reports also provided little evidence
of organized efforts specifically to promote the
conservation of AqGR in modified ecosystems such
as rice fields. To ensure the conservation of AqGR
there is a need for better harmonization of fishery
and environmental data and for the development
and implementation of appropriate regulatory
measures for the management of wild relatives of
farmed species.
Ex situ measures for AqGR include the maintenance and captive breeding of live organisms
in zoos, aquaria and live genebanks, the storage
of cell lines and tissue cultures in vitro and the
cryopreservation of male gametes, tissue cultures
and cells. However, embryos and eggs of aquatic
species are extremely difficult to freeze and keep
viable. Therefore, it is only the male gamete
that can be effectively cryopreserved. Research is
6
This refers to the country reports prepared for The State of the
World’s Aquatic Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(SoW-AqGR) (FAO, forthcoming).
addressing this problem (Lee et al., 2013), but no
practical solutions have yet been found.
Sixty-nine (75 percent) of the 92 countries that
submitted reports for the SoW-AqGR indicated
that ex situ conservation activities were being
implemented at national level for aquatic organisms of national relevance falling within the scope
of the report. Approximately 290 different species
were being maintained in 690 ex situ collections
in these countries. Almost 200 of these species
were considered to be threatened or endangered
at national and/or international levels. Thirty-four
countries (49 percent) had such species among
their collections. Finfish account for 90 percent of
the species conserved, with the other 10 percent
accounted for by macro-invertebrates and aquatic
micro-organisms such as rotifers and micro-algae.
The finfishes maintained include both those used
for direct human consumption and those used as
live feed for aquaculture. The micro-organisms are
in most cases used as live feed for aquaculture.
About 38 percent of reporting countries indicated
that they had in vitro collections of AqGR (farmed
species and wild relatives), covering a total of
133 different species.
Priorities for improving the conservation of
AqGR include, on the in situ side, maintaining
and improving aquatic habitats, improving fishery
management, designating freshwater and marine
protected areas (taking into account genetic, ecological and demographic parameters to promote
the conservation of distinct target populations),
improving water management, reducing pollution, reducing the negative impacts of capture
fisheries, and using an ecosystem approach in the
management of riparian and open-water habitats.
Ex situ conservation efforts could be stepped up
through the establishment of new conservation
facilities and captive-breeding programmes, as
well as through research into conservation strategies and techniques, including maintenance of
live populations, cryopreservation of gametes and
embryos, and tissue banking.
Effective integration of in situ and ex situ
conservation is important, particularly given the
strong links between farmed stocks and their
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
333
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
wild relatives. Hatcheries have been developed to
raise aquatic species ex situ for eventual release
back into the wild or into modified habitats such
as rice fields and reservoirs. These are sometimes
called “conservation hatcheries” and they attempt
to reduce the artificial selection pressures of the
hatchery environment by maintaining relatively
“natural” conditions (e.g. providing natural substrates and feed). This approach is common in
restoration efforts in North America and Europe
(Schramm, 1995). Conservation hatcheries are
usually devoted to rare, threatened or endangered species or stocks.
7.3 Associated biodiversity
• In situ conservation of associated biodiversity (species
such as pollinators, soil organisms and pest natural
enemies found in and around production systems) is
achieved through a number of approaches, including the
establishment of protected areas, use of biodiversityfriendly management practices, provision of protection
against invasive species and pollution, ecosystem
restoration, establishment of wildlife corridors and
strengthening relevant policies and institutions.
• Community participation and the development and
implementation of biodiversity-friendly management
practices provide important mechanisms for in situ
conservation of associated biodiversity.
• Culture collections maintaining a wide range of fungi,
bacteria and other micro-organisms of relevance
to food and agriculture are becoming increasingly
widespread. Information exchange combined with the
use of new biotechnological methods is strengthening
the effectiveness of these collections as contributors
to ex situ conservation.
• Botanic gardens provide a very substantial global
repository of plant species with potential to be used
for restoration and other purposes.
pest and disease regulation, improving soil fertility and the supply of many other ecosystem
services – see Section 1.5 for a discussion of this
term) can benefit both from in situ conservation
measures that target individual species and those
that target the protection of whole ecosystems.
In both cases, the conservation measures may or
may not be motivated specifically by the objective of maintaining or promoting the supply of
ecosystem services to food and agriculture. In
situ conservation programmes relevant to associated biodiversity can involve a range of different approaches, including the establishment of
protected areas, provision of legal protection
for threatened species, and various policy and
legal measures aimed at restricting activities that
damage biodiversity or promoting those that are
biodiversity friendly. On a more local scale, efforts
can be made to maintain and enhance habitats
for particular species or groups of species that are
under threat, to directly manage threatened populations (via translocation, release of captive-bred
individuals, etc.) or to provide protection against
specific threats such as hunting, overharvesting,
disease outbreaks or fires.
This section describes the state of in situ conservation activities for associated biodiversity as
presented in the country reports. Except where
noted otherwise, it focuses on the activities specifically reported to constitute “in situ conservation
and management activities or programmes that
support the maintenance of associated biodiversity.” The state of implementation of various individual management methods at production-system
level that may contribute to in situ conservation
strategies for associated biodiversity is discussed
in detail in Chapter 5. The role of protected areas
is further discussed in Section 7.5. Broader institutional, policy and legal frameworks for the management of associated biodiversity, including those
that directly or indirectly contribute to in situ conservation efforts, are discussed in Chapter 8.
7.3.1 In situ conservation
Associated biodiversity (i.e. the biodiversity
present in and around production systems that
supports food and agriculture through pollination,
334
Overview
Countries were invited to indicate the components of associated biodiversity being conserved
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 7.1
Associated biodiversity species and genera reported to be conserved in situ, by taxonomic group
Taxonomic group
Birds
Count of species
Count of genera
Examples of species and genera reported
48
50
Amazona spp. (a genus of parrots), Dendrocopos spp. (a genus of
woodpeckers), Gallinago gallinago (common snipe), Lanius spp. (typical
shrikes), Oxyura leucocephala (white-headed duck), Saxicola rubetra
(winchat), Milvus milvus (black kite)
Crustaceans
40
41
Acasta spp. (a genus of barnacles), Astacus spp. (a genus of crayfish),
Austropotamobius spp. (a genus of crayfish), Birgus latro (coconut
crab), Lepas spp. (a genus of barnacles), Megabalanus spp. (a genus of
barnacles), Nobia spp., Savignium spp. (a genus of barnacles), Tetraclita
spp. (a genus of barnacles)
Fish
70
75
Alosa spp. (a genus of ray-finned fish), Labeo spp. (a genus of ray-finned
fish), Lampetra spp. (a genus of lampreys), Salmo spp. (salmons and
trouts), Tor spp. (mahseers), Zingel spp. (a genus of ray-finned fish)
Insects and arachnids
108
115
Apis mellifera (western honey bee), Coccinella spp. (a genus of ladybird
beetles), Cirrospilus spp. (a genus of hymenoptera), Scymnus spp.
(a genus of ladybird beetles), Typhlodromus spp. (a genus of mites)
Mammals
64
72
Barbastella barbastellus (barbastelle – a bat), Castor fiber (Eurasian
beaver), Dugong dugon (dugong), Myotis spp. (a genus of bats), Ovis spp.
(sheep), Rhinolophus spp. (a genus of bats), Sus scrofa (wild boar), Ursus
spp. (a genus of bears)
Molluscs
11
25
Margaritifera spp. (a genus of freshwater mussels), Pinctada spp. (pearl
oysters), Sepia spp. (a genus of cuttlefish), Trochus spp. (a genus of sea
snails), Unio crassus (thick-shelled river mussel), Vertigo spp. (a genus of
land snails)
Plants
532
629
Abelmoschus spp., Abies alba (European silver fir), Acer pseudoplatanus
(sycamore), Acorus calamus (flagroot), Adansonia digitata (baobab),
Allium spp., Citrus medica (citron), Dioscorea spp., Fagus sylvatica
(European beech), Fraxinus excelsior (European ash), Jatropha spp., Piper
spp. (pepper plants), Quercus spp. (oaks), Solanum spp., Vigna spp.,
Ziziphus spp.
Reptiles and
amphibians
22
22
Bombina spp. (fire-bellied toads), Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea
turtle), Triturus spp. (a genus of newts), Natrix spp. (colubrid snakes),
Vipera berus (common viper)
Others
2
4
Arthrospira fusiformis, Holothuria spp. (a genus of sea cucumbers),
Tachypleus spp. (a genus of horseshoe crabs)
897
1 033
Total
Note: The count of genera covers those mentioned in responses at genus level and those mentioned in responses at species level. Sixty
out of a total of 91 countries reported at least one species or other taxon.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
in situ,7 the types of conservation activity being
undertaken to protect them, the site or location
of the activities, the production system(s) involved
and the objectives of the conservation efforts.
Sixty countries provided information, amounting to a total of 1 237 responses at various tax7
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries to report
separately on micro-organisms, invertebrates, vertebrates
and plants.
onomic levels. In total, 897 distinct species and
1 033 genera were identified. Some individual
countries reported large numbers of species/taxonomic groups. India, for example, reported 258
different entities. As indicated in Table 7.1, the
species and genera reported belong to a fairly
wide range of taxonomic groups, although they
include very few micro-organisms and no fungi.
However, at least four countries from Africa
and Europe indicate that fungi in general are
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
335
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 7.1
Reported objectives for the in situ conservation of associated biodiversity
Number of responses
Micro-organisms
18
Invertebrates
234
Vertebrates
302
Plants
683
Total
1 237
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Ecosystem services
Education and research
Habitat conservation and protection
Monitoring
Reintroduction
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Species conservation and protection
Utilization
Other
Not reported
Notes: A “response” is a mention by a specific country of a specific component of associated biodiversity (species or higher taxonomic
group) reported in the respective category (micro-organisms, invertebrates, vertebrates and plants). Sixty out of a total of 91 countries
reported at least one response.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
the object of in situ conservation. Other broad
groups mentioned include nitrogen-fixing bacteria, soil micro-organisms, zooplankton and
phytoplankton. Among animals, arthropods (particularly insects) and vertebrates are strongly represented. Several of the animal species listed in
Table 7.1 contribute to the supply of ecosystem
services in crop, livestock, forest or aquatic production systems, including pest and disease regulation (e.g. many birds, insects, bats, reptiles and
amphibians), pollination (e.g. many insects, birds
and bats), ecosystem engineering and provision of
habitat (e.g. large mammals and fish) and water
purification (e.g. crustaceans and molluscs). Plants
are the group with the most species reported to
be conserved in situ. Many herbaceous and woody
species contribute to ecosystem services such as
nutrient cycling, natural-hazard regulation, provision of habitat and erosion control. More information on BFA and ecosystem services, and on associated biodiversity species reported to be managed
for the provision of ecosystem services, is provided
in Section 2.2 and Section 4.3.1, respectively.
336
Countries’ responses regarding objectives for
the in situ conservation of specific species/other
taxa of associated biodiversity are summarized in
Figure 7.1. The most frequently reported objective is simply the conservation and protection of
the respective components of associated biodiversity (43 percent of responses). Only 6 percent
of responses indicate provision of ecosystem
services as an objective, although this objective
is more commonly mentioned for invertebrates
(29 percent of responses), and only 4 percent
mention utilization.
For each reported component of associated
biodiversity (i.e. species or other taxon), countries
were invited to indicate specific actions undertaken to promote its conservation. As indicated
in Figure 7.2, the implementation of biodiversityfriendly management practices is the most commonly mentioned action (26 percent of aggregated responses), followed by monitoring and
collection missions (11 percent) and strengthening institutions and policies (9 percent). The establishment and maintenance of protected areas is
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 7.2
Reported actions for the in situ conservation of associated biodiversity
Number of responses
Micro-organisms
18
Invertebrates
228
Vertebrates
338
Plants
713
Total
1 328
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Translocation and reintroduction measures
Protection against pollution, disease, invasive species,
other threats
Restriction of utilization
Establishment and maintenance of protected areas
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Strengthening institutions and policies
Use of biodiversity-friendly management practices
Other
Not reported
Notes: A “response” is a mention by a specific country of an action for a specific component of associated biodiversity (species or higher
taxonomic group). In some cases more than one action was reported for the same component of associated biodiversity. Sixty out of a
total of 91 countries reported at least one response.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
mentioned in 4 percent of responses related to
the conservation of specific components of biodiversity, although a majority of the countries
reporting in situ conservation activities for associated biodiversity mention at least some role for
protected areas (see below).
Establishment and maintenance of
protected areas
As noted above, protected areas are widely mentioned in the country reports as components of
in situ conservation efforts for associated biodiversity (more information on the global status
and trends of protected areas can be found in
Section 7.5).8 The protected areas referred to in
this context are mostly located in forest, marine
(e.g. Box 7.3), freshwater or grassland areas.
Where specific production systems are mentioned,
8
Some countries explicitly state that protected area status
contributes to the protection of associated biodiversity, while
others list protected areas as sites at which conservation
activities for associated biodiversity are undertaken (in some
cases also indicating the specific actions involved).
they are most commonly forest, fishery or grazing
systems. Some countries, however, also mention
crop and mixed systems. Where individual species
are reported to be conserved via protected areas,
little information is generally provided on why
these particular species are targeted or regarded
as significant (e.g. on their risk status or their significance in the provision of ecosystem services).
Many of the species mentioned are trees, fish,
plants that are sources of wild foods, medicinal plants and/or wild relatives of domesticated
crops or livestock. A number of large, spectacular or “charismatic” species, as well as some that
are characteristic of particular targeted habitats,
are also mentioned. Some countries indicate that
conservation efforts are directed at whole ecosystems (e.g. mangroves, hill forests or coral reefs)
or note that all taxonomic groups present in the
local area benefit.
The country reports provide some examples
of cases in which conservation in protected
areas is explicitly regarded as a means of promoting the supply of regulating or supporting
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
337
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.3
Marine sanctuaries and monitoring systems – examples from Jamaica
The Boscobel Sanctuary is a protected area off the north coast
of Jamaica. It is part of the Sandals Foundation’s Marine
Plan, which includes a commitment to the management
of marine sanctuaries, placement of marker buoys in
designated areas, monitoring of reefs and fish populations,
and working alongside the Jamaican Government, fisherfolk
and community members to ensure the country’s citizens are
aware of the benefits of marine protected areas. Since the
launch of the Boscobel Sanctuary in 2010, and subsequently
its declaration as a Special Fishery Conservation Area in 2012,
several surveys have shown signs of new coral growth and an
increase in the fish population.1
The Conch Abundance Survey Programme, implemented
every three to five years on the 8 000 km2 Pedro Bank, the
fishing ground of the queen conch, establishes research
transects on the seafloor, at depths ranging from 10 m to
30 m, at 80 sites. Counts are made within these transects
and other critical ecosystem parameters are recorded in
order to determine the biomass and stock size. The data are
used to establish a national quota for the subsequent fishing
season. Between surveys, catch and effort data based on
landings are used to determine annual quotas.
1
In Fish Sanctuaries, no fishing is allowed under any circumstances. In
Special Fisheries Conservation Areas, fishing may be permitted under special
circumstances, for instance to control invasive alien species or for research.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Jamaica.
Jamaican fish sanctuaries
Montego
Bay Point
Bogue Islands
Lagoon
Discovery Bay
White
River
Sandals
Boscobel
Oracabessa
Bay
Orange Bay
Boscobel
East and West
East
Portland
Bluefields Bay
Sandals
Whitehouse Bay
Galleon,
St. Elizabeth
Galleon
Harbour
Three Bays
Port Morant
Harbour Lagoon
Salt Harbour
Parishes
Mangroves
Banks and shelves
Fish sanctuaries
Islands and cays
Coral reefs
Seagrass
Map credits: S. Lee, The CARIBSAVE Partnership (in collaboration with C-Fish, The Nature Conservancy, Fisheries Division and
Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation).
ecosystem services to food and agriculture. For
example, Senegal mentions that the country’s
forest protected areas include some that are designated as “soil conservation reserves”. Nepal
338
notes that, although this may not always be a
direct objective of site management, national
parks benefit fisheries by maintaining unpolluted rivers and wetlands. Some countries refer
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.4
Marine protected areas in Palau
For centuries, traditional leaders in Palau have worked to
protect local waters and habitats that are critical to the
community’s food security through the custom of bul – a
moratorium on catching key species or fishing on certain reefs.
Palau has now created a modern-day bul in the form
of the Palau National Marine Sanctuary Act (2015), which
establishes one of the world’s largest protected areas of
ocean. The sanctuary will fully protect about 80 percent of
the nation’s maritime territory, a higher percentage than in
any other country. Full protection means that no extractive
activities, such as fishing or mining, can take place. The
reserve covers 500 000 km2.
Most existing marine protected areas (MPAs) in
Palau have been found to harbour a larger biomass of
“resource fish” (commercially important species) than
to more general benefits. Kenya, for example,
reports that protected areas help to maintain the
various ecosystem services provided by forests
and their associated biodiversity. Samoa mentions
that its objective of designating 15 percent of its
terrestrial area as protected is motivated by the
objective of maintaining the supply of ecosystem
services. Aside from responses explicitly related to
the in situ conservation of associated biodiversity,
a number of countries mention protected areas
(particularly forest and marine protected areas)
in their responses to a question on “actions and
countermeasures taken to limit unsustainable use
and/or support sustainable use of associated biodiversity and/or wild foods.”
Several countries note the significance of
traditional protected sites and traditional
resource-management strategies that complement or reinforce official protected areas or inspire
their establishment. For example, Niue reports
that small areas have traditionally been defined
as strict protection zones (referred to as tapu) or
subject to seasonal closures. It notes, however, that
these practices are in danger of dying out because
of a lack of formal recognition by government.
nearby unprotected areas. Studies have found that total
resource-fish biomass is, on average, twice as large in MPAs
as in nearby control areas and have found top-predator
biomass to be a striking five times greater in MPAs. The
Palau Protected Area Network is an innovative mechanism
designed to protect the nation’s critical biodiversity and
ensure these resources are effectively conserved.
In 2009, Palau established the world’s first shark
sanctuary. All types of shark fishing are forbidden within
the country’s exclusive economic zone. The sanctuary
covers roughly 600 000 km2 and protects over 135 shark
and ray species – animals that are vital to the balance of
the ocean’s ecosystems.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Palau.
On the positive side, it mentions that the 5 400 ha
Huvalu Forest Conservation Area, the country’s
largest area specifically managed for conservation
and sustainable resource use, includes 100 ha of
tapu land where hunting, logging and research
are prohibited. Examples from Palau and Jordan
of how traditional conservation practices have
influenced the establishment of protected areas
are presented in Box 7.4 and Box 7.5. Senegal
mentions that in some communities, traditional
conservation sites that are maintained essentially for religious reasons (places of worship,
sacred woods and forests, sites with funerary
monuments, cemeteries, etc.) have allowed the
recovery of populations of some species that had
disappeared from exploited sites. Kenya notes
that many sacred groves (kayas) in coastal forests
are being managed and protected using local
knowledge and practices.
Use of biodiversity-friendly management
practices
A number of countries report in situ conservation measures based on the use of management
practices that protect or promote biodiversity in
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
339
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.5
The traditional Hima rangeland management system in Jordan
Hima (“protected area” in Arabic) is a traditional system
of land-resource tenure that has been practised for more
than 1 400 years on the Arabian Peninsula. Pastoralist
communities establish rules for the grazing of herds and
designate set-aside areas where grazing is only permitted
under certain conditions, for instance during drought periods
(Davies et al., 2012). Hima contributes to the conservation
of biodiversity and the sustainable use of rangelands.
The practice has generally declined in recent years due to
industrialization, climate change and population pressure.
However, some villages in Jordan whose pasturelands have
been affected by overgrazing are adopting the Hima system
in order to maintain local biodiversity and improve local
living standards.
In 2011, the Bani Hashem village project was established
through a partnership between the Ministry of Agriculture
and the International Union for Conservation of Nature with
the aim of reviving Hima. In the initial phase, an awarenessraising programme was launched to inform stakeholders of
the benefits of regulating grazing. One-hundred hectares
of rangeland were allocated to the community for their
use and management, and a tribal charter was drafted and
signed by community members. As a result, overgrazing and
crop, livestock, forest or aquatic production systems.9 For example, Senegal mentions the introduction of agroforestry practices – implemented
at community level and based on local conven9
As discussed in Chapter 5, many countries report management
practices that are likely to promote the presence of particular
components of associated biodiversity. However, these are
not always reported in the context of in situ conservation.
This may be because the species in question are not targets
for conservation (e.g. are not rare) and/or because actions are
motivated by the production benefits obtained rather than
by conservation objectives. A large number of countries also
mention the promotion of sustainable management practices,
mostly in crop production but also in some cases in livestock
keeping, forestry and fisheries, in their responses to a question
on “actions and countermeasures taken to limit unsustainable
use and/or support sustainable use of associated biodiversity
and/or wild foods” in the section of the country-reporting
guidelines on sustainable use.
340
Rangeland of the Hima Bani Hashem with species such as Salsola sp.,
Paronychia argentea, Atriplex halimus, Artemisia herba-alba and
Teucrium polium. © Amer Maadat.
conflicts over natural resources have declined, while biomass
and indigenous plant species have increased. Shared
responsibility for the environment and effective participation
of the local community have greatly contributed to the
project’s success. After the success in Bani Hashem, Hima
has been implemented in other regions.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Jordan.
Note: For more information, see https://www.unenvironment.org/news-andstories/story/back-future-rangeland-management-jordan
tions for the management of shared resources –
in response to observed declines in biodiversity.
Argentina mentions the work of the Alianza
del Pastizal (Grassland Alliance),10 which brings
together NGOs from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay
and Uruguay, under the auspices of BirdLife
International, along with research organizations, national parks and private entities, in an
effort to reconcile grassland meat production
with the conservation of biodiversity through
the use of livestock-management practices that
help to maintain grassland habitats and the survival of grassland species (see also Section 3.3.2).
Norway reports that conservation programmes
for native and endangered cattle breeds tend
10
http://www.alianzadelpastizal.org/en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.6
Agri-environmental schemes supporting cropland and grassland biodiversity –
examples from Belgium
Wild-flower biodiversity in crop systems is promoted
by providing farmers with contracts for extensive
management practices (grain-based crop rotations),
with requirements modified to accommodate the needs of
the particular wild-flower species present. Insect
biodiversity is promoted by adjusting sowing and cutting
practices so as to leave 3 m to 30 m wide strips of flowerrich pasture. A range of vertebrate species associated
with grasslands are supported via contracts for extensive
use of meadows, with specific requirements modified to
accommodate particular conservation objectives based
on expert advice. Options for supporting meadow birds,
for example, include delaying mowing and grazing dates
on meadows and pastures, conversion of arable land to
grassland, provision of protective structures around the
birds’ nests and adapting mowing practices. Options
for birds associated with croplands include sowing strips
containing a mix of grass and herb species, adapting
to promote grazing in outlying fields, which
helps to maintain and enhance the diversity of
grasses, other plants, invertebrates and microorganisms associated with open landscapes.
Where forest management is concerned, it notes
that increasing the volume of standing and lying
dead wood provides a habitat for many associatedbiodiversity species.
Many countries from developed regions
mention that biodiversity-friendly practices are
promoted via agri-environmental schemes (see
Section 8.7 for further information). Examples are
presented in Box 7.6 and Box 7.7.
Some country reports highlight in situ conservation activities that involve the deployment of
management techniques specifically designed
to favour particular functional groups of associated diversity. Pollinators are the group most
commonly targeted. Programmes promoting
pollinator-friendly practices and pollinatorhabitat creation in the United States of America
Wild-flower strip designed to attract bees. © Vlaamse Landmaatschappij
(Flemish Land Agency).
within-field practices (no pesticides, adaptive mowing)
and maintaining unharvested land to provide cereals as
winter food.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Belgium.
are described in Box 7.7. Several countries also
note the importance of providing support to the
development of the beekeeping sector, including support for beekeepers’ organizations. Other
groups of species targeted include soil organisms and the natural enemies of pest species.
For example, Cameroon mentions that farmers
are being taught about soil management and
water conservation and encouraged to abandon
slash-and-burn practices that destroy humus
and soil invertebrates and micro-organisms. The
United Kingdom reports schemes promoting
the creation of flower-rich margins that provide
habitat for beneficial predators. It also mentions the conversion of cropland to grassland to
benefit soil biodiversity, and the maintenance of
hedgerows, enhanced stubbles and species-rich
grassland to benefit the natural enemies of pests.
Lebanon mentions that a number of invertebrate
species are conserved on-farm because of their
role in biological control.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
341
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.7
Initiatives supporting the in situ conservation of pollinators in the United States of America
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) provides longterm stewardship payments to landowners who implement
advanced conservation systems. As of 2015, nearly 3 000
CSP contract holders had established pollinator habitats in
non-cropped areas on their lands. Participants had seeded
over 11 000 acres (4 452 ha) of nectar- and pollen-producing
plants in field borders, vegetative barriers, buffer strips
and along waterways. In addition to habitat-enhancement
measures, the CSP supports producers in reducing pesticide
application and in providing critical food supplies for
pollinators and other beneficial insects.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides
payments to farmers who agree to remove environmentally
sensitive land from production and to plant species that
will improve environmental health. In June 2014, the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the
availability of USD 8 million in management incentives for
Protection against pollution, disease,
invasive species and other threats
Aside from the establishment of protected areas
and measures targeting management practices
at production-system level, countries report a
number of other measures that help to protect
associated biodiversity against various threats.
Measures of this type include national legal and
policy instruments targeting activities such as
infrastructure development, release of pollutants,
hunting, trapping and poisoning, as well as strategies and programmes implemented by government agencies and other stakeholders involved
in natural-resources management to limit threats
such as habitat destruction and the spread of
diseases or invasive species. The country reports
generally do not provide much detail on activities
in this category or on the specific species, species
groups or ecosystems that benefit. Jamaica mentions efforts to control invasive species such as lionfish. Cameroon reports efforts to protect aquatic
ecosystems against pollution from agriculture and
mining. Burkina Faso refers to the project African
342
farmers and ranchers in Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota,
South Dakota and Wisconsin who establish new habitats
for declining honey-bee populations on their existing CRP
land (these five states are home to more than half of the
country’s commercially managed honey bees during the
summer and offer a large area of potential habitat). In 2012,
USDA reserved 100 000 acres (40 469 ha) of CRP land for
pollinator habitat. As of 2015, about 35 percent of this land
had been enrolled in the programme. In addition to the
land covered by the special CRP pollinator-habitat initiative,
USDA estimates that a further 98 000 acres (39 659 ha) of
CRP land are pollinator habitat. The National Strategy to
Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators
(adopted in 2015) is seeking ways to increase the area
covered by the initiative.
Source: Adapted from the country report of the United States of America.
Reference Laboratory (with Satellite Stations) for
the Management of Pollinator Bee Diseases and
Pests for Food Security. Several examples from
Ireland are presented in Box 7.8. Legal measures
restricting or regulating hunting, fishing and wildfood gathering and/or trade in products sourced
from the wild are widely reported in countries’
responses on measures implemented to reduce
the unsustainable use of associated biodiversity
and wild foods.
Establishment and maintenance
of connective habitat
A number of country reports note the significance of maintaining wildlife corridors or other
habitat features that help to connect potentially
isolated populations or allow migratory species
to complete their life cycles. The report from the
United States of America, for example, mentions
collaborative work with Canada and Mexico to
protect the migratory monarch butterfly (Danaus
plexippus). Ecuador reports a plan to create 16
corridors encompassing four globally relevant
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.8
Selected species-conservation measures in Ireland
Plants
Slender green feather-moss (Hamatocaulis vernicosus):
prevention of peatland damage.
Slender naiad (Najas flexilis): prevention of eutrophication,
acidification and peatland damage.
Killarney fern (Trichomanes speciosum): prevention of
deliberate collection; habitat protection – prevention
of encroachment of invasive or vigorous species,
water pollution, removal of woodland or alteration of
watercourses.
Invertebrates
Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera):
prevention of sedimentation and enrichment of habitat;
restoring/improving water quality; management of urban
and industrial waste.
White-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes):
maintenance of Ireland’s status as free of both nonnative crayfish species and the crayfish plague disease;
restoring/improving water quality.
Narrow-mouthed whorl snail (Vertigo angustior): monitoring
of grazing and wetland drainage.
Desmoulin’s whorl snail (V. moulinsiana): management to
prevent further declines caused by succession and drying
out of wetlands.
Vertebrates
Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros): forestmanagement measures; specific management of traffic
and energy-transport systems.
Otter (Lutra lutra): forestry-related measures; restoring/
improving water quality; regulation/management of hunting
and taking; management of urban and industrial waste;
management of traffic and energy-transport systems.
Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus): measures to prevent
disturbance by human activities, accidental entanglement
in fishing gear, illegal killing and pollution; establishment
of protected areas/sites; regulation/management of
hunting and taking; regulation/management of fisheries
and other exploitation of natural resources in marine and
brackish systems.
Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus): wetland-related measures
– the Office of Public Works has cooperated with Inland
Fisheries Ireland to develop strategies to minimize the
adverse impacts of drainage maintenance work.
Killarney shad (Alosa fallax killarnensis): action to preclude the
use, or bringing onto lakes, of any craft without a permit
– the system includes a provision requiring all applicants
to produce documentation that their craft has been powerhosed locally as recently as possible, in order to reduce the
risk of introducing invasive aquatic organisms.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Ireland.
ecosystems, namely páramos (for more information on páramos, see Box 4.7), mangrove swamp,
dry forest and tropical rainforest. These corridors are being established through participatory
approaches within the framework of the project
Biocorredores para el buen vivir (Biocorridors
for Good Living). The aim is to increase human
well-being and the maintenance of biodiversity
by connecting habitat patches, supporting sustainable production practices and facilitating
the involvement of local community organizations in conservation and restoration interventions, with support from the Global Environment
Facility programme Pequeñas Donaciones (Small
Donations). As of 2016, 324 organizations had
undertaken work that had contributed to ecological connectivity.
Translocation and reintroduction measures
Another type of conservation activity mentioned
in the country reports is direct manipulation of
targeted populations via translocation, introduction or reintroduction of populations into new
or former habitats or release of captive-bred
individuals to supplement wild populations –
an approach that clearly needs to be implemented
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
343
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
with caution. The report from the United Kingdom,
for example, mentions the reintroduction of the
short-haired bumble bee (Bombus subterraneus),
a species that was declared extinct at national level
in 2000. Following genetic analysis of specimens
in natural-history collections and potential source
populations, Sweden was chosen as a source of
queen bees for the reintroduction programme.
Bees were collected, screened for disease and
released at Dungeness National Nature Reserve
in southeastern England in 2012 and 2013.
Flower-rich habitat corridors were created on
neighbouring land. Other countries reporting
reintroduction or translocation measures include
Hungary (beaver [Castor fiber]) and Belgium (crayfish, sea trout [Salmo trutta trutta] and Atlantic
salmon [S. salar]). India mentions the breeding
and ranching of several fish species to support
self-recruitment. Peru mentions the release of
young taricaya turtles (Podocnemis unifilis).
Jamaica mentions the replanting of corals.
Product processing and marketing
Some countries refer to in situ conservation activities that are creating opportunities for income
generation from associated-biodiversity species
or from the ecosystems that support them. For
example, Chad mentions a project supporting the
utilization of non-timber forest products. Slovenia
reports that the marketing of high-value products
(e.g. cheeses and other dairy products) contributes to the conservation of extensive semi-natural
grasslands and their associated biodiversity, as the
higher prices obtained allow for investment in the
labour and skills needed to manage these systems.
It notes the importance, in this context, of local
marketing systems, product promotion and awareness raising among producers and customers.
Strengthening institutions and policies
Institutional development efforts that support the
in situ conservation of associated biodiversity are
highlighted in a number of country reports. Tonga,
for example, mentions the project Marine and
Coastal Biodiversity Management in the Pacific
Island Countries, which focuses on developing
344
and strengthening institutional and individual
capacities for biodiversity conservation in five
target countries.11
A number of countries note the importance of
community participation, including, where relevant, the involvement of indigenous communities
and the utilization of traditional knowledge in
the planning and operation of protected areas
and other in situ conservation initiatives targeting associated biodiversity. Solomon Islands, for
example, mentions the Dugong and Seagrass
Conservation Project, which aims to enhance the
conservation of dugongs (Dugong dugon) and
associated seagrass ecosystems in eight countries in the Indo-Pacific region. It notes that a key
objective of the project is to mobilize community participation and ownership of conservation
efforts, with a focus on introducing sustainable
fisheries practices, innovative financial incentives
and the establishment of locally managed marine
protected areas. Several countries note the significance of multistakeholder cooperation, both at
local and national levels and internationally (see
examples above and in Chapter 8). Several also
mention the importance of a supportive policy
framework (see for example Box 7.9), noting,
for instance, that in situ conservation measures
for associated biodiversity are included in their
national biodiversity strategy and action plans or
mainstreamed into national development plans
and policies.
7.3.2 Ex situ conservation
Associated-biodiversity species can be conserved
ex situ in various ways, including in genebanks,
culture collections, zoos, botanic gardens or
privately held collections. Ex situ collections
can serve as a backup against losses in situ and
provide an accessible source of material for
ongoing research or other uses. For some important types of associated biodiversity, however,
practical issues constrain the effectiveness of ex
situ conservation and mean that its potential role
is relatively limited. For example, invertebrates
11
Fiji, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.9
Plan of Action for the Conservation of the Nordic Brown Bee
The brown bee, Apis mellifera mellifera, is the honey-bee
subspecies native to the Nordic region and is well adapted
to the climate in the Nordic countries. During the twentieth
century, other honey-bee subspecies were introduced into
the region by beekeepers, and the native brown bee is now
threatened by displacement and introgression (hybridization).
However, the value of the subspecies is increasingly being
recognized and conservation efforts are under way.
The Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen) initiated
a project aiming to document the status of the Nordic
brown bee, and conservation activities targeting it, in the
Nordic and Baltic region. Following the publication of the
project report (Status and conservation of the Nordic brown
bee: final report) in 2014, a Nordic brown bee network
consisting of beekeepers, researchers and members of
national beekeeping organizations was established, with
NordGen acting as a secretariat. In 2015, the working group
compiled a Plan of Action for the Conservation of the Nordic
Brown Bee (NordGen, 2015). The working group concluded
that cooperation among stakeholders and coordination at
national and international levels are of utmost importance
to the conservation of the brown bee.
have no long-lived dormant stages in their life
cycles (Cock et al., 2011) and if bred in captivity
can undergo genetic changes that impair their
ability to provide ecosystem services (Bouletreau,
1986; Hopper, Roush and Powell, 1993; Waage,
2007). Although there have been studies on the
cryopreservation of bee semen (Hopkins, Herr
and Sheppard, 2012; Hopkins and Herr, 2010), the
method has not yet been established and mainstreamed. Where potential reintroductions are
concerned, it needs to be recalled that the roles
of individual species in the supply of ecosystem
services generally depend on complex interactions with many other species, and that therefore conserving an associated-biodiversity species
ex situ does not mean that its in situ roles can necessarily be restored. Identifying priority species
for conservation ex situ is also difficult because
The brown bee network carries out the following
activities recommended in the action plan:
• NordGen has created a “brown bee wiki”1 for the
collection of traditional knowledge on brown beespecific management. Beekeepers are encouraged
to contribute to the wiki by adding information and
changing content, as necessary. The wiki is intended as
a resource for anyone who keeps brown bees.
• Genotyping is under way, with several projects having
provided ancestry-informative markers for a number of
brown-bee populations.
• Database solutions for breeding purposes are
being assessed and experiences in different
countries discussed.
• Branding of brown-bee honey by creating a small
information leaflet in the various national
languages of the region to accompany honey jars is
being considered.
Source: Provided by Birgitte Lund, Malene Karup Palne, Kim Holm Boesen,
Peer Berg, Linn Fenna Groeneveld and Anja Laupstad Vatland.
1
https://wiki.nordgen.org/brownbee
of the large numbers of potential candidates and
the complexity of their ecological roles.
Species reported to be conserved ex situ
In response to a question in the country-reporting
guidelines on species of associated biodiversity
conserved ex situ, 51 countries mentioned a total
of 1 549 species and other taxonomic groups,
including 1 184 distinct species (Table 7.2).12 The
taxonomic balance of the responses presumably
reflects both the above-mentioned practical constraints to the ex situ conservation of some types
of organisms and the ways in which countries
interpreted the concept of associated biodiversity. More information on associated biodiversity
12
These include 917 distinct plant species reported by a single
country (Lebanon).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
345
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 7.2
Associated biodiversity species reported
to be conserved ex situ, by taxonomic group
Taxonomic group
Count of distinct
species
Bacteria
56
Birds
6
Crustaceans
3
Fish
36
Fungi
38
Insects and arachnids
21
Mammals
18
Molluscs
1
Plants
996
Reptiles and amphibians
Annelids and nematodes
Total
5
4
1 184
Note: Fifty-one out of a total of 91 countries reported at least
one species.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s
Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
and the ecosystem services it provides to food and
agriculture, and on associated biodiversity species
reported to be managed for the provision of ecosystem services, is provided in Sections 2.2 and
4.3.1, respectively.
Reported objectives for ex situ conservation are
summarized in Figure 7.3. For all categories aggregated, where objectives are mentioned, research
and education represent the most common
response (38 percent of answers), followed by
agricultural use (17 percent of answers). There are
marked differences between objectives for the conservation of the different types of associated biodiversity. For example, a stronger focus on research
and education is reported for micro-organisms,
on commercial activities for invertebrates and on
leisure purposes for vertebrates.
The main methods used for the ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity, i.e. culture
collections, genebanks, living collections in
botanic gardens and captive breeding and rearing,
are described in more detail in the following
346
sections, with supporting examples taken from
the country reports.
Culture collections13
A range of different methods can be used to preserve micro-organisms under laboratory conditions. Box 7.10 presents an overview of the main
methods available. Molecular tools are increasingly
being used to differentiate between strains and to
aid in their identification. Non-optimized conservation techniques can lead to genetic changes in
conserved samples, and molecular techniques can
be used to determine whether strains are being
maintained without change (Smith, 2012).
Collections range from small operations targeting a limited number of species, collected and maintained by individual researchers, through larger
operations based in laboratories within large multifunctional organizations, to institutions established
as public-service collections and covering a broad
range of organisms from many sources. They may
focus on a particular kingdom (e.g. fungi or bacteria)
or on specific genera. Alternatively, they may focus
on a specific use, for example on industrial enzymes
or antimicrobials, or on particular host crops. They
may be linked to a particular sector, for example the
environment, health care or agriculture.
Over recent decades, the concept of the microbial culture collection as a mere repository of
micro-organisms has given way to that of the
microbiological resource centre serving as “an
essential part of the infrastructure underpinning
life sciences and biotechnology” – supporting
and conducting research and development activities, conserving biodiversity, addressing intellectual property issues and providing information
to the public and to policy-makers (OECD, 2001).
Collections can include culturable organisms
(e.g. most algae, bacteria, filamentous fungi,
yeasts, protozoa and viruses), their replicable parts
(e.g. genomes, plasmids and complementary DNA),
viable but not yet culturable organisms, cells and
tissues, and related databases of molecular, phys13
This subsection draws on the CGRFA Background Study Paper
prepared by Alexandraki et al. (2013).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 7.3
Reported objectives for the ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity
Number of responses
Micro-organisms
291
Invertebrates
116
Vertebrates
130
Plants
269
Total
808
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Breeding
Characterization and taxonomy
Commercial activities
Leisure
Maintenance of genetic diversity
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Research and education
Restoration and reintroduction
Agricultural use
Other
Not reported
Notes: A “response” is a mention by a specific country of an objective for a specific component of associated biodiversity (species or higher
taxonomic group). These figures do not include 1 005 reports of “conservation” as the objective for the conservation of plant associated
biodiversity. Fifty-one out of a total of 91 reporting countries reported at least one species.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
iological and structural information (Arora et al.,
2005). Many initiatives promoting collaborative
activities among culture collections at both international and national levels have been established.
Several examples are presented in Box 7.11.
The coverage of microbial diversity in culture
collections remains far from complete. In the
food-processing sector, for example, although
many microbial strains involved in traditional and
small-scale operations have been isolated and
studied, relatively few of these have been deposited in national or other well-maintained institutional culture collections.
Culture collections are the type of conservation
activity for micro-organisms most commonly referred
to in the country reports. As noted in Section 7.3.1,
very few in situ conservation programmes that
specifically target micro-organisms are mentioned.
Culture collections are reported from all regions
except the Pacific, although only a minority of
country reports explicitly mention such collections.
The facilities referred to range from national genebanks for micro-organisms in general or for particular
types of micro-organisms, to collections held by
individual research institutes or universities and
collections held by private organizations. In many
cases, the reported activities cover a diverse range
of micro-organisms, both in taxonomic terms and in
terms of their sources and current or potential uses.
Several countries report the establishment of
national programmes targeting the ex situ conservation of micro-organisms, or networks that
aim to coordinate the work of culture collections
at national level. For example, Spain mentions the
Spanish Micro-organisms Network (REDESMI).14
Objectives include mapping the microbial genetic
resources conserved in Spain and increasing their
visibility via the REDESMI website, sharing good
practices in the management, characterization
and conservation of microbial strains, and generating a database of strains with “added value”
(e.g. those with high biotechnological potential). Initiatives in Mexico, Ethiopia and India are
described in Box 7.12, Box 7.13 and Box 7.14.
14
www.redesmi.es
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
347
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.10
Conservation methods for micro-organisms stored ex situ
The primary objective of ex situ storage is to maintain
micro-organisms in a viable state, without morphological,
physiological or genetic change, until they are required
for use. Ideally, complete viability and stability should be
maintained. However, factors such as ease of use,
availability and cost may also have to be considered when
choosing a storage method.
Conservation through subcultivation. This method
involves repeated cultivation of the micro-organism on an
agar nutrient medium. It is a widely used technique and is
perhaps the oldest, simplest and most cost-effective means
of maintaining micro-organisms under laboratory conditions,
especially if cultures are required frequently and quickly.
Conserved material is often refrigerated, as this extends the
intervals between each round of cultivation. Intervals vary
depending on the type of micro-organism involved, ranging
from 30 days to several years at 3 °C to 5 °C. The average
longevity for yeasts is one to three months. Some bacteria
can be maintained for 5 to 12 months, and filamentous fungi
for over five years. A problem with subcultivation is that
culturing conditions select for a distinct subpopulation
of the bacteria present.
Conservation under mineral oil. This method is
normally used for conserving yeasts and filamentous fungi.
However, it can also be used for bacteria. The technique
involves covering a microbial culture grown on a liquid or
agar nutrient medium with sterile non-toxic mineral oil.
This limits the culture’s access to oxygen and reduces its
metabolism and growth. It also reduces cell drying. The
length of time for which micro-organisms can be maintained
using this method ranges from several months to several
years. Many cultures deteriorate under mineral oil and
have to be transferred regularly. However, organisms that
react badly to other techniques can be stored using this
method. Disadvantages include the risk that samples may be
contaminated by airborne spores, slow growth on retrieval
and the possibility that continuous growth under adverse
conditions may have a selective influence. The technique
is nonetheless recommended as a storage method for
laboratories with limited resources and facilities.
Water storage. Immersion in sterile water can be used
to extend the life of a culture grown on agar. This method
348
is generally used for preserving fungi, including yeasts.
The advantages of storage in water are low cost and easy
application. Some phytopathogenic fungi have reportedly
been stored successfully for ten years using this method.
However, the maximum potential length of storage is often
limited, and some fungi will not survive submerged even
for short periods. As with all methods that allow growth or
metabolism during storage, it is considered only to be useful
for short-term preservation and should be backed up by
longer-term storage methods.
Silica-gel storage. This method involves inoculating
a suspension of fungal propagules onto cold silica gel.
The culture is then dehydrated to enable storage without
growth or metabolism. Silica-gel storage has a number
of advantages: it is cheap, simple and does not require
complex apparatus. However, it can only be used for
sporulating fungi. Organisms of this kind have been stored
for 7 to 18 years using this technique and appear to remain
morphologically stable after resuscitation.
Soil storage. This technique can be applied to a range of
micro-organisms that can withstand a degree of desiccation,
for example to the spores and resting stages of filamentous
fungi and bacteria such as Bacillus spp. The method involves
inoculating double autoclaved soil with 1 ml of spore
suspension in sterile distilled water and then incubation at
20 °C to 25 °C for five to ten days, depending on the
growth rate of the organism. This initial growth period
allows the organism to utilize the available moisture
before dormancy is induced. The bottles are then stored
in a refrigerator at 4 °C to 7 °C. Soil storage can be one
of the most practical and cost-efficient ways to preserve
filamentous sporulating micro-organisms. Other advantages
include good viability of cultures for up to ten years, reduced
risk of mite infestation and the possibility of repeatedly
obtaining inocula from the same source.
Drying. This method takes advantage of the natural
ability of micro-organisms to fall into anabiosis, i.e. a state
of suspended animation. A range of materials can be used
as carriers for the cultures, and they can be dried at room
temperature or by heating to 36 °C to 40 °C. Drying is
widely used to preserve brewery and bakery yeasts.
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.10 (Cont.)
Conservation methods for micro-organisms stored ex situ
Freeze-drying. This method is a very effective means of
conserving bacteria, yeasts and the spores of filamentous
fungi. The process involves water being removed from the
sample by sublimation under a vacuum. If carried out correctly,
freeze-drying prevents shrinkage and structural change and
helps retain viability. The many advantages of freeze-drying
include the fact that the specimen is totally sealed and
protected from infection and infestation. Cultures generally
have good viability/stability and can be stored for many
years. Ampoules take up little space and can be stored easily.
Samples do not have to be revived before postal distribution.
However, freeze-drying does have some disadvantages:
some isolates fail to survive the process, others have reduced
viability and genetic change may occur. The freeze-drying
process is also relatively complex and can be time-consuming
and expensive. Ampoules of freeze-dried organisms must be
stored out of direct sunlight. Chilled storage will reduce the
rate of deterioration and extend shelf-life.
Liquid-drying. This method is a useful alternative that
can be used for preserving bacteria that are particularly
sensitive to the initial freezing stage of the normal freezedrying process. The distinctive feature of liquid-drying is that
cultures are not allowed to freeze. Drying occurs directly
from the liquid phase. The method can be used for long-term
preservation of nearly all yeast genera.
Cryoconservation. This method involves the storage of
samples at very low temperatures. Although little metabolic
Many countries emphasize the links between
culture collections and research activities (as noted
above, collections are often maintained by universities or research institutes). A potential concern
in this regard is that “conservation” associated
with individual research projects may end when
the projects end. For example, the country report
from Viet Nam mentions the loss of a number of
strains of pathogenic micro-organisms used in veterinary research as a result of inadequate management over the longer term. Another concern
mentioned in some country reports is that potential users of conserved micro-organisms may not
activity takes place below -70 °C, recrystallization of ice can
occur at temperatures above -139 °C, and this can cause
structural damage during storage. The favoured method
is therefore storage at ultralow temperatures, normally
-150 °C to -196 °C, in vapour- or liquid-phase nitrogen.
Provided adequate care is taken during freezing and
thawing, the culture will not change either phenotypically or
genotypically. To reduce the risks of cryo-injury, traditional
cryopreservation methods have involved controlled cooling
at a rate of -1 °C per minute, typically in the presence of
a cryoprotectant. Advantages of this method include the
length of storage (considered to be effectively limitless if
the storage temperature is kept below -150 °C), the wide
range of organisms that can be conserved, and the fact
that organisms remain free of contamination when stored
in sealed ampoules. Disadvantages include the high cost of
the apparatus and the need for a continuous supply of liquid
nitrogen. If the supply fails (or the double-jacketed, vacuumsealed storage vessels corrode and rupture), a whole
collection can be lost. The technique should therefore not
be used in places where a regular supply of liquid nitrogen
cannot be guaranteed.
Source: Adapted from Alexandraki et al. (2013).
Note: For further information on these methods see Malik and Hoffmann
(1993) Simões et al. (2013), Smith and Ryan (2012), Smith, Ryan and Day, eds.
(2001), Uzunova-Doneva and Donev (2005).
have adequate access to information on them. For
example, the report from Spain notes that in many
cases collections lack up-to-date catalogues containing basic information (taxonomic information,
origin and culture conditions) on the conserved
strains. Efforts to address this issue are being
made through the REDESMI network (see above).
Genebanks
Both plants and animals can be conserved ex situ
in genebanks (Section 7.2). In the case of animals,
the term is normally used to refer to cryoconserved collections of semen, embryos or other
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
349
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.11
Cooperation in the ex situ conservation of micro-organisms
A number of organizations help to promote coordination,
collaboration and discussion among the holders of culture
collections. The World Federation for Culture Collections
(WFCC), Microbial Strain Data Network (MSDN) and
Microbial Resource Centres (MIRCENs) operate globally.
WFCC oversees the World Data Center for Microorganisms,
which holds information on 764 culture collections in 76
countries and regions, together containing almost 3 million
cultures1 (the figures do not cover all the collections in the
world, as there are many private industrial collections and
some in independent laboratories). The European Culture
Collection Organization (ECCO) fosters initiatives that help
collections obtain support and organize the delivery of
products and services. For example, European Community
Framework Programme projects include the electronic
catalogue project Common Access to Biological Resources
and Information (CABRI),2 which sets operational standards
for European biological resource centres. Cooperation is also
fostered through national and international affiliations such
as the Belgian Coordinated Collection of Micro-organisms
(BCCM)3 and the United Kingdom National Culture Collection
(UKNCC).4 Information on other important networks,
federations and societies (e.g. the Asian Consortium for the
1
2
3
4
http://www.wfcc.info/ccinfo/statistics/
http://www.cabri.org/
http://bccm.belspo.be/
http://www.ukncc.co.uk/
biological materials stored in liquid nitrogen. The
feasibility of this approach varies across species
and taxonomic groups and – as noted above in the
introduction to this subsection – is not a practical
option in the case of many important associatedbiodiversity species. Plant genetic resources can
be conserved in the form of seeds kept in cold
storage, as living plants grown in field genebanks,
or via in vitro culture or cryopreservation.
Nineteen country reports (25 percent) indicate
the conservation of plant or animal components of
associated biodiversity in genebanks. Many countries state that collections are used for research
350
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Microbial Resources5
and the United States Culture Collection Network)6 can be
found via the WFCC website.7
Microbial Resource Research Infrastructure (MRRI)
brings together European microbial resource collections
and stakeholders (collection users, policy-makers, research
programmes and potential funders) to improve access to
high-quality microbial resources in an appropriate legal
framework. It aims to promote coherence in the application
of quality standards, homogeneity in data storage and
management, and workload sharing. The intention is to link
European collections to partners elsewhere in the world.
Several initiatives have sought to design qualitymanagement systems for microbial culture collections.
The first community-designed system was the WFCC
guidelines for the establishment and operation of collections
of micro-organisms.8 Quality-management systems have
also been established by national culture-collection
organizations, such as the UKNCC, and by various project
consortia, including CABRI.
Source: Adapted from Alexandraki et al. (2013).
Note: The figures from the World Data Center for Microorganisms have been
updated to correspond to those available on the organization’s website as of
November 2018.
5
www.acm-mrc.asia
6
www.usccn.org
7
http://www.wfcc.info/collections/networks
8
www.wfcc.info/guidelines
purposes as well as for conservation. The majority
of species reported to be conserved in genebanks
are plants. The range of species reported to be
maintained is diverse, both in taxonomic terms
and in terms of their roles or potential roles in the
supply of ecosystem services. For example, Jordan
mentions the genus Ziziphus (a spiny shrub), which
plays a role in habitat provisioning. Lebanon mentions the genus Acacia, which plays a role in pest
control, soil formation and protection, and habitat
provisioning. Bangladesh reports a field genebank
for mangrove species. The reports from Chad and
Kenya mention the conservation of plant species
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.12
The culture collection of Mexico’s National Genetic Resources Centre
The establishment of Mexico’s National Genetic Resources
Centre, which opened in 2012, has permitted the
development of a national strategy for in vitro conservation
of micro-organisms of importance to national food security.
The Centre’s micro-organism culture collection, established
in accordance with the requirements of the World Federation
of Culture Collections, the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) and the Mexican Institute of Industrial
Property, is recognized as an international depository
authority under WIPO’s Budapest Treaty on the International
Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the
Purposes of Patent Procedure. Its mission is to serve as a
public collection that provides high-quality services in the
fields of conservation, identification and characterization
of micro-organisms associated with various activities in the
food, agriculture and livestock industries – with the main
aim being to conserve the diversity of micro-organisms of
importance to food security. As of 2015, the collection had
about 3 000 accessions, including filamentous fungi and
bacteria useful for biological control, bacteria and yeasts
used in food production, industrial processes and agriculture,
bacteria that affect plant and animal health, mycorrhizal
fungi, probiotics, growth-promoting bacteria, bacteria
used in bioremediation and cyanobacteria associated with
ecological impacts and climate change. The challenge for
the future is to increase the efficiency, accessibility and
sustainability of the collection through the introduction of
technologies that favour the use of the conserved resources
in a wide range of ecological niches to support national
development.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Mexico.
Box 7.13
The Microbial Biodiversity Directorate of the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute
The Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute (EBI)1 is mandated
with promoting the conservation and sustainable use
of the country’s biodiversity and regulating access and
benefit-sharing. The Institute consists of five Directorates:
the Crop and Horticulture Biodiversity Directorate; the
Animal Biodiversity Directorate; the Microbial Biodiversity
Directorate; the Forest and Rangeland Plants Biodiversity
Directorate; and the Genetic Resources Access and Benefit
Sharing Directorate. This structure ensures efficiency in
research on, and conservation of, Ethiopia’s biodiversity and
associated indigenous knowledge.
Through their roles as biodegraders, biofertilizers,
nitrogen fixers and fermenters, naturally occurring microorganisms provide a wide range of benefits to food and
agriculture. The Microbial Biodiversity Directorate of EBI
plays an important role in surveying and exploring the
diversity and distribution of microbial genetic resources,
building capacity among stakeholders in the conservation
and sustainable use of microbial biodiversity and
1
http://www.ebi.gov.et/about-us/
establishing national microbial-collection centres. Its in situ
conservation research on Lakes Chitu, Arenguade and Kille
explores the potential of blue-green algae (Arthrospira) as a
functional and nutritious food source with health-promoting
properties (Gutiérrez-Salmeán, Fabila-Castillo and ChamorroCevallos, 2015). Other fields of research include the growing
of oyster mushrooms using agricultural residues such as
cotton waste, coffee waste and wood chips.
A wide variety of traditional Ethiopian foods are
produced through fermentation, using a wide range of
raw materials and traditional techniques. Kocho and bulla,
for example, are foods produced from the fermentation
of ensete (Ensete ventricosum), commonly known as the
Abyssinian banana. The Microbial Biodiversity Directorate
has undertaken research on the isolation, identification and
characterization of yeast species involved in kocho and bulla
fermentation, with the aim of increasing the nutritional
quality of these foods (Tsegay, Gizaw and Tefera, 2016).
Sources: Country report of Ethiopia and the documents cited in the text.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
351
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.14
Micro-organism conservation for improved agricultural production in India
Soil biodiversity, including micro-organism biodiversity,
plays multiple roles in food and agriculture, including in the
formation of soil organic matter, maintenance of soil fertility,
nitrogen fixation, nutrient uptake by plants, reduction of
erosion, degradation of dead plant and animal material, and
elimination of hazardous waste.
In 2001, conscious of the degradation of the country’s
soil quality and micro-organism resources as a result of
drivers such as excessive use of agrochemicals, inappropriate
agricultural practices, climate change and repeated floods
and other natural disasters, the Government of India
established the National Bureau of Agriculturally Important
Microorganisms.1 Emphasis was given to ex situ conservation,
and numerous micro-organisms – bacteria, fungi and
actinomycetes – are now conserved in 18 microbial resource
centres. The microbial biodiversity conserved includes about
850 bacterial and viral species, 7 175 species of algae,
including 1 453 species of cyanobacteria, 14 500 species of
fungi and 2 223 species of lichens.
The collections constitute a valuable reservoir of resources
for use in improving agricultural production and processing.
They have been used to develop innovative applications
in areas such as the use of biofertilizers, biopesticides and
bio-inoculants to reduce the use of synthetic agrochemical
inputs, the biofortification of micronutrients in crops, the use
of microbes to mitigate abiotic stresses caused by nutrient
deficiency, drought, salinity, temperature, etc., and the use
of microbes in processes such as fermentation and in the
production of antibiotics and vitamins.
Needs and priorities in this field include improving
baseline data on the diversity of micro-organisms in different
ecosystems and agroecological zones. A lack of such data
means that impacts of management practices, natural
disasters and climate change are difficult to estimate. The
use of microbial diversity and microbe-based technologies
needs to be scaled up and disseminated among farmers
through an effective extension network. There is also a need
to address the lack of national policies supporting the use of
microbe-based technologies.
1
Source: Adapted from the country report of India.
http://nbaim.org.in/default.aspx
with medicinal uses. Where animals are concerned,
a few countries report the cryopreservation of fish
milt. Denmark mentions the Plan of Action for
the Conservation of the Nordic Brown Bee (Apis
mellifera mellifera) (NordGen, 2015) (see Box 7.9).
Among other measures, the plan foresees the
establishment of a collection of cryoconserved
brown-bee semen from the Nordic and Baltic
region. Norway mentions a project that attempted
to cryoconserve endangered honey-bee subspecies
but was not successful. The role of Japan’s national
genebank in restoring genetic resources for food
and agriculture after the earthquake and tsunami
of 2011 is briefly described in Box 7.15.
Living collections in botanic gardens
Botanic gardens are widespread in every region
of the world. Collections are maintained for
352
a variety of purposes, including conservation,
research, and ornamental and educational displays aimed at the public. The relative weight
given to these objectives varies: not all botanic
gardens operate conservation programmes in the
sense of schemes that specifically target defined
conservation objectives and maintain the quantities of specimens and genetic diversity required
to meet these objective (Hernándes Bermejo,
1998). While associated biodiversity may not
be a category that is widely recognized or targeted for conservation in botanic gardens, many
gardens maintain plants that grow in and around
crop, livestock, forest and aquatic production
systems. Botanic gardens can play an important
role in species reintroductions. They are increasingly becoming involved in ecological restoration programmes in habitats such as grasslands
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.15
The role of Japan’s National Agriculture and Food Research Organization Genebank in recovering
genetic resources after the earthquake of 2011
The natural environment of the Pacific coast in Tohoku Region
was heavily impacted by the Great East Japan Earthquake of
March 2011, which caused major changes to the topography
of the area. The earthquake caused land subsidence, and the
tsunami that followed the earthquake moved vast amounts
of soil. The affected zone contains many priority areas for
biodiversity conservation, including some of the 500 Important
Wetlands in Japan and some Important Bird Areas.
Although much of the area inundated by the tsunami
was farmed or urban land, there were also major impacts
on vegetation in coastal areas, including in afforested land
planted with the Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbegii) and
the Japanese red pine (P. densiflora), rivers, ponds, marshes
and other wetlands, secondary grasslands and sand-dunes.
About 497 ha of sand-dune vegetation and about 829 ha of
coastal forests were lost. The composition of species living
on some tidal flats has changed significantly due to the
changes in their topography and substrates.
and forests (BGCI, 2013). As well as maintaining
field and greenhouse collections, some botanic
gardens also maintain seed banks or in vitro
collections (see above). More than 500 botanic
gardens in more than 100 countries are members
of Botanic Gardens Conservation International,15
an organization that aims “to collect, conserve,
characterize and cultivate samples from all of the
world’s plants as an insurance policy against their
extinction in the wild and as a source of plant
material for human innovation, adaptation and
resilience” (BGCI, 2018).
Captive breeding and rearing of animals
Many vertebrate and invertebrate associatedbiodiversity species are bred and reared in captivity, for instance in zoos, aquariums or research
institutes or by commercial companies. In many
cases, conservation is not the primary objective.
15
http://www.bgci.org
The National Agriculture and Food Research Organization
(NARO) has been implementing the NARO Genebank project
since 1985. NARO’s Genetic Resources Center manages
the project as the core institution of the national network
for genetic resources for food and agriculture. The project
plays a key role in the ex situ conservation of genetic
resources for food and agriculture in Japan, and holds
226 000 plant accessions, 33 000 micro-organism accessions
and 2 000 animal accessions (livestock and insects). The
Forest Research and Management Organization and Japan
Fisheries Research and Education Agency have, respectively,
managed genebank projects for forest genetic resources and
aquatic genetic resources since 1985. The NARO Genebank’s
activities will contribute to the recovery of genetic resources
for food and agriculture affected by the earthquake and to
the revival of the region.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Japan.
For example, companies that raise biological
control agents for sale are motivated by profitmaking rather than by concerns about the loss
of biodiversity. They may nonetheless maintain large populations of important associatedbiodiversity species in ex situ conditions. Zoos
and aquariums have the potential to play an
“insurance” role in conservation and may be
the only option available for the short-term conservation of wild species threatened by severe
habitat loss (Conde et al., 2011). They do not
normally have any particular focus on associated biodiversity, but often keep species that are
found in and around production systems. As with
some botanic gardens, some zoos may be more
oriented towards educational and/or recreational
objectives than towards implementing conservation programmes in a strict sense. However, an
increasing number do have explicit conservation objectives, with links to field programmes
(e.g. ZSL, 2017).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
353
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Invertebrate biocontrol organisms
Eight countries (11 percent) report captive breeding and rearing activities as a form of ex situ
conservation of invertebrate biocontrol organisms.
The organisms mentioned are entomophagous,16
parasitic17 or parasitoid18 invertebrates, with the
most frequently reported being parasitoid wasps,
mostly belonging to the genus Trichogramma, followed by ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). Other
types of organisms mentioned include earwigs
(Dermaptera), rove beetles (Staphylinidae) and
spiders. Biocontrol organisms are reported to be
bred both by private companies and by public
research institutes and universities.
Invertebrate pollinators
Seven countries (9 percent) report captive breeding and rearing activities as a form of ex situ conservation of invertebrate pollinators. The genera
most commonly reported to be conserved ex situ
are Bombus and Apis. This low number of countries reflects the findings of IPBES (2016b), which
indicate that while there are a number of in
situ pollinator-conservation initiatives based on
habitat management, very few initiatives target
the ex situ conservation of wild pollinators. Several
countries mention that invertebrate pollinators
are conserved in national agricultural research
centres. For example, Georgia maintains a breeding farm for its native honey bee, the Caucasian
honey bee (Apis mellifera caucasia). Jordan conserves 2 000 queen cells of Syrian honey bees (Apis
mellifera syriaca) per year at a research facility.
Other invertebrates
Very few countries mention captive breeding
and rearing of invertebrates other than pollinators and biocontrol organisms. Exceptions include
Bangladesh, which mentions that the tiger
worm (Eisenia fetida) and the red earthworm
(Lumbricus rubellus) are raised for the production
of vermicompost. Panama mentions that corals
16
17
18
An organism that eats insects.
An organism that lives in or on an organism of a different species,
the host. The parasite benefits at the expense of the host.
A parasite that eventually kills its host.
354
are conserved ex situ at the laboratories of the
Agricultural and Livestock Research Institute of
Panama19 and the Aquatic Resources Authority of
Panama20 for research purposes.
Vertebrates
A few country reports mention zoos as institutions contributing to the ex situ conservation of
vertebrate associated biodiversity. However, none
provide information at species level. Some countries note that zoos contribute to research and to
raising public awareness. Captive breeding of fish
species is a common way of increasing depleted
natural stocks (see Section 7.2.4). A few countries
report activities of this kind conducted by governmental agencies or private companies, with
salmon species the most frequently mentioned.21
7.4 Wild foods
• Countries report that they are implementing in situ
conservation measures that target the protection of
whole ecosystems that supply wild foods, and to a
lesser extent, measures targeting individual wild
food species.
• Over 350 wild food species are reported to be
conserved ex situ, representing 13 percent of all wild
food species reported.
7.4.1 In situ conservation
Species that are sources of wild foods can benefit
from a range of in situ conservation measures that
target individual species or that target the protection of whole ecosystems. In both cases, the conservation measures may or may not be motivated
specifically by the objective of protecting supplies
of wild foods.
19
20
21
http://www.idiap.gob.pa
http://arap.gob.pa
Salmon are normally recognized mainly for their role in
supplying provisioning services (i.e. serving as a source of food).
However, they also contribute to regulating and supporting
services. For example, the country report from Belgium
mentions that they play a role in nutrient cycling and the report
from Sweden mentions their role in habitat provisioning.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
TABLE 7.3
Wild food species and genera reported to be conserved in situ, by taxonomic group
Taxonomic group
Count of species
Count of genera
Birds
3
3
Perdix perdix (grey partridge), Phasianus colchicus (Common pheasant)
Crustaceans
5
4
Astacus astacus (European crayfish), Macrobrachium rosenbergii (giant
river prawn), Pacifastacus leniusculus (signal crayfish)
Fish
55
44
Barbus barbus (barbel), Labeo bata (bata), Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon),
Salmo trutta (brown trout), Merluccius hubbsi (hake), Tor tor (mahseer)
Mammals
14
13
Capreolus capreolus (European roe deer), Cervus elaphus (red deer),
Cervus nippon (sika deer), Giraffa camelopardalis (giraffe), Hippopotamus
amphibius (hippopotamus), Lepus europaeus (European hare), Pecari
tajacu (collared peccary), Rupicapra rupicapra (chamois), Sus scrofa (wild
boar)
Reptiles
4
3
Melanosuchus niger (black caiman), Podocnemis expansa (tartaruga),
Python sebae (African rock python)
Fungi
2
2
Ophiocordyceps sinensis (yartsa gunbu), Tricholoma matsutake
(matsutake)
Plants
150
126
Total
233
195
Examples of species reported
Aegle marmelos (Indian bael), Capparis spinosa (caper), Centella asiatica
(centella), Dillenia indica (chulta), Dioscorea bulbifera (air potato),
Diplazium esculentum (vegetable fern), Malus sylvestris (crab apple),
Mauritia flexuosa (aguaje) Parkia biglobosa (African locust bean tree),
Prunus avium (wild cherry), Pyrus pyraster (wild pear), Sclerocarya birrea
(marula), Vitellaria paradoxa (shea tree), Ximenia caffra (sourplum)
Notes: The count of genera refers to all genera reported, whether at genus level or at species level. Thirty-four out of a total of
91 countries reported at least one species or other taxon.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
The range of different approaches that can
be used in the in situ conservation of domesticated and wild components of BFA is discussed
in Sections 7.2 and 7.3.1. Protected areas are
discussed in detail in Section 7.5, including an
assessment of the level of coverage of wild food
species within the comprehensively assessed taxonomic groups of The International Union for
Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened
SpeciesTM (The IUCN Red List). Broader institutional, policy and legal frameworks for the management of BFA, including those that directly
or indirectly contribute to in situ conservation
efforts, including for wild foods, are discussed
in Chapter 8. The present section focuses on
the state of in situ conservation activities for
wild foods as presented in the country reports.
Except where noted otherwise, it refers to activities specifically reported to constitute “in situ
conservation and management activities or
programmes that support the maintenance of
wild foods.” The Voluntary Guidelines for the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Crop Wild
Relatives and Wild Food Plants, endorsed by the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, are described in Box 7.16.
Countries were invited to list wild food species
conserved in situ, to report the types of in situ
conservation activities undertaken, and to indicate the site or location of the activity and the
objectives of the conservation efforts. A total
of 407 responses at various taxonomic levels
were reported by a total of 34 countries. These
responses mentioned 233 distinct species and 195
genera. Examples of wild food species reported
to be conserved in situ are provided in Table 7.3.
While the country reports mention over
2 800 wild food species (see Section 4.4), the
number of such species reported to be conserved
in situ is much lower (8 percent of those reported).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
355
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.16
Voluntary Guidelines for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Crop Wild Relatives and
Wild Food Plants
The continuously evolving adaptive
characteristics of crop wild
relatives have enabled them to
cope with changing environmental
conditions and made them a rich
reservoir of novel traits and genes
that can be used to develop crop
varieties that are tolerant of biotic
and abiotic stresses and adapted
to climate change. Wild food plants constitute important
components of the diets of many people across the globe
and are rich sources of very important micronutrients. In
response to increasing levels of threat to both categories of
species, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture oversaw the preparation of Voluntary Guidelines
for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Crop Wild
Relatives and Wild Food Plants.
The Voluntary Guidelines are intended primarily for use
by governments in the development of national plans for
Voluntary Guidelines
for the Conservation
and Sustainable
Use of Crop Wild
Relatives and Wild
Food Plants
This may in part be explained by the fact that many
wild food species are conserved under broader
habitat or ecosystem conservation programmes
that do not target individual species. Countries’
responses frequently refer to groups of wild
foods rather than particular species. For example,
Ecuador mentions that several hundred species of
fish are found in aquatic conservation areas.
Countries’ responses on objectives for the in situ
conservation of wild foods are summarized in
Figure 7.4. The most frequently reported objectives are simply the conservation and protection of
species (41 percent of responses) and of habitats
(16 percent). Objectives related to food and nutrition account for 10 percent of responses, those
related to education and research for 9 percent
and those related to reintroduction and utilization for 7 percent each.
Among specific actions taken to promote the in
situ conservation of wild foods, the establishment
356
the conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives
and wild food plants. They present the general context and
requisites for developing a national plan, then focus on
assessment of the particular national context to generate
the evidence base needed to underpin the national plan and
determine the appropriate scope in terms of geographical
and taxa coverage. They also stress the critical importance
of adequate and sustainable financial and human resources.
Technical activities recommended for inclusion in a national
plan are described and guidance is given on how to write
the strategic national plan itself, along with advice on how
to implement the activities identified. Monitoring and datamanagement methodologies and an inventory of relevant
learning tools for capacity building are also presented.
The Voluntary Guidelines were endorsed by the
Commission in 2017.
Note: The voluntary guidelines can be viewed at http://www.fao.org/3/
a-i7788e.pdf
of protected areas is the most commonly reported
(16 percent of aggregated answers), followed
by monitoring, inventory and characterization
(14 percent), conservation of habitats (12 percent)
and the establishment of management plans
(9 percent). Actions mentioned by a few countries include fish and fry stocking, restrictions
on the collection of wild foods, establishing and
reinforcing surveillance to ensure regulations are
complied with, awareness raising, provision of
subsidies, and introduction and translocation of
species. Several countries report ways in which
habitats are managed with a view to conserving
wild foods in situ, for example via the establishment of wildlife corridors (Switzerland) and the
maintenance of freshwater ecosystems for migrating fish (Belgium).
Conservation actions for wild foods are reported
to operate on a range of different scales and to
involve a range of different stakeholders. Guinea,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 7.4
Reported objectives for the in situ conservation of wild foods
Species conservation
and protection 41%
Characterization 1%
Ecotourism 2%
Breeding 3%
Other 4%
Utilization 7%
Habitat conservation
and protection 16%
Reintroduction 7%
Education and research 9%
Food and nutrition 10%
Notes: Based on 373 responses. A “response” is a mention by a specific country of a conservation objective for a specific wild food
species or higher taxonomic group. In some cases more than one conservation objective was reported for the same wild food.
Thirty-four out of a total of 91 reporting countries provided information for at least one species or other taxon.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
for example, reports the following activities in
this context:
• raising awareness (of communities) and setting
up village committees to combat bush fires;
• involving local communities in the management of natural resources;
• establishing an eco-ranger service to protect
forest reserves and protected areas;
• regulating hunting;
• conducting inventory and characterization
activities for wild species used for food purposes;
• strengthening the regulation of the exploitation of wild food resources; and
• strengthening networking among neighbouring countries.
Although not explicitly reported as a form of
in situ conservation of wild foods, a few countries
in their responses to a question on “actions and
countermeasures taken to limit unsustainable use
and/or support sustainable use of associated biodiversity and/or wild foods” refer to the cultivation
or domestication of wild food species with the aim
of reducing pressure on overexploited wild stocks
or mention the development of other alternative
livelihood activities. For example, Kenya mentions
domestication and commercialization of aloe.
Bhutan reports the initiation of community-based
projects to grow two species of orchid (Cymbidium
erythraeum and C. hookerianum) commonly harvested from the wild for use as food.
7.4.2 Ex situ conservation
This section describes the state of ex situ conservation activities for wild foods as presented in the
country reports. It focuses on activities and programmes specifically reported to be established
for the conservation of wild foods.
Countries were invited to list wild food species
that are conserved ex situ, to provide information on the size of collections and on conservation conditions, to indicate the objectives of the
conservation efforts, and to provide information
on characterization and evaluation status of the
collections (see Section 6.4 for information on the
state of characterization of ex situ collections of
wild foods). Thirty-four country reports refer to a
total of 527 responses at various taxonomic levels,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
357
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 7.4
Wild food species and genera reported to be conserved ex situ, by taxonomic group
Taxonomic group
Count of species
Count of genera
Examples of species and genera reported
Insects
1
2
Gonimbrasia belina (mopane worm), Choreutis spp. (a genus of moths)
Birds
5
6
Perdix perdix (grey partridge), Phasianus colchicus (common pheasant),
Chlamydotis undulata (houbara bustard), Struthio camelus (common
ostrich)
Crustaceans
1
1
Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp)
Molluscs
9
9
Mytilus galloprovincialis (Mediterranean mussel), Crassostrea gigas (Pacific
oyster), Crassostrea sikamea (Kumamoto oyster), Lamellidens marginalis,
Bellamya bengalensis, Brotia costula, Haliotis rufescens (red abalone), Pila
globosa
Fish
50
36
Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout), Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon),
Anoplopoma fimbria (sablefish), Heteropneustes fossilis (airsac catfish),
Paralichthys californicus (California halibut)
Mammals
12
13
Hystrix indica (Indian porcupine), Axis axis (chital), Cephalophus rufilatus
(red-flanked duiker), Damaliscus lunatus (topi), Moschiola meminna
(Indian spotted mouse deer), Muntiacus muntjak (barking deer), Sus
scrofa (wild boar)
Fungi
14
24
Auricularia olivaceus (jelly fungus), Calocybe indica, Cantharellus
applanatus, Cantharellus elongatipes, Helvella villosa, Lentinus
squarrosulus, Phlebopus sudanicus, Tricholoma matsutake (matsutake),
Volvariella volvacea (paddy straw mushroom)
Plants
275
189
Carissa spinarum (bush plum), Capparis spinosa (caper), Foeniculum
vulgare (fennel), Origanum vulgare (oregano), Portulaca oleracea
(common purslane), Sambucus nigra (elderberry), Ziziphus mauritiana
(jujube)
Other
1
1
Total
368
281
Chaetoceros calcitrans
Note: The count of genera refers to all genera reported, whether at genus level or at species level. Thirty-four out of a total of
91 countries reported at least one species or other taxon.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
including references to 368 distinct species and
281 genera (Table 7.4). As in the case of in situ
conservation (Section 7.4.1), the number of wild
food species reported to be conserved ex situ is
much lower than the total number mentioned in
the country reports (13 percent).
The main ex situ conservation methods
reported for wild food species include genebanks, living collections in botanic gardens, and
captive breeding and rearing. Many of the species
reported as sources of wild foods fall within other
categories of BFA discussed in this report, for
example species harvested in the fisheries and
forest sectors, wild relatives of crops, livestock
and species raised in aquaculture, and species
358
classed as associated biodiversity. Thus the main
methods used in the ex situ conservation of these
categories of BFA are also relevant in the context
of the conservation of wild food species. These
methods are discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.3.
For 71 percent of responses referring to species
or other taxonomic groups of wild foods conserved ex situ, countries also provided information on conservation objectives. The most
frequently reported objective is simply species
conservation (25 percent of responses). Other
responses include research (10 percent), breeding
(9 percent) and objectives related to food and
nutrition (7 percent).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
7.5
Roles of protected areas
• Approximately 15 percent of land and inland waters,
10 percent of coastal and marine areas within national
jurisdiction and just over 4 percent of the world’s
oceans lie within protected areas. However, protected
area networks remain ecologically unrepresentative
and poorly connected, and many critical sites for
biodiversity are poorly conserved.
• A first overview of how the biodiversity used for
human food included in The IUCN Red List is covered
by the protected areas network concludes that over
98 percent of species used for human food (95 percent
in the case of threatened species) partially or fully
meet conservation targets for coverage.
• In addition to protected areas, countries report a wide
range of designated areas of particular significance
for biodiversity for food and agriculture, including
Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems,
World Heritage Sites and Wetlands of International
Importance (Ramsar Sites).
Protected areas, as defined by the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), are
clearly delineated geographical spaces, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or
other effective means, to achieve the long-term
conservation of nature, along with associated
ecosystem services and cultural values (IUCN,
2008). Within this broad framework, protected
areas can be managed in a wide variety of ways
and under a range of governance types, ranging
from strictly protected sites entirely set aside
from human intervention to protected landscapes that include long-term managed areas
and settled human communities, reserves owned
and run by governments and self-declared protected areas run by indigenous communities
within their traditional territories (Davies et
al., 2012). IUCN classifies protected areas into
six management categories (one with a subdivision) according to their management objectives
(see Table 7.5). The categories are recognized by
international bodies such as the United Nations
and by many national governments as the global
standard for defining and recording protected
areas, and as such are increasingly being incorporated into government legislation.
Designation of protected areas is recognized
as an important component of global efforts to
improve the in situ conservation of biodiversity.
Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, under the Convention
on Biological Diversity’s (CBD’s) Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011–2020 reads as follows:
By 2020, at least 17 percent of terrestrial
and inland water, and 10 percent of coastal
and marine areas, especially areas of
particular importance for biodiversity and
ecosystem services, are conserved through
effectively and equitably managed,
ecologically representative and well connected
systems of protected areas and other effective
area-based conservation measures, and
integrated into the wider landscapes and
seascapes (CBD, 2010a).
Protected areas contribute in many ways to
the achievement of the Sustainable Development
Goals (Dudley et al., 2017). One target under
Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Conserve
and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine
resources for sustainable development) and two
under Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Protect,
restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial
ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss) are directly
related to protected areas.22
Protected areas contribute to the delivery of a
range of ecosystem services that are essential to
food and agriculture, including by protecting and
enhancing water flows and water quality, conserving habitats that maintain nursery, feeding
and breeding areas for fish and other species
harvested by people, forming soils and maintaining soil fertility, reducing land degradation, providing havens for pollinators, reducing pollution,
22
Indicator 14.5.1 is “Coverage of protected areas in relation to
marine areas.” Indicator 15.1.2 is “Proportion of important
sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered
by protected areas, by ecosystem type.” Indicator 15.4.1 is
“Coverage by protected areas of important sites for mountain
biodiversity.”
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
359
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 7.5
IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
Category
Definition
Primary objective
Category Ia:
Strict Nature Reserve
Strictly protected for biodiversity and also possibly
geological/geomorphological features, where human
visitation, use and impacts are controlled and limited to
ensure protection of the conservation values.
To conserve regionally, nationally or globally outstanding
ecosystems, species and/or geodiversity features: these
attributes will have been formed mostly or entirely by
non-human forces and will be degraded or destroyed when
subjected to all but very light human impact.
Category Ib:
Wilderness Area
Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas,
retaining their natural character and influence, without
permanent or significant human habitation, protected and
managed to preserve their natural condition.
To protect the long-term ecological integrity of natural
areas that are undisturbed by significant human activity,
free of modern infrastructure and where natural forces
and processes predominate, so that current and future
generations have the opportunity to experience such areas.
Category II:
National Park
Large natural or near-natural areas protecting largescale ecological processes with characteristic species and
ecosystems, which also have environmentally and culturally
compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and
visitor opportunities.
To protect natural biodiversity along with its underlying
ecological structure and supporting environmental
processes, and to promote education and recreation.
Category III:
Natural Monument
or Feature
Areas set aside to protect a specific natural monument,
which can be a landform, sea mount, marine cavern,
geological feature such as a cave, or a living feature such as
an ancient grove.
To protect specific outstanding natural features and their
associated biodiversity and habitats.
Category IV:
Habitat/Species
Management Area
Areas to protect particular species or habitats, where
management reflects this priority. Many will need regular,
active interventions to meet the needs of particular species
or habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.
To maintain, conserve and restore species and habitats.
Category V:
Protected Landscape/
Seascape
Where the interaction of people and nature over time
has produced a distinct character with significant
ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where
safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to
protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature
conservation and other values.
To protect and sustain important landscapes/seascapes
and the associated nature conservation and other values
created by interactions with humans through traditional
management practices.
Category VI:
Protected area with
sustainable use of
natural resources
Areas which conserve ecosystems, together with
associated cultural values and traditional natural resource
management systems. Generally large, mainly in a natural
condition, with a proportion under sustainable natural
resource management and where low-level non-industrial
natural resource use compatible with nature conservation is
seen as one of the main aims.
To protect natural ecosystems and use natural resources
sustainably, when conservation and sustainable use can be
mutually beneficial.
Source: Based on Dudley, ed., 2008.
maintaining coastal protection and natural
flood-control mechanisms, and protecting reservoirs of crop wild relatives that can be used to
enhance crop productivity and resilience (FAO,
2014h; World Bank, 2010). Their role in climate
change adaptation and mitigation is increasingly recognized. It has been estimated that the
global network of protected areas stores at least
15 percent of terrestrial carbon (World Bank, 2010).
However, the effectiveness of protected areas in
the delivery of ecosystem services depends on how
360
effectively sites are managed, how they are integrated with surrounding landscapes and land-use
strategies, and whether or not they are supported
by local communities. As protected areas exist
under a range of management and governance
regimes (see above), the effectiveness of delivery
varies across sites.
As indicated in the Aichi Target quoted above,
in addition to protected areas per se, the significance of “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs) to in situ conservation is
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 7.5
Progress of global coverage of protected areas
Progress to date
in coverage of
protected areas
Percentage coverage
14.88%
11.9%
2000
Terrestrial
2018
1 million km²
17.22%
7.43%
1.72%
0.7%
2000
17 million km²
2000
27 million km²
47 million km²
59 million km²
2010
2018
Aim by 2020
Marine
2018
National waters
Entire ocean
Note: The figure is based on the situation in November 2018.
Source: UNEP-WCMC.
also recognized. The Conference of the Parties to
the CBD, at its fourteenth meeting, held in 2018,
adopted the following definition of OECMs:
a geographically defined area other than
a Protected Area, which is governed and
managed in ways that achieve positive and
sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ
conservation of biodiversity, with associated
ecosystem functions and services and, where
applicable, cultural, spiritual, socioeconomic,
and other locally relevant values.
7.5.1 Status and trends
Approximately 15 percent of land and inland
waters, 10 percent of coastal and marine areas
within national jurisdiction and just over 4 percent
of the world’s oceans lie within protected areas
(UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018). The Protected
Planet Report 2018 (UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS,
2018) (which is based on the data contained in the
World Database on Protected Areas, the most comprehensive source of information about protected
areas) anticipates that the coverage element
of Aichi Target 11 (see above) on conserving
17 percent of terrestrial areas by 2020 is likely to
be met globally (see Figure 7.5). However, protected area networks remain ecologically unrepresentative and poorly connected, and many
critical sites for biodiversity are poorly conserved.
The element of Aichi Target 11 on protecting
10 percent of coastal and marine areas is on course
to be met in coastal waters, although open-ocean
and deep-sea areas, including the high seas, are
not well covered (see Figure 7.6). The CBD reports
that inadequate management, monitoring and
enforcement of protected areas remains widespread (CBD Secretariat, 2014a), and this can limit
the effectiveness of protected areas networks
(Watson et al., 2014). The precise extent of such
problems, however, remains unclear as information on the effectiveness of protected areas management in many countries, and on trends in this
regard, is limited (Geldmann et al., 2015), although
reporting is improving. To address this knowledge
gap on the effectiveness of protected areas, in
2010 Parties to the CBD were invited to implement management-effectiveness evaluations in at
least 60 percent of their total protected areas by
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
361
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 7.6
Geographic distribution of the terrestrial, marine and coastal protected areas of the world
Terrestrial protected areas
Marine and coastal protected areas
Source: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018.
2015 (CBD Secretariat, 2010b). In 2016, all national
focal points to the CBD were invited to review
and update their management-effectiveness
data in the Global Database on Protected Areas
Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME),23 which
is the most comprehensive global dataset on
assessments, providing information on 238 563
protected areas, from 244 countries and territories, covering more than 46 million km 2
(UNEP-WCMC, 2018). The latest report from
the GD-PAME indicates that only 20 percent of
national governments provided updated information on management effectiveness. However,
it is widely recognized that many more assessments have been made than those that are formally reported. For example, analyses of national
commitments for improving the management
effectiveness of protected areas were informally
submitted to the CBD Secretariat by 95 countries in 2018. Reported commitments included
23
https://pame.protectedplanet.net
362
240 priority actions in the area of addressing
protected-area management. This indicates significant improvements in the reporting, and effectiveness, of the management of protected areas.
In order to address gaps in reporting and
implementation of effective management in
protected areas and sites that are defined as
OECMs, IUCN has adopted a new standard for
the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved
Areas (IUCN and WCPA, 2017) (see Box 7.17).
In addition, the IUCN World Commission on
Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA) has developed
guidance for conservation in marine protected
areas (IUCN WCPA, 2018).
7.5.2 Contribution to conservation of
wild species used for food
As spatial data for species distribution ranges
have become more widely accessible and available, various studies have analysed the extent
to which the protected area network effectively
conserves biodiversity (Butchart et al., 2015;
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Rodrigues et al., 2004). Global gap analyses
have been conducted for several complete taxonomic groups, for example cacti, amphibians,
turtles, birds and mammals (Butchart et al., 2015;
Goettsch, Durán and Gaston, 2018; Rodrigues
et al., 2004). This subsection presents an analysis
of the extent to which selected components of
BFA are covered by protected areas.
With regard to scope, it should be noted that
OECMs (see above) are not included in the analysis. While these areas are recognized as being
vitally important to the in situ conservation of biodiversity, there is currently no globally managed
dataset on areas defined as OECMs from which
data could easily be extracted to conduct a spatial
analysis. There is a global dataset on Indigenous
and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs)24 maintained alongside the World Database on Protected
Areas, by the United Nations Environment
Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (UNEP-WCMC). ICCAs are recognized as
contributing to Aichi Target 11. However, the term
OECM also applies to other conservation areas,
such as privately conserved areas. After the adoption of a globally agreed definition for OECMs,
Parties to the CBD invited IUCN and UNEP-WCMC
to expand the World Database on Protected
Areas by providing a section on OECMs. Subject
to availability of resources, reporting of OECMs
by governments and non-state actors and confidentiality restrictions (for example, information
on some private sites and ICCA locations is confidential), this work is due to start in 2019. Finally,
the analysis also does not include mapping of key
biodiversity areas (KBAs), as data on their location
were not accessible for analysis within the timeframe of the study.25
The analysis was based on two global datasets,
The IUCN Red List (see Box 4.1) (Version 2017-2)
24
25
http://www.iccaregistry.org/
KBAs are geographical areas on land and/or in water with
defined ecological, physical, administrative or management
boundaries that are actually or potentially manageable
as a single unit (e.g. a protected area or other managed
conservation unit) (IUCN, 2016c). Efforts are underway to map
the distribution of protected areas in relation to KBAs.
and the World Database on Protected Areas
(UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018). The former is the
world’s most comprehensive information source
for the extinction risk of species (IUCN, 2017a).
The version used for the analysis includes 87 967
species, of which 11 percent (9 627 species) are
classified as used for food by humans. Of these, a
total of 1 783 species (18 percent) are listed under
a threatened category (Critically Endangered,
Endangered or Vulnerable), 611 (6 percent) as
Near Threatened and 1 218 (13 percent) as Data
Deficient (Figure 4.25). Almost half (48 percent)
of the assessed species that are utilized for food
are fishes (4 611 species). Birds account for 1 646,
mammals for 1 237 and plants for 804. The latter
include 14 crop wild relative species (out of a total
760 such species assessed globally for The IUCN
Red List). However, to avoid biases the analysis
only covered taxonomic groups that had been
comprehensively assessed26 for The IUCN Red List
and for which complete data on their distribution ranges were available (see Table 7.6). Among
these groups, the selected groups of bony fishes
had the highest percentage (29 percent) of species
utilized for food, followed by sharks and rays
(26 percent), the selected groups of crustaceans
(26 percent) and mammals (21 percent).
The methodology described by Rodrigues et al.
(2004) was used to systematically identify gaps
in the current global protected areas network.
For each species, the percentage of its geographical range covered by protected areas was
determined by overlaying a species-distribution
map with a map of protected areas. A species
was classed as a “gap species” if it was not found
within protected areas, and classed as “covered”
if a predetermined percentage of its geographic
range (referred to as the “conservation target”)
was included in protected areas. For species with
geographic ranges of 1 000 km2 or less, the conservation target was taken to equate to the entire
range. For species with ranges of 250 000 km2
26
Comprehensively assessed groups are the taxonomic groups
for which the extinction risk of all extant species have been
evaluated following the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
363
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 7.6
Number of species in the comprehensively assessed groups of The IUCN Red List with mapped
ranges and classified as used for human food
Taxonomic group/IUCN
Red List Category
Amphibians
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
Total
9
20
34
22
141
12
238
Birds
55
113
205
191
1 019
5
1 588
Selected bony fishes
686
12
10
31
38
503
92
Conifers
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Selected crustaceans
0
4
9
6
158
54
231
14
Selected dicots
0
0
1
2
10
1
Selected gastropods
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
Hagfishes
0
0
1
1
0
2
4
Mammals
81
168
198
112
543
67
1 169
Seagrasses
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
Selected reptiles
3
0
5
1
11
0
20
Sharks and rays
6
27
57
51
62
82
285
166
342
541
424
2 455
315
4 243
Total
Note: Figures indicate the number of species classified as used for human food in comprehensively assessed groups in The IUCN Red
List grouped by IUCN Red List Category (CR = Critically, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, LC = Least Concern,
and DD = Data Deficient). Selected bony fishes = sturgeons, tunas, billfishes, blennies, pufferfishes, angelfishes, butterflyfishes,
surgeonfishes, groupers, wrasses, seabreams, picarels and porgies; selected crustaceans = lobsters, freshwater crabs, freshwater
crayfishes and freshwater shrimps; selected dicots = magnolias, mangroves; selected gastropods = cone snails; selected reptiles = marine
turtles, seasnakes and crocodiles.
Source: The IUCN Red List version 2017-2.
or more, the conservation target was taken to
equate to 10 percent of the range. Conservation
targets for species with intermediate ranges were
determined by interpolating between these two
extremes (see Rodrigues et al., 2004).
Species whose conservation target was only
partly met were classed as “partial gap” species.27
The analysis excluded species that were extinct or
whose ranges were uncertain. Only species considered to be native or reintroduced were included.
The analysis considered a total of 214 879 protected areas and a total of 4 243 species.
27
Further information about the scope, assessment methodology
and caveats to this analysis is presented in the thematic
study Study on the linkages between protected areas and
the conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture
commissioned to support the preparation of The State of the
World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
364
Among the species considered, 4 percent (166)
are classed as Critically Endangered, 8 percent as
Endangered, 13 percent as Vulnerable, 10 percent
as Near Threatened, 58 percent as Least Concern
and 7 percent as Data Deficient. Following the
“best estimate” calculation method (Schipper et
al., 2008; Hoffman et al., 2010), i.e. assuming that
Data Deficient species are threatened in the same
proportion as data sufficient species, a total of
27 percent of the species considered are threatened with extinction.
Of the species included in the analysis, 83 species
(2 percent) were found not to be present in protected areas, (i.e. to be gap species – see above),
1 472 (35 percent) to partially meet their conservation target (i.e. to be partial gap species) and
2 688 species (63 percent) to meet their conservation target (i.e. to be “covered”). Among
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
FIGURE 7.7
Protected area coverage of species in the comprehensively assessed taxonomic groups of
The IUCN Red List with mapped ranges and classified as used for human food
Number of species
Amphibians
238
Birds
1 588
Mammals
1 169
Selected bony fishes
686
Selected crustaceans
231
Sharks and rays
285
0%
20%
40%
Gap
60%
Partial gap
80%
100%
Covered
Notes: “Gap” = species range not covered by protected areas. “Partial gap” = species range partially covered by protected areas but not
to target level. “Covered” = species range covered to target level. Selected crustaceans = lobsters, freshwater crabs, freshwater
crayfishes and freshwater shrimps; selected bony fishes = sturgeons, tunas, billfishes, blennies, pufferfishes, angelfishes, butterflyfishes,
surgeonfishes, groupers, wrasses, seabreams, picarels and porgies. Comprehensively assessed taxa with fewer than 25 mapped species
utilized for food are not shown. These correspond to conifers (1 species), hagfishes (4 species), seagrasses (4 species), selected dicots
(magnolias and mangroves, 14 species), selected gastropods (cone snails, 3 species) and selected reptiles (marine turtles, seasnakes and
crocodiles, 20 species).
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from The IUCN Red List version 2017-2 and the World Database on Protected Areas
(UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018).
the groups of species considered, crustaceans
were found to have the highest proportion of
gap species (4 percent), followed by mammals
(3 percent) and birds (2 percent) (see Figure 7.7).
A total of 52 threatened species (5 percent of
the total) were found to be gap species, 611
(58 percent) to be partial gap species and 388
(37 percent) to be covered (Figure 7.8). Birds and
mammals were found to have the highest proportion of threatened species located outside protected areas (6 percent in both cases), followed
by amphibians (3 percent) (Figure 7.8).
The proportion of gap species found in the
present analysis is over six-fold lower than the
12 percent found to fall into this category in an
analysis of all species within comprehensively
assessed taxonomic groups (Butchart et al., 2015).
The proportion of species found to be covered
to target level is substantially higher than the
43 percent found in the wider study. The finding
that the proportion of gap species is higher among
threatened species is comparable to the outcomes
of global gap analyses, which have found that
threatened species, which frequently have smaller
ranges, are more likely than others to fall outside
the protected area network (Akasaka et al., 2017;
Goettsch, Durán and Gaston, 2018; Gruber et al.,
2012; Rodrigues et al., 2004).
The analysis provides a first overview of how
the biodiversity used for human food included
in The IUCN Red List is covered by the protected
areas network. However, it is important to note
that, even though The IUCN Red List is the most
comprehensive source of information on species
extinction risk at the global level, not all species
utilized for food are included and not all species
included have information recorded on their uses.
Although use and trade information is currently
not part of the minimum required standards for
Red List assessments, provision of this information
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
365
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
FIGURE 7.8
Protected area coverage of species in the comprehensively assessed taxonomic groups of
The IUCN Red List with mapped ranges and classified as threatened and as used for human food
Number of species
Amphibians
63
Birds
373
Mammals
447
Selected bony fishes
53
Selected crustaceans
13
Sharks and rays
90
0%
20%
40%
60%
Gap
Partial gap
80%
100%
Covered
Notes: “Gap” = species range not covered by protected areas. “Partial gap” = species range partially covered by protected areas but not to
target level. “Covered” = species range covered to target level. “Selected bony fishes” = sturgeons, tunas, billfishes, blennies, pufferfishes,
angelfishes, butterflyfishes, surgeonfishes, groupers, wrasses, seabreams, picarels and porgies. “Selected crustaceans” = lobsters,
freshwater crabs, freshwater crayfishes and freshwater shrimps. Comprehensively assessed taxa with fewer than 25 mapped species
utilized for food are not shown. These correspond to hagfishes (1 partial gap species), selected dicots ([magnolias and mangroves]
1 covered species), selected reptiles ([marine turtles, seasnakes, and crocodiles] 5 partial gap and 3 covered species). There were no mapped
threatened species utilized for food for the following taxonomic groups: conifers, seagrasses and selected gastropods (cone snails).
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from The IUCN Red List version 2017-2 and the World Database on Protected Areas
(UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018).
needs to be encouraged as it would allow analyses
of this kind to be more comprehensive and accurate. As The IUCN Red List broadens its taxonomic
and geographic coverage in its efforts to achieve a
“barometer of life” (Stuart et al., 2010) and highly
relevant taxonomic groups such as fungi, plants,
insects and fish come to be better represented,
it will be important to update the analysis. An
obvious next step is to improve understanding of
the threats affecting biodiversity used for food so
as to allow better planning of conservation actions,
including the identification of priority sites for the
conservation of unprotected species.
7.5.3 Management of biodiversity
for food and agriculture
in protected areas
The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved
Areas (Box 7.17) helps protected-area managers and other stakeholders to progress towards
366
their conservation objectives. A survey28 shared
by IUCN with the managers of 50 participating
sites (both candidate sites and Green-List certified
sites, see Box 7.17) received 29 responses from
22 countries across six continents, representing
all major biomes, including forests, coastal areas
and islands, and wetlands, and a range of designations, including five UNESCO World Heritage
Areas. They also represented every IUCN Protected
Area Category (Table 7.7) and each IUCN governance type (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013).
The survey results highlighted the close relationship that many protected areas have with agricul28
The survey was in a “prism” format: for each question,
respondents were offered a trio of answering statements
positioned at the corners of a triangle and asked to place
a marker at the point within the triangle that best matched
their context and situation. An “other” box was provided,
as well as a text box in which respondents could add narrative
comments if desired.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.17
The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (IUCN
Green List) aims to increase the number of protected and
conserved areas that deliver successful conservation outcomes
through effective and equitable governance and management.
The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved
Areas Standard (IUCN Green List Standard) provides an
international benchmark for quality that motivates improved
performance. By committing to meet this global standard,
site managers (in both formally protected areas and
locations where other effective area-based conservation
measures are in operation) seek to demonstrate and
maintain performance and deliver real results.
The IUCN Green List Standard is organized into four
components: Good Governance; Sound Design and
Planning; Effective Management; and Successful
Conservation Outcomes. The first three support the fourth.
Each component has a set of criteria and indicators to
measure its achievement.
tural practice and production, and indicated a clear
need for better support to protected-area managers
in defining BFA and accounting for it in their conservation work. The main findings were as follows:
• 81 percent of respondents indicated that
agricultural activity occurs within the boundaries and overall management area of their
respective sites, and 83 percent concluded
that agriculture is a significant activity in the
surrounding area;
• nearly 40 percent of protected areas from
which responses were received are situated
within an agriculture-dominated landscape
– including 73 percent of “National Park”
(IUCN Category II) designations;
• 90 percent of respondents indicated that they
consider their protected area to deliver significant benefits to agricultural production, for
example through ecosystem services such as
insect pollination or water provision;
• only 35 percent of respondents indicated that
they consider that it is necessary to include
Sites wishing to achieve IUCN Green List status must
demonstrate, and then maintain, successful implementation of
the IUCN Green List Standard. This is evaluated in two phases:
• Candidate phase: A voluntary commitment to the
IUCN Green List Programme is followed by the start
of the application process. This indicates whether sites
meet the basic requirements for consideration. Sites
then undergo an initial assessment against the IUCN
Green List Standard. During the candidate phase, site
managers learn what may need to be strengthened
before the site can be further considered for inclusion
on the Green List.
• IUCN Green List status: The management and
representatives of the site are provided with a
certificate, and the site is recognized and promoted by
IUCN as a global exemplar in conservation.
Source: IUCN and WCPA, 2017.
agriculture in management planning, and
only 25 percent indicated that they deliberately include agriculture as part of their management operations.
7.5.4 Country-report analysis
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries
to provide information on “landscape-based initiatives to protect or recognize areas of land and
water … of particular significance for biodiversity for food and agriculture.”29 Responses refer
to a range of designations established within
the framework of international agreements or
29
Countries were provided with the following list of examples:
“International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI)
designated areas; Globally Important Agricultural Systems
(GIAHS) designated areas; Identified buffer zones around
UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserves; Indigenous and
Community Conserved Areas; IUCN Category V (Protected
Landscape/Seascape); High Nature Value grasslands, Ramsar
Wetlands of International Importance, UNESCO World Heritage
Sites (Natural, Mixed Natural Cultural), UNESCO World Heritage
Forests, Conservation forests, etc.”
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
367
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
TABLE 7.7
Types of designated area reported to be of particular significance for biodiversity for
food and agriculture
Type of designated area
Description
Number of
countries
reporting
Areas designated for the
conservation of nature
Any area designated for conservation of nature based on any national or international criteria.
89
Wetlands of International
Importance (Ramsar sites)
Ramsar sites are designated on the basis of a set of nine criteria related to wetland types,
ecological communities and support for waterbirds, fish or other taxa.
25
Biosphere reserves (UNESCO Man
and Biosphere Programme)
Biosphere reserves may contain terrestrial, marine and/or coastal ecosystems. They should be
representative of their biogeographic region and of significance for biodiversity conservation.
Each site promotes solutions that reconcile the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable
use in the interests of sustainable development at regional scale. The approach is based on a
three-tiered zoning structure consisting of one or more legally constituted core areas, buffer
zones, and an outer transition area.
16
UNESCO World Heritage Sites
World Heritage Sites are designated based on six cultural and four natural criteria. The
latter include containing “the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.”
9
Indigenous and community
conserved areas (ICCAs)
ICCAs are natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values,
ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local
communities, both sedentary and mobile, through the use of traditional practices, knowledge
and customary law.
14
Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage Systems (GIAHS)
GIAHS are defined as “remarkable land use systems and landscapes which are rich in globally
significant biological diversity evolving from the co-adaptation of a community with its
environment and its needs and aspirations of sustainable development.”
2
Areas recognized as sources of
products assigned geographical
indications
A geographical indication is “a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin
and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin.”
4
Others
Areas designated to support the maintenance of traditional management practices;
landscapes protected by virtue of their ecological and cultural values; areas managed under
agro-environment schemes; multiple-use management areas.
15
Notes: “Number of countries reporting” = number of countries mentioning the respective type of site in response to a question about
“landscape-based initiatives to protect or recognize areas of land and water … of particular significance for biodiversity for food and
agriculture.” Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Sources: FAO, 2018u; ICCA Consortium, 2018; Ramsar Convention, 2010; UNESCO, 2016; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015; WIPO,
2017; country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
regulations, under the auspices of international
networks or based on national or regional regulations. Table 7.7 provides a summary.
Nearly all reporting countries (89) refer to areas
designated for the conservation of nature, including sites officially recognized as protected areas.
Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar
Sites),30 and Globally Important Agricultural Heritage
30
As of November 2018, there were 2 334 Ramsar sites covering
almost 250 million hectares. Details can be found via the
Ramsar Convention website at https://rsis.ramsar.org
368
Systems (GIAHS) (see Box 7.18) are among the
designations mentioned. For example, Germany
reports that in the Rhön Biosphere Reserve, the
motto of which is “protection through use”,
several management practices, including the
reintroduction of endangered livestock breeds
such as the Rhön sheep, contribute to the conservation of the agricultural landscape. China,
which hosts 15 GIAHS, mentions several of these
systems, including the rice–fish symbiotic system of
Qingtian County and the rice–fish–duck system of
Dong County. Algeria refers to its ghout system, a
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.18
FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems
In 2002, FAO launched a global initiative for the
identification, conservation and adaptive management of
Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS),
defined as “remarkable land use systems and landscapes
which are rich in globally significant biodiversity
evolving from the co-adaptation of a community with
its environment and its needs and aspirations for
sustainable development.” The designation of agricultural
systems as GIAHS aims, inter alia, to promote wider
recognition of their contributions to food security and
biodiversity conservation on a national and world
scale and to enhance the benefits local people derive
from the maintenance of existing sustainable practices
and local biodiversity through, for instance, the
establishment of payment for ecosystem services or
ecolabelling schemes.
The official designation of candidate sites follows a
vetting process that considers their contributions to local
food and livelihood security, the uniqueness and richness
of their in situ agrobiodiversity, their associated traditional
knowledge and farming practices, their cultural richness
and social organization and their ability to conserve
centuries-old human-shaped unique landscapes or
seascapes. Between 2005 and 2018, about 50 systems
were officially recognized as GIAHS. Sites range from
rice–fish–duck systems in China to North African oases,
and from the underground water-collection tunnels of
Kashan, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, to a water-resilient
Maasai agropastoralist system in Kenya.
Rice–fish culture, China. @FAO/Luohui Liang.
Pastoral landscape and Mount Kilimanjaro,
Kenya-United Republic of Tanzania.
©FAO/David Boerma.
The designation of GIAHS contributes to the
achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals
including those related to reducing poverty and increasing
food security. For instance, producers in the Chinese rice–
fish culture system benefited from a rise in prices for their
products, as well as from increasing numbers of tourists
visiting the local area, following the designation of the
system in 2005. Finally, GIAHS play a key role in climate
change mitigation and adaptation, and in the fight against
the genetic erosion of locally adapted crops and livestock.
Sources: FAO, 2018c, 2018u; Koohafkan and Altieri, 2010.
Andean agriculture, Kiwicha, Peru.
©FAO/Alipio Canahua.
Ghout system, Oued Souf, Algeria ©Institut
National de la Recherche Agronomique d’Algérie.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
369
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.19
The role of geographical indications in the maintenance of biodiversity for food and agriculture
Geographical indications are used to differentiate products
that have specific characteristics, qualities or reputation
that result essentially from their geographical origin. This
differentiation can relate to the product’s history or to
distinctive characteristics linked to local natural or human
factors such as soil, climate, knowledge or traditions. The
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS Agreement) requires members of the World Trade
Organization to protect geographical indications as a form of
intellectual property. Different legal tools are used depending
on the country, including sui generis systems (e.g. the European
Union’s Protected Designation of Origin and Protected
Geographical Indication schemes) and trademark systems.
Geographical indications can contribute to the
development of sustainable food systems, particularly when
they are developed and managed by local producers. They
add value to traditional food products, benefiting producers,
especially family farmers and smallholders, and can also
benefit consumers by promoting better access to local
nutritious food. Origin-linked products often use specific
traditional, endemic or locally adapted species, varieties or
breeds of plants, animals or micro-organisms. The promotion
of such products through geographical indications can thus
help to maintain biodiversity, by preventing the disappearance
traditional and complex hydroagricultural system
for food production in dry areas, which was designated as a GIAHS in 2011. ICCAs (see above)
are widely reported, mainly by non-OECD countries. Bangladesh, Burkina Faso and Cameroon,
for instance, report the presence of communitymanaged forests, where indigenous and local communities can harvest fuelwood and non-timber
forest products and concurrently work towards
their long-term conservation. A few countries
refer to areas recognized as sources of products
assigned geographical indications (see Box 7.19).
Several countries note the contributions that
various categories of areas designated for nature
protection make to the supply of ecosystem services.
For example, Malta reports that designation of
370
Cocoa Arriba beans from a local Ecuadorian variety.
© Emilie Vandecandelaere.
of these genetic resources or habitats or landscapes
associated with them. One example is the geographical
indication of Cocoa Arriba in Ecuador, which aims to preserve
ancient cacao varieties that were increasingly being replaced
by new, widely used varieties (hybrids) that are more
productive but do not taste as good and lack the specific
characteristics of the ancient local varieties.
Source: Provided by Florence Tartanac and Emilie Vandecandelaere,
based on FAO (2017i) and FAO and SINER-GI (2010).
marine protected areas containing meadows of
the endemic Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia
oceanica provides a fish spawning and nursing
habitat that is expected to increase the resilience
of the surrounding ecosystem to fishing pressure. Bangladesh notes that the establishment
of fish sanctuaries has resulted in a substantial
increase in fish production and in the abundance
of endangered species. Gabon stresses the importance of forests in protected areas to food security
and nutrition and as sources of valuable medicinal plant species. Fiji mentions the Ucunivanua
locally managed marine protected area, a stretch
of inshore water that was declared a no-take
zone for three years in 1997, building upon local
traditions and taboos. This strategy led to the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.20
Maintenance and use of indigenous knowledge – examples from Kenya
The National Museums of Kenya document indigenous
knowledge through various research activities, usually
coordinated through the Kenya Resource Center for
Indigenous Knowledge (KENRIK) under the Center for
Biological Diversity Department. The main aim of KENRIK
is to document and preserve the endangered/threatened
indigenous knowledge held by various communities in Kenya.
Such knowledge has traditionally played an important role in
environmental conservation, natural-resources management,
food security and traditional healthcare systems.
The communities around the Kakamega Forest have
formed a community-based organization known as the
recovery of rapidly declining clam populations and
to more-abundant harvests and higher incomes
for local inhabitants. Further examples are presented in Section 7.3.1.
7.6 Maintenance of traditional
knowledge associated with
food and agriculture
Countries were invited to report on activities
undertaken to maintain traditional knowledge
of associated biodiversity (for further information on drivers of change affecting the status of
traditional knowledge see Section 3.9). Various
initiatives related both to associated biodiversity
and to other components of BFA were reported.
Several countries note that public institutions
such as museums, national archives and research
centres play an important role in maintaining
traditional knowledge and practices associated
with BFA. For example, Jordan’s National Center
for Agricultural Research and Extension has documented more than 100 wild edible plants that
are traditionally utilized by local communities.
Activities undertaken by the Kenya Resource
Center for Indigenous Knowledge are described
in Box 7.20. Sri Lanka notes that its Department
Kakamega Environmental and Education Programme (KEEP),
whose main objectives are to participate in conservation
efforts within the forest and create awareness in local
communities and schools. KEEP community activities include
butterfly farming/silkworm rearing, beekeeping, snake
rearing, growing medicinal plants and maintaining tree
nurseries. Activities are based on the traditional knowledge
held by members of this community that have been passed
from generation to generation.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Kenya.
of Agriculture is collecting and trying to preserve
traditional knowledge on the preparation of
traditional foods through a project called “Hela
bojun” that has established a number of food
outlets throughout the country.
A number of countries note that some traditional knowledge related to skills cannot be
recorded in writing and can only be maintained if
it is used in practice. Several mention civil-society
organizations that contribute to the active maintenance of traditional practices through a variety
of cultural activities. Some examples from the
Pacific are presented in Box 7.21. Examples of the
role of women in the maintenance of traditional
knowledge for improved food and seed security
under climate change can be found in Box 7.22.
Countries were invited to indicate whether traditional knowledge is used to inform conservation
decisions and to share best practices and lessons
learned. A few country reports state that traditional knowledge has been considered in the planning of protected areas. Some note that traditional
knowledge has influenced efforts to promote the
sustainable management of arable land, forests,
fisheries and aquaculture holdings, often through
participatory approaches involving local communities in the elaboration of management plans.
Examples include traditional forest-management
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
371
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.21
Maintenance and use of traditional practices in the Pacific
In the Cook Islands, many farmers see training on
sustainable crop production provided by the Ministry of
Agriculture as a revival of the traditional knowledge passed
down through the generations. School students learn about
traditional knowledge when visiting conservation sites.
Fiji has used mass media such as television programmes
to promote the use of traditional knowledge in food
systems. Examples include the Talk Business programme
on Fiji TV1 and a series of Fiji Farmers Leaflets2 published
by the Ministry of Agriculture. Traditional knowledge is also
passed on at community level through the use of traditional
varieties of yams and other crops, and practices such as
hunting for wild pigs.
In Kiribati the traditional technique of rearing milkfish
in natural or human-made brackish-water ponds is still
practised today. The milkfish fry are caught from the wild,
during new- and full-moon phases, using coconut leaves and
plant branches. They are then guided into brackish-water
ponds using pandanus leaves, and are harvested as food
during festivals.
In Niue, the traditional processing of arrowroot (Tacca
spp.) starch for food is still widely practised. Arrowroot
is an annual plant that grows in the wild. Each year, during
April and May, families usually harvest arrowroot tubers
to be processed as food. The processed arrowroot starch
is a delicacy used in local desserts such as nane (pudding)
and pitako (bread).
In Palau traditional knowledge is passed to the next
generation not only by oral transmission but also via wood
carvings of ancient customs and traditional practices. One
such practice is bul, a traditional way of conserving certain
marine species during times of low availability that involves
a total ban on harvesting the species to allow them to
reproduce and multiply (see also Box 7.4).
1
2
See http://fijione.tv/talk-business-2/ for more information.
See http://www.agriculture.gov.fj/index.php/publications/farmers-leaflets
for more information.
372
In Papua New Guinea farmers traditionally use natural
insect-repelling plants such as ginger, lemon grass, chili and
marigold. The National Agricultural Research Institute has
developed formulas for using these species as plant-derived
pesticides and trains many rural farmers in their use. Certain
cultural practices foster the genetic diversity of food crops,
for instance when a bride leaves her parents’ home village
to join the family of her bridegroom, she usually brings seeds
or seedlings given to her by her parents and other relatives
during the wedding. This allows varieties, and the traditional
knowledge related to their cultivation, to be spread from one
community to another. The practice also promotes the “safe
keeping” of genetic materials through duplication: if the
bride’s parents lose a particular variety, they can go to her to
obtain a replacement.
In Solomon Islands, traditional knowledge associated
with forest foods in Central Choiseu is documented in a
book titled The forest foods of Lauru (Jansen and Sirikolo,
2010). This publication not only documents the plants used
for food and how they are processed and cooked, but also
the area’s traditional land-classification system, which
is based on ecological zones ranging from the coastal
mangrove swamps to the mountain tops. In addition, the
country’s National Cultural Policy Framework (Nasinol Policy
Framework blong KALSA) fosters the protection and revival
of indigenous culture and promotes the transmission of
traditional knowledge to younger generations.
Tonga holds annual agriculture, forestry and fisheries
shows throughout the main islands of Tongatapu, Vava’u,
Ha’apai, Eua, Niuafo’ou and Niuatoputapu. The shows
promote biodiversity through the promotion and display of
the best local products from each island. Prizes are awarded
for traditional products such as various nut oils, thereby
encouraging the production of traditional varieties.
Sources: Country reports of the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tonga.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
Box 7.22
Women’s traditional knowledge for improved food and seed security under climate change
In deciding what to grow, when and where, women often
rely on gender-specific biocultural indicators that can help
reduce the vulnerability of their households to the stresses
and shocks affecting agricultural production. Oxfam Novib’s
programme Putting Lessons into Practice: Scaling up People’s
Biodiversity Management for Food Security capitalized
on women’s traditional knowledge about seed and plant
management to facilitate female-led innovation and capacity
building as a response to local environmental challenges.
As part of the programme, women in Peru’s Lares region
sorted native potato landraces to be reintroduced into
the area based on the quality of sprouts, the absence of
blights and pests, resistance to local climatic conditions and
nutritional properties. In this region, the selection of sowing
sites for potato cultivars is based on knowledge about the
previous occurrence of late blights and on plant properties,
often used as proxy indicators for soil fertility. The sowing
time is decided, inter alia, by observing the behaviour of wild
animals and reading the stars.
For the (re)introduction of additional crops into
Zimbabwe’s Chiredzi and Goromonzi districts, the
programme also relied on women’s weather forecasting
based on a set of environmental indicators. These included
tree phenology, wild-animal behaviour and recent weather
patterns. For instance, the presence of migrant storks in
the area is interpreted as indicating forthcoming rain, and
sowing and crop-diversification strategies are planned
accordingly. Women’s forecasts are considered more
accurate than the national weather forecasts, as the latter
tend to cover wider areas and are therefore less specific.
Taking women’s particular knowledge about local
environmental conditions, seed systems and cropdiversification strategies into account facilitated the
farmer-to-farmer transfer of innovation and strengthened
the capacity of (women) farmers to autonomously identify
“new” coping mechanisms in traditional practices,
knowledge and biodiversity for food and agriculture.
Source: Oxfam Novib et al., 2016 (Report submitted to FAO in contribution to
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture).
practices that are used across the country in the
United Republic of Tanzania, whereby land used
for grazing and firewood collection is fallowed
for a period of time to allow for regeneration,
and the project Technological Innovation of
Family Farming Production Systems (Innovación
Tecnológica de los Sistemas de Producción de la
Agricultura Familiar) in Panama, which designed
and implemented agroecological food systems
through a participatory process with the population of the Ngäbe Buglé district. Guyana
reports that its National Agricultural Research
and Extension Institute has benefited from traditional knowledge when setting conservation
priorities for the management of its ex situ field
genebanks and in vitro stored collections. An
example of successful forest management based
on traditional knowledge in Viet Nam is presented in Box 7.23.
7.7 Needs and priorities
Needs and priorities in the conservation of plant
(crop), animal (livestock), forest and aquatic
genetic resources are discussed in detail in the
respective sectoral global assessments (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a). As discussed above,
many gaps remain in conservation programmes
for genetic resources in these categories. The following paragraphs focus on associated biodiversity and wild foods.
By far the most commonly reported constraint
to conservation activities for associated biodiversity and wild foods is a lack of knowledge.
Many countries indicate that species inventories
for various categories of associated biodiversity
are incomplete. Even for species that have been
recorded, geographical distributions are often not
well mapped and monitoring of population trends
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
373
7
S TAT E O F MA N AGEMEN T
PART C
Box 7.23
Community forest management and development in Ban Banh, Viet Nam
Forest management in a village named Ban Banh in the
North West Mountain Region of Viet Nam is directly related
to the spiritual life of the Thai ethnic minority community.
The belief that the spirits of local people’s ancestors reside
in the forest provided the basis for the development of
customary laws to manage and protect it. The forest is the
common property of the community, and profits made from
selling forest products go into a community fund. The Thai
villagers’ traditional knowledge tells them what, when
and how they should collect from the forest. Transgressing
is believed to threaten the safety and tranquillity of all
villagers, as the spirits are believed to take revenge on the
community if the forest is harmed. A number of factors
contribute to the success of community forest management
and development in Ban Banh:
• The system is appropriate to Thai custom, in which the
forest is considered the common property of the whole
community. Community members join together to
uphold their local law. The village chief and the village
is often inadequate or non-existent. Many countries also report that knowledge about the significance of particular species or species groups in the
supply of ecosystem services is limited. Some note
a lack of information on how drivers of change
are affecting associated biodiversity and wild
foods or on the effectiveness of potential conservation interventions. All these knowledge gaps
make it difficult to prioritize species (or species
groups, production systems or geographical locations) and to plan conservation activities.
Several country reports mention problems
associated with inadequate diffusion of relevant
information to those who need it in order to plan
conservation activities. Some note that a lack of
information systems or databases is a constraint.
Several mention that stakeholders lack adequate
information on methods and strategies for both
in situ and ex situ conservation. As noted above,
technical barriers to the long-term ex situ conservation of some species still need to be addressed.
374
elders’ council are highly respected and play the
most important roles in ensuring that the interests
of the whole community are protected.
• The community rules were developed by the
villagers themselves. They initiated the process
and committed themselves to participating in all
steps involved in creating their own effective set
of regulations. The villagers’ motivation to protect
the forest stems from their desire to maintain their
traditional culture and lifestyle, which are closely
linked to this natural resource.
• The rules were developed based on Thai indigenous
knowledge of local forest flora and other
biodiversity so as to avoid human disturbance in
the critical growth period of the year and prevent
overexploitation.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Viet Nam.
Activities aimed at maintaining and building on
traditional knowledge relevant to conservation
efforts also often need to be strengthened. Many
countries note that a large amount of traditional
knowledge has already been lost without ever
having been documented, and that loss is ongoing
as the use of traditional practices dwindles.
Resource constraints are also widely reported.
Inadequate funding and a lack of trained personnel are the most commonly reported problems,
but a number of countries also mention a lack of
technical resources. Where human resources are
concerned, several countries specifically refer to
weaknesses in taxonomy and systematics. Some
also mention that a lack of an interdisciplinary
approach in research hampers efforts to improve
conservation methods and strategies. Many
countries note that a lack of resources makes it
more difficult to bridge knowledge gaps of the
kind described above. Others note that a lack of
resources constrains programme implementation
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F CO NSERVAT I O N O F BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
or prevents effective enforcement of regulations
aimed at protecting biodiversity. A number of
countries report that conservation-related education, training and awareness-raising activities for
stakeholders, at all levels from producers and consumers to policy-makers, need to be strengthened.
The other main category of constraint highlighted in the country reports is weaknesses in
legal, policy and institutional frameworks. Many
countries mention a lack of mainstreaming of
associated-biodiversity conservation into policies
targeting the various sectors of food and agriculture and other sectors of the economy. Some
note a lack of focus on associated biodiversity and
wild foods in general biodiversity-related policy
frameworks. Many countries that have developed
relevant policies and laws report that they are not
properly implemented.
Lack of collaboration and coordination between
stakeholders is another widely reported constraint.
Many countries highlight, in particular, a lack of
cross-sectoral coordination, including at policy
level. Some note constraints associated with a lack
of adequate links between ministries, between
researchers and policy-makers, or between policymakers and producers or local communities.
Priorities for action mentioned in the country
reports mostly relate to addressing the underlying knowledge, resource and policy-related
constraints to the establishment of effective
conservation programmes. With respect to the
specifics of conservation strategies themselves,
some countries mention the need to expand the
use of biodiversity-friendly management practices
in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including,
where relevant, traditional management practices
associated with local or indigenous communities.
Some note the potential role of organic certification or other schemes that promote the marketing
of products produced using sustainable management practices.
Several countries note the importance of maintaining viable areas of natural or semi-natural
habitat within and around production systems,
including those that are intensively managed,
some noting that this will need to involve restoring or reconnecting damaged or fragmented
habitats. Some also highlight the need to address
specific threats, such as invasive alien species,
overexploitation and overharvesting, or particular
unsustainable practices in agriculture, fisheries or
forestry. Also emphasized in a number of country
reports is the importance of ecosystem or landscape/seascape approaches or similar joined-up
strategies that integrate the conservation of particular components of associated biodiversity into
wider efforts to sustainably manage the production systems in which they are found, improve
the livelihoods of local people and promote the
supply of ecosystem services.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
375
7
Part D
ENABLING
FRAMEWORKS
Chapter 8
The state of policies,
institutions and capacities
Key messages
• Ensuring the sustainable use of biodiversity for
food and agriculture (BFA) requires effective
actions by competent authorities and improved
collaboration among a range of stakeholder groups
(producers and their organizations, consumers,
suppliers and marketers, policy-makers, and
national and international governmental and nongovernmental organizations) across the sectors of
food and agriculture and between the food and
agriculture sector and the environment/natureconservation sector.
• Education and training on the management of
BFA at all levels needs to be strengthened, as
does awareness raising on the importance of BFA
among a range of stakeholders, including policymakers and the general public.
• There are many gaps in BFA-related research,
especially with respect to associated biodiversity
(species such as pollinators, soil organisms and
pest natural enemies found in and around
production systems), particularly invertebrates and
micro-organisms, wild foods, and the ecosystem
functions of BFA.
8.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the institutional framework
for the management of biodiversity for food and
agriculture (BFA). The first section provides an
overview of the roles played by various categories
of stakeholders in the management of BFA. The
• Economic valuation tools can make the benefits
and costs of BFA more visible and thus drive more
effective conservation policies. However, such
valuations are difficult and costly to implement.
• Many different types of incentive measures are
being used by a range of actors to promote
the conservation and sustainable use of BFA.
Effectiveness can be increased by combining them
into integrated packages. Perverse incentives need
to be identified and removed.
• Appropriate legal and policy frameworks are
essential for the effective management of BFA,
but generally remain relatively weak and/or
poorly implemented. Improving them is
challenging because of the multiple stakeholders
and interests involved.
• In most countries, access and benefit-sharing
measures are under development or in the early
stages of implementation. Measures increasingly
reflect the importance and distinctive features of
genetic resources for food and agriculture.
subsequent sections address the state of cooperation in the management of BFA (including cooperation between different stakeholder groups,
cross-sectoral cooperation and international
cooperation), the state of ancillary or supportive
components of the institutional framework such
as education, training and research, the state of
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
379
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
implementation of valuation studies for BFA
and the state of incentive measures promoting
the sustainable use and conservation of BFA.
The final section presents an overview of the
state of policies and legislation across a range
of fields relevant to the management of BFA.
Other chapters of the report include information on programmes in specific fields of activity
such as conservation, characterization, monitoring, genetic improvement and various potentially biodiversity-friendly management practices
and approaches. In many cases, needs and priorities identified in these chapters include actions
related to strengthening policy, legal and institutional frameworks.
8.2 Stakeholders
• Large- and small-scale farmers, livestock keepers,
fishers, fish farmers and forest dwellers, among
others, all rely directly on biodiversity for food
and agriculture (BFA). Small-scale producers, in
particular, often play a key role in the sustainable
use and conservation of BFA and are often heavily
dependent on the supporting and regulating
ecosystem services it provides in and around their
production systems.
• Despite their significance to BFA management,
small-scale and indigenous producers – including
in particular women – are often marginalized and
excluded from decision-making processes that affect
their production systems.
• Many producers’ and community-based organizations
play significant roles both in providing practical
support for the sustainable management of BFA and
in advocating policies that support the roles of smallscale producers as custodians of BFA.
• A range of subregional, regional and international
organizations and partnerships contribute to the
management of associated biodiversity, including
through projects targeting the sustainable use of
pollinators, soil biodiversity or biological control
agents, the management of ex situ conservation
programmes and broader efforts promoting
sustainable production.
380
8.2.1 Producers and their organizations1
Small- and large-scale producers
Producers in the crop, livestock, forest and aquatic
sectors range from small-scale farmers, livestock
keepers, fishers, aquaculturists and forest dwellers to very large commercial companies. All rely
on BFA and their actions can have major impacts
on the state of biodiversity. Much of the world’s
BFA is managed in, or associated with, smallholder
cropping or mixed systems, pastoralist systems or
small-scale forest, aquaculture or fishing systems.2
It is estimated, for example, that out of 570 million
farms worldwide, 475 million are less than 2 ha in
area (Lowder, Skoet and Raney, 2016). These farms
support at least 2 billion people but occupy only
12 percent of total agricultural land (ibid.).
Where domesticated biodiversity is concerned,
small-scale producers tend, broadly speaking, to
be relatively reliant on the adaptive characteristics of the species, breeds and varieties that they
use, i.e. on traits that allow plants and animals to
survive and produce in harsh and changing local
conditions without the need for large quantities
of external inputs (FAO, 2010a, 2015a). They often
make use of multiple products and services supplied by the plants they grow and/or the animals
they keep. Diverse production environments
and a diverse range of uses typically mean that
a relatively diverse range of genetic resources
is maintained. Small-scale producers are often
also key players in the management of associated biodiversity.3 Limited use of external inputs
means that they are often heavily dependent on
ecosystem services provided by the associated
1
2
3
This section draws on the thematic study Biodiversity for Food
and Agriculture: the perspectives of small-scale food providers
(IPC, forthcoming).
These are clearly quite loosely defined categories. What
counts as “small-scale” varies from place to place, as do
the circumstances (access to inputs, subsistence vs market
orientation, etc.) in which small-scale producers operate.
The biodiversity present in and around production systems
that supports food and agriculture through pollination, pest
and disease regulation, improving soil fertility and the supply
of many other ecosystem services. See Section 1.5 for further
discussion of this term.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
biodiversity in and around their production
systems. The maintenance, revival or adaptation
of traditional management practices developed
by small-scale producers often contributes significantly to the sustainable use and conservation of
BFA, as do ongoing processes of innovation on the
part of small-scale producers.
While small- and medium-scale systems remain
significant, large-scale commercial production is
expanding globally, and increasingly dominant in
many subsectors. Large-scale producers can often
draw on technologies and inputs that enable
them to base their enterprises on crops, livestock
or aquatic organisms from a narrowing range of
high-output species, varieties and breeds or to
extract vast quantities of products from aquatic
and forest ecosystems. Although ultimately
dependent on the range of ecosystem services
provided by BFA, their access to inputs means that
they can often operate relatively independently
of the local ecological processes that have traditionally underpinned and constrained production.
Their management practices and strategies can,
however, have major detrimental effects on biodiversity both locally and at a greater distance, for
example as a result of the environmental impacts
of the discharge of wastes or the production and
transport of inputs (see Chapter 3 for further discussion). Large-scale, specialist companies are also
playing an ever-greater role in breeding (geneticimprovement) programmes for domesticated
plants and animals (terrestrial and aquatic), often
focusing their efforts on a relatively narrow range
of species, breeds and varieties. In some subsectors, such as poultry, the breeding industry has
become very concentrated in the hands of a small
number of companies (FAO, 2015a).
Producers’ organizations
Despite being major stakeholders in the sustainable management of BFA, producers in all sectors –
particularly small-scale and indigenous producers
– are often excluded from decision-making processes that affect their production and livelihood
systems. In many countries, small-scale producers’
civil society organizations (CSOs) play a significant
role both in campaigning and advocacy and in
promoting practical activities relevant to the sustainable use and conservation of BFA. On the campaigning side, some small-scale producers’ CSOs
have sought to challenge the so-called industrial
model of production and consumption, counterposing an approach based on agroecology that, in
the words of the Declaration of the International
Forum for Agroecology (IFA, 2015),
displaces … the control of global markets
and generates self-governance by
communities … minimize[s] the use of
purchased inputs … requires the re-shaping
of markets so that they are based on
the principles of solidarity economy and
the ethics of responsible production and
consumption … promotes direct and
fair short distribution chains … implies a
transparent relationship between producers
and consumers … is based on the solidarity
of shared risks and benefits … challenge[s]
and transform[s] structures of power in
society [and] put[s] the control of seeds,
biodiversity, land and territories, waters,
knowledge, culture and the commons in the
hands of the peoples who feed the world.
At a relatively local level, CSO’s campaigning
activities target a range of BFA-related issues,
including the maintenance or re-establishment
of collective local control over resources such as
forests, grazing lands and fisheries (IPC, forthcoming). Box 8.1 presents governance outcomes
sought by small-scale producers’ organizations
as summarized in the thematic study on the perspectives of small-scale food providers (ibid.) prepared as a contribution to the development of
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and
Agriculture (SoW-BFA).
Producers’ and community-based organizations of various kinds contribute in many practical ways to the sustainable management of local
production systems, whether by providing practical support and advice on management techniques, facilitating the collective management
of local resources or providing support for the
marketing of local products (see Box 8.2, Box 8.3
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
381
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.1
Governance outcomes promoted by small-scale food providers’ organizations
In the framework of food sovereignty, and respecting the
rights of the women and men who use, maintain and
enhance peasant biodiversity for food and agriculture, the
organizations of small-scale food providers seek to:
• strengthen and promote dynamic management
of biodiversity based on ecological principles and
collective rights over knowledge and resources;
• improve access to and control over biodiversity and
secure collective rights over the commons;
• realize seed policies that guarantee the collective
rights of peasants and indigenous peoples to use,
exchange, breed, select and sell their seeds;
• reinforce their interconnecting rural–urban food webs
and local markets so that they sustain biodiversity in
their territories;
• transform research undertaken by scientists in public
institutions so that it is reframed by peasants for the
co-creation of diverse knowledges, which shall not be
patented; and
• change the rules that perversely protect policies and
practices that destroy the biodiversity that supports
food sovereignty.
Source: IPC, forthcoming.
Box 8.2
Community control of a coastal ecosystem – an example from Senegal
In 2008, worried about a decline in fish stocks, local
communities in Mangagoulack, Casamance, Senegal, created
the Association of Fishermen of the Rural Community
Mangagoulack (APCRM). The association established a
community conservation area named Kawawana. The name
derives from the Djola expression “Kapooye Wafolal Wata
Nanang”, which means “our patrimony, for us all to preserve.”
The conservation area was demarcated and rules put in place
to control access to the coastal waters and combat the use of
destructive methods that threaten local fish resources.
In 2010, APCRM obtained statutory rights of
management for Kawawana, including a preferential right to
fish on the local coastal strip. Mangagoulack is the first local
community in Senegal to have been devolved management
rights for coastal fisheries.
The waters of the conserved area are divided into three
zones, denoted by the colours red, orange and yellow. No
and Box 8.4 for examples). In some cases, the use,
development and/or conservation of a particular
component of biodiversity are the main objective
of the organization. For example, in many countries, particularly in the developed regions of the
world, breeders’ associations are major players in
382
fishing or collection of shells or wood is permitted in the red
zone. The orange zone is reserved for fishing that supplies
local consumption and markets. The yellow area is open to
fishing, but there are limitations on the fishing methods and
gear that can be used.
The red zone is marked with fetishes and revives the
local tradition of “sacred bolongs.” It serves as a refuge
for aquatic life. Mangroves and inlets provide habitat for
humpback dolphins, manatees, fish and shellfish.
The new management arrangements rapidly increased
fish stocks and improved the local diet. Three years after the
creation of the conservation area, local fishermen’s catches
had doubled.
Source: Adapted from IPC (forthcoming), with additional information from
ICCA Registry (2012).
livestock genetic-improvement programmes, particularly in ruminant species (see Section 5.9).
Where associated biodiversity is concerned,
beekeepers’ organizations play an important role
in bee management and maintaining the supply
of pollination services in many countries. The
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.3
Agroforestry under local control – an example from Costa Rica
The Coproalde (Coordination of Non-Governmental
Organizations with Alternative Development Projects)1
Network was formed in 1988 and brought together a
number of NGOs and peasants’ and indigenous peoples’
organizations working on alternative development
projects. In around 2009, Coproalde members started
to implement successional agroforestry systems. The
initiative was motivated by exchanges with peasants
from the Plurinational State of Bolivia via the “campesino
a campesino” (farmer-to-farmer) methodology. The
successional agroforestry systems mimic forest ecological
conditions and supply a very diverse range of foods from
small plots of land. Up to 85 food or medicinal species can
be planted in a 2 000 m2 area. The agroforestry plots enable
families to ensure their food and nutritional security and
obtain extra income by selling surplus in local markets.
Source: Adapted from IPC (forthcoming) (based on testimony from Juan
Arguedas Chaverri, Red Coproalde, Costa Rica, 2014).
1
Coproalde is an abbreviated form of the Spanish name Coordinadora de
Organismos no Gubernamentales con Proyectos Alternativos de Desarrollo.
Box 8.4
The role of a women’s group in promoting sustainable fishing – an example from Ecuador
The Pescado Azul (Blue Fish) Women’s Association of
Isabela in the Galapagos promotes responsible fishing
by empowering the women of the local community. The
association emphasizes traditional knowledge and the
conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.
Illegal and unsustainable fishing in local coastal waters
has led to the overexploitation of sea cucumbers, spiny
lobsters and a variety of fish species. To reduce pressures on
these resources, Pescado Azul promotes alternative livelihood
opportunities. The main focus has been on developing value-
country report4 from Jordan, for example, mentions a project initiated by the Jordan Beekeepers’
Union that succeeded in involving beekeepers in
conserving and planting trees to provide forage
for honey bees. It notes that over 20 000 trees
were planted by union members in 2013–2014.
A number of country reports also highlight the
roles of local community-based organizations in
the sustainable use of products harvested from
4
Throughout this chapter, unless noted otherwise, the term
“country reports” refers to the country reports submitted
as contributions to The State of the World’s Biodiversity
for Food and Agriculture. See “About this publication” for
additional information.
added smoked products from sustainably sourced yellowfin
tuna. Wood from guava shrubs, an invasive species, is used
to smoke the fish. Products are marketed under the Pescado
Azul brand, and the association has developed links with
ecotourism operators to help identify markets. Other activities
have included reforestation of local mangroves and efforts to
promote ecological awareness.
Sources: Country report of Ecuador and UNDP, 2013.
the wild. For example, the Gambia mentions the
important role of women oyster farmers’ associations in various management activities. One such
organization, the Niumi Women Oyster Farmers’
Association, is reported to be collaborating with
the country’s Department of Parks and Wildlife
Management in monitoring shellfish exploitation
in the Niumi National Park. Examples from Senegal
and Ecuador of the roles played by communitybased organizations in promoting sustainable
fishing are presented in Box 8.2 and Box 8.4.
More generally, the country reports highlight
the significance of a range of community-based
organizations and other collective bodies (involving
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
383
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
producers of various scales) in promoting participation in sustainable management activities. For example, Viet Nam mentions the roles
of People’s Committees, especially at commune
and district levels, the Women’s Union, Farmers’
Association and the Youth Union. Zambia notes
the significance of the traditional leadership in
local communities as potential catalysts for the
participation of local people. Among developed
countries, the Netherlands notes a shift in mechanisms for implementing agri-environmental
schemes away from a focus on individual enterprises and towards the establishment of collective bodies intended to improve information
sharing and allow schemes to be implemented
over larger areas and hence to have a greater
impact. A number of countries mention the need
to improve collaborative links among producers’
and community-based groups, and between
them and other stakeholders.
The roles of women producers
Women farmers, livestock keepers, fishers and
forest dwellers often play vital – although sometimes overlooked – roles in the use and conservation of BFA. Across the globe, women gather wild
plants for food, medicinal use, fuelwood and other
purposes, act as herbalists, tend home gardens,
select, manage and store seeds, manage crops,
trees and small livestock, domesticate plants, participate in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture,
and store, preserve and process foods after harvesting (FAO, 1999b, 2012a, 2014a, 2018a; HLPE,
2017a; Kennedy et al., 2017; World Bank, FAO and
IFAD, 2009).
In several parts of East and Southeast Asia and
sub-Saharan Africa women represent the majority of the agricultural workforce (FAO, 2011e).
In 2016, women were estimated to account for
14 percent of people directly engaged in fisheries and aquaculture, but it is estimated that if
secondary activities (processing, trading, etc.) are
included, women make up about half the workforce (FAO, 2018a; World Bank, 2012b). Women’s
work in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, etc. is often
accompanied by time-consuming, demanding and
384
often unpaid household and community-related
tasks (FAO, 2016o). Moreover, women generally
have less access than men to assets such as land
and livestock, various production inputs and services such as education, extension and credit,
and tend not to be well represented in decisionmaking processes related to food and agriculture
(FAO, 2011e). See Section 3.8 for a discussion of
drivers of change affecting the roles of women in
the management of BFA.
Women’s close involvement in tasks such as
food and fuel gathering, gardening, livestock
management and food processing often gives
them unique knowledge about local BFA, which
is often passed from generation to generation
(Kennedy et al., 2017). This knowledge, along
with their particular roles in the economy, influences their management strategies and priorities, which may differ from those of men (IUCN,
2017b). Women, for instance, may prioritize particular crop characteristics, such as cooking time
or preservability, that may be overlooked by men,
who may be more concerned about marketability
and yield (FAO, 1999b). In the case of livestock, it
has been argued that locally adapted breeds can
be especially important for women, and hence
that women are often key players in the use – and
hence potentially in the survival – of such breeds
(FAO, 2012a). Reasons for this include the fact that
locally adapted animals tend to be relatively easy
to care for, which means that raising them can
be combined more easily with child-rearing and
other household tasks. Moreover, such animals are
often able to make good use of common-property
resources, such as communal pastures and feed
that can be scavenged from waste ground, a characteristic that can make them important resources
for people who, like many women, are disadvantaged in terms of land ownership.
Many of the country reports note the significance of women’s roles in food and agricultural
production and processing or specifically mention
their roles in the sustainable management of BFA.
In the latter case, countries generally refer to
women’s roles in using – and hence maintaining –
traditional species, varieties or breeds of crops
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
or livestock or note women’s roles in gathering
wild plants and hence their knowledge of
these resource and interest in conserving them.
Cameroon, for example, mentions that in some
rural communities women monitor the presence,
growth and ripening of important wild foods and
medicinal plants in forest and farm lands, and that
when preparing land for cropping they make sure
that key plants are maintained. It further notes
that women are the main conservers of such
plant species and have good knowledge of their
phenology (the timing of life-cycle events such as
flowering), how to harvest them sustainably and
how to process them for household use or for sale.
Several countries, however, acknowledge that
women’s roles in food and agriculture are undervalued and that this can lead to missed opportunities to strengthen their roles as stewards of BFA.
Several also note that women’s decision-making
power in the management and conservation of
BFA still tends to be constrained by stereotypes
and socio-economic barriers and that women are
under-represented in decision-making processes
related to BFA.
The country reports describe a variety of initiatives aimed at enhancing the roles of women
in the conservation and sustainable use of BFA.
Bangladesh, for instance, reports that efforts are
being made to engage women in communitybased conservation of fish and other aquatic
biodiversity, involve them in social-forestry programmes run under the Department of Forestry,
and train them on integrated management of
vegetables and fruit crops. Jordan notes that
the Conservation of Medicinal and Herbal Plants
project (among other activities) targeted women’s
organizations to improve awareness and knowledge on the conservation and sustainable management of medicinal plants, supported women’s
“conservation through cultivation” of plant
species and facilitated women’s access to microcredit and participation in growers’ and producers’
organizations. Cameroon mentions that women
are being trained as forest or agricultural engineers, eco-guards or wildlife technicians and are
being sensitized in forest-resource management.
It further notes that participatory workshops on
ecological appraisal methodologies and conservation are enabling women in local communities to
participate in decision-making on how to invest
in and sustain their local resources (further examples of education and training activities targeting
women are described in Section 8.4). A number of
countries mention the contributions of women’s
producer groups to the sustainable use and conservation of BFA (see examples above).
Only a few reporting countries mention the
inclusion of gender dimensions in their national
biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).
However, an analysis of NBSAPs available as of
2016 (IUCN, 2017b) found that the latest plans
from 24 percent of the 174 countries covered
included at least one activity addressing the inclusion of women or gender considerations (although
not necessarily specifically related to the food
and agriculture sector). Most of the activities in
question relate to education on biodiversityrelated issues. The NBSAPs from 9 percent of the
174 countries were found to include activities
that explicitly promote women’s empowerment
(e.g. gender analysis, education and outreach activities targeting women, or capacity development
for women, including in fields such as agricultural
skills and access to seeds) (ibid.).
Needs and priorities noted in the country reports
with regard to strengthening women’s roles in the
management BFA include:
• providing education on conservation and sustainable use tailored to women’s specific needs;
• improving women’s access to markets to
increase economic returns from the sustainable use and conservation of BFA;
• providing scholarships for women and girls
to pursue careers in food and agriculture;
• improving the integration of women into relevant decision-making processes at all levels; and
• improving women’s access to assets, especially land and external inputs, including by
improving their access to credit.
Some country reports also refer to genderdifferentiated vulnerability to the impacts of
climate change on food and agricultural systems.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
385
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Women tend to be relatively more dependent on
the products of their local production systems for
their food security, fuel and other products and
services, and hence may be more vulnerable to
the local-scale effects of climate change (FAO,
2017p). No specific priorities are mentioned in
this regard in the country reports. However, FAO
(2017p) emphasizes the need to tap into women’s
potential as key actors in disaster risk reduction
and climate change adaptation strategies and
to address the specific constraints they face in
building resilience to disasters and adapting to
climate change.
8.2.2 Suppliers, processors, traders
and retailers
Many operators, large and small, are involved in
processing and transporting food and agricultural
products and retailing them to consumers, or use
such products as inputs for a range of different
industrial processes. The requirements of users
at all points in the value chain influence demand
for raw materials and hence the characteristics
of crop, livestock, forest and aquatic production
systems. Similarly, a range of industries serve as
suppliers of inputs to food and agricultural production and can influence the types of production practised. The impacts of changing market
demands and technological developments on BFA
and its management are discussed in Chapter 3.
As well as acting as markets or suppliers, industries outside the immediate food and agriculture
sector can directly affect BFA via their impacts on
land use or the effects of pollutants they release
(again see Chapter 3 for further discussion). They
may also benefit from the various regulating ecosystem services provided by BFA (and biodiversity
more generally) – maintenance of water supplies
or disaster risk reduction, for example. The cultural and habitat services provided by biodiversity
(see Section 2.2 for further discussion) can be valuable to the tourism and recreational industries.
Suppliers, processors, traders and retailers are also
involved in a range of initiatives that contribute to
the sustainable use and conservation of BFA (see
examples in Section 8.2.4 and Section 8.7).
386
8.2.3 The public sector
Public policies and the activities of public-sector
organizations can have a major influence on BFA
and its management. Protecting biodiversity is typically a stated objective of national environmental
policies. Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) are obliged to put in place national
strategies, plans or programmes to address the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and
to integrate the management of biodiversity into
relevant cross-cutting policies. The public sector
may directly operate projects and programmes in
fields such as conservation, monitoring or genetic
improvement (see Section 5.9 and Chapters 6 and 7
for examples), help to facilitate BFA management
via education and research programmes (see
Sections 8.4 and 8.5) or take measures that influence the actions of other stakeholders, for example
via legal measures, provision of incentives or provision of information (see Sections 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8).
Public bodies mentioned in the country reports as
contributing to BFA management generally either
have a broad biodiversity focus (largely working on
the conservation of wild biodiversity), address the
general development of a particular sector (e.g. the
forest sector) or target the management of particular
farmed or harvested resources (e.g. crops, livestock
or fish). Few countries mention public organizations
with a mandate specifically related to the contributions that components of associated biodiversity
make to food and agriculture. Exceptions include
the United States of America’s National Genetic
Resources Program, which includes the Microbial
Germplasm Program and the National Invertebrate
Genetic Resource Program. The former aims to
ensure that the genetic diversity of agriculturally
important micro-organisms is maintained. Its activities include the authentication and characterization of potentially useful microbial germplasm,
conservation of microbial genetic diversity and
measures that facilitate the distribution and utilization of microbial germplasm for use in research
and industry. The latter aims to inventory and characterize the various insect species, races, stocks,
strains, biotypes and other genetic entities associated with agricultural systems and to document
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
their interactions with agriculture and the environment. Activities implemented under this programme include the preservation of reference
specimens, maintenance of genetically important germplasm, documentation of specific insect
stocks, management of databases and distribution
of material to researchers and breeders.
8.2.4 The non-governmental sector
In addition to the producers’ organizations
discussed above, non-governmental and civilsociety organizations, including social movements,
contribute in various ways to the sustainable use
and conservation of BFA, including by promoting
dynamic and sustainable management practices,
including agroecology, at production-system level,
promoting the marketing and consumption of biodiverse or biodiversity-friendly products, or advocating policies that favour sustainable approaches
to production. For example, local food movements
– both in developed and in developing countries – create spaces for farmers to sell biodiverse
products. Farmers’ markets, box-delivery schemes,
consumer-purchase groups and participatoryguarantee schemes, for example, all help to make
biodiverse products more available and affordable
to consumers, especially in urban settings (FAO and
INRA, 2016; Goodman, DuPuis and Goodman, 2012;
Kneafsey et al., 2008). A recent study carried out in
11 developing countries, shows how such “innovative” markets have allowed people to regain – or
maintain – access to products that were being lost
(FAO and INRA, 2018). Not only do these initiatives
help farmers find marketing channels for biodiverse foods, they also have an educational role,
again especially in urban settings (Brunori, Rossi
and Guidi, 2012; FAO and INRA, 2018).
Several country reports mention NGOs specifically dedicated to promoting the conservation
and sustainable use of traditional plant varieties
or animal breeds, some of which also address
the management of pollinators (see for example
Box 8.5 and Box 8.6). These NGOs often collaborate
with producers, private companies and the general
public on conservation and awareness-raising projects. Examples include Frøsamlerne (“seed savers”)
in Denmark, which offers courses on seed propagation for interested non-experts, and Pro Specie
Rara in Switzerland and Germany, which has been
collaborating with a major supermarket chain since
1999 on the distribution of products from endangered traditional fruit and vegetable species.
A number of countries mention NGOs with a
broad focus on environmental and conservation
issues or on livelihoods and rural development
that operate some projects specifically addressing
the management of BFA. For example, Bangladesh
mentions Policy Research for Development
Alternative (UBINIG), a community-led and community-based policy and research organization
that has connections to farmers, weavers, fishers,
artisans, craftspeople, community health providers
Box 8.5
Contributions of non-governmental
organizations to the sustainable management
of biodiversity for food and agriculture –
examples from the Near East
In Iraq, the NGO Nature Iraq successfully surveyed the
north of the country to find and conserve the indigenous
wild goat (Capra aegagrus). The organization is also
effectively raising public awareness on the importance of
conserving biological diversity.
In Jordan, the Beekeepers’ Union, in collaboration with
the country’s National Center for Agricultural Research and
Extension, its Royal Botanic Garden and the Honey Bee
Online Studies Project1 (Germany), set up an educational
programme to teach school and university students about
the value of honey bees as bio-indicators and as providers
of ecosystem services and healthy products.
In Lebanon, several NGOs are actively working to
conserve and maintain the country’s nature reserves and
its natural and cultural heritage more generally. Among
other activities, these organizations document and publish
data on traditional knowledge concerning wild food
species and promote the use of wild and healthy foods.
Sources: Adapted from the country reports of Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.
1
https://www.hobos.de
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
387
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.6
Zambia’s Biodiversity Community Network
In Zambia, the Biodiversity Community Network – an
NGO working within the International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) framework
and involved in building the capacity of communities in
the conservation and use of biodiversity – implemented
a project to strengthen community-based on-farm
conservation and sustainable use of crop diversity in
the semi-arid Zambezi Gwembe Valley. The project
was supported by the Benefit-Sharing Fund of the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture. It focused on the conservation of
crop diversity and strengthening local seed systems for
sorghum, pearl millet, cowpea and bambara nuts.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Zambia.
and rural entrepreneurs and works to conserve
forests and the livelihoods of indigenous communities. UBINIG aims, inter alia, to foster climate change
adaptation by disseminating knowledge and practices that help to minimize river erosion, promote
the selection of appropriate seed for specific agroecological zones and strengthen the conservation of
mangroves. Zimbabwe mentions several NGOs that
have established community seed banks or hosted
seed-diversity fairs in support of the conservation
and participatory breeding of local varieties. Nepal
notes the role of NGOs such as Local Initiatives for
Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD)
in the establishment of community seed banks that
enhance access to – and exchange, use and management of – crop genetic resources.
8.2.5 The general public
While many members of the general public have
no direct involvement in the management of BFA,
their choices as consumers and their political decisions and activities as citizens have the potential to
increase or reduce pressures on BFA or influence its
management. For example, consumers may decide
to support social or environmental objectives by
388
buying fair-trade or organic products or to use
farmers’ markets to support local agriculture. They
may boycott foods seen as unsustainable to pressurize producers and retailers to change their practices.
In some countries, citizen scientists make an
important contribution to monitoring the status
of particular categories of biodiversity such as
birds and butterflies. A global review of such initiatives (Chandler et al., 2017) concluded that they
provide a large amount of data on distribution
and population abundance and on traits such as
phenology, in birds, Lepidoptera and plants, as
well as on ecosystem-function variables, mainly
in Europe, North America, South Africa, India and
Australia (ibid.). A considerable amount of work
on conservation projects is also undertaken by volunteers from among the general public.
The roles of citizen scientists are widely noted in
the country reports, mainly in those from developed
regions (see Chapters 4 and 6 for further discussion).
Many countries also mention awareness-raising
activities aimed at informing the general public
about issues related to BFA (see Section 8.4).
8.2.6 Regional and international
organizations
Many regional and international organizations
contribute to the conservation and sustainable
use of BFA. The roles of such organizations in the
management of livestock, crop, forest and aquatic
genetic resources are discussed in detail in the
respective FAO global assessments (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a), and therefore the
focus here is mainly on contributions to the management of associated biodiversity and wild foods.
Given that these are broad and diverse categories
of biodiversity that can be affected by many different types of activity, there are many international
organizations whose work is potentially relevant.
A number of regional and international organizations provided reports as inputs to the SoW-BFA process.5 Most are based on a standard questionnaire
5
For further details of the reporting process, see the “About
this publication” section in the preliminary pages of the report.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
that invited organizations to provide information
on their activities related to assessment, monitoring, conservation and sustainable use of BFA
(including in particular associated biodiversity and
wild foods) and to policies, institutions, capacity-building and regional and international cooperation in the management of these components
of biodiversity. In addition, the country-reporting
guidelines invited countries to provide information on their involvement in regional and/or international initiatives targeting the conservation and
sustainable use of associated biodiversity and on
the contributions of regional organizations and
international programmes to country-level efforts
to promote the contributions of associated biodiversity to food security and nutrition, productionsystem resilience and the supply of ecosystem
services. The overview presented below is based
largely on the information provided in the international organization reports and the country reports.
Given the above-noted broad range of potentially
relevant organizations and spheres of activity, it is
inevitably non-exhaustive. Further information on
collaborative activities promoted by international
organizations is presented in Section 8.3.
Regional and subregional organizations
Many of the reports submitted by regional organizations describe a wide variety of activities related
to the management of associated biodiversity.
Several mention work on the sustainable use and
conservation of specific groups of beneficial organisms, such as biological control agents, soil organisms and pollinators. A number mention the maintenance of ex situ collections of organisms belonging to these groups for identification and research
purposes. Others provide more general descriptions
of their efforts to improve the management of
biodiversity in and around production systems. In
many cases, activities span all aspects of management from assessment and monitoring to capacitydevelopment, education and awareness raising.
Some of the reporting organizations are specialized
crop or livestock research and development institutions and report a range of activities related to the
management of domesticated genetic resources.
Most of these mention at least some activities targeting associated biodiversity (Table 8.1). Some,
however, refer only to the management of domesticated resources and wild relatives and their role in
the supply of provisioning services. The report from
Africa Rice Center, for example, focuses on rice,
highlighting in particular the organization’s work
on breeding, ex situ conservation and research.
The regional organizations most frequently
mentioned in the country reports as contributors
to initiatives related to the management of associated biodiversity are intergovernmental bodies
or multilateral partnerships working in fields such
as fisheries, forestry, wildlife management and the
management of shared water bodies.6 Some countries simply note their membership of the respective organizations, while others refer to individual
projects or programmes. Table 8.1 presents examples of actions related to associated biodiversity
undertaken by organizations mentioned by countries in this context.
In their responses on policies, programmes
and enabling frameworks, a number of countries
mention the role of regional and subregional
economic and political unions and communities.
For example, several members of the European
Union note the significance of regional legislation
related to biodiversity-friendly production practices (e.g. controlling the use of pesticides and fertilizers) or to the protection of habitats associated
with agricultural, forest or aquatic production
systems. Many also refer to agri-environmental
schemes funded by the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development or to projects funded
under other European Union programmes (see
Section 8.7 for further discussion and examples
of activities undertaken within the framework of
European Union legislation and policies). Several
African countries mention policy frameworks for
the agriculture sector developed by subregional
political and economic communities. However,
few details are provided about provisions specifically related to associated biodiversity.
6
Most of the regional organizations that submitted reports are
also mentioned in the country reports.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
389
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
TABLE 8.1
Selected regional intergovernmental bodies and multilateral partnerships reported by countries
to contribute to initiatives in the management of associated biodiversity
Name of organization
Objectives/mission/mandate
Selected activities addressing associated
biodiversity and ecosystem services
Africa
African Union Commission
(https://www.au.int/web/en/
commission)
Mission: To become “an efficient and value-adding
institution driving the African integration and
development process in close collaboration with
African Union Member States, the Regional Economic
Communities and African citizens.”
Activities across all areas of management (assessment
and monitoring; conservation and sustainable use;
policies, institutions and capacity; regional and
international cooperation), particularly in capacitydevelopment and the implementation of regional
strategies and projects.
Biodiversity conservation, genetic resources and
ecosystems are a priority area under Goal 7:
Environmentally sustainable and climate resilient
economies and communities of Agenda 2063 (African
Union Commission, 2015).
African Union Interafrican
Bureau of Animal Resources
(http://www.au-ibar.org)
Mission: “To provide leadership in the development
of animal resources for Africa through supporting and
empowering AU Member States and Regional Economic
Communities.”
Bee conservation activities: the “Bee Project” (http://
www.au-ibar.org/bee-project) “aims to improve bee
products and pollination services through reduced
incidence of bee diseases and pests, enhanced markets
access, and bee health institutional environment.”
Commission of Central
African Forests
(http://comifac.org/en/)
“COMIFAC is an organization responsible for directing,
harmonizing and monitoring forest and environmental
policies in Central Africa.”
Various activities related to the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity (e.g. establishment of
protected areas, joint management of transboundary
protected areas, monitoring of biodiversity, valorization
of genetic resources, monitoring of resource use and
management, development of ecotourism, combating
illicit exploitation of forest resources and protection/
valorization of traditional knowledge).
East African Community
(http://www.eac.int/)
“The objectives of the Community shall be to develop
policies and programmes aimed at widening and
deepening co-operation among the Partner States in
political, economic, social and cultural fields, research
and technology, defence, security and legal and judicial
affairs, for their mutual benefit.”
Efforts to harmonize policy frameworks for the
management of transboundary ecosystems.
Operation of the Lake Victoria Basin Aquatic Biodiversity
Meta-Database by the Lake Victoria Basin Commission.
The East African Community Treaty refers to the
establishment of api-agroforestry systems.
International Centre of Insect
Physiology and Ecology
(http://www.icipe.org)
“ICIPE’s mission is to help alleviate poverty, ensure
food security and improve the overall health status of
peoples of the tropics, by developing and extending
management tools and strategies for harmful and useful
arthropods, while preserving the natural resource base
through research and capacity building.”
Work on the role of bees (including stingless bees, honey
bees and carpenter bees) in the provision of pollination
services, the potential of insects as human food and
livestock feed, and integrated pest management
strategies involving a range of natural enemies (predators
and parasitoids) and fungal-based biopesticides.
Maintenance of collections of insects and their natural
enemies and a repository of micro-organisms with the
potential for use in the control of arthropods.
Hosting the African Bee Health Programme and the
African Reference Laboratory for Bee Health.
International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture
(http://www.iita.org)
Mission: “To offer leading research partnership that
facilitates agricultural solutions to hunger, poverty, and
natural resource degradation throughout sub-Saharan
Africa.”
Maintenance of a reference collection of arthropods and
micro-organisms.
Research on the use of biological control agents in
crop production and in the control of aflatoxins (toxic
substances produced by certain kinds of mould growing
on stored foods).
Lake Chad Basin Commission
(http://www.cblt.org/en)
Mandate: “Sustainable and equitable management
of the Lake Chad waters and other transboundary
water resources of the Lake Chad Basin; Preservation
and protection of ecosystems of the catchment area;
Promotion of integration, and preservation of peace and
security peace in the Conventional Basin.”
The programme Reversal of Land and Water Degradation
Trends in the Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem features actions
targeting the restoration, conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity, including by promoting sustainable
practices in agropastoral, aquatic and forest production
systems and combatting threats such as invasive alien
species, desertification and deforestation.
(Cont.)
390
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
TABLE 8.1 (Cont.)
Selected regional intergovernmental bodies and multilateral partnerships reported by countries
to contribute to initiatives in the management of associated biodiversity
Name of organization
Objectives/mission/mandate
Selected activities addressing associated
biodiversity and ecosystem services
Niger Basin Authority
(http://www.abn.ne/)
Mission: “The NBA is … responsible for promoting
cooperation amongst Member states and contributing
to improve the living conditions of the basin populations
through sustainable management of water resources
and associated ecosystems”
Implementation of various projects and studies
addressing ecosystem management and the protection
of biodiversity.
Senegal River Basin
Development Authority
(http://www.portail-omvs.
org/en)
“The objective [of the authority] … is to implement
an integrated and concerted management program
of water resources and ecosystems for a sustainable
development of the basin.”
Establishment of the Regional Water and Environment
Observatory to monitor biodiversity and other natural
resources in the Fouta-Djallon massif.
Mission: “To strengthen, promote and co-ordinate
regional co-operation for curbing illegal wildlife trade
that threatens the wild flora and fauna of South Asia.”
Activities targeting wildlife in general with a focus
“on policy harmonization; institutional capacity
strengthening through knowledge and intelligence
sharing; and collaboration with regional and
international partners to enhance wildlife law
enforcement in the member countries.”
European Environment
Agency
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/)
Mandate: “To help the Community and member
countries make informed decisions about improving the
environment, integrating environmental considerations
into economic policies and moving towards
sustainability” and “To coordinate the European
environment information and observation network.”
Work on biodiversity data, indicators and assessments,
including on habitats and species associated with crop,
livestock, forest and aquatic production systems.
Forest Europe (The Ministerial
Conference on the Protection
of Forests in Europe)
(http://foresteurope.org/)
Mission: “FOREST EUROPE enhances the cooperation
on forest policies in Europe under the leadership of
ministers, and secures and promotes Sustainable Forest
Management (SFM) with the aim of maintaining the
multiple functions of forests crucial to society.”
Development of guidelines, criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management.
Monitoring and reporting on the state of forests and
forest management.
Work on forest ecosystem services and their valuation.
Work on forest protection and adaptation to climate
change.
Nordic Council of Ministers
(http://www.norden.org/en/
nordic-council-of-ministers)
“The Nordic Council of Ministers is the official body for
Nordic intergovernmental co-operation. Representatives
of the Nordic governments meet at the Council of
Ministers to draft Nordic conventions, etc.”
Promotion of sustainable use of nature and genetic
resources in fisheries and aquaculture, agriculture, food
and forestry.
Asia
South Asia Wildlife
Enforcement Network
(http://www.sawen.org/)
Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean
Caribbean Agricultural
Research and Development
Institute
(http://www.cardi.org)
“To contribute to the sustainable development of
Caribbean people by the generation, transfer and
application of appropriate technologies through
agricultural research for development.”
Work on the identification and use of exotic
coccinellidae (ladybird beetles) as biological control
agents for the pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus
hirsutus).
Caribbean Regional
Fisheries Mechanism
(http://www.crfm.int)
Objectives “(a) the efficient management and
sustainable development of marine and other aquatic
resources within the jurisdictions of Member States;
(b) the promotion and establishment of co-operative
arrangements among interested States for the efficient
management of shared, straddling or highly migratory
marine and other aquatic resources; (c) the provision
of technical advisory and consultative services to
fisheries divisions of Member States in the development,
management and conservation of their marine and
other aquatic resources.”
Regional Coral Reef Plan of Action Plan approved in
2014.
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
391
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
TABLE 8.1 (Cont.)
Selected regional intergovernmental bodies and multilateral partnerships reported by countries
to contribute to initiatives in the management of associated biodiversity
Name of organization
Objectives/mission/mandate
Selected activities addressing associated
biodiversity and ecosystem services
Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture
(http://www.iica.int/en)
Mission: “To encourage, promote and support our
Member States in their efforts to achieve agricultural
development and rural well-being through international
technical cooperation of excellence.”
Priorities for future workshops and capacity-building
activities to promote the use of agrobiodiversity
include the adoption of territorial or landscape
approaches for the integral management and
sustainable use of agrobiodiversity and associated
species.
Tropical Agricultural Research
and Higher Education Center
(https://www.catie.ac.cr/en)
Mission: “Increase sustainable and inclusive human
well-being in Latin America and the Caribbean,
promoting education, research and outreach for
the sustainable management of agriculture and
conservation of natural resources.”
Research, capacity-development and educational
activities supporting sustainable use and conservation
of biodiversity in forest, agricultural and coastal-marine
production systems.
“PERSAGA is … dedicated to the conservation of the
coastal and marine environments found in the Red Sea,
Gulf of Aqaba, Gulf of Suez, Suez Canal, and Gulf
of Aden surrounding the Socotra Archipelago and
nearby waters.”
Monitoring activities, including for mangroves and
coral reefs.
Establishment of marine protected areas.
Actions to protect the marine environment from
land-based activities (coral reefs, mangroves and
seagrass beds among the priorities).
Valuation studies of marine and coastal ecosystems.
Climate change-related actions including vulnerability
assessments for coastal and marine environments
and development of ecosystem-based adaptation
measures.
Pacific Community
(http://www.spc.int/)
Mission: “We work for the well-being of Pacific people
through the effective and innovative application
of science and knowledge, guided by a deep
understanding of Pacific Island contexts and cultures.”
Strategies and programmes that address the sustainable
management of the region’s marine and terrestrial
ecosystems.
Biological Control Laboratory “facilitates and
coordinates biological control programmes for
managing pest problems of the Pacific Island Countries
and Territories.”
Coral Triangle Initiative
(http://www.
coraltriangleinitiative.org/)
“The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs,
Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF) is a multilateral
partnership of six countries working together to sustain
extraordinary marine and coastal resources
by addressing crucial issues such as food security,
climate change and marine biodiversity.”
Goals include: the establishment of marine protected
areas, targeting coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass
beds and a range of other marine and coastal
habitats; improving the status of threatened marine
species; implementation of an ecosystem approach
to management of fisheries; and implementation of
climate change adaptation measures in marine and
coastal environments.
Pacific Organic and Ethical
Trade Community
(http://www.organicpasifika.
com/poetcom)
“Through coordination, information sharing,
networking, capacity building and establishing a
regional certification scheme grow the organic and
ethical trade movement and contribute to a
productive, resilient, sustainable and healthy Pacific
Island region.”
A range of activities promoting organic management
and hence addressing the sustainable use of biodiversity.
Near East and North Africa
Regional Organization for
the Conservation of the
Environment of the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden
(http://www.persga.org/
index.php)
Pacific
Sources: The organizations listed are mentioned in the country reports as examples of international cooperation and/or submitted
reports on their BFA-related activities as contributions to the preparation of The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and
Agriculture. Information on mandates and activities is taken from the country reports or international organization reports and/or from
organization websites (accessed May–June 2017).
392
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Few country reports mention regional NGOs
that specifically target associated biodiversity or
wild foods. One exception is the International
Association for the Protection of the European
Dark Bee,7 mentioned in the report from Poland.
Likewise, only a few reports mention regional
multistakeholder networks that promote collaboration in research or other activities explicitly
related to the management of associated biodiversity and wild foods. Examples include Planta
Europa,8 a network of non-governmental, governmental and scientific organizations undertaking
joint actions to protect species of plants and fungi
in Europe, the Association of Forestry Research
of East Africa and the Asia Pacific Association of
Forestry Research Institutions.9
Collaborative initiatives focusing on associated
biodiversity and wild foods are further discussed
in Section 8.3. Further information on the roles
of regional organizations is provided in the
regional synthesis reports prepared as part of the
SoW-BFA process.10
International organizations
Information on the associated biodiversity-focused
activities of the organizations that submitted
reports as contributions to the SoW-BFA process is
summarized in Table 8.2. Like their regional counterparts, global organizations report a variety of
contributions to the management of associated
biodiversity, ranging from projects targeting the
sustainable use of pollinators or biological control
agents to the management of ex situ collections
and broader efforts promoting the maintenance
of healthy agroecosystems. Again, organizations
whose mandates focus on crops or livestock report
a range of activities related to the management
of domesticated genetic resources and in some
cases wild relatives. Most of these organizations
also mention actions targeting associated biodiversity, although some reports focus entirely on
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
(PGRFA) and their role in the supply of provisioning services. For example, the report from the
International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center11 describes the organization’s work on ex
situ conservation and characterization of its target
species and their wild relatives. The report from
the Global Crop Diversity Trust12 notes that, in collaboration with the Millennium Seed Bank, Kew
(United Kingdom), it is implementing a project
supporting national genebanks in collecting and
conserving crop wild relatives.
The country reports provide limited information
on the roles of international (i.e. global) organizations in the management of associated biodiversity or BFA more generally. Responses referring to collaborative initiatives at this level mainly
relate to international legal instruments to which
reporting countries are parties (see Section 8.8.1
for information on international policy frameworks). Several countries refer to the ongoing
activities of intergovernmental bodies such as
the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture, the Intergovernmental Sciencepolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services,13 UN Environment,14 the International
Whaling Commission15 and the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.16 For
example, Norway mentions the establishment
of the GRID-Arendal Centre 17 to support the
work of the United Nations in the environmental field (mainly through UN Environment). Some
countries mention the roles of international conservation NGOs or NGO networks (e.g. BirdLife
International,18 World Conservation Society19 and
WWF20) that operate or support projects and programmes at country or regional level.
11
12
13
14
15
7
8
9
10
http://www.sicamm.org/
https://www.plantaeuropa.com
http://www.apafri.org/abc.htm
The regional synthesis reports will be made available at
http://www.fao.org/cgrfa/topics/biodiversity/en
16
17
18
19
20
http://www.cimmyt.org
https://www.croptrust.org
http://www.ipbes.net
http://www.unep.org
https://iwc.int/home
http://www.oecd.org
https://www.grida.no
http://www.birdlife.org
https://www.wcs.org
https://www.worldwildlife.org
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
393
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
TABLE 8.2
Examples of associated-biodiversity management activities reported by international organizations
Organization
Component(s) of
associated biodiversity
targeted
M
I
V
Examples of activities targeting associated biodiversity
P
Ex situ conservation: housing a living collection of micro-organisms holding
some 30 000 strains representing over 6 000 species from 142 countries;
providing training and capacity-building to help member countries, in
particular, conserve and utilize biodiversity, especially in establishing microbial
culture collections.
Work on the use of micro-organism and invertebrate biocontrol agents.
Centre for Agriculture and
Biosciences International (CABI)
(http://www.cabi.org)
✓
International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT)
(http://ciat.cgiar.org)
✓
Work on integrated pest management including the use of biological control
agents.
International Center for
Agricultural Research in the
Dry Areas
(http://www.icarda.org)
✓
Ex situ conservation: holds 1 400 strains of rhizobium of food and forage
legumes.
✓
Programme of work on agricultural biodiversity addresses assessments,
adaptive management, capacity building and mainstreaming of all
components of agricultural biodiversity.
Cross-cutting initiatives address, inter alia, the conservation and sustainable
use of soil biodiversity and the conservation and sustainable use of
pollinators.
Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity
(https://www.cbd.int/secretariat)
International Atomic Energy
Agency
(https://www.iaea.org)
✓
✓
✓
✓
Characterization and monitoring projects on rhizobial bacteria.
Research on the use of microbial biotechnology to improve productivity and
the adaptation of legumes to climate change.
Provision of technical advice and training on the use of legumes and
rhizobium strains to maintain the population of essential bacteria in soils.
✓
International Fund for
Agricultural Development
(https://www.ifad.org)
IFOAM – Organics International
(https://www.ifoam.bio)
✓
✓
✓
✓
International Food Policy
Research Institute
(http://www.ifpri.org)
✓
Work on the conservation of biodiversity in forest and grassland production
systems.
✓
Use of biodiversity is a component in all IFOAM projects and programmes.
✓
Research on farmers’ and consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for
biodiversity and ecosystems.
International Rice Research
Institute
(http://irri.org)
✓
✓
✓
✓
Studies on associated biodiversity, including both beneficial organisms
(e.g. for integrated pest management, Azolla as biofertilizer) and other
organisms (vertebrate and invertebrate pests, diseases and weeds).
Ex situ Azolla collection.
International Union for
Conservation of Nature
(https://www.iucn.org)
✓
✓
✓
✓
Management of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Programmes addressing the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
and the supply of ecosystem services in forest, aquatic, grassland and other
production systems.
✓
✓
✓
Campaigns and projects supporting biodiverse food production systems.
Several Slow Food Presidia (local projects that protect traditional products,
traditional processing methods or rural landscape or ecosystem at risk of loss)
worldwide that protect traditional beekeeping.
✓
Monitoring and support for the management of components of biodiversity
that contribute to the supply of ecosystem services, including pollinators.
Promotion of ecosystem and landscape approaches in agricultural-development
planning at national scale.
Provision of advice on policies that affect biodiversity and ecosystem services,
including those that support food and agriculture.
Slow Food
(https://www.slowfood.com)
UN Environment World
Conservation Monitoring Centre
(https://www.unep-wcmc.org)
394
✓
✓
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
TABLE 8.2 (Cont.)
Examples of associated-biodiversity management activities reported by international organizations
Organization
Component(s) of
associated biodiversity
targeted
M
I
V
Examples of activities targeting associated biodiversity
P
Bioversity International*
Work on the contributions of biodiversity in forest and other terrestrial
production systems to the supply of ecosystem services.
World Agroforestry Centre*
Research on the diverse roles that trees play in agricultural landscapes, and
using this to advance policies and practices that benefit the poor and the
environment.
World Bank*
Mainstreaming of climate-smart agriculture, increasingly involving the use of
a landscape approach.
Notes: M = micro-organisms; I = invertebrates; V = vertebrates: P = Plants. The questionnaire invited organizations to tick the categories
of BFA on which they work. The organizations marked with an asterisk (*) did not specify any categories of associated biodiversity, but
nonetheless mentioned relevant activities.
Sources: International organization reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, supplemented
in some cases by information from organization websites.
8.3 Cooperation
• A wide range of national-level multistakeholder
initiatives contribute to the sustainable management
of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA).
Strengthening cooperation in this field, however,
remains a priority.
• While numerous regional and international
collaborative initiatives target the sustainable use
and conservation of crop, livestock, forest and aquatic
genetic resources, far fewer such initiatives specifically
target the management of associated biodiversity
(species such as pollinators, soil organisms and pest
natural enemies found in and around production
systems) or its role in providing ecosystem services to
food and agriculture.
• Cooperation across the sectors of food and agriculture
in the management of BFA often needs to be
improved, as does cooperation between the food
and agriculture sector and the environment/nature
conservation sector.
• Priorities for enhancing cooperation in the
management of BFA include:
– improving mechanisms for information-sharing
between stakeholders; and
– strengthening participatory decision-making
processes, including to ensure the involvement of
small-scale producers and women.
As well as involving a diverse range of stakeholders,
the management of BFA spans the conventional
boundaries between the sectors of food and agriculture and those between food and agriculture
and nature conservation. Moreover, strengthening
the sustainable use and conservation of BFA often
requires actions on a large geographical scale (e.g.
across watersheds or along migration routes) and
involving a wide range of different stakeholders.
The distributional ranges of associated biodiversity species often cross national boundaries. Some
categories such as invertebrate biological control
agents (Cock et al., 2009) are exchanged internationally. Global challenges such as climate change
and emerging disease threats require global
responses. Countries are interdependent in their
use of genetic resources in the crop, livestock,
fishing, aquaculture and forest sectors (Bartley et
al., 2009; FAO, forthcoming, 2009c, 2010a, 2014a,
2015a; Koskela et al., 2009). For all these reasons,
multistakeholder and international cooperation in
BFA management is vital. This section presents an
overview of cooperative activities, drawing largely
on the country reports, reports submitted by international organizations and the published or forthcoming global assessments of genetic resources
in the crop, livestock, forest and aquatic sectors
(FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
395
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
8.3.1 Cooperation at national level
The country reports suggest that BFA is rarely
singled out as a distinct and well-defined target
for collaborative activities. However, they describe
a range of multistakeholder initiatives that focus
on particular aspects of BFA management or that
include BFA management under broader umbrellas. Examples include committees and councils
addressing ecosystem services, climate change,
genetically modified organisms, invasive alien
species, organic agriculture, access and benefitsharing and the financing of biodiversity-related
programmes. Several countries report that
national policies, plans and strategies in fields
such as these have been developed through
multistakeholder consultative processes. In some
Box 8.7
The Norwegian Genetic Resource Centre
and its genetic resources committees
The Norwegian Genetic Resource Centre was established
by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to monitor
plant, forest and animal genetic resources for food and
agriculture, promote their conservation and use, facilitate
access to them and increase knowledge and awareness
on their management. Having a single centre working
on a large share of the country’s genetic resources for
food and agriculture puts Norway in a strong position
to identify and take advantage of the synergies between
sectors and to weigh trade-offs, of which there are few.
The centre organizes regular and ad hoc meetings during
which its sectoral committees on animal, plant and forest
genetic resources, both jointly and separately, discuss and
provide advice on, inter alia, the centre’s strategic and
action plans and national policies of relevance to genetic
resources for food and agriculture (e.g. environmentrelated policies). Joint meetings of the three genetic
resource committees have led to interesting exchanges of
knowledge and expertise across sectors on issues such as
the characterization of genetic resources, in situ and ex
situ conservation, and the development of indicators.
Source: Country report of Norway.
396
cases, efforts are being made to mainstream biodiversity into broader efforts to develop rural
areas or the national economy more broadly.
Ethiopia, for example, notes that the country’s
Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy provides an important mechanism for mainstreaming biodiversity into the agriculture, forest,
power and transport sectors. Some countries
report multistakeholder initiatives aimed at
improving the integration of BFA-related issues
into their NBSAPs or strengthening coordination
in the implementation of these instruments more
generally. Even where no permanent collaborative bodies or frameworks have been set up,
multistakeholder collaboration is often reported
to occur at project level or between individual
institutions such as universities and research
centres. Many countries, however, note that
there are still considerable gaps and weaknesses
in terms of cooperation between research institutes and between them and other stakeholders
(see Section 8.5).
Some countries report that they are making
efforts to promote a more cross-sectoral approach
to research. For example, Finland notes that three
major sectoral institutions in applied research, the
Game and Fisheries Research Institute, the Finnish
Forest Research Institute and Agrifood Research
Finland, are being merged into one body, with the
aim of strengthening collaboration in research on
(inter alia) BFA, including associated biodiversity
and wild foods, and improving the cost-efficiency
of research.
National multistakeholder bodies addressing
the management of genetic resources are increasingly being established in the crop, livestock and
forest sectors. However, they are still absent in
many countries. For example, out of 129 countries
that submitted country reports for The Second
Report on the State of the World’s Animal
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(FAO, 2015a), 78 indicated that in 2014 they had
a national advisory committee for animal genetic
resources in place. Cross-sectoral cooperation
in the management of genetic resources (i.e.
between the crop, livestock, forest and aquatic
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.8
France’s Agricultural Biodiversity Observatory
The Agricultural Biodiversity Observatory (ABO) was
established in 2009 as a participatory science programme
for farmers in all types of production system. The ABO’s two
main objectives are (i) to populate a scientific database that
can be used, inter alia, to develop biodiversity indicators
for agricultural environments and to identify links between
biodiversity and farming practices and (ii) to raise awareness
of links between biodiversity and farming practices among
stakeholders, particularly among farmers, and help them
evaluate their practices.
The ABO was established by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Agrifood and Forestry within the framework of France’s
National Biodiversity Strategy. It builds on the National
Museum of Natural History’s participatory science
programme “Vigie-Nature”. It is coordinated nationally
by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Museum of Natural
History and the Permanent Assembly of Chambers of
Agriculture, in collaboration with the University of Rennes.
At local level, various facilitators, including members of
agricultural associations or chambers of agriculture, provide
support to farmer volunteers in the implementation of
the following four observation protocols (all of which are
environmentally friendly):
(a) counting and characterization of butterflies;
(b) observation of pollinator nesting sites;
(c) use of identification tools for the observation of
terrestrial invertebrates; and
(d) observation of earthworms.
sectors) is often limited. Some country reports,21
however, mention national strategies, plans or
policies that address genetic resources management in multiple sectors, national bodies (e.g.
committees, research centres or networks) that
coordinate work across sectors (see Box 8.7 for
example) or (less frequently) specific cross-sectoral
initiatives such as joint marketing campaigns for
21
Reports submitted for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for
Food and Agriculture and those submitted for previous global
assessments of genetic resources.
Farmers are also encouraged to monitor their farming
practices and to reflect on linkages between these practices
and associated biodiversity.
The ABO publishes its results annually. It has not yet (as
of 2017) been possible to draw any firm conclusions about
trends in the status of agricultural biodiversity. However,
it has been possible to develop indicators based on the
data gathered, which will be added to the indicators of the
National Observatory for Biodiversity.1
The impact of the ABO extends far beyond the farmers
directly involved and plays a key role in raising awareness
of associated biodiversity and related issues. For example,
in 2016, several national-level professional agricultural
organizations committed themselves to long-term
involvement in the National Strategy for Biodiversity. They also
indicated that they wanted to see the further development of
the ABO and encouraged farmers to get involved.
In conclusion, the experience of establishing the ABO
has shown that ensuring regular and coherent stakeholder
participation requires time. However, it has also shown
that such a programme can really raise awareness in
the agricultural community and stimulate the active
commitment of actors in this sector.
Source: Provided by Patricia Larbouret, Christophe Pinard and Pierre Velge.
1
http://indicateurs-biodiversite.naturefrance.fr
products from locally adapted livestock and crops.
Within each sector, there are numerous examples
of projects and programmes that involve a range
of stakeholders (FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a,
2015a). Many countries, however, consider that
mechanisms for involving stakeholders, in particular small-scale producers and women, in the
planning and implementation of management
activities remain inadequate (ibid.).
Where associated biodiversity is concerned,
any projects or programmes that aim to promote
biodiversity-friendly management practices in
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
397
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
food and agricultural production systems are likely
to involve a degree of collaboration between
producers and/or between them and other stakeholders such as public-sector bodies or NGOs. In
many cases, this will involve collaboration between
stakeholders with “production” interests and those
with “nature conservation” interests. The country
reports provide numerous examples (see Section 8.7
and Chapters 5 and 7). The importance of participatory, multistakeholder approaches is again widely
noted. Finland, for instance, reports that many
projects in which environmental authorities, NGOs,
advisers and land-users have cooperated from the
beginning have produced impressive results. Ireland
notes in this context that various management
measures favourable to associated biodiversity are
being promoted via the participation of farmers in
agri-environmental schemes, i.e. incentive schemes
operated by the public sector within the framework
Box 8.9
The Regional Project for Sustainable
Management of Globally Significant Endemic
Ruminant Livestock (PROGEBE)
Trypanotolerant Ndama cattle and Djallonké sheep and
goats are under threat because of habitat degradation
caused by deforestation and abusive logging, and
because of agricultural policies that promote the
intensification of production and the introduction of
exotic breeds.
The Regional Project for Sustainable Management
of Globally Significant Endemic Ruminant Livestock
(commonly referred to using the French acronym
PROGEBE) took action to improve the management of
natural resources and endemic livestock breeds and
their products in several West African countries.
Land-use plans were discussed and validated by rural
communities, and rules for the use of natural resources
in target areas were established. Action was also taken
in the fields of animal health and nutrition, access to
water and access to markets.
Sources: Adapted from the country reports of Guinea, Mali and Senegal.
398
of European Union legislation (see Section 8.7).
Generally, however, the country reports provide
little indication that producers or other local stakeholders are heavily involved in planning or prioritizing conservation and management activities for
associated biodiversity or that there is much collaboration in this field among producers’ or community-based organizations.
Some country reports describe initiatives that
involve producers or the general public in monitoring particular categories of associated diversity.
For example, France mentions the Agricultural
Observatory of Biodiversity, a Ministry of
Agriculture initiative that involves stakeholders,
particularly farmers, in monitoring agricultural
biodiversity and investigating the links between
biodiversity and agricultural practices (Box 8.8).
Grenada notes that its Ministry of Agriculture,
Lands, Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
has established voluntary linkages with research
institutions, NGOs and stakeholder groups, which
work in collaboration to share primary data that
inform the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity in marine and coastal environments
that support important fisheries.
Collaborative awareness-raising, education or
training initiatives related to associated biodiversity
are not widely mentioned in the country reports.
One exception is the initiative mentioned in Box 8.5
led by the Jordan Beekeepers’ Union in collaboration with national and international partners.
8.3.2 Cooperation at international level
As discussed in Section 8.2.6, BFA management is
addressed in a number of global policy and legal
instruments and by a number of international
organizations. As well as supporting and regulating
activities at national level, this international institutional framework serves to promote wider and more
effective global, regional and bilateral cooperation.
Many country reports provide information on
international collaborative activities in BFA management (e.g. Box 8.9). As at national level, many
of these activities target broader areas of natural
resources, biodiversity or environmental management rather than BFA as a distinct category.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.10
Appointment of national focal points and participation in the preparation of
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture
Over recent years and decades, FAO has invited countries
to establish national focal points to be responsible for
coordinating reporting activities for the various global
assessments of genetic resources and biodiversity prepared
under the auspices of the Commission on Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture. To varying degrees, these
national focal points have taken on a broader role in their
respective sectors in terms of coordinating genetic resources
management activities at national level, promoting regional
and international collaboration in this field and serving as
permanent points of contact with FAO.
In the case of the The State of the World’s Biodiversity
for Food and Agriculture, 135 countries have nominated a
national focal point1 and 92 officially submitted a country
report2 (see map below). A full list of reporting countries can
be found in the “About this publication” section among the
preliminary pages of the report.
1
2
As of October 2018.
Selected information from the country report of Japan, submitted in 2018,
is presented.
National focal points and country reporting for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture
NFP nominated and
country report submitted
NFP not nominated and
country report submitted
Examples include the joint management of transboundary habitats and wildlife corridors, ex situ
conservation networks for particular species, cooperation in combating wildlife crime, illegal logging
and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing,
certification schemes for sustainable practices and
joint research projects, programmes and networks.
In the crop, livestock, forest and aquatic sectors
a number of regional and international networks
contribute to the sustainable use, development
and conservation of genetic resources (FAO,
NFP nominated and
country report not submitted
NFP not nominated and
country report not submitted
forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a). Some are dedicated to genetic resources management, broadly
defined, across the whole of the respective sector,22
while others address specific species or specific
aspects of management. Numerous international
22
Bodies of this type are probably most active in Europe, home
to the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic
Resources (http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org), the European Forest
Genetic Resources Programme (http://www.euforgen.org)
and the European Regional Focal Point for Animal Genetic
Resources (https://www.rfp-europe.org).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
399
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.11
Transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa
Several transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs)
have been established by the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) supported by the
non-profit Peace Parks Foundation.1 The objective is to
develop a functional and integrated network of transfrontier
areas where shared natural resources are sustainably
co-managed and conserved to foster socio-economic
development for the benefit of local people. The programme
includes actions aimed at enhancing local livelihoods,
for instance by promoting tourism, and reducing the
vulnerability of ecosystems and people to the effects of
climate change.
The Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area, for
instance, is a TFCA established in 2014 and co-managed
by Eswatini, Mozambique and South Africa. It links
the Lubombo Mountains to the coastal wetlands and
incorporates various nature and game reserves, forest
parks and other conservation sanctuaries, thus forming a
continuous corridor of protected natural resources.
The area covers 10 029 km2 and includes four distinct TFCAs
governmental and non-governmental organizations and fora contribute to collaborative activities in genetic resources management at global
and regional levels. FAO coordinates global networks of government-nominated national focal
points for genetic resources in the various sectors
of food and agriculture (Box 8.10).
Relatively few country reports provide details
of international or regional collaborative activities
involving partners that specifically target components of associated biodiversity or their roles in the
provision of ecosystem services to food and agriculture. Burkina Faso notes the country’s involvement with the African Reference Laboratory for
Bee Health23 and the African Bee Health Project.24
The reference laboratory, an initiative of the
International Centre of Insect Physiology and
23
24
http://bees.icipe.org/index.php
http://bees.icipe.org/index.php/project/programme-objectives
400
and five wetlands listed in the Ramsar Convention’s List of
Wetlands of International Importance.
The Lubombo TFCA’s core objectives are to ensure that
natural resources are utilized in a sustainable manner and
to promote the development of transboundary ecotourism.
Communities that have allocated their land for conservation
and natural-resource management benefit from outreach
programmes that contribute to income generation,
for example by initiating beekeeping and chilli-pepper
production or supporting the maintenance of community
ecolodges, campsites and trail networks. Other projects
include the implementation of permaculture, climate-smart
agriculture and conservation agriculture. The spread of
beekeeping through the community outreach programmes
has reportedly led to a decline in poaching and illegal honey
harvesting in the nature reserves.
Sources: Adapted from the country reports of Angola, Eswatini and
Zimbabwe. Additional information provided by Thembinkosi Gumedze.
1
http://www.peaceparks.org/
Ecology and the African Union Interafrican Bureau
for Animal Resources, supported by the European
Union, is in Nairobi, Kenya, and has satellite stations in Cameroon, Ethiopia and Liberia, as well
as in Burkina Faso. Jamaica mentions C-Fish (the
Caribbean Fish Sanctuary Partnership Initiative), a
project established by the not-for-profit CARIBSAVE
Partnership, which aims to strengthen communitybased fish sanctuaries and marine protected areas
in five countries across the Caribbean. A number of
African countries provide information on transfrontier conservation areas (Box 8.11). Further examples
of cooperation in specific fields of BFA management
can be found in Chapters 5 and 7.
Many of the reports submitted by international
organizations as contributions to the SoW-BFA
process25 mention a range of global and regional
25
See Section 8.2 and the “About this publication” section
among the preliminary pages.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
cooperation initiatives in fields such as research
and education on BFA, largely with a focus on crop
and to a lesser extent livestock genetic resources.26
For example, the World Agroforestry Centre notes
its role as a primary partner in the African Orphan
Crop Consortium Initiative, which aims to enhance
research on neglected species. The International
Atomic Energy Agency mentions a regional
project operated in conjunction with FAO that is
aiming to improve the resistance of indigenous
sheep breeds in Latin America to gastro-intestinal
parasites. Some international organizations
mention that they are involved in coordinating
regional or global genetic resources networks that
aim to share knowledge and ensure the long-term
conservation of PGRFA.
Several international organizations mention
that they contribute to programmes that assist
countries in the development of information
systems related to BFA. The CGIAR27 research
centres play an important role in coordinating
activities related to BFA, in particular through
the Genebank Platform,28 a partnership between
the eleven CGIAR genebanks and the Crop Trust.
The Platform provides support to national,
regional and international genebanks in the area
of data management, for instance through the
GRIN-Global29 genebank database management
system, and Genesys,30 a global portal for access to
information on PGRFA accessions. The Centre for
Agriculture and Biosciences International reports
that it hosts the secretariat of the Global Open
Data for Agriculture and Nutrition31 initiative,
which seeks to support global efforts to make
agricultural and nutritionally relevant data accessible for use in improving global food security and
human health.
26
27
28
29
30
31
Few examples related to associated biodiversity are reported.
Some exceptions (e.g. the African Reference Laboratory for
Bee Health and African Bee Health Programme) are listed in
Table 8.1.
Originally an abbreviation of Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research: https://www.cgiar.org
https://www.genebanks.org/
https://www.grin-global.org/
https://www.genesys-pgr.org/content/about/about
http://www.godan.info/
A number of organizations indicate that they
are collaborating on BFA-related policy development. For example, the Inter-American Institute
for Cooperation on Agriculture, the Tropical
Agricultural Research and Higher Education
Center and Bioversity International cooperated
with technical representatives from Mexico and all
the countries of Central America to develop the
Strategic Action Plan to Strengthen Conservation
and Use of Mesoamerican Plant Genetic Resources
in Adapting to Climate Change 2014–2024, a
roadmap for regional collaboration and cooperation on conservation and use of, and access to,
PGRFA. The Secretariat of the CBD reports its participation in BFA-related cooperative initiatives such
as the Liaison Group of the Biodiversity-related
Conventions, 32 the Collaborative Partnership
on Forests,33 the Inter-Agency Liaison Group
on Invasive Alien Species34 and the Sustainable
Ocean Initiative.35
In its work on crop and livestock production,
forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, FAO collaborates with countries, regions and other partners in
promoting the use and conservation of BFA in the
context of sustainable development. For example,
FAO in collaboration with the Secretariat of the
CBD has prepared technical guides for mainstreaming ecosystem services into agricultural production
and management in East Africa and in the Pacific
Islands (FAO and CBD, 2016; FAO et al., 2016). In
collaboration with the International Network of
Food Data Systems (INFOODS), it developed the
FAO/INFOODS food composition database36 (see
Section 6.4). It is a major partner in the implementation of the CBD and, in collaboration with other
partners such as the United Nations Environment
Programme, the United Nations Development
Programme and the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, contributes
to the implementation of the CBD’s Strategic Plan
32
33
34
35
36
https://www.cbd.int/blg/
http://www.cpfweb.org/en/
https://www.cbd.int/invasive/lg
https://www.cbd.int/soi/
http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/tables-and-databases/
faoinfoods-databases/en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
401
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.12
Resolution 4/2017. The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
and its contribution to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
In 2017, the Fortieth FAO Conference adopted the following
resolution on the contribution of the Commission to the
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
THE CONFERENCE,
Having considered the report of the Sixteenth Regular
Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (Commission);
Stressing the important linkages between biodiversity
for food and agriculture and relevant global instruments
and frameworks, especially the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, the Paris Agreement and the Addis Ababa
Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on
Financing for Development;
Recognizing the important work of the Commission in
the preparation of reports on the state of the world’s plant,
animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources for food and
agriculture and their respective follow-up processes;
Further recognizing the importance of the
Commission’s Global Plans of Action as frameworks for
national action to enhance the management of plant,
animal, and forest genetic resources for food and agriculture
at national, regional and global levels;
Welcoming the preparation of the report on The State
of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture and
its follow-up;
Acknowledging the important work of the Commission
in the development of targets and indicators on genetic
resources for food and agriculture in the context of the
implementation of the Commission’s Global Plans of Action;
Further acknowledging the competence of the
Commission and FAO technical capacity in the field of
genetic resources for food and agriculture, and therefore
recognizing the Commission as an important partner in
efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), particularly Target 2.5, related to genetic diversity;
Finally recalling the role genetic resources for food
and agriculture can play for climate change adaptation and
mitigation;
Invites Members to:
• Include the implementation of the Commission’s
402
Global Plans of Action, as appropriate, among their
priorities in their national efforts to achieve SDG 2,
particularly Target 2.5, as well as other relevant SDGs;
• Consider developing funding proposals on genetic
resources for food and agriculture, consistent with
their national priorities, as appropriate, when seeking
funding from various sources, including the Green
Climate Fund, Global Environment Facility (GEF),
Horizon 2020 and other funding mechanisms and
modalities; and
• Mainstream biodiversity for food and agriculture into
policies, programmes and national and regional plans
of action on agriculture, climate change, food security
and nutrition and other relevant sectors.
Requests the Organization to:
• Continue to pursue extra-budgetary funds, including
from the private sector, as appropriate, to support the
implementation of the Commission’s Global Plans of
Action, and to encourage donors to provide support
to their implementation as part of the global effort to
achieve the SDGs, particularly Target 2.5 on genetic
diversity;
• Further integrate genetic resources for food and
agriculture and biodiversity for food and agriculture
into its Strategic Framework in order to reflect
their contributions to ending hunger, achieving
food security, improving nutrition and promoting
sustainable agriculture;
• Support capacity-development efforts with regard to
the conservation and the sustainable use of genetic
resources for food and agriculture in developing
countries, including through South–South and
triangular cooperation;
• Support its Members in the development and
implementation of country-led, regional or
international projects on genetic resources for food
and agriculture, including with resources from the
Green Climate Fund, GEF and other sources and
funding mechanisms, including from the private sector,
as appropriate;
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.12 (Cont.)
Resolution 4/2017. The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
and its contribution to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
• Mainstream biodiversity through the promotion
of ecosystem services provided by agriculture,
agro-ecological practices and sustainable use of
biodiversity for food and agriculture in its programmes
and projects; and
• Encourage synergies between relevant stakeholders
whose work contributes to achieving the SDGs related
to food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture
and biodiversity.
(Adopted on 7 July 2017)
for Biodiversity37 and its Aichi Targets. FAO hosts
the secretariats of the Collaborative Partnership
on Sustainable Wildlife Management 38 and
the Global Soil Partnership39 and coordinates
the action plan of the International Pollinator
Initiative. 40 The Biodiversity Mainstreaming
Platform41 was established in 2017 with the aim
of building bridges between sectors, identifying
synergies, aligning goals and developing integrated cross-sectoral approaches to mainstreaming biodiversity in the agriculture, forest and fisheries sectors. The Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage Programme42 aims, in collaboration with
a range of stakeholders, to identify and safeguard
outstanding landscapes of aesthetic beauty that
combine agricultural biodiversity, resilient ecosystems and valuable cultural heritage (FAO, 2018c)
(see Box 7.19). FAO also hosts the Secretariats
of the Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture,43 the International Plant
Protection Convention44 and the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture45 (see Section 8.8.1). Examples at
regional level include the project “Strengthening
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
https://www.cbd.int/sp
http://www.fao.org/forestry/wildlife-partnership/en
http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en
http://www.fao.org/pollination/en/
http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/multi-stakeholderdialogue-on-biodiversity/about-the-platform/en en
http://www.fao.org/giahs/en
http://www.fao.org/cgrfa/en
https://www.ippc.int/en
http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en
agro-environmental policies in countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean through dialogue and
exchange of national experiences”46 conducted
under the Brazil–FAO Program for International
Cooperation.47 As discussed in Chapter 1, FAO
is “custodian” agency for several Sustainable
Development Goal indicators that are directly
relevant to the sustainable use and conservation
of BFA. In 2017, the FAO Conference adopted a
resolution recognizing the important role of the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture in efforts to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals, particularly Target 2.5,
related to genetic diversity (see Box 8.12).
8.3.3 Needs and priorities
Improving cooperation among stakeholders is
widely recognized in the country reports as an
important priority. Some countries particularly
emphasize the need to enhance synergies between
the food and agriculture and environment sectors.
Where constraints are noted, they often relate to
a lack of mechanisms for exchanging information (e.g. among research institutions or between
research institutions and policy-makers, development practitioners or producers) or a lack of
participatory decision-making processes. Specific
options mentioned include establishing incentives that recognize and reward the engagement
46
47
http://www.fao.org/in-action/program-brazil-fao/projects/
agro-environmental-policies/en
http://www.fao.org/in-action/program-brazil-fao/en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
403
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
of university researchers in decision-making processes. As discussed in Section 8.2, the need to
strengthen mechanisms for involving small-scale
producers, and women in particular, in decision-making, including their participation in multistakeholder bodies in the field of BFA management, is widely noted.
Some countries mention the need to pay greater
attention to the specific capacities (strengths
and weaknesses) of individual institutions when
planning BFA-related collaborative initiatives.
Some also note the need to overcome financial
constraints to collaboration, although greater
cooperation between sectors (e.g. agriculture and
environment) is also seen as a way of increasing
efficiency or as a means of securing resources for
BFA-related work from biodiversity budgets that
are channelled through the environment sector.
Finally, the need for training and awareness
raising on the organization of collaborative initiatives is mentioned in some reports.
8.4 Education, training
and awareness raising
• Although education and training, at all levels, are
widely recognized as key means of promoting the
sustainable management of biodiversity for food and
agriculture (BFA), gaps in provision remain widespread,
particularly with regard to associated biodiversity
(species such pollinators, soil organisms and pest natural
enemies found in and around production systems).
• Priorities for improving the state of education and
training on BFA include:
– better integrating biodiversity issues into educational
courses on food and agriculture and other aspects of
land and water use so as to promote interdisciplinary
skills among practitioners;
– expanding the provision of training for producers
on the sustainable use of BFA, including via farmer
field schools, farmer group extension programmes or
community-based organizations; and
– strengthening awareness-raising efforts among
policy-makers and the general public on the
importance of BFA.
404
Lack of knowledge and shortages of well-trained
personnel can seriously constrain the sustainable
management of BFA. Improving the skills and
knowledge of scientists and technicians, development workers, NGOs, producers and policy-makers
is thus essential. It is also vital that educational
and training programmes are accessible to – and
address the needs of – all relevant stakeholders, for
example that they do not exclude women (Agarwal,
2015; FAO, 2011e). This section presents an overview of the state of BFA-related education and
training programmes, beginning with short subsections on measures addressing plant, animal, forest
and aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture (drawing on the respective global assessments)
and then looking in more detail at education and
training related to associated biodiversity.
8.4.1 Plant, animal, forest and
aquatic genetic resources for
food and agriculture
Plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture
The Second Report on the State of the World’s
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(FAO, 2010a)48 states that the years preceding its
publication saw a number of improvements in the
state of education and training on PGRFA-related
topics, including an expansion of opportunities for
collaboration at regional and international levels.
Donor-funded research projects with humanresources components played a significant role.
More short-term informal courses and MSc and
PhD programmes were being offered by universities, and training materials and laboratory facilities for training had been improved in a number
of countries, incorporating recent advances in biotechnology and in information and communication
technologies. However, there was still a need to
strengthen capacity in education and training to
meet expanding demand for well-trained professionals and to upgrade the skills and expertise of
48
Unless otherwise indicated the information in this subsection is
based on this source.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
current personnel, including on the in situ and ex
situ management of crop wild relatives and wildfood plants and their use in base broadening and
genetic improvement. Most national programmes
concerned with on-farm management of PGRFA
were aiming to build both their own professional
capacity and that of the farmers they were working
with. Despite these generally positive developments, training and education capacity remained
limited in some parts of the world, particularly
in Africa. Many NGOs and development agencies
lacked sufficient qualified personnel to impart the
training needed by farming communities.
With regard to the period after 2010, the report
assessing the implementation of the Second
Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture for the period 2012 to
2014 (FAO, 2016m) refers to a number of further
positive developments, noting for example that
capacity-building over the past ten years
or so has improved, resulting in stronger
collaboration in training among national,
regional and international organizations.
Training courses are more frequent and new
training materials and facilities have been
developed. Higher education opportunities
have also expanded and there are now
more universities offering a wider range of
courses in areas related to PGRFA, especially
in the application of biotechnology to
conservation and crop improvement.
Figures reported by countries on the upgrading
of the skills of scientific staff through formal education and ad hoc in-service training are also considered encouraging. The report notes, however,
that “human-resource capacity is still far from
being adequate at virtually all levels and in all disciplines related to PGRFA conservation and use.”
Animal genetic resources for food
and agriculture
According to The Second Report on the State of
the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (FAO, 2015a)49 weaknesses in
49
The information in this subsection is based on this source.
education on animal breeding and other aspects
of the management of animal genetic resources
for food and agriculture (AnGR) remain widespread, particularly in the developing regions of
the world. Country reports50 indicated that educational programmes devoted to AnGR management as a distinct topic were not common and
were restricted largely to Europe. Major gaps
were also reported in training and technical
support programmes for the breeding (geneticimprovement) activities of livestock-keeping
communities, although many countries reported
that progress had been made in this field.
Training and awareness-raising activities were
relatively widely reported elements of conservation programmes, although countries indicated
that there was still much scope for improvement
in this regard.
Forest genetic resources
The State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources
(FAO, 2014a)51 indicates that although forestry is
widely taught in universities around the world,
forest genetic resources (FGR) management is
rarely recognized as a distinct discipline. In many
cases, issues such as FGR conservation, tree breeding and management of non-wood forest products are inadequately covered. Worldwide, there
has been a decline in enrolment in forestry education programmes and many universities have
had to revise and repackage their courses in
order to attract students. Most countries do not
have specific programmes dedicated to raising
public awareness of FGR and the significance of
their conservation and sustainable use. However,
awareness-raising activities are undertaken by a
range of different stakeholder groups, including
governments, botanical gardens, small woodlot
partnership programmes, environmental NGOs
and forest or tree-specific conservation groups.
In some countries, provincial or central forestry authorities organize FGR-related training
50
51
This refers to the country reports prepared for The Second
Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2015a).
The information in this subsection is based on this source.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
405
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
workshops. Training on relevant laws, regulations
and policies has increased understanding of the
importance of FGR and helped to promote their
protection and sustainable use.
Aquatic genetic resources for food
and agriculture
The forthcoming report on The State of Aquatic
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
for Food and Aquaculture (FAO, forthcoming)
states that all reporting countries indicate the
presence of at least one institution involved in
education and training in the field of aquatic
genetic resources for food and agriculture (AqGR).
General AqGR management is the most frequently
reported topic for training courses, followed by
characterization and monitoring, conservation,
genetic improvement and economic valuation.
Countries, on average, rank increasing the technical capacities (human resources and equipment/
facilities) of institutions as their top priority for
improving education and training in this sector,
noting that this requires (inter alia) infrastructural
improvements such as the installation of modern
equipment and facilities for genetic research.
Other priorities include raising awareness of the
importance of AqGR and improving information
sharing between institutions.
8.4.2 Associated biodiversity
Associated biodiversity and its management fall
within the scope of a wide range of academic disciplines. Many country reports mention the relevance of higher-education courses in sciences such
as biology, ecology, zoology, entomology, botany,
evolutionary biology, microbiology, genetics, biochemistry, soil science and oceanography and those
on more applied topics such as agriculture, agronomy, horticulture, plant breeding, forestry, agroforestry, animal science, veterinary medicine, rangeland management, seed science, food science,
fisheries and aquaculture. Some countries mention
courses focusing on land use and the management
of natural resources such as water and watersheds,
on biodiversity and wildlife management, on rural
development and on topics such as climate change
406
and disaster risk reduction. Some countries, mostly
in Europe, mention course titles that emphasize
sustainability or that combine agricultural with
environmental elements. A few mention courses
on agroecology. Few countries mention courses
that specifically focus on the use and conservation
of biodiversity or genetic resources in the context
of food and agriculture or that explicitly address
particular components of associated biodiversity.
Exceptions include Costa Rica, which mentions
courses on agrobiodiversity and food security and
on the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity, as
well as a course on tropical apiculture.
Many country reports provide information
on extension and training activities for farmers
and other producers. Some mention the roles
of farmer field schools, farmer group extension
programmes or community-based organizations.
Some refer specifically to training on the importance of associated biodiversity. The report from
Bangladesh, for example, mentions farmer field
schools that provide training on integrated pest
management and on the need to maintain soil
biodiversity. Experiences with farmer field schools
on integrated pest management in Nepal are
described in Box 8.13. As illustrated in Box 8.14
this approach, which emerged in Southeast Asia
in the late 1980s with an initial focus on integrated pest management methods in rice production, has spread to many parts of the world
and been applied to an expanding range of management practices and production systems. Some
countries mention participatory workshops with
farmers (see Box 8.15 for example). A number
refer to training activities that while not explicitly focused on associated biodiversity address
related topics such as the sustainable management of soils. Several mention training on wildlife-friendly or environmentally friendly farming
or on organic production.
The country reports also provide information
on training activities for a range of other stakeholders working in agriculture, fisheries, forestry
and other fields related to food and agriculture,
as well as for those working in wildlife conservation. Explicit references to training on the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
use and conservation of associated biodiversity
are not frequent. The Netherlands mentions
that under the European Union’s Local Skills for
Biodiversity Project, training materials on the
use of an ecosystem approach in local planning
have been developed for the staff of local and
regional administrations, in particular planners,
and that within the framework of this project
training workshops have been conducted in the
Netherlands and in several other countries. It
further notes that “Biodiversity in Action” training events are organized for local organizations
and government officials and that the country’s
Louis Bolk Institute52 offers training for farmers,
policy-makers and commercial businesses on
topics such as sustainable soil management.
Where surveying and monitoring is concerned,
Ireland notes that its National Biodiversity Data
Centre53 runs an extensive annual programme
of training and identification workshops, many
of which are run in conjunction with national
organizations, to help build capacity in biological
recording. Over 20 workshops covering a range
of taxonomic groups are held each year. Specific
workshops on monitoring and the identification
of bumblebees and butterflies are provided as
part of the centre’s national monitoring schemes
for these groups of insects.
A number of countries report initiatives that
raise awareness among the wider public on issues
related to BFA. For example the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic’s National Agro-Biodiversity
Programme and Action Plan II54 mentions that
under the Agro-Biodiversity Initiative, a longterm project that aims to conserve, enhance
and manage biodiversity found in agricultural
systems, village school agrobiodiversity programmes have been successfully promoted in
the country’s Xieng Khouang and Luang Prabang
provinces and have led to the development of
small gardens, arboreta and herbaria in some
schools. It further notes that an agrobiodiversity
52
53
54
http://www.louisbolk.org
http://www.biodiversityireland.ie
This document was submitted as a country report.
curriculum has been developed by Xieng
Khouang Education Department and approved
for use throughout the province and for future
implementation in other provinces.
Box 8.13
Farmer field schools on integrated pest
management – experiences from Nepal
Nepal introduced farmer field schools on integrated
pest management (IPM-FFS) in 1998 in response to an
outbreak of the rice pest Nilaparvata lugens (brown
planthopper) that had occurred the previous year in the
Chitwan district. The approach has since been modified
and applied in other production systems (vegetables,
cotton, potato, maize, tea and coffee) and to address other
aspects of management. Farmer field schools now operate
in all the 75 districts of Nepal.
Studies have found that most IPM-FFS-trained farmers
change their cultivation practices, for example adopting
improved seeds, using a mixture of organic and inorganic
fertilizers, reducing the use of chemical pesticides,
introducing crop rotations, improving the timing of
irrigation or fertilizer application, or introducing the use
of biopesticides. Farmers become more knowledgeable
about the negative effects of pesticides on beneficial
organisms within the agroecosystem.
Many farmers who have participated in IPM-FFS
have improved their incomes. Many also state that they
feel more empowered and that they have developed
leadership capacity. The IPM-FFS involve farmers in
regular discussions, discovery-based learning and
making presentations. These activities help to develop
self-confidence and improve decision-making abilities.
Many participants have joined local farmer groups and
cooperatives. Women farmers report that their selfconfidence has greatly increased. Women have become
active in the planning, implementation and management
of local development programmes. These changes have
transformed the role of rural women within the household
and helped to reduce a number of social problems.
Source: Adapted from the country report of Nepal.
Note: For further information, see Jha (2008), Bhandari (2012) and
Esser et al. (2012).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
407
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.14
The farmer field school approach
The farmer field school approach aims to empower
smallholder farmers through practical learning. It was
developed by FAO and partners in Southeast Asia in the
late 1980s as a participatory alternative to the prevailing
top-down extension method of the Green Revolution. The
initial focus was on integrated pest management methods
introduced in response to the need to tackle pest outbreaks
related to the misuse of pesticides in rice fields. Over the
years, farmer field schools have spread to over 90 countries
and been used to address a growing range of management
practices and production systems (see figure below).
In a typical farmer field school, a group of 20 to
25 farmers, pastoralists or fisherfolk meet once a week
under the guidance of a trained facilitator. Over the course
of an entire production cycle (usually for at least two
years), they compare and discuss the effects of two or more
alternative practices, one following a prevalent practice and
another following a proposed best practice. Participants
observe key elements of the agroecosystem by measuring
plant or animal growth or production, taking samples of
pests or comparing the characteristics of different soils. At
the end of the weekly meeting, they present and discuss
their findings, and take decisions for the coming weeks.
A range of different topics can be investigated in this
kind of setting, including soil fertility and water resources,
local varietal selection, seed quality, pesticides use, nutrition,
marketing and diversification of farming systems. Local
knowledge and scientific insights are tested, validated
and integrated in the local ecological and socio-economic
context, and participants are empowered to develop the
skills required for informed decision-making.
Farmer field schools are usually spearheaded by
ministries or institutions working in collaboration with
them. In some cases, they have been initiated by FAO
country offices and delivered through implementing
partners. FAO actively supports the continued development
and spread of the farmer field school approach by
facilitating the sharing of knowledge on best practices and
providing technical and policy advice to ministries, national
extension services, farmer organizations, NGOs, research
institutions and the private sector.
Sources: FAO web pages on the farmer field school approach (http://www.fao.
org/agriculture/ippm/programme/ffs-approach/en/) and FAO, 2016p.
Evolution of the farmer field school approach
2016
90+ countries
EASTERN &
CENTRAL
EUROPE
CONTEXT
Agropastoral/pastoral
NEAR EAST &
NORTH AFRICA
Semi-arid
Climate field
schools
Water FS
Pastoralist FS
Rainfed
LATIN
AMERICA
AFRICA
High yield
irrigated
ASIA
1989
IPPM
Agrobiodiversity
FS in post
disaster
Fisheries
Junior field
& life schools
Vegetables
Poultry
Flowers
IPM
Cotton
Perennials
Beekeeping
Rice
Multiple crops
Soil/water
Livestock
Farm forestry FS
Farmer business
schools
TOPIC
Notes: IPM = integrated pest management; IPPM = integrated production and pest management; FS = farmer school.
Source: FAO, 2016p.
408
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.15
Participatory workshops with local communities in the development of a Globally Important
Agricultural Heritage System in Chile
Indigenous communities in the archipelago of Chiloé in
southern Chile have been cultivating an array of local
potato varieties for hundreds of years. Traditionally, the
genetic diversity of potatoes was conserved by rural women
through cultivation in their home gardens, and knowledge
was transferred orally to the next generation rather than
being recorded in writing. Changes to production systems
and livelihoods and the increased use of commercial potato
varieties have led to genetic erosion and to the loss of
traditional knowledge. However, about 200 local potato
varieties that are highly adapted to the environmental
conditions of Chiloé are still cultivated.
In 2011, Chiloé agriculture was designated as a
Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS)
site (see Section 7.5 for more information on GIAHS).
Agroecological principles and practices are a key aspect
of the development of GIAHS sites. During the first years
of implementation, multiple participatory workshops on
agroecological management and biodiversity conservation
were organized with the aim, inter alia, of informing farming
communities about the implementation of the project,
ensuring the participation of all farmers, and identifying
traditional production systems, local knowledge associated
with them and external and internal drivers affecting their
evolution. The workshops also aimed to strengthen the
organizational capacity of the communities and promote
entrepreneurship, for instance collaboration with tourism
agencies. During the process, farmers played an active role
as teachers and instructors and developed a successful
8.4.3 Needs and priorities55
Many country reports note that there is a need
to strengthen education, training and awareness
raising related to associated biodiversity and its
role in the supply of ecosystem services. Specific
55
These needs and priorities refer to associated biodiversity.
Needs and priorities for PGRFA, AnGR, FGR and AqGR are
briefly covered in the respective subsections above and
addressed in greater detail in the respective global assessments
(FAO, forthcoming, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a).
educational methodology. Among the diverse activities
organized were seed exchanges, field visits, establishment
of community seedbeds and seed banks, and participatory
breeding programmes based on traditional practices.
Training on agroecology and sustainable tourism was also
provided to stakeholders outside the agricultural sector such
as entrepreneurs, employees in the tourism industry and
public officials. The Center for Education and Technology,
a local non-profit organization, has worked with the
Austral University of Chile to hold talks and workshops
on agroecology and the development model promoted
by GIAHS for students of agronomic sciences, rural
development and related academic disciplines.
The cultivation of local varieties in the participating
communities has been strengthened and revitalized, thereby
ensuring their maintenance in situ. GIAHS Chiloé has actively
contributed to stopping, and even reversing, the processes of
genetic erosion and loss of traditional knowledge. In 2013,
SIPAM1 Chiloé was registered as a certification label for
products originating from Chiloé agriculture. The label helps to
raise awareness among the wider public of the importance of
knowledge associated with family farming and biodiversity for
food and agriculture.
Source: Submitted by Chile, with additional information from the GIAHS
website (http://www.fao.org/giahs/giahsaroundtheworld/designated-sites/
latin-america-and-the-caribbean/chiloe-agriculture/en).
Note: See the website http://www.fao.org/giahs/en for further information on
the GIAHS initiative.
1
SIPAM (Sistemas Importantes del Patrimonio Agrícola Mundial) is the
Spanish name of GIAHS.
requirements vary from country to country, but the
reports indicate a widespread need for a greater
focus on associated biodiversity (and BFA in general)
in education at all levels. Several countries note that
biodiversity-related issues are not well integrated
into higher-education courses on food and agriculture or other aspects of land use. In some cases,
countries report that courses related to biodiversity conservation are disconnected from those
related to the use of biodiversity (i.e. on crop and
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
409
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
livestock production, forestry, fisheries, etc.) and
that this can lead to a lack of interdisciplinary skills
among professionals. Some countries note the
need to improve the supply of graduates trained
in specific skills relevant to the management
of BFA such as taxonomy, surveying, documentation, economic valuation and the use of technologies such as cryoconservation. As noted above
in Section 8.2, some countries highlight the
need to increase the participation of women in
BFA-related education and the need for extension and training programmes that are tailored
to women’s needs.
Continued capacity development among professionals and technicians is also widely noted as
a priority. Some countries also mention the need
for better training and extension among farmers
and other users of BFA. There is also widespread
recognition of the need for awareness raising
among the general public (including in schools)
– and in some cases also among policy-makers – on
the importance of associated biodiversity and BFA
in general. Many country reports recognize that
as well as organizing training activities there is a
need to improve access to information (e.g. via
publications and information systems) and create
opportunities for stakeholders to interact and
exchange knowledge and ideas.
Reported constraints to improving the state
of education and training include shortfalls in
funding and a lack of cooperation and exchange
of information among educational institutions
and other stakeholders.
8.5 Research
• Much of the associated biodiversity present in and
around production systems – in particular microorganisms and invertebrates – is under-researched
despite its vital contributions to food and agriculture.
• Priorities for strengthening research on associated
biodiversity and other components of biodiversity for
food and agriculture include:
– increasing the availability of human, physical and
financial resources;
410
– enhancing cooperation and synergies in research
and development and related training activities;
– strengthening relevant policy frameworks, including
to ensure support for long-term research activities;
– investing in information management; and
– improving the transfer of research outputs to
producers, consumers and policy-makers.
The respective sectoral global assessments provide
information on the state of research relevant to
AnGR (FAO, 2007a, 2015a), FGR (FAO, 2014a), AqGR
(FAO, forthcoming) and PGRFA (FAO, 2010a). The
focus here is therefore on the state of research on
associated biodiversity and the ecosystem services
they supply. Gaps in knowledge related to specific
aspects of the sustainable use and conservation of
BFA are discussed elsewhere in the report, particularly in Chapters 5 and 7 and in Section 2.4. The
state of knowledge of the status and trends of
BFA and needs and priorities for improving monitoring programmes are discussed in Chapter 4.
This section therefore aims to present an overview
of the overall state of BFA-related research and
research capacity and options for improving them.
Reviews of research programmes relevant to
BFA have identified various imbalances in terms of
their geographical and subject focus. For example,
Velasco et al. (2015) assessed 966 scientific publications on biodiversity conservation (not specifically
BFA conservation) and concluded that research
targeting North America and Europe still predominated, that among taxonomic groups there was
a bias towards mammals, birds and other vertebrates, and that there was a lack of research on
diversity at the genetic level. Where ecosystem
focus is concerned, the findings indicated that a
previously identified bias towards forest biodiversity had declined (ibid.). The study also identified a lack of research on the social aspects of
conservation, and where research on drivers of
biodiversity loss was concerned, noted that landuse change and overexploitation of resources
received more attention than other drivers, such
as climate change (ibid.). Even within the regions
that are more favoured in terms of research attention, there tend to be some geographical areas
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
or production systems that are less well addressed
than others. Sutcliffe et al. (2015), for example,
in a review of studies on farmland biodiversity
in the European Union, identified a bias towards
northern and western Europe. Some authors have
identified gaps in terms of applied research. For
example, Duru et al. (2015) conclude that a lack of
knowledge of how agroecological principles can
be applied in practice is a constraint to the implementation of “biodiversity-based agriculture”.
8.5.1 Institutions involved in research
on associated biodiversity
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries to provide information on major institutions
directly involved in research on the conservation
and sustainable use of associated biodiversity and
on their research programmes. The majority of the
country reports provide information of this kind.
Most of the answers focus on research institutions
related to biodiversity or agriculture in general
and do not highlight research related to associated biodiversity in particular. In several cases, a
very detailed list of all national research institutions
related to biodiversity or agriculture is provided.
Some countries provide detailed information on
relevant research projects, research programmes
or working groups for each of the listed research
institutions. Apart from public and private universities, countries mention a range of governmental
research institutes, agencies and associations.
With respect to research focus, countries report
institutional capacity and specific activities targeting a range of components of associated biodiversity and ecosystem services directly relevant
to food and agriculture, most frequently insect
pollinators, biological control agents (mainly
micro-organisms and invertebrates) and food- and
agriculture-related micro-organisms in general.
Some countries refer to research programmes
for broad categories such as forest or grassland
biodiversity or specific taxonomic groups within
such ecosystems. A number of countries mention
research into traditional knowledge. For example,
the United Republic of Tanzania refers to ethnomedicinal studies on endemic plant species.
Kenya reports that the Kenya Resource Center
for Indigenous Knowledge (KENRIK) is researching traditional knowledge and technologies in
collaboration with native communities and the
private sector. Some countries mention research
on the status and trends of particular components
of biodiversity (see the “State of knowledge” subsections of Chapter 4 for more information on the
state of monitoring programmes).
A number of countries refer to research projects
that aim to support specific aspects of policy development. For example, China mentions a project on
the implementation of ecological compensation
measures and the development of incentives to
promote stakeholder participation in biodiversity
conservation. Others note that research forms an
integral part of their biodiversity conservation
programmes, for example featuring in national
biodiversity strategies and action plans.
8.5.2 Needs and priorities
As discussed in Section 3.5, countries generally
view advances in science and technology as key
elements of efforts to improve the sustainable use
and conservation of BFA. However, they also recognize that much needs to be done to strengthen
research on BFA and its management. The most
frequently highlighted gap in this respect is a
general lack of research on associated biodiversity.
Addressing this gap is widely reported to be constrained by a shortage of specialists in fields such
as taxonomy – and strengthening relevant educational curricula and programmes is frequently
mentioned as a priority. Improvements to education and training are, in turn, often reported to be
constrained by funding shortages, as are efforts to
improve research facilities and the dissemination
of research results.
Many countries report that research is constrained
by a lack of coordination between research institutions or between researchers working in different
disciplines or in different sectors (both within and
beyond food and agriculture). Improving coordination and linkages between institutes nationally and at regional and international levels
is regarded as a means both of strengthening
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
411
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
interdisciplinary work and of making more efficient
use of resources and information. Strengthening
research-related information systems is widely
regarded as a priority, both as a means of disseminating research outputs and as a means of making
relevant information available to researchers.
Countries mention, for example, the need to establish systems for monitoring the status and trends of
various components of biodiversity or for managing relevant geographical data.
In many countries, policy frameworks for
research are reported to be weak, absent or poorly
implemented. For example, ensuring support for
long-term activities such as monitoring can be a
challenge. Some countries indicate that weaknesses stem from a lack of interest or awareness
at political level and suggest that advocacy efforts
in this regard need to be strengthened. Many
also note the need to improve the mechanisms
through which research on associated biodiversity
informs policy-making.
Links between research and practical activities
at production system level are also reported to
need strengthening. Concrete proposals in this
regard include involving relevant stakeholders
throughout the whole research-project cycle
from planning to monitoring, improving links to
extension services and to producers themselves,
and integrating measures of practical impact into
evaluation mechanisms for research projects.
8.6 Valuation
• Economic valuation tools can help to make the hidden
benefits and costs of biodiversity and biodiversity loss
more visible, increasing awareness of the need for
conservation and driving more effective conservation
policies, including incentive schemes.
• A number of countries highlight the importance of
valuation studies, but note that major knowledge
gaps remain.
• Quantifying the values of ecosystem services and
biodiversity is often challenging because of the
difficulty and cost of data collection, the complexity
of the ecological processes involved, and geographical
412
and cultural differences in how biodiversity and the
benefits it provides are perceived.
• Priorities for enhancing work on the valuation of
biodiversity for food and agriculture include:
– strengthening policy and institutional frameworks
for integrating valuation studies into conservation
strategies;
– standardizing valuation methodologies and tools; and
– ensuring sufficient resources are made available to
support valuation studies.
In economic terms, many of the ecosystem services supplied by biodiversity (particularly many
supporting, regulating and cultural services) are
public goods or common pool resources.56 In
other words, people cannot be excluded from
accessing them and are therefore not obliged
to pay for doing so. This means that there tends
to be little profit to be made from increasing
or maintaining their supply. Moreover, as services of this kind are, in normal circumstances,
not traded, they have no market prices, which
means that they are less easy to integrate into
assessments of the costs and benefits of policy
interventions. This in turn may contribute to their
being neglected not only by the private sector
but also in the formulation of public policies and
legislation (CBD Secretariat, 2007).
Various economic valuation tools can help to
make the hidden benefits and costs of biodiversity and biodiversity loss more visible and may thus
help both in increasing awareness of the need
for conservation and in the formulation of more
effective conservation policies (FAO, 2007a; TEEB,
2018). Interest in applying techniques of this kind
has been increasing in recent years. For example,
Sustainable Development Goal 15 includes the
target: “By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction
strategies and accounts.”
56
Public goods are goods that non-excludable (i.e. everybody can
access them) and non-rivalrous (i.e. people can use them without
reducing their availability to others). Common pool resources are
goods that are non-excludable, but are rivalrous (i.e. they cannot
be used without reducing their availability to others).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Evidence from global assessments in the fisheries
and forest sectors shows that the benefits that conservation measures deliver in terms of ecosystem services can significantly outweigh the investment costs
involved in implementing them (CBD Secretariat,
2014b). However, conservation often requires significant financial or other investments, involves some
economic risk to those doing the investing and may
lead to short-term declines in the flow of benefits even if they increase over the longer term. As
discussed in Section 8.7, various kinds of incentive
measures can help to overcome constraints of this
kind and promote actions that increase the supply
of ecosystem services. Valuation of the resources
and services targeted plays an important role in the
development of effective incentive schemes (FAO,
2007a; CBD Secretariat, 2007).
Measuring and quantifying the value derived
from ecosystem services and biodiversity are often
difficult (and also costly in terms of the resources
needed for data collection and analysis). Benefits
to humans emerge from complex interactions and
interlinkages between different ecological processes and components of biodiversity (GómezBaggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011). Moreover, the
values people assign to ecosystem services and
biodiversity vary geographically and culturally
(Atkinson, Bateman and Mourato, 2012). Different
valuation techniques (see below) are based on different underlying assumptions and simplifications,
and each has its own sources of bias (MEA, 2005b;
CBD Secretariat, 2007). Moreover, the whole
concept of assigning monetary values to natural
assets and ecosystem services has been criticized
by some on the grounds that it facilitates the commodification of nature, which it is argued in turn
may lead to a distorted or oversimplified understanding of the ecological and social processes
involved and to increasing inequalities in access
to the benefits of ecosystem services (e.g. GómezBaggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011). Services provided by biodiversity are crucial to the survival of
complex ecological systems that affect food, water
and other aspects of human security. The so-called
planetary boundaries for several of these services
are now in danger of being breached (Rockström
et al., 2009), and it has been argued that sustaining such functions and services should not be
traded against other economic benefits.
Although efforts are sometimes made to estimate
the full value of a given ecosystem (see further discussion below), it has been argued that for practical
decision-making purposes it may be more useful to
estimate the marginal changes that particular interventions will bring about in the value of ecosystem
services (MEA, 2005b; CBD Secretariat, 2007).
8.6.1 Overview of valuation approaches
Attempts to value natural resources are often
based on the so-called total economic value (TEV)
framework (e.g. FAO, 2007a; MEA, 2005b; Pearce,
1993; CBD Secretariat, 2007). The TEV of a given
ecosystem or component of biodiversity can be
described as the sum of its direct use values, indirect use values, option values, bequest values and
existence values (Pearce and Moran, 1994).
As the name suggests, direct use values are
values that arise from the actual use of resources,
whether in the form of tangible products, such
as food, water or timber, or in the form of recreational activities, such as angling or photography. Indirect use values, in contrast, arise not
from the use of the resources themselves but
from their roles in underpinning flows of benefits
(or in preventing losses) – for example the value
of pollination, flood prevention, carbon sequestration or pest control provided by ecosystems
and components of biodiversity. Option values
are values derived from the maintenance of a
resource for the option of using it in an uncertain future, for example a drought-tolerant crop
for possible use in future climate change-affected
production systems. Existence values are benefits
derived from the mere knowledge that particular
resources (e.g. particular species or ecosystems)
exist, even if they are never used. Bequest values
are derived from the knowledge that resources
are being maintained for future generations.
Among the various components of TEV, direct
use values are the most frequently quantified, as
in many cases they can be traded on markets for
cash. The difficulty involved in comprehensively
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
413
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
valuing biodiversity therefore often relates to the
other components of the framework, although
valuing some use values (e.g. leisure activities for
which there is no charge) can also be challenging.
Direct and indirect use values often have more
immediate influence on governments and companies than option and existence values.
Many methods can contribute to the valuation
of natural resources and ecosystem services. The
applicability of a particular technique depends
on the circumstances, for instance on the type
of value under consideration and on the availability of markets for – and data on – relevant
products and services (MEA, 2005b). Three main
categories of valuation techniques can be distinguished based on the availability of market information: i) direct market valuation approaches; ii)
revealed-preference approaches; and iii) statedpreference approaches (e.g. Chee, 2004; TEEB,
2010). Each of these is briefly described below.
Information on other methods can be found in
the ValuES Methods Database.57
Direct market valuation approaches
Direct market valuation approaches use data on
prices, costs and quantities derived from existing
real markets. Kumar (2010) distinguishes three
types of direct market valuation technique: market
price-based approaches; cost-based approaches;
and production function-based approaches.
Market price-based approaches are often used
to obtain use values for provisioning services sold
on actual markets (e.g. food and other products).
Cost-based approaches estimate the cost that
would be incurred if ecosystem services were
absent (avoided-cost method), the cost of replacing ecosystem services with artificial substitutes
(replacement-cost method) or the cost of restoring
ecosystem services if they were lost (restorationcost method). Production function-based
approaches can be used to estimate the contribution of a service that is not sold independently
on a market (e.g. a regulating service) to another
service that is (e.g. a provisioning service).
57
http://www.aboutvalues.net/method_database
414
The main limitation of direct market valuation
is its dependence on the existence of real market
data: for many ecosystem services, markets are
distorted or do not exist at all. Interlinkages
and interdependencies between different ecosystem services make it difficult to derive reliable estimates by using cost-based or production
function-based approaches (TEEB, 2010a).
Revealed-preference approaches
Revealed-preference approaches estimate values on
the basis of observed behaviour on real or surrogate
markets. The concepts underpinning several of these
methodologies are willingness to pay (WTP) for
obtaining or conserving particular assets and services
or willingness to accept (WTA) their degradation or
loss (CBD Secretariat, 2007; MEA, 2005b; TEEB, 2010).
Two popular techniques in this category are the travel-cost approach and hedonic pricing.
The travel-cost approach is a method used to
derive the values people assign to components of
biodiversity, landscape features, etc. by analysing
monetary expenditure on travel to sites where
they can be experienced. It is mainly used to assess
recreational values.
The hedonic-pricing approach can be used to
estimate the values of particular environmental
factors (clean air, beautiful views, etc.) by comparing the prices of goods and services that are
traded on real markets and whose values are
affected by the factors under consideration, for
example real-estate values in different environmental settings (e.g. MEA, 2005b; TEEB, 2010).
A disadvantage of revealed preference
approaches is that they are relatively costly and
time consuming, as they require good-quality data
and involve complex analysis. They also rely on
assumptions regarding the relationships between
the items under valuation and the surrogates used
(TEEB, 2010a). They also do not solve the problem
of how to quantify non-use values (i.e. existence
and bequest values) (ibid.).
Stated-preference approaches
Stated-preference methods infer WTP or WTA based
on what people state about their preferences
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
in hypothetical situations (e.g. CBD Secretariat,
2007; MEA, 2005b; TEEB, 2010). Such approaches
have the advantage that they can be used to
assess not only use values but also non-use values.
Commonly used stated-preference methods include
contingent valuation and choice modelling.
Contingent valuation involves directly asking
respondents to state their WTP for a given ecosystem service or component of biodiversity or their
WTA its loss or decline. Choice modelling is used to
estimate WTP or WTA without asking respondents
directly. Respondents are instead asked to choose
between a given set of predefined products or services that vary in terms of the levels of a number
of different attributes. If one of the attributes is
measured in monetary terms (e.g. price or cost), it is
possible to derive WTP or WTA for other attributes.
A major weakness of stated preference methods
is the so-called hypothetical bias: statements about
hypothetical behaviour on imaginary markets may
not correspond to how people would behave in
real life. Other limitations include the difficulty
involved in designing adequate questionnaires
and analytical models (e.g. Harrison and Rutström,
2008; MEA, 2005b; TEEB, 2010).
8.6.2 State of implementation
Overview
Recent years have seen a growing number of initiatives in the field of valuation of ecosystem services.
These have included assessments of the values of
specific ecosystem services, such as biological pest
control (Daniels et al., 2017; Waage, 2007) and
pollination (Calderone, 2012; Gallai et al., 2009),
and attempts to estimate the total value of whole
ecosystem categories such as forests, rangelands
and coral reefs (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997, 2014).
The extent to which the outcomes of valuation
studies have had a practical impact on policymaking is difficult to determine (Laurans et al.,
2013), although it is clear that valuation studies
of particular benefits, such as tourism revenue or
flood prevention, do influence policy-making, for
example in helping build confidence in investment
in nature-based tourism (Balmford et al., 2009).
Understanding of valuation approaches is increasing, with a wide variety of tools and methodologies
now available, ranging from software packages to
bottom-up participatory approaches (Neugarten
et al., 2018). A growing range of services are being
targeted under payment for ecosystem service
schemes (see Section 8.7). Details of a number of
initiatives in the field of valuation can be found via
FAO’s Incentives for Ecosystem Services web page.58
The following paragraphs provide short overviews
of a number of major recent and ongoing international initiatives addressing valuation of ecosystem
services and biodiversity.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA)59
was initiated in 2000 by United Nations SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan as a global effort to assess
human impacts on the environment and the benefits humans receive from ecosystems. Outputs
included a review of the merits and deficiencies of
valuation paradigms and their potential contributions to decision-making and policy formulation
to support the sustainable management and use
of ecosystems (MEA, 2005b).
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB), 60 launched as a global initiative in
2007 under the auspices of the United Nations
Environment Programme, aims to assess the economic values of biodiversity and ecosystem services and raise awareness of the costs of biodiversity loss. The TEEB approach consists of three steps:
(i) recognizing the value of ecosystem services and
biodiversity; (ii) demonstrating value in economic
terms; and (iii) capturing value in policy decisions
(TEEB, 2010a).
TEEB for Agriculture and Food (TEEBAgFood)61
was initiated in 2014 as a project focusing explicitly
on the valuation of the externalities of so-called
eco-agri-food systems. The term is intended to
emphasize the inter-relations and dependencies
between agriculture and food systems, biodiversity
and ecosystems and human (social and economic)
58
59
60
61
http://www.fao.org/in-action/incentives-for-ecosystem-services/
toolkit/assessment-and-valuation/tools-and-models/en
http://www.millenniumassessment.org
http://www.teebweb.org
http://www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
415
8
416
FIGURE 8.1
Elements of the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework
PART D
Economic impacts
Health impacts
Social impacts
NATURAL CAPITAL
PRODUCED CAPITAL
HUMAN CAPITAL
SOCIAL CAPITAL
• Ecosystem restoration
• Increase in habitat quality
• Deforestation and habitat loss
• Higher GHG concentrations
• Soil and water pollution
• Depreciation/invesment in
fixed assets such as roads,
equipment and machinery
• Changes in financial capital
• Improved livelihoods
• Increased skills
• Improved nutrition
• Reduced occupational
health
• Increased access to food
• Increased employment
opportunities
• Land displacement
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
OUTCOMES
Environmental impacts
Analysis
Changes in the capital base
AGRI-FOOD VALUE CHAIN
Manufacturing
and processing
Agricultural
production
AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD OUTPUTS
FLOWS
Through the value chain
“visible and invisible”
Agricultural and food products, income (value added,
operating surplus), and subsidies, taxes and interest
Distribution, marketing
and retail
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Provisioning (biomass growth, freshwater),
regulating (pollination, pest control, nutrient cycling)
and cultural (landscape amenity)
PURCHASED INPUTS
Labour inputs (incl. skills), and intermediate consumption
(produced inputs such as water, energy, fertilizers,
pesticides, animal health and veterinary inputs)
“Dependencies”
STOCKS
Capital base for production
Note: GHG = greenhouse gas.
Source: TEEB, 2018.
NATURAL CAPITAL
Water, soil, air, vegetation
cover and habitat quality,
biodiversity, etc.
PRODUCED CAPITAL
Buildings, machinery and
equipment, infrastructure,
research and development,
finance, etc.
Household
consumption
RESIDUALS
Agricultural and food waste, GHG emissions,
other emissions to air, soil and water, wastewater,
and solid waste and other residuals
HUMAN CAPITAL
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Education/skills, health,
working conditions, etc.
Land access/tenure, food
security, opportunities for
empowerment, social
cooperation, institutional
strength, laws and
regulations, etc.
Description
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN WELL-BEING
IMPACTS
Contribution to human
well-being = “value additions”
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
systems. TEEBAgFood aims to “make visible” the
hidden impacts and externalities associated with
these systems and to provide policy recommendations that will promote sustainability in agriculture
and food production. It has developed a universal
valuation framework specifically for the agrifood
sector, covering the whole value chain from production to consumption, and assessing the flows
of a broad range of benefits and disbenefits, many
of which are normally invisible in economic terms
(TEEB, 2018). The main components of the framework are shown in Figure 8.1.
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),
under its Deliverable 3(d): “Policy support tools
and methodologies regarding the diverse conceptualization of values of biodiversity and nature’s
benefits to people including ecosystem services”,
is assessing methodologies related to the values
of biodiversity to human societies and evaluating
their policy relevance (IPBES, 2014).
The System of Environmental Economic
Accounting (SEEA)62 is a framework developed
by the United Nations Statistics Division to integrate environmental and economic data in the
interest of better-informed decision-making. The
SEEA Central Framework (UN et al., 2014a) was
endorsed as the international statistical standard
for environmental–economic accounting by the
United Nations Statistical Commission in 2012.
The objective is to enable the integration of
environmental information into national macroeconomic accounting systems so that national
income accounts reflect environmental externalities and ultimately that these externalities can be
better accounted for in decision-making. While
the Central Framework takes an economic perspective, the complementary SEEA Experimental
Ecosystem Accounting starts from an environmental point of view (UN et al., 2014b). A sectoral
subsystem, the System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
has also been developed.63
Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of
Ecosystem Services (WAVES),64 a global partnership
linked to SEEA, was launched at the tenth meeting
of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in 2010.
WAVES aims to mainstream natural resources into
development planning and national accounts
through an approach referred to as natural capital
accounting.
The Natural Capital Project,65 a partnership
between the Universities of Stanford and
Minnesota, the Nature Conservancy66 and WWF,67
has developed InVest (Integrated Valuation of
Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs),68 a suite of
open-source software models for mapping and
valuing ecosystem services.
Country-report analysis
The guidelines for the preparation of country
reports did not contain specific questions on the
valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
A substantial number of country reports, nonetheless, either provide information on the implementation of valuation studies or note needs and
priorities in this field.
Several countries refer to published studies
or ongoing research projects addressing the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity,
although not all of these are explicitly related
to BFA. While the information provided is fragmentary and the studies mentioned are mostly in
the early stages of implementation, the general
impression conveyed by the country reports is that
there is an overall positive trend in the implementation of valuation studies on BFA and in the use
of the outcomes of such studies in management
and policy-making. The difficulties involved are,
however, illustrated by the fact that some reports
mention valuation studies that either were not
completed or failed to get off the ground.
The reported studies generally target either
specific geographical areas or specific types of
64
65
66
62
63
https://seea.un.org
http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/environment/methodology/en
67
68
https://www.wavespartnership.org
https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org
https://www.nature.org
https://www.worldwildlife.org
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
417
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
ecosystem at local or national scale. The former
include, for example, a study reported by the
Netherlands (Hein, 2011) that analysed the value
of ecosystem services provided by the Hoge
Veluwe forest (a protected area consisting of
woodland, heath and grassland), including wood
production, meat from hunting, groundwater
infiltration, carbon sequestration, air-pollution
removal, recreation and biodiversity. Belgium
refers to the project Valuation of Terrestrial
Ecosystem Services in a Multifunctional Peri-urban
Space, which targeted a multi-ecosystem area in
the central part of the country, deploying integrated social, biophysical and economic valuation
approaches with the aim of informing decisionmaking in landscape planning.69 Countries reporting an approach based on ecosystem categories
include Yemen, which mentions valuation exercises for the environmental goods and services
provided in rangelands, forests and mangroves.
In the case of rangelands, it notes that the main
service is the provision of fodder for livestock,
but that other valuable benefits include the
supply of pollination services to crop production,
the supply of honey and medicinal plants, and
the prevention of soil erosion.
A few countries refer to valuation studies targeting particular regulating or supporting ecosystem services at national level. For example, Finland
mentions TEEB Nordic and TEEB Finland studies
that, inter alia, estimated the value of pollination
by honey bees at EUR 18 million for selected crops,
EUR 39 million for produce from home gardens
and EUR 3.9 million for wild berries.
A number of countries report the integration
of valuation efforts into national strategies,
policies or programmes targeting biodiversity
and ecosystem services or describe institutional
arrangements for work in this field. Viet Nam
mentions that several ecosystem service-valuation studies are planned in the context of the
development of a policy on payments for ecosystem services related to biodiversity protection,
ecotourism, carbon sequestration and watershed
protection (see also Section 8.7). Several countries specifically mention the inclusion of valuation-related targets in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans. For example,
Switzerland notes that one of the strategic goals
of the Swiss Biodiversity Strategy (Government
of Switzerland, 2012) is to quantitatively assess
ecosystem services by 2020 and to develop
welfare indicators to complement gross domestic
product. Ethiopia mentions that research aimed
at addressing gaps in knowledge in the field of
valuation is included in its National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2020 (Government
of Ethiopia, 2015) and that valuation is regarded
as a key means of promoting conservation, sustainable use and access and benefit-sharing.
Reports of institutions established to support
valuation efforts come mainly from developed
countries. For example, Ireland mentions the Irish
Forum on Natural Capital,70 a body supported by
public and private agencies that aims to prioritize
the integration of natural capital into national
accounting. The United Kingdom refers to the
Natural Capital Committee,71 a body formed to
provide expert advice to the government on the
state of natural capital.
8.6.3 Needs and priorities
The importance of valuation of biodiversity and
ecosystem services is emphasized in a number
of country reports.72 Several mention the need
to integrate the value of these resources into
national accounting systems or into broader
measures of social welfare, as well as to use the
outputs of valuation studies to guide national
policies and research programmes. Several note
the importance of valuation data in efforts to
develop financial incentive mechanisms for biodiversity conservation.
Countries that mention valuation efforts for
natural resources and ecosystem services generally
indicate that major knowledge gaps remain to be
70
71
72
69
See Fontaine et al. (2013) for further information.
418
http://www.naturalcapitalireland.com
http://www.naturalcapitalcommittee.org
As noted above, countries were not specifically invited to report
on this topic or to list needs and priorities in this regard.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
filled. Some countries note specific gaps or priorities (e.g. microbial genetic resources in Ethiopia,
wild pollinators in the United States of America
and wild medicinal plants in Jordan).
A number of countries identify the need to
strengthen institutions and policies that address
the integration of the results of valuation studies
into conservation strategies and other policies.
Specific priorities mentioned include fostering
cross-sectoral and interinstitutional cooperation
in valuation efforts. Several countries mention the
need for standardized valuation methodologies
and tools for use in valuation exercises. The need
for additional financial resources to support valuation efforts is also noted.
8.7 Incentives
• Incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) can take a
range of forms and originate from public programmes,
private-sector investments or civil-society initiatives.
• Incentive measures are still often absent, and
where they do exist a lack of coordination in their
implementation often hampers success.
• Combining a range of incentive measures into an
integrated package can help produce a greater
impact in terms of promoting the sustainable use and
conservation of BFA.
• Priorities for strengthening incentive measures include:
– better documenting, mapping and coordinating
existing schemes;
– improving coordination between the public,
non-governmental and private sectors; and
– strengthening links between the environmental and
food and agriculture sectors.
– Steps also need to be taken to remove perverse
incentives.
8.7.1 Overview
As described elsewhere in this chapter, and in
Chapters 5 and 7, a range of different management practices, programmes, policies and legal
instruments can contribute to the conservation
and sustainable use of BFA. However, adoption of
BFA-friendly management practices is often constrained by various barriers, including risk aversion, technological and knowledge gaps, and the
need to invest money, time or effort (even if benefits exceed costs over the long term). Incentive
measures can be a means of overcoming such barriers. Incentives can take a wide range of different
forms and originate from public programmes or
from private-sector investment (see Figure 8.2).
Single incentive measures implemented in isolation are unlikely to be sufficient to address the
multiple threats facing particular components of
BFA and overcome all the barriers to their conservation and sustainable use. Mechanisms that
combine multiple incentives have been encouraged by the CBD for over a decade (CBD, 2008b).
In 2016, the Conference of the Parties to the CBD
called again for countries to
use an appropriate mix of regulatory
and incentive measures … including the
elimination, phasing out and reform of
incentives harmful to biodiversity in order,
… to increase the efficiency of use of
water, fertilizer and pesticides, and to avoid
their inappropriate use, and to encourage
public and private sources of finance to be
channelled into practices that improve the
sustainability of production while reducing
biodiversity loss, and to promote and support
the restoration of ecosystems (CBD, 2016c).
Combining incentives into an integrated
package not only supports transition to practices
that are biodiversity friendly on a local scale but
also enables improvements in productivity and
food security that reduce pressures on biodiversity (and other natural resources) more generally.
FAO’s Incentives for Ecosystem Services project
(FAO, 2018v) is working to promote the development of efficient packages of incentives to
support the sustainable use and conservation of
BFA. Activities include case-study analysis, regional
policy dialogues to help member countries
develop enabling policy frameworks for locally
adapted packages of incentives, and a web-based
toolkit to guide decision-makers and practitioners
in mapping and combining incentives.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
419
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
FIGURE 8.2
Examples of sources of incentives to support sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity
INCENTIVES: A WIDE RANGE OF SOURCES
POLICY-DRIVEN
INVESTMENTS
VOLUNTARY
INVESTMENTS
Prohibition of use
Subsidies
Green public procurement
Property use rights
Conservation easements
Voluntary farm set-asides
Taxes/charges
Permits and quotas
Conservation concessions
Direct payment for
ecosystem services (PES)
Mandatory farm set-asides
Rewards for ecosystem
services (RES)
Marketing labels
(without certificates
or standards)
Cultural and social norms
Marketing labels (certificates/standards)
Offsets
Responsible sourcing of agriculture products and services
Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Farmers and companies
fulfilling government
regulations
Pre-compliance
to save costs or position
private actors on a new
emerging market
Voluntary action
with direct return on
investment:
• Insetting
• Impact marketing
Voluntary action
unlinked from
environmental outcomes
Source: FAO, 2018v.
This section focuses largely on incentive measures that promote the conservation and sustainable use of associated biodiversity. Further information on incentives related to the management of
genetic resources in the crop, livestock and forest
sectors is provided in the respective global assessments (FAO, 2010a, 2014a, 2014c).
8.7.2 State of adoption
The country reports mention a diverse range of
incentive measures aimed at promoting the conservation and sustainable use of BFA.73 Table 8.3
lists examples of practices reported to be promoted
through the provision of incentives.
73
Countries were invited to “Describe any incentives or benefits
to support activities for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity for food and agriculture or associated biodiversity
(such as payments, provision of inputs, subsidies or other forms
of incentives/ benefits).”
420
A large majority of the incentive measures mentioned in the country reports are operating in
Europe or in North America.74 For example, country
reports from European Union (EU) members
refer to a range of incentive measures linked to
EU-level policies and programmes such as the EU
Biodiversity Strategy. Most mention the importance
of direct support schemes under the EU’s Common
Agricultural Policy, including payments for agricultural practices that are climate friendly and beneficial to the environment. EU payments in support
of sustainable forest management practices are also
mentioned. However, in discussing such schemes
the country reports make few references to provisions that specifically target the conservation and
74
To some extent, this may relate to how countries interpreted
the country-reporting guidelines, as there are many donordriven incentive schemes operating in other regions.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
TABLE 8.3
Examples of practices reported to be promoted through the provision of incentives
Sectors
Practices for which incentives are provided
Reduced fertilizer and pesticide use
Reduced tillage and prevention of nutrient runoff from crop fields
Crop production
Retention of landscape features such as trees, field margins, ditches and terraces
Conservation or enhancement of field margins for pollinators
Improved connectivity through habitat corridors
Protection of plant genetic resources
Increased agroforestry and reforestation
Conversion of non-native forest to native woodlands
Forest
Conservation and restoration of mangrove forests
Establishment of forest genebanks
Maintenance of grasslands
Livestock
Grassland nutrient management
Protection of indigenous breeds
Temporary suspension of fishing activities for overexploited stock
Re-orientation towards more sustainable fishing practices
Fisheries and aquaculture
Restoration of fish habitats and migration routes
Conversion to organic, low-impact aquaculture
Wetland conservation
Protection of endangered species inside or outside protected areas
Control and management of invasive species
Cross-sectoral
Support for certification schemes
Organic farming or conversion to organic farming
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
sustainable use of components of associated biodiversity with well-defined roles in the provision
of ecosystem services to food and agriculture
(pollinators, soil-dwelling organisms, biological
control agents, etc.). The report from the United
Kingdom notes that the practices targeted by agrienvironmental schemes include “establishing pollen
and nectar mixes on the edges of arable fields to
increase the availability of essential food sources for
insects, including those that contribute to the pollination of agricultural crops” and “creation of flower
rich margins that provide habitat for beneficial predators.” It further mentions that in the wider countryside such schemes incentivize practices that benefit
pollinators, although it notes that these schemes are
not intended specifically as a means of promoting
the supply of pollination services in crop systems.
Slovenia mentions that the benefits of agri-environmental schemes in crop production systems include
the provision of food sources for bees and increasing
microbiological activity in the soil.
Countries mention various other EU-level initiatives that support local food production and short
supply chains. Slovenia, for example, notes that
the School Fruit Scheme,75 which provides free
fruit and vegetables to schoolchildren, is helping
75
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs_en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
421
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
to increase the use of local food in educational
institutions. Also mentioned are projects financed
or co-financed by the EU’s LIFE76 programme targeting the conservation of biodiversity in areas
that fall within the Natura 2000 network.77
Among developed countries outside the EU,
Norway mentions that part of its protected forest
zone falls under the frivillig vern (voluntary protection) scheme,78 through which forest owners voluntarily propose forest areas that will not be logged.
Owners receive financial compensation based
on opportunity-cost value. The United States of
America describes a number of incentive schemes
supporting the maintenance of habitats. Examples
include a project aimed at reducing the conversion
of wetlands and grasslands into cropland. It also
mentions several programmes under which farmers
and ranchers can receive support for increasing and
improving pollinator habitats. For example, under
the Conservation Stewardship Program,79 which
provides long-term payments for advanced conservation systems, nearly 3 000 contract holders are
reported to have taken action to establish pollinator habitat in non-cropped areas on their lands.
Participants have seeded over 11 000 acres (approximately 4 450 hectares) of nectar- and pollenproducing plants in field borders, vegetative barriers and buffer strips, and along waterways.
As noted above, incentive schemes supporting
the sustainable use and conservation of BFA are
relatively rarely mentioned in the reports from
developing regions. Many of the schemes that are
described share several common characteristics:
• they tend to be implemented at local/subnational scale rather than at national scale;
• they include support for the creation of cooperatives, associations and community-based initiatives rather than targeting individual producers;
• they often involve the establishment of alternative income-generating activities;
76
77
78
79
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/
index_en.htm
http://frivilligvern.no
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/
programs/financial/csp/
422
• they often target the maintenance of genetic
resources and local varieties to promote food
security;
• they tend to involve public-funded improvements to the environmental performance of
local food production for local use rather
than eco-labelling and increased market
opportunities; and
• they tend not to involve the integration of
individual incentives into a “package” with
other incentives.
The report from Rwanda documents several programmes that use incentive measures to promote
landscape approaches aimed at improving the
management, conservation and use of BFA and
ecosystem services. For example, the Landscape
Approach to Forest Restoration and Conservation80
programme, operating with financing from the
Global Environment Fund, provides financial
incentives to encourage farmers to conserve protected forests and establish diverse agroforestry
plots and woodlots.
A few developing countries report relatively
long-standing national-level incentive schemes, in
some cases also mentioning legal frameworks put
in place to support and regulate them. For example,
Costa Rica notes that its Forest Law No. 7575 of
199681 provides the regulatory basis for smallholders and owners of natural forests and forest plantations to receive direct payments for the ecosystem
services and biodiversity conservation benefits that
their forests provide.82 Between 1995 and 2015,
payments for the protection and recovery of forest
habitats under this regulation are reported to have
amounted to about USD 320 million. As of 2015,
approximately 14 500 contracts had been signed,
covering more than 1 million ha and the planting
of about 6 million trees in agroforestry systems.
80
81
82
https://www.thegef.org/project/
landscape-approach-forest-restoration-and-conservation-lafrec
Ley Forestal No. 7575 (available, in Spanish, at http://faolex.
fao.org/cgi-bin/faolex.exe?rec_id=004894&database=
faolex&search_type=link&table=result&lang=eng&format_
name=@ERALL)
Further information on payments for environmental services
schemes in Costa Rica can be found in Pagiola (2006).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Costa Rica further notes that its Biodiversity
Law No. 778883 establishes incentives in the form
of public recognition schemes such as Ecological
Blue Flag84 and national and local prizes for outstanding actions promoting the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity. The law also foresees tax exemptions on equipment and materials
that are regarded as indispensable for the development, research and transfer of appropriate
technology for the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity.
Ecuador mentions Socio Bosque (Forest
Partners),85 a major national programme, in place
since 2008, under which conservation agreements
are signed with landowners to protect native
forests. Once an agreement is signed, payments
(varying according to size of forest area covered)
are made annually for a period of 20 years. The
scheme targets areas where there is rapid landuse change, those that are critical for the maintenance of ecosystem processes and those with
high levels of poverty. Ecuador further notes that,
since 2013, Socio Bosque has been complemented
by the Socio Manglar programme, which supports
the conservation and restoration of mangroves.
Socio Manglar, in turn, has a component related
to livelihoods and the sustainable use of natural
resources. Beneficiaries who sign a conservation
agreement acquire “use rights” to sustainably
extract resources such as shells, crabs and fish
(respecting time and area restrictions specifically
designed to promote the conservation of each
species targeted).
Brazil mentions the Water Producer Program,86
which as well as providing technical and financial support for the implementation of water
and soil conservation actions such as the construction of terraces and infiltration basins, provides for incentive payments to producers who
have proven to contribute to the protection
and recovery of springs. It further notes that
“incentives are granted only after partial or total
implementation of previously contracted conservation actions and practices and the amounts to
be paid are calculated according to the results:
reduction of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of diffuse pollution and increase of infiltration of water in the soil.”
Viet Nam reports a national programme87 of
payments for environmental services from forests,88 targeting in particular the protection of
watersheds, protection of landscapes and biodiversity for touristic purposes, carbon sequestration, and provision of spawning grounds, feeds,
seeds and water for aquaculture. It further notes
that its National Biodiversity Strategy (MNRE,
2015) includes the objectives of improving policies and institutional capacity related to payments for forest ecosystem services at national
scale and piloting a payment for ecosystem services policy for marine and wetland ecosystems.
Civil-society and private-sector incentive schemes
targeting the shrimp-aquaculture sector in Viet
Nam are described in Box 8.16.
Countries from various regions mention
examples of incentive schemes that support the
certification of production practices. Bodies mentioned include the International Foundation for
Organic Agriculture,89 International Organic
Accreditation Service,90 International Programme
for the Endorsement of Forest Certification,91 the
Forest Stewardship Council,92 GLOBALG.A.P 93 and
the Marine Stewardship Council.94 Also reported
are farm accreditation schemes, for example those
87
88
89
83
84
85
86
Ley de Biodiversidad N° 7788 de 23 Abril 1998 (available at
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=20869).
https://banderaazulecologica.org
http://sociobosque.ambiente.gob.ec
http://produtordeagua.ana.gov.br
90
91
92
93
94
The scheme initially (beginning in 2008) targeted two
provinces. In 2010 a national scheme was mandated by Decree
No. 99/2010/ND-CP on the Policy on Payment for Forest
Environment Services (available at http://www.ecolex.org/
details/legislation/decree-no-992010nd-cp-on-the-policy-onpayment-for-forest-environment-services-lex-faoc100744).
The report cites Pham et al. (2013), which can be consulted for
further information on payments for environmental services
schemes in Viet Nam.
https://www.ifoam.bio
http://www.ioas.org
https://www.pefc.org
https://ic.fsc.org/en
http://www.globalgap.org
https://www.msc.org
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
423
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.16
Incentive schemes promoting sustainable shrimp aquaculture in Viet Nam
Driven by high profits in shrimp aquaculture, large areas of
mangrove habitat in the Mekong Delta have been converted
into shrimp farms and rice paddies. Various steps have been
taken to tackle mangrove loss by incentivizing sustainable
production practices, including by establishing links to
higher-value markets.
A regulation introduced to protect existing coastal
mangrove habitats requires the maintenance of 60 percent
forest cover on private land, with non-compliance leading
to the removal of aquaculture leases. Civil-society initiatives
such as Mangroves and Markets1 provide finance for the
reforestation of mangrove habitat on private land to support
compliance. A private-sector organization, Minh Phu Seafood
Cooperation, also provides financial bonuses (USD 30/ha)
for the maintenance of mangrove areas within aquaculture
farms to ensure the environmental sustainability of its
shrimp supply for export.
Incentives are also used to support transition to
integrated mangrove–shrimp farming, which is more
efficient and therefore reduces farmers’ need to further
promoted by LEAF (Linking Environment and
Farming)95 and Conservation Grade.96
8.7.3 Needs and priorities
Aside from in some cases noting the need to
introduce or expand the use of incentive measures, the country reports outline few specific
needs and priorities in this field. 97 Countries
generally report individual incentive schemes
rather than approaches based on multiple incentive measures as recommended in the CBD decision noted in the introduction to this section.
Although the country reports do not specifically
95
96
97
http://www.leafuk.org/leaf/home.eb
www.conservationgrade.org
Countries’ responses regarding incentives generally do not span
the full range of options shown in Figure 8.2 – even though in
many cases such measures may be in place – which also means
that the needs and priorities they mentioned in this context do
not cover all categories of incentives.
424
deforest mangroves. Training is provided on integrated
organic mangrove–shrimp management (e.g. by UN-REDD)
and household waste management (e.g. by Mangroves and
Markets). Long-term implementation is made attractive
through a private sector-supported certification scheme for
organically produced shrimp (Selva Shrimp®),2 which secures
a 10 percent price premium from the Minh Phu Seafood
Cooperation, and marketing by Naturland3 to promote
products from integrated mangrove–shrimp systems.
Incentives are used along the value chain to promote
sustainability. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council4 (a civil
society organization) educates consumers to encourage
them to purchase ecologically produced shrimp.
Source: FAO, 2018v.
1
https://www.iucn.org/regions/asia/our-work/regional-projects/mangrovesand-markets-mam
2
https://selvashrimp.com/sustainable/sustainable-zero-input
3
https://www.naturland.de/en/naturland/what-we-do/naturland-seafood.
html
4
https://www.asc-aqua.org
spell out the need for a more holistic approach,
several note the need for greater coordination
between schemes. Wider experience indicates98
that while individual public programmes, private-sector investments or civil society initiatives
may provide incentives that help to address their
own particular concerns, a coordinated “package
of actions” can create a much larger impact in
terms of improving outcomes for BFA. An enabling policy framework can help promote coordination of this kind. Long-term planning and
cross-sectoral and interinstitutional collaboration will help improve the coordination of multiple incentives at farm and landscape levels. As
illustrated in Box 8.17 and Box 8.18, integrated
approaches are already in operation in some
98
For further information on incentive measures see FAO’s
incentives for ecosystem services web page: http://www.fao.
org/in-action/incentives-for-ecosystem-services/en
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.17
Integrated incentive packages for microwatershed development in Brazil
In Brazil, the Rio Rural1 programme of the Secretariat of
Agriculture of Rio de Janeiro State coordinates public
programmes such as the Water Producer Programme2 and
the National Plan for Low Carbon Emission in Agriculture
(ABC Plan)3 with private investments to provide diverse
financial and technical incentives in microwatersheddevelopment projects.
Initiatives integrated under the programme include:
• public programmes investing in improved livestock
breeds, pasture management and improved fodder
production, technical assistance (e.g. Agricultural
Research Enterprise of the State of Rio de Janeiro
– PESAGRO-RIO),4 access to markets (e.g. Food
Acquisition Programme – PAA)5 and rural credit
(e.g. National Programme for Strengthening Family
Farming – PRONAF);6
• private companies contributing to forest conservation
and rehabilitation to compensate for, and offset,
their environmental impacts (e.g. electric company
FURNAS);
• water user fees used to finance wastewatermanagement technologies and soil-conservation
measures (e.g. Water Producer Programme);
• state and municipal governments implementing a
payments for ecosystem services mechanism based on
transferring funds from state tax on the circulation of
goods and services directly to smallholder farmers that
operate private forest reserves;
• private companies and NGOs financing capacitybuilding in sustainable practices (e.g. Integrated Eco
countries. There is also often a need to better
document and map existing incentive schemes
(taking all types of initiatives – public, private and
civil society – into consideration). This can help
improve synergies and identify whether perverse
incentives need to be removed. Effective evaluation of the outcomes of implemented schemes
is also essential. Further discussion of needs and
priorities in this field can be found in a number
of FAO publications (FAO, 2015a, 2018v).
Technologies and Services for a Sustainable Rural Rio
de Janeiro – INTECRAL Project,7 Brazilian Micro and
Small Enterprises Support Service – SEBRAE);8 and
• conservation NGOs facilitating the creation of on-farm
forest reserves (e.g. Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund – CEPF).9
Together, the various initiatives provide multiple
incentives that make it easier for family farmers to overcome
barriers to the adoption of agricultural practices that support
biodiversity and ecosystem services within microwatersheds.
They facilitate farmers’ compliance with forest and water
protection laws, while also improving production efficiency
and yields and thus helping to make sustainable practices
profitable in the long term.
Source: FAO, 2018v.
1
http://www.rj.gov.br/web/informacaopublica/exibeconteudo?articleid=1041246
2
Programa Produtor de Água (http://produtordeagua.ana.gov.br).
3
Agricultura de Baixo Carbono (http://redd.mma.gov.br/en/legal-andpublic-policy-framework/national-plan-for-low-carbon-emission-inagriculture-abc-plan).
4
Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
(http://www.pesagro.rj.gov.br).
5
Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (http://www.mda.gov.br/sitemda/
secretaria/saf-paa/sobre-o-programa).
6
Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar (http://www.
mda.gov.br/sitemda/secretaria/saf-creditorural/sobre-o-programa).
7
http://intecral-project.web.th-koeln.de/wordpress
8
Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (http://www.
sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/canais_adicionais/sebrae_english).
9
https://www.cepf.net
8.8 Policy and legal frameworks
• Appropriate legal and policy frameworks are essential
for effective management of biodiversity for food and
agriculture (BFA), but often remain underdeveloped or
poorly implemented.
• Weaknesses in legal and policy frameworks
are particularly widespread with regard to the
management of associated biodiversity (species such
pollinators, soil organisms and pest natural enemies
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
425
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
found in and around production systems). Contributing
factors include:
– a lack of adequate coordination between the food
and agriculture and nature-conservation sectors; and
– a lack of awareness among policy-makers of the
significance of associated biodiversity to resilient
and sustainable food systems.
• Access and benefit-sharing (ABS) measures in most
countries are either still in development or in the early
stages of implementation. They increasingly reflect
the need to take into account the importance of and
distinctive features of the different subsectors of
genetic resources for food and agriculture.
• Priorities for improving legal and policy frameworks
for BFA include:
– strengthening the involvement of multiple
stakeholders across sectors in policy development;
– raising awareness among decision-makers on the
importance of sustainably managing BFA;
– making available the resources needed for policy
implementation;
– building capacity to develop and implement ABS
measures; and
– improving coordination between agencies
responsible for ABS and those responsible for the
various subsectors of food and agriculture.
This section focuses mainly on legal and policy frameworks at national level. However, it begins with a
short overview of frameworks at international
Box 8.18
Integrated incentive packages in Mexico
In Mexico, the Biodiversity Commission, CONABIO,1
coordinates co-financing from public and private sources
to provide farmers with incentives that help to ensure
that traditional farming systems remain productive and
hence to avoid further slash and burn in the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor (a multicountry effort to retain ecological
connectivity through Central America on the basis of a
combination of protected areas and sustainable use).
Cash and seedlings financed through national payments
for environmental services schemes (e.g. National
Forest Programme – PRONAFOR)2 help enable farmers to
rehabilitate and reforest their land to comply with forest laws.
Once their land has been rehabilitated, farmers are
assisted by CONABIO to access further incentives from
public programmes and private-sector investment to
improve productivity – for example through training
(e.g. Strategic Project for Food Security – PESA,3
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil and Water –
COUSSA),4 use of improved crop varieties and livestock
breeds (e.g. Project of Support for the Productive Chain of
Corn and Bean Producers – PROMAF, Sustainable Livestock
Production and Management for Livestock and Beekeeping
– PROGAN),5 improvements to soil fertility (e.g. Sustainable
Use of Natural Resources Programme – PURSN, COUSSA)
– and post-harvest processing (e.g. PROMAF, Sustainable
426
Modernization of Traditional Agriculture – MasAgro,6
Programme for the Acquisition of Productive Assets –
PAAP).7 It also promotes certification for sustainable coffee
production (e.g. Certification for Agri-Food Productivity)8
to increase access to higher-value markets. The integration
of investments from the agricultural and environmental
sectors has enabled a landscape-level approach that pools
public and private initiatives to assist farmers to raise their
productivity and hence reduce deforestation and biodiversity
loss and improve rural well-being.
Source: FAO, 2018v.
1
https://www.gob.mx/conabio
2
Programa Nacional Forestal (http://www.conafor.gob.mx/web/apoyos/
pronafor).
3
Proyecto Estratégico para la Seguridad Alimentaria (http://www.sagarpa.gob.
mx/desarrolloRural/AsistenciaCapacitacion/Paginas/pesa.aspx).
4
Componente de Conservación y Uso Sustentable de Suelo y Agua (http://
www.sagarpa.gob.mx/desarrolloRural/Paginas/tecnologiasatualcance.aspx).
5
Programa de Producción Pecuaria Sustentable y Ordenamiento Ganadero
y Apícola (http://www.sagarpa.gob.mx/ganaderia/Programas/Paginas/
PROGRAM.aspx).
6
Modernización Sustentable de la Agricultura Tradicional (http://masagro.
mx/en).
7
Programa para la Adquisición de Activos Productivos (https://www.sagarpa.
gob.mx/evaluaciones-especificas-de-desempeno-eed/programa-para-laadquisicion-de-activos-productivos).
8
Certificacion para la Productividad Agroalimentaria (http://www.sagarpa.
gob.mx/ProgramasSAGARPA/2015/Productividad_y_competitividad_
agroalimentaria/Certificacion_para_la_productividad_agroalimentaria/
Paginas/Descripci%C3%B3n.aspx).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
level. As in the other sections of this chapter, frameworks relevant specifically to plant (crop), animal
(livestock), forest and aquatic genetic resources are
addressed relatively briefly, as they are discussed
in previously published global assessments for the
respective sectors. Measures addressing associated
biodiversity are discussed in greater detail, drawing
largely on material provided in the country reports.
Short overviews of the state of frameworks in relevant cross-cutting fields (climate change, access
and benefit-sharing and traditional knowledge)
are also presented, again highlighting information
from the country reports.
8.8.1 Frameworks at international level
As noted in Chapter 1, BFA and biodiversity more
generally are gradually acquiring a higher profile
on international policy agendas, including the 2030
Sustainable Development Agenda (see Box 1.1). A
wide range of international agreements, including an increasing number of legally binding
instruments and a plethora of declarations, action
plans and other non-binding instruments addressing biodiversity, in some cases specifically in the
context of food and agriculture, have been put
in place. Some other international instruments
addressing aspects of the food and agriculture
sector are sometimes considered to affect biodiversity (often negatively). These include, for example,
instruments that set out specific requirements
for the commercialization of genetic resources
(e.g. crop seeds or breeding animals) or facilitate
global trade in substances that may have adverse
effects on biodiversity. While this second group of
instruments may offer some potential for biodiversity mainstreaming, this section deals primarily
with the first group, i.e. frameworks, agreements
and instruments specifically established to conserve biodiversity and promote its sustainable use.
Box 8.19 presents an example of the development
of international binding and soft-law instruments
in the capture-fisheries sector.
Several international conventions concluded
over the last seven decades focus on biodiversity
issues, including the International Plant Protection
Convention (1952), the Ramsar Convention on
Box 8.19
Binding and soft-law instruments
related to port state measures
in the capture-fisheries sector
Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is
a global threat to sustainable fisheries and to the
management and conservation of fisheries resources
and marine biodiversity. The importance of enhanced
port state control as a tool to combat IUU fishing has
gained increasing prominence over the last decade. Port
state measures (PSMs) are requirements established,
or interventions undertaken, by port states with which
foreign fishing vessels must comply, or to which they
must be subjected, as a condition for the use of ports
within the port state. Since the adoption, in 1982, of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there
has been a progressive development of international law
in the field of fisheries-related PSM, including through
the adoption of the Agreement to Promote Compliance
with International Conservation and Management
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (1993)
(FAO Compliance Agreement) and the Agreement for the
Implementation of the provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
Relating to the Conservation and the Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
(1995) (UN Fish Stocks Agreement). Voluntary instruments
such as the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries and the International Plan of Action to Prevent,
Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing (IPOA-IUU) also encourage implementation
of PSMs as tools to combat IUU fishing. The binding
Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
was approved by the FAO Conference at its Thirty-sixth
Session in 2009 and revised in 2016.
Note: For further information see FAO’s Port State Measures web page:
http://www.fao.org/fishery/psm/en
Wetlands (1971), the World Heritage Convention
(1972), the Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
427
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.20
Biodiversity and international law
Convention on Biological Diversity1
The objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) are the conservation of biological diversity, the
sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic
resources. The CBD covers all ecosystems, species and genetic
resources, including those used for food and agriculture. The
Conference of the Parties to the CBD adopted a programme
of work on agricultural biodiversity in 2000 (CBD, 2000b). The
programme consists of four elements (assessment, adaptive
management, capacity-building and mainstreaming) and
three cross-cutting initiatives (on pollinators, soil biodiversity
and biodiversity for food and nutrition), to be implemented
using the ecosystem approach. Other relevant programmes of
work include those on forest biodiversity, dry and subhumid
land biodiversity, inland water ecosystems and marine and
coastal biodiversity. At is tenth meeting, the Conference
of the Parties explicitly recognized the importance of
the “processes led by FAO … which contribute directly
to achieving the three objectives of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, in crop and livestock sectors.”
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora2
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) aims to ensure that
international trade in specimens of wild animal and plant
species does not threaten their survival. Through its three
appendices, CITES accords varying degrees of protection
to more than 30 000 plant and animal species. CITES
and FAO have been collaborating closely since 1997 on
issues raised by the harvesting and trade of commercially
exploited aquatic species listed in the CITES appendices.
FAO hosts the Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of
Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning
Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
of Wild Animals3
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (CMS), also known as the Bonn Convention,
aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory
428
species throughout their ranges. CMS brings together the
states through which given species migrate and lays the
legal foundation for internationally coordinated conservation
measures throughout migratory ranges.
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture4
The objectives of the Treaty are the conservation and
sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits arising out of their use, in harmony with the CBD,
for sustainable agriculture and food security. It covers all
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, while its
Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing covers
a specific list of 64 crops and forages. It also includes
provisions on Farmers’ Rights.
Convention on Wetlands5
The Convention on Wetlands, also known as the Ramsar
Convention, provides the framework for national action
and international cooperation on the conservation and wise
use of wetlands and their resources. It covers all aspects of
wetland conservation and wise use, recognizing wetlands
as ecosystems that are extremely important for biodiversity
conservation in general and for the well-being of human
communities. Signatory states are obliged to identify at least
one Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Site).
Many countries have multiple sites.
World Heritage Convention6
The primary mission of the World Heritage Convention
(WHC) is to identify and conserve the world’s cultural
and natural heritage. This includes drawing up a list of
sites whose outstanding values should be preserved for
all humanity and ensuring their protection through closer
cooperation among nations. The WHC recognizes some
World Heritage sites specifically for their outstanding
1
2
3
4
5
6
https://www.cbd.int
https://www.cites.org
https://www.cms.int
http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en
https://www.ramsar.org
http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.20 (Cont.)
Biodiversity and international law
biodiversity values. The so-called natural selection
criteria, as defined in the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the WHC, refer, inter alia, to sites that
are “outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution
and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal
and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and
animals” and to sites “which contain the most important
and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of
biological diversity, including those containing threatened
species of outstanding universal value from the point of
view of science or conservation.” Some sites, including
particularly some mixed cultural and natural sites, put
particular emphasis on maintaining traditional agricultural
or pastoralist practices.
International Plant Protection Convention7
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) aims
to secure coordinated and effective action to prevent and
control the introduction and spread of pests of plants
Wild Fauna and Flora (1975), the Convention on
Biological Diversity (1993) and the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (2004) (Box 8.20). These seven conventions are currently connected through the
so-called Biodiversity Liaison Group,99 a platform
established jointly by the heads of the secretariats
of the respective conventions. The liaison group
aims to exchange information and to enhance
national-level implementation of the objectives of each convention, including by promoting synergies and reducing duplication of work.
Other international conventions that address
the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including BFA, include the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946)
(Box 8.20), the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (adopted in 1982, came into force
99
https://www.cbd.int/blg/
and plant products under the World Trade Organization. It
provides an international framework for plant protection
that includes developing international standards for
phytosanitary measures to safeguard plant resources. The
IPPC extends beyond the protection of cultivated plants to
the protection of natural flora and plant products.
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling8
As stated in its preamble, the purpose of the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is to provide for
the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make
possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
An integral part of the Convention is its legally binding
“Schedule”. The Schedule sets out specific measures that
the International Whaling Commission, established under
the Convention, has collectively decided are necessary in
order to regulate whaling and conserve whale stocks.
7
8
https://www.ippc.int/en
https://iwc.int/convention
in 1994) and the Convention for the Protection
and Development of the Marine Environment of
the Wider Caribbean Region (1986). Several biodiversity conventions have developed subsidiary
instruments, for example the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access
to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable
Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization,
both adopted under the CBD.
Among the soft-law (non-binding) instruments specifically addressing genetic resources
for food and agriculture are the Commission on
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture’s
global plans of action for plant, animal and forest
genetic resources (FAO, 2007b, 2011b, 2014b). The
Commission negotiated these action plans with
the aim of creating an efficient global system
for the conservation and sustainable use of
genetic resources for food and agriculture. They
are intended to be comprehensive frameworks
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
429
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
that guide and catalyse action at community,
national, regional and global levels through better
cooperation, coordination and planning and by
strengthening capacities. Each includes a set of recommendations and priority activities that respond
to the needs identified in global assessments of
genetic resources in the respective sectors (FAO,
1997, 2007a, 2010a, 2014a). While many soft-law
instruments lack mechanisms to monitor their
implementation, the Commission’s global plans
of action have fully operational monitoring and
reporting mechanisms based on indicators established by the Commission. Country reports are used
to prepare regular status reports and feed into the
preparation of updated global assessments. The
Commission oversees, monitors and evaluates the
implementation of the global plans of action, and
has overseen the development of a range of guidelines intended to facilitate implementation.100
8.8.2 Frameworks at national level
Plant genetic resources for food
and agriculture
The importance of a coherent national approach
to PGRFA management is widely recognized,
and many countries have established national
programmes of one kind or another in this field,
backed up to varying degrees by national legislation and policy initiatives. As of October 2018,
144 countries (plus the European Union) were contracting parties to the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO
has developed guidelines to support countries in
the development of national strategies for PGRFA
(FAO, 2015f). The following paragraphs present
short descriptions of the state of legislation and
policies in various fields of PGRFA management.
In most countries, the seed system is highly
regulated – from the release of new varieties
and quality control of seeds to the legal status
of organizations that implement seed control to
certification and variety-release procedures. The
100
For further information, see http://www.fao.org/cgrfa/policies/
global-instruments/codes-standards-and-guidelines/en
430
Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(SoW-PGRFA-2) (FAO, 2010a) noted three main
trends in this field: emergence of voluntary
arrangements regarding seed certification and
variety release; growing use of accreditation principles within official national rules and standards;
and regional harmonization of seed laws. These
conclusions remain valid as of 2018. A number
of countries have developed new national seed
policies in recent years or are in the process of
doing so (e.g. FAO, 2017q; SEPSA, 2017). In 2015,
the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture endorsed a voluntary guide for
national seed policy formulation (FAO, 2015f).
In the field of intellectual property rights, the
SoW-PGRFA-2 noted that the number of countries providing legal protection to plant varieties
through plant breeders’ rights had been increasing over the preceding decade, with increasing
numbers of countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America
and the Caribbean, the Near East and eastern parts
of Europe having enacted legislation of this kind.
Debates over the issue of patenting in the PGRFA
sector had also become increasingly prominent,
with various countries having amended legislation in this field. At the time (2010), 67 countries
and the European Union were members of the
International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV). As of October 2017,
73 countries, the African Intellectual Property
Organization and the European Union were UPOV
members (UPOV, 2017).
The SoW-PGRFA-2 further noted that the question
of Farmers’ Rights101 had been attracting increasing
101
Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture states that “In accordance with
their needs and priorities, each Contracting Party should,
as appropriate, and subject to its national legislation, take
measures to protect and promote Farmers’ Rights, including:
a) protection of traditional knowledge relevant to plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture; b) the right to equitably
participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; and c) the
right to participate in making decisions, at the national level,
on matters related to the conservation and sustainable use of
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.”
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
attention. Many countries had developed, or
were in the process of developing, legislative
and other measures addressing this issue. Concerns
over biosafety102 had also been growing and were
increasingly being addressed in national legislation. Many countries had introduced or updated
phytosanitary legislation, in large part in response
to the adoption of the revised International Plant
Protection Convention in 1997.
Potential means of strengthening legal and
policy frameworks for PGRFA management
include: the establishment of nationally endorsed
strategies and plans for the conservation and use
of PGRFA that set priorities, distribute roles and
allocate resources for management actions in
the sector; raising awareness and strengthening
capacity among policy-makers with regard to the
complexities of the legal and policy issues affecting the conservation, use and exchange of PGRFA;
and promoting greater stakeholder involvement
in the development of legal and policy instruments. Efforts need to be made to ensure that
national legal and policy instruments complement
each other coherently and are appropriate to the
needs and capacities of the respective country.
Animal genetic resources for food
and agriculture
According to The Second Report on the State
of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2015a),103 a growing
number of countries have responded to the
adoption of the Global Plan of Action for Animal
Genetic Resources (FAO, 2007a) by developing
national policy instruments, generally referred
to as national strategies and action plans, as a
means of putting global recommendations into
practice at national level. Legal instruments that
“The avoidance of risk to human health and safety and to the
conservation of the environment, as a result of the use for
research and commerce of infectious or genetically modified
organisms (GMOs)” (FAO Glossary of Biotechnology for Food
and Agriculture. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/
Y2775E/y2775e07.htm).
103
Unless indicated otherwise, the material presented in this
subsection is based on this report.
102
address AnGR management activities such as
conservation and genetic improvement in a relatively “joined-up” way are also becoming more
widespread.
Many countries have also developed legal and
policy instruments addressing individual components of AnGR management, including surveying and monitoring, official recognition of
breeds, genetic-improvement programmes, the
use of reproductive biotechnologies, conservation programmes, importation of genetic material, research programmes, use of transgenic
technologies, and access and benefit-sharing (see
Section 8.8.5). Although the number of countries
that have put such instruments in place has been
increasing in recent years, many still report gaps
and weaknesses that need to be addressed. It
should, however, be noted that countries do not
necessarily consider the absence of legislation to
be a weakness. Some report that they are well
served by relatively unregulated approaches to
most aspects of AnGR management. AnGR issues
are also, to a degree, gaining a foothold in broader
policy and legal instruments in the livestock, agriculture and environmental sectors. For example,
most national biodiversity strategies and action
plans include some AnGR-related provisions.
Although the livestock sector has no equivalent to the Farmers’ Rights of the crop sector,
civil society organizations have over recent years
formulated a set of Livestock Keepers’ Rights,104
which it is argued would, if implemented, enable
and encourage livestock keepers to continue
making a living from their breeds and thereby
help both to conserve diversity and improve rural
livelihood opportunities. Another initiative has
been the development of biocultural community protocols in livestock-keeping communities,
a concept developed in response to the Nagoya
Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (see
Section 8.8.5), which mandates governments to
support indigenous and local communities in the
development of “community protocols in relation
to access to traditional knowledge associated
104
For further information see Köhler-Rollefson et al., 2010.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
431
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
with genetic resources and the fair and equitable
sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of
such knowledge.”105
Although, as noted above, countries have been
quite active in recent years in developing new
AnGR-related legal and policy measures, many
report constraints to implementation. These
include shortages of human and financial
resources, logistical problems, insufficient coordination between different government departments, excessive bureaucracy, a lack of awareness
on the part of stakeholders and a lack of clarity
in the formulation of legal and policy texts.
Identifying the most appropriate way forward in
terms of updating national legal and policy frameworks for AnGR can be challenging and needs to
be based on thorough analysis of gaps, needs and
capacity to implement different policy and regulatory options. Stakeholder involvement in the
development of policy and legal frameworks often
needs to be strengthened.
Forest genetic resources
The State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources
(FAO, 2014a) 106 notes that many countries have no
specific laws or policies on forest genetic resources
(FGR) or have instruments that are outdated. A
number, however, have laws and policies of relevance to FGR, most commonly instruments targeting the conservation and protection of national
forests, some of which include specific FGRfocused provisions (see Section 5.3.2). Potential
steps towards strengthening policy and legal
frameworks for FGR include developing national
policies, plans or programmes for FGR management and ensuring that FGR-related concerns are
better accounted for in national forestry policies
and laws. Any efforts to develop or update policy
and legal frameworks for FGR will need to involve
multiple stakeholders.
For further information, see UN Environment and Natural
Justice (2009) and the Community Protocols website
maintained by Natural Justice (http://www.communityprotocols.org).
106
Unless indicated otherwise, the material presented in this
subsection is based on this report.
105
432
Aquatic genetic resources for food
and agriculture
As noted in Section 8.8.1, the main global nonbinding policy document addressing AqGR
is the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries (FAO, 1995a). Many governments have
incorporated elements of this instrument into
national legislation and policy. The State of the
World’s Aquatic Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (FAO, forthcoming)107 indicates that
AqGR are addressed by a range of national instruments, including in the fields of conservation,
fisheries, aquaculture and trade. National legislation often restricts the importation of non-native
aquatic species in order to protect local biodiversity or local business. Many countries have fishery
management plans that regulate the timing and
quantity of fishing activities and the species that
can be harvested. In many cases, aquatic species
are covered under general laws protecting endangered species. Aquatic species are also addressed in
many conservation-related policy instruments such
as national biodiversity strategy and action plans.
Particularly notable in the aquatic sector is the
absence of provisions similar to those related to
farmers’ rights and breeders’ rights in the terrestrial
crop sector. This is a consequence of the relatively
recent domestication of aquatic species. Unlike
many terrestrial farming and livestock-keeping
communities, aquaculture farmers have not spent
millennia developing the species they utilize.
Genetic improvement of farmed aquatic species has
often been done by large companies or research
institutions with modern breeding facilities and at
locations outside the centres of origin of the respective species (Bartley et al., 2009). In such cases, no
indigenous group was responsible for the genetic
improvement of the species and there would be
no basis for a claim for farmers’ or breeders’ rights.
Policies relating to ex situ conservation (i.e. gene
banks) are also not as well developed as in the crop
and livestock sectors due to the difficulty of storing
frozen eggs and embryos from aquatic species.
107
Unless indicated otherwise, the material presented in this
subsection is based on this report.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Key reported constraints to the implementation of AqGR-related policies include a lack of
awareness, a lack of technical capacity and a lack
of resources. Many countries have adequate AqGR
policies in place, especially at the species level, but
lack the resources to implement and enforce them.
One of the more significant policy gaps concerns
the cross-sectoral development and management
of freshwaters and inland aquatic ecosystems.
There is strong competition among users of freshwater (e.g. industry, agriculture, hydroelectric
generation, municipal drinking water, navigation,
aquaculture and fisheries), each having their own
set of requirements as to how water should be
used and managed. However, the fishery sector
is often left out of policy discussions on the use
of freshwater, and as a result water-management
policies often favour other sectors to the detriment of fisheries (Bartley et al., 2016).
Associated biodiversity
The country reports indicate that associated biodiversity is generally not targeted as a distinct category in policy purposes, falling instead within the
scope of broader instruments targeting biodiversity, the environment, sustainable development or
agricultural practices. National policies addressing
biodiversity or environmental protection generally
include measures that directly or indirectly affect
the maintenance of habitats in and around production systems. The same is true for those addressing
more specific issues such as climate change, disaster
risk reduction, invasive species or desertification,
and those targeting specific types of ecosystem
such as forests, mountains, lakes or coastal zones.
Whether directly targeted or not, associated biodiversity will often benefit from policies that reduce
pollution of land and water, strengthen disaster
risk reduction measures, prevent destructive landuse changes or restrict environmentally unfriendly
practices in crop or livestock production, forestry,
fisheries or aquaculture.
Some country reports mention efforts to integrate biodiversity into national planning and
policy development across a variety of different
economic sectors. The report from Sri Lanka, for
example, notes that this is done via the country’s
Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan. It further
notes that biodiversity is considered to be adequately integrated into some sectoral policies
(e.g. those addressing forests, wetlands, coastal
and marine habitats, fisheries and agriculture)
but not in others (e.g. those addressing industrial
and service sectors, including urban development,
harbours, tourism, mining, energy, roads and telecommunications). Most countries have prepared
national biodiversity strategies and action plans
as a basis for the implementation of the CBD at
national level. The extent to which these instruments specifically address BFA, associated biodiversity and the ecosystem services they deliver
varies from country to country (FAO and CBD,
2016; FAO et al., 2016).
A number of reports, particularly from Europe,
note the significance of agri-environmental
schemes under which farmers are incentivized
to manage their land in environmentally friendly
ways. Some of these schemes target species or
habitats that have well-recognized beneficial
roles in agriculture (see Section 8.7). In general,
however, schemes often focus more on protecting
biodiversity from the effects of environmentally
unfriendly management practices than specifically
on maintaining and enhancing the benefits that
biodiversity provides to food and agriculture.
The country reports generally include little
information on policies devoted to specific categories of associated biodiversity. Pollinators are
the most frequent exception. For example, the
report from Belgium mentions a federal bee plan
targeting the preservation of pollinators, particularly bees. The plan includes about 30 actions and
measures dealing with six main issues: risk assessment (including pesticide risk analysis); integration of pollinator management into other policies
and measures (including economic measures); orientation of markets in favour of pollinators; monitoring of honey bees and wild bees; animal-health
policy; and the traceability of hives (for honey
bees only). The report from the United Kingdom
mentions the National Pollinator Strategy (DEFRA,
2014), which aims to safeguard insect pollinators
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
433
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.21
Brazil’s experience in mainstreaming biodiversity into its Food and Nutrition Security Policy
Brazil achieved both the Millennium Development Goal
target of halving the proportion of its people suffering from
hunger and the more stringent World Food Summit target
of reducing by half the absolute number of hungry people
before the deadline of 2015. Successful reduction of hunger
and extreme poverty in both rural and urban areas has been
achieved through a well-coordinated array of cross-sectoral
policies led by the government with strong engagement
from civil society, rather than through any individual action.
Joint interministerial strategies have become increasingly
common, including the mainstreaming of biodiversity into
food-security and nutrition policies.
The Zero Hunger Program, launched in 2003, was the
first step in translating the decision to end hunger into
action, and introduced a new approach that placed food
security and nutrition and social inclusion at the centre of
the government’s agenda and linked macroeconomic, social
and sustainable agricultural and development policies. The
fight against hunger and poverty has remained at the centre
of the political agenda ever since, and was reinforced after
2011 with the launch of the Brazil without Extreme Poverty
Strategy. This new set of intersectoral policies built on the
success of Zero Hunger, with the bold goal of eliminating
extreme poverty in Brazil.
The underlying assumption of the Zero Hunger Program is
that poverty reduction, food security and support for family
farmers are intimately connected. Besides social protection
programmes, the other key pillars of the strategy are the
Food Acquisition Programme (PAA), the National School
Meals Programme (PNAE), the National Food and Nutrition
Policy (PNAN) and the National Plan for Agroecology and
Organic Production (PLANAPO I/II).
In 2003, Brazil was one of the first countries to establish
an institutional food procurement programme connecting
institutional demand for agricultural products to a foodsecurity strategy and support for family farmers. The PAA has
three main objectives: (i) to assist family farmers and family
rural entrepreneurs with production and access to markets;
(ii) to distribute food to people suffering from food and
nutritional insecurity; and (iii) to build up strategic stocks. It
buys food directly from smallholder-farmers’ organizations
at market prices and distributes it to hospitals, schools,
434
other public institutions and families in need. In 2009, the
government built on the PAA by linking the well-established
national school feeding programme to smallholderagriculture policies. States, municipalities and federal
schools are required to purchase at least 30 percent of food
for school meals directly from smallholder producers.
These programmes are complemented by the PNAN
and incentives for organic agriculture and agroecological
production from family farms, the aim being to make
nutritious, diverse and sustainably produced foods
accessible to the whole population. PLANAPO I (2013–2015)
benefited thousands of smallholder farmers through the
provision of credit and crop insurance for agroecological
food production, specific support to rural women, capacitydevelopment, rural extension and technical assistance.
PLANAPO II (2016–2019) prioritizes the access of family
farmers to markets, in line with the provisions of PAA and
PNAE. The aim is to have 1 million family farmers producing
food using agroecological techniques by 2019.
The various federal policies described above provide entry
points for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
The PLANAPO, for instance, recognizes the importance of
“sociobiodiversity” products and the valorization of local
experiences of use and conservation of plant and animal
genetic resources, especially those involving the management
of local breeds and traditional and Creole varieties.
The implementation of PLANAPO I involved a wide
range of actions on the part of various ministries and
national institutions, including the Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corporation (Embrapa), aimed at improving the
production, management, conservation, acquisition and
distribution of genetic resources of interest to agroecology
and organic production. Measures included the identification
of organizations and networks involved in the conservation
of such genetic resources, support for the development of
agroecology networks to intensify the sustainable use of
agrobiodiversity, and establishment of community seed banks
and other measures to increase family farmers’ access to
Creole and organic seeds. Research and development, rural
extension and technical assistance were also promoted.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
(Cont.)
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Box 8.21(Cont.)
Brazil’s experience in mainstreaming biodiversity into its Food and Nutrition Security Policy
Another federal initiative that was integrated with
PLANAPO I and relates to biodiversity mainstreaming is the
Plants for the Future Project, which aims to survey, document
and promote the conservation and sustainable utilization of
neglected/underutilized plant species with nutritional value
or economic potential. This initiative is related to the GEFfunded Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project (BFN),1
which in Brazil is working with the ministries responsible for
the implementation of food-security and nutrition policies
to promote the inclusion of foods from Brazilian biodiversity
in the PAA, PNAE and nutrition-education strategies (see
Box 2.4). Activities led by BFN include nutritional-composition
analysis of 65 native fruit species, which is being carried out
in partnership with public universities and research institutes
across the country and will provide evidence that can be used
to promote greater mainstreaming of biodiversity into all the
above-mentioned federal initiatives.
PLANAPO II builds on experience gained under
PLANAPO I, as well as on the Minimum Price Guarantee
Policy for Biodiversity Products, which promotes biodiversity
conservation, food security and income generation in local
extractive communities by establishing minimum prices for
by taking action across five key areas: supporting
pollinators on farms; supporting pollinators across
towns, cities and the countryside; enhancing
response to pest and disease risks; raising awareness of what pollinators need to survive and thrive;
and improving evidence on the status of pollinators
and the services they provide. The United States of
America’s National Strategy to Promote the Health
of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators (Pollinator
Health Task Force, 2015), which aims to improve
pollinator habitat and reduce stressors affecting
pollinators, is another reported example.
In addition to instruments focused on biodiversity or environmental protection, many country
reports list policies that aim to promote economic
and social goals such as livelihood development,
food security and poverty reduction (see Box 8.21
for example). Some reports explicitly note the need
some selected biodiversity products. “Sociobiodiversity”
considerations were included as one of the axes of
PLANAPO II and accounted directly for at least seven of its
targets and 27 of its initiatives. In this context, the
Ministries of Social Development and the Environment
jointly released a list of native biodiversity products to
be considered in institutional procurement programmes
(Ordinance MMA/MDS 163/2016). PLANAPO II recognizes
the opportunity to expand the purchase of such products
in the PAA and PNAE, while improving the diversification
of diets, supporting family farming and strengthening
biodiversity conservation.
Source: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), National
Household Sample Survey (PNAD). Elaborated by the Secretariat for
Evaluation and Information Management (SAGI), Ministry of Social
Development and Hunger Alleviation (MDS).
1
The Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use for
Improved Nutrition and Well-Being Project, or Biodiversity for Food
and Nutrition Project for short, is led by Brazil, Kenya, Sri Lanka and
Turkey. The initiative is coordinated by Bioversity International, with
implementation support from UN Environment and FAO, and contributes
to the implementation of the CBD’s Cross-Cutting Initiative on Biodiversity
for Food and Nutrition.
for policies that address links between biodiversity
and productivity in food and agricultural systems.
For example, the report from the Bahamas notes
the need to develop a national fisheries development plan that, inter alia, addresses the “conservation and restoration of coastal habitats and
wetlands important to fisheries recruitment and
to the health of fringing reefs.”
As with other categories of biodiversity, legal
instruments can have a significant influence on
sustainable use and conservation of associated biodiversity. They can, for example, serve to enforce
restrictions on biodiversity-unfriendly practices
in food and agricultural production and in other
industries, to restrict overharvesting of wild products, to set criteria for support measures for beneficial practices and to assign responsibilities to
institutions and stakeholder groups involved in
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
435
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
conservation and sustainable use. Many country
reports list laws dedicated to the protection of
biodiversity, along with those in a range of other
fields that include biodiversity-related provisions.
However, little information specifically related to
associated biodiversity as a category or to particular groups of organisms such as pollinators or soil
flora and fauna is provided. Exceptions include the
report from Zimbabwe, which mentions the country’s Bees Act [Chapter 19:02] of 1973 (amended
2002),108 which provides for the conservation of
honey bees (Apis mellifera) in the wild and also
regulates beekeeping through registration of beekeepers and control of the movement of bees and
honey within and across the country’s borders. The
report further notes that the act also provides for
the control of bee diseases through regular surveillance and monitoring.
The country reports generally do not present
detailed assessments of gaps in policies and legislation and their effects on the management of
associated biodiversity (or BFA more generally).
This may, in part, relate to a lack of information
on the effects of existing provisions. The report
from Sri Lanka, for example, notes that although
policies and programmes are considered to have
played a key role in promoting and safeguarding
biodiversity, specific outcomes in terms of the
state of biodiversity and the supply of ecosystems
services have not been assessed. Some specific
weaknesses are, however, noted. For example,
Ecuador mentions the absence of an appropriate
legal framework defining the roles and competences of institutions involved in managing biodiversity. Some countries note a more general
need to strengthen policies targeting associated
biodiversity. Nicaragua, for example, mentions
that while it has made significant progress over
recent years with regard to policies targeting
domesticated biodiversity, it still lacks an effective
medium- to long-term strategy for the management of associated biodiversity, as well as for wild
foods and generally for ecosystem services.
108
Bees Act [Chapter 19:02] (available at http://www.fao.org/
faolex/results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC060551).
436
A number of different constraints to the development of legislation addressing the conservation
and sustainable use of associated biodiversity and
wild foods are also noted. In some cases, the development of legislation is reportedly hampered by a
lack of legal specialists in this field. Some country
reports indicate that a lack of awareness of the
significance of associated biodiversity means
that legislation in this field is not prioritized.
Some refer to perceived conflicts with the need
to increase the output of food and agricultural
systems or with other economic activities. Some
mention opposition from producers and other
stakeholders who fear that legal restrictions will
affect their livelihoods.
Lack of knowledge of associated biodiversity,
the production systems in and around which it
is found and the benefits it supplies is noted in
some country reports as a constraint to the development of effective legal and policy instruments.
The potential impacts of different measures may
not be well understood, particularly given the
time scales over which they may play out and
the interactions that may occur between different ecosystems and across sectors, within and
beyond food and agriculture. These interactions
underline the importance of intersectoral and
interministerial collaboration in the formulation
of laws and policies. The country reports indicate
that cooperation at this level often remains insufficient. Some reports note that improving information systems and the exchange of information
between different stakeholders and stakeholder
groups would help to strengthen policy-making
and law-making.
Where implementation of laws and policies is
concerned, the country reports again refer to a
range of constraints. Cameroon, for example,
referring to the implementation of legislation
on the use of wild foods, notes that constraints
include a lack of awareness on the part of rural
dwellers: people may be unaware of the rules (a
problem exacerbated by a lack of translations into
local languages) or not understand why they have
been introduced. It also notes that poor transport infrastructure constrains the activities of law
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
enforcers. Some reports mention that implementation is affected by a lack of funding or by a lack
of security in rural areas because of armed conflicts, etc. Others note that problems are caused
by contradictory legislation, the existence of loopholes or by a lack of cooperation between different agencies or lack of clarity as to their mandates.
8.8.3 Climate change policy
and programmes
The importance of integrating BFA-related measures into climate change mitigation and adaptation plans and strategies is increasingly recognized internationally. For example, in 2015, the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture adopted Voluntary Guidelines to
Support the Integration of Genetic Diversity into
National Climate Change Adaptation Planning
(Box 8.22). Evidence suggests, however, that
concrete progress in this regard has been fairly
limited. For example, a study of the 50 national
adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) developed by January 2015 (Villanueva, Halewood
and Noriega, 2017) concluded that they do not
effectively integrate agrobiodiversity, noting for
example that although NAPAs often stress the
importance of food security and nutrition, few
target the improvement and use of local, indigenous or traditional crop varieties and animal
breeds and none of those reviewed address
underutilized species. The study also concluded
that the NAPAs reviewed are overly compartmentalized at governmental level and that there is a
lack of dialogue between ministries of agriculture
and the environment on the protection and use
of agrobiodiversity (ibid.). A study of all intended
national determined contributions (INDCs)109
found that only a minority include references to
the use of crop or livestock biodiversity in climate
change adaptation and mitigation (Strohmaier
et al., 2016).
109
Intended National Determined Contributions are outlines of
how countries intend to adapt to and mitigate the effects of
climate change that were prepared for the twenty-second
Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (UNFCCC, 2018).
Box 8.22
Voluntary Guidelines to Support the
Integration of Genetic Diversity into National
Climate Change Adaptation Planning
The Voluntary Guidelines
to Support the Integration
of Genetic Diversity into
National Climate Change
Adaptation Planning
(FAO, 2015g) were prepared
under the guidance of the
Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and
Agriculture and adopted
at its Fifteenth Regular Session, in 2015. They were
subsequently approved by the 2015 FAO Conference.
The guidelines seek to enable countries to ensure the
relevance of genetic resources for food and agriculture
to overall national adaptation planning processes by
identifying clear goals and maximizing stakeholder
involvement. They follow the structure and approach
of the technical guidelines for the national adaptation
plan process prepared by the Least Developed Countries
Expert Group of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. The process outlined
in the guidelines involves four main elements: “lay
the groundwork and address gaps”; “develop the
preparatory framework”; “develop the implementation
strategy”; and “monitor, review, report and communicate
progress”. A number of steps are proposed for the
implementation of each element.
Note: The voluntary guidelines can be viewed at http://www.fao.org/3/ai4940e.pdf
The country-reporting guidelines invited countries to list up to ten policies, programmes or enabling frameworks that embed the use of BFA into
climate change adaptation strategies and plans.
NAPAs, nationally appropriate mitigation actions,
REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation) and national adaptation plans were listed as examples (see Box 8.23
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
437
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
Box 8.23
The UNFCCC adaptation
and mitigation instruments
National adaptation programmes of action
The national adaptation programmes of action process
provides a means for least developed countries to
identify priority activities that respond to their urgent
and immediate needs with respect to climate change
adaptation, i.e. situations in which any further delay
would increase vulnerability and/or the cost of
adaptation at a later stage (UNFCCC, 2017b).
Nationally appropriate mitigation actions
Nationally appropriate mitigation actions are actions that
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in developing countries
under government-led initiatives (UNFCCC, 2017c).
Reducing emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation (REDD+) processes supports countries’ efforts
to enhance the forestry sector’s role in climate change
mitigation. It works with stakeholders to ensure that
individual projects reflect the needs of forest-dependent
communities while developing the forestry sector in a
sustainable manner (UN-REDD Programme, 2018).
National adaptation plans
National adaptation plans identify medium- and longterm climate change adaptation needs along with
strategies and programmes for addressing them.
for explanations). In total, 59 countries provided
answers to this question, with responses varying
in their levels of detail and the extent to which
the instruments mentioned focus explicitly on BFA
rather than on food and agriculture or biodiversity more generally.
Thirty countries (approximately half of those
that responded to this question) mention policies
and frameworks that address the use of biodiversity in adaptation planning in food and agriculture. References are mainly to the use of landrace
438
varieties in breeding programmes to produce
climate change-adapted crops. Mitigation policies
and frameworks involving BFA are mentioned by
14 countries (about 24 percent of respondents to
this question). In most cases, mitigation practices
are mentioned in conjunction with the adaptation
practices. References are mainly to carbon sequestration through afforestation or through soilrestoration or soil-improvement measures.
A number of responses refer to policies aimed
at conserving BFA in the interests of promoting
resilience to climate change at production-system
level. Both in situ (including on-farm) and ex situ
conservation are mentioned. Finland, for example,
reports that all its conservation programmes and
strategies explicitly address climate change issues
and actions. Many countries note that the maintenance or expansion of ecologically diverse habitats can increase the supply of relevant ecosystem services such as flood protection and carbon
sequestration. Gabon, for example, emphasizes
the significance of its 13 national parks in terms
of carbon sequestration and the supply of a range
of ecosystem services that contribute to climate
change adaptation. Some countries highlight
the significance of policies that promote awareness raising among stakeholders and the wider
public of the links between biodiversity, climate
change-related ecosystem services and resilience
in the context of food and agriculture.
8.8.4 Frameworks supporting
the maintenance of traditional
knowledge
Many country reports provide information on policies and programmes that contribute to the maintenance of traditional knowledge. Some countries
note that traditional knowledge is addressed in
national instruments such as national biodiversity strategies and action plans or in policies and
legislation related to intangible cultural heritage,
agri-environmental schemes, protected geographical indications or intellectual property. Several
note that traditional knowledge is addressed in
international agreements they have ratified, for
example the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
A few countries mention national policies
and programmes specifically addressing the
maintenance and use of traditional knowledge.
For example, Iraq reports that it is developing a
law that will address the conservation, maintenance and exchange of animal and plant genetic
resources and associated traditional knowledge.
Others note, in more general terms, that policies
promoting conservation and sustainable use of
BFA also contribute to the maintenance of related
traditional knowledge. Several countries mention
policy frameworks addressing the role of indigenous peoples in maintaining biodiversity and the
traditional knowledge associated with it. A few
mention legal frameworks aimed at recording traditional knowledge and protecting the rights of
indigenous knowledge holders. Peru, for instance,
mentions a legal framework110 for the recording
of collective traditional knowledge linked to biological resources that provides the opportunity to
choose between a publicly accessible and a confidential national registry. Several countries that
lack policies and legislation in this field note the
need to develop relevant instruments. However,
some of those that have instruments in place note
that little is being done to implement them.
8.8.5 Access and benefit-sharing
Given that a significant proportion of the BFA
used within any given country originated beyond
its borders, and that efforts to diversify and adapt
production systems require ongoing crossborder
exchanges of genetic resources, it is clear that
countries are interdependent in the use of BFA.
At the same time, countries have – in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international environmental law –
“the sovereign right to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own environmental policies.”111
This sovereign right includes the right of countries
to restrict access to their biodiversity and to make
Law No. 27811 of July 24 2002, on the Introduction of the
Protection Regime for the Collective Knowledge of Indigenous
Peoples derived from Biological Resources (available at
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=3420).
111
Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 3.
110
access conditional upon agreement regarding
benefit-sharing. The CBD and the Nagoya Protocol
(see Section 8.8.1) confirm and are based on this
sovereign right of countries. The International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, which was established in harmony
with the CBD, recognizes this sovereign right, but
includes a multilateral system of access and benefitsharing (ABS) for facilitated access to a negotiated
selection of PGRFA.
ABS usually refers to the ways in which genetic
resources may be accessed and how benefits that
result from specific uses of genetic resources are
shared between providers and users. ABS measures will usually state that access to the genetic
resources of the country requires prior informed
consent (PIC) and an agreement on the sharing of
benefits under “mutually agreed terms” (MAT).
In line with the Nagoya Protocol, ABS measures
often specify that PIC and MAT are required
for access to genetic resources for research and
development on their genetic and/or biochemical
composition, including through the application
of biotechnology. Other ABS laws are broader
in scope in that they require PIC and MAT also
for uses not covered by the Nagoya Protocol, for
example the use of genetic resources as biological
resources or commodities.
Following the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol,
and its entry into force in 2014, many countries
have been developing ABS legislation or revising their existing legislation. Even in countries
that have finalized their ABS frameworks, experiences with implementation may lead to further
changes and adjustments of ABS rules in the relatively near future. ABS policy frameworks are,
thus, in a process of transformation, evolution
and adjustment.
Measures for regulating access and
for ensuring compliance
ABS measures can be roughly distinguished into
measures through which countries regulate access
to their genetic resources and measures ensuring
compliance with the ABS laws of other countries. To
date, far fewer countries have adopted measures
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
439
8
EN A BL I NG FR AME WORK S
PART D
of the latter type, i.e. measures that require that
genetic resources used within their jurisdictions
have been accessed in accordance with PIC and
that MAT have been established in line with the
requirements of the ABS measures of the other
country. The European Union has adopted legislation (Regulation [EU] No 511/2014)112 that requires
users of genetic resources to
exercise due diligence to ascertain that
genetic resources and traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources which
they utilise have been accessed in
accordance with applicable access and
benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory
requirements, and that benefits are fairly
and equitably shared upon mutually agreed
terms, in accordance with any applicable
legislation or regulatory requirements.
The Nagoya Protocol does not require countries
to regulate access to genetic resources within their
jurisdiction. The national sovereignty of countries
over genetic resources within their jurisdiction
includes the right to make them freely available
as much as the right to regulate access to them.
While a number of (mostly Northern) countries
have decided not to make access to genetic
resources within their jurisdiction subject to benefit-sharing, other countries have made access to
their genetic resources conditional upon their PIC,
which they will usually only grant if the recipient
agrees to share the benefits, either up-front or
once they accrue.
112
Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance
measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access
to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing
of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union Text
with EEA relevance (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0511). See also
Guidance document on the scope of application and core
obligations of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the compliance measures
for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits
Arising from their Utilisation in the Union C/2016/5337
(available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016XC0827%2801%29).
440
National ABS measures for biodiversity
for food and agriculture and associated
traditional knowledge
ABS measures often do not distinguish between
different categories of genetic resources. However,
the ABS measures of countries that are Parties
to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture often contain
provisions on plant genetic resources aligning the
measures with the provisions of the Treaty and
the modalities of its Multilateral System of Access
and Benefit-Sharing. Moreover, ABS measures in
a number of countries distinguish different purposes for which genetic resources may be used and
provide for different authorization requirements
and procedures for access to genetic resources
depending on their intended use.
In developing and implementing ABS legislation, Parties to the Nagoya Protocol are obliged
to consider “the importance of genetic resources
for food and agriculture and their special role for
food security.”113 More than two-thirds of Parties
reporting in 2017/2018 on their implementation
of the Nagoya Protocol confirmed that they had
considered the importance of genetic resources for
food and agriculture in the development of their
ABS frameworks (CBD, 2018).
Although ABS laws are considered “an expression of national sovereignty” over genetic
resources (Morgera, Buck and Tsioumani, 2013),
they often also serve, in line with the Nagoya
Protocol, the additional purpose of ensuring that
genetic resources held by indigenous peoples or
local communities (IPLCs) are accessed with their
agreement. The laws of some countries explicitly
provide for the development of biocultural protocols that aim to ensure that PIC is obtained from
IPLCs for access to genetic resources held by them,
and that benefits from the utilization of such
genetic resources are shared with them.
Even before the adoption of the Nagoya
Protocol, many countries had started to regulate
access to traditional knowledge associated with
genetic resources (Bardi, Gutiérrez-Oppe and
113
Nagoya Protocol, Article 8(c).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
THE S TAT E O F P O L I CI ES, I NS T I T U T I O NS A N D CAPACI T I ES
Politano, 2011). The relevant laws usually state that
such knowledge held by IPLCs should only be
accessed with the PIC of the relevant IPLC and
only if MAT have been established. Some country
reports, however, indicate that the implementation of these provisions is still often challenging
because communities often do not yet have clear
decision-making structures and procedures in
place and therefore PIC with one IPLC may be
questioned by another IPLC.
There is consensus among Parties to the Nagoya
Protocol on the need for capacity-building and
other support measures critical to the development and implementation of ABS measures.114
Developing and implementing ABS measures is considered a challenge as genetic resources are used by
a range of different communities of practice, many
of which have developed their own exchange practices (e.g. Nijar, 2013). Legislators and competent
authorities are therefore confronted with widely
differing expectations and a range of existing practices and stakeholder requirements.
114
Distinctive features of biological diversity
for food and agriculture
In line with the Nagoya Protocol requirement to
consider in the development and implementation
of ABS legislation “the importance of genetic
resources for food and agriculture and their
special role for food security”, countries may in
the future develop tailored procedures for ABS
for genetic resources for food and agriculture.
The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture’s Elements to Facilitate Domestic
Implementation of Access and Benefit-sharing
for Different Subsectors of Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2016q) aim to assist
governments to take into account the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture, their special role for food security and the
distinctive features of the different subsectors of
genetic resources for food and agriculture, while
complying, as applicable, with the international
ABS instruments.
See Article 22 of the Nagoya Protocol and relevant decisions
of the Meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol: https://
www.cbd.int/abs/capacitybuilding-relevant.shtml
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
441
8
Part E
CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 9
Needs and challenges
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Drivers of change
Chapters 1 to 8 of this report identify and assess
the multiple contributions that biodiversity
makes to food and agriculture, to the livelihoods
of farmers, livestock keepers, fishers, fish farmers
and forest dwellers, and to food security and
nutrition. They document what is known about
the status and trends of biodiversity for food and
agriculture (BFA), the drivers of change affecting
it, levels of adoption of management practices
and strategies that promote its sustainable use
and contribute to its conservation, and the state
of policies, institutions and capacities related
to its management. This final chapter draws
together the various threads of the analysis to
identify the main challenges to the sustainable
management of BFA.1
Securing and enhancing the multiple roles of
BFA will require sustainable use and conservation
of the ecosystems, species and genetic diversity
that compose it. For this to happen, knowledge of
the roles of biodiversity in the ecological processes
that underpin food and agricultural production
needs to be strengthened, and used to develop
management strategies that protect, restore and
enhance these processes across a range of scales.
Establishing effective policy and outreach measures will be needed to support the uptake of
management practices that sustainably use biodiversity to promote food and livelihood security
and resilience.
BFA is affected by a variety of interacting drivers
of change: global effects, such as climate change
and the operations of international markets, give
rise to more immediate drivers such as land-use
change, pollution, overuse of external inputs,
overharvesting and the proliferation of invasive
species. While there are many potential means
of addressing immediate threats through the
adoption of various sustainable management
practices and the implementation of conservation measures, these may be neglected or overwhelmed unless political will is found to address
higher-level drivers. It is also essential to build on
the opportunities that are emerging as a result
of trends such as growing consumer demand for
biodiversity-friendly products.
At minimum, there is a need to: (i) better
understand the effects of drivers of change on
BFA and take urgent action to address those that
are undermining the sustainability of food and
agricultural production; (ii) improve the monitoring of recognized threats to BFA, such as
habitat destruction, pollution, inappropriate use
of agricultural inputs, overharvesting, pests, diseases and invasive alien species, and strengthen
efforts to reduce them or mitigate their effects;
(iii) promote the use of technologies and management practices that have positive effects
on BFA and the supply of ecosystem services;
(iv) implement policies that help to protect biodiversity from the effects of negative drivers
and support its sustainable use; (v) remove or
revise policies that have harmful effects; and
(vi) promote the use of BFA in climate change
1
Needs and challenges related to the sustainable use and
conservation of plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic
resources are discussed in detail in the respective global
assessments (FAO, 2010a, 2014a, 2015a, forthcoming).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
445
CO NCLUSI O NS
PART E
adaptation and mitigation, in disaster-risk reduction and in addressing other drivers that negatively affect production systems and the supply
of ecosystem services.
9.3 Status and trends
Many key components of BFA at genetic, species
and ecosystem levels are in decline. While the
general declining trend – and hence the need
for action – is clear, lack of data often constrains
the planning and prioritization of effective remedial measures.
The extent and nature of knowledge gaps
vary across the components of BFA. In the case of
domesticated species and those that are widely
harvested from the wild, species inventories are
largely complete and the range of within-species
populations (breeds, varieties, etc.) is often also
well documented, although to varying degrees
across the regions of the world. In contrast, many
associated-biodiversity species (species that live in
and around production systems and provide regulating and supporting ecosystem services), particularly micro-organisms and invertebrates, have
never been documented.
Population trends are relatively well monitored
for some taxonomic groups (e.g. vertebrates). For
many others, however, knowledge is very limited,
even at species level, and almost non-existent at
within-species level. Moreover, where monitoring programmes for associated biodiversity are
in place, population data are often not linked
to spatial data on the distribution of production
systems and hence potential impacts on production can be difficult to evaluate. In many cases, the
contributions of specific components of BFA to the
supply of ecosystem services are poorly understood.
There is an urgent need to improve the availability of data in all the above fields. Doing this
will require, inter alia, improving methodologies for recording, storing and analysing data
on changes in the abundance and distribution of
species (including improving geographic information system facilities) and increasing the supply of
446
taxonomists with the skills needed to work with currently neglected taxonomic groups. Strengthening
research, education and capacity-building programmes will be essential. Cooperation needs to
be improved, including between the public sector
and other stakeholders. In a number of countries,
certain types of associated biodiversity are monitored through citizen-science projects, and there
may be potential to expand activities of this kind
and introduce them more widely.
Effective monitoring requires systematic and
long-term commitment. The roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders need to be clearly
defined. Where they do not currently exist, it may
be necessary to establish national bodies to organize or oversee monitoring activities.
9.4 Management
9.4.1 State of use
A range of management practices and production approaches that can potentially contribute
to the conservation and sustainable use of BFA
are increasingly being implemented around the
world. Detailed information on trends in such
practices is, however, often limited, as is detailed
information on their impacts on BFA and the
supply of ecosystem services. Uptake is constrained
by a variety of factors.
Overall, one of the major constraints to the
development, adoption and implementation of
management practices and approaches that contribute to the sustainable management of BFA is
a lack of data on the characteristics of relevant
ecosystems and limited understanding of ecosystem functions and services, including specifically on the roles of different components of BFA.
Action needs to be taken to address knowledge
gaps of this kind.
Many BFA-focused practices are relatively
complex and require good understanding of the
local ecosystem. They can be knowledge intensive,
context specific and provide benefits only in the
relatively long term. Many countries note major
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
N EEDS A N D CHA L LENGES
challenges in up-scaling such practices and identify the need to promote them through capacity
development and by strengthening incentives and
policy frameworks.
Although circumstances vary greatly from
country to country and across production systems,
a number of broad priorities with widespread
relevance can be identified. On the institutional
side, policy and regulatory frameworks may need
to be reviewed to assess whether they provide the
necessary support to the introduction or upscaling of more sustainable and biodiversity-friendly
practices and to identify any ways in which they
may operate as constraints. Fuller consultation
between policy-makers and a range of stakeholders, including producers, can potentially help to
overcome disconnections between political and
operational levels.
Where supportive frameworks are in place,
any constraints to their implementation, including financial constraints, need to be identified
and addressed. Education and training on sustainable management practices often need to
be improved, both to increase skills and knowledge at producer level and to increase the supply
of trained and qualified technical and scientific
personnel (both specialists and experts with crossdisciplinary knowledge). In some places, constraints related to weaknesses in transport and
communications infrastructure will need to be
addressed. Everywhere, efforts will be needed to
increase knowledge of how effective particular
practices and approaches are in promoting the
sustainable use and conservation of BFA.
The following paragraphs describe key needs
and challenges related to specific management
practices and approaches.
Ecosystem, landscape and seascape
approaches
While available evidence suggests that there are
positive trends in the adoption and implementation of ecosystem, landscape and seascape
approaches in the context of food and agriculture,
assessment of developments in this field is constrained by a lack of clarity regarding the nature
of these approaches and the multitude of terms
used to describe them. Efforts may be required to
promote common understanding in this regard, as
well as to increase and disseminate knowledge on
the potential benefits of such approaches.
Developing effective integrated approaches
requires research on: (i) the functional roles of
various components of BFA in key ecosystem processes within production systems and in wider
landscapes or seascapes; and (ii) the effects that
adopting such approaches have on components of
BFA. The latter will require better surveying and
monitoring in relevant ecosystems and the development of appropriate indicators.
Information on the application of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches and
other innovative strategies that may be beneficial to BFA often fails to reach producers and
other land or water users, or only does so after
substantial delays. Priorities in this field therefore include better capturing and disseminating
lessons-learned from the implementation of such
approaches, including success stories.
Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches
require cross-sectoral thinking and collaboration.
This creates significant challenges to their adoption, given that institutional frameworks (policies, laws, organizational structures, etc.) are still
very much compartmentalized and that there is a
lack of holistic and multidisciplinary approaches
both at policy level and at the level of practical
implementation.
Restoration practices
Restoration practices have acquired a prominent
place on the global environmental agenda in
recent decades. If well planned, they can provide
simultaneous benefits for agricultural productivity, biodiversity conservation and the supply of
ecosystem services. Among ecosystems of importance to food and agriculture, forests and grasslands, as well as of a range of freshwater, marine
and coastal ecosystems, are widely recognized as
priorities for restoration. Depending on the location, key forest restoration activities are likely
to include restoring connectivity between forest
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
447
9
CO NCLUSI O NS
PART E
fragments and restoring forest cover in areas that
are important to the supply of hydrological and
erosion-control ecosystem services. Where aquatic
ecosystems are concerned, mangroves, seagrass
beds, coral reefs, coastal sand dunes, lakeshores
and riverbanks are among the key targets for restoration. Priorities will often include improving
connectivity within and between aquatic ecosystems and enhancing significant habitats such as
fish spawning sites. Attention will need to be paid
to the threats posed by climate change.
Diversification and management practices
at production level
The use of a number of diversification strategies
in food and agricultural production systems seems
to be increasing. Evidence indicates that agroforestry is becoming more widespread in all regions
of the world. Priorities in terms of strengthening
the contributions of agroforestry to sustainable
development include addressing problems in
germplasm supply, improving the provision of
marketing advice and developing a better understanding of gender-related implications. Home
gardens are major reservoirs of BFA in many
parts of the world. However, knowledge of the
status and trends of these systems is limited. In
the case of diversification in aquaculture, while
traditional extensive diversified systems are
tending to decline as a consequence of resource
constraints, innovative polyculture approaches are
creating opportunities to increase efficiency and
tackle problems related to fish health and effluent
discharge. Integrated crop–livestock systems
remain widespread globally. There is need for
research into how complementarities between
crop and livestock production can be enhanced
in the context of limited availability of land and
other resources, including research into the significance of within-species genetic diversity.
The use of many management practices
believed to help promote the conservation of
BFA, or that utilize BFA in a sustainable way, is
reportedly increasing, as is awareness of the benefits of such practices among consumers, producers, governments and international agencies. This
448
appears to be the case, for example, for organic
agriculture, low external input agriculture, management practices implemented with the aim
of preserving and enhancing soil biodiversity,
conservation agriculture, integrated plant nutrient management, integrated pest management,
pollination management and sustainable forest
management practices. Nevertheless, the availability of global data on the levels of implementation of many of these practices remains
limited, and knowledge of their impacts on BFA
and the supply of ecosystem services needs to
be improved.
Biodiversity-based and biodiversity-friendly
management practices generally require detailed
knowledge of local production systems and ecosystems and are often relatively labour intensive. Consequently, their implementation tends
to require the active participation of producers
and their organizations, as well as the presence
of effective extension services. Management
interventions often need to extend beyond farm
boundaries into the broader landscape or seascape. Attention needs to be paid to maintaining
or restoring ecosystems that deliver services to
food and agriculture and conserving the species
and genetic diversity that will allow adaptation
to changing conditions.
The use of micro-organisms in food
processing and agro-industrial processes
Micro-organisms make multiple contributions
to food processing and agro-industrial processes, and there is greater potential to expand
these roles still further. Potential threats
include the loss of knowledge associated with
traditional food-processing practices that are
in decline and the effects of climate change
on microbial communities. Key tasks include
improving frameworks for quality control of
microbial products and for evaluating potential
risks to human health or to the environment,
improving registration policies for microbial
products, improving education and awarenessraising, and strengthening research and conservation networks.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
N EEDS A N D CHA L LENGES
Rumen microbial diversity
Given their vital contributions to livestock production and their role in the production of greenhouse
gases, there is an urgent need to improve knowledge of rumen micro-organisms and their functions. Considerable progress has been made in this
regard in recent years, but fundamental knowledge gaps remain to be addressed.
Genetic-improvement activities
Genetic-improvement programmes for domesticated crops and livestock are well established
globally, although many species and within-species
populations are neglected. Programmes for trees
and species used in aquaculture are becoming
more widespread. Genetic-improvement activities
for other components of BFA are generally uncommon, with the exception of silkworms and honey
bees. There could be benefits in extending domestication and genetic-improvement activities to
other invertebrate species that contribute to food
and agriculture, including stingless bees, which
have been found to be more effective pollinators
than honey bees for certain crops, and insects that
can be raised for human consumption or as animal
feed. Activities of this kind are already under way
in several countries. Efforts are also being made to
develop methods for assisted evolution of climate
resilience in corals.
9.4.2 State of conservation
Methods and strategies for in situ (including
on-farm and in other production systems) and ex
situ conservation of BFA, in particular of associated biodiversity, need to be improved and information on them made more widely available.
Especially with respect to ex situ conservation,
there are still technical barriers to the long-term
conservation of some species. Overcoming these
gaps and constraints will often require increased
funding, better training of relevant personnel and
better provision of technical resources. Where
skills are concerned, improving capacity in the
fields of taxonomy and systematics is a widespread
priority. Conservation-related education, training
and awareness-raising activities for stakeholders
at all levels from producers to policy-makers
need to be strengthened. Improving conservation
methods and strategies for BFA and strengthening their implementation will also require a more
interdisciplinary approach. As and where relevant,
the contributions that traditional production practices and resource-management strategies associated with local or indigenous communities make
to the conservation of BFA need to be given due
recognition and built on, with the participation
of the communities concerned. Maintenance and
transfer of relevant traditional knowledge should
be supported and facilitated.
While there will often be a need to target individual species or populations that are at particular
risk, components of BFA should not be considered
in isolation from each other or from wider ecosystems, landscapes and seascapes. Potential synergies need to be explored, whether in terms of
management strategies at production-system or
landscape level that create opportunities to diversify more than one category of BFA or in terms of
more efficient use of resources. Productive landscapes and seascapes need to include the habitat
features necessary to support the associatedbiodiversity species that underpin food and agricultural production. Ensuring that this is the case
will, in places, require the restoration of degraded
habitats and maintaining or recreating wildlife
corridors linking patches of habitat. Given their
focus on integrated action across multiple scales
and on accounting for the interests and concerns
of a wide range of stakeholders, ecosystem, landscape or seascape approaches (see above) may
provide useful frameworks.
Conservation measures for wild foods should
also not be neglected. As with other components
of BFA, conservation strategies need to be based
on a sound understanding of the range of species
involved, their distribution, characteristics, uses
and risk status. Inventory and characterization
efforts for this category of BFA generally need
to be strengthened. Strategies need to be put in
place that allow nutritional benefits to be realized
in a sustainable way and threats such as overharvesting to be identified and addressed.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
449
9
CO NCLUSI O NS
PART E
9.5 Policies, capacities
and institutions
Cooperation
Ensuring the sustainable use of BFA requires
improved collaboration among a range stakeholders at local national and regional levels.
Synergies between the food and agriculture and
environmental sectors, in particular, need to be
strengthened. Constraints to cooperation often
relate to a lack of mechanisms for exchanging
information among and between stakeholder
groups or a lack of participatory decision-making
processes. Mechanisms for involving small-scale
producers, and women and youth in particular, in
decision-making processes need to be improved.
Greater cooperation between sectors provides
opportunities to increase efficiency and can be a
means of securing resources for BFA-related work.
Training and awareness-raising on the organization of collaborative initiatives is also needed.
Research
As discussed above, the sustainable management of BFA, in particular associated biodiversity, is constrained by numerous knowledge gaps.
Research programmes need to be strengthened
and the necessary research infrastructure put in
place, including by addressing shortages of specialists in relevant fields. This in turn creates the
need to strengthen educational curricula and
improve training (see next subsection). All these
measures will require adequate funding, as will
improving the dissemination of research results.
Strengthening research-related information systems,
such as systems for monitoring the status and
trends of components of biodiversity or for managing relevant geographical data, is a widespread
priority, both as a means of disseminating research
outputs and as a means of making relevant information available to researchers.
Research is also often constrained by a lack
of coordination between research institutions
or between researchers working in different
disciplines or in different sectors (both within
450
and beyond food and agriculture). Improving
coordination and linkages between institutes
nationally, and at regional and international
levels, potentially provides opportunities both to
strengthen interdisciplinary work and to allow
more efficient use of resources and information.
Links between research and practical management at production-system level also need to be
improved. This could involve, inter alia, improving researchers’ links to producers, extension services and other relevant stakeholders, including
by promoting greater participation throughout
research-project cycles from planning to monitoring, and integrating indicators of practical impact
into evaluation mechanisms for research projects.
Education, training and awareness-raising
Education and training on the management of
BFA at all levels need to be strengthened, as
does awareness raising on the importance of BFA
among a range of stakeholders, including policymakers and the general public. Biodiversityrelated issues tend not to be well integrated
into higher-education courses on food and agriculture or on other aspects of land use. Courses
related to biodiversity conservation are often
disconnected from those related to the use of
biodiversity (i.e. on agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
etc.), potentially leading to a lack of interdisciplinary skills among professionals. There is often
also a need to improve the supply of graduates
trained in specific fields such as taxonomy, economic valuation and cryoconservation. Ongoing
capacity development among professionals and
technicians is also essential.
While training for producers on the sustainable
use of BFA is often inadequate, countries report a
variety of success stories in this regard (for example
with farmer field schools) and there are likely to be
opportunities to expand, adapt and build upon some
of these. Constraints to the participation of women
in BFA-related education need to be addressed, and
relevant extension and training programmes need
to be better tailored to women’s needs.
As well as organizing training activities, there
is a need to improve access to information
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
N EEDS A N D CHA L LENGES
(e.g. via publications and information systems) and
create opportunities for stakeholders to interact
and exchange knowledge and ideas. Improving
the state of education and training will require
addressing shortfalls in funding and improving cooperation and exchange of information
between educational institutions and between
them and other stakeholder groups.
Policy and legal frameworks
Appropriate legal and policy frameworks are
essential to the effective management of BFA.
However, they often remain underdeveloped or
poorly implemented. Shortcomings of this kind
can, for example, mean that it is difficult to ensure
support for long-term activities such as monitoring.
Such problems can partly be attributed to a lack of
adequate coordination between the food and agriculture and nature conservation sectors and to a
lack of awareness of the significance of BFA among
policy-makers. Overcoming these constraints will
require, in addition to awareness-raising efforts,
greater involvement of multiple stakeholders in
policy-development. Links between research and
policy-making also often need to be improved.
For policies to have an impact, the resources
needed to implement them will need to be found.
Where access and benefit-sharing (ABS) are concerned, the main priorities that can be identified
are capacity-building on the development and
implementation of ABS measures, and improving
coordination between ministries, agencies and
stakeholders responsible for ABS in the various
sectors of food and agriculture.
Valuation
Valuation studies are widely regarded as a potential means of drawing attention to the important
contributions that biodiversity and ecosystem services make to human well-being and as a means
of guiding the development of policies, research
programmes and incentive schemes. There are,
however, many gaps in terms of the coverage of
such studies, for example with respect to microbial
genetic resources and wild pollinators. Potential
means of strengthening work in this field include
fostering cross-sectoral and interinstitutional
cooperation in valuation efforts, standardizing
methodologies and tools, and mobilizing financial resources.
Incentives
Although incentive programmes supporting the
sustainable management of BFA are becoming
more widespread, such schemes are often isolated
measures targeting the particular concerns of individual public programmes, private-sector operations or civil-society initiatives, and in many cases
are very localized. Evidence suggests that a coordinated package of measures can create more impact
in terms of improving outcomes for BFA. Other priorities include better documenting and mapping
existing schemes, taking a longer-term perspective
in planning, and improving cross-sectoral cooperation and institutional collaboration so as to
improve the coordination of multiple incentives.
9.6 Towards a more diverse
and sustainable future
BFA and the ecosystem services it supports are
fundamental to efforts to increase the resilience,
sustainability and productivity of food and agricultural systems, sustain livelihoods and enhance
food security and nutrition around the world.
Yet, much of the planet’s BFA – ecosystems,
species and within-species genetic diversity – is
being eroded, often at an alarming rate. Urgent
action and long-term commitment are needed,
both to enhance the multiple contributions that
BFA makes to sustainable development and to
tackle the multiple threats currently driving its
loss. This will require the involvement of stakeholders at all levels, nationally and internationally. Governments will need to take concrete steps
to ensure their responsibilities in this field are
fulfilled, particularly in light of the significance
of BFA to efforts to meet the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals.
Positive global developments include, on the
one hand, growing awareness internationally of
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
451
9
CO NCLUSI O NS
PART E
threats to the sustainability of food and agriculture, including those related to the loss of biodiversity, and on the other, upward trends in levels
of adoption of various management practices
that potentially contribute to the conservation
and sustainable use of BFA. These developments
need to be built upon by the global community.
Knowledge gaps need to be filled, cooperation
strengthened, including cross-sectorally and
internationally, and financial, human and technical resources mobilized. Effective legal and policy
frameworks need to be put in place.
The country-driven process of preparing The
State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and
452
Agriculture has led to the identification of
numerous gaps, needs and potential actions in
the management of BFA. The next step is to take
action. Over the years, the Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture has overseen
the development of global plans of action for
genetic resources in the plant, animal and forest
sectors. Implementation of these instruments
needs to be stepped up. Consideration also needs
to be given to how the international community
can more effectively promote synergies in the
management of all components of biodiversity,
across these sectors and others, in the interests of
a more sustainable food and agriculture.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRI CU LT URE
References
Abizaid, C., Coomes, O.T. & Perrault-Archambault, M.
Ahrends, A., Hollingsworth, P.M., Ziegler, A.D.,
2016. Seed sharing in Amazonian indigenous rain
Fox, J.M., Chen, H., Su, Y. & Xu, J. 2015. Current
forest communities: a social network analysis in three
trends of rubber plantation expansion may threaten
Achuar villages, Peru. Human Ecology, 44(5): 577–594.
biodiversity and livelihoods. Global Environmental
Acreman, M. 2004. Water and ecology. Series on Water
Change, 34: 48–58.
Aitken, S.N. & Whitlock, M.C. 2013. Assisted gene
and Ethics, Essay 8. Paris, UNESCO.
Acreman, M.C., Arthington, A.H., Colloff, M.J., Couch,
C.A., Crossman, N.D., Dyer, F., Overton, I.C.,
Pollino, C., Stewardson, M.H. & Young, W.J. 2014.
Environmental flows for natural, hybrid and novel
riverine ecosystems in a changing world. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 12: 466–473.
Adams, J. 2012. Determination and implementation
of environmental water requirements for estuaries.
flow to facilitate local adaptation to climate
change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics, 44: 367–388.
Aizen, M.A. & Harder, L.D. 2009. The global stock of
domesticated honey bees is growing slower than
agricultural demand for pollination. Current Biology,
19(11): 915–918.
Aizen, M.A., Garibaldi, L.A., Cunningham, S.A. &
Ramsar Technical Report No. 9/CBD Technical Series
Klein, A.M. 2008. Long-term global trends in crop
No. 69. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention
yield and production reveal no current pollination
Secretariat, and Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of the
shortage but increasing pollinator dependency.
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Current Biology, 18: 1572–1575.
Addis, G. 2009. Wild and semi-wild edible plants of Hamar
Aizen, M.A., Garibaldi, L.A., Cunningham, S.A. & Klein,
and Xonso (South Ethiopia) with emphasis on their
A.M. 2009. How much does agriculture depend on
ethnobotany and nutritional composition of selected
pollinators? Lessons from long-term trends in crop
species. Addis Ababa University. (PhD dissertation)
Addy, S., Cooksley, S., Dodd, N., Waylen, K., Stockan,
production. Annals of Botany, 103: 1579–1588.
Akasaka, M., Kadoya, T., Ishihama, F., Fujita, T. &
J., Byg, A. & Holstead, K. 2016. River restoration
Fuller, R. 2017. Smart protected area placement
and biodiversity: nature-based solutions for restoring
decelerates biodiversity loss: a representation-
rivers in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Aberdeen,
extinction feedback leads rare species to extinction.
UK, Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Waters.
Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S. & Lovett, J.C. 2004. Household
Conservation Letters, 10: 539–546.
Alagely, A., Krediet, C.J., Ritchie, K.B. & Teplitski,
characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from
M. 2011. Signaling-mediated cross-talk modulates
common property forest management in Nepal.
swarming and biofilm formation in a coral pathogen
Ecological Economics, 48(2): 245–257.
Serratia marcescens. ISME Journal, 5: 1609–1620.
African Union Commision. 2015. 11 Overview of
Agenda 2063. Addis Ababa. (available at https://
au.int/sites/default/files/documents/33126-doc-11_
Alexander, S.J. & Mclain, R.J. 2001. An overview of
non-timber forest products in the United States today.
Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 13(3–4): 95–103.
Alexandraki, V., Tsakalidou, E., Papadimitriou, K.,
an_overview_of_agenda.pdf)
Agarwal, B. 2015. Food security, productivity and
Holzapfel, W. 2013. Status and trends of the
gender inequality. In R.J. Herring, ed. The Oxford
conservation and sustainable use of micro-organisms
handbook of food, politics and society,
in food processes. Commission on Genetic
pp. 273–301. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
Resources for Food and Agriculture. Background
Ahmed, N., Ward, J.D. & Saint, C.P. 2014. Can
integrated aquaculture-agriculture (IAA) produce
“more crop per drop”? Food Security, 6(6): 767–779.
Ahmed, N., Thompson, S. & Glaser, M. 2018.
Integrated mangrove-shrimp cultivation: potential for
Study Paper No. 65. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/028/mg309e.pdf).
Alkama, R. & Cescatti, A. 2016. Biophysical climate
impacts of recent changes in global forest cover.
Science, 351(6273): 600–604.
blue carbon sequestration. Ambio, 47(4): 441–452.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
453
Alkema, W., Boekhorst, J., Wels, M. & Van Hijum,
& Gemmill-Herren, B. 2015b. Crops, weeds and
S.A.F.T. 2016. Microbial bioinformatics for food
pollinators. Understanding ecological interaction for
safety and production. Briefings in Bioinformatics,
better management. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
17(2): 283–292.
Alkemade, R., Reid, R.S., van den Berg, M., de Leeuw,
www.fao.org/3/a-i3821e.pdf).
Anderson, P.K., Cunningham, A.A., Patel, N.G.,
J. & Jeuken, M. 2013. Assessing the impacts of
Morales, F.J., Epstein, P.R. & Daszak, P. 2004.
livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland
Emerging infectious diseases of plants: pathogen
ecosystems. PNAS, 110(52): 20900–20905.
pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers.
Allen, D.J., Molur, S. & Daniel, B.A. 2010. The status
and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in the
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(10): 535–544.
Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K.,
Eastern Himalaya. Cambridge, UK, and Gland,
Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O. & Black, A. 2011a. Global
Switzerland, IUCN, and Coimbatore, India, Zoo
seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered
Outreach Organisation.
Allen, D.J., Smith, K.G. & Darwall, W.R.T. 2012. The
Species Research, 14(2): 91–106.
Anderson, S.H., Kelly, D., Ladley, J.J., Molloy, S. &
status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity
Terry, J. 2011b. Cascading effects of bird functional
in Indo-Burma. Cambridge, UK, and Gland,
extinction reduce pollination and plant density.
Switzerland, IUCN.
Alloway, B.J. 2013. Sources of heavy metals and
Science, 331(6020): 1068–1071.
Angelini, J., Silvina, G., Taurian, T., Ibáñez, F.,
metalloids in soils. In B. Alloway, ed. Heavy metals in
Tonelli, M.L., Valetti, L., Anzuay, M.S., Ludueña,
soils. Environmental pollution, Vol. 22, pp. 11–50.
L., Muñoz, V. & Fabra, A. 2013. The effects of
Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
pesticides on bacterial nitrogen fixers in peanut-
Alongi, D.M., Murdiyarso, D., Fourqurean, J.W.,
Kauffman, J.B., Hutahaean, A., Crooks, S.,
growing area. Archives of Microbiology, 195(10–11):
683–692.
Lovelock, C.E. et al. 2016. Indonesia’s blue carbon:
Angelopoulos, N.V., Cowx, I.G. & Buijse, A.D. 2017.
a globally significant and vulnerable sink for seagrass
Integrated planning framework for successful river
and mangrove carbon. Wetlands Ecology and
restoration projects: upscaling lessons learnt from
Management, 24(1): 3–13.
European case studies. Environmental Science and
Alston, D.G. 2011. Pest management decision-making:
the economic-injury level concept. Utah Pests Fact
Sheet (IPM-016-11). Logan, USA. Utah State University
Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laborato.
Altieri, M.A. 1995. Agroecology: the science of
sustainable agriculture. Boulder, USA, Westview Press.
Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity
Policy, 76: 12–22.
Angers, D.A. & Caron, J. 1998. Plant-induced
changes in soil structure: processes and feedbacks.
Biogeochemistry, 42: 55–72.
AOCC. 2018 The African Orphan Crops Consortium.
[Cited 26 June 2018]. http://africanorphancrops.org/
Aravanopoulos, F.A., Tollefsrud, M.M., Graudal, L.,
in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Koskela, J., Kätzel, R., Soto, A., Nagy, L. et al.
Environment, 74(1–3): 19–31.
2015. Development of genetic monitoring methods
Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: the science of
natural resource management for poor farmers in
marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 93: 1–24.
Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., Henao, A. & Lana, M.A.
2015a. Agroecology and the design of climate
change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 35(3): 869–890.
Altieri, M.A., Nicholson, C.I., Gillespie, M.,
Waterhouse, B., Wratten, S., Gbehounou, G.
454
for genetic conservation units of forest trees in
Europe. Rome, European Forest Genetic Resources
Programme (EUFORGEN), Bioversity International.
ARC (Australian Research Council). 2018. ARC
Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. [Cited
7 November 2018]. https://www.coralcoe.org.au/
Archer, S.R., Andersen, E.M., Predick, K.I.,
Schwinning, S., Steidl, R.J. & Woods, S.R.
2017. Woody plant encroachment: causes and
consequences. In D.D. Briske, ed. Rangeland
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
systems. Processes, management and challenges,
Attwood, S.J., Ranieri, J., Park, S.E., Kennedy,
G. & Smith, P. 2016. The rise of sustainable
pp. 25–84. Cham, Switzerland, Springer.
Aronson, J. & Alexander, S. 2013. Ecosystem restoration
intensification, limitations of its focus, and the
is now a global priority: time to roll up our sleeves.
need for evidence. Conference Proceedings
Restoration Ecology Journal, 21: 293–296.
of the EcoSummit Conference. (available at
Arora, D.K., Saikia, R., Dwievdi, R. & Smith, D. 2005.
Current status, strategy and future prospects of
microbial resource collections. Current Science,
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/event/conference/
ecosummit-2016).
Attwood, S., Carmona, N.E., Declerck, F., Wood, S.
& Beggi, F. 2017a. Using biodiversity to provide
89(3): 488–495.
Arslan, A., Cavatassi, R., Alfani, F., Mccarthy, N.,
multiple services in sustainable farming systems.
Lipper, L. & Kokwe, M. 2018. Diversification under
In Bioversity International, ed. Mainstreaming
climate variability as part of a CSA strategy in rural
agrobiodiversity in sustainable food systems:
Zambia. The Journal of Development Studies, 54(3):
scientific foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index,
457–480.
pp. 53–80. Rome, Bioversity International.
Ascott, M.J., Gooddy, D.C., Wang, L., Stuart, M.E.,
Attwood, S.J., Park, S., Loos, J., Phillips, M., Mills,
Lewis, M.A., Ward, R.S. & Binley, A.M. 2017.
D. & McDougall, C. 2017b. Does sustainable
Global patterns of nitrate storage in the vadose
intensification offer a pathway to improved food
zone. Nature Communications, 8: 1416.
security for aquatic agricultural system-dependent
Asfaw, T.Y. 2009. Gender, justice and livelihoods in the
communities? In I. Oborn, B. Vanlauwe, M. Phillips,
creation and demise of forests in north western
R. Thomas, W. Brooijmans & K. Atta-Krah, eds.
Ethiopia’s Zeghie Peninsula. The Faculty of Graduate
Sustainable intensification in smallholder agriculture:
Studies (Resource Management and Environmental
an integrated systems research approach,
Studies), University of British Columbia. (PhD
pp. 71–87. London, Routledge.
Ausubel, J.H., Crist, D. & Waggoner, P.E. 2010. First
dissertation)
Asfaw, S. & Lipper, L. 2012. Economics of plant genetic
Census of Marine Life 2010 – Highlights of a decade
resource management for adaptation to climate
of discovery. Washington, DC, Census of Marine Life
change: a review of selected literature. ESA Working
Paper No. 12-02. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
International Secretariat.
Ayalew, W., King, J.M., Bruns, E. & Rischkowsky,
B. 2003. Economic evaluation of smallholder
www.fao.org/3/a-an649e.pdf).
Atangana, A., Khasa, D., Chang, S. & Degrande,
A. 2014. Major agroforestry systems of the humid
tropics. In A. Atangana, D. Khasa, S. Chang & A.
Degrande, eds. Tropical agroforestry, pp. 49–93.
Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
subsistence livestock production: lessons from an
Ethiopian goat development program. Ecological
Economics, 45(3): 473–485.
Azim, M.E. & Little, D.C. 2006. Intensifying
aquaculture production through new approaches
Atkinson, G., Bateman, I. & Mourato, S. 2012. Recent
advances in the valuation of ecosystem services
and biodiversity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
to manipulating natural food. CAB Reviews:
Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science,
Nutrition and Natural Resources, 1(62).
Bacha, K., Mehari, T. & Ashenafi, M. 1998. The
28(1): 22–47.
Atkinson, R., Thomas, E., Cornelius, J., Zamora,
R. & Franco, M. 2017. Fit for purpose seed
supply systems for the implementation of
landscape restoration under Initiative 20x20:
microbial dynamics of ‘borde’ fermentation, a
traditional Ethiopian fermented beverage. Ethiopian
Journal of Science, 21(5): 195–205.
Badola, R. & Hussain, S.A. 2005. Valuing ecosystems
an analysis of national seed systems in Mexico,
functions and empirical study on the storm protection
Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Chile and
function of Bhitorkanika mangrove ecosystem, India.
Argentina. Washington, DC, WRI, Rome, Bioversity
Enviromental Conservation, 32(1): 85–92.
International, and Nairobi, ICRAF.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
455
Bailey, K.L. & Lazarovits, G. 2003. Suppressing soil-
Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E.W.,
borne diseases with residue management and
Stier, A.C. & Silliman, B.R. 2011. The value of
organic amendments. Soil and Tillage Research,
estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological
72(2): 169–180.
Bailey, R.T., Jenson, J.W. & Olsen, A.W. 2009.
Numerical modeling of atoll island hydrogeology.
Ground Water, 47(2): 184–196.
Bakos, J. & Gorda, S. 2001. Genetic resources of
Monographs, 81(2): 169–193.
Barbraud, C. & Weimerskirch, H. 2001. Emperor
penguins and climate change. Nature, 411: 183–186.
Bardgett, R.D. & Van Der Putten, W.H. 2014.
Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem
common carp at the Fish Culture Research Institute
functioning. Nature, 515(7528): 505–511.
Szarvas, Hungary. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No.
Bardi, M.A.G., Gutiérrez-Oppe, E. & Politano, R.
417. Rome, FAO.
Balian, E.V., Segers, H., Martens, K. & Lévéque, C.
2007. The Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment:
an overview of the results. Freshwater Animal
2011. Traditional knowledge products in Latin
America and their misappropriation. Journal of
Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 6(1): 34–42.
Baró, F., Chaparro, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Diversity Assessment, pp. 627–637. Dordrecht,
Langemeyer, J., Nowak, D.J. & Terradas, J. 2014.
Netherlands, Springer.
Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and
Balmford, A., Beresford, J., Green, J., Naidoo,
R., Walpole, M. & Manica, A. 2009. A global
perspective on trends in nature-based tourism. PLoS
Biology, 7(6): e1000144.
Balon, E.K. 1995. Origin and domestication of the wild
climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban
forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio, 43(4): 466–479.
Barrington, K., Chopin, T. & Robinson, S. 2009.
Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in
marine temperate waters. In D. Soto, ed. Integrated
carp, Cyprinus carpio: from Roman gourmets to the
mariculture. A global review, pp. 7–46. FAO Fisheries
swimming flowers. Aquaculture, 129: 3–48.
and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 529. Rome,
Balvanera, P., Quijas, S., Martín-López, B., Barrios, E.,
Dee, L., Isbell, F., Durance, I., White, P., Blanchard,
R. & de Groot, R. 2016. The links between
biodiversity and ecosystem services. In M. Potschin, R.
Haines-Young, R. Fish & R.K. Turner, eds. Handbook
of ecosystem services, pp. 45–49. London, Routledge.
Balzer, P., Balzer, T., Bartley, D., Choulamany, X.,
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i1092e/i1092e00.htm).
Barrios, E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land
productivity. Ecological Economics, 64(2): 269–285.
Barrios, E., Valencia, V., Jonsson, M., Brauman, A.,
Hairiah, K., Mortimer, P.E. & Okubo, S. 2018.
Contribution of trees to the conservation of biodiversity
Funge-Smith, S., Guttman, H., Halwart, M. et al.
and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes.
2006. Use and availability of aquatic biodiversity in
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
rice-based ecosystems of Southeast Asia. Journal of
Food Composition and Analysis, 19(6–7): 765–766.
Banda, H.J. & Paxton, R.J. 1991. Pollination of
Services & Management, 14(1): 1–16.
Bartley, D.M., Nguyen, T.T.T., Halwart, M. & De Silva,
S.S. 2009. Use and exchange of aquatic genetic
greenhouse tomatoes by bees. Acta Horticulturae,
resources in aquaculture: information relevant to
288: 194–198.
access and benefit sharing. Reviews in Aquaculture,
Barak, P., Jobe, B.O., Krueger, A.R., Peterson, L.A.
& Laird, D.A. 1997. Effects of long-term soil
1(3–4): 157–162.
Bartley, D.M., De Graaf, G.J., Valbo-Jørgensen, J. &
acidification due to nitrogen fertilizer inputs in
Marmulla, G. 2015. Inland capture fisheries: status
Wisconsin. Plant and Soil, 197(1): 61–69.
and data issues. Fisheries Management and Ecology,
Barbero, R., Abatzoglou, J.T., Larkin, N.K., Kolden,
C.A. & Stocks, B. 2015. Climate change presents
22: 71–77.
Bartley, D.M., Leonard, N.J., Youn, S., Taylor,
increased potential for very large fires in the
W.W., Baigún, C., Barlow, C., Fazio, J. et al.
contiguous United States. International Journal of
2016. Moving towards effective governance of
Wildland Fire, 24(7): 892–899.
fisheries and freshwater resources. In W.W. Taylor,
456
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
D.M. Bartley, C.I. Goddard, N.L. Leonard & R.L.
Welcomme, eds. Freshwater, fish and the future,
pp. 251–280. Rome, FAO, and East Lansing,
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/
meeting/022/mb392e.pdf).
Beed, F., Dubois, T., Coyne, D., Lesueur, D. &
USA, Michigan State University. (available at
Ramasamy, S. 2017. Soil biodiversity. In D. Hunter,
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5711e.pdf).
L. Guarino, C. Spillane & P.C. McKeown, eds.
Bartomeus, I., Park, M.G., Gibbs, J., Danforth, B.N.,
Lakso, A.N. & Winfree, R. 2013. Biodiversity
Routledge handbook of agricultural biodiversity, pp.
127–144. London, Routledge.
ensures plant-pollinator phenological synchrony
Bein, E., Habte, B., Jaber, A., Birnie, A. & Tegnas,
against climate change. Ecology Letters, 16(11):
B. 1996. Useful trees and shrubs in Eritrea.
1331–1338.
Identification, propagation and management for
Battcock, M. & Azam-Ali, S. 1998. Fermented
fruits and vegetables: a global perspective. FAO
Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 134. Rome, FAO.
Baulcombe, D., Crute, I., Davies, B., Dunwell, J.,
agricultural and pastoral communities. Nairobi,
Regional Soil Conservation Unit.
Bekkevold, D., Hansen, M.M. & Nielsen, E.E. 2006.
Genetic impact of gadoid culture on wild fish
Gale, M., Jones, J., Pretty, J., Sutherland, W. &
populations: predictions, lessons from salmonids,
Toulmin, C. 2009. Reaping the benefits: science and
and possibilities for minimizing adverse effects. ICES
the sustainable intensification of global agriculture.
Journal of Marine Science, 63(2): 198–208.
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W.
London, The Royal Society.
Baum, J.K. & Worm, B. 2009. Cascading top-down
effects of changing oceanic predator abundances.
Journal of Animal Ecology, 78(4): 699–714.
Bay, R.A. & Palumbi, S.R. 2014. Multilocus adaptation
& Courchamp, F. 2012. Impacts of climate change
on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4):
365–377.
Bellingham, P.J., Kardol, P., Bonner, K.I., Buxton, R.P.,
associated with heat resistance in reef-building
Morse, C.W. & Wardle, D.A. 2016. Browsing by an
corals. Current Biology, 24: 2952–2956.
invasive herbivore promotes development of plant
Bayala, J., Kalinganire, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., Sinclair, F.
& Garrity, D. 2011a. Conservation agriculture with
trees (CAWT) in the West African Sahel: a review.
Occasional Paper No. 14. Nairobi, ICRAF.
and soil communities during primary succession.
Journal of Ecology, 104(6): 1505–1517.
Benbrook, C.M. 2012. Impacts of genetically engineered
crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen
Bayala, J., Kindt, R., Belem, M. & Kalinganire, A.
2011b. Factors affecting the dynamics of tree
years. Environmental Sciences Europe, 24(1): 24.
Bender, M.A., Knutson, T.R., Tuleya, R.E., Sirutis,
diversity in agroforestry parklands for cereal and
J.J., Vecchi, G.A., Garner, S.T. & Held, A.M. 2010.
cotton farming system in Burkina Faso. New Forest,
Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the
41(3): 281–296.
frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes. Science,
Bedford, F.E., Whittaker, R.J. & Kerr, J.T. 2012.
Systemic range shift lags among a pollinator species
assemblage following rapid climate change. Botany,
90(7): 587–597.
327(5964): 454–458.
Bene, J.G., Beall, H.W. & Côte, A. 1977. Trees, food
and people. Ottawa, International Development
Research Centre (IDRC).
Beech, E., Rivers, M., Oldfield, S. & Smith, P.P. 2017.
Béné, C., Steel, E., Luadia, B.K. & Gordon, A. 2009.
GlobalTreeSearch: the first complete global database
Fish as the “bank in the water” – Evidence from
of tree species and country distributions. Journal of
chronic-poor communities in Congo. Food Policy,
Sustainable Forestry, 36(5): 454–489.
34(1): 108–118.
Beed, F., Benedetti, A., Cardinali, G., Chakraborty,
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. & Weibull, A.-C. 2005.
S., Dubois, T., Garrett, K. & Halewood, M.
The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity
2011. Climate change and micro-organism
and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
genetic resources for food and agriculture: state
Ecology, 42(2): 261–269.
of knowledge, risks and opportunities. Rome,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
457
Berg, H. 2002. Rice monoculture and integrated rice-fish
farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam –economic
and ecological considerations. Ecological Economics,
41(1): 95–107.
Berg Miller, M.E., Yeoman, C.J., Chia, N., Tringe, S.G.,
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 365(1554): 2913–2926.
Bianchi, F.J.J., Booij, C.J.H. & Tscharntke, T. 2006.
Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural
landscapes: a review on landscape composition,
Angly, F.E., Edwards, R.A., Flint, H.J., Lamed, R.,
biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of
Bayer, E.A. & White, B.A. 2012. Phage-bacteria
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1595):
relationships and CRISPR elements revealed by a
metagenomic survey of the rumen microbiome.
Environmental Microbiology, 14(1): 207–227.
Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology. New York, USA,
Routledge.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Gadgil, M. 1995. Traditional
ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and
sustainability. In C.A. Perrings, K.G. Mäler, C.
Folke, C.S. Holling & B.O. Jansson, eds. Biodiversity
conservation, ecology, economy & environment,
Vol 4. pp. 281–299. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Berti, P.R. & Jones, A.D. 2013. Biodiversity’s
contribution to dietary diversity: magnitude,
meaning and measurement. In J. Fanzo, D. Hunter, T.
Borelli & F. Mattei, eds. Diversifying food and diets:
using agricultural biodiversity to improve nutrition
and health, pp. 186–206. Oxford, UK, and New
York, USA, Routledge.
Berza, B. & Wolde, A. 2014. Food processing &
technology fermenter technology modification
changes microbiological and physico- chemical
parameters, improves sensory characteristics in
1715–1727.
Bienefeld, K. 2016. Breeding success or genetic diversity
in honey bees? Bee World, 93: 40–44.
Bienefeld, K., Ehrhardt, K., & Reinhardt, F. 2007.
Genetic evaluation in the honey bee considering
queen and worker effects–A BLUP-Animal Model
approach. Apidologie, 38(1): 77–85.
Billard, R. 1986. Symbiotic integration of aquaculture
and agriculture. Fisheries, 11(4): 14–19.
Binam, J.N., Place, F., Kalinganire, A., Hamade, S.,
Boureima, M., Tougiani, A., Dakouo, J. et al. 2015.
Effects of farmer managed natural regeneration on
livelihoods in semi-arid West Africa. Environmental
Economics and Policy Studies, 17(4): 543–575.
BIO Intelligence Service. 2014. Soil and water in a
changing environment. Final report prepared for
European Commission (DG ENV). Paris.
Bioversity International. 2017. Mainstreaming
agrobiodiversity in sustainable food systems:
scientific foundations for an Agrobiodiversity
Index. Rome.
BirdLife International. 2009. Seabirds are key indicators
the fermentation of tella, an Ethiopian traditional
of the impact of climate change on the world’s
fermented alcoholic beverage. Journal of Food
oceans. [Cited 11 April 2018]. http://datazone.
Processing & Technology, 5: 316.
birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/seabirds-are-key-
BGCI (Botanic Gardens Conservation International).
2013. Restoring damaged ecosystems: the role of
botanic gardens and the Ecological Restoration
indicators-of-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-theworld’s-oceans
BirdLife International. 2013. Crop expansion is a
Alliance. BG Journal. Journal of Botanic Gardens
major threat to biodiversity in tropical countries.
Conservation International, 13(2).
[Cited 30 April 2018]. http://datazone.birdlife.org/
BGCI. 2018. GardenSearch. [Cited 15 June 2018].
https://www.bgci.org/garden_search.php
Bhandari, P.S. 2012. Farmers perception about gains
crop-expansion-is-a-major-threat-to-biodiversity-intropical-countries
BirdLife International. 2015. Birds control insect pests
from integrated pest management farmer field
in farmlands and forests. [Cited 3 May 2018]. http://
school. International Journal of Agricultural Science,
datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/birds-control-
Research and Technology in Extension and Education
Systems, 2(3): 137–142.
Bharucha, Z. & Pretty, J. 2010. The roles and values
of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philosophical
458
insect-pests-in-farmlands-and-forests
BirdLife International. 2018. State of the world’s birds:
taking the pulse of the planet. Cambridge, UK,
BirdLife International. 41 pp.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Blankespoor, B., Dasgupta, S. & Lange, G.M. 2017.
Bosch, J. & Kemp, W.P. 2000. Developmental biology
Mangroves as a protection from storm surges in a
and rearing methods for Osmia bees used as crop
changing climate. Ambio, 46(7): 478–491.
Blare, T. & Donovan, J. 2016. Building value chains for
indigenous fruits: lessons from camu-camu in Peru.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(1): 6–18.
Blitzer, E.J., Dormann, C.F., Holzschuh, A., Klein,
A.M., Rand, T.A. & Tscharntke, T. 2012. Spillover
of functionally important organisms between
managed and natural habitats. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 146(1): 34–43.
Blüthgen, N. & Klein, A.M. 2011. Functional
complementarity and specialisation: the role of
biodiversity in plant-pollinator interactions. Basic and
Applied Ecology, 12(4): 282–291.
pollinators. In M.J. Sommeijer & A. Ruijter, eds.
Insect pollination in greenhouses, pp. 119–126. The
Hague, CIP-DATA Koninklijke Bibliotheek.
Bosch, J. & Kemp, W.P. 2002. Developing and establishing
bee species as crop pollinators: the example of Osmia
spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit trees.
Bulletin of Entomological Research, 92: 3–16.
Bosch, J. & Vicens, N. 2000. Pollinating efficacy of
Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera:
Megachilidae, Apidae) on ‘Red Delicious’ apple.
Environmental Entomology, 29(2): 235–240.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W.P. & Peterson, S.S. 2000.
Management of Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera:
Boa, E. 2004. Wild edible fungi. A global overview of
their use and importance to people. Non-wood
Forest Products 17. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
Megachilidae) populations for almond pollination:
methods to advance bee emergence. Environmental
Entomology, 29(5): 874–883.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W.P. & Trostle, G.E. 2006. Bee
www.fao.org/3/a-y5489e.pdf).
Bodmer, R., Fang, T.G., Puertas, P.E., Antúnez, M.,
population returns and cherry yields in an orchard
Chota, K. & Bodmer, W.E. 2014. Cambio climático
pollinated with Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera:
y fauna silvestre en la Amazonía Peruana. Impacto
Megachilidae). Journal of Economic Entomology,
de la sequía e inundaciones intensas en la Reserva
Nacional Pacaya Samiria, FundAmazonia/Sernanp.
Lima, Wust Ediciones.
99(2): 408–413.
Boserup, E. 1965. The conditions of agricultural growth:
the economics of agrarian change under population
Bogne Sadeu, C., Mikolasek, O., Pouomogne, V. &
Tomedi Eyango Tabi, M. 2013. The use of wild
pressure. London, Routledge.
Bottrell, D. & Schoenly, K. 2012. Resurrecting the ghost
catfish (Clarias spp.) in combination with Nile tilapia
of green revolutions past: the brown planthopper
(Oreochromis niloticus L.) in western Cameroon:
as a recurring threat to high-yielding rice production
technical performances, interests, and limitations.
in tropical Asia. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomolgy,
Journal of Applied Aquaculture, 25(4): 359–368.
15(1): 122–140.
Bokulich, N.A., Lewis, Z.T., Boundy-Mills, K. &
Mills, D.A. 2016. A new perspective on microbial
landscapes within food production. Current Opinion
Boucher, J. & Friot, D. 2017. Primary microplastics
in the oceans: a global evaluation of sources.
Cambridge, UK, and Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.
Bouletreau, M. 1986. The genetic and coevolutionary
in Biotechnology, 37: 182–189.
Bolfe, L.E. & Batistella, M. 2011. Análise florística e
estrutural de sistemas silviagrícolas em Tomé-Açu, Pará.
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 46(10): 1139–1147.
Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. & Potts, S.G. 2013. Ecological
interactions between parasitoids and their hosts. In
J. Wagge & D. Greathead, eds. Insect parasitoids,
pp. 169–200. London, Academic Press.
Boulton, A.J., Ekebom, J. & Gislason, G.M. 2016.
intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for
Integrating ecosystem services into conservation
food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
strategies for freshwater and marine habitats:
28(4): 230–238.
a review. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen,
B., Pathak Broome, N., Phillips, A. & Sandwith,
Freshwater Ecosystems, 26: 963–985.
Bourke, R.M. & Harwood, T., eds. 2009. Food and
T. 2013. Governance of protected areas: from
agriculture in Papua New Guinea. Canberra, The
understanding to action. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.
Australian National University Press.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
459
Boyd, P.W. & Hutchins, D.A. 2012. Understanding the
responses of ocean biota to a complex matrix of
cumulative anthropogenic change. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 470: 125–135.
Bradbear, N. 2009. Bees and their role in forest
livelihoods – A guide to the services provided by
Broadhurst, L., Jones, T.A., Smith, F.S., North, T. & Guja,
L. 2016. Maximizing seed resources for restoration in
an uncertain future. BioScience, 66: 73–79.
Brodeur, J.C. & Vera Candioti, J. 2017. Impacts of
agriculture and pesticides on amphibian terrestrial
life stages: potential biomonitor/bioindicator species
bees and the sustainable harvesting, processing and
for the Pampa Region of Argentina. Ecotoxicology
marketing of their products. Rome, FAO. (available
and genotoxicology: non-traditional terrestrial
at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0842e.pdf).
models, pp. 163–194. Cambridge, UK, Royal Society
Brandt, M., Rasmussen, K., Hiernaux, P., Herrmann,
S., Tucker, C.J., Tong, X., Tian, F. et al. 2018.
of Chemistry.
Brodeur, J.C., Poliserpi, M.B., D’Andrea, M.F. &
Reduction of tree cover in West African woodlands
Sánchez, M. 2014. Synergy between glyphosate- and
and promotion in semi-arid farmlands. Nature
cypermethrin-based pesticides during acute exposures
Geoscience, 11: 328–333.
in tadpoles of the common South American toad
Bravington, M. V., Grewe, P.M. & Davies, C.R. 2016.
Absolute abundance of southern bluefin tuna
Rhinella arenarum. Chemosphere, 112: 70–76.
Broegaard, R.B., Rasmussen, L.V., Dawson, N., Mertz,
estimated by close-kin mark-recapture. Nature
O., Vongvisouk, T. & Grogan, K. 2017. Wild food
Communications, 7 : 13162.
collection and nutrition under commercial agriculture
Bravo de Guenni, L., Cardoso, M., Goldammer, J.,
Hurtt, G., Mata, L.J., Ebi, K. & Valdes, J. 2005.
Regulation of natural hazards : floods and fires. In
expansion in agriculture-forest landscapes. Forest
Policy and Economics, 84: 92–101.
Brooker, R.W., Bennett, A.E., Cong, W.F., Daniell, T.J.,
R. Hassan, R. Scholes & N. Ash, eds. Ecosystems and
George, T.S., Hallett, P.D., Hawes, C. et al. 2015.
human well-being: current state and trends, Volume
Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research
1, pp. 441–453. Washington, DC, Covelo and
in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New
London, Island Press.
Phytologist, 206(1): 107–117.
Briassoulis, D., Mistriotis, A. & Eleftherakis, D. 2007.
Brookfield, H. 2002. Agricultural biodiversity at the
Mechanical behaviour and properties of agricultural
landscape level. Expert review for the ELCI/UNEP
nets – Part I: Testing methods for agricultural nets.
BPSP initiative on: Managing Agricultural Resources
Polymer Testing, 26(6): 822–832.
for Biodiversity Conservation: A Guide to Best
Bricker, S.B., Getchis, T.L., Chadwick, C.B., Rose,
C.M. & Rose, J.M. 2016. Integration of ecosystembased models into an existing interactive web-based
tool for improved aquaculture decision-making.
Aquaculture, 453: 135–146.
Briones, M.J.I. & Schmidt, O. 2017. Conventional
tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of
earthworms and alters their community structure
in a global meta-analysis. Global Change Biology,
23(10): 4396–4419.
Practices. Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Brown, M.J.F. & Paxton, R.J. 2009. The conservation of
bees: a global perspective. Apidologie, 40(3): 410–416.
Bruijnzeel, L.A. 1990. Hydrology of moist tropical
forests and effects of conversion: a state of
knowledge review. Paris, UNESCO International
Hydrological Humid Tropics Programme.
Brunori, G., Rossi, A. & Guidi, F. 2012. On the new
social relations around and beyond food. Analysing
Briske, D.D., ed. 2017. Rangeland systems. Processes,
consumers’ role and action in Gruppi di Acquisto
management and challenges. Cham, Switzerland,
Solidali (Solidarity Purchasing Groups). Sociologia
Springer.
British Ecological Society. 2016. Soil health: a
Ruralis, 52(1).
Büchler, R., Costa, C., Hatjina, F., Andonov, S.,
response from the British Ecological Society to the
Meixner, M.D., Le Conte, Y., Uzunov, A. et
Environmental Audit Committee. London.
al. 2014. The influence of genetic origin and its
interaction with environmental effects on the
460
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
survival of Apis mellifera L. colonies in Europe.
Bush, M. 2018. Climate change adaptation in small island
Journal of Apicultural Research, 53(2): 205–214.
developing states. Oxford, UK, Wiley Blackwell.
Buchmann, C. 2009. Cuban home gardens and their
Butchart, S.H.M., Collar, N.J., Stattersfield, A.J. &
role in social–ecological resilience. Human Ecology,
37(6): 705.
Bennun, L.A. 2010. Conservation of the world’s birds:
the view from 2010. Foreword. In J. Del Hoyo, A. Elliott
Buckles, D., Triomphe, B. & Sain, G. 1998. Cover
crops in hillside agriculture: farmer innovation with
Mucuna. Ottawa, International Maize and Wheat
& D. Christie, eds. Handbook of the world’s birds.
Volume 15, pp. 13–60. Barcelona, Spain, Lynx Edicions.
Butchart, S.H.M., Clarke, M., Smith, R.J., Sykes, R.E.,
Scharlemann, J.P.W., Harfoot, M., Buchanan,
Improvement Centre.
Buddemeier, R.W., Kleypas, J.A. & Aranson, R.B.
2004. Coral reefs and global climate change.
Potential contributions of climate change to stresses
on coral reef ecosystems. Arlington, USA, Pew
G.M. et al. 2015. Shortfalls and solutions for
meeting national and global conservation area
targets. Conservation Letters, 8(5): 329–337.
Butcher, K., Wick, A.F., Desutter, T., Chatterjee, A. &
Harmon, J. 2016. Soil salinity: a threat to global food
Center on Global Climate Change.
Bunce, R.G.H., Metzger, M.J., Jongman, R.H.G., Brandt,
J., De Blust, G., Elena-Rossello, R., Groom, G.B. et
security. Agronomy Journal, 108(6): 2189–2210.
Buytaert, W., Célleri, R., De Bièvre, B., Cisneros, F.,
al. 2008. A standardized procedure for surveillance
Wyseure, G., Deckers, J. & Hofstede, R. 2006.
and monitoring European habitats and provision of
Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean
spatial data. Landscape Ecology, 23(1): 11–25.
Bunch, R. 1999. More productivity with fewer
external inputs: Central American case studies of
agroecological development and their broader
implications. Environment, Development and
páramos. Earth-Science Reviews, 79: 53–72.
Cabel, J.F. & Oelofse, M. 2012. An indicator framework
for assessing agroecosystem resilience. Ecology and
Society, 17(1): 1–18.
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience
International). 2018. Eichhornia crassipes. [Cited
Sustainability, 1(3): 219–233.
Bundy, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Boldt, J.L., de Fatima
Borges, M., Camara, M.L., Coll, M., Diallo, I.
6 July 2018]. www.cabi.org/isc
Calderone, N.W. 2012. Insect pollinated crops,
et al. 2017. Strong fisheries management and
insect pollinators and US agriculture: trend analysis
governance positively impact ecosystem status. Fish
of aggregate data for the period 1992-2009.
and Fisheries, 18: 412–439.
PLoS ONE, 7(5).
Bunting, P., Rosenqvist, A., Lucas, R.M., Rebelo,
California Rice Commission. 2015. Wildlife. [Cited
L.-M., Hilarides, L., Thomas, N., Hardy, A. et
22 April 2018]. http://calrice.org/wildlife/
al. 2018. The Global Mangrove Watch—a new
Calle, Z., Murgueito, E., Chará, J., Molina, C.H.,
2010 global baseline of mangrove extent. Remote
Zuluaga, A.F. & Calle, A. 2013. A strategy for
Sensing, 10(10): 1669.
scaling-up intensive silvopastoral systems in Colombia.
Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Fischer, G., Kahil, M.T., Scherzer,
A., Tramberend, S., Nava, L.F. et al. 2016. Water
Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 32: 677–693.
Calvo, F.J., Knapp, M., van Houten, Y.M.,
futures and solution – fast track initiative (Final Report).
Hoogerbrugge, H. & Belda, J.E. 2015. Amblyseius
IIASA Working Paper WP-16-006. Laxenburg, Austria,
swirskii: what made this predatory mite such a
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
successful biocontrol agent? Experimental and
Burke, L., Reyta, K., Spalding, M. & Perry, A. 2011.
Reef at risk revisited. Washington, DC, World
Applied Acarology, 65(4): 419–433.
Cameron, S.A., Lozier, J.D., Strange, J.P., Koch, J.B.,
Cordes, N., Solter, L.F. & Griswold, T.L. 2011.
Resources Institute.
Burlingame, B., Charrondiere, R. & Mouille, B. 2009.
Recent widespread decline of some North American
Food composition is fundamental to the cross-cutting
bumble bees: current status and causal factors.
initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition. Journal
PNAS, 108: 662–667.
of Food Composition and Analysis, 22(5): 361–365.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
461
Campbell-Platt, G. 1987. Fermented foods of the world
– a dictionary and guide. London, Butterworths.
Cane, J.H. 2002. Pollinating bees (Hymenoptera:
and gap analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54:
1209–1218.
Carvalheiro, L.G., Seymour, C.L., Veldtman, R.
Apiformes) of U.S. alfalfa compared for rates of
& Nicolson, S.W. 2010. Pollination services
pod and seed set. Journal of Economic Entomology,
decline with distance from natural habitat even in
95(1): 22–27.
Cane, J.H. 2008. A native ground-nesting bee (Nomia
melanderi) sustainably managed to pollinate
biodiversity-rich areas. Journal of Applied Ecology,
47: 810–820.
Carvalheiro, L.G., Veldtman, R., Shenkute, A.G.,
alfalfa across an intensively agricultural landscape.
Tesfay, G.B., Pirk, C.W.W., Donaldson, J.S. &
Apidologie, 39: 315–323.
Nicolson, S.W. 2011. Natural and within-farmland
Cannon, R.J.C. 1998. The implications of predicting
climate change for insects pests in the UK, with
emphasis on non-indigenous species. Global Change
Biology, 4(7): 785–796.
Cardinale, B. 2011. Biodiversity improves water quality
through niche partitioning. Nature, 472: 86–89.
Carney, D., ed. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods : what
biodiversity enhances crop productivity. Ecology
Letters, 14(3): 251–259.
Cattermoul, B., Brown, D. & Poulain, F., eds. 2014.
Fisheries and aquaculture emergency response
guidance. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i3432e.pdf).
Cauich, O., Quezada-Euán, J.J.G., Macias-Macias,
contribution can we make? London, Department for
J.O., Reyes-Oregel, V., Medina-Peralta, S. &
International Development.
Parra-Tabla, V. 2004. Behavior and pollination
Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinow, T., Neefjes,
efficiency of Nannotrigona perilampoides
K., Wanmali, S. & Singh, N. 1999. Livelihoods
(Hymenoptera Meliponini) on greenhouse tomatoes
approaches compared. A brief comparison of the
(Lycopersicon esculentum) in subtropical México.
livelihoods approaches of the UK Department for
International Development (DFID), CARE, Oxfam
Journal of Economical Entomology, 97: 475–481.
Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical regularities in
and the United Nations Development Programme
the poverty-environment relationship of rural
(UNDP). London, Department for International
households: evidence from Zimbabwe. World
Development.
Carpenter, A.S.R., Caraco, N.F., Correll, D.L.,
Howarth, R.W., Sharpley, A.N. & Smith, V.H.
1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with
phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications,
8(3): 559–568.
Carré, G., Roche, P., Chifflet, R., Morison, N.,
Bommarco, R., Harrison-Cripps, J., Krewenka, K. et
Development, 28(11): 1979–2003.
Caveness, F.A. & Kurtz, W.B. 1993. Agroforestry
adoption and risk perception by farmers in Sénégal.
Agroforestry Systems, 21(1): 11–25.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992.
Article 2. Use of terms. Montreal, Canada. (available
at https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml).
CBD. 2000a. COP 5 Decision V/6. Ecosystem approach.
al. 2009. Landscape context and habitat type as drivers
Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
of bee diversity in European annual crops. Agriculture,
Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, 15–26
Ecosystems and Environment, 133(1–2): 40–47.
Carrizo, F., Smith, K.G. & Darwall, W.R.T. 2013.
May 2000. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23.
CBD. 2000b. COP 5 Decision V/5. Agricultural biological
Progress towards a global assessment of the status
diversity: review of phase I of the programme
of freshwater fishes (Pisces) for the IUCN Red List:
of work and adoption of a multi-year work
application to conservation programmes in zoos and
programme. Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the
aquariums. International Zoo Yearbook, 47(1): 46–64.
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Carrizo, S.F., Lengyel, S., Kapusi, F., Szabolcs, M.,
Nairobi, 15–26 May 2000. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23.
Kasperidus, H.D., Scholz, M., Markovic, D. et al.
CBD. 2002. Alien species that threaten ecosystems,
2017. Critical catchments for freshwater biodiversity
habitats or species. COP 6 Decision VI/23. Sixth
conservation in Europe: identification, prioritisation
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
462
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Convention on Biological Diversity, The Hague,
the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Netherlands 7–19 April 2002.UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20.
Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties
CBD. 2006. COP 8 Decision VIII/23. Agricultural biodiversity.
Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil,
20–31 March 2006. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VIII/23.
CBD. 2007a. In-depth review of the application of the
to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Cancun,
Mexico, 4–17 December 2016. UNEP/CBD/COP/
13/INF/12.
CBD. 2016c. COP 13 Decision XIII/3. Strategic actions to
enhance the implementation of the Strategic Plan
ecosystem approach. Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the achievement of
Technical and Technological Advice. Twelfth Meeting,
the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including with respect
Paris, 2–6 July 2007. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/12/2.
to mainstreaming and the integration of biodiversity
(available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/
within and across sectors. Thirteenth Meeting of
sbstta-12/official/sbstta-12-02-en.pdf).
the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
CBD. 2007b. In-depth review of the application of
the ecosystem approach. Review of information
in the third national reports. Subsidiary Body on
Biological Diversity, Cancun, Mexico, 4–17 December
2016. CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/3.
CBD. 2018. Analysis of information contained in the
Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice.
interim national reports and information published
Twelfth Meeting, Paris, 2–6 July 2007. UNEP/CBD/
in the access and benefit-sharing clearing house.
SBSTTA/12/INF/1.
Subsidiary Body on Implementation, Second Meeting,
CBD. 2008a. COP 9 Decision IX/7. Ecosystem approach.
Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Bonn, Germany,
19–30 May 2008. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/7.
CBD. 2008b. COP 9 Decision IX/6. Incentive measures
Montreal, Canada, 9–13 July 2018. CBD/SBI/2/INF/3.
(available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/767b/a3b0/
e4934613a1a3fd1116b1c89a/sbi-02-inf-03-en.pdf).
CBS, PBL & WUR. 2016. Compendium voor de
leefomgeving. The Hague, Netherlands, Centraal
(Article 11). Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the
Bureau voor de Statistiek, The Hague, Netherlands,
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Bonn,
Plambureau voor de Leefomgeving, and Wageningen,
Germany, 19–30 May 2008. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/6.
CBD. 2010a. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Conference of
the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Netherlands, Wageningen University & Research.
CBD Secretariat. 2006. Global Biodiversity Outlook 2.
Montreal, Canada.
CBD Secretariat. 2007. An exploration of tools and
Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
methodologies for valuation of biodiversity and
Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan,
biodiversity resources and functions. Technical Series
18–29 October 2010. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2.
CBD. 2010b. COP 10 Decision X/31. Protected areas.
Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya,
Japan, 18–29 October 2010. UNEP/CBD/COP/
DEC/X/31. (available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/
No. 28. Montreal, Canada.
CBD Secretariat. 2009. Scientific synthesis of the
impacts of ocean acidification on marine biodiversity.
Technical Series No. 46. Montreal, Canada.
CBD Secretariat. 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.
Montreal, Canada.
CBD Secretariat. 2014a. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4.
decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-31-en.pdf).
CBD. 2016a. The Cancun Declaration on Mainstreaming
Montreal, Canada.
CBD Secretariat. 2014b. Resourcing the Aichi Biodiversity
the Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Biodiversity for Well-Being. Thirteenth Meeting of
Targets: an assessment of benefits, investments and
the Conference of the Parties to the Convention
resource needs for implementing the Strategic Plan
on Biological Diversity, Cancun, Mexico, 4−17
for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Second Report of the
December 2016. UNEP/CBD/COP/13/24.
High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources
CBD. 2016b. Updated assessment of progress towards
Aichi Biodiversity Targets 5 and 15. Conference of
for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011-2020. Montreal, Canada.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
463
Cesar, H.J.S., Burke, L. & Pet-Soede, L. 2003. The
economics of worldwide coral reef degradation.
Arnhem, Netherlands, Cesar Environmental Consulting,
and Zeist, Netherlands, WWF-Netherlands.
Ceulemans, T., Stevens, C.J., Duchateau, L.,
Jacquemyn, H., Gowing, D.J.G., Merckx, R.,
Chambers, P.A., Lacoul, P., Murphy, K.J. & Thomaz,
S.M. 2008. Global diversity of aquatic macrophytes
in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595(1): 9–26.
Chan, W.Y., Peplow, L.M., Menendez, P., Hoffmann,
A.A. & van Oppen, M.J.H. 2018. Interspecific
hybridization provides novel opportunities for coral
Wallace, H. et al. 2014. Soil phosphorus constrains
reef restoration. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5(May):
biodiversity across European grasslands. Global
article 160.
Change Biology, 20(12): 3814–3822.
Cezar, R.M., Vezzani, F.M., Schwiderke, D.K., Gaiad,
Chandler, D., Bailey, A.S., Tatchell, G.M., Davidson,
G., Greaves, J. & Grant, W.P. 2011. The
S., Brown, G.G., Sícoli Seoane, C.E. & Maranhão
development, regulation and use of biopesticides
Froufe, L.C. 2015. Soil biological properties in
for integrated pest management. Philosophical
multistrata successional agroforestry systems and in
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
natural regeneration. Agroforestry Systems,
89(6): 1035–1047.
CGIAR. 2016. Climate-smart agriculture guide. [Cited
14 May 2018]. https://csa.guide/
Chabi-Olaye, A., Nolte, C., Schulthess, F. &
Borgemeister, C. 2007. Short-term effects of
cover crops on stem borers and maize yield in the
humid forest of southern Cameroon. In A. Bationo,
B. Waswa, J. Kihara & J. Kimetu, eds. Advances in
integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan
Sciences, 366(1573): 1987–1998.
Chandler, M., See, L., Copas, K., Bonde, A.M.Z.,
López, B.C., Danielsen, F., Legind, J.K. et al.
2017. Contribution of citizen science towards
international biodiversity monitoring. Biological
Conservation, 213: 280–294.
Chapman, A.D. 2009. Numbers of living species in
Australia and the world. 2nd edition. Canberra,
Australian Biological Resources Study.
Chará, J., Reyes, E., Peri, P., Otte, J., Arce, E. &
Africa: challenges and opportunities, pp. 195–200.
Schneider, F. 2018. Silvopastoral systems and their
Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
contribution to improved resource use and sustainable
Chae, Y. & An, Y.J. 2018. Current research trends on
plastic pollution and ecological impacts on the soil
ecosystem: a review. Environmental Pollution,
240: 387–395.
Chagnon, M., Kreutzweiser, D., Mitchell, E.A.D.,
development goals: evidence from Latin America.
Cali, Colombia, Centre for Research on Sustainable
Agriculture (CIPAV), agri benchmark and FAO.
Charles, A., Westlund, L., Bartley, D.M., Fletcher,
W.J., Garcia, S., Govan, H. & Sanders, J. 2016.
Morrissey, C.A., Noome, D.A. & Van Der Sluijs, J.P.
Fishing livelihoods as key to marine protected areas:
2015. Risks of large-scale use of systemic insecticides
insights from the World Parks Congress. Aquatic
to ecosystem functioning and services. Environmental
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
Science and Pollution Research, 22(1): 119–134.
26(February): 165–184.
Chakravarti, L.J., Beltran, V.H. & van Oppen, M.J.H.
Chatzipavlidis, I., Kefalogianni, I., Venieraki, A.
2017. Rapid thermal adaptation in photosymbionts
& Holzapfel, W. 2013. Status and trends of the
of reef-building corals. Global Change Biology, 23:
conservation and sustainable use of microorganisms
4675–4688.
in agroindustrial processes. Commission on Genetic
Chama, L. & Siachoono, S. 2015. Effectiveness of birds,
butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies and invertebrates
as indicators of freshwater ecological integrity.
Geophysical Research, 17: 2015EGUGA..1713383C.
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. 1991. Sustainable rural
Resource for Food and Agriculture. Background
Study Paper No. 64. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/028/mg339e.pdf).
Chavan, S.B., Keerthika, A., Dhyani, S.K., Handa,
A.K., Newaj, R. & Rajarajan, K. 2015. National
livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century.
Agroforestry Policy in India: a low hanging fruit.
IDS Discussion Paper, 296. Brighton, UK, Institute of
Current Science, 108(10): 1826–1834.
Development Studies.
464
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Chazdon, R.L., Brancalion, P.H., Laestadius, L.,
Bennett-Curry, A., Buckingham, K., Kumar,
C., Moll-Rocek, J., Vieira, I.C.G. & Wilson, S.J.
2016. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts
Christenhusz, M.J.M. & Byng, J.W. 2016. The number
of known plants species in the world and its annual
increase. Phytotaxa, 261(3): 201–217.
Christmann, S. & Aw-Hassan, A.A. 2012. Farming with
and definitions in the era of forest and landscape
alternative pollinators (FAP) – an overlooked win-win-
restoration. Ambio, 45: 538–550.
strategy for climate change adaptation. Agriculture,
Chee, Y. 2004. An ecological perspective on the
valuation of ecosystem services. Biological
Ecosystems & Environment, 161: 161–164.
Chytrý, M., Maskell, L.C., Pino, J., Pyšek, P., Vilà, M.,
Font, X. & Smart, S.M. 2008. Habitat invasions
Conservation, 120(4): 549–565.
Chen, H. & Yada, R. 2011. Nanotechnologies in
agriculture: new tools for sustainable development.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(11):
by alien plants: a quantitative comparison among
Mediterranean, subcontinental and oceanic regions of
Europe. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(2): 448–458.
Cilas, C., Goebel, F.R., Babin, R. & Avelino, J. 2016.
585–594.
Chen, R., Ye, C., Cai, Y., Xing, X. & Chen, Q. 2014. The
Tropical crop pests and diseases in a climate change
impact of rural out-migration on land use transition
setting – A few examples. In E. Torquebiau, ed.
in China: past, present and trend. Land Use Policy,
Climate change and agriculture worldwide, pp.
40: 101–110.
73–82. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Chen, S., Wang, W., Xu, W., Wang, Y., Wan, H., Chen,
Civitello, D.J., Cohen, J., Fatima, H., Halstead, N.T.,
D., Tang, Z. et al. 2018. Plant diversity enhances
Liriano, J., McMahon, T.A., Ortega, C.N. et al.
productivity and soil carbon storage. Proceedings
2015. Biodiversity inhibits parasites: broad evidence
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
for the dilution effect. Proceedings of the National
States of America, 115(16): 4027–4032.
Academy of Sciences, 112(28): 8667–8671.
Chin, A., Lison De Loma, T., Reytar, K., Planes, S.,
Clapperton, M.J., Chan, K.Y. & Larney, F.J. 2007.
Gerhardt, K., Clua, E., Burke, L. & Wilkinson,
Managing the soil habitat for enhanced biological
C. 2011. Status of coral reefs of the Pacific and
fertility. In L.K. Abbott & D.V Murphy, eds. Soil
outlook: 2011. Global Coral Reef Monitoring
biological fertility. A key to sustainable land use in
Network. Publishers Global Coral Reef Monitoring
agriculture, pp. 203–224. Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Network. 260 P. (available at https://www.icriforum.
org/sites/default/files/Pacific-Coral-Reefs-2011.pdf).
Chopin, T. & Robinson, S.M.C. 2004. Defining the
Springer Netherlands.
Cleveland, D.A., Phares, N., Nightingale, K.D.,
Weatherby, R.L., Radis, W., Ballard, J.,
appropriate regulatory and policy framework
Campagna, M. et al. 2017. The potential for urban
for the development of integrated multi-trophic
household vegetable gardens to reduce greenhouse
aquaculture practices: introduction to the workshop
gas emissions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157:
and positioning of the issues. Bulletin-Aquaculture
365–374.
Cline, H. 2005. Sacramento Vallely rice growers winter
Association of Canada, 104(3): 4–10.
Chopin, T., Buschmann, A.H., Halling, C., Troell,
M., Kautsky, N., Neori, A., Kraemer, G.P. et al.
2001. Integrating seaweeds into marine aquaculture
systems: a key toward sustainability. Journal of
flood, ducks keep coming. [Cited 22 April 2018].
http://www.westernfarmpress.com/sacramentovallely-rice-growers-winter-flood-ducks-keep-coming
Coad, L., Fa, J.E., Van Vliet, N., Abernethy, K.,
Santamaria, C., Wilkie, D., Cawthorn, D. & Nasi,
Phycology, 37(6): 975-986.
Chornesky, E.A., Bartuska, A.M., Aplet, G.H., Britton,
R. 2017. Towards a sustainable, participatory and
K.O., Cummings-Carlson, J., Davis, F.W., Eskow,
inclusive wild meat sector. Draft Technical Report.
J. et al. 2005. Science priorities for reducing the
Twenty-first meeting of the Subsidiary Body on
threat of invasive species to sustainable forestry.
Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice.
Bioscience, 55(4): 335–348.
Montreal, Canada, 11–14 December 2017.
UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/21/INF/6.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
465
Cochrane, K., De Young, C., Soto, D. & Bahri, T.,
Colfer, C.J.P., Catacutan, D., Naz, F. & Pottinger,
eds. 2009. Climate change implications for fisheries
A.J. 2016. Gender in agroforestry [Special Issue].
and aquaculture. Overview of current scientific
International Forestry Review on Gender in
knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical
Paper No. 530. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.
fao.org/docrep/012/i0994e/i0994e00.htm).
Cock, M.J.W., van Lanteren, J.C., Brodeur, J., Barrat,
B.I.P., Bigler, F., Blockmans, K., Cônsoli, A., Haas,
F., Mason, P.G. & Parra, J.R.P. 2009. The use and
Agroforestry, 17(4).
Colfer, C.J.P., Sheil, D. & Kishi, M. 2006. Forests
and human health: assessing the evidence. CIFOR
Occasional Paper No. 45. Bogor, Indonesia, Center
for International Forestry Research.
Colla, S.R., Otterstatter, M.C., Gegear, R.J. & Thomson,
exchange of biological control agents for food and
J.D. 2006. Plight of the bumble bee: pathogen spillover
agriculture. Commission on Genetic Resources for
from commercial to wild populations. Biological
Food and Agriculture. Background Study Paper No.
47. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
tempref/docrep/fao/meeting/017/ak569e.pdf).
Cock, M.J.W., Biesmeijer, J.C., Cannon, R.J.C., Gerard,
P.J., Gillespie, D., Jiménez, J.J., Lavelle, P.M. &
Conservation, 129(4): 461–467.
Collen, B., Böhm, M., Kemp, R. & Baillie, J.E.M.
2012. Spineless: status and trends of the world’s
invertebrates. London, Zoological Society of London.
Comité Asesor Nacional sobre Especies Invasoras.
Raina, S.K. 2011. Climate change and invertebrate
2010. Estrategia nacional sobre especies invasoras
genetic resources for food and agriculture:
en México, prevención, control y erradicación.
state of knowledge, risks and opportunities.
Mexico City, Comisión Nacional para el
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comisión
Agriculure. Background Study Paper No. 54. Rome,
Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, Secretaría de Medio
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/
meeting/022/mb390e.pdf).
Cock, M.J.W., Biesmeijer, J.C., Cannon, R.J.C., Gerard,
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 2015.
Space technologies for monitoring and protecting
P.J., Gillespie, D., Jimeez, J.J., Lavelle, P.M. &
biodiversity and ecosystems. A proposed new thematic
Raina, S.K. 2012. The positive contribution of
priority for the United Nations Programme on Space
invertebrates to sustainable agriculture and food
Applications. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
security. CAB Reviews, 7(043): 1–27.
Space. Fifty-eighth Session, Vienna, Austria,
Coe, R., Sinclair, F. & Barrios, E. 2014. Scaling up
agroforestry requires research “in” rather than “for”
10–19 June 2015. A/AC.105/2015/CRP.10.
Compant, S., Clément, C. & Sessitsch, A. 2010.
development. Current Opinion in Environmental
Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo-and
Sustainability, 6(1): 73–77.
endosphere of plants: their role, colonization,
Coe, R., Hughes, K., Sola, P. & Sinclair, F. 2017.
Planned comparisons demystified. ICRAF Working
Paper No. 263. Nairobi, ICRAF.
Cole, L., Bradford, M.A., Shaw, P.J.A. & Bardgett, R.D.
mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42: 669–678.
Concenço, G., Marques, R.F., Santos, S.A., Correia,
I.V.T., Palharini, W.G., Alves, M.S., Melo, T.S.,
2006. The abundance, richness and functional role of
Xavier, L.B. & Linhares, L.T. 2015. Integration crop-
soil meso- and macrofauna in temperate grassland-A
livestock: is it efficient in suppressing troublesome
case study. Applied Soil Ecology, 33(2): 186–198.
weeds? A case study. African Journal of Agricultural
Coles, R.G., McKenzie, L.J., Rasheed, M.A., Mellors,
J.E., Taylor, H., Dew, K., McKenna, S., Sankey,
T.L., Carter, A.B. & Grech, A. 2007. Status and
trends of seagrass habitats in the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area. Cairns, Australia, Department
of Primary Industries and Fisheries.
Research, 10(16): 1882–1890.
Conde, D.A., Flesness, N., Colchero, F., Jones, O.R. &
Scheuerlein, A. 2011. An emerging role of zoos to
conserve biodiversity. Science, 331(6023): 1390–1391.
Coomes, O.T., Barham, B.L. & Takasaki, Y. 2004.
Targeting conservation-development initiatives in
tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest
466
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
use and economic reliance among Amazonian
Creevey, C.J., Kelly, W.J., Henderson, G. & Leahy,
peasants. Ecological Economics, 51(1–2): 47–64.
S.C. 2014. Determining the culturability of
Cordillot, F. & Klaus, G. 2011. Threatened species in
the rumen bacterial microbiome. Microbial
Switzerland. Red List Synthesis Report, Status 2010.
Biotechnology, 7: 467–479.
Cronk, Q. & Ojeda, I. 2008. Bird-pollinated flowers in
Bern, Federal Office for the Environment.
Cornelius, J.P. & Miccolis, A. 2018. Can market-based
agroforestry germplasm supply systems meet the
needs of forest landscape restoration? New Forests:
49(4): 457–469.
an evolutionary and molecular context. Journal of
Experimental Botany, 59(5): 715–727.
Croxall, J.P., Prince, P.A., Rothery, P. & Wood, A.G.
1998. Population changes in albatrosses at South
Cortopassi-Laurino, M., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L.,
Roubik, W., Dollin, A., Heard, T., Aguilar, I.,
Venturieri, G.C., Eardley, C. & Nogueira-Neto,
P. 2006. Global meliponiculture: challenges and
opportunities. Apidologie, 37: 275–292.
Georgia. In G. Robertson & R. Gales, eds. Albatross
biology and conservation, pp. 69–83. Chipping
Norton, Australia, Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Crush, J. 2014. Approaching food security in cities of
the global south. In S. Parnell & S. Oldfield, eds. The
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S.,
Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K. et al. 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature, 387(6630): 253–260.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg,
Routledge handbook on cities of the global south,
pp. 543–555. London, Taylor and Francis.
Cunningham, S.A., Attwood, S.J., Bawa, K.S.,
Benton, T.G., Broadhurst, L.M., Didham, R.K.,
McIntyre, S. et al. 2013. To close the yield-gap
S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S. &
while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally
Turner, R.K. 2014. Changes in the global value of
relevant strategies. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change,
Environment, 173: 20–27.
Cuttelod, A., Seddon, M. & Neubert, E. 2011.
26(1): 152–158.
Costanzo, A. & Bàrberi, P. 2013. Functional
European Red List of non-marine molluscs.
agrobiodiversity and agroecosystem services in
sustainable wheat production. A review. Agronomy
for Sustainable Development, 34(2): 327–348.
Cotta, J.N. 2017. Revisiting Bora fallow agroforestry
in the Peruvian Amazon: enriching ethnobotanical
appraisals of non-timber products through
household income quantification. Agroforestry
Systems, 9(1): 17–36.
Luxembourg, European Commission, Publications
Office of the European Union.
Dabbadie, L. 1996. Étude de la viabilité d’une pisciculture
rurale à faible niveau d’intrant dans le Centre-Ouest
de la Côte d’Ivoire : approche du réseau trophique.
University Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI.
Dabbadie, L. & Mikolasek, O. 2015. Aquaculture
systems & farming systems: inside, outside or side-by-
Coulibaly-Lingani, P., Tigabu, M., Savadogo, P.,
side? The 5th International Symposium for Farming
Oden, P.C. & Ouadba, J.M. 2009. Determinants of
Systems Design “Multi-functional farming systems in
access to forest products in southern Burkina Faso.
a changing world”, 7–10 September 2015, Le Corum
Forest Policy and Economics, 11(7): 516–524.
Crane, E. 1983. The archaeology of beekeeping. Ithaca,
USA, Cornell University Press.
Conference Center, Montpellier, France.
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N.J. & Porter, J.R. 2003.
Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity.
Crane, E. 1999. The world history of beekeeping and
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100: 39–51.
Damgaard, C., Strandberg, B., Dupont, Y.,
honey hunting. London, Duckworth.
Creamer, R.E., Hannula, S.E., Leeuwen, J.P.V., Stone,
Holmstrup, M. & Krogh, P.H. 2016. The effect of
D., Rutgers, M., Schmelz, R.M., de Ruiter, P.C.
glyphosate and nitrogen on plant communities and
et al. 2016. Ecological network analysis reveals
the soil fauna in terrestrial biotopes at field margins.
the inter-connection between soil biodiversity and
Pesticide Research No. 163. Copenhagen, The
ecosystem function as affected by land use across
Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
Europe. Applied Soil Ecology, 97: 112–124.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
467
Damjanovic, K., Blackall, L.L., Webster, N.S. & van
Davies, J., Poulsen, L., Schulte-Herbrüggen, B.,
Oppen, M.J.H. 2017. The contribution of microbial
Mackinnon, K., Crawhall, N., Henwood, W.D.,
biotechnology to mitigating coral reef degradation.
Dudley, N., Smith, J. & Gudka, M. 2012. Conserving
Microbial Biotechnology, 10: 1236–1243.
Daniels, S., Witters, N., Beliën, T., Vrancken, K.,
dryland biodiversity. Nairobi, Drylands Initiative, IUCN.
Davis, J.R. 2006. How can the poor benefit from
Vangronsveld, J. & Van Passel, S. 2017. Monetary
the growing markets for high value agricultural
valuation of natural predators for biological pest
products? Chatham, UK, Natural Resources
control in pear production. Ecological Economics,
Institute. (available at http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/
134: 160–173.
Darnhofer, I. 2014. Resilience and why it matters for
upload/210971/global_issues_paper.pdf).
Davis, A.S., Hill, J.D., Chase, C.A., Johanns, A.M. &
farm management. European Review of Agricultural
Liebman, M. 2012. Increasing cropping system
Economics, 41(3): 461–484.
diversity balances productivity, profitability and
Darnhofer, I., Bellon, S., Dedieu, B. & Milestad, R.
2010. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of
environmental health. PLoS ONE, 7(10): 1–8.
Dawson, I.K., Carsan, S., Franzel, S., Kindt, R.,
farming systems: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Graudal, L., Orwa, C. & Jamnadass, R. 2014.
Development, 30(3): 545–555.
Agroforestry , livestock , fodder production and
Daru, B.H., Yessoufou, K., Mankga, L.T. & Davies,
climate change adaptation and mitigation in East
T.J. 2013. A global trend towards the loss of
Africa: issues and options. ICRAF Working Paper No.
evolutionarily unique species in mangrove
178. Nairobi, The World Agroforestry Centre.
ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 8(6): e66686.
Dawson, I.K., Attwood, S.J., Park, S.E., Jamnadass,
Darwall, W.R.T., Smith, K.G., Allen, D.J., Holland,
R., Powell, W., Sunderland, T., Kindt, R. et
R.A., Harrison, I.J. & Brooks, E.G.E. 2011. The
al. 2018a. Contributions of biodiversity to the
diversity of life in African freshwaters: under
sustainable intensification of food production.
water, under threat. An analysis of the status and
Thematic study prepared for The State of the World’s
distribution of freshwater species throughout
mainland Africa. Cambridge, UK, and Gland,
Switzerland, IUCN.
Dastager, S.G. 2009. Aroma compounds. In P. Singh
Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome.
Dawson, I.K., Hendre, P., Powell, W., Sila, D.,
McMullin, S., Revoredo-Giha, C., Odeny, D.A.
et al. 2018b. Supporting human nutrition in Africa
nee’ Nigam & A. Pandey, eds. Biotechnology for
through the integration of new and orphan crops into
agroindustrial residues utilisation, pp. 105–127.
food systems: placing the work of the African Orphan
Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer & Business Media B.V.
Crops Consortium in context. ICRAF Working Paper
Davidson, N.C. 2014. How much wetland has the world
lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland
No. 276. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre.
de Boer, I.J.M., Cederberg, C., Eady, S., Gollnow,
area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65(10):
S., Kristensen, T., Macleod, M., Meul, M. et
934–941.
al. 2011. Greenhouse gas mitigation in animal
Davidson, N.C. & Finlayson, C.M. 2018. Extent,
regional distribution and changes in area of different
classes of wetland. Marine and Freshwater Research,
69(10): 1525–1533.
Davies, J., Niamir-Fuller, M., Kerven, C., Bauer, K.,
Steinfeld, H., Mooney, H.A., Schneider, F. &
Neville, L.E. 2010. Extensive livestock production
production: towards an integrated life cycle
sustainability assessment. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 3(5): 423–431.
De Clercq, P., Mason, P.G. & Babendreier, D. 2011.
Benefits and risks of exotic biological control agents.
BioControl, 56(4): 681–698.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural
in transition: the future of sustainable pastoralism.
Affairs). 2014. The National Pollinator Strategy: for
Livestock in a changing landscape, Volume 1:
bees and other pollinators in England. Bristol, UK.
Drivers, consequences and responses, pp. 285–308.
Washington, DC, Island Press.
468
DEFRA. 2017. Wild bird populations in the UK, 1970 to
2016. York, UK.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Degrande, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., Kwidja, A. & Fongang
Fouepe, G. 2015. Rural resource centres: a
community approach to extension. GFRAS Good
International Symposium of Silvopastoral Systems,
Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida. pp. 8–22.
de Vries, F.T. & Bardgett, R.D. 2012. Plant–microbial
Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services.
linkages and ecosystem nitrogen retention: lessons
Lindan, Switzerland, GFRAS.
for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and
De Groot, M. 2014. The natural way forward.
Government vision 2014. The Hague, Netherlands,
the Environment, 10(8): 425–432.
de Vries, S.M.G., Alan, M., Bozzano, M., Burianek, V.,
Collin, E., Cottrell, J., Ivankovic, M. et al. 2015.
Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Delaplane, K.S. & Mayer, D.R. 2000. Crop pollination
by bees. Wallingford, UK, CABI.
Pan-European strategy for genetic conservation of
forest trees and establishment of a core network
Del Monaco, C., Narciso, S., Frank, A., Gimenez, E. &
Bustillos, F. 2010. Evaluación de las comunidades
de corales y peces de algunos arrecifes de la isla
La Tortuga y cayos adyacentes, Venezuela. Boletin
of dynamic conservation units. Bonn, Germany,
European Forest Genetic Resources Programme
(EUFORGEN), and Rome, Bioversity International.
DGEC (Director General of Estate Crops). 2012.
del Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, 44(3):
Commodities data. Jakarta, Director General
353–376.
of Estate Crops, Department of Agriculture,
den Herder, M., Burgess, P., Mosquera-Losada, M.R.,
Herzog, F., Hartel, T., Upson, M., Viholainen,
Government of Indonesia.
D’Hose, T., Molendijk, L., Vooren, L. Van, van den
I. & Rosati, A. 2015. Preliminary stratification
Berg, W., Hoek, H., Runia, W., van Evert, F. et al.
and quantification of agroforestry in Europe.
2018. Responses of soil biota to non-inversion tillage
Milestone Report 1.1 for EU FP7 AGFORWARD
and organic amendments: an analysis on European
Research Project (613520). 55 pp. (available at
https://agforward.eu/index.php/en/preliminary-
multiyear field experiments. Pedobiologia, 66: 18–28.
Diallo, A. 1998. Integrated farming: a new approach
stratification-and-quantification-of-agroforestry-
in Basse Casamanche, Senegal. In J.A. Mathias,
in-europe.html?file=files/agforward/documents/
A.T. Charles & B.T. Hu, eds. Integrated fish farming.
M1_Stratification of agroforestry.pdf).
Proceedings of Workshop on Integrated Fish
Department of Standards Malaysia. 2017. Kelulut
(Stingless bee) honey – Specification. Malaysian
Standard MS 2683:2017. Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia, Department of Standards Malaysia.
De Souza Machado, A.A., Lau, C.W., Till, J., Kloas,
Farming, 11-15 October 1994, Wuxi, Jiangsu
Province, P.R. China, pp. 257–264. Boca Raton,
USA, CRC Press.
Diaz, S., Quetier, F., Caceres, D.M., Trainor, S.F.,
Perez-Harguindeguy, N., Bret-Harte, M.S.,
W., Lehmann, A., Becker, R. & Rillig, M.C. 2018.
Finegan, B., Pena-Claros, M. & Poorter, L. 2011.
Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical
Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies
environment. Environmental Science & Technology,
in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of
52(17): 9656–9665.
nature’s benefits to society. Proceedings of the
De Sy, V., Herold, M., Achard, F., Beuchle, R., Clevers,
J.G.P.W., Lindquist, E. & Verchot, L. 2015. Land
National Academy of Sciences, 108(3): 895–902.
Di Bella, C.E., Jacobo, E., Golluscio, R.A. &
use patterns and related carbon losses following
Rodríguez, A.M. 2014. Effect of cattle grazing on
deforestation in South America. Environmental
soil salinity and vegetation composition along an
Research Letters, 10(12).
elevation gradient in a temperate coastal salt marsh
Devendra, C. & Ibrahim, M. 2004. Silvopastoral systems
as a strategy for diversification and productivity
enhancement from livestock in the tropics. In C.L.
of Samborombón Bay (Argentina). Wetlands Ecology
and Management, 22(1): 1–13.
Di Falco, S. & Chavas, J.P. 2009. On crop biodiversity,
Mannet, M. Ramirez, M. Ibrahim, C. Sandoval & J. Ku,
risk exposure, and food security in the highlands
eds. The importace of silvopastoral systems in rural
of Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural
livelihoods to provide ecosystem services. Second
Economics, 91(3): 599–611.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
469
Dijkstra, J., Oenema, O. & Bannink, A. 2011. Dietary
strategies to reducing N excretion from cattle:
implications for methane emissions. Current Opinion
bioremediation using probiotic microbiota. Scientific
Reports, 5: 18268.
Doswald, N. & Estrella, M. 2015. Promoting
in Environmental Sustainability, 3(5): 414–422.
ecosystems for disaster risk reduction and climate
Dixon, G.B., Davies, S.W., Aglyamova, G.A., Meyer,
change adaptation: opportunities for integration.
E., Bay, L.K. & Matz, M. V. 2015. Genomic
Discussion Paper UN Environment. Geneva,
determinants of coral heat tolerance across latitudes.
Switzerland, UN Environment Post-conflict and
Science, 348: 1460–1462.
Dolan, C. & Humphrey, J. 2000. Governance and trade
Disaster Management Branch.
Dreisigacker, S., Kishii, M., Lage, J. & Warburton, M.
in fresh vegetables: the impact of UK supermarkets
2008. Use of synthetic hexaploid wheat to increase
on the African horticulture industry. Journal of
diversity for CIMMYT bread wheat improvement.
Development Studies, 37(2).
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 59(5):
Dominik, C., Seppelt, R., Horgan, F.G., Marquez,
L., Settele, J. & Václavík, T. 2017. Regional-scale
effects override the influence of fine-scale
landscape heterogeneity on rice arthropod
communities. Agriculture Ecosystems and
Environment, 246: 269–278.
Donald, P.F., Green, R.E. & Heath, M.F. 2001.
Agricultural intensification and the collapse of
413–420.
Duarte, C.M. 2017. Reviews and syntheses: hidden
forests, the role of vegetated coastal habitats in the
ocean carbon budget, Biogeosciences, 14: 301–310.
Duarte, C.M., Marbà, N. & Holmer, M. 2007. Rapid
domestication of marine species. Science, 316:
382–383.
Duarte, C.M., Borum, J., Short, F.T. & Walker, D.I. 2008.
Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of
Seagrass ecosystems: their global status and prospects.
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268: 25–29.
In N. Polunin, ed. Aquatic ecosystems, pp. 281–306.
Donald, P.F., Sanderson, F.J., Burfield, I.J. & van
Bommel, F.P.J. 2006. Further evidence of continentwide impacts of agricultural intensification on
European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agriculture
Ecosystems and Environment, 116: 189–196.
Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D.,
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Dubinsky, Z. & Stambler, N., eds. 2011. Coral reefs:
and ecosystem in transition. Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Springer.
Dudgeon, D. 2012. Threats to freshwater biodiversity
globally and in the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot.
Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M. & Kanninen, M. 2011b.
In D.J. Allen, K.G. Smith & W.R.T. Darwall, eds. The
Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the
Status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in
tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4(5): 293–297.
Indo-Burma, pp. 1–28. Cambridge, UK, and Gland,
Donovan, J., Blare, T. & Poole, N. 2017. Stuck in a rut:
emerging cocoa cooperatives in Peru and the factors
that influence their performance. International Journal
of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(2): 169–184.
Döring, T.F., Annicchiarico, P., Clarke, S., Haigh,
Z., Jones, H.E., Pearce, H., Snape, J., Zhan, J.
& Wolfe, M.S. 2015. Comparative analysis of
performance and stability among composite cross
Switzerland, IUCN.
Dudley, N., ed. 2008. Guidelines for applying Protected
Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland,
IUCN.
Dudley, N. & Maginnis, S. 2018. Stepwise approach to
increasing ecological complexity in forest landscape
restoration. Ecological Restoration, 36(3): 174–176.
Dudley, N. & Stolton, S. 2003. Running pure: the
populations, variety mixtures and pure lines of
importance of forest protected areas to drinking
winter wheat in organic and conventional cropping
water. Gland, Switzerland, World Bank/WWF Alliance
systems. Field Crops Research, 183: 235–245.
for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use.
dos Santos, H.F., Duarte, G.A.S., Da Costa Rachid,
Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K. & Stolton, S. 2014. The
C.T., Moreira Chaloub, R., Calderon, E.N., De
role of protected areas in supplying ten critical
Barros Marangoni, L.F., Bianchini, A. et al. 2015.
ecosystem services in drylands: a review. Biodiversity,
Impact of oil spills on coral reefs can be reduced by
15(2–3): 178–184.
470
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Dudley, N., Ali, N., Kettunen, M. & MacKinnon,
Duval, A., Mijatovic, D. & Hodgkin, T. 2018. The
K. 2017. Editorial essay: protected areas and the
contribution of biodiversity for food and agriculture
sustainable development goals. Parks, 23(2): 9–12.
to resilience of production systems to environmental
Duhan, J.S., Kumar, R., Kumar, N., Kaur, P., Nehra,
K. & Duhan, S. 2017. Nanotechnology: the new
perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnology
change and uncertainty. Thematic study prepared
for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food
and Agriculture. Rome, FAO.
Dwyer, J.T. 2012. Dietary standards and guidelines:
Reports, 15(May): 11–23.
Duis, K. & Coors, A. 2016. Microplastics in the aquatic
similarities and differences among countries.
and terrestrial environment: sources (with a specific
In J.W. Erdman, I.A. Macdonald & S.H. Zeisel, eds.
focus on personal care products), fate and effects.
Present knowledge in nutrition. 10th Edition,
Environmental Sciences Europe, 28(1): 2.
pp. 1110–1134. Hoboken, USA, Wiley-Blackwell.
Dulloo, M.E., Rege, J.E.O., Ramirez, M., Drucker,
Dykstra, D.P. 2002. Reduced impact logging: concepts
A.G., Padulosi, S., Maxted, N., Sthapit, B. et
and issues. In T. Enters, P.B. Durst, G.B. Applegate,
al. 2017. Conserving agricultural biodiversity
P.C.S. Kho & G. Man, eds. Applying reduced impact
for use in sustainable food systems. In Bioversity
logging to advance sustainable forest management.
International, ed. Mainstreaming agrobiodiversity
Bangkok, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
in sustainable food systems: scientific foundations
Pacific. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/
for an Agrobiodiversity Index, pp. 103–140. Rome,
Dulvy, N.K., Rogers, S.I., Jennings, S., Stelzenmüller,
V., Dye, S.R. & Skjoldal, H.R. 2008. Climate
change and deepening of the North Sea fish
assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 1029–1039.
Dumanski, J., Peiretti, R., Benetis, J., McGarry, D. &
Pieri, C. 2006. The paradigm of conservation tillage.
Proceedings of World Association of Soil and Water
forest harvesting practice. Rome, FAO. 85 pp.
Eadie, J.M. 1962. Inter-relationships between certain
rumen ciliate protozoa. Journal of General
Microbiology, 29: 579–588.
EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory
Council). 2015. Ecosystem services, agriculture
and neonicotinoids. EASAC Policy Report 26. Halle,
Germany, German National Academy of Sciences.
EBCC (European Bird Census Council). 2018 What is
Conservation, P1: 58–64.
Dumont, A.M., Vanloqueren, G., Stassart, P.M. &
Baret, P. V. 2016. Clarifying the socioeconomic
dimensions of agroecology: between principles
and practices. Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme?
[Cited 30 April 2018]. http://www.ebcc.info/paneuropean-common-bird-monitoring-scheme-pecbms/
Eckard, S., Ansari, M., Bacher, S., Butt, T., Enkerli, J.
& Grabenweger, G. 2014. Virulence of in vivo and
Systems, 40(1): 24–47.
Dunham, R.A. 2011. Aquaculture and fisheries
biotechnology: genetic approaches. Wallingford,
UK, CABI.
in vitro produced conidia of Metarhizium brunneum
strains for control of wireworms. Crop Protection,
64: 137–142.
Duru, M., Fares, M. & Therond, O. 2014. A conceptual
framework for thinking now (and organising
tomorrow) the agroecological transition at the level
of the territory. Cahiers Agricultures, 23(2): 84–95.
Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire,
R., Magne, M.A., Justes, E., Journet, E.P. et
al. 2015. How to implement biodiversity-based
agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(4):
1259–1281.
ac805e/ac805e04.htm).
Dykstra, D.P. & Heinrich, R. 1996. FAO model code of
Bioversity International.
Edwards, P. 1980. A review of recycling organic wastes
into fish, with emphasis on the Tropics. Aquaculture,
21(3): 261–279.
Edwards, P. 2015. Aquaculture environment
interactions: past, present and likely future trends.
Aquaculture, 447: 2–14.
Edwards, P., Little, D. & Demaine, H. 2002. Rural
aquaculture. Wallingford, UK, CABI.
Edwards, D.P., Hodgson, J.A., Hamer, K.C., Mitchell,
S.L., Ahmad, A.H., Cornell, S.J. & Wilcove, D.S.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
471
2010. Wildlife-friendly oil palm plantations fail to
protect biodiversity effectively. Conservation Letters,
3(4): 236–242.
Edwards, D.P., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F.A., Larsen,
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-06/
A931058.pdf).
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystrom, M., Peterson, G.,
Bengtsson, J., Walker, B. & Norberg, J. 2003.
T.H., Hsu, W.W., Benedick, S. & Wilcove, D.S.
Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience.
2012. Reduced-impact logging and biodiversity
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(9):
conservation: a case study from Borneo. Ecological
Applications, 22(2): 561–571.
Edwards, J.E., Forster, R.J., Callaghan, T.M.,
488–494.
Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B.,
Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S. et al.
Dollhofer, V., Dagar, S.S., Cheng, Y., Chang, J. et
eds. 2013. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem
al. 2017. PCR and omics based techniques to study
services: challenges and opportunities. A global
the diversity, ecology and biology of anaerobic fungi:
insights, challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in
Microbiology, 25(8): 1657.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2015a.
Ecosystem services in the EU – Ecosystem services
still degrading. [Cited 21 March 2018]. https://www.
eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/where-we-stand/
ecosystem-services-in-the-eu
EEA. 2016. Agriculture – Organic farming. [Cited 26
assessment. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
El Nagar, G. 2007. Efficiency of African catfish Clarias
gariepinus in controlling unwanted reproduction
of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus in low input
production system. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic
Biology and Fisheries, 11(3): 105–113.
Epple, C., García Rangel, S., Jenkins, M. & Guth,
M. 2016. Managing ecosystems in the context
of climate change mitigation: a review of current
April 2018]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/
knowledge and recommendations to support
countries-comparison/agriculture
ecosystem-based mitigation actions that look
Egan, J.F. & Mortensen, D.A. 2012. Quantifying vapor
drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31(5):
1023–1031.
Eilers, E.J., Kremen, C., Greenleaf, S.S., Garber, A.K.
& Klein, A.M. 2011. Contribution of pollinatormediated crops to nutrients in the human food
supply. PLoS ONE, 6(6): e21363.
Eisler, M.C., Lee, M.R.F., Tarlton, J.F. & Martin,
G.B. 2014. Steps to sustainable livestock. Nature,
507(7490): 32–34.
Ejlertsen, M., Poole, J. & Marshall, K. 2012. Traditional
beyond terrestrial forests. CBD Technical Series
No.86. Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Eriksson, G., Namkoong, G. & Roberds, J.H. 1993.
Dynamic gene conservation for uncertain futures.
Forest Ecology and Management, 62(1–4): 15–37.
Erickson, D.J., Sulzberger, B., Zepp, R.G. & Austin, A.T.
2015. Effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, solar
UV radiation, and climate change on biogeochemical
cycling: Interactions and feedbacks. Photochemical
and Photobiological Sciences, 10(2): 261–279.
Esser, K.B., Sæthre, M.G., Pradhananga, N. & Ojha,
breeding objectives and practices of goat, sheep and
H. 2012. Midterm review of the National Integrated
cattle smallholders in The Gambia and implications
Pest Management Programme in Nepal, Phase
in relation to the design of breeding interventions.
II. Noragric Report No. 67. Aas, Department of
Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45(1):
International Environment and Development Studies,
219–229.
El-Kassaby, Y., Cappa, E.P., Liewlaksaneeyanawin, C.,
Klápš, J. & Lstiburek, M. 2011. Breeding without
Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
European Commission. 2015. The state of nature in
the EU – Reporting under the EU Habitats and Birds
breeding: is a complete pedigree necessary for
Directives 2007-2012. Luxembourg: Office for Offi-
efficient breeding? PLoS ONE, 6(10): e25737.
cial Publications of the European Union. (available at
Elliott, J., Firbank, L.G., Drake, B., Cao, Y. & Gooday,
R. 2013. Exploring the concept of sustainable
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/state_
of_nature_en.pdf).
intensification. Land Use Policy Group. (available at
472
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Eurostat. 2011. Data requirements, availability and gaps
in agri-environment indicators (AEIs) in Europe.
Luxembourg, Publication office of the European Union.
Eurostat. 2016. Agri-environmental indicator –
specialisation. [Cited 20 November 2018]. https://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/
Agri-environmental_indicator_-_specialisation
Eurostat. 2018. Agri-environmental indicators.
[Cited 26 April 2018]. http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agrienvironmental%7B_%7Dindicators
workers in Southeast Asia. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/v5290e/v5290e00.htm).
FAO. 1996a. Rome Declaration on World Food Security.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w3613e/w3613e00.HTM).
FAO. 1996b. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries
and species introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines
for Responsible Fisheries. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/3/a-w3592e.pdf).
FAO. 1997. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome. (available
Evans, B.R. 1999. Edible nut trees in Solomon Islands:
a variety collection of Canarium, Terminalia and
Barringtonia. ACIAR Technical Report No. 44.
Canberra, Australian Centre for International
at http://www.fao.org/3/a-w7324e.pdf).
FAO. 1998. Guidelines for the management of tropical
forests. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/w8212e/w8212e00.HTM).
FAO. 1999a. The global strategy for the management of
Agricultural Research.
Evenson, R.E. & Gollin, D. 2003. Assessing the impact
of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science,
300: 758–762.
farm animal genetic resources: executive brief. Rome.
FAO. 1999b. Women: users, preservers and managers of
agrobiodiversity. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
Ewald, J.A., Wheatley, C.J., Aebischer, N.J., Moreby,
S.J., Duffield, S.J., Crick, H.Q.P. & Morecroft, M.B.
2015. Influences of extreme weather, climate and
pesticide use on invertebrates in cereal fields over 42
years. Global Change Biology, 21(11): 3931–3950.
Ezcurra, E., Aburto, O. & Rosenzweig, L. 2009. Los
org/docrep/x0171e/x0171e03.htm).
FAO. 2000. World watch list for domestic animal
diversity. B.D. Scherf, ed. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/009/x8750e/x8750e00.htm).
FAO. 2003a. Biological management of soil ecosystems
for sustainable agriculture. Report of the
riñones del mundo: porqué debemos proteger
International Technical Workshop organized by
los manglares de México. Investigación ambiental
EMBRAPA-Soybean and FAO, Londrina, Brazil, 24–27
ciencia y política pública, 1(2): 202–206.
June 2002. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/
Fabre, P., Guérin, G. & Bouquet, P.M. 2010. The
management of natural areas by pastoralism – a
docrep/006/y4810e/y4810e00.htm).
FAO. 2003b. Status and trends in mangrove area extent
French Mediterranean example: the Merinos
worldwide. M.L. Wilkie & S. Fortuna, eds. Forest
D’Arles in transhumance. Paper presented at the
Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 63. Forest
Eighth World Merino Conference, 3–5 May 2010,
Resources Division. Rome, FAO Internal document.
Rambouillet, France.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j1533e/
Falk, D.A., Knapp, E.E. & Guerrant, E.O. 2001. An
introduction to restoration genetics. Washington,
J1533E00.htm).
FAO. 2003c. Cross-sectoral policy impacts between
DC, Society for Ecological Restoration.
forestry and other sectors. Forestry Paper No. 142.
FAO. 1993. Forest Resources Assessment 1990:
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/
tropical countries. FAO Forestry Paper 112. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/t0830e/
t0830e00.htm).
Y4653E/y4653e00.htm).
FAO. 2003d. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues,
terminology, principles, institutional foundations,
FAO. 1995a. Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/
a-v9878e.pdf).
implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper No. 443. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-y4773e.pdf).
FAO. 1995b. Improving nutrition through home
gardening – A training package for preparing field
FAO. 2003e. Fisheries management. 2. The ecosystem
approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
473
Responsible Fisheries 4. Suppl. 2. Rome. (available at
http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4470e.pdf).
FAO. 2005a. Grasslands of the world. J.M. Suttie, S.G.
Reynolds & C. Batello, eds. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/008/y8344e/y8344e00.htm).
FAO. 2005b. Putting into practice the ecosystem approach
to fisheries. Rome. (available at https://www.cbd.
FAO. 2008b. Expert Consultation on Nutrition Indicators
for Biodiversity: 1. Food Composition. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-a1582e.pdf).
FAO. 2009a. The State of Food and Agriculture.
Livestock in the balance. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf).
FAO. 2009b. Declaration of the World Summit on
int/doc/meetings/mar/cbwsoi-seasi-01/other/cbwsoi-
Food Security. World Summit on Food Security,
seasi-01-putting-into-practice-eaf-en.pdf).
Rome, 16–18 November 2009. WSFS 2009/2.
FAO. 2006a. Food security. Policy Brief No. 2. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/
faoitaly/documents/pdf/).
FAO. 2006b. Livestock’s long shadow – Environmental
(available at http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/
Meeting/018/k6050e.pdf).
FAO. 2009c. The use and exchange of animal genetic
resources for food and agriculture. Commission
issues and options. Rome. (available at http://www.
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM).
Background Study Paper No. 43. Rome. (available
FAO. 2007a. The State of the World’s Animal Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture. B. Richkowsky
& D. Pilling, eds. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-a1260e.pdf).
FAO. 2007b. The Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic
Resources and the Interlaken Declaration. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-a1404e.pdf).
FAO. 2007c. Report of the Eleventh Regular Session of
the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Rome, 11–15 June 2007.
at http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/
meeting/017/ak222e.pdf).
FAO. 2010a. The Second Report on the State of the
World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e.pdf).
FAO. 2010b. Developing effective forest policy. FAO
Forestry Paper No. 161. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/013/am007e/am007e00.pdf).
FAO. 2010c. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010.
CGRFA-11/07/Report. (available at http://www.fao.
Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 163, Rome.
org/tempref/docrep/fao/meeting/014/k0385e.pdf).
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/
FAO. 2007d. Forests and water. Unasylva No. 229,
Vol. 58. Rome. (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/
fao/010/a1598e/a1598e00.pdf).
FAO. 2007e. The world’s mangroves 1980-2005. FAO
Forestry Paper No. 153. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1427e/a1427e00.htm).
FAO. 2007f. The ecosystem approach applied to food
i1757e.pdf).
FAO. 2010d. Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem
approach to aquaculture. FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries 5. Suppl. 4. Rome. (available at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1750e/i1750e00.htm).
FAO. 2010e. An international consultation on integrated
crop-livestock systems for development. The way
and agriculture: status and needs. Commission
forward for sustainable production. Integrated Crop
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Management Vol. 13-2010. Rome. (available at http://
Eleventh Regular Session, Rome, 11–15 June 2007.
www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/images/
CGRFA-11/07/15.4 Rev.1. (available at http://
iclsd/documents/crop_livestock_proceedings.pdf).
www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/meeting/014/
j9731e.pdf).
FAO. 2008a. Rapid assessment of pollinators’ status: a
contribution to the international initiative for the
conservation and sustainable use of pollinators.
FAO. 2011a. The state of the world’s land and water
resources for food and agriculture. Managing systems
at risk. Rome, FAO, and London, Earthscan. (available
at http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i1688e/i1688e.pdf).
FAO. 2011b. Second Global Plan of Action for Plant
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/uploads/
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome.
media/raps%7B_%7D2.pdf).
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2624e/
i2624e00.pdf).
474
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
FAO. 2011c. Save and grow. A policymakers guide to the
FAO. 2013c. Our priorities: the FAO Strategic Objectives.
sustainable intensification of smallholder agriculture.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/
mi317e/mi317e.pdf).
FAO. 2013d. Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook.
i1951e/i1951e.pdf).
FAO. 2011d. Expert Consultation on Nutrition Indicators
for Biodiversity: 2. Food Consumption. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i1951e/
i1951e.pdf).
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/
i3325e/i3325e.pdf).
FAO. 2013e. Resilient livelihoods: disaster reduction
for food and nutrition security. Rome. (available at
FAO. 2011e. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11.
Women in agriculture: closing the gender gap for
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3270e.pdf).
FAO. 2013f. Review of key issues on biodiversity and
development. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
nutrition. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf).
and Agriculture. Fourteenth Regular Session, Rome,
FAO. 2011f. Surveying and monitoring of animal genetic
resources. FAO Animal Production and Health
Guidelines. No. 7. Rome. (available at http://www.
fao.org/docrep/014/ba0055e/ba0055e00.pdf).
FAO. 2012a. Invisible guardians: women manage
livestock diversity. FAO Animal Production and
Health Paper No. 174. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3018e/i3018e00.pdf).
FAO. 2012b. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i2727e.pdf).
15–19 April 2013. CGRFA-14/13/8. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/027/mf917e.pdf).
FAO. 2013g. In vivo conservation of animal genetic
resources. FAO Animal Production and Health
Guidelines. No. 14. Rome. (available at http://www.
fao.org/docrep/018/i3327e/i3327e.pdf).
FAO. 2013h. Policy support guidelines for the promotion
of sustainable production intensification and
ecosystem services. Integrated Crop Management
Vol. 19-2013. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/ag/ca/ca-publications/icm19.pdf).
FAO. 2012c. FRA 2015. Terms and definitions. Forest
Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 180.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/
FAO. 2014a. The State of the World’s Forest Genetic
Resources. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i3825e.pdf).
FAO. 2014b. Global Plan of Action for the Conservation,
ap862e/ap862e00.pdf).
FAO. 2012d. Phenotypic characterization of animal
genetic resources. FAO Animal Production and
Health Guidelines No. 11. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2686e/i2686e00.pdf).
FAO. 2012e. Cryoconservation of animal genetic
Sustainable Use and Development of Forest Genetic
Resources. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i3849e.pdf).
FAO. 2014c. Ecosystem services by livestock species and
breeds, with special consideration to the contribution
resources. FAO Animal Production and Health
of small-scale livestock keepers and pastoralists. I.
Guidelines No. 12. Rome. (available at http://www.
Hoffmann, T. From & D. Boerma, eds. Commission
fao.org/docrep/016/i3017e/i3017e00.pdf).
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
FAO. 2013a. Report of the Fourteenth Regular Session
of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
Background Study Paper No. 66 Rev. 1. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-at598e.pdf).
and Agriculture. Commission on Genetic Resources
FAO. 2014d. State of the World’s Forests: Enhancing
for Food and Agriculture. Rome, 15–19 April 2013.
the socioeconomic benefits from forests. Rome.
CGRFA-14/13/Report. (available at http://www.fao.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3710e.pdf).
FAO. 2014e. FAO Global Land Cover (GLC-SHARE) Beta-
org/docrep/meeting/028/mg538e.pdf).
FAO. 2013b. Guidelines for the preparation of the
Country Reports for The State of the World’s
Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-as644e.pdf).
Release 1.0 Database. J. Latham, R. Cumani, I. Rosati
& M. Bloise, eds. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/uploads/media/glc-share-doc.pdf).
FAO. 2014f. Genebank standards for plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture. Revised edition.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
475
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/
a-i3704e.pdf).
FAO. 2014g. Synthesis progress report on the
Bangkok. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/ai5362e.pdf).
FAO. 2016c. Regional strategy and action plan for
implementation of the global plan of action for
sustainable intensification of aquaculture in the Asia-
animal genetic resources – 2014. Commission on
Pacific region. Bangkok. (available at http://www.
Genetic Resource for Food and Agriculture. Fifteenth
Regular Session, Rome, 19–23 January 2015.
fao.org/3/a-i5466e.pdf).
FAO. 2016d. Voluntary Guidelines for Mainstreaming
CGRFA-15/15/Inf.19. Rome. (available at http://
Biodiversity into Policies, Programmes and National
www.fao.org/3/a-mm282e.pdf).
and Regional Plans of Action on Nutrition. Rome.
FAO. 2014h. Protected areas, people and food security.
A FAO contribution to World Park Congress, Sydney,
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5248e.pdf).
FAO. 2016e. State of the World’s Forests 2016.
12–19 November 2014. Rome. (available at http://
Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges and
www.fao.org/3/a-i4198e.pdf).
opportunities. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
FAO. 2015a. The Second Report on the State of World’s
Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
B.D. Scherf & D. Pilling, eds. Rome. (available at
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4787e.pdf).
FAO. 2015b. Coping with climate change – the roles of
org/3/a-i5588e.pdf).
FAO. 2016f. The contributions of livestock species and
breeds to ecosystem services. Rome. (available at
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6482e.pdf).
FAO. 2016g. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015.
genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome.
How are the world’s forests changing? Second
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3866e.pdf).
edition. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-
FAO. 2015c. The State of Food Insecurity in the World.
Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets:
i4793e.pdf).
FAO. 2016h. Report of the 32nd Session of the
taking stock of uneven progress. Rome. (available at
Committee on Fisheries (Rome, 11-15 July 2016).
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf).
Committee on Fisheries. Fortieth Session, Rome,
FAO. 2015d. Global Forest Resources Assessments –
Maps and figures. [online]. Rome. http://www.fao.
org/forest-resources-assessment/current-assessment/
maps-and-figures/en/
FAO. 2015e. Revised World Soil Charter. Rome. (available
at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4965e.pdf).
FAO. 2015f. Guidelines for developing a National Strategy
for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4917e.pdf).
FAO. 2015g. Voluntary Guidelines to Support the
Integration of Genetic Diversity into National Climate
Change Adaptation Planning. Rome. (available at
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4940e.pdf).
FAO. 2016a. Fisheries in the drylands of sub-Saharan
Africa – “Fish come with the rains”. Building resilience
for fisheries-dependent livelihoods to enhance food
3–8 July 2017. C 2017/23. (available at http://www.
fao.org/3/a-mr484e.pdf).
FAO. 2016i. CountryStat. [Cited 24 November 2016].
Rome. http://countrystat.org/home.aspx?c=FOR
FAO. 2016j. AQUASTAT Main Database. [Cited
23 October 2018]. Rome. http://www.fao.org/nr/
water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en%0A;
http://www.fao.org/nr/aquastat
FAO. 2016k. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture. Contributing to food security and
nutrition for all. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i5555e.pdf).
FAO. 2016l. Save and Grow in practice: maize, rice, wheat
– A guide to sustainable cereal production. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4009e.pdf).
FAO. 2016m. Assessment of the implementation of
security and nutrition in the drylands. J. Kolding, P.
the Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic
van Zwieten, F. Marttin & F. Poulain, eds. Fisheries and
Resources for Food and Agriculture 2012–2014.
Aquaculture Circular No. 1118. Rome, FAO. (available
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5616e.pdf).
Agriculture. Sixteenth Regular Session, Rome,
FAO. 2016b. Sustainable intensification of aquaculture
in the Asia-Pacific region. W. Miao & K.K. Lal, eds.
476
30 January–03 February 2017. CGRFA-16/17/Inf.17.2.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-mr796e.pdf).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
FAO. 2016n. Report of the Expert Workshop on
Incorporating Genetic Diversity and Indicators into
Statistics and Monitoring of Farmed Aquatic Species
and their Wild Relatives. Rome, 4–6 April 2016.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1173. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6373e.pdf).
FAO. 2016o. Meeting our goals: FAO’s programme for
gender equality in agriculture and rural development.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6618e.pdf).
FAO. 2016p. Farmer field school guidance document:
FAO. 2017j. FAOSTAT. [Cited 6 September 2017]. Rome.
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
FAO. 2017k. Keeping an eye on SDG 15. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7334e.pdf).
FAO. 2017l. Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil
Management. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-bl813e.pdf).
FAO. 2017m. Soil organic carbon: the hidden potential.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6937e.pdf).
FAO. 2017n. Genome-based biotechnologies in
planning for quality programmes. Rome. (available
aquaculture. Thematic Background Study No. 3. Sub-
at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5296e.pdf).
Committee on Aquaculture. Ninth Session, Rome,
FAO. 2016q. ABS Elements. Elements to facilitate
domestic implementation of access and benefitsharing for different subsectors of genetic resources
for food and agriculture. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i5033e.pdf).
24–27 October 2017. COFI:AQ/IX/2017/SBD.5.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/cofi/460550e1ecdb708ffdf3609b3c2aa4dc46bc8a.pdf).
FAO. 2017o. Voluntary Guidelines for the Conservation
and Sustainable Use of Crop Wild Relatives and Wild
FAO. 2017a. FAO’s work on climate change. United
Nations Climate Change Conference 2017. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i8037e.pdf).
FAO. 2017b. FAO and the SDGs. Indicators:
Food Plants. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i7788e.pdf).
FAO. 2017p. Big roles, little powers: the reality of
women in agriculture in ECOWAS region. Rome.
measuring up to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7005e.pdf).
Development. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
FAO. 2017q. National seed policy takes root. [Cited 4
org/3/a-i6919e.pdf).
March 2018]. Rome. http://www.fao.org/laos/news/
FAO. 2017c. Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook.
[Cited 10 March 2018]. Rome. http://www.fao.org/
climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/en/
detail-events/en/c/1039592/
FAO. 2018a. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture
2018 – Meeting the sustainable development goals.
FAO. 2017d. Strategic work of FAO to increase the
resilience of livelihoods. Rome. (available at http://
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/
I9540EN.pdf).
FAO. 2018b. The State of the World’s Forests 2018 –
www.fao.org/3/a-i6463e.pdf).
FAO. 2017e. The future of food and agriculture – Trends
and challenges. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
Forest pathways to sustainable development. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/).
FAO. 2018c. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage
org/3/a-i6583e.pdf).
FAO. 2017f. Strategic work of FAO for sustainable food
Systems (GIAHS). Combining agricultural biodiversity,
and agriculture. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
resilient ecosystems, traditional farming practices
org/3/a-i6488e.pdf).
and cultural identity. Rome. (available at http://www.
FAO. 2017g. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture and food
systems in practice. Options for intervention. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7848e.pdf).
FAO. 2017h. FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database
for Biodiversity Version 4.0 – BioFoodComp4.0. Rome.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7364e.pdf).
fao.org/3/i9187en/I9187EN.pdf).
FAO. 2018d. Resilience. [Cited 28 November 2016].
Rome. http://www.fao.org/emergencies/how-wework/resilience/en/
FAO. 2018e. The impact of disasters and crises on
agriculture and food security. Rome. (available at
FAO. 2017i. The State of Food and Agriculture 2017.
http://www.fao.org/3/I8656EN/i8656en.pdf).
Leveraging food systems for inclusive rurall
FAO. 2018f. Nitrogen inputs to agricultural soils from
transformation. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
livestock manure. New statistics. Integrated Crop
org/3/a-I7658e.pdf).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
477
Management Vol. 24. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/3/i8153en/I8153EN.pdf).
FAO. 2018g. Status and trends of animal genetic
resources. CGRFA/WG-AnGR-10/18/Inf.3. Rome.
FAO. 2018r. Regulating services. [online]. Rome. http://
www.fao.org/ecosystem-services-biodiversity/
background/regulating-services/en/
FAO. 2018s. SDG Indicator 2.5.1 – Conservation of
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/CA0121EN/
genetic resources for food and agriculture. [online].
ca0121en.pdf).
Rome. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-
FAO. 2018h. Fishery and aquaculture statistics.
FishstatJ – Global production by production source
1950–2016. Rome.
FAO. 2018i. FAO’s global action on pollination services
for sustainable agriculture. [Cited 13 March 2018].
Rome. http://www.fao.org/pollination/en/
FAO. 2018j. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Terms and definitions. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf).
FAO. 2018k. Progress in the implementation of the Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and related
instruments. Committee on Fisheries. Thirty-third
Session, Rome, 9–13 July 2018. COFI/2018/Inf.7.
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/MX233EN/
mx233en.pdf).
FAO. 2018l. The 10 elements of agroecology. Guiding
the transition to sustainable food and agricultural
goals/indicators/251/en/
FAO. 2018t. WIEWS – World Information and Early
Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture. [online]. Rome. http://www.
fao.org/wiews/en/
FAO. 2018u. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage
Systems (GIAHS). [Cited 22 April 2018]. Rome.
http://www.fao.org/giahs/en/
FAO. 2018v. Incentives for ecosystem services. [Cited
5 April 2018]. Rome. http://www.fao.org/in-action/
incentives-for-ecosystem-services/en/
FAO. 2019. Biodiversity for food and agriculture and
ecosystem services. Thematic study prepared for the
SoW-BFA. Rome.
FAO. forthcoming. The State of the World’s Aquatic
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome.
FAO & Bioversity International. 2017. Guidelines on
systems. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/
assessing biodiverse foods in dietary intake surveys.
I9037EN/i9037en.pdf).
Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-
FAO. 2018m. Land-use planning. [Cited 10 May 2018].
Rome. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-forest-
i6717e.pdf).
FAO & FHI 360. 2016. Minimum dietary diversity for
management/toolbox/modules/land-use-planning/
women: a guide for measurement. Rome, FAO.
basic-knowledge/en/
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5486e.pdf).
FAO. 2018n. Global Livestock Environmental Assessment
FAO & CBD. 2016. Mainstreaming ecosystem services
Model (GLEAM). [Cited 23 September 2018]. Rome.
and biodiversity into agricultural production and
http://www.fao.org/gleam/en.
management in East Africa. Practical issues for
FAO. 2018o. Livestock and agroecology – How they can
consideration in National Biodiversity Strategies and
support the transition towards sustainable food and
Action Plans to minimize the use of agrochemicals.
agriculture. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/3/
Technical guidance document. Rome, FAO. (available
I8926EN/i8926en.pdf).
FAO. 2018p. Agri-environmental statistics. Taking
at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5603e.pdf).
FAO, CBD, SPREP & SPC. 2016. Mainstreaming
the pulse of the planet, one country at a time!
ecosystem servi ces and biodiversity into agricultural
[Cited 22 April 2018]. Rome. http://www.fao.org/
production and management in the Pacific Islands.
economic/ess/environment/en/
Technical guidance document. Rome, FAO. (available
FAO. 2018q. What is Integrated Plant Nutrient
Management? [Cited 4 December 2018]. Plant
at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6505e.pdf).
FAO, DFSC & IPGRI. 2001. Forest genetic resources
Production and Protection Division. Rome. http://www.
conservation and management. Vol. 2: In managed
fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/spi/
natural forests and protected areas (in situ). Rome,
scpi-home/managing-ecosystems/integrated-plant-
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI).
nutrient-management/ipnm-what/en/
(available at http://www.bioversityinternational.org/
478
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
fileadmin/_migrated/uploads/tx_news/Forest_genetic_
resources_conservation_and_management__In_
managed_natural_forests_and_protected_areas__in_
situ___Vol._2_775.pdf).
of the CGIAR. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/
ca0146en/CA0146EN.pdf).
FAO & PAR. 2011. Biodiversity for food and agriculture.
Contributing to food security and sustainability in a
FAO, FLD & IPGRI. 2004a. Forest genetic resources
changing world. Outcomes of an expert workshop
conservation and management. Vol. 3: In plantations
held by FAO and Platform on Agrobiodiversity
and genebanks (ex situ). Rome, IPGRI. (available at
Research. Rome, 14–16 April 2010. Rome, FAO.
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_
upload/online_library/publications/pdfs/1053.pdf).
FAO, FLD & IPGRI. 2004b. Forest genetic resources
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1980e.pdf).
FAO & SINER-GI. 2010. Linking people, places and
products. A guide for promoting quality linked to
conservation and management. Vol. 1: Overview,
geographical origin and sustainable geographical
concepts and some systematic approaches.
indications. Second edition. E. Vandecandelaere, F.
Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources
Arfini, G. Belletti & A. Marescotti, eds. Rome, FAO.
Institute (IPGRI). (available at http://www.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1760e/
bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/_migrated/
uploads/tx_news/Forest_genetic_resources_
i1760e00.pdf).
FAO & The National Forest Programme Facility.
conservation_and_management__overview__
2006. Understanding national forest programmes.
concepts_and_some_systematic_approaches__
Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
Vol._1_1018.pdf).
tempref/docrep/fao/012/a0826e/a0826e00.pdf).
FAO & IAEA. 2016. Supporting biological control of
FAO & UNISDR. 2017. Lineamientos y
stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans, L) through the use
recomendaciones para la implementación del
of parasitoids reproduced on fruit flies. Insect & Pest
Marco de Sendai para la Reducción del Riesgo
Control Newsletter No. 87. Vienna. (available at http://
de Desastres en el Sector Agrícola y Seguridad
www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/ipc/public/IPC-NL-87.pdf).
Alimentaria y Nutricional. América Latina y el
FAO, IIRR & WorldFish Center. 2001. Integrated
agriculture-aquaculture. A primer. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No. 407. Rome. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y1187E/y1187e00.HTM).
FAO & INRA. 2016. Innovative markets for sustainable
Caribe. Santiago de Chile, FAO.
FAO & WHO. 1999. Guidelines for the production,
processing, labelling and marketing of organically
produced foods. Rome, FAO. (available at www.fao.
org/input/download/standards/360/cxg_032e.pdf).
FAO & WHO. 2002. Guidelines for the evaluation of
agriculture. A. Loconto, A.S. Poisot & P.
Santacoloma, eds. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
probiotics in food. London, Canada. (available at
www.fao.org/3/a-i5907e.pdf).
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/en/
FAO & INRA. 2018. Constructing markets for agroecology:
An analysis of diverse options for marketing products
probiotic_guidelines.pdf).
FAO & WHO. 2014a. Conference Outcome Document:
from agroecology. A. Loconto, A. Jimenez & E.
Rome Declaration on Nutrition. Second International
Vandecandelaere, eds. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
Conference on Nutrition, Rome, 19–21 November
www.fao.org/3/i8605en/I8605EN.pdf).
2014. ICN2 2014/2. (available at http://www.fao.
FAO & ITPS. 2015. Status of the World’s Soil Resources
(SWSR) – Main Report. Rome, FAO and ITPS.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf).
FAO & IWMI. 2018. More people, more food, worse
water? a global review of water pollution from
agriculture. J. Mateo-Sagasta, S.M. Zadeh & H.
Turral, eds. Rome, FAO, and Colombo, International
org/3/a-ml542e.pdf).
FAO & WHO. 2014b. Framework for action. Report of
the Joint FAO/WHO Second International Conference
on Nutrition, Rome, 19–21 November 2014. ICN2
2014/3 Corr. 1. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/amm215e.pdf).
FAO & WHO. 2014c. The International Code of Conduct
Water Management Institute on behalf of the
on Pesticide Management. Rome, FAO. (available at
Research Program on Water Land and Ecosystems
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
479
documents/Pests%7B_%7DPesticides/Code/
CODE%7B_%7D2014Sep%7B_%7DENG.pdf).
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2018. The State
of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018.
Fletcher, W.J. & Bianchi, G. 2014. The FAO-EAF toolbox:
making the ecosystem approach accessible to all
fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management, 90: 20–26.
Fletcher, W.J., Kearney, R.E., Wise, B.S. & Nash, W.J.
Building climate resilience for food security and
2015. Large-scale expansion of no-take closures
nutrition. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.
within the Great Barrier Reef has not enhanced
org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf).
fishery production. Ecological Society of America,
Faruque, G., Sarwer, R.H., Karim, M., Phillips, M.,
Collis, W.J., Belton, B. & Kassam, L. 2017.
The evolution of aquatic agricultural systems in
Southwest Bangladesh in response to salinity and
other drivers of change. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 15(2): 185–207.
Federal Office for the Environment of Switzerland.
2018. Prairies et pâturages secs. [Cited 30 April
2018]. https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/fr/home/
themes/biodiversite/info-specialistes/mesures-de-
25(5): 1187–1196.
Fogarty, N.D. 2012. Caribbean acroporid coral hybrids
are viable across life history stages. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 446: 145–159.
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C.,
Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S. et al.
2005. Global consequences of land use. Science,
309(5734): 570–574.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy,
E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D. et
conservation-de-la-biodiversite/infrastructure-
al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature,
ecologique/biotopes-d_importance-nationale/
478(7369): 337–342.
prairies-et-paturages-secs.html
Ferrario, F., Beck, M.W., Storlazzi, C., Micheli, F.,
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M.,
Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. & Holling, C.S.
Shepard, C. & Airoldi, L. 2014. The effectiveness of
2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in
coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction. Nature
ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology,
Communications, 5(3794): 1–9.
Ferrel, J.K. 2005. Controlling flags of convenience: one
Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1): 557–581.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer,
measure to stop overfishing of collapsing fish stocks.
M., Chapin, T. & Rockström, J. 2010. Resilience
Environmental Law, 35(2): 323–390.
thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and
FiBL (Forschungsinstitut für Biologischen Landbau).
2016. Organic agriculture promotes biodiversity.
transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4): 20–28.
Fontaine, C.M., De Vreese, R., Jacquemin, I., Marek,
[Cited 26 April 2018]. http://www.fibl.org/en/
A., Mortelmans, D., Dendoncker, N., François,
themes/biodiversity.html
L.M., Van Herzle, A. & Devillet, G. 2013. Valuation
Finckh, M.R., Gacek, E.S., Goyeau, H., Lannou, C.,
Merz, U., Mundt, C.C., Munk, L. et al. 2000. Cereal
variety and species mixtures in practice, with emphasis
on disease resistance. Agronomie, 20(7): 813–837.
Finke, D.L. & Denno, R.F. 2004. Predator diversity
of terrestrial ecosystem services in a multifunctional
peri-urban space (The VOTES project). Final Report.
Brussels, Belgian Science Policy.
Fonte, S.J., Vanek, S.J., Oyarzun, P., Parsa,
S., Quintero, C.D., Rao, I.M. & Lavelle, P.
dampens trophic cascades. Nature, 429(6990):
2012. Chapter 4: Pathways to agroecological
407–410.
intensification of soil fertility management by
Finlayson, R. 2017. ASEAN calls for agroforestry
guidelines. [Cited 23 April 2018]. http://blog.
worldagroforestry.org/index.php/2017/07/11/aseancalls-agroforestry-guidelines/
Fisher, M.C., Henk, D.A., Briggs, C.J., Brownstein,
J.S., Madoff, L.C., McCraw, S.L. & Gurr, S.J.
smallholder farmers in the Andean Highlands.
Advances in Agronomy, 116: 125–184.
Forestry Commission. 2018. Chalara dieback of ash
(Hymenoscyphus fraxineus). [Cited 17 May 2018].
https://www.forestry.gov.uk/ashdieback
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of
2012. Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and
landscapes and regions. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
ecosystem health. Nature, 484(7393): 186–194.
University Press.
480
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Fornara, D.A. & Tilman, D. 2008. Plant functional
Fuller, D.Q. 2007. Contrasting patterns in crop
composition influences rates of soil carbon and
domestication and domestication rates: recent
nitrogen accumulation. Journal of Ecology, 96(2):
archaeobotanical insights from the Old World.
314–322.
Annals of Botany, 100: 903–924.
Forrest, J.R.K., Thorp, R.W., Kremen, C. & Williams,
Fürst, M.A., McMahon, D.P., Osborne, J.L., Paxton,
N.M. 2015. Contrasting patterns in species and
R.J. & Brown, M.J.F. 2014. Disease associations
functional-trait diversity of bees in an agricultural
between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to
landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(3): 706–715.
Foundjem-Tita, D., Tchoundjeu, Z., Speelman, S.,
wild pollinators. Nature, 506: 364–366.
Gaba, S., Gabriel, E., Chadœuf, J., Bonneu, F. &
D’Haese, M., Degrande, A., Asaah, E., van
Bretagnolle, V. 2016. Herbicides do not ensure for
Huylenbroeck, G., van Damme, P. & Ndoye,
higher wheat yield, but eliminate rare plant species.
O. 2013. Policy and legal frameworks governing
trees: incentives or disincentives for smallholder
Scientific Reports, 6: 30112.
Gabriel, D., Sait, S.M., Kunin, W.E. & Benton, T.G.
tree planting decisions in Cameroon? Small-scale
2013. Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing
Forestry, 12(3): 489–505.
organic and conventional agriculture. Journal of
Fourqurean, J.W., Duarte, C.M., Kennedy, H., Marbà,
N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M.A., Apostolaki, E.T. et
al. 2012. Seagrass ecosystem as a globally significant
carbon stock. Nature Geoscience, 5: 505–509.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A.,
Applied Ecology, 50(2): 355–364.
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. 1993. Indigenous
knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio,
22(2–3): 151–156.
Galhena, D.H., Freed, R. & Maredia, K.M. 2013.
Creamer, N., Harwood, R., Salomonsson, L. et
Home gardens: a promising approach to enhance
al. 2003. Agroecology: the ecology of food systems.
household food security and wellbeing. Agriculture
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3): 99–118.
Franzel, S., Coe, R., Cooper, P., Place, F. & Scherr,
& Food Security, 2(8).
Gallai, N., Salles, J.M., Settele, J. & Vaissière, B.E.
S.J. 2001. Assessing the adoption potential of
2009. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of
agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa.
world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline.
Agricultural Systems, 69(1–2): 37–62.
Ecological Economics, 68(3): 810–821.
Free, J.B. 1993. Insect pollination of crops. London,
Galloway, J.N., Townsend, A.R., Erisman, J.W.,
Bekunda, M., Cai, Z., Freney, J.R. & Sutton, M.A.
Academic Press.
Freitas, B.M. & Paxton, R.J. 1998. A comparison of two
2008. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent
pollinators: the introduced honey bee Apis mellifera
trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science,
and an indigenous bee Centris tarsata on cashew
320(5878): 889–892.
Anacardium occidentale in its native range of NE
Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P. & Negri, V. 2009.
Brazil. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35(1): 109–121.
Uncovering European home gardens: their human
Friberg, N., Angelopoulos, N.V., Buijse, A.D., Cowx,
and biological features and potential contribution
I.G., Kail, J., Moe, T.F., Moir, H., O’Hare, M.T.,
to the conservation of agro-biodiversity. In A. Bailey,
Verdonschot, P.F.M. & Wolter, C. 2016. Effective
P. Eyzaguirre & L. Maggioni, eds. Crop genetic
river restoration in the 21st century: from trial and
resources in European home gardens: Proceedings
error to novel evidence-based approaches. Advances
of a Workshop, 3-4 October 2007, Ljubljana,
in Ecological Research, 55: 535–611.
Slovenia, pp. 8–17. Rome, Bioversity International.
Frison, E.A., Cherfas, J. & Hodgkin, T. 2011.
Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P. & Negri, V. 2010. Home
Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable
gardens: neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity
improvement in food and nutrition security.
and cultural diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation,
Sustainability, 3(1): 238–253.
19(13): 3635–3654.
FSC. 2018. Forest Stewardship Council. [Cited
23 April 2018]. https://ic.fsc.org/en
Gardi, C., Montanarella, L., Arrouays, D., Bispo, A.,
Lemanceau, P., Jolivet, C., Mulder, C. et al. 2009.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
481
Soil biodiversity monitoring in Europe: ongoing
activities and challenges. European Journal of Soil
Science, 60: 807–819.
Garibaldi, L.A., Carvalheiro, L.G., Leonhardt, S.D.,
Aizen, M.A., Blaauw, B.R., Isaacs, R., Kuhlmann,
M. et al. 2014. From research to action: enhancing
Geburek, T. & Müller, F. 2005. How can silvicultural
management contribute to genetic conservation?
In T. Geburek & J. Turok, eds. Conservation and
management of forest genetic mesources in Europe,
pp. 651–669. Zvolen, Slovakia, Arbora Publishers.
GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2016. Pacific R2R -
crop yield through wild pollinators. Frontiers in
Ridge to Reef - Home. [Cited 29 June 2018]. https://
Ecology and the Environment, 12(8): 439–447.
www.pacific-r2r.org/
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C.,
Geiger, F., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Weisser, W.W.,
Morales, J.M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham,
Emmerson, M., Morales, M.B., Ceryngier, P. et
S.A., Carvalheiro, L.G. et al. 2011. Stability of
al. 2010. Persistent negative effects of pesticides
pollination services decreases with isolation from
on biodiversity and biological control potential on
natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology
European farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology,
Letters, 14(10): 1062–1072.
11(2): 97–105.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R.,
Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Craigie, I.D.,
Aizen, M.A., Bommarco, R., Cunningham,
Hockings, M., Knights, K., Leverington, F. et
S.A., Kremen, C. et al. 2013. Wild pollinators
al. 2015. Changes in protected area management
enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee
effectiveness over time: a global analysis. Biological
abundance. Science, 340(6127): 1608–1611.
Garibaldi, L.A., Carvalheiro, L.G., Vaissière, B.E.,
Conservation, 191: 692–699.
GEO BON Secretariat. 2016. Global Wetlands
Gemmill-Herren, B., Hipólito, J., Freitas, B.M.,
Observing System (GWOS). [Cited 21 March 2018].
Ngo, H.T. et al. 2016. Mutually beneficial pollinator
http://geobon.org/global-wetlands-observing-
diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large
farms. Science, 351(6271): 388–391.
system-gwos/
Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet,
Garnett, T., Appleby, M.C., Balmford, A., Bateman,
A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio,
I.J., Benton, T.G., Bloomer, P., Burlingame, B. et
G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock
al. 2013. Sustainable intensification in agriculture:
– A global assessment of emissions and mitigation
premises and policies. Science, 341(6141): 33–34.
opportunities. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.
Garrity, D.P., Akinnifesi, F.K., Ajayi, O.C.,
Weldesemayat, S.G., Mowo, J.G., Kalinganire,
fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf).
Giannini, T., Boff, S., Cordeiro, G., Cartolano Jr., E.,
A., Larwanou, M. & Bayala, J. 2010. Evergreen
Veiga, A., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. & Saraiva, A.M.
agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food
2015. Crop pollinators in Brazil: a review of reported
security in Africa. Food Security, 2: 197–214.
Gaston, K. & Spicer, J. 2004. Does biodiversity matter? In
K. Gaston & J. Spicer, eds. Biodiversity: an introduction,
pp. 91–107. Malden, USA, Blackwell Publishing.
interactions. Apidologie, 46: 209–223.
Gibbs, H.K. & Salmon, J.M. 2015. Mapping the world’s
degraded lands. Applied Geography, 57: 12–21.
Giller, K.E. Andersson, J.A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard,
Gaupp-Berghausen, M., Hofer, M., Rewald, B. &
J., Mortensen, D., Erenstein, O. & Vanlauwe, B.
Zaller, J.G. 2015. Glyphosate-based herbicides
2015. Beyond conservation agriculture. Frontiers in
reduce the activity and reproduction of earthworms
and lead to increased soil nutrient concentrations.
Scientific Reports, 5: 12886.
GEAS (UN Environment Global Alert Service). 2013.
Mangrove forest cover fading fast. Environmental
Development, 8: 105–112. (available at https://
Plant Science, 6: 870.
Gilman, R.T., Fabina, N.S., Abbott, K.C. & Rafferty,
N.E. 2012. Evolution of plant-pollinator mutualisms
in response to climate change. Evolutionary
Applications, 5(1): 2–16.
Giraffa, G. & Carminati, D. 2008. Molecular techniques
na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Aug2013_
in food fermentation: principles and applications. In
Mangroves.pdf).
L. Cocolin & D. Ercolini, eds. Molecular techiques in
482
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
the microbial ecology of fermented foods, pp. 1–30.
New York, Springer Science & Business Media.
Gjedrem, T., Robinson, N. & Rye, M. 2012. The
importance of selective breeding in aquaculture to
Goka, K., Okabe, K. & Yoneda, M. 2006. Worldwide
migration of parasitic mites as a result of bumblebee
commercialization. Population Ecology, 48(4): 285–291.
Golden, C.D., Fernald, L.C.H., Brashares, J.S.,
meet future demands for animal protein: a review.
Rasolofoniaina, B.J.R. & Kremen, C. 2011.
Aquaculture, 350: 117–129.
Benefits of wildlife consumption to child nutrition in
Gleick, P.H., Singh, A. & Shi, H. 2001. Emerging threats
to the world’s freshwater resources. Oakland,
USA, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security.
a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 108(49): 19653–19656.
Gómez, M.I. & Ricketts, K.D. 2013. Food value chain
transformations in developing countries: selected
Gliessman, S. 1997. Agroecology: ecological processes in
sustainable agriculture. Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press.
Gliessman, S. 2015. Agroecology – the ecology of
sustainable food systems. Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press.
Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. 2017.
What is the Global Greenhouse Gas Reference
Network? [Cited 22 March 2018]. https://www.esrl.
noaa.gov/gmd/about/contacts.html
hypotheses on nutritional implications. Food Policy,
42: 139–150.
Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Ruiz-Pérez, M. 2011.
Economic valuation and the commodification of
ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography,
35(5): 613–628.
Gonzalez Fischer, C. & Garnett, T. 2016. Plates,
pyramids, planet. Developments in national healthy
Global Panel. 2017. Urban diets and nutrition: trends,
and sustainable dietary guidelines: a state of play
challenges and opportunities for policy action. Policy
assessment. Rome, FAO, and Oxford, UK, Food
Brief No. 9. London, UK, Global Panel on Agriculture
Climate Research Network. (available at http://www.
and Food Systems for Nutrition.
fao.org/3/a-i5640e.pdf).
Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration.
González-Acereto, J.A., Quezada-Euán, J.J.G. &
2018. The Bonn challenge – Commitments. [Cited
Medina-Medina, L.A. 2006. New perspectives for
29 May 2018]. http://www.bonnchallenge.org/
stingless beekeeping in the Yucatán: results of an
commitments
integral program to rescue and promote the activity.
GMSA. 2017. About the Global Marine Species
Assessment (GMSA). [Cited 21 March 2018]. https://
Journal of Apicultural Research, 45(4): 234–239.
González-Sánchez, E.J., Moreno-García, M., Kassam,
A., Holgado-Cabrera, A., Triviño-Tarradas,
sites.wp.odu.edu/GMSA/about/
GOA-ON. 2016. Global Ocean Acidification Observing
P., Carbonell-Bojollo, R., Pisante, M., Veroz-
Network. [Cited 21 March 2018]. http://www.goa-
González., O. & Basch, G. 2017. Conservation
on.org/home.php
agriculture: making climate change mitigation
Godde, C.M., Garnett, T., Thornton, P.K., Ash, A.J. &
Herrero, M. 2018. Grazing systems expansion and
intensification: drivers, dynamics, and trade-offs.
Global Food Security, 16: 93–105.
and adaptation real in Europe. Brussels, European
Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF).
Goodman, D., DuPuis, M. & Goodman, M. 2012.
Alternative food networks. New York, USA, Routledge.
Godfray, H.C.J. 1994. Parasitoids: behavioral and
Gould, D. 2007. Training Guide 4.0 for small farmers’
evolutionary ecology. Princeton, USA, Princeton
organizations “Developing and Implementing
University Press.
Internal Control Systems with Focus on Fair Trade
Godfray, H.C.J. 2015. The debate over sustainable
intensification. Food Security, 7(2): 199–208.
Goettsch, B., Durán, A.P. & Gaston, K.J. 2018. Global
Environmental Standards”. Bonn, Germany, Fairtrade
Labelling Organizations International.
Goulson, D. 2003. Effects of introduced bees on native
gap analysis of cactus species and priority sites
ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and
for their conservation. Conservation Biology, doi:
Systematics, 34: 1–26.
10.1111/cobi.13196.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
483
Goulson, D. 2013. An overview of the environmental
Gregory, R.D., Vořišek, P., Noble, D.G., Van Strien, A.,
risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of
Klvaňová, A., Eaton, M., Meyling, A.W.G., Joys, A.,
Applied Ecology, 50: 977–987.
Foppen, R.P.B. & Burfield, I.J. 2008. The generation
Government of Ethiopia. 2015. Ethiopia’s National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2020.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute.
Government of India. 2017. Indian State of Forest
and use of bird population indicators in Europe. Bird
Conservation International, 18: S223–S244.
Grémillet, D. & Boulinier, T. 2009. Spatial ecology
and conservation of seabirds facing global climate
Report (ISFR)-2017, Volume 17, 2016-17. Forest
change: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series,
Survey of India. New Delhi.
391: 121–137.
Government of Switzerland. 2012. Swiss Biodiversity
Strategy. Bern, Federal Office for the Environment
FOEN.
Graham, E., Grandy, S. & Thelen, M. 2009. Manure
effects on soil organisms and soil quality. Emerging
Griffin, J., Byrnes, J. & Cardinale, B. 2013. Effects
of predator richness on prey suppression: a metaanalysis. Ecology, 94(10): 2180–2187.
Griffiths, B.S., Ritz, K., Bardgett, R.D., Cook, R.,
Christensen, S., Ekelund, F., Sorensen, S.J.
Issues in Animal Agriculture. East Lansing, USA,
et al. 2000. Ecosystem response of pasture soil
Michigan State University.
communities to fumigation-induced microbial
Grau, H.R. & Aide, M. 2008. Globalization and land-use
transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society,
13(2): 16–27.
Graudal, L. & Lillesø, J.P.B. 2007. Experiences and
diversity reductions: an examination of the
biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship. Oikos,
90(2): 279–294.
GRISP (Global Rice Science Partnership). 2013.
future prospects for tree seed supply in agricultural
Rice almanac, 4th edition. Los Baños, Philippines,
development support: based on lessons learnt
International Rice Research Institute. (available at
in Danida supported programmes 1965–2005.
Copenaghen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.
Graves, A., Matthews, R. & Waldie, K. 2004.
Low external input technologies for livelihood
improvement in subsistence agriculture. Advances in
Agronomy, 82: 473–555.
Gray, C.L. & Bilsborrow, R.E. 2014. Consequences of
out-migration for land use in rural Ecuador. Land Use
Policy, 36: 182–191.
Green, E.P. & Short, F.T. 2003. World atlas of
http://books.irri.org/9789712203008_content.pdf).
Grivetti, L.E. & Ogle, B.M. 2000. Value of traditional
foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs:
the wild plant connection. Nutrition Research
Reviews, 13(01): 31.
Grubben, G.J.H. & Denton, O.A. 2004. Plant resources
of Tropical Africa 2. Vegetables. Wageningen,
Netherlands, PROTA Foundation.
Gruber, B., Evans, D., Henle, K., Bauch, B., Schmeller,
D., Dziock, F., Henry, P.-Y., Lengyel, S., Margules,
seagrasses. Los Angeles, USA, University of
C. & Dormann, C. 2012. “Mind the gap!” – How
California Press.
well does Natura 2000 cover species of European
Gregory, N.G. 1995. The role of shelterbelts in
protecting livestock: a review. New Zealand Journal
of Agricultural Research, 38(4): 423–450.
Gregory, R.D. & van Strien, A. 2010. Wild bird
interest? Nature Conservation, 3: 45–62.
Gugić, G., Župan, D. & Zupan, I. 2012. Croatia: the
floodplain ecosystem of the Centraal Sava River
Basin. In N. Dudley & S. Stolton, eds. Protected
indicators: using composite population trends
landscapes and wild biodiversity, pp. 19–26. Values of
of birds as measures of environmental health.
protected landscapes and seascapes, Volume 3. Gland,
Ornithological Science, 9(1): 3–22.
Switzerland, The Protected Landscapes Specialist Group
Gregory, R.D., van Strien, A., Vorisek, P., Gmelig
of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas.
Meyling, A.W., Noble, D.G., Foppen, R.P.B. &
Guizani, N. & Mothershaw, A. 2007. Fermentation as
Gibbons, D.W. 2005. Developing indicators for
a method for food preservation. Handbook of food
European birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
preservation. Second edition, pp. 215–236. New
Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1454): 269–288.
York, USA, CRC Press.
484
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Gunasena, H.P.M. & Roshetko, J.M. 2000. Tree
domestication in Southeast Asia: results of a regional
study on institutional capacity. Bogor, Indonesia,
ICRAF Southeast Asia Regional Program.
Halpern, B.S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves :
do reserves work and does reserve size matter?
Ecological Applications, 13(1): 117–137.
Halpern, B.S., Ebert, C.M., Kappel, C. V, Madin,
Guo, J.H. 2010. Significant acidification in major Chinese
croplands. Science, 327(5968): 1008–1010.
Gupta, R.B., Chaudhari, P.R. & Wate, S.R. 2008.
Overview on attenuation of industrial air pollution
by greenbelt. Journal of Industrial Pollution Control,
24(1): 1–8.
E.M.P., Micheli, F., Perry, M., Selkoe, K.A. &
Walbridge, S. 2009. Global priority areas for
incorporating land-sea connections in marine
conservation. Conservation Letters, 2(4): 189–196.
Halpern, B.S., Longo, C., Hardy, D., McLeod, K.L.,
Samhouri, J.F., Katona, S.K., Kleisner, K. et al.
Gurr, G., Read, D., Catindig, J., Cheng, J., Liu, J.,
Lan, L. & Heong, K. 2011. Parasitoids of the rice
leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and prospects
2012. An index to assess the health and benefits of
the global ocean. Nature, 488: 615–620.
Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Afflerbach, J., O’Hara, C.,
for enhancing biological control with nectar plants.
Katona, S., Stewart Lowndes, J.S., Jiang, N.,
Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 14(1): 1–12.
Pacheco, E., Scarborough, C. & Polsenberg, J.
Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Landis, D.A. & You,
M. 2017. Habitat management to suppress pest
populations: progress and prospects. Annual Review
of Entomology, 62(1): 91–109.
2017. Drivers and implications of change in global
ocean health over the past five years. PLoS ONE,
12(7): e0178267.
Halwart, M. 2006. Biodiversity and nutrition in
Gutiérrez-Salmeán, G., Fabila-Castillo, L. &
Chamorro-Cevallos, G. 2015. Nutritional and
toxicological aspects of Spirulina (Arthrospira).
Nutricion hospitalaria, 32(1): 34–40.
rice-based aquatic ecosystems. Journal of Food
Composition and Analysis, 19(6–7): 747–751.
Halwart, M. 2008. Biodiversity, nutrition and livelihoods
in aquatic rice-based ecosystems. Biodiversity,
Haard, N.F., Odunfa, S.A., Cherl-Ho, L. & QuinteroRamírez, R. 1999. Fermented cereals. A global
9(1–2): 36–40.
Halwart, M. & Gupta, M. V. 2004. Culture of fish in rice
perspective. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No.
fields. Rome, FAO, and Penang, Malaysia, WorldFish
138. Rome, FAO.
Center. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0823e.
Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F.,
Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E. et al. 2015.
pdf).
Halwart, M., Bartley, D., Buoeno, P.B. & Innes-
Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on
Taylor, N., eds. 2016. Aquaculture and fisheries
Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(2): 1–9.
in rice-based ecosystems: studies and reports from
Haider, J.L., Quinlan, A. & Peterson, G.D. 2012.
Interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture
management system in Northern Afghanistan.
Planning Theory and Practice, 13: 299–333.
Hall, S.J., Delaporte, A., Phillips, M.J., Beveridge,
M. & O’Keefe, M. 2011. Blue frontiers: managing
the environmental costs of aquaculture. Penang,
Malaysia, The WorldFish Centre.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3841e.pdf).
Hamilton, S.E. & Casey, D. 2016. Creation of a
high spatio-temporal resolution global database
of continuous mangrove forest cover for the
21st century (CGMFC-21). Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 25: 729–738.
Hanan, N.P. 2018. Agroforestry in the Sahel. Nature
Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H.,
Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W. et al.
2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in
total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS
ONE, 12(10): e0185809.
Indonesia, Lao PDR and the Philippines. Rome, FAO.
Geoscience: 11: 296–297.
Handelsman, J. 2004. Metagenomics: application of
genomics to uncultured microorganisms. Microbiology
and Molecular Biology Reviews, 68(4): 669–685.
Hannon, E.R. & Beers, E.H. 2007. Carpenterworm.
[Cited 27 April 2018]. http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/
opm/displaySpecies.php?pn=575
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
485
Harpur, B.A., Minaei, S., Kent, C.F. & Zayed, A. 2012.
Management increases genetic diversity of honey bees
via admixture. Molecular Ecology, 21: 4414–4421.
Harris, D.R. 1989. An evolutionary continuum of people–
plant interaction. In D.R. Harris & G.C. Hillman,
eds. Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant
exploitation, pp. 11–26. London, Unwin Hyman.
Harrison, G.W. & Rutström, E.E. 2008. Experimental
evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in
value elicitation methods. In C.R. Plott & V.L. Smith,
eds. Handbook of experimental economics results,
Heard, T.A. 1999. The role of stingless bees in crop
pollination. Annual Review of Entomology, 44(1):
183–206.
Heard, T.A. & Dollin, A.E. 2000. Stingless bee keeping
in Australia: snapshot of an infant industry. Bee
World, 81(3): 116–125.
Heck, K.L., Hays, G. & Orth, R.J. 2003. Critical evaluation
of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 253: 123–136.
Heesterbeek, H., Anderson, R., Andreasen, V.,
Bansal, S., De Angelis, D., Dye, C., Eames, K. et
pp. 752–767. Amsterdam, North Holland.
al. 2015. Modeling infectious disease dynamics in
Harrison, S., Gregorio, N. & Herbohn, J. 2008. A
the complex landscape of global health. Science,
critical overview of forestry seedling production
policies and practices in relation to smallholder
forestry in developing countries. Small-scale Forestry,
7: 207–223.
13(347): 6227.
Heimpel, G.E. & Cock, M.J.W. 2018. Shifting paradigms
in the history of classical biological control.
BioControl, 63(1): 27–37.
Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J.R.,
Hein, L. 2011. Economic benefits generated by protected
Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., Dunford, R. et al.
areas : the case of the Hoge Veluwe forest, the
2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and
ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosystem
Services, 9: 191–203.
Hassell, J.M., Begon, M., Ward, M.J. & Fèvre, E.M.
2017. Urbanization and disease emergence:
dynamics at the wildlife–livestock–human interface.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 32(1): 55–67.
Hauer, F.R., Locke, H., Dreitz, V.J., Hebblewhite, M.,
Lowe, W.H., Muhlfeld, C.C. & Rood, S.B. 2016.
Gravel-bed river floodplains are the ecological
nexus of glaciated mountain landscapes. Science
Advances, 2(6): e1600026.
Hawkes, C. 2008. Dietary implications of supermarket
Netherlands. Ecology And Society, 16(2): 13.
Hemp, A. 2006. The banana forests of Kilimanjaro:
biodiversity and conservation of the Chagga
homegardens. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(4):
1193–1217.
Henderson, G., Cox, F., Ganesh, S., Jonker, A., Young,
W., Collaborators, G.R. & Janssen, P.H. 2015.
Rumen microbial community composition varies with
diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a
wide geographical range. Scientific Reports, 5: 1–13.
Henry, M., Tittonell, P., Manlay, R.J., Bernoux, M.,
Albrecht, A. & Vanlauwe, B. 2009. Biodiversity,
carbon stocks and sequestration potential in
development: a global perspective. Development
aboveground biomass in smallholder farming
Policy Review, 26(6): 657–692.
systems of western Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems
Hawkes, C., Chopra, M. & Friel, S. 2009. Globalization,
trade, and the nutrition transition. In R. Labonte, T.
and Environment, 129(1–3): 238–252.
Henry, L.M., Nigel, M., Acheampong, S., Gillespie,
Schrecker, C. Packer & V. Runnels, eds. Globalization
D.R. & Roitberg., B.D. 2010. Host-adapted
and health: pathways, evidence and policy, pp.
parasitoids in biological control: does source matter?
235–262. New York, USA, Routledge.
Hayes, B.J., Lewin, H.A. & Goddard, M.E. 2013. The
Ecological Applications, 20(1): 242–250.
Heong, K., Manza, A., Catindig, J., Villareal, S. &
future of livestock breeding: genomic selection
Jacobsen, T. 2007. Changes in pesticide use and
for efficiency, reduced emissions intensity, and
arthropod biodiversity in the IRRI research farm.
adaptation. Trends in Genetics, 29(4): 206–214.
Hazell, P. & Wood, S. 2008. Drivers of change in global
Outlooks on Pest Management, 18(5): 229–233.
Heron, S.F., Eakin, C.M. & Douver, F. 2017. Impacts of
agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
climate change on World Heritage coral reefs: a first
Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491): 495–515.
global scientific assessment. Paris, UNESCO.
486
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Herrero, M., González-Estrada, E., Thornton,
P.K., Quirós, C., Waithaka, M.M., Ruiz, R.
& Hoogenboom, G. 2007. IMPACT: Generic
household-level databases and diagnostics tools
for integrated crop-livestock systems analysis.
Agricultural Systems, 92(1–3): 240–265.
and the provision of other ecosystem services: critical
review for the forestry component of the International
Climate Fund. Cambridge, UK, UNEP.
Hilborn, R. 2011. Future directions in ecosystem based
fisheries management: a personal perspective.
Fisheries Research, 108: 235–239.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Notenbaert, A., Msangi,
HLPE. 2014a. Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for
S., Wood, S., Kruska, R., Dixon, J. et al. 2012.
food security and nutrition. A report by the High
Drivers of change in crop-livestock systems and their
Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
potential impacts on agro-ecosystems services and
of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome.
human wellbeing to 2030. A study commissioned
by the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme.
Nairobi, International Livestock Research Institute.
Herrero, M., Havlik, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A.,
Rufino, M.C., Thornton, P.K., Blummel, M.,
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3844e.pdf).
HLPE. 2014b. Food losses and waste in the context of
sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome.
Weiss, F., Grace, D. & Obersteiner, M. 2013.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3901e.pdf).
Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and
HLPE. 2016. Sustainable agricultural development for
greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock
food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock?
systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of
A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Sciences, 110(52): 20888–20893.
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World
Herrero, M., Havlik, P., McIntire, J., Palazzo, A. &
Valin, H. 2014. African livestock futures: realizing
the potential of livestock for food security, poverty
Food Security. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i5795e.pdf).
HLPE. 2017a. Sustainable forestry for food security and
reduction and the environment in sub-Saharan
nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts
Africa. Office of the Special Representative of the
on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on
UN Secretary General for Food Security and Nutrition
World Food Security. Rome. (available at http://www.
fao.org/3/a-i7395e.pdf).
and the United Nations System.
Hesse, C., Anderson, S., Cotula, L., Skinner, J. &
HLPE. 2017b. Nutrition and food systems. A report by
Toulmin, C. 2013. Managing the boom and bust:
the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and
supporting climate resilient livelihoods in the sahel.
Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security.
IIED Issue Paper. London, International Institute for
Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf).
Hocking, D. & Babbit, K. 2014. Amphibian
Environment and Development.
Heywood, V.H. 2013. Overview of agricultural
biodiversity and its contribution to nutrition and
health. In J. Fanzo, D. Hunter, T. Borelli & F. Mattei,
eds. Diversifying food and diets: using agricultural
biodiversity to improve nutrition and health,
contributions to ecosystem services. Herpetological
Conservation and Biology, 9(1): 1–17.
Hocking, D.J. & Babbitt, K.J. 2014. Effects of redbacked salamanders on ecosystem functions.
PLoS ONE, 9(1).
Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm,
pp. 35–67. Oxford, UK, Routledge.
Hickey, G.M., Pouliot, M., Smith-Hall, C., Wunder,
M., Brooks, T.M., Butchart, S.H.M., Carpenter,
S. & Nielsen, M.R. 2016. Quantifying the
K.E. et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on
economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural
the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science,
livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. Food
330(6010): 1503–1509.
Hofstede, R., Segarra, P. & Mena, P.V. 2003. Los
Policy, 62: 122–132.
Hicks, C., Woroniecki, S., Fancourt, M., Bieri, M.,
páramos del mundo. Proyecto atlas mundial de los
Garcia Robles, H., Trumper, K. & Mant, R. 2014.
páramos. Quito, Global Peatland Initiative/NC-IUCN/
The relationship between biodiversity, carbon storage
EcoCiencia.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
487
Hogarth, P.J. 2015. The biology of mangroves and
seagrasses. Third edition. Oxford, UK, Oxford
University Press.
Holding-Anyonge, C. & Roshetko, J.M. 2003. Farm-
Introductions. Annual Review of Entomology,
38: 27–51.
Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., de Sy, V., de Fries, R.S.,
Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., Angelsen, A. &
level timber production: orienting farmers towards
Romijn, E. 2012. An assessment of deforestation and
the market. Unaslyva, 212(54): 48–56.
forest degradation drivers in developing countries.
Holl, K.D. 2017. Restoring tropical forests from the
bottom up. Science, 355: 455–456.
Holland, G.J. 2012. Hurricanes and rising global
temperatures. PNAS, 109(48): 19513–19514.
Holland, J., Oaten, H., Moreby, S., Birkett, T.,
Simper, J., Southway, S. & Smith, B. 2012. Agrienvironment scheme enhancing ecosystem services:
a demonstration of improved biological control in
Environmental Research Letters, 7(4): 4009.
Howard, P. 2003. The major importance of “minor”
resources: women and plant biodiversity.
Gatekeeper Series No. 112. London, International
Institute for Environment and Development Natural
Resources Group and Sustainable Agriculture and
Rural Livelihoods Programme.
Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Castro-Izaguirre, N., Baruffol,
cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
M., Brezzi, M., Lang, A., Li, Y. et al. 2018. Impacts
155: 147–152.
of species richness on productivity in a large-scale
Holland, J.M., Smith, B.M., Storkey, J., Lutman, P.J.W.
& Aebischer, N.J. 2015. Managing habitats on
English farmland for insect pollinator conservation.
Biological Conservation, 182: 215–222.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
4: 1–23.
Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke,
subtropical forest experiment. Science, 362(6410):
80–83.
Huenneke, L.F. 1991. Ecological implications of genetic
variation in plant populations. In D.A. Falk & K.E.
Holsinger, eds. Genetics and conservation of rare
plants, pp. 31–44. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
Huerta Lwanga, E., Gertsen, H., Gooren, H., Peters,
P., Salánki, T., Van Der Ploeg, M., Besseling, E.,
T. 2008. Agricultural landscapes with organic crops
Koelmans, A.A. & Geissen, V. 2016. Microplastics
support higher pollinator diversity. Oikos, 117(3):
in the terrestrial ecosystem: implications for
354–361.
Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae).
Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke,
T. 2010. How do landscape composition and
configuration, organic farming and fallow strips affect
Environmental Science & Technology. 50(5):
2685–2691.
Huertas, I.E., Rouco, M., López-Rodas, V. & Costas, E.
the diversity of bees, wasps and their parasitoids?
2011. Warming will affect phytoplankton differently:
Journal of Animal Ecology, 79(2): 491–500.
evidence through a mechanistic approach.
Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A.,
Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H. et al. 2005.
Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning:
a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological
Monographs, 75(1): 3–35.
Hopkins, K.B. & Herr, C. 2010. Factors affecting the
successful cryopreservation of honey bee (Apis
mellifera) spermatozoa. Apidologie, 41: 548–556.
Hopkins, B.K., Herr, C. & Sheppard, W.S. 2012. Sequential
generations of honey bee (Apis mellifera) queens
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 278: 3534–3543.
Hughes, T.P., Kerry, J.T., Álvarez-Noriega, M.,
Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Anderson, K.D., Baird,
A.H., Babcock, R.C. et al. 2017. Global warming
and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature,
543(7645): 373–377.
Hughes, T.P., Anderson, K.D., Connolly, S.R., Heron,
S.F., Kerry, J.T., Lough, J.M., Baird, A.H. et
al. 2018. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass
produced using cryopreserved semen. Reproduction,
bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science,
Fertility and Development, 24(8): 1079–1083.
359(6371): 80–83.
Hopper, K.R., Roush, R.T. & Powell, W. 1993.
Management of genetics of biological control.
488
Hungate, R.E. 1966. The rumen and its microbes. New
York, USA, Academic Press.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Hunter, D., Pouono, K. & Semisi, S. 1998. The impact
IFOAM (International Federation of Organic
of taro leaf blight in the Pacific Islands with special
Agriculture Movements). 2017. The IFOAM norms
reference to Samoa. Journal of South Pacific
for organic production and processing. Version 2014.
Agriculture, 5(2): 44–56.
Bonn, Germany, IFOAM-Organics International.
Husch, B. 1987. Guideilines for forest policy
IIASA & FAO. 2012. Global agro-ecological zones (GAEZ
formulation. FAO Forestry Paper No. 81. Rome, FAO.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap462e/
v3.0). Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, and Rome, FAO.
Ilstedt, U., Bargués Tobella, A., Bazié, H.R., Bayala,
ap462e00.pdf).
Hussain, S., Siddique, T., Saleem, M., Arshad, M. &
J., Verbeeten, E., Nyberg, G., Sanou, J. et
Khalid, A. 2009. Chapter 5: Impact of pesticides
al. 2016. Intermediate tree cover can maximize
on soil microbial diversity, enzymes, and biochemical
groundwater recharge in the seasonally dry tropics.
reactions. Advances in Agronomy, 102: 159–200.
Hylander, K. & Nemomissa, S. 2008. Home garden
Scientific Reports, 6: 21930.
IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
coffee as a repository of epiphyte biodiversity in
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2014.
Ethiopia. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
IPBES-4/1: Work programme of the Platform. Bonn,
6(10): 524–528.
Germany, Secretariat of the IPBES.
IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural
IPBES. 2016a. The assessment report on pollinators,
Knowledge, Science and Technology for
pollination and food production of the
Development). 2009. Global report: agriculture at a
Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on
crossroads. B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S.G. Potts,
& R.T. Watson, eds. (available at http://www.fao.org/
V.L. Imperatriz-Fonseca & H.T. Ngo, eds. Bonn,
fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_
Secretariat of the IPBES.
IPBES. 2016b. Summary for policymakers of the
Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf).
Ibrahim, A., Reuter, G.S. & Spivak, M. 2007. Field
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-
trial of honey bee colonies bred for mechanisms of
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
resistance against Varroa destructor. Apidologie,
Services on pollinators, pollination and food
38: 67–76.
production. S.G. Potts, V.L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H.T.
ICCA Consortium. 2018. ICCA Consortium. (available at
https://www.iccaconsortium.org/).
Ngo, J.C. Biesmeijer, T.D. Breeze, L.V. Dicks, L.A.
Garibaldi et al., eds. Bonn, Secretariat of the IPBES.
ICCA Registry. 2012. ICCA Registry Case Studies:
IPBES. 2018a. Summary for policymakers of the
Kawawana, Senegal. [Cited 5 April 2018]. http://
thematic assessment report on land degradation and
www.iccaregistry.org/en/explore/Senegal/kawawana-
restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
ICES (International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea). 2013. Report of the ICES Advisory
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
R. Scholes, L. Montanarella, A. Brainich, N. Barger,
Committee 2013. Book 1: Introduction, overviews
B. ten Brink, M. Cantele, B. Erasmus et al., eds.
and special requests. Copenaghen.
Bonn, Germany, Secretariat of the IPBES. (available
ICIPE (International Centre of Insect Physiology and
Ecology). 2015. The “push-pull” farming system:
climate-smart, sustainable agriculture for Africa.
Nairobi.
at https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/spm_3bi_ldr_
digital.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=28335).
IPBES. 2018b. Science and policy for people and nature
[online]. Bonn, Germany. [Cited 25 June 2018]. https://
Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Salim, M.A. & Sunderland,
T.C.H. 2014. Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa.
Global Environmental Change, 24(1): 287–294.
IFA (International Forum for Agroecology).
www.ipbes.net/ipbes-science-policy-people-nature
IPBES. 2018c. IPBES/6/INF/3/Rev.1. Chapters of the
regional and subregional assessment of biodiversity
and ecosystem services for Africa. Bonn, Germany,
2015. Declaration of the International Forum for
Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Agroecology. Development, 58 (2–3): 163–168.
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
489
IPBES. 2018d. IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1. Chapters of the
IPK (Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop
regional and subregional assessment of biodiversity
Plant Research). 2017. Mansfeld’s World Database
and ecosystem services for the Americas.
of Agriculture and Horticultural Crops. [Cited
Bonn, Germany, Germany, Secretariat of the
25 June 2018]. http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES. 2018e. IPBES/6/INF/5/Rev.1. Chapters of the regional
and subregional assessment of biodiversity and
ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific. Bonn,
Germany, Secretariat of the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services.
IPBES. forthcoming (a). Global assessment on biodiversity
apex/f?p=185:3
Isaacs, R. & Kirk, A.K. 2010. Pollination services
provided to small and large highbush blueberry
fields by wild and managed bees. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 47: 841–849.
Isaacs, R., Tuell, J., Fiedler, A., Gardiner, M. & Landis,
D. 2009. Maximizing arthropod-mediated ecosystem
services in agricultural landscapes: the role of native
and ecosystem services. Bonn, Germany, Secretariat
plants. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
of the IPBES.
7(4): 196–203.
IPBES. forthcoming (b). Thematic assessment on land
Isaacs, R., Blaauw, B., Williams, N., Kwapong, P.,
degradation and restoration. Bonn, Germany,
Lee-Mäder, E. & Vaughan, M. 2016. Farm-tailored
Secretariat of the IPBES.
measures to sustain and enhance pollination services.
IPC (International Planning Committee for Food
Sovereignty). forthcoming. Biodiversity for food and
agriculture: the perspectives of small-scale providers.
Thematic study prepared by the IPC Agricultural
In B. Gemmill-Herren, ed. Pollination services to
agriculture – Sustaining and enhancing a key
ecosystem service, pp. 113–130. London, Routledge.
ISC (International Scientific Committee for Tuna
Biodiversity Working Group for The State of the
and Tuna-Like Species in the North Pacific
World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome.
Ocean). 2018. Stock assessment of Pacific bluefin
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
tuna (Thunnus orientalis) in the Pacific Ocean in
2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and
2018. 18th Meeting of the International Scientific
disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A
Committee for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the
Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
North Pacific Ocean. Yeosu, Republic of Korea,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. C.B.
11–16 July 2018. (available at http://isc.fra.go.jp/
Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken,
pdf/ISC18/ISC_18_ANNEX_14_Pacific_Bluefin_Tuna_
K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.
Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor & P.M. Midgley, eds.
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2014. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation,
and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Stock_Assessment_2018_FINAL.pdf).
Ishaq, S.L. & Wright, A.D.G. 2014. Design and
validation of four new primers for next-generation
sequencing to target the 18S rRNA genes
of gastrointestinal ciliate protozoa. Applied
Environmental Microbiology, 80: 5515–5521.
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
Islam, Z., Heong, K.L., Catling, D. & Kritani, K. 2012.
on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York,
Invertebrates in rice production systems: status
USA, Cambridge University Press.
and trends. Commission on Genetic Resources for
IPES-Food. 2017. Too big to feed – Exploring the
Food and Agriculture Background Study Paper No.
impacts of mega-mergers, concentration,
62. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
concentration of power in the agri-food sector.
Brussels (available at http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/
upload/files/Concentration_FullReport.pdf).
IPGRI & FAO. 2001. Broadening the genetic base of crop
docrep/016/ap630e/ap630e.pdf).
Isomura, N., Iwao, K. & Fukami, H. 2013. Possible
natural hybridization of two morphologically
distinct species of Acropora (Cnidaria, Scleractinia)
production. H.D. Cooper, C. Spillane & T. Hodgkin,
in the Pacific: fertilization and larval survival rates.
eds. Wallingford, UK, CABI.
PLoS ONE, 8: e56701.
490
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Isomura, N., Iwao, K., Morita, M. & Fukami, H. 2016.
IUCN & WCPA. 2018. Applying IUCN’s Global Conservation
Spawning and fertility of F1 hybrids of the coral genus
Standards to Marine Protected Areas (MPA). Delivering
Acropora in the Indo-Pacific. Coral Reefs, 35: 851–855.
effective conservation action through MPAs, to secure
Israilides, C., Smith, A., Scanlon, B. & Barnett, C. 1999.
Pullulan from agroindustrial wastes. Biotechnology
and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 16: 309–324.
ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization).
ocean health and sustainable development. Version
1.0. Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN & WRI. 2014. A guide to the Restoration
Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM):
2002. ITTO Guidelines for the restoration,
assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities
management and rehabilitation of degraded and
at the national or sub-national level. Gland,
secondary tropical forests. Yokohama, Japan.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of
Switzerland, IUCN.
Jackson, J.B.C., Donovan, M.K., Cramer, K.L. & Lam,
Nature). 2008. Defining protected areas: an
V. V. 2014. Status and trends of Caribbean coral
international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007.
reefs: 1970-2012. Global Coral Reef Monitoring
N. Dudley & S. Stolton, eds. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.
IUCN. 2011. The land we graze: a synthesis of case
Network. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jackson, E.L., Rees, S.E., Wilding, C. & Attrill, M.J.
studies about how pastoralists’ organizations
2015. Use of a seagrass residency index to apportion
defend their land rights. Nairobi. (available at http://
commercial fishery landing values and recreation
www.cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/land_rights_
fisheries expenditure to seagrass habitat service.
publication_english_web.pdf).
Conservation Biology, 29(3): 899–909.
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List categories and criteria:
Jaffé, R., Dietemann, V., Allsopp, M.H., Costa, C.,
Version 3.1. Second Edition. Cambridge, UK, and
Crewe, R.M., Dall’olio, R., De La Rúa, P. et al. 2010.
Gland, Switzerland. (available at https://www.iucn.
Estimating the density of honeybee colonies across
org/km/content/iucn-red-list-categories-and-criteria-
their natural range to fill the gap in pollinator decline
version-31-second-edition).
censuses. Conservation Biology, 24(2): 583–593.
IUCN. 2016a. Valuing our vultures. [Cited 10 April 2018].
https://www.iucn.org/content/valuing-our-vultures
IUCN. 2016b. Restoration of forest ecosystems and
landscapes as contribution to the Aichi Biodiversity
James, R. & Pitts-Singer, T.L. 2008. Bee pollination
in agricultural ecosystems. Oxford, UK, Oxford
University Press.
Jamnadass, R., Dawson, I.K., Anegbeh, P., Asaah,
E., Atangana, A., Cordeiro, N.J., Hendrickx, H.
Targets. Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 2016c. A Global Standard for the Identification of
Key Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 2017a. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2017-3. [Cited 22 March 2018]. http://www.
et al. 2010. Allanblackia, a new tree crop in Africa
for the global food industry: market development,
smallholder cultivation and biodiversity management.
Forests , Trees and Livelihoods, 19: 251–268.
Jamnadass, R.H., Dawson, I.A.K., Iiyama, M.,
iucnredlist.org/
IUCN. 2017b. Gender and biodiversity: analysis of women
Kehlenbeck, K., Malézieux, E., Masters, E.,
and gender equality considerations in National
McMullin, S. et al. 2013. The benefits of agroforestry
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs).
systems for food and nutritional security. Nairobi, ICRAF.
Washington, DC, IUCN Global Gender Office.
IUCN. undated. Paramos. Enhancing capacities and
coordination to cope with climate change effects.
Jansen, T. & Sirikolo, M.Q. 2010. Petanigaki ta Siniqa ni
Lauru – The forest foods of Lauru. Honiara, Kastom
Gaden Association.
Jaramillo, J., Muchugu, E., Vega, F.E., Davis, A.,
Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN & WCPA. 2017. IUCN Green List of Protected and
Borgemeister, C. & Chabi-Olaye, A. 2011. Some
Conserved Areas: Standard, Version 1.1. Gland,
like it hot: the influence and implications of climate
Switzerland, IUCN. (available at https://www.
change on coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus
iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_green_list_standard_
hampei) and coffee production in East Africa.
version_1.1_nov_2017_3.pdf).
PLoS ONE, 6(9): e24528.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
491
Jaronski, S.T. & Goettel, M.S. 1997. Development of
Beauveria bassiana for control of grasshoppers and
locusts. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of
Canada, 129: 225–237.
Jarvis, A., Upadhyaya, H., Gowda, C.L.L., Aggarwal,
P.K., Fujisaka, S. & Anderson, B. 2008. Climate
change and its effect on conservation and use of
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and
associated biodiversity for food security. Thematic
Background Study. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e16.pdf).
Jat, R., Sahrawat, K. l. & Kassam, A.H. 2014.
Conservation agriculture: global prospects and
challenges. Wallingford, UK, CABI.
Jepson, P.C., Guzy, M., Blaustein, K., Sow, M., Sarr,
Johns, T. & Eyzaguirre, P.B. 2006. Linking biodiversity,
diet and health in policy and practice. The
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 65(2): 182–189.
Johnson, D.V. & Nair, P.K.R. 1985. Perennial cropbased agroforestry systems in Northeast Brazil.
Agroforestry Systems, 2(4): 281–292.
Johnson, M.D., Kellermann, J.L. & Stercho, A.M. 2010.
Pest reduction services by birds in shade and sun coffee
in Jamaica. Animal Conservation, 13(2): 140–147.
Johnson, P.T.J., Ostfeld, R.S. & Keesing, F. 2015.
Frontiers in research on biodiversity and disease.
Ecology Letters, 18(10): 1119–1133.
Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission.
1999. Guidelines for the production, processing,
labelling and marketing of organically produced
M., Mineau, P. & Kegley, S. 2014. Measuring
foods. GL 32–1999. Rome, Secretariat of the Joint
pesticide ecological and health risks in West African
FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. (available
agriculture to establish an enabling environment for
at www.fao.org/input/download/standards/360/
sustainable intensification. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological
Sciences, 369(1639): 20130491.
Jha, R.K. 2008. An assessment of farm-level use of
bio-pesticides in Nepal: a case study based on IPM
Farmers’ Field Schools of Bhaktapur District. 3rd
cxg%7B_%7D032e.pdf).
Joint Genome Institute. 2017. Approved proposals
FY17 gene function in rumen microbes. [Cited
27 April 2018]. https://jgi.doe.gov/gene-functionrumen-microbes/0/
Jones, T.A. & Monaco, T.A. 2009. A role for assisted
Annual Meeting of Plant Protection Society of Nepal.
evolution in designing native plant materials for
Kathmandu, Plant Protection Society of Nepal.
domesticated landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and
Jin, Y.K., Lundgren, P., Lutz, A., Raina, J.-B., Howells,
E.J., Paley, A.S., Willis, B.L. & van Oppen, M.J.H.
the Environment, 7: 541–547.
Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, A.,
2016. Genetic markers for antioxidant capacity in a
Balk, D., Gittleman, J.L. & Daszak, P. 2008. Global
reef-building coral. Science Advances, 2(5): e1500842.
trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature,
Jodha, N.S. 1992. Common property resources: a missing
dimension of development strategies. World Bank
451(7181): 990–993.
Jongema, Y. 2017. Worldwide list of recorded edible
Discussion Papers No. 169. Washington, DC,
insects. Updated 1 April 2017. https://www.wur.
World Bank.
nl/upload_mm/8/a/6/0fdfc700-3929-4a74-8b69-
Johansen, C.A., Mayer, D.F. & Eves, J.D. 1978. Biology
and management of the alkali bee, Nomia melanderi
Cockerell (Hymenoptera, Halictidae). Melanderia,
28: 25–46.
John, R.P., Tyagi, R.D., Prévost, D., Brar, S.K.,
Pouleur, S. & Surampalli, R.Y. 2010. Mycoparasitic
Trichoderma viride as a biocontrol agent against
f02fd35a1696_Worldwide%20list%20of%20
edible%20insects%202017.pdf
Jonsson, M., Wratten, S.D., Landis, D.A. & Gurr, G.M.
2008. Recent advances in conservation biological
control of arthropods by arthropods. Biological
Control, 45: 172–175.
Joost, S., Bonin, A., Bruford, M.W., Després, L.,
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. adzuki and Pythium
Conord, C., Erhardt, G. & Taberlet, P. 2007. A
arrhenomanes and as a growth promoter of
spatial analysis method (SAM) to detect candidate
soybean. Crop Protection, 29(12): 1452–1459.
loci for selection: towards a landscape genomics
approach to adaptation. Molecular Ecology,
16(18): 3955–3969.
492
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Jordan, N.R., Aldrich-Wolfe, L., Huerd, S.C.,
Larson, D.L. & Muehlbauer, G. 2012. Soil–
Kapulnik, Y. & Kushnir, U. 1991. Growth dependency
of wild, primitive and modern cultivated wheat lines
occupancy effects of invasive and native grassland
on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi. Euphytica,
plant species on composition and diversity of
56(1): 27–36.
mycorrhizal associations. Invasive Plant Science and
Karp, D.S., Mendenhall, C.D., Sandí, R.F., Chaumont,
N., Ehrlich, P.R., Hadly, E.A. & Daily, G.C. 2013.
Management, 5(4): 494–505.
Kaewchai, S., Soytong, K. & Hyde, K.D. 2009.
Mycofungicides and fungal biofertilizers. Fungal
Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and
coffee yield. Ecology Letters, 16(11): 1339–1347.
Karr, K., Fujita, R., Halpenin, S., Kapel, C., Crowder,
Diversity, 38: 25–50.
Kaewpaitoon, K. 1992. Utilization of septage-raised
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) as feed for snakehead
L., Selkoe, K., Alcolado, P. & Roder, D. 2015.
Thresholds in Caribbean coral reefs: implications for
(Channa striates). Khlong Nueng, Thailand. Asian
ecosystem-based fishery management. Journal of
Institute of Technology.
Applied Ecology, 52(2): 402–412.
Kahane, R., Hodgkin, T., Jaenicke, H., Hoogendoorn,
Karvonen, A., Aalto-Araneda, M., Virtala, A.M.,
C., Hermann, M., Dyno Keatinge, J.D.H.,
Kortet, R., Koski, P. & Hyvärinen, P. 2016. Enriched
D’Arros Hughes, J., Padulosi, S. & Looney, N.
rearing environment and wild genetic background
2013. Agrobiodiversity for food security, health and
can enhance survival and disease resistance of
income. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,
salmonid fishes during parasite epidemics. Journal of
33(4): 671–693.
Applied Ecology, 53(1): 213–221.
Kairis, O., Karavitis, C., Salvati, L., Kounalaki, A. &
Kosmas, K. 2015. Exploring the impact of overgrazing
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T. & Derpsch, R. 2017. Global
spread of conservation agriculture: interim update
on soil erosion and land degradation in a dry
2015/16. In M.L.C. Bartz, R. Fuentes & R. Ralisch,
Mediterranean agro-forest landscape (Crete, Greece).
eds. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on
Arid Land Research and Management, 29(3): 360–374.
Conservation Agriculture. 1-4 August 2017, Rosario,
Kakuru, O. V, Doreen, M. & Wilson, M. 2014.
Adoption of on-farm tree planting in Kibaale District,
Western Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Forestry,
33(1): 87–98.
Argentina, pp. 16–19. Curitiba, Brazil, Positivo
University Library.
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T. & Derpsch, R. 2018.
Global spread of conservation agriculture.
Kala, C.P. 2009. Aboriginal uses and management of
ethnobotanical species in deciduous forests of
Chhattisgarh State in India. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine, 5: 20.
International Journal of Environmental Studies, DOI:
10.1080/00207233.2018.1494927
Kassam, A., Saidi, M. & Friedrich, T., eds. 2017.
Conservation agriculture for Africa: building resilient
Kålås, J.A., Viken, Å., Henriksen, S. & Skjelseth, S.
2010. The 2010 Norwegian Red List for Species.
Trondheim, Norway, Norwegian Biodiversity
Information Centre.
farming systems in a changing climate. Wallingford,
UK, CABI.
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. & Pretty, J.
2009. The spread of conservation agriculture:
Kanbe, Y., Okada, I., Yoneda, M., Goka, K. &
Tsuchida, K. 2008. Interspecific mating of
the introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris
justification, sustainability and uptake. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(4): 292–320.
Kassam, A., Basch, G., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F.,
and the native Japanese bumblebee Bombus
Goddard, T., Amado, T., Crabtree, B., Hongwen,
hypocrita sapporoensis results in inviable hybrids.
L., Mello, I., Pisante, M. & S., M. 2013. Sustainable
Naturwissenschaften, 10: 1003–1008.
soil management is more than what and how crops
Kang, B.T., Wilson, G.F. & Sipkens, L. 1981. Alley
are grown. In R. Lal & B.A. Stewart, eds. Principles of
cropping maize (Zea mays L.) and leucaena
soil management in agro-ecosystems, pp. 337–400.
(Leucaena leucocephala Lam) in southern Nigeria.
Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press.
Plant and Soil, 63(2): 165–179.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
493
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R. & Kienzle,
Kennedy, G., Nantel, G. & Shetty, P. 2004.
J. 2015. Overview of the worldwide spread of
Globalization of food systems in developing
conservation agriculture. Field Actions Science
countries: a synthesis of country case studies.
Reports, 8: 1–11.
Globalization of food systems in developing
Kastl, B. 2014. Reducing disaster risks to mangrove
forest livelihoods through watershed-based
protected area management. In R. Murti & C. Buvck,
eds. Safe havens: protected areas for disaster risk
countries: impact on food security and nutrition,
pp. 1–26. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-y5736e.pdf).
Kennedy, G.L., Pedro, M.R., Seghieri, C., Nantel, G. &
reduction and climate change adaptation, pp.
Brouwer, I. 2007. Dietary diversity score is a useful
22–32. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.
indicator of micronutrient intake in non-breast-
Kaumbutho, P. & Kienzle., J. 2007. Conservation
agriculture as practised in Kenya: two case studies.
Nairobi, African Conservation Tillage Network,
CIRAD & FAO.
Keesing, F., Belden, L.K., Daszak, P., Dobson, A.,
Harvell, C.D., Holt, R.D., Hudson, P. et al.
2010. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence
and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature,
468(7324): 647–652.
Kefuss, J., Vanpoucke, J., Bolt, M. & Kefuss, C. 2015.
Selection for resistance to Varroa destructor under
feeding Filipino children. The Journal of Nutrition,
137(2): 472–477.
Kennedy, C.M., Lonsdorf, E., Neel, M.C., Williams,
N.M., Ricketts, T.H., Winfree, R., Bommarco, R.
et al. 2013. A global quantitative synthesis of local
and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in
agroecosystems. Ecology Letters, 16(5): 584–599.
Kennedy, G., Stoian, D., Hunter, D., Kikulwe,
E., Termote, C., Alders, R., Burlingame, B.,
Jamnadass, R., McMullin, S. & Thilsted, S.
2017. Food biodiversity for healthy, diverse diets.
commercial beekeeping conditions. Journal of
In Bioversity International, ed. Mainstreaming
Apicultural Research, 54: 563–576.
agrobiodiversity in sustainable food systems:
Kehlenbeck, K., Kindt, R., Sinclair, F.L., Simons, A.J.
& Jamnadass, R. 2011. Exotic tree species displace
indigenous ones on farms at intermediate altitudes
Scientific foundations for an agrobiodiversity index –
Summary, pp. 10–13. Rome, Bioversity International.
Kerr, J.T., Pindar, A., Galpern, P., Packer, L., Potts,
around Mount Kenya. Agroforestry Systems, 83:
S.G., Roberts, S.M., Rasmont, P. et al. 2015.
133–147.
Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge
Keleman, A. & Hellin, J. 2009. Specialty maize varieties
in Mexico: a case study in market-driven agro-
across continents. Science, 349(6244): 177–180.
Kessler, J.J. 1992. The influence of karité (Vitellaria
biodiversity conservation. Journal of Latin American
paradoxa) and néré (Parkia biglobosa) trees on
Geography, 8(2): 147–174.
sorghum production in Burkina Faso. Agroforestry
Keller, R.P., Geist, J., Jeschke, J.M. & Kühn, L. 2011.
Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and
policy. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23(1): 23–40.
Kemp, R., Howard, P., Allcock, L., Carpenter, K.,
Obura, D., Polidoro, B. & Rishmont, N. 2012.
Marine invertebrate life. In B. Collen, M. Böhm, R.
Systems, 17: 97–118.
Kgosikoma, O.E. & Mogotsi, K. 2013. Understanding
the causes of bush encroachment in Africa: the key
to effective management of savanna grasslands.
Tropical Grasslands, 1(2): 215–219.
Khoury, C.K., Bjorkman, A.D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-
Kemp & J.E.M. Baillie, eds. Spineless : status and
Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L.H.
trends of the world’s invertebrates, pp. 34–44.
& Struik, P.C. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global
London, Zoological Society of London.
food supplies and the implications for food security.
Keneni, G., Bekele, E., Imtiaz, M. & Dagne, K. 2012.
Genetic vulnerability of modern crop cultivars:
PNAS, 111(11): 4001–4006.
Khoury, C.K. & Jarvis, A. 2014. The changing
causes, mechanism and remedies. International
composition of the global diet: implications for CGIAR
Journal of Plant Research, 2(3): 69–79.
research. CIAT Policy Brief No.18. Cali, Colombia.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical.
494
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Kindt, R., Kalinganire, A., Larwanou, M., Belem, M.,
Dakouo, J.M., Bayala, J. & Kaire, M. 2008. Species
accumulation within land use and tree diameter
College Station, USA, College Station: Agricultural
Communications, The Texas A&M University System.
Kobori, C.N. & Rodriguez Amaya, D.B. 2008.
categories in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Senegal.
Uncultivated Brazilian green leaves are richer sources
Biodiversity and Conservation, 17: 1905–1993.
of carotenoids than are commercially produced
Kindt, R., Ahmad, M., Onkware, B., John, I., Vagen,
T.-G., van Breugel, P. & Lillesø, J.-P. 2017. Africa
tree finder. Version 2. World Agroforestry Centre.
King, K.C. & Lively, C.M. 2012. Does genetic diversity
limit disease spread in natural host populations.
Heredity (Edinb.), 109(4): 199–203.
leafy vegetables. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 29(4):
320–328.
Koelmans, A.A., Gouin, T., Thompson, R., Wallace,
N. & Arthur, C. 2014. Plastics in the marine
environment. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 33(1): 5–10.
Kiptot, E., Franzel, S. & Degrande, A. 2014. Gender,
agroforestry and food security in Africa. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6: 104–109.
Kittelmann, S., Devente, S.R., Kirk, M.R., Seedorf,
Koeniger, N., Koeniger, G., Ellis, J. & Connor, L.
2014. Mating biology of honey bees (Apis mellifera).
Kalamazoo, USA, Wickwas Press LLC.
Koffa, S.N. & Roshetko, J.M. 1999. Farmer-managed
H., Dehority, B.A. & Janssen, P.H. 2015.
germplasm production-diffusion pathways in
Phylogeny of intestinal ciliates, including Charonina
Lantapan, Phillipines. In J.M. Roshetko & D.O.
ventriculi, and comparison of microscopy and
Evans, eds. Domestication of agroforestry trees in
18S rRNA gene pyrosequencing for rumen ciliate
southeast Asia: proceedings of a regional workshop,
community structure analysis. Applied Environmental
Yogyakarta, Indonesia November 4-7, 1997, pp.
Microbiology, 81: 2433–2444.
142–150. Nairobi, ICRAF.
Kjøhl, M., Nielsen, A. & Stenseth, N.C. 2011. Potential
Köhler-Rollefson, I., Mathias, E., Singh, H.,
effects of climate change on crop pollination. Rome,
Vivekanandan, P. & Wanyama, J. 2010. Livestock
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2242e.pdf).
keepers’ rights: the state of discussion. Animal
Klein, A.M., Vaissiere, B.E., Cane, J.H., SteffanDewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C. &
Genetic Resources, 47: 1–5.
Konnert, M., Maurer, W., Degan, B. & Kätzel, R.
Tscharntke, T. 2007. Importance of pollinators in
2011. Genetic monitoring in forests - early warning
changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of
and controlling system for ecosystemic changes.
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608):
iForest, 4: 77–81.
Koohafkan, P. & Altieri, M.A. 2010. Globally Important
303–313.
Klein, A.M., Brittain, C., Hendrix, S.D., Thorp, R.,
Williams, N. & Kremen, C. 2012. Wild pollination
services to California almond rely on semi-natural
habitat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(3): 723–732.
Agricultural Heritage Systems. A legacy for the
future. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/014/i2232e/i2232e00.htm).
Koskela, J., Vinceti, B., Dvorak, W., Bush, D.,
Kluger, L.C., Taylor, M.H., Mendo, J., Tam, J. & Wolff,
Dawson, I., Loo, J., Kjaer, E.D. et al. 2009. The
M. 2016. Carrying capacity simulations as a tool for
use and exchange of forest genetic resources for
ecosystem-based management of a scallop aquaculture
food and agriculture. Commission on Genetic
system. Ecological Modelling, 331: 44–55.
Resources for Food and Agriculture. Background
Kneafsey, M., Cox, R., Holloway, L., Dowler, E., Venn,
L. & Tuomainen, T. 2008. Reconnecting consumers,
producers and food: exploring alternatives. Oxford,
Study Paper No. 44. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
www.fao.org/3/a-ak565e.pdf).
Koskela, J., Lefèvre, F., Schueler, S., Kraigher, H.,
Olrik, D.C., Hubert, J., Longauer, R. et al. 2013.
UK, Berg Publishers.
Knutson, A. 1998. The trichogramma manual: a guide
Translating conservation genetics into management:
to the use of trichogramma for biological control
Pan-European minimum requirements for dynamic
with special reference to augmentative releases
conservation units of forest tree genetic diversity.
for control of bollworm and budworm in cotton.
Biological Conservation, 157: 39–49.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
495
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Espíndola, A., Vanbergen,
Kwapong, P., Aidoo, K., Combey, R. & Karikari, A.
A.J., Settele, J., Kremen, C. & Dicks, L.V. 2017.
2010. Stingless bees: importance, management
Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of
and utilisation: a training manual for stingless bee
conventional intensive land use on pollinators and
pollination. Ecology Letters, 20(5): 673–689.
Krell, R. 1996. Value added products from beekeeping.
FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin. No. 124. Rome,
keeping. Accra North, Ghana, UNIMAX Macmillan.
Läderach, P., Ramirez–Villegas, J., Navarro-Racines,
C., Zelaya, C., Martinez–Valle, A. & Jarvis,
A. 2017. Climate change adaptation of coffee
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/
production in space and time. Climatic Change,
w0076e/w0076e00.htm%7B#%7Dcon).
141(1): 47–62.
Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A.M. 2018. Landscapes
that work for biodiversity and people. Science,
362(6412): eaau6020.
Kremen, C. & Miles, A. 2012. Ecosystem services in
biologically diversified versus conventional farming
Laffoley, D. & Grimsditch, G. 2009. The management
of natural coastal carbon sinks. Cambridge, UK, and
Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.
Lagucki, E., Burdine, J.D. & McCluney, K.E. 2017.
Urbanization alters communities of flying arthropods
systems: benefits, externalitites, and trade-offs.
in parks and gardens of a medium-sized city. PeerJ,
Ecology and Society, 17(4): 1–23.
5: e3620.
Kremen, C., Williams, N.M. & Thorp, R.W. 2002. Crop
pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural
intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 99(26): 16812–16816.
Laidlaw, H.H. 1977. Instrumental insemination of honey
bee queens. Hamilton, USA, Dadant Publications.
Lambin, E.F., Gibbs, H.K., Ferreira, L., Grau, R.,
Mayaux, P., Meyfroidt, P., Morton, D.C., Rudel,
Kristjansson, K. & Rasmussen, K. 1991. Pollination
T.K., Gasparri, I. & Munger, J. 2013. Estimating
of sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with the
the world’s potentially available cropland using a
solitary bee Osmia cornifrons (Radoszkowski). Acta
bottom-up approach. Global Environmental Change,
Horticulturae, 288: 172–179.
Kuczera, G. 1987. Prediction of water yield reductions
23(5): 892–901.
Lamers, H.A.H., Kruijssen, F., Sthapit, B.R. &
following a bushfire in ash-mixed species eucalypt
Ramanatha Rao, V. 2016. How can markets
forest. Journal of Hydrology, 94(3–4): 215–236.
contribute to the conservation of agricultural
Kumar, B.M. 2006. Carbon sequestration potential of
biodiversity on farms? From theory into practice. In
tropical home gardens. In B.M. Kumar & P.K.R. Nair,
B.R. Sthapit, H.A.H. Lamers, R.V. Rao & A. Bailey,
eds. Tropical homegardens: a time-tested example
eds. Tropical fruit tree diversity: good practices for
of sustainable agroforestry, pp. 185–204. Dordrecht,
in situ and on-farm conservation, pp. 253–284.
Netherlands, Springer.
Kumar, B.M. & Nair, P.K.R. 2006. Tropical homegardens:
Abingdon, UK, Routledge.
Lamien, N., Sidibe, A. & Bayala, J. 1996. Use and
a time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry.
commercialization of non-timber forest products
Vol. 3. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
in western Burkina Faso. Domestication and
Kumar, R., McInnes, R.J., Everard, M., Gardner, R.C.,
commercialization of non-timber forest products in
Kulindwa, K.A.A., Wittmer, H. & Infante Mata,
agroforestry systems, Non-Wood Forest Products 9.
D. 2017. Integrating multiple wetland values into
decision-making. Ramsar Policy Brief No. 2. Gland,
Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Kusler, J. 2009. Wetlands and natural hazards. Windham,
USA, Association of State Wetlands Managers.
Rome, FAO.
Lande, R. & Barrowclough, G. 1987. Effective
population size, genetic variation, and their use
in population management. In M.E. Soulé, ed.
Viable populations for conservation, pp. 87–123.
Kuyper, E., Vitta, B. & Dewey, K. 2013. Novel and
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
underused food sources of key nutrients for
Landis, D.A. 2017. Designing agricultural landscapes
complementary feeding. Washington, DC, Alive &
for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic and
Thrive Technical Brief 6.
Applied Ecology, 18: 1–12.
496
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Landis, D., Wratten, S. & Gurr, G. 2000. Habitat
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R. &
management to conserve natural enemies of
Mermet, L. 2013. Use of ecosystem services
arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of
economic valuation for decision making: questioning
Entomology, 45(1): 175–201.
a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental
Landon-Lane, C. 2011. Livelihoods grow in gardens:
diversifying rural incomes through home gardens.
Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/015/i2463e/i2463e00.pdf).
Management, 119: 208–219.
Lautenbach, S., Seppelt, R., Liebscher, J. & Dormann,
C.F. 2012. Spatial and temporal trends of global
pollination benefit. PLoS ONE, 7(4): e35954.
Lang, K., Schuldes, J., Klingl, A., Poehlein, A.,
Lazard, J. & Dabbadie, L. 2002. Freshwater aquaculture
Daniel, R. & Brune, A. 2015. New mode of energy
and polyculture. In P. Safran, ed. Fisheries and
metabolism in the seventh order of methanogens
aquaculture: towards sustainable aquatic living
as revealed by comparative genome analysis of
resources management. Encyclopedia of Life Support
“Candidatus Methanoplasma termitum”. Applied
Systems (EOLSS). Developed under the auspices of the
Environmental Microbiology, 81: 1338–1352.
Lang, T., Barling, D. & Caraher, M. 2009. food policy :
integrating health environment and society. Oxford,
UK, Oxford University Press.
UNESCO, p. 30. Oxford, UK, EOLSS Publishers.
Lazarovits, G. 2001. Management of soil-borne plant
pathogens with organic soil amendments: a disease
control. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 23(1): 1–7.
Lange, M., Eisenhauer, N., Sierra, C.A., Bessler, H.,
Engels, C., Griffiths, R.I., Mellado-Vázquez,
P.G. et al. 2015. Plant diversity increases soil
microbial activity and soil carbon storage. Nature
Lazos-Chavero, E. 2016. Stakeholders and tropical
reforestation: challenges, trade-offs, and strategies
in dynamic environments. Biotropica, 48: 900–914.
Leadley, P.W., Krug, C.B., Alkemade, R., Pereira,
H.M., Sumaila, U.R., Walpole, M., Marques, A.
Communications, 6: 6707.
Langellotto, G.A. & Denno, R.F. 2004. Responses of
et al. 2014. Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity
invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured
Targets: an assessment of biodiversity trends, policy
habitats: a meta-analytical synthesis. Oecologia,
scenarios and key actions. CBD Technical Series No.
139(1): 1–10.
78. Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of the Convention
Larios, C., Casas, A., Vallejo, M., Moreno-Calles,
A.I.I. & Blancas, J. 2013. Plant management and
on Biological Diversity.
Leahy, S.C., Kelly, W.J., Altermann, E., Ronimus, R.S.,
biodiversity conservation in Náhuatl homegardens of
Yeoman, C.J., Pacheco, D.M., Li, D. et al. 2010.
the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology
The genome sequence of the rumen methanogen
and Ethnomedicine, 9(1): 74–90.
Methanobrevibacter ruminantium reveals new
Larsen, L.G., Choi, J., Nungesser, M.K. & Harvey,
J.W. 2012. Directional connectivity in hydrology and
ecology. Ecological Applications, 22(8): 2204–2220.
Latawiec, A.E., Strassburg, B.B.N., Brancalion,
P.H.S., Rodrigues, R.R. & Gardner, T. 2015.
possibilities for controlling ruminant methane
emissions. PLoS ONE, 5(1): e8926.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1996. Definition of agroforestry revisited.
Agroforestry Today, 8(1): 5–7.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2010. Agroforestry: a delivery mechanism
Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical
for multi-functional agriculture. In L.R. Kellimore, ed.
agricultural landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Handbook of agroforestry: management practices
Environment, 13: 211–218.
and environmental impact, pp. 461–471. Hauppage,
Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K.G. 2014.
Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical
nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29: 107–116.
Laurans, Y., Ruat, R. & Barthélemy, P. 2016. Counting
USA, Nova Science Publishers.
Leaky, R., Caron. P., Craufurd, P., Martin, A., McDonald,
A., Abedini, W., Afiff, S. et al. 2009. Impacts of
AKST on development and sustainability goals. In
on nature: how governments plan to rely on
B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu & R.T.
ecosystems for their climate strategies. IDDRI Issue
Watson, eds. International Assessment of Agricultural
Brief No. 5. Paris, IDDRI.
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
497
(IAASTD): Agriculture at a crossroads, global report,
pp.145–253.Washington, DC, Island Press.
Leakey, R.R.B., Weber, J.C., Page, T., Cornelius, J.P.,
on fire potential between grassland structural types.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(4): 876–883.
Letourneau, D.K., Fitzsimmons, M.I. & Nieto, D.J.
Akinnifesi, F.K., Roshetko, J.M., Tchoundjeu,
2017. Approaches in plant protection – science,
Z. & Jamnadass, R. 2012. Tree domestication in
technology, environment and society. In M. Coll &
agroforestry: progress in the second decade. In P.K.R.
E. Wajnberg, eds. Environmental pest management
Nair & D.P. Garrity, eds. The future of agroforestry,
within the environment: challenges for agronomists,
pp. 145–173. New York, USA, Springer.
Le Conte, Y., Ellis, M. & Ritter, W. 2010. Varroa mites
and honey bee health: can Varroa explain part of the
colony losses? Apidologie, 41: 353–363.
Lee, D.J. & Gordon, R.M. 2006. Economics of
aquaculture and invasive aquatic species – an
overview. Aquaculture Economics and Management,
10(2): 83–96.
Lee, S., Iwasaki, Y., Shikina, S. & Yoshizaki, G. 2013.
ecologists, economists and policy makers,
pp. 21–53. Hoboken, USA, John Wiley & Sons.
Letourneau, D.K., Jedlicka, J.A., Bothwell, S.G.
& Moreno, C.R. 2009. Effects of natural enemy
biodiversity on the suppression of arthropod
herbivores in terrestrial ecosystems. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40(1): 573–592.
Lévêque, C., Oberdorff, T., Paugy, D., Stiassny,
M.L.J. & Tedesco, P.A. 2008. Global diversity of
Generation of functional eggs and sperm from
fish (Pisces) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595(1):
cryopreserved whole testes. Proceedings of the
545–567.
National Academy of Sciences, 110(5): 1640–1645.
Lefèvre, F. 2004. Human impacts on forest genetic
resources in the temperate zone: an updated review.
Forest Ecology and Management, 197(1–3): 257–271.
Lefèvre, F., Koskela, J., Hubert, J., Kraigher, H.,
Ley, R.E., Hamady, M., Lozupone, C., Turnbaugh, P.J.,
Ramey, R.R., Bircher, J.S., Schlegel, M.L. et al.
2008. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes.
Science, 320(5883): 1647–1651.
Li, Y., Leahy, S.C., Jeyanathan, J., Henderson, G.,
Longauer, R., Olrik, D.C., Schüler, S. et al. 2013.
Cox, F., Altermann, E., Kelly, W.J. & Lambie, S.C.
Dynamic conservation of forest genetic resources in
2016. The complete genome of the methanogenic
33 European countries. Conservation Biology,
archaeon ISO4-H5 provides insights into the
27(2): 373–384.
methylotrophic lifestyle of a ruminal representative
Lefèvre, F., Boivin, T., Bontemps, A., Courbet, F.,
Davi, H., Durand-Gillmann, M., Fady, B.J. et al.
2014. Considering evolutionary processes in adaptive
forestry. Annals of Forest Science, 71(7): 723–739.
Lehmann, J., Rillig, M.C., Thies, J., Masiello, C.A.,
Hockaday, W.C. & Crowley, D. 2011. Biochar effects
on soil biota – a review. Soil, 43(9): 1812–1836.
LEI (Landbouw-Economisch Institut). 2015. Agrimatie
of the Methanomassiliicoccales. Standards in
Genomic Sciences, 11(1): 59.
Liang, J., Crowther, T.W., Picard, N., Wiser, S., Zhou,
M., Alberti, G., Schulze, E.D. et al. 2016. Positive
biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in
global forests. Science, 354(6309): 196.
Liang, J., Yu, K., Wang, Y., Huang, X., Huang, W.,
Qin, Z., Pan, Z., Yao, Q., Wang, W. & Wu, Z.
- informatie over de agrosector. Wageningen,
2017. Distinct bacterial communities associated
Netherlands, Wageningen University & Research.
with massive and branching scleractinian corals and
Lemessa, F. & Wakjira, M. 2015. Cover crops as
potential linkages to coral susceptibility to thermal or
a means of ecological weed management in
cold stress. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8: 979.
agroecosystems. Journal of Crop Science and
Liebman, M. & Davis, A.S. 2000. Integration of soil,
Biotechnology, 18(2): 133–145.
Lenné, J.M. & Wood, D. 2011. Agrobiodiversity
management for food security: a critical review.
Wallingford, UK, CABI.
Leonard, S., Kirkpatrick, J. & Marsden-Smedley, J.
2010. Variation in the effects of vertebrate grazing
498
crop and weed management in low-external-input
farming systems. Weed Research, 40(1): 27–47.
Lightner, D.V. 2011. Status of shrimp diseases and
advances in shrimp health management. Diseases
in Asian aquaculture VII, pp. 121–134. Selangor,
Malaysia, Fish Health Section, Asian Fisheries Society.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Lillesø, J.B.L., Graudal, L., Moestrup, S., Kjær, E.D.,
Kindt, R., Mbora, A., Dawson, I., Muriuki, J.,
Ræbild, A. & Jamnadass, R. 2011. Innovation in
input supply systems in smallholder agroforestry:
seed sources, supply chains and support systems.
in Kalk Bay, South Africa, December 2008. Kalk Bay,
South Africa.
Lovreglio, R., Meddour-Sahar, O. & Leone, V. 2014.
Goat grazing as a wildfire prevention tool: a basic
review. IForest, 7(4): 260–268.
Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T. 2016. The number,
Agroforestry Systems, 83(3): 347–359.
Lillesø, J.P.B., Harwood, C., Derero, A., Graudal,
L., Roshetko, J.M., Kindt, R., Moestrup, S.
et al. 2018. Why institutional environments for
agroforestry seed systems matter. Development
size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms,
and family farms worldwide. World Development,
87: 16–29.
Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J. & Singh, S. 2014. What do
Policy Review, 36(September 2015): O89–O112.
we really know about the number and distribution
Lin, B.B. 2007. Agroforestry management as an adaptive
of farms and family farms worldwide? Background
strategy against potential microclimate extremes
paper for The State of Food and Agriculture
in coffee agriculture. Agricultural and Forest
2014. ESA Working Paper No. 14-02. Rome, FAO.
Meteorology, 144(1–2): 85–94.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3729e.pdf).
Lithgow, D., de la Lanza, G. & Silva, R. 2017.
Lowe, C.N., Butt, K.R. & Sherman, R.L. 2014. Current
Ecosystem-based management strategies to improve
and potential benefits of mass earthworm culture. In
aquaculture in developing countries: case study of
J. Morales-Ramos, M. Guadalupe-Rojas & D.I. Shapiro-
Marismas Nacionales. Ecological Engineering, In press.
Ilan, eds. Mass production of beneficial organisms, pp.
Litrico, I. & Violle, C. 2015. Diversity in plant breeding:
a new conceptual framework. Trends in Plant
Science, 20(10): 604–613.
683–709. Cambridge, USA, Academic Press.
LPP, LIFE Network, IUCN–WISP & FAO. 2010. Adding
value to livestock diversity – Marketing to promote
Lo, C.C. 2010. Effect of pesticides on soil microbial
local breeds and improve livelihoods. FAO Animal
community. Journal of Environmental Science and
Production and Health Paper. No. 168. Rome, FAO.
Health, 45(5): 348–359.
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1283e/
Locey, K.J. & Lennon, J.T. 2016. Scaling laws predict
global microbial diversity. Proceedings of the
i1283e00.htm).
Lucas, R., Blonda, P., Bunting, P., Jones, G., Inglada,
National Academy of Sciences of the United States
J., Arias, M., Kosmidou, V. et al. 2015. The earth
of America, 113(21): 5970–5975.
observation data for habitat monitoring (EODHaM)
Locke, B. 2016. Natural Varroa mite-surviving Apis mellifera
system. International Journal of Applied Earth
honeybee populations. Apidologie, 47: 467–482.
Observation and Geoinformation, 37: 17–28.
Lönnstedt, O.M. & Eklöv, P. 2016. Environmentally
Łuczaj, Ł., Pieroni, A., Tardío, J., Pardo-De-
relevant concentrations of microplastic particles in
Santayana, M., Sõukand, R., Svanberg, I. &
influence larval fish ecology. Science, 352(6290):
Kalle, R. 2012. Wild food plant use in 21st century
1213–1216.
Europe: the disappearance of old traditions and the
Loo, J., Fady, B., Dawson, I., Vinceti, B. &
search for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta
Baldinelli, G. 2011. Climate change and forest
Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 81(4): 359–370.
genetic resources: state of knowledge, risks and
Lund, H.G. 2007. Accounting for the world’s rangelands.
opportunities. Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture. Background Study Paper No.
Rangelands, 29(1): 3–10.
Lundgren, P., Vera, J.C., Peplow, L., Manel, S. &
56. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
van Oppen, M.J.H. 2013. Genotype-environment
docrep/meeting/023/mb696e.pdf).
correlations in corals from the Great Barrier Reef.
López Raggi, F., Pérez Centeno, M.J. & Lanari, M.R.
2008. Marketing of goat meat under PDO seal.
BMC Genetics, 14(9).
Maas, B., Clough, Y. & Tscharntke, T. 2013. Bats and
Marketing niche products from indigenous livestock.
birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry
Writeshop held by the League for Pastoral Peoples
landscapes. Ecology Letters, 16(12).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
499
Maccagnini, B., Ladurner, E., Santi, F. & Burgio, G.
Maron, D.F., Smith, T.J.S. & Nachman, K.E. 2013.
2003. Osmia cornuta (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae)
Restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal
as a pollinator of pear (Pyrus communis): fruit- and
production: an international regulatory and
seed-set. Apidologie, 34: 207–216.
Macedo, M. & Castello, L. 2015. State of the Amazon:
economic survey. Globalization and Health, 9(1): 48.
Marschner, P., Kandeler, E. & Marschner, B. 2003.
freshwater connectivity and ecosystem health. D.
Structure and function of the soil microbial
Oliveira, C.C. Maretti & S. Charity, eds. Brasilia,
community in a long-term fertilizer experiment. Soil
WWF Living Amazon Initiative.
Macfadyen, S., Tylianakis, J.M., Letourneau, D.K.,
Biology and Biochemistry, 35(3): 453–461.
Marshall, F., Reid, R.E.B., Goldstein, S., Storozum,
Benton, T.G., Tittonell, P., Perring, M.P., Gómez-
M., Wreschnig, A., Hu, L., Kiura, P., Shahack-
Creutzberg, C. et al. 2015. The role of food
Gross, R. & Ambrose, S.H. 2018. Ancient herders
retailers in improving resilience in global food supply.
enriched and restructured African grasslands.
Global Food Security, 7: 1–8.
Mäder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L.,
Nature, 561(7723): 387–390.
Martin, E., Reineking, B., Seo, B. & Steffan-
Fried, P., Niggli, U., Series, N. & May, N. 2008.
Dewenter, I. 2013. Natural enemy interactions
Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming soil
constrain pest control in complex agricultural
fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science,
296(5573): 1694–1697.
Malik, K.A. & Hoffmann, P. 1993. Long-term preservation
of yeast cultures by liquid-drying. World Journal of
Microbiology & Biotechnology, 9(3): 372–376.
Malusa, E., Sas-Paszt, L. & Ciesielska, J. 2012.
Technologies for beneficial microorganisms inocula
landscapes. PNAS, 110(14): 5534–5539.
Martini, E., Roshetko, J.M. & Paramita, E. 2017.
Can farmer-to-farmer communication boost the
dissemination of agroforestry innovations? A case
study from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agroforestry
Systems, 91(5): 811–824.
Marvier, M., Kareiva, P. & Neubert, M.G. 2004. Habitat
used as biofertilizers. Scientific World Journal, 2012:
destruction, fragmentation, and disturbance promote
491206.
invasion by habitat generalists in a multispecies
Mandelik, Y., Winfree, R., Neeson, T. & Kremen, C.
metapopulation. Risk Analysis, 24(4): 869–879.
2012. Complementary habitat use by wild bees in
Mathez-Stiefel, S.L. 2016. Agroforestería para la
agro-natural landscapes. Ecological Applications,
adaptación al cambio climático en los Andes:
22(5): 1535–1546.
Aprendiendo de los conocimientos locales. Policy
Maoz, Y., Gal, S., Argov, Y., Domeratzky, S.,
Melamed, E., Gan-Mor, S., Coll, M. & Palevsky,
E. 2014. Efficacy of indigenous predatory mites
(Acari: Phytoseiidae) against the citrus rust mite
Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Acari: Eriophyidae):
augmentation and conservation biological control
in Israeli citrus orchards. Experimental and Applied
Acarology, 63(3): 295–312.
Maranz, S. 2009. Tree mortality in the African Sahel
indicates an anthropogenic ecosystem displaced
by climate change. Journal of Biogeography, 36:
1181–1193.
Markandya, A., Taylor, T., Longo, A., Murty, M.N.,
Brief No. 36, Lima, ICRAF.
Maxwell, S.L., Fuller, R.A., Brooks, T.M. & Watson,
J.E.M. 2016. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets
and bulldozers. Nature, 536(7615): 143–145.
Mazoyer, M. & Roudart, L. 2006. A history of world
agriculture: from the Neolithic Age to the current
crisis. Abingdon, UK, and New York, USA, Earthscan.
Mba, C., Guimaraes, E.P. & Ghosh, K. 2012. Reorienting crop improvement for the changing
climatic conditions of the 21st century. Agriculture &
Food Security, 1(7).
Mbuthia, L.W., Acosta-Martínez, V., DeBruyn, J.,
Schaeffer, S., Tyler, D., Odoi, E. & Eash, N. 2015.
Murty, S. & Dhavalad, K. 2008. Counting the
Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization
cost of vulture decline – An appraisal of the human
effects on microbial community structure, activity:
health and other benefits of vultures in India.
implications for soil quality. Soil Biology and
Ecological Economics, 67(2): 194–202.
Biochemistry, 89: 24–34.
500
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
McDonald, T., Gann, G.D., Jonson, J. & Dixon, K.W. 2016.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005a.
International standards for the practice of ecological
Ecosystem and human well-being – Synthesis.
restoration – including principles and key concepts.
Washington, DC, Society for Ecological Restoration.
McGee, J.A., Day, S.D., Wynne, R.H. & White, M.B.
2012. Using geospatial tools to assess the urban
tree canopy: decision support for local governments.
Journal of Forestry, 110(5): 275–286.
Washington, DC, Island Press.
MEA. 2005b. Ecosystems and human well-being: current
state and trends. Washington, DC, Island Press.
Mead, R. & Willey, R.W. 1980. The concept of a ‘land
equivalent ratio’ and advantages in yields from
intercropping. Experimental Agriculture, 16(3): 217–228.
McGinnity, P., Prodöhl, P., Ferguson, A., Hynes, R.,
Maoiléidigh, N.Ó., Baker, N., Cotter, D. et al.
Meals, D.W., Dressing, S.A. & Davenport, T.E.
2010. Lag time in water quality response to
2003. Fitness reduction and potential extinction of
best management practices: a review. Journal of
wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as
Environmental Quality, 39(1): 85–96.
a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon.
Mediterranean Wetlands Observatory. 2012.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Biodiversity: status and trends of species in
Sciences, 270(1532): 2443–2450.
Mediterranean wetlands. Thematic collection,
McGowan, P.J.K. 2010. Conservation status of wild
relatives of animals used for food. Animal Genetic
Special Issue No. 1. Tour du Valat, France.
Meeus, I., Brown, M.J., De Graaf, D.C. & Smagghe,
G. 2011. Effects of invasive parasites on bumble bee
Resources, 47: 115–118.
McIntire, J., Bourzat, D. & Pingali, P. 1992.
declines. Conservation Biology, 25(4): 662–671.
Crop-livestock interaction in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Washington, DC, World Bank.
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. 2016. Four
billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science
McIntyre, A.D., ed. 2010. Life in the world’s oceans:
diversity, distribution, and abundance. Chichester,
UK, Blackwell Publishing.
Advances, 2(2): e1500323.
Melathopoulos, A.P., Cutler, G.C. & Tyedmers, P.
2015. Where is the value in valuing pollination
McKenzie, L.J., Yoshida, R.L., Langlois, L., Rau, J.,
Weatherall, K., Bishop, F., Bain, D., Ferguson, S.
& Lindsay, M. 2017. Long-term seagrass monitoring
ecosystem services to agriculture? Ecological
Economics, 109: 59–70.
Melman, T.C.P. & Van der Heide, C.M. 2011.
in Roebuck Bay, Broome: report on the first 10
Ecosysteemdiensten in Nederland: verkenning
years. A report for the Broome Community Seagrass
betekenis en perspectieven. Achtergrondrapport
Monitoring Project, Environs Kimberley. Centre
bij Natuurverkenning 2011. WOt-rapport 111.
for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research
Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu.
(TropWATER) Report 17/35. Cairns, Australia, James
Wageningen, Netherlands, Wageningen University
Cook University.
& Research.
McLeod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm,
Mendoza, T. 2002. An energy-based analysis of organic,
R., Björk, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E.,
low external input sustainable agriculture (LEISA)
Schlesinger, W.H. & Silliman, B.R. 2011. A
and conventional rice production in the Philippines.
blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved
understanding of the role of vegetated coastal
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist, 88(3): 257–267.
Meybeck, M., Helmer, R., Förstner, U. & Chilton, J.
habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology
1989. Global assessment of fresh waters quality
and the Environment, 9(10): 552–560.
– a first assessment. In M. Meybeck, R. Helmer &
McMahon, D.P., Natsopoulou, M.E., Doublet, V.,
Fürst, M., Weging, S., Brown, M.J.F., GogolDöring, A. & Paxton, R.J. 2016. Elevated virulence
U. Förstner, eds. Global freshwater quality: a first
assessment. Oxford, UK, Blackwell.
Miccolis, A., Mongeli Peneireiro, F., Rodrigues
of an emerging viral genotype as a driver of
Marques, H., Mascia Vieira, D.L., Francia Arco-
honeybee loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Verde, M., Rigon Hoffmann, M., Rehder, T. &
Biological Sciences, 283: 20160811.
Barbosa Pereira, A.V. 2016. Restauração ecológica
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
501
com sistemas agroflorestais: como conciliar
Modernel, P., Rossing, W.A.H., Corbeels, M., Dogliotti,
conservação com produção. Opções para cerrado e
S., Picasso, V. & Tittonell, P. 2016. Land use
caatinga. Brasilia, Instituto Sociedade, População e
change and ecosystem service provision in Pampas
Natureza (ISPN) and ICRAF.
and Campos grasslands of southern South America.
Michener, C.D. 2007. The bees of the world. Baltimore,
USA, The John Hopkins University Press.
Miles, L. & Kapos, V. 2008. Reducing greenhouse gas
Environmental Research Letters, 11(11): 113002.
Mohd, N., Mohd, F., Sajap, A.S., Rosliza, J. & Suri, R.
2010. Conservation and sustainable utilization of
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation:
stingless bees for pollination services in agricultural
global land-use implications. Science, 320: 1454–1455.
ecosystems in Malaysia. In K. Yasuda, F. Ihara & T.-Y.
Miller, A.J. & Gross, B.L. 2011. From forest to field:
Ku, eds. Proceedings of International Seminar on
perennial fruit crop domestication. American Journal
Enhancement of Functional Biodiversity Relevant
of Botany, 98(9): 1389–1414.
to Sustainable Food Production in ASPAC – in
Miller, R.P. & Nair, P.K.R. 2006. Indigenous agroforestry
association with MARCO – November 9-11, 2010
systems in Amazonia: from prehistory to today.
Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 1–11. Tsukuba, Japan, National
Agroforestry Systems, 66(2): 151–164.
Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Fujimoto,
Miller, D.D. & Sumaila, U.R. 2014. Flag use behavior
Japan, National Institute of Fruit Tree Science –
and IUU activity within the international fishing fleet:
NARO, and Taipei, Food and Fertilizer Technology
Refining definitions and identifying areas of concern.
Center (FFTC) for the Asian and Pacific Region,
Marine Policy, 44: 204–211.
Minasny, B., Malone, B.P., McBratney, A.B., Angers,
D.A., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A., Chaplot, V. et al.
2017. Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292: 59–86.
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences.
Mohd Fahimee, J. 2012. Manual teknologi penternakan
lebah kelulut. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Agricultural
Research and Development Institute (MARDI).
Ministry of Health of Brazil. 2016. Dietary guidelines
Mohd Fahimee, J., Madihah, H., Muhamad Radzali,
for the Brazilian population. Brasilia, Ministry of
M., Rosliza, J., Mohd Masri, S., Mohd Yusri,
Health of Brazil.
Ministry of Natural Resources – Rwanda. 2014.
Forest landscape restoration opportunity assessment
for Rwanda. MINIRENA (Rwanda), IUCN, WRI.
Mitchell, N., Rössler, M. & Tricard, P.M., eds. 2009.
Z., Roziah, G. & Idris, A.G. 2016. The diversity
and abundance of stingless bee (Hymenoptera:
Meliponini) in Peninsular Malaysia. Advance in
Environmental Biology, 10(9): 1–7.
Mohri, H., Lahoti, S., Saito, O., Mahalingam, A.,
World heritage cultural landscapes: a handbook
Gunatilleke, N., Hitinayake, G., Takeuchi, K. &
for conservation and management. World Heritage
Herath, S. 2013. Assessment of ecosystem services
Papers 26. Paris, UNESCO.
in homegarden systems in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and
Mitchell, R.J., Bailey, S., Beaton, J.K., Bellamy, P.E.,
Brooker, R.W., Broome, A., Chetcuti, J. et al.
2014. The potential ecological impact of ash dieback
in the UK. JNCC Report No. 483. Peterborough, UK,
Vietnam. Ecosystem Services, 5: 124–136.
Moll, H.A.J. 2005. Costs and benefits of livestock systems
and the role of market and nonmarket relationships.
Agricultural Economics, 32(2): 181–193.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).
Molur, S., Smith, K.G., Daniel, B.A. & Darwall, W.R.T.
Mitsch, W.J. & Gosselink, J.G., eds. 2015. Wetlands.
2011. The status and distribution of freshwater
Hoboken, USA, John Wiley & Sons.
biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India. Cambridge,
MNRE (Ministy of Natural Resources and
UK, and Gland, Switzerland IUCN, and Coimbatore,
Environment). 2015. Vietnam National Biodiversity
Strategy to 2020, vision to 2030. Hanoi.
Modernel, P., Astigarraga, L. & Picasso, V. 2013.
India, Zoo Outreach Organisation.
Momose, K., Yumoto, T., Nagamitsu, T., Kato, M.,
Nagamasu, H., Sakai, S., Harrison, R.D., Itioka,
Global versus local environmental impacts of
T., Hamid, A.A. & Inoue, T. 1998. Pollination
grazing and confined beef production systems.
biology in a lowland dipterocarp forest in Sarawak
Environmental Research Letters, 8(3): 035052.
Malaysia. I. Characteristics of the plant pollinator
502
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
community in a lowland dipterocarp forest.
Morton, R.A. & Barras, J.A. 2011. Hurricane impacts
American Journal of Botany, 85: 1477–1501.
on coastal wetlands: a half-century record of storm-
Montagnini, F., Ibrahim, M. & Murgueitio, E. 2013.
generated features from Southern Louisiana. Journal
Silvopastoral systems and climate change mitigation
in Latin America. Bois et Forets des Tropiques,
67(316): 3–16.
of Coastal Research, 27(6A): 27–43.
Moser, C.M. & Barret, B.B. 2003. The disappointing
adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low
Montes, J.M. & Melchinger, A.E. 2016. Domestication
and breeding of Jatropha curcas L. Trends in Plant
external-input technology: the case of SRI in
Madagascar. Agricultural Systems, 76: 1085–1100.
Mosquera-Losada, M.R., Moreno, G., Pardini, A.,
Science, 21(12): 1045–1057.
Monty, F., Murti, R. & Furuta, N. 2016. Helping nature
McAdam, J.H., Papanastasis, V.P., Burgess, P.J.,
help us: transforming disaster risk reduction through
Lamersdorf, N., Castro, M., Liagre, F. & Rigueiro-
ecosystem management. Gland, IUCN.
Rodríguez, A. 2012. Past, present and future of
Moodie, R., Stuckler, D., Monteiro, C., Sheron, N., Neal,
B., Thamarangsi, T., Lincoln, P. & Casswell, S. 2013.
Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of
tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink
industries. The Lancet, 381(9867): 670–679.
Mora, C., Tittensor, D.P., Adl, S., Simpson, A.G.B. &
Worm, B. 2011. How many species are there on earth
and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8): e1001127.
Morales-Ramos, J., Guadalupe-Rojas, M. & Shapiro-
agroforestry systems in Europe. Agroforestry the future
of global land use, pp. 31–67. (available at http://link.
springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3).
Mottet, A., de Haan, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G.,
Opio, C. & Gerber, P. 2017. Livestock: on our plates
or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/
food debate. Global Food Security, 14: 1–8.
Moursi, M.M., Arimond, M., Dewey, K.G., Treche, S.,
Ruel, M.T. & Delpeuch, F. 2008. Dietary diversity is
Ilan, D. 2014. Mass production of beneficial
a good predictor of the micronutrient density of the
organisms. Cambridge, USA, Academic Press.
diet of 6- to 23-month-old children in Madagascar.
Morand, S. & Lajaunie, C. 2017. Biodiversity and
health. Linking life, ecosystems and societies.
Journal of Nutrition, 138(12): 2448–2453.
Mozaffarian, D., Afshin, A., Benowitz, N.L., Bittner,
V., Daniels, S.R., Franch, H.A., Jacobs, D.R. et
London, Elsevier & ISTE Press.
Morgera, E., Buck, M. & Tsioumani, E. 2013.
al. 2012. Population approaches to improve diet,
Introduction. In E. Morgera, M. Buck & E. Tsioumani,
physical activity, and smoking habits: a scientific
eds. The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and
statement from the American Heart Association.
Benefit-sharing in perspective. Implications for
international law and implementation challenges,
pp. 1–17. Leiden, Netherlands, Brill.
Circulation, 126(12): 1514–1563.
Muck, R.E., Filya, I. & Contreras-Govea, F.E. 2007.
Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage: in vitro gas and
Moriarty, D.J.W. & Pullin, R.S.V, eds. 1987. Detritus
and microbial ecology in aquaculture. ICLARM
volatile fatty acid production. Journal of Dairy
Science, 90: 5115–5125.
Conference Proceedings No. 140. Manila, ICLARM.
Mullin, C.A., Frazier, M., Frazier, J.L., Ashcraft, S.,
Moritz, R.F.A., Hartel, S. & Neumann, P. 2005. Global
Simonds, R., van Engelsdorp, D. & Pettis, J.S.
invasions of the western honeybee (Apis mellifera)
2010. High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in
and the consequences for biodiversity. Ecoscience,
North American apiaries: implications for honey bee
12: 289–301.
health. PLoS ONE, 5: e9754.
Mortensen, D.A., Egan, J.F., Maxwell, B.D., Ryan,
Mulyoutami, E., Roshetko, J.M., Martini, E., Awalina,
M.R. & Smith, R.G. 2012. Navigating a critical
D. & Janudianto. 2015. Gender roles and knowledge
juncture for sustainable weed management.
in plant species selection and domestication: a case
BioScience, 62(1): 75–84.
study in South and Southeast Sulawesi. International
Morton, J. & Meadows, N. 2000. Pastoralism and
sustainable livelihoods: an emerging agenda.
Chatham, UK, Natural Resources Institute.
Forestry Review, 17(4): 99–111.
Mumby, P.J., Edwards, A.J., Arias-González, J.E.,
Lindeman, K.C., Blackwell, P.G., Gall, A.,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
503
Gorczynska, M.I. et al. 2004. Mangroves enhance
the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the
Caribbean. Nature, 427(6974): 533–536.
Mumby, P.J., Hedley, J.D., Kamila, Z., Harborne, A.R.
& Blackwell, P.G. 2006. Revisiting the catastrophic
die-off of the urchin Diadema antillarum on
Nagelkerken, I., Blaber, S.J.M., Bouillo, S., Green,
P., Haywood, M., Kirton, L.G., Meynecke, J.O.
et al. 2008. The habitat function of mangroves
for terrestrial and marine fauna: a review. Aquatic
Botany, 89: 155–185.
Nair, P.K.R. 2006. Whither homegardens? In B.M. Kumar
Caribbean coral reefs: fresh insights on resilience
& P.K.R. Nair, eds. Tropical homegardens: a time-
from a simulation model. Ecological Modelling,
tested example of sustainable agroforestry. Vol. 3,
196(1–2): 131–148.
Murchie, A.K. & Gordon, A.W. 2013. The impact
pp. 355–370. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Naish, K.A., Taylor, J.E., Levin, P.S., Quinn, T.P.,
of the “New Zealand flatworm”, Arthurdendyus
Winton, J.R., Huppert, D. & Hilborn, R. 2007. An
triangulatus, on earthworm populations in the field.
evaluation of the effects of conservation and fishery
Biological Invasions, 15(3): 569–586.
enhancement hatcheries on wild populations of
Murcia, C., Guariguata, M.R., Andrade, A., Andrade,
G.I., Aronson, J., Escobar, M.E., Etter, A., Moreno,
salmon. Advances in Marine Biology, 53(07): 61–194.
Nakkeeran, S., Fernando, W.G.D. & Siddiqui, Z.A.
F.H., Ramírez, W. & Montes, E. 2015. Challenges
2005. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria
and prospects for scaling-up ecological restoration to
formulations and its scope in commercialization
meet international commitments: Colombia as a case
for the management of pests and diseases. In Z.A.
study. Conservation Letters, 9(3): 213–220.
Siddiqui, ed. PGPR: biocontrol and biofertilization,
Murdiyarso, D., Purbopuspito, J., Kauffman, J.B.,
Warren, M.W., Sasmito, S.D., Donato, D.C.,
pp. 257–296. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Namkoong, G., Boyle, T., Gregorious, H.R., Joly, H.,
Manuri, S., Krisnawati, H., Taberima, S. &
Savolainen, O., Ratman, W. & Young, A. 1996.
Kurnianto, S. 2015. The potential of Indonesian
Testing criteria and indicators for assessing the
mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation.
sustainability of forest management: genetic criteria
Nature Climate Change, 5(12): 1089–1092.
and indicators. CIFOR Working Paper No. 10. Bogor,
Murray, G.F. & Bannister, M.E. 2004. Peasants,
agroforesters, and anthropologists: a 20-year
venture in income-generating trees and hedgerows
in Haiti. Agroforestry Systems, 61: 383–397.
Murray, C.J.L., Atkinson, C., Bhalla, K., Birbeck,
G., Burstein, R., Chou, D., Dellavalle, R. et al.
2013. The state of US health, 1990-2010: burden
of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 310(6): 591–608.
Mutch, L.A. & Young, J.P.W. 2004. Diversity and
specificity of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae
on wild and cultivated legumes. Molecular Ecology,
13(8): 2435–2444.
Myers, J.H. & Cory, J.S. 2017. Biological control agents:
Indonesia, Centre for International Forestry Research.
Namkoong, G., Boyle, T., El-Kassaby, Y.A., PalmbergLerche, C., Eriksson, G., Gregorius, H.-R., Joly, H.
et al. 2002. Criteria and indicators for sustainable
forest management: assessment and monitoring of
genetic variation. Forest Genetic Resources Working
Papers FGR/37E. Rome, FAO.
Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., Reguero, B.G., Losada, I.J.,
van Wesenbeeck, B., Pontee, N., Sanchirico, J.N.
et al. 2016. The benefits, costs and effectiveness
of natural and nature-based coastal defenses. PLoS
ONE, 11(5): e0154735.
Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin,
C., van Tol, G. & Christophersen, T. 2008.
invasive species or valuable solutions? Impact of
Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources:
biological invasions on ecosystem services, pp.
the bushmeat crisis. Technical Series No. 33.
191–202. Cham, Switzerland, Springer.
Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of the Convention on
Nabhan, G.P. & Buchmann, S.L. 1997. Services
Biological Diversity, and Bogor, Indonesia, Center for
provided by pollinators. In G. Daily, ed. Nature’s
International Forestry Research.
services, pp. 133–150. Washington, DC, Island Press.
504
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Nassar, N.M. 2003. Gene flow between cassava,
Manihot esculenta Crantz, and wild relatives.
Genetics and Molecular Research, 2(4): 334–347.
Nates-Parra, G. 2001. Las abejas sin aguijón
implementation of national forest programmes.
Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/015/i2623e/i2623e00.pdf).
Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz,
(Hymenoptera: Meliponini) de Colombia. Revista
N., Margono, C., Mullany, E.C. et al. 2014. Global,
Biota Colombiana, 2(3): 233–248.
regional, and national prevalence of overweight and
Nates-Parra, G. 2004. Abejas corbiculadas de Colombia.
Bogota, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Natsopoulou, M.E., McMahon, D.P., Doublet, V., Frey,
E., Rosenkranz, P. & Paxton, R.J. 2017. The virulent,
obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: a
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2013. The Lancet, 384(9945): 766–781.
Ng, E.-L.L., Huerta Lwanga, E., Eldridge, S.M.,
emerging genotype B of Deformed wing virus is
Johnston, P., Hu, H.-W.W., Geissen, V. & Chen, D.
closely linked to overwinter honeybee worker loss.
2018. An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic
Scientific Reports, 7: 5242.
pollution in agroecosystems. Science of The Total
Nawy, T. 2013. Single-cell sequencing. Nature Methods,
Environment, 627: 1377–1388.
Nhan, D.K., Milstein, A., Verdegem, M.C.J. & Verreth,
11(1): 18.
NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information).
2018. Home – Genome. Cited 14 December 2018.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome
J.A.V. 2006. Food inputs, water quality and nutrient
accumulation in integrated pond systems: a
multivariate approach. Aquaculture, 261(1): 160–173.
Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C.M., Valdés, L.,
Nhan, D.K., Phong, L.T., Verdegem, M.C.J., Duong, L.,
De Young, C., Fonseca, L. & Grimsditch, G. 2009.
Bosma, R. & Little, D. 2007. Integrated freshwater
Blue carbon. A rapid response assessment. Arendal,
aquaculture, crop and livestock production in the
Norway, GRID-Arendal, and Nairobi, UNEP.
Mekong delta, Vietnam: determinants and the role
Nesbitt, M., McBurney, R.P.H., Broin, M. & Beentje,
H.J. 2010. Linking biodiversity, food and nutrition:
the importance of plant identification and
of the pond. Agricultural Systems, 94(2): 445–458.
Nicholls, C.I. & Altieri, M.A. 2013. Plant biodiversity
enhances bees and other insect pollinators in
nomenclature. Journal of Food Composition and
agroecosystems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Analysis, 23(6): 486–498.
Development, 33(2): 257–274.
Neugarten, R.A., Langhammer, P.F., Osipova, E.,
Nielsen, U.N., Ayres, E., Wall, D.H. & Bardgett, R.D.
Bagstad, K.J., Bhagabati, N., Butchart, S.H.M.,
2011. Soil biodiversity and carbon cycling: a review
Dudley, N. et al. 2018. Tools for measuring,
and synthesis of studies examining diversity-function
modelling, and valuing ecosystem services: guidance
relationships. European Journal of Soil Science,
for key biodiversity areas, natural World Heritage
62(1): 105–116.
Sites, and protected areas. Gland, Switzerland,
IUCN. (available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/
sites/library/files/documents/PAG-028-En.pdf).
Newton, A., Oldfield, S., Rivers, M., Mark, J., Schatz,
G., Tejedor Garavito, N., Cantarello, E., Golicher,
D., Cayuela, L. & Miles, L. 2015a. Towards a global
tree assessment. Oryx, 49(3): 410–415.
Nijar, G.S. 2013. Developing a common pools strategy
for genetic resources for food and agriculture. In G.
Winter & E.C. Kamau, eds. Common pools of genetic
resources: equity and innovation in international
biodiversity law, pp. 127–149. London, Routledge.
Nikolaki, S. & Tsiamis, G. 2013. Microbial diversity
in the era of omic technologies. BioMed Research
Newton, J.A., Feely, R.A., Jewett, E.B., Williamson,
P. & Mathis, J. 2015b. Global Ocean Acidification
International, 2013: 958719.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016.
Observing Network (GOA-ON): requirements
Central Valley Recovery Domain 5-year status
and governance plan. Global Ocean Acidification
review : summary and evaluation of Sacramento
Observing Network.
River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon ESU. NMFS West
NFPF (The National Forest Programme Facility) &
FAO. 2012. NFPs in practice: Ways to improve the
Coast Region. (available at https://repository.library.
noaa.gov/view/noaa/17014).
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
505
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration). 2018. CoRIS: Coral Reef
Information System. [Cited 21 March 2018]. https://
www.coris.noaa.gov/
Noble, R. & Coventry, E. 2005. Suppression of soilborne plant diseases with composts: a review.
Biocontrol Science and Technology, 15(1): 3–20.
NordGen. 2015. Plan of Action for the Conservation of
the Nordic Brown Bee. Ås, Norway, Nordic Genetic
Resources Center.
Nordlund, L.M., Unsworth, R.K.F., Gullström, M. &
Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. 2018. Global significance
of seagrass fishery activity. Fish and Fisheries: 19(3):
319–412.
Noriega, J.A., Hortal, J., Azcárate, F.M., Berg, M.P.,
of eggplant (Solanum melongena) in greenhouses.
Apidologie, 44: 537–546.
Ocean Health Index. 2018. Seagrass. [Cited
22 March 2018]. http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/
methodology/components/seagrass
Öckinger, E. & Smith, H.G. 2007. Semi-natural
grasslands as population sources for pollinating
insects in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 44(1): 50–59.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development). 2001. Biological resource
centres: underpinning the future of life sciences and
biotechnology. Paris.
OECD. 2013. OECD compendium of agri-environmental
indicators. Paris. (available at https://www.oecd-
Bonada, N., Briones, M.J.I., Del Toro, I. et al. 2018.
ilibrary.org/fr/agriculture-and-food/oecd-compendium-
Research trends in ecosystem services provided by
of-agri-environmental-indicators_9789264186217-
insects. Basic and Applied Ecology, 26: 8–23.
en?_ga=2.134309746.280343264.1547481369-
Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S.J.,
Saouter, E. & Sonesson, U. 2017. The role of life
1593362190.1547307848).
Ogada, D., Kessing, F. & Virani, M.Z. 2012. Dropping
cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-
dead: causes and consequences of vulture
food systems: a review of the challenges. Journal of
population declines worldwide. Annals of the New
Cleaner Production, 140: 399–409.
Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A. &
York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1): 57–71.
Okano, J., Shibata, J., Sakai, Y., Yamaguchi, M., Ohishi,
Greenfield, E. 2014. Tree and forest effects on
M., Goda, Y., Nakano, S. & Okuda, N. 2018. The
air quality and human health in the United States.
effect of human activities on benthic macroinvertebrate
Environmental Pollution, 193: 119–129.
diversity in tributary lagoons surrounding Lake Biwa.
NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Managing
global genetic resources: agricultural crop issues and
policies. Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
NRC. 1972. Genetic vulnerability of major crops.
Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences.
NRC. 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies
for management. Washington, DC, Committee
on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for
Management, Water Science and Technology
Limnology, 19(2): 199–207.
Okoth, P., Okoth, S. & Jefwa, J.M. 2013. The
conservation and use of micro-organisms and
invertebrates in root crop-based systems: state of
knowledge, trends and future prospects. Commission
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Background Study Paper No. 63. Rome. (available at
http://www.fao.org/3/I9898EN/i9898en.pdf).
Oldfield, S., Ali, N., Goettsch, B., Hardcastle, J. &
Board, National Research Council, National
Shi, Y. forthcoming. Study on the linkages between
Academies Press.
protected areas and the conservation of biodiversity
NRC. 2007. Status of pollinators in North America.
Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010. The impact of genetically engineered
crops on farm sustainability in the United States.
for food and agriculture. Thematic study prepared
for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food
and Agriculture. Rome, FAO.
Olesen, I., Bentsen, H., Phillips, M. & Ponzoni,
Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
R. 2015. Can the global adoption of genetically
Nunes-Silva, P., Hrncir, M., da Silva, C.I., Roldão,
improved farmed fish increase beyond 10%, and
Y.S. & Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L. 2013. Stingless
how? Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,
bees, Melipona fasciculata, as efficient pollinators
3(2): 240–266.
506
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Ollerton, J., Winfree, R. & Tarrant, S. 2011. How many
flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos,
purification: current conceptualizations and
concluding remarks. Hydrobiologia, 469: 203–204.
Ostroumov, S.A. 2005. On the multifunctional role of the
120(3): 321–326.
Opio, C., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Falcucci, A., Tempio,
G., MacLeod, M., Vellinga, T., Henderson, B.
biota on the self-purification of aquatic ecosystems.
Russian Journal of Ecology, 36(6): 414–420.
& Steinfeld, H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions
Ostroumov, S.A. 2010. Biocontrol of water quality:
from ruminant supply chains – A global life cycle
multifunctional role of biota in water self-
assessment. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.
purification. Russian Journal of General Chemistry,
fao.org/docrep/018/i3460e/i3460e.pdf).
80(13): 2754–2761.
Oregon State University. 2008. Greatest value of
Otte, J., Costales, A., Dijkman, J., Pica-Ciamara, U.,
forests is sustainable water supply. [Cited
Robinson, T., Ahuja, V., Ly, C. & Roland-Holst,
21 March 2018]. https://www.sciencedaily.com/
D. 2012. Livestock sector for poverty reduction: an
releases/2008/07/080714162600.htm
economic and policy perspective – Livestock’s many
Orgiazzi, A., Dunbar, M.B., Panagos, P., de Groot,
G.A. & Lemanceau, P. 2015. Soil biodiversity and
DNA barcodes: opportunities and challenges. Soil
virtues. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/015/i2744e/i2744e00.pdf).
Ottesen, O., Treasurer, J., Fitzgerald, R., D’Arcy,
J., Maguire, J., O’Neill, D., Rebours, C. &
Biology and Biochemistry, 80: 244–250.
Orgiazzi, A., Bardgett, R.D., Barrios, E., BehanPelletier, V., Briones, M.J.I., Chotte, J.-L., De
Deyn, G.B. et al., eds. 2016. Global soil biodiversity
Dunavyeska, E. 2011. Rearing ballan wrasse for sea
lice control. Fish Farmer, November/D: 12–15.
Ouedraogo, I., Runge, J., Eisenberg, J., Barron, J.
atlas. Luxembourg, European Commission,
& Sawadogo-Kaboré, S. 2014. The re-greening
Publications Office of the European Union.
of the Sahel: natural cyclicity or human-induced
Orr, D. 2009. Biological control and integrated
pest management. In R. Peshin & A. Dhawan,
change? Land, 3(3): 1075–1090.
Ouwehand, A.C., Salminen, S. & Isolauri, E. 2002.
eds. Integrated pest management: innovation-
Probiotics: an overview of beneficial effects. In W.
development process, pp. 207–339. Dordrecht,
Konings, O.P. Kuipers & J.H.J Huis in ‘t Veld, eds. Lactic
Netherlands, Springer.
acid bacteria: genetics, metabolism and applications,
Orr, B.J., Cowie, A.L., Castillo Sanchez, V.M., Chasek,
P., Crossman, N.D., Erlewein, A., Louwagie, G.
pp. 279–289. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Oxfam Novib, ANDES, SEARICE & CGN-WUR. 2016.
et al. 2017. Scientific conceptual framework for
Women’s roles in biodiversity management. From
land degradation neutrality. A report of the Science-
lessons to practice and impact: scaling up pathways
Policy Interface. Bonn, Germany, United Nations
in people’s biodiversity management. Case study.
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R. &
The Hague, Netherlands, Oxfam Novib.
Ozlu, E. & Kumar, S. 2018. Response of soil organic
Gianquinto, G. 2013. Urban agriculture in
carbon, pH, electrical conductivity, and water
the developing world: a review. Agronomy for
stable aggregates to long-term annual manure and
Sustainable Development, 33(4): 695–720.
Orth, R.J., Carrunthers, T.J.B., Dennison, W.C.,
Duarte, C.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Heck Jr., K.L.,
inorganic fertilizer. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 82(5): 1243–1251.
Packer, L., Ali, E., Dumesh, S. & Walker, K. 2016.
Randall Hughes, A. et al. 2006. A global crisis for
Identification of pollinators – where are we and where
seagrass ecosystems. BioScience, 56(12): 987–996.
should we go? In B. Gemhill-Herren, ed. Pollination
Osemeobo, G.J. 1987. Smallholder farmers and forestry
development: a study of rural land use in Bendel,
ecosystem services, pp. 283–299. London, Routledge.
Padoch, C. & de Jong, W. 1991. The house gardens of
Nigeria. Agricultural Systems, 24: 32–52.
Ostroumov, S.A. 2002. Polyfunctional role of
biodiversity in processes leading to water
services to agriculture: sustaining and enhancing key
Santa Rosa: diversity and variability in an Amazonian
agricultural system. Economic Botany, 45(2): 166–175.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
507
Page, R.E. 2013. The spirit of the hive. The mechanisms
of social evolution. Cambridge, USA, Harvard
University Press.
Page, T., Murphy, M.E., Mizrahi, M., Cornelius, J.P. &
Venter, M. 2016. Sustainability of wood-use in remote
forest-dependent communities of Papua New Guinea.
Forest Ecology and Management, 382: 88–99.
Pagiola, S. 2006. Payments for environmental services in
Costa Rica. MPRA Paper No. 2010. Munich, Germany,
The Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA).
Palmer, A.R. & Bennett, J.E. 2013. Degradation of
communal rangelands in South Africa: towards an
improved understanding to inform policy. African
Journal of Range & Forage Science, 30(1–2): 57–63.
Palmer, M.A., Covich, A.P., Lake, S., Biro, P., Brooks,
J.J., Cole, J. & Van De Bund, W.J. 2000. Linkages
between aquatic sediment biota and life above
sediments as potential drivers of biodiversity and
ecological processes. BioScience, 60: 820–832.
Palmgren, M.G., Edenbrandt, A.K., Vedel, S.E.,
Andersen, M.M., Landes, X., Østerberg, J.T.,
Falhof, J. et al. 2015. Are we ready for back-tonature crop breeding? Trends in Plant Science,
20(3): 155–164.
Pardo, D., Forcada, J., Wood, A.G., Tuck, G.N.,
Ireland, L., Pradel, R., Croxall, J.P. & Phillips,
Parry, L., Barlow, J. & Peres, C.A. 2009. Hunting
for sustainability in tropical secondary forests.
Conservation Biology, 23(5): 1270–1280.
Paterson, R. & Lima, N., eds. 2017. Bioprospecting.
Success, potential and constraints. Cham,
Switzerland, Springer International Publishing.
Pattanayak, S.K. & Sills, E.O. 2001. Do tropical forests
provide natural insurance? The microeconomics of
non-timber forest product collection in the Brazilian
Amazon. Land Economics, 77(4): 595–612.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. &
Torres, F. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs.
Science, 279(5352): 860–863.
Pearce, D. 1993. Economic values and the natural world.
London, Earthscan.
Pearce, D. & Moran, D. 1994. The economic value of
biodiversity. London, Earthscan.
Pecora, G., Musto, M., D’adamo, C., Adduci, F.,
Freschi, P. & Cosentino, C. 2015. GIS system
and livestock field survey as tools to manage the
potential reducing of fuel load for fire prevention.
Journal of Agricultural Informatics, 6(3): 57–66.
PEFC. 2018. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification. [Cited 23 April 2018]. https://www.
pefc.org
Pelosi, C., Toutous, L., Chiron, F., Dubs, F., Hedde,
R.A. 2017. Additive effects of climate and fisheries
M., Muratet, A., Ponge, J.F., Salmon, S. &
drive ongoing declines in multiple albatross species.
Makowski, D. 2013. Reduction of pesticide use can
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
increase earthworm populations in wheat crops in a
114(50): E10829–E10837.
European temperate region. Agriculture, Ecosystems
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. 2010. Food
waste within food supply chains: quantification
and Environment, 181: 223–230.
Pendleton, L., Donato, D.C., Murray, B.C., Crooks,
and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical
S., Jenkins, W.A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C. et al. 2012.
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from
Sciences, 365(1554): 3065–3081.
conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal
Parlesak, A., Geelhoed, D. & Robertson, A. 2014.
Toward the prevention of childhood undernutrition:
ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 7(9): e43542.
Peng, S. & Khushg, G. 2003. Four decades of breeding
diet diversity strategies using locally produced food
for varietal improvement of irrigated lowland rice
can overcome gaps in nutrient supply. Food and
in the International Rice Research Institute. Plant
Nutrition Bulletin, 35(2): 191–199.
Parr, J.F., Papendick, R.I., Youngberg, I.G. & Meyer,
Production Science, 6(3): 157–164.
Perdana, A., Roshetko, J.M. & Kurniawan, I. 2012.
R.E. 1990. Sustainable agriculture in the United
Forces of competition: smallholding teak producers
States. In C.A. Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R.H.
in Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 14(2):
Miller & G. House, eds. Sustainable agricultural
systems, pp. 50–67. Ankeny, USA, Soil and Water
Conservation Society.
508
238–248.
Pérez-Jaramillo, J.E., Mendes, R. & Raaijmakers, J.M.
2016. Impact of plant domestication on rhizosphere
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
microbiome assembly and functions. Plant Molecular
Biology, 90(6): 635–644.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2013. Can agriculture meet
future nutrition challenges? European Journal of
Peters, C.M., Nepstad, D.C. & Schwartzman, S. 1992.
The ecology and economics of oligarchic forests.
Development Research, 25(1): 5–12.
Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D., Short, K., Varkey, D. &
In D. Nepstad & S. Schwartzman, eds. Non-timber
Pramod, G. 2009. An evaluation of progress in
products from tropical forests. Evaluation of a
implementing ecosystem-based management of
conservation and development strategy, pp. 15–22.
New York, USA, New York Botanical Garden.
Pham, T.T., Bennet, K., Brunner, J., Le, N.D.
fisheries in 33 countries. Marine Policy, 33: 223–232.
Pitman, M.G. & Läuchli, A. 2002. Global impact of
salinity and agricultural ecosystems. In A. Läuchli
& Nguyen, D.T. 2013. Payment for forest
& U. Lüttge, eds. Salinity: environment – plants
environmental services in Viet Nam: from policy to
– molecules, pp. 3–20. Dordrecht, Netherlands,
practice. Occasional Paper 93. Bogor, Indonesia,
Centre for International Forestry Research.
Piaggio, A.J., Segelbacher, G., Seddon, P.J., Alphey, L.,
Bennett, E.L., Carlson, R.H., Friedman, R.M. et al.
2017. Is it time for synthetic biodiversity conservation?
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32: 97–107.
Pica-Ciamarra, U., Baker, D., Bedane, B., Emwanu,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pitts-Singer, T.L. & Cane, J.H. 2011. The alfalfa
leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata: the world’s
most intensively managed solitary bee. Annual
Review of Entomology, 56: 221–237.
Pivari, D., Pacca, H.M. & Sebrian, T. 2017. Occurrence
of Boto-do-Araguaia (Inia araguaiaensis) in a Region
T. & Morgan, N. 2010. Integrating livestock into
of the Araguaia River, Brazil, documented for an
agricultural statistics. The AU-IBAR, FAO, ILRI, WB
environmental impact study for a hydroelectric dam.
Data Innovation Project. (available at http://www.
Aquatic Mammals, 43(5): 530–536.
Polidoro, B.A., Carpenter, K.E., Collins, L., Duke, N.C.,
fao.org/3/a-as291e.pdf).
Piccini, I., Arnieri, F., Caprio, E., Nervo, B., Pelissetti,
S., Palestrini, C., Roslin, T. & Rolando, A. 2017.
Ellison, A.M., Ellison, J.C., Farnsworth, E.J. et al.
2010. The loss of species: mangrove extinction risk
Greenhouse gas emissions from dung pats vary
and geographic areas of global concern. PLoS ONE,
with dung beetle species and with assemblage
4: e10095.
composition. PLoS ONE, 12(7): e0178077.
Pilling, D. & Hoffmann, I. 2011. Climate change and
animal genetic resources for food and agriculture:
state of knowledge, risks and opportunities.
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Background Study Paper No. 53. Rome,
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/
meeting/022/mb386e.pdf).
Pollinator Health Task Force. 2015. National strategy
to promote the health of honey bees and other
pollinators. Washington, DC.
Popkin, B. 2017. Relationship between shifts in food
system dynamics and acceleration of the global
nutrition transition. Nutrition Reviews, 75(2): 73–82.
Popkin, B.M., Adair, L.S. & Ng, S.W. 2012. Global
nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. & Morrison, D. 2005. Update
on the environmental and economic costs associated
with alien-invasive species in the United States.
Ecological Economics, 52(3 SPEC. ISS.): 273–288.
Pingali, P. 2015. Agricultural policy and nutrition
outcomes – getting beyond the preoccupation with
staple grains. Food Security, 7(3): 583–591.
Pingali, P.L. & Roger, P.A., eds. 1995. Impact of
pesticides on farmer health and the rice environment.
Norwell, USA, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1): 3–21.
Porro, R. 2009. Expectativas e desafios para a
adoção da alternativa agroflorestal na Amazônia
em transformação. In R. Porro, ed. Alternativa
agroflorestal na Amazônia em transformação, pp.
34–51. Brasilia, Embrapa.
Postel, S.L. & Thompson, B.H. 2005. Watershed
protection: capturing the benefits of nature’s water
supply services. Natural Resources Forum,
29(2): 98–108.
Postollec, F., Falentin, H., Pavan, S., Combrisson, J.
& Sohier, D. 2011. Recent advances in quantitative
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
509
PCR (qPCR) applications in food microbiology. Food
Microbiology, 28(5): 848–861.
Potkanski, T. 1999. Mutual assistance among the
Ngorongoro Maasai. In D.M. Anderson & V.
Broch-Due, eds. The poor are not us: poverty and
pastoralism in Eastern Africa, pp. 199–217. Athens,
USA, Ohio University Press.
Potts, S.G., Vulliamy, B., Roberts, S., O’Toole, C.,
Dafni, A., Ne’eman, G. & Willmer, P. 2005.
Role of nesting resources in organising diverse
Powell, A., Treasurer, J.W., Pooley, C.L., Keay, A.J.,
Lloyd, R., Imsland, A.K., & Garcia de Leaniz, C.
2018. Use of lumpfish for sea-lice control in salmon
farming: challenges and opportunities. Reviews in
aquaculture, 10(3): 68–702.
Power, A.G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture:
tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365:
2959–2971.
Prabhu, R., Barrios, E., Bayala, J., Diby, L., Donovan,
bee communities in a Mediterranean landscape.
J., Gyau, A., Graudal, L. et al. 2015. Agroforestry:
Ecological Entomology, 30(1): 78–85.
realizing the promise of an agroecological approach. In
Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann,
FAO, ed. Agroecology for food security and nutrition:
P., Schweiger, O. & Kunin, W.E. 2010. Global
Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium,
pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers.
18–19 September 2014, Rome, pp. 201–224. Rome,
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(6): 345–353.
Potts, S.G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H.T., Aizen,
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4729e.pdf).
Prakash, V., Green, R.E., Pain, D.J., Ranade, S.P.,
M.A., Biesmeijer, J.C., Breeze, T.D., Dicks, L.V. et
Saravanan, S. & Prakash, N. 2007. Recent changes
al. 2016. Safeguarding pollinators and their values
in populations of resident Gyps vultures in India.
to human well-being. Nature, 540(7632): 220–229.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society,
Potts, J., Voora, V., Lynch, M. & Mammadova, A.
2017. Standards and biodiversity. Thematic Review.
104(2): 127–133.
Prakash, V., Bishwakarma, M.C., Chaudhary, A.,
Winnipeg, Canada, International Institute for
Cuthbert, R., Dave, R., Kulkarni, M., Kumar, S. et
Sustainable Development. (available at https://www.
al. 2012. The population decline of Gyps vultures in
iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/standards-
India and Nepal has slowed since veterinary use of
biodiversity-ssi-report.pdf).
Poux, X. 2008. Low input farming systems in Europe:
what is at stake? In K. Biala, J.-M. Terres, P. Pointereau
& M.L. Paracchini, eds. Low input farming systems:
an opportunity to develop sustainable agriculture.
Proceedings of the JRC Summer University Ranco,
2-5 July 2007, pp. 1–11. Luxembourg, European
Commission, Publications Office of the European Union.
Powell, B., Maundu, P., Kuhnlein, H.V & Johns, T.
Diclofenac was banned. PLoS ONE, 7(11): e49118.
Pretty, J. & Bharucha, Z.P. 2015. Integrated pest
management for sustainable intensification of
agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects, 6(1): 152–182.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C. & Williams, S. 2011. Sustainable
intensification in African agriculture. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1): 5–24.
Pretty, J., Benton, T.G., Bharucha, Z.P., Dicks, L.V.,
Flora, C.B., Godfray, H.C.J., Goulson, D. et al.
2013. Wild foods from farm and forest in the East
2018. Global assessment of agricultural system
Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Ecology of Food
redesign for sustainable intensification. Nature
and Nutrition, 52(6): 451–478.
Powell, B., Ouarghidi, A., Johns, T., Tattou, M.I. &
Sustainability, 1(8): 441–446.
Pullin, R. & White, P. 2011. Climate change and
Eyzaguirre, P. 2014. Wild leafy vegetable use and
aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture:
knowledge across multiple sites in Morocco: a case
state of knowledge, risks and opportunities.
study for transmission of local knowledge? Journal
Commission on Genetic Resource for Food and
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 10(34).
Agriculture. Background Study Paper No. 55. Rome,
Powell, B., Thilsted, S.H., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C.,
Sunderland, T. & Herforth, A. 2015. Improving
diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from
across the landscape. Food Security, 7(3): 535–554.
510
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/
meeting/022/mb507e.pdf).
Putnam, H.M. & Gates, R.D. 2015. Preconditioning in
the reef-building coral Pocillopora damicornis and the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
potential for trans-generational acclimatization in coral
Ramsar Convention. 2002. “Wetlands: water, life,
larvae under future climate change conditions. The
and culture”. Principles and guidelines for wetland
Journal of Experimental Biology, 218: 2365–2372.
restoration. Adopted by Resolution VIII.16 (2002)
Pywell, R.F., Warman, E.A., Carvell, C., Sparks, T.H.,
of the Ramsar Convention. Eighth meeting of
Dicks, L.V, Bennett, D., Wright, A., Critchley,
the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the
C.N.R., & Sherwood, A. 2005. Providing foraging
Convention on Wetlands, Valencia, Spain, 18–26
resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed
November 2002. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar
landscapes. Biological Conservation, 121: 479–494.
Queensland Government. 2017. Impacts of nutrient
Convention Secretariat.
Ramsar Convention. 2010. Designating Ramsar Sites:
and pesticide run-off from cane farming. [Cited
Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future
18 July 2018]. https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/
development of the List of Wetlands of International
agriculture/sustainable-farming/canefarming-impacts
Importance. 4th edition. Gland, Switzerland.
Quemada, M., Baranski, M., Nobel-de Lange, M.N.J.,
Ramsar Convention. 2011a. Water purification.
Vallejo, A. & Cooper, J.M. 2013. Meta-analysis
Wetland ecosystem services factsheet 5. Gland,
of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated
Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
agricultural systems and their effects on crop yield.
Ramsar Convention. 2011b. Flood control. Wetland
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 174: 1–10.
Quigley, K.M., Baker, A.C., Coffroth, M.A., Willis, B.L.
& van Oppen, M.J.H. 2018. Bleaching resistance
ecosystem services factsheet 1. Gland, Switzerland,
Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Ramsar Convention. 2011c. Shoreline stabilization
and the role of algal endosymbionts. In M.J.H. van
and storm protection. Wetland ecosystem services
Oppen & J.M. Lough, eds. Coral bleaching: patterns,
factsheet 3. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention
processes, causes and consequences, pp. 111–151.
Secretariat.
Ramsar Convention. 2015a. State of the world’s
Berlin, Springer.
Rafikov, M., Balthazar, J. & von Bremen, H. 2008.
Mathematical modeling and control of population
systems: applications in biological pest control. Applied
Mathematics and Computation, 200(2): 557–573.
Rah, J.H., Akhter, N., Semba, R.D., Pee, S.D., Bloem,
M.W., Campbell, A.A., Moench-Pfanner, R., Sun,
K., Badham, J. & Kraemer, K. 2010. Low dietary
diversity is a predictor of child stunting in rural
Bangladesh. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
wetlands and their services to people: a compilation
of recent analyses. Briefing Note 7. Gland,
Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Ramsar Convention. 2015b. Wetlands: source of
sustainable livelihoods. Fact Sheet 7. Gland,
Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Ramsar Convention. 2015c. Keep peatlands wet for
a better future. Fact Sheet 8. Gland, Switzerland,
Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Ramsar Convention. 2016. An introduction to the
64(12): 1393–1398.
Rahman, M., Varga, I. & Chowdhury, S., eds. 1992.
Manual on polyculture and integrated fish farming
in Bangladesh. Project: FAO-FI—BGD/87/045/91/11.
Convention on Wetlands. Gland, Switzerland,
Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Ramsar Convention. 2018. Global Wetland Outlook:
Institutional Strengthening in the Fisheries Sector.
State of the World’s Wetlands and their Services
Dhaka, Department of Fisheries, Government of
to People. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention
Bangladesh, Washington, DC, UNDP, and Rome,
Secretariat. (available at https://www.ramsar.org/sites/
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/
default/files/flipbooks/ramsar_gwo_english_web.pdf).
Ran, Y., Deutsch, L., Lannerstad, M. & Heinke,
field/003/ac375e/AC375E00.htm).
Ramsar Convention. 1990. Recommendation 4.1:
J. 2013. Rapidly intensified beef production in
Wetland restoration. Fourth meeting of the
Uruguay: Impacts on water related ecosystem
Conference of the Contracting Parties, Montreux,
Switzerland, 27 June–4 July 1990. Gland,
Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
services. Aquatic Procedia, 1: 77–87.
Randazzo, C.L., Caggia, C. & Neviani, E. 2009.
Application of molecular approaches to study
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
511
lactic acid bacteria in artisanal cheeses. Journal of
M. Guadalupe Rojas & D. Shapiro-Ilan, eds. Mass
Microbiological Methods, 78(1): 1–9.
production of beneficial organisms, pp. 437–482.
Randolph, T.F., Schelling, E., Grace, D., Nicholson,
C.F., Leroy, J.L., Cole, D.C., Demment, M.W.,
Omore, A., Zinsstag, J. & Ruel, M. 2007. Invited
review: Role of livestock in human nutrition and
health for poverty reduction in developing countries.
Journal of Animal Science, 85(11): 2788–2800.
RBG Kew (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew). 2017. The
State of the World’s Plants 2017. Kew, UK.
Reckling, M., Hecker, J.M., Bergkvist, G., Watson, C.A.,
Zander, P., Schläfke, N., Stoddard, F.L. et al. 2016.
A cropping system assessment framework – Evaluating
Cambridge, USA, Academic Press.
Reij, C. & Garrity, D. 2016. Scaling up farmer-managed
natural regeneration in Africa to restore degraded
landscapes. Biotropica, 48(6): 834–843.
Reij, C., Tappan, G. & Smale, M. 2009a. Re-greening
the Sahel: farmer-led innovation in Burkina Faso
and Niger. In D.J. Spielman & R. Pandya-Lorch,
eds. Millions fed: proven successes in agricultural
development, pp. 53–58. Washington, DC,
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Reij, C., Tappan, G. & Smale, M. 2009b.
effects of introducing legumes into crop rotations.
Agroenvironmental transformation in the Sahel.
European Journal of Agronomy, 76: 186–197.
Another kind of “Green Revolution”. IFPRI Discussion
Redo, D.J., Grau, H.R., Aide, T.M. & Clark, M.L.
2012. Asymmetric forest transition driven by the
interaction of socioeconomic development and
Paper 00914. Washington, DC, International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Renaud, F. & Murti, R. 2013. Ecosystems and disaster
environmental heterogeneity in Central America.
risk reduction in the context of the Great East Japan
PNAS, 109(23): 8839–8844.
Earthquake and Tsunami – a scoping study. Report
Reed, J. 2014. James Reed on integrated landscape
approaches - YouTube. [Cited 14 May 2018]. https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyvqpLrtOLs
Reed, J., Deakin, L. & Sunderland, T. 2015. What are
‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and how effectively
have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic
map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 4(1): 2.
Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Foli, S., Clendenning, J.,
Yang, K., MacDonald, M., Petrokofsky, G.,
Padoch, C. & Sunderland, T. 2017. Trees for life:
to the Keindanren Nature Conservation Fund.
Cambridge, UK and Gland, IUCN.
Renaud, F.G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. & Estrella, M.,
eds. 2013. The role of ecosystems in disaster risk
reduction. Tokyo, UNU Press.
Research Council of Norway. 2010. New approach
to combatting sea lice: wrasse to the rescue. [Cited
26 June 2018]. https://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2010/04/100423215021.htm
Reyes-Garcia, V., Menendez-Baceta, G., Aceituno-
the ecosystem service contribution of trees to food
Mata, L., Acosta-Naranjo, R., Calvet-Mir, L.,
production and livelihoods in the tropics. Forest
Dominguez, P., Garnatje, T. et al. 2015. From famine
Policy and Economics, 84: 62–71.
foods to delicatessen: interpreting trends in the use of
Regan, E.C., Santini, L., Ingwall-King, L., Hoffmann,
M., Rondinini, C., Symes, A., Taylor, J. & Butchart,
S.H.M. 2015. Global trends in the status of bird
and mammal pollinators. Conservation Letters, 8(6):
397–403.
Reganold, J. & Wachter, J. 2016. Organic agriculture in
the twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2(2): 15221.
Reid, R. 2017. Developing farmer and community
capacity in Agroforestry: is the Australian Master
wild edible plants through cultural ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics, 120: 303–311.
Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Bogdanski,
A., Gemmill-Herren, B. et al. 2008. Landscape
effects on crop pollination services: are there general
patterns? Ecology Letters, 11(5): 499–515.
Riesenfeld, C.S., Schloss, P.D. & Handelsman, J.
2004. Metagenomics: genomic analysis of microbial
TreeGrower program transferable to other countries?
communities. Annual Review of Genetics,
Agroforestry Systems, 91(5): 847–865.
38(1): 525–552.
Reid, S., Chan, L. & van Oers, M.M. 2014. Production
of entomopathogenic viruses. In J., Morales-Ramos,
512
Rinderer, T.E., ed. 1986. Bee genetics and breeding.
New York, USA, Academic Press.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Rinderer, T.E., Harris, J.W., Hunt, G.J. & de Guzman,
Rollin, O., Bretagnolle, V., Decourtye, A., Aptel, J.,
L.I. 2010. Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor
Michel, N., Vaissière, B.E. & Henry, M. 2013.
in North America. Apidologie, 41: 409–424.
Differences of floral resource use between honey
Robiglio, V. & Reyes, M. 2016. Restoration through
formalization? Assessing the potential of Peru’s
Agroforestry Concessions scheme to contribute to
restoration in agricultural frontiers in the Amazon
region. World Development Perspectives, 3: 42–46.
Robinson, T.P., Thornton, P., Franceschini, G., Kruska,
bees and wild bees in an intensive farming system.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 179: 76–78.
Rosenkranz, P., Aumeier, P. & Ziegelmann, B. 2010.
Biology and control of Varroa destructor. Journal of
Invertebrate Pathology, 103: S96–S119.
Roshetko, J.M. & Evans, D.O. 1999. Domestication of
R., Chiozza, F., Notenbaert, A., Cecchi, G. et al.
agroforestry trees in southeast Asia: proceedings
2011. Global livestock production systems. Rome,
of a regional workshop, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
FAO and ILRI.
November 4-7, 1997. Nairobi, ICRAF.
Robinson, T.P., William Wint, G.R., Conchedda, G.,
Van Boeckel, T.P., Ercoli, V., Palamara, E., Cinardi,
Roshetko, J.M., Mulawarman & Dianarto, A. 2008.
Tree seed procurement-diffusion pathways in
G. et al. 2014. Mapping the global distribution of
Wonogiri and Ponorogo, Java. Small-scale Forestry,
livestock. PLoS ONE, 9(5): e96084.
7(3–4): 333–352.
Robinson, T.P., Thornton, P., Franceschini, G., Kruska,
R., Chiozza, F., Notenbaert, A., Cecchi, G. et
al. 2018. Global distribution of ruminant livestock
production systems V5 (5 minutes of arc). Harvard
Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WPDSZE
Rocca, M. & Messelink, G.J. 2017. Combining
lacewings and parasitoids for biological control of
foxglove aphids in sweet pepper. Journal of Applied
Entomology, 141(5): 402–410.
Ross, E.M., Petrovski, S., Moate, P.J. & Hayes, B.J. 2013.
Metagenomics of rumen bacteriophage from thirteen
lactating dairy cattle. BMC Microbiology, 13(242).
Rothenbuhler, W.C. 1964. Behaviour genetics of nest
cleaning in honey bees. I. Responses of four inbred
lines to disease-killed brood. Animal Behaviour,
12: 578–583.
Roulston, T.H. & Goodell, K. 2011. The role of resources
and risks in regulating wild bee populations. Annual
Rochman, C.M. 2018. Microplastics research – from sink
Review of Entomology, 56(1): 293–312.
Rowland, D., Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Nasi, R. &
to source. Science, 360(6384): 28–29.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å.,
Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M. et al.
2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature,
Sunderland, T. 2017. Forest foods and healthy
diets: quantifying the contributions. Environmental
Conservation, 44(2): 102–114.
Roy, H. & Migeon, A. 2010. Ladybeetles (Coccinellidae).
461(7263): 472–475.
Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A.,
Matthews, N., Gordon, L., Wetterstrand, H. et
Chapter 8.4. BioRisk, 4(1): 293–313.
Rundlöf, M., Bengtsson, J. & Smith, H.G. 2008.
al. 2017. Sustainable intensification of agriculture
Local and landscape effects of organic farming on
for human prosperity and global sustainability.
butterfly species richness and abundance. Journal of
Ambio, 46(1): 4–17.
Applied Ecology, 45: 813–820.
Rodrigues, A.S.L., Akcakaya, H.R., Andelman, S.J.,
Bakarr, M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M., Chanson,
J.S. et al. 2004. Global gap analysis: priority regions
Runyan, C. & D’Odorico, P. 2016. Global deforestation.
New York, USA, Cambridge University Press.
Russi, D., ten Brink, P., Farmer, A., Badura, T.,
for expanding the Global Protected-Area Network.
Coates, D., Förster, J., Kumar, R. et al. 2013. The
BioScience, 54(12): 1092.
economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for water
Rodríguez-Eugenio, N., McLaughlin, M. & Pennock,
D. 2018. Soil pollution: a hidden reality. Rome, FAO.
Rogers, S., Tarpy, D. & Burrack, H. 2014. Bee species
and wetlands. London, IEEP, and Gland, Switzerland,
Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Rutgers, M., Schouten, A.J., Bloem, J., Van Eekeren,
diversity enhances productivity and stability in a
N., De Goede, R.G.M., Jagers op Akkerhuis,
perennial crop. PLoS ONE, 9(5): e97307.
G.A.J.M., Van der Wal, A., Mulder, C., Brussaard,
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
513
L. & Breure, M. 2009. Biological measurements in
agroforests in southern Bahia, Brazil: tree component,
a nationwide soil monitoring network. European
management practices and tree species conservation.
Journal of Soil Science, 60: 820–832.
Rutgers, M., Schouten, A.J., Bloem, B.E., Dimmers,
W.J., Van Eekeren, N., De Goede, R.G.M.,
Jagers op Akkerhuis, G.A.J.M. et al. 2014. Een
indicatorsysteem voor ecosysteemdiensten van de
Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(4): 1055–1077.
Sanchez, P.A. 2000. Delivering on the promise of
agroforestry. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 1(3): 275–284.
Sanchez-Moreno, S., Castro, J., Alonso-Prados, E.,
bodem. Life support functions revisited. RIVM Rapport
Alonso-Prados, J.L., Garcia-Baudin, J.M., Talavera,
2014-0145. Bilthoven, Netherlands, Rijksinstituut voor
M. & Duran-Zuazo, V.H. 2015. Tillage and herbicide
Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM).
Ruthenberg, H. 1980. Farming systems in the tropics.
Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press.
Saad, N., Delattre, C., Urdaci, M., Schmitter, J.M.
decrease soil biodiversity in olive orchards. Agronomy
for Sustainable Development, 35(2): 691–700.
Sanderson, M.A., Goslee, S.C., Soder, K.J., Skinner,
R.H., Tracy, B.F. & Deak, A. 2007. Plant species
& Bressollier, P. 2013. An overview of the last
diversity, ecosystem function, and pasture
advances in probiotic and prebiotic field. LWT - Food
management – a perspective. Canadian Journal of
Science and Technology, 50(1): 1–16.
Sacandé, M., Jøker, D., Dulloo, M.E. & Thomsen, K.A.
Plant Science, 87(3): 479–487.
Sankaran, K.V. 2004. Giant African snail. Pest Fact
2004. Comparative storage biology of tropical tree
Sheet. Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network.
seeds. Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources
(available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/22071-0a7
Institute (IPGRI).
Saenger, P., Gartside, D. & Funge-Smith, S. 2013. A
14b2449327eb9db0f552d36311fdd7.pdf).
Sans, M. & Meixner, T. 2016. The role of biodiversity in
review of mangrove and seagrass ecosystems and
the hydrological cycle. In F. Poupeau, H. Gupta, A.
their linkage to fisheries and fisheries management.
Serrat-Capdevila, M.A. Sans-Fuentes, S. Harris & L.G.
RAP Publication 2013/09. Bangkok, FAO Regional
Hayde, eds. Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty,
Office for Asia and the Pacific. (available at http://
pp. 249–288. Delft, Netherlands, UNESCO-IHE
www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3355e/i3355e.pdf).
Sala, O.E., Yahdjian, L., Havstad, K. & Aguiar, M.R.
Institute for Water Education.
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L.,
2017. Rangeland ecosystem services: nature’s supply
Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M. et al. 2013. Ten
and humans’ demand. In D.D. Briske, ed. Rangeland
principles for a landscape approach to reconciling
systems: processes, management and challenges,
agriculture, conservation, and other competing land
pp. 467–489. Cham, Switzerland, Springer Nature.
uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Salmon Health Consortium & PMRA. 2003.
Integrated pest management of sea lice in salmon
aquaculture. Ottawa, Minister of Public Works and
Government Services Canada.
Salton, J.C., Mercante, F.M., Tomazi, M., Zanatta, J.A.,
of the United States of America, 110(21): 8349–8356.
Sayre, N.F., Davis, D.K., Bestelmeyer, B. &
Williamson, J.C. 2017. Rangelands: where
anthromes meet their limits. Land, 6(2): 31.
Scarcelli, N., Tostain, S., Mariac, C., Agbangla, C., Da,
Concenço, G., Silva, W.M. & Retore, M. 2014.
O., Berthaud, J. & Pham, J.L. 2006. Genetic nature
Integrated crop-livestock system in tropical Brazil:
of yams (Dioscorea sp.) domesticated by farmers in
toward a sustainable production system. Agriculture,
Benin (West Africa). Genetic Resources and Crop
Ecosystems and Environment, 190: 70–79.
Salvat, B. & Allemand, D. 2009. Acidification and
Evolution, 53(1): 121–130.
Schaffelke, B., Collier, C., Kroon, F., Lough, J.,
coral reefs. Scientific review. Noumea Cedex, New
McKenzie, L., Ronan, M., Uthicke, S. & Brodie,
Caledonia, Coral Reef Initiatives for the Pacific.
J. 2017. Scientific Consensus Statement 2017. A
Sambuichi, R.H.R., Vidal, D.B., Piasentin, F.B.,
synthesis of the science of land-based water quality
Jardim, J.G., Viana, T.G., Menezes, A.A., Mello,
impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, Chapter 1: The
D.L.N., Ahnert, D. & Baligar, V.C. 2012. Cabruca
condition of coastal and marine ecosystems of the
514
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Great Barrier Reef. Brisbane, Australia, Government
Ruohonen-Lehto, M., Saucy, A.G.W. & Mertens,
of Queensland.
M. 2017. Herbicide resistance and biodiversity:
Scherr, S.J., Shames, S. & Friedman, R. 2013. Defining
integrated landscape management for policy
makers. Ecoagriculture Policy Focus, 10.
agronomic and environmental aspects of genetically
modified herbicide-resistant plants. Environmental
Sciences Europe, 29(1): 5.
Schipper, J., Chanson, J.S., Chiozza, F., Cox, N.A.,
Hoffmann, M. Katariya, V., Lamoreau, J. et al.
2008. The status of the world’s land and marine
mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science,
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a
framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72.
Brighton, UK, Institute of Development Studies.
Sears, R.R., Cronkleton, P., Polo Villanueva, F.,
Miranda Ruiz, M. & Pérez-Ojeda del Arco, M.
322: 225–230.
Schippmann, U., Leaman, D.J. & Cunningham,
2018. Farm-forestry in the Peruvian Amazon and
A.B. 2002. Impact of cultivation and gathering of
the feasibility of its regulation through forest policy
medicinal plants on biodiversity: global trends and
reform. Forest Policy and Economics,
issues. In FAO, ed. Biodiversity and the ecosystem
approach in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
87(November 2017): 49–58.
Sebiomo, A., Ogundero, V.W. & Bankole, S.A. 2011.
Satellite event on the occasion of the Ninth Regular
Effect of four herbicides on microbial population,
Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources
organic matter and dehydrogenase activity. African
for Food and Agriculture. Rome, 12–13 October
2002. Inter-Departmental Working Group on
Journal of Biotechnology, 10: 770–778.
Sedbrook, J.C., Phippen, W.B. & Marks, M.D. 2014.
Biological Diversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome,
New approaches to facilitate rapid domestication of
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/
a wild plant to an oilseed crop: example pennycress
AA010E/AA010E00.HTM).
(Thlaspi arvense L.). Plant Science, 227: 122–132.
Schlatter, D., Kinkel, L., Thomashow, L., Weller, D.
Seedorf, H., Kittelmann, S. & Janssen, P.H. 2015.
& Paulitz, T. 2017. Disease suppressive soils: new
Few highly abundant operational taxonomic units
insights from the soil microbiome. Phytopathology,
dominate within rumen methanogenic archaeal
107(11): 1284–1297.
species in New Zealand sheep and cattle. Applied
Schlüter, S., Weller, U. & Vogel, H.J. 2011. Soilstructure development including seasonal dynamics
in a long-term fertilization experiment. Journal of
Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 174(3): 395–403.
Schmithüsen, F. 2013. Three hundred years of applied
sustainability in forestry. Unasylva, 64(240): 3–11.
Schramm, H.L.J. 1995. Uses and effects of cultured
fishes in aquatic ecosystems. Bethesda, USA,
American Fisheries Society.
Environmental Microbiology, 81: 986–995.
Seeley, T.D. 1985. Honeybee ecology. A study of
adaptation in social life. Princeton, USA, Princeton
University Press.
Sekercioglu, C.H. 2006. Increasing awareness of avian
ecological function. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
21(8): 464–471.
Sengonca, C., Kranz, J. & Blaeser, P. 2002. Attractiveness
of three weed species to polyphagous predators and
Schulp, C.J.E., Thuiller, W. & Verburg, P.H. 2014. Wild
food in Europe: a synthesis of knowledge and data
of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service.
their influence on aphid populations in adjacent lettuce
cultivations. Journal of Pest Science, 75(6): 161–165.
SEPSA (Secretaría Ejecutiva de Planificación
Sectorial Agropecuaria). 2017. Política nacional de
Ecological Economics, 105: 292–305.
Schulz, S., Brankatschk, R., Dumig, A., KogelKnabner, I., Schloter, M. & Zeyer, J. 2013. The role
semillas de Costa Rica 2017-2030. San José.
Serna-Chavez, H.M., Fierer, N. & Van Bodegom,
of microorganisms at different stages of ecosystem
P.M. 2013. Global drivers and patterns of
development for soil formation. Biogeosciences,
microbial abundance in soil. Global Ecology and
10(6): 3983–3996.
Biogeography, 22(10): 1162–1172.
Schutte, G., Eckerstorfer, M., Rastelli, V.,
Seshadri, R., Leahy, S.C., Attwood, G.T., Teh, K.H.,
Reichenbecher, W., Restrepo-Vassalli, S.,
Lambie, S.C., Cookson, A.L., Eloe-Fadrosh, E.A.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
515
et al. 2018. Cultivation and sequencing of rumen
et al. 2011. Extinction risk assessment of the
microbiome members from the Hungate1000
world´s seagrass species. Biological Conservation,
Collection. Nature Biotechnology, 36(4): 359–367.
Seto, K.C. & Ramankutty, N. 2016. Hidden linkages
144: 1961–1971.
Sileshi, G., Akinnifesi, F.K., Ajayi, O.C. & Place, F.
between urbanization and food systems. Science,
2008. Meta-analysis of maize yield response to
352(6288): 943–945.
woody and herbaceous legumes in sub-Saharan
Settle, W.H., Ariawan, H., Astuti, E.T., Cahyana, W.,
Hakim, A.L., Hindayana, D. & Lestari, A.S. 1996.
Managing tropical rice pests through conservation
Africa. Plant and Soil, 307(1–2): 1–19.
Simões, M.F., Pereira, L., Santos, C. & Lima, N. 2013.
Polyphasic identification and preservation of fungal
of generalist natural enemies and alternate prey.
diversity: concepts and applications. In A. Malik,
Ecology, 77(7): 1975–1988.
E. Grohmann & M. Alves, eds. Management of
Sevilla Guzmán, E. 2002. A perspectiva sociológica em
agroecologia: uma sistematização de seus métodos
e técnicas. Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Rural
Sustentável, 3: 18–28.
Shackelford, G., Steward, P.R., Benton, T.G., Kunin,
W.E., Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C. & Sait, S.M.
microbial resources in the environment, pp. 91–117.
Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Simon, D. & Benhamou, J.F. 2009. Rice-fish farming in
Guinée Forestière – outcome of a rural development
project. Field Actions Science Reports, 2: 49–56.
SINAC-MINAE. 2014. Quinto Informe Nacional al
2013. Comparison of pollinators and natural
Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, Costa Rica. San
enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local
José, Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación,
effects on abundance and richness in crops.
Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, Washington, DC,
Biological Reviews, 88(4): 1002–1021.
Shackleton, C.M. & Shackleton, S.E. 2006. Household
GEF, and Washington, DC, UNDP.
Singh, V.P., Sinha, R.B., Nayak, D., Neufeldt, H., van
wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat
Noordwijk, M. & Rizvi, J. 2016. The national
River valley, South Africa. Ecological Economics,
agroforestry policy of India: experiential learning in
57(2): 306–317.
development and delivery phases. ICRAF Working
Sharpley, A., Jarvie, H.P., Buda, A., May, L., Spears,
B. & Kleinman, P. 2013. Phosphorus legacy:
Paper No. 240. New Delhi, ICRAF.
Sist, P., Dykstra, D. & Fimbel, R. 1998. Reduced impact
overcoming the effects of past management practices
logging guidelines for lowland and hill dipterocarp
to mitigate future water quality impairment. Journal
forests in Indonesia. Bulungan Research Report Series
of Environmental Quality, 42(5): 1308–1326.
No. 1, September 1998, Center for International
Shi, W., Moon, C.D., Leahy, S.C., Kang, D., Froula, J.,
Kittelmann, S., Fan, C. et al. 2014. Methane yield
Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
Six, J., Feller, C., Denef, K., Ogle, S.M., de Moraes,
phenotypes linked to differential gene expression in
J.C. & Albrecht, A. 2002. Soil organic matter, biota
the sheep rumen microbiome. Genome Research,
and aggregation in temperateand tropical soils –
24(9): 1517–1525.
Shiferaw, B.A., Okello, J. & Reddy, R. V. 2009. Adoption
Effects of no-tillage. Agronomie, 22(7–8): 755–775.
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S. & Denef, K. 2004.
and adaptation of natural resource management
A history of research on the link between (micro)
innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections
aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter
on key lessons and best practices. Environment,
dynamics. Soil & Tillage Research, 79(1): 7–31.
Development and Sustainability, 11(3): 601–619.
Skiftesvik, A.B., Blom, G., Agnalt, A.L., Durif, C.M.F.,
Shiferaw, B., Prasanna, B.M., Hellin, J. & Bänziger, M.
Browman, H.I., Bjelland, R.M., Harkestad, L.S.,
2011. Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and
Farestveit, E., Paulsen, O.I., Fauske, M., Havelin,
future challenges to the role played by maize in global
T., Johnsen, K. & Mortensen, S. 2014. Wrasse
food security. Food Security, 3: 307–327.
(Labridae) as cleaner fish in salmonid aquaculture –
Short, F.T., Polidoro, B., Livingstone, S.R., Carpenter,
K.E., Bandeira, S., Bujang, J.S., Calumpong, H.P.
516
the Hardangerfjord as a case study. Marine Biology
Research, 10(3): 289–300.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Slaa, E.J., Sánchez Chaves, L.A., Malagodi-Braga, K.
& Hofstede, F.E. 2006. Stingless bees in applied
pollination: practice and perspectives. Apidologie,
37: 293–315.
effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
133(3): 247–266.
Society for Range Management. 1998. Glossary of
terms used in range management. A definition
Slade, E.M., Riutta, T., Roslin, T. & Tuomisto,
H.L. 2016. The role of dung beetles in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from cattle farming.
of terms commonly used in range management.
Glossary Update Task Group, ed. Wheat Ridge, USA.
Solden, L.M., Hoyt, D.W., Collins, W.B., Plank,
J.E., Daly, R.A., Hildebrand, E., Beavers, T.J.
Scientific Reports, 6: 18140.
Smaal, A.C., Kater, B.J. & Wijsman, J. 2009. Introduction,
establishment and expansion of the Pacific oyster
Crassostrea gigas in the Oosterschelde (SW
et al. 2017. New roles in hemicellulosic sugar
fermentation for the uncultivated Bacteroidetes
family BS11. The ISME Journal, 11(3): 691–703.
Netherlands). Helgoland Marine Research, 63: 75–83.
Smith, A., Snapp, S., Chikowo, R., Thorne, P., Bekunda,
Somarriba, E., Suárez-Islas, A., Calero-Borge, W.,
Villota, A., Castillo, C., Vílchez, S., Deheuvels,
M. & Glover, J. 2017. Measuring sustainable
O. & Cerda, R. 2014. Cocoa–timber agroforestry
intensification in smallholder agroecosystems: a review.
systems: Theobroma cacao–Cordia alliodora in Central
Global Food Security, 12: 127–138.
America. Agroforestry Systems, 88(6): 1001–1019.
Smith, D. 2012. Culture Collections. In S. Saraslani and
Somerville, C., Cohen, M., Pantanella, E., Stankus, A.
G.M. Gadd, eds. Advances in Applied Microbiology,
& Lovatelli, A. 2014. Small-scale aquaponic food
79: 73–118, Academic, Burlington.
production. Integrated fish and plant farming. FAO
Smith, D. & Ryan, M.J. 2012. Implementing best
practices and validation of cryopreservation
techniques for microorganisms. Scientific World
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 589.
Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/ai4021e.pdf).
Soo Bae, J., Won Joo, R. & Kim, Y. 2012. Forest
Journal, 2012: 805659.
Smith, D., Ryan, M. & Day, J.G., eds. 2001. The UK
National Culture Collection (UKNCC) biological resource:
properties, maintenance and management. Egham, UK,
The United Kingdom National Culture Collection.
Smith, G.C., Dueker, S.R., Clifford, A.J. & Grivetti,
L.E. 1996. Carotenoid values of selected plant foods
transition in South Korea: reality, path and drivers.
Land Use Policy, 29: 198–207.
Sorrenti, S. 2017. Non-wood forest products in
international statistical systems. Rome, FAO.
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6731e.pdf).
Soto, D., White, P., Dempster, T., Silva, S.D., Flores,
common to Southern Burkina Faso, West Africa.
A., Karakassis, Y., Knapp, G. et al. 2012.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 35(1): 43–58.
Addressing aquaculture-fisheries interactions
Smith, J. 2012. Urban air quality. Grantham, UK, The
through the implementation of the ecosystem
Woodland Trust.
approach to aquaculture (EAA). In R.P. Subasinghe,
Smith, J., van de Kop, P., Reategui, K., Lombardi,
J.R. Arthur, D.M. Bartley, S.S. De Silva, M. Halwart,
I., Sabogal, C. & Diaz, A. 1999. Dynamics of
N. Hishamunda, C.V. Mohan & P. Sorgeloos, eds.
secondary forests in slash-and- burn farming:
Farming the waters for people and food, pp.
interactions among land use types in the Peruvian
385–436. Proceedings of the Global Conference
Amazon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
on Aquaculture 2010. Phuket, Thailand, 22-
76(2–3): 85–98.
25 September 2010. Rome, FAO, and Bangkok,
Smith, K.M., Loh, E.H., Rostal, M.K., ZambranaTorrelio, C.M., Mendiola, L. & Daszak, P. 2014.
Pathogens, pests, and economics: drivers of honey bee
colony declines and losses. Ecohealth, 10(4): 434–445.
Snyder, C.S., Bruulsema, T.W., Jensen, T.L. & Fixen,
P.E. 2009. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific
(available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2734e/
i2734e.pdf).
Spalding, M.D., Blasco, F. & Field, C.D., eds. 1997.
World mangrove atlas. Okinawa, Japan, The
International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems.
crop production systems and fertilizer management
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
517
Spalding, M.D. Kainuma, M. & Collins, L. 2010.
World atlas of mangroves. London and Washington,
DC, Earthscan.
Spalding, M.D., Brumbaugh, R.D. & Landis, E. 2016.
Atlas of ocean wealth – Breaking waves. Arlington,
USA, The Nature Conservancy.
Spalding, M.D., Ravilious, C.A. & Green, E.P. 2001.
plant pathogens and pests. Crop Protection, 5(3):
190–198.
Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. & Wege,
D.C. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World. Priorities
for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife Conservation
Series 7. Cambridge, UK, BirdLife International.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell,
World atlas of coral reefs. Berkeley, USA, University
S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R. et
of California Press.
al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human
SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2015. A
new song for coastal fisheries pathways to change:
the Noumea Strategy. Noumea, New Caledonia.
Speed, R., Li, Y., Tickner, D., Huang, H., Naiman,
development on a changing planet. Science,
347(6223): 736–746.
Steinbeiss, S., Bessler, H., Engels, C., Temperton,
V.M., Buchmann, N., Roscher, C., Kreutziger, Y.,
R., Cao, J., Lei, G. et al. 2016. River restoration: a
Baade, J., Habekost, M. & Gleixner, G. 2008.
strategic approach to planning and management.
Plant diversity positively affects short-term soil
Paris, UNESCO.
carbon storage in experimental grasslands. Global
Spötter, A., Gupta, P., Mayer, M., Reinsch, N. &
Bienefeld, K. 2016. Genome-wide association study
Change Biology, 14(12): 2937–2949.
Steinfeld, H., Mooney, H.A., Schneider, F. & Neville,
of a varroa-specific defense behavior in honeybees
L.E., eds. 2010. Livestock in a changing landscape.
(Apis mellifera). Journal of Heredity, 107: 220–227.
Volume 1. Drivers, consequences, and responses.
Spracklen, D.V., Arnold, S.R. & Taylor, C.M. 2012.
Observations of increased tropical rainfall preceded by
air passage over forests. Nature, 489(7415): 282–285.
Sradnick, A., Murugan, R., Oltmanns, M., Raupp, J.
& Joergensen, R.G. 2013. Changes in functional
diversity of the soil microbial community in a
heterogeneous sandy soil after long-term fertilization
with cattle manure and mineral fertilizer. Applied
Soil Ecology, 63: 23–28.
St-Pierre, B., Cersosimo, L.M., Ishaq, S.L. &
Wright, A.D.G. 2015. Toward the identification
of methanogenic archaeal groups as targets of
Washington, DC, Island Press.
Steinhauer, N., Rennich, K., Lee, K., Pettis, J., Tarpy,
D.R., Rangel, J., Caron, D. et al. 2015. Colony
Loss 2014-2015: Preliminary results. [Cited 11 April
2018]. https://beeinformed.org/results/colony-loss2014-2015-preliminary-results/
Stephen, W.P. 1960. Studies in the alkali bee (Nomia
melanderi Ckll.). Technical bulletin. Corvallis, USA,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State College.
Stewart, J.B. 1977. Evaporation from the wet canopy of a
pine forest. Water Resources Research, 13(6): 915–921.
Straub, C., Finke, D. & Snyder, W. 2008. Are the
methane mitigation in livestock animals. Frontiers in
conservation of natural enemy biodiversity and
Microbiology, 6(776).
biological control compatible goals? Biological
Stackebrandt, E., Smith, D., Casaregola, S., Varese, G.,
Verkleij, G., Lima, N. & Bridge, P. 2014. Deposit of
Control, 45(2): 225–237.
Strayer, D.L. & Dudgeon, D. 2010. Freshwater
microbial strains in public service collections as part of
biodiversity conservation: recent progress and
the publication process to underpin good practice in
future challenges. Journal of the North American
science. SpringerPlus, 3: 1–4.
Stadlmayr, B., Charrondière, U.R., Eisenwagen, S.,
Jamnadass, R. & Kehlenbeck, K. 2013. Nutrient
Benthological Society, 29: 344–358.
Stritar, M.L., Schweitzer, J.A., Hart, S.C. & Bailey,
J.K. 2010. Introduced ungulate herbivore alters
composition of selected indigenous fruits from sub-
soil processes after fire. Biological Invasions, 12(2):
Saharan Africa. Journal of the Science of Food and
313–324.
Agriculture, 93(11): 2627–2636.
Stapleton, J.J. & DeVay, J.E. 1986. Soil solarization:
a non-chemical approach for management of
518
Strohmaier, R., Rioux, J., Seggel, A., Meybeck,
A., Bernoux, M., Salvatore, M., Miranda, J. &
Agostini, A. 2016. The agriculture sectors in the
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions:
Sundt, P., Schulze, P.-E. & Syversen, F. 2014. Sources
analysis. Environment and Natural Resources
of microplastic-pollution to the marine environment.
Management Working Paper No. 62. Rome, FAO.
Report No. M-321|2015. Norwegian Environment
(available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5687e.pdf).
Strong, A. & Minnemeyer, S. 2015. Satellite data reveals
Agency (Miljødirektoratet).
Sutcliffe, L.M.E., Batáry, P., Kormann, U., Báldi,
state of the world’s mangrove forests. Washington,
A., Dicks, L.V., Herzon, I., Kleijn, D. et al.
DC, World Resources Institute. (available at https://
2015. Harnessing the biodiversity value of Central
www.wri.org/blog/2015/02/satellite-data-reveals-
and Eastern European farmland. Diversity and
state-world-s-mangrove-forests).
Distributions, 21(6): 722–730.
Struik, P.C., Kuyper, T.W., Brussaard, L. & Leeuwis,
Swift, M.J. 1999. Towards the second paradigm:
C. 2014. Deconstructing and unpacking scientific
Integrated biological management of soil. In
controversies in intensification and sustainability:
J.O. Siqueira, F.M.S. Moreira, A.S. Lopes, L.R.G.
why the tensions in concepts and values? Current
Guiherme, V. Faquin, A.E. Furtani Neto & J.G.
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 8: 80–88.
Cavalho, eds. Inter-relacao fertilidade, biologia do
Stryamets, N.N., Elbakidze, M.M., Ceuterick, M.M.,
solo e nutricao de plantas, pp. 11–24. Lavras, Brazil,
Angelstam, P.P. & Axelsson, R.R. 2015. From
Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, UFLA.
economic survival to recreation: contemporary
Szabó, N.D., Colla, S.R., Wagner, D.L., Gall, L.F. & Kerr,
uses of wild food and medicine in rural Sweden,
J.T. 2012. Do pathogen spillover, pesticide use, or
Ukraine and NW Russia. Journal of Ethnobiology and
habitat loss explain recent North American bumblebee
Ethnomedicine, 11: 53–71.
declines? Conservation Letters, 5(3): 232–239.
Stuart, T. 2009. Waste: uncovering the global food
Tabacco, E., Piano, S., Revello-Chion, A. & Borreani,
G. 2011. Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri LN4637
scandal. London, Penguin Books.
Stuart, S., Wilson, E., Mittermeier, R. & Rodríguez, J.
2010. The barometer of life. Science, 328: 177–178.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K. 2013. Ecosystem approach
to disaster risk reduction: basic concepts and
recommendations to governments, with a special
and Lactobacillus buchneri LN40177 on the aerobic
stability, fermentation products, and microbial
populations of corn silage under farm conditions.
Journal of Dairy Science, 94: 5589–5598.
Tamang, J.P. 2010. Diversity of fermented beverages and
focus on Europe. Strasbourg, France, European and
alcoholic drinks. In J.P. Tamang & K. Kailasapathy,
Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement
eds. Fermented foods and beverages of the world,
(EUR-OPA), Council of Europe.
pp. 97–138. Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Fernández, M., Gaillard,
Tamang, J.P., Watanabe, K. & Holzapfel, W.H.
J., Guadagno, L. & Jaboyedoff, M. 2017.
2016. Review: diversity of microorganisms in
Introduction: exploring linkages between disaster
global fermented foods and beverages. Frontiers in
risk reduction, climate change adaptation, migration
and sustainable development. In K. SudmeierRieux, M. Fernández, I. Penna, M. Jaboyedoff &
J. Gaillard, eds. Identifying emerging issues in
disaster risk reduction, migration, climate change
Microbiology, 7: 377.
Taylor, R., Herms, D., Cardina, J. & Moore, R. 2018.
Climate change and pest management: unanticipated
consequences of trophic dislocation. Agronomy, 8(1): 7.
Teasdale, J.R. 2003. Principles and practices of using
and sustainable development, pp. 1–11. Cham,
cover crops in weed management systems. In R.
Switzerland, Springer International Publishing.
Labrada, ed. Weed management in developing
Sumner, D.A. & Boriss, H. 2006. Bee-conomics and the
leap in pollination fees. Agricultural and Resource
countries, pp. 169–178. FAO Plant Production and
Protection Paper 120, Add. 1. Rome, FAO.
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and
Economics Update, 9: 9–11.
Sunderland, T.C.H. 2011. Food security: why is
Biodiversity). 2010. The economics of ecosystems
biodiversity important? International Forestry
and biodiversity: ecological and economic
Review, 13(3): 265–274.
foundations. P. Kumar, ed. London, Earthscan.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
519
TEEB. 2015. TEEB for agriculture & food: an interim
report. Geneva, Switzerland, UNEP.
TEEB. 2018. TEEB for agriculture & food. Scientific and
economic foundations. Geneva, UN Environment.
(available at http://teebweb.org/agrifood/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/TEEB_Foundations_October13.pdf).
Teetes, G. 1994. Adjusting crop management
Gérard, B. 2018. Complementary practices
supporting conservation agriculture in southern
Africa. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 38(16).
Thilsted, S.H. 2012. The potential of nutrient-rich
small fish species in aquaculture to improve
human nutrition and health. In R.P. Subasinghe,
recommendations for insect-resistant crop varieties.
J.R. Arthur, D.M. Bartley, S.S. De Silva, M. Halwart,
Journal of Agricultural Entomology, 11(3): 191–200.
N. Hishamunda, C. V Mohan & P. Sorgeloos, eds.
Teichroew, J.L., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Huang, Z.Y.,
Proceedings of the Global Conference on Aquaculture
Tan, K. & Xie, Z. 2017. Is China’s unparalleled
2010. Farming the Waters for People and Food,
and understudied bee diversity at risk? Biological
pp. 57–73. Rome, FAO, and Bangkok, Network of
Conservation, 210: 19–28.
Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific. (available at
Teletchea, F. & Fontaine, P. 2014. Levels of domestication
in fish: implications for the sustainable future of
aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries, 15(2): 181–195.
Tendall, D.M., Hellweg, S., Pfister, S., Huijbregts,
M.A. & Gaillard, G. 2014. Impacts of river water
consumption on aquatic biodiversity in life cycle
assessment – a proposed method, and a case study
for Europe. Environmental Science & Technology,
48(6): 3236–3244.
Teo, S.S. 2001. Evaluation of different duck varieties
http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2734e/i2734e.pdf).
Thilsted, S.H., Thorne-Lyman, A., Webb, P., Bogard,
J.R., Subasinghe, R., Phillips, M.J. & Allison, E.H.
2016. Sustaining healthy diets: the role of capture
fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in
the post-2015 era. Food Policy, 61: 126–131.
Thomas, P.A. 2016. Biological flora of the British Isles.
Journal of Ecology, 104(4): 1158–1209.
Thondhlana, G. & Muchapondwa, E. 2014.
Dependence on environmental resources and
for the control of the golden apple snail (Pomacea
implications for household welfare: evidence from
canaliculata) in transplanted and direct seeded rice.
the Kalahari drylands, South Africa. Ecological
Crop Protection, 20(7): 599–604.
Ter Hofstede, R. & Rijnsdorp, A.D. 2011. Comparing
Economics, 108: 59–67.
Thornton, P.K. & Herrero, M. 2001. Integrated crop-
demersal fish assemblages between periods of
livestock simulation models for scenario analysis and
contrasting climate and fishing pressure. ICES
impact assessment. Agricultural Systems, 70(2–3):
Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1189–1198.
Thaman, R.R., Elevitch, C.R. & Kennedy, J. 2006.
581–602.
Thornton, P.K. & Herrero, M. 2015. Adapting to
Urban and homegarden agroforestry in the Pacific
climate change in the mixed crop and livestock
islands: current status and future prospects. In B.M.
farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature
Kumar & P.K.R. Nair, eds. Tropical homegardens: a
time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry, pp.
25–41. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Thapa, R.B. 2013. Field research report on food
and nutrition security of the forest dependent
households from the forests of Nepal. Bhaktapur,
Nepal, Renaissance Society Nepal (RSN).
Thiele-Bruhn, S., Bloem, J., de Vries, F.T., Kalbitz,
K. & Wagg, C. 2012. Linking soil biodiversity and
agricultural soil management. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 4(5): 523–528.
Thierfelder, C., Baudron, F., Setimela, P., Nyagumbo,
I., Mupangwa, W., Mhlanga, B., Lee, N. &
520
Climate Change, 5(9): 830–836.
Tiemann, L.K., Grandy, A.S., Atkinson, E.E.,
Marin-Spiotta, E. & McDaniel, M.D. 2015.
Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground
communities and functions in an agroecosystem.
Ecology Letters, 18: 761–771.
Tikhonovich, I.A. & Provorov, N.A. 2011. Microbiology
is the basis of sustainable agriculture: an opinion.
Annals of Applied Biology, 159(2): 155–168.
Timmermann, C., Félix, G.F. & Tittonell, P. 2018.
Food sovereignty and consumer sovereignty: two
antagonistic goals? Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems, 42(3): 274–298.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
Tittonell, P. 2014. Ecological intensification of
agriculture – sustainable by nature. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability, 8: 53–61.
Tittonell, P. & Giller, K. 2013. When yield gaps
are poverty traps: the paradigm of ecological
intensification in African smallholder agriculture.
Field Crops Research, 143: 76–90.
of three case studies. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 3(3): 143–153.
Tripp, R. 2006. Is low external input technology
contributing to sustainable agricultural development?
Natural Resource Perspectives, 102: 1–4.
Troell, M. 2009. Integrated marine and brackishwater
aquaculture in tropical regions: research,
Tittonell, P., Klerkx, L., Baudron, F., Félix, G.F., Ruggia,
implementation and prospects. In D. Soto, ed.
A., van Apeldoorn, D., Dogliotti, S., Mapfumo, P.
Integrated mariculture: a global review, pp. 47–131.
& Rossing, W.A.H. 2016. Ecological intensification:
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No.
local innovation to address global challenges.
529. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/
Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 19: 1–34.
Titus, K.T., Haynes, T.L. & Paragi., T.F. 2009. The
docrep/012/i1092e/i1092e00.htm).
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-
importance of moose, caribou, deer and small game
Dewenter, I. & Thies, C. 2005. Landscape
in the diet of Alaskans. In R.T. Watson, M. Fuller, M.
perspectives on agricultural intensification and
Pokras & W.G. Hunt, eds. Ingestion of lead from spent
biodiversity – ecosystem service management.
ammunition: implications for wildlife and humans, pp.
Ecology Letters, 8: 857–874.
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T.C., Jackson,
137–143. Boise, USA, The Peregrine Fund.
Toledo, Á. & Burlingame, B. 2006. Biodiversity and
L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J.
nutrition: a common path toward global food
& Whitbread, A. 2012. Global food security,
security and sustainable development. Journal of
biodiversity conservation and the future of
Food Composition and Analysis, 19(6–7): 477–483.
Tomich, T.P., Brodt, S., Ferris, H., Galt, R., Horwath,
W.R., Kebreab, E., Leveau, J.H.J. et al. 2011.
agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation,
151(1): 53–59.
Tsegay, Z., Gizaw, B. & Tefera, G. 2016. Isolation,
Agroecology: a review from a global-change
identification and characterization of yeast species from
perspective. Annual Review of Environment and
Kocho and Bulla collected from Gedeo Zone, South
Resources, 36: 193–222.
Nation Nationality People Regional States. International
Torchio, P.F. 1984. Field experiments with the pollinator
species, Osmia lignaria propinqua Cresson
(Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in apple orchards.
Journal of Current Trends in Pharmacobiology and
Medical Sciences Journal, 1(2): 37–44.
Tsiafouli, M.A., Thébault, E., Sgardelis, S.P., de
Journal of Kansas Entomological Society, 57(3):
Ruiter, P.C., van der Putten, W.H., Birkhofer,
517–521.
K., Hemerik, L. et al. 2015. Intensive agriculture
Torda, G., Donelson, J.M., Aranda, M., Barshis, D.J.,
Bay, L., Berumen, M.L., Bourne, D.G. et al. 2017.
Rapid adaptive responses to climate change in
corals. Nature Climate Change, 7: 627–636.
Tóth, G., Hermann, T., Da Silva, M.R. & Montanarella,
L. 2016. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the
European Union with implications for food safety.
reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Global
Change Biology, 21: 973–985.
Tugel, A.J., Lewandowski, A.M. & Happe-vonArb, D.,
eds. 2000. Soil biology primer. Ankeny, USA, Soil
and Water Conservation Society.
Turbé, A., De Toni, A., Benito, P., Lavelle, P., Lavelle,
P., Ruiz, N., Van der Putten, W.H., Labouze, E.
& Mudgal, S. 2010. Soil biodiversity: functions,
Environment International, 88: 299–309.
Treweek, J.R., Brown, C. & Bubb, P. 2006. Assessing
threats and tools for policy makers. Technical
biodiversity impacts of trade: a review of challenges
Report - 2010 - 049. European Commission DG ENV.
in the agriculture sector. Impact Assessment and
Luxembourg, European Commission, Publications
Project Appraisal, 24(4): 299–309.
Office of the European Union.
Tripp, R. 2005. The performance of low external input
technology in agricultural development: a summary
Ugwuanyi, J.O., McNeil, B. & Harvey, L.M. 2009.
Production of protein-enriched feed using
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
521
agroindustrial residues as substrates. In P. Singh-
UNEP-WCMC (UN Environment World Conservation
nee’-Nigam & A. Pandey, eds. Biotechnology for
Monitoring Centre). 2006. In the front line:
agroindustrial residues utilisation, pp. 77–103.
shoreline protection and other ecosystem services
Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer & Business Media B.V.
UN Environment (United Nations Environment
Programme). 2008. Water quality for ecosystems
and human health. Second edition. Burlington, USA,
United Nations Environment Programme Global
Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme.
UN Environment. 2010. How ecosystems protect
communities against natural hazards. [Cited 21 March
2018]. https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/how-ecosystemsprotect-communities-against-natural-hazards
UN Environment. 2016a. Global gender and
environment outlook. Nairobi, United Nations
Environment Programme.
UN Environment. 2016b. Marine plastic debris and
microplastics: global lessons and research to inspire
action and guide policy chance. Nairobi, United
Nations Environment Programme.
UN Environment. 2016c. A snapshot of the world’s
from mangroves and coral reefs. Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC. 2010. Global distribution of coral reefs.
[Cited 22 March 2018]. http://data.unep-wcmc.org/
datasets/1
UNEP-WCMC. 2014. The importance of mangroves to
people: a call to action. J. van Bochove, E. Sullivan &
T. Nakamura, eds. Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC. 2018. 2018 United Nations list of
protected areas. Supplement on protected area
management effectiveness. Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. 2018. World Database on
Protected Areas (WDPA). [Cited 8 December 2018].
https://www.protectedplanet.net/
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN & NGS. 2018. Protected Planet
Report 2018. Cambridge, UK, Gland, Switzerland,
and Washington, DC.
UNEP-WCMC & Short, F.T. 2017. Global distribution of
seagrasses (version 5.0). Fourth update to the data
water quality: towards a global assessment. Nairobi,
layer used in Green and Short (2003). Cambridge,
United Nations Environment Programme.
UK, UNEP-WCMC.
UN Environment & Natural Justice. 2009. Bio-cultural
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and
community protocols – a community approach to
Cultural Organization). 2016. A new roadmap for
ensuring the integrity of environmental law and
the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and
policy. K. Bavikatte & H. Jonas, eds. Nairobi, UNEP.
UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat
its World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Paris.
UNESCO, WHO & UN Environment. 1996. Water quality
Desertification). 2017. Global land outlook. Bonn,
assessments – A guide to use of biota, sediments and
Germany, Secretariat of the UNCCD.
water in environmental monitoring. D. Chapman, ed.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development). 1992. Rio Declaration of
the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development. Report of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2015. The
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention. Paris.
UN, European Commission, FAO, IMF, OECD & World
reprinted in 31 ILM 876). Annex 1. Rio de Janeiro,
Bank. 2014a. System of environmental-economic
3-14 June 1992. (available at http://www.un.org/
accounting 2012 – central framework. New York,
documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm).
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and
USA, UN.
UN, European Commission, FAO, IMF, OECD & World
Development). 2012. Economic Development
Bank. 2014b. System of environmental-economic
in Africa, Report 2012. Structural transformation
accounting 2012 – experimental ecosystem
and sustainable development in Africa. Geneva,
Switzerland.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).
accounting. New York, USA, UN.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change). 2015. The Paris Agreement.
2013. Pescado Azul Women’s Association of Isabela.
Bonn, Germany (available at https://unfccc.int/sites/
Equator Initiative Case Study Series. New York, USA.
default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf).
522
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
UNFCCC. 2017a. Glossary of climate change acronyms
and terms. [Cited 21 March 2018]. https://unfccc.int/
process-and-meetings/the-convention/glossary-ofclimate-change-acronyms-and-terms
reduction. Seventy-first Session, New York, USA, 1
December 2016. A/71/644.
United Nations. 2017a. World urbanization prospects:
the 2017 revision. ESA/P/WP/248. New York, USA,
UNFCCC. 2017b. National Adaptation Programmes
of Action. [Cited 6 April 2018]. http://unfccc.int/
national%7B_%7Dreports/napa/items/2719.php
UNFCCC. 2017c. FOCUS: Mitigation – NAMAs, Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Actions. [Cited 5 April 2018].
http://unfccc.int/focus/mitigation/items/7172.php
UNFCCC. 2017d. High level engagement day on
resilience. Resilience-based climate solutions.
14 November 2017. Marrakech Partnership for
Global Climate Action. Twenty-third Session of the
UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division.
United Nations. 2017b. The First Global Integrated
Marine Assessment: World Ocean Assessment I.
Cambridge University Press.
United Nations. 2017c. United Nations Strategic Plan
for Forests 2017–2030. Resolution adopted by the
General Assembly on 27 April 2017. A/RES/71/285.
New York, USA.
United Nations. 2018. World urbanization prospects:
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations
the 2018 revision. Key facts. New York, USA, United
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn,
Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Germany, 6–17 November 2017. (available at https://
Population Division. (available at https://population.
unfccc.int/sites/default/files/cop_23_outcome-
un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf).
UN-REDD Programme. 2018. UN-REDD How We Work.
resilience_final.pdf).
UNFCCC. 2018. Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions (INDCs). [Cited 6 April 2018]. http://
unfccc.int/focus/indc%7B_%7Dportal/items/8766.php
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction). 2009. UNISDR terminology on
disaster risk reduction. Geneva, Switzerland.
United Nations. 2007. Non-legally binding instrument
on all types of forests. Resolution adopted by the
General Assembly on 17 December 2007.
[Cited 6 April 2018]. http://www.un-redd.org/howwe-work
Unwin, M. 2011. The atlas of birds. Princeton, USA,
Princeton University Press.
UPOV (International Union for the Protection of
New Varieties of Plants). 1991. International
Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants. Geneva, Switzerland.
UPOV. 2017. Members of the International Union for the
A/RES/62/98. New York, USA. (available at http://
Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Geneva. [Cited
www.fao.org/forestry/14717-03d86aa8c1a7426cf69
6 April 2018]. http://www.upov.int/export/sites/upov/
bf9e2f5023bb12.pdf).
members/en/pdf/pub423.pdf
United Nations. 2014a. World urbanization prospects:
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture).
the 2014 revision. Highlights. ST/ESA/SER.A/352.
2012. Report on the National Stakeholders
New York, USA, United Nations, Department of
Conference on Honey Bee Health. National Honey
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering
United Nations. 2014b. New York Declaration on Forests.
Declaration and action agenda. New York, USA.
United Nations. 2015a. Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction 2015-2030. New York, USA.
United Nations. 2015b. International arrangement on
forests beyond 2015. Resolution adopted by the
Economic and Social Council on 22 July 2015.
E/RES/2015/33. New York, USA.
Committee, Alexandria, USA, 15–17 October 2012.
Washington, DC.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service).
2011. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting, and
wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC, US
Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Uzunova-Doneva, T. & Donev, T. 2005. Anabiosis and
conservation of microorganisms. Journal of Culture
United Nations. 2016. Report of the open-ended
intergovernmental expert working group on
indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk
Collections, 4: 17–28.
Vaessen, J. & De Groot, J. 2003. Measuring outcome and
impact of small development projects: lessons from
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
523
the evaluation of a training project on low external
van Hintum, T.J.L., Brown, A.H.D., Spillane, C. &
input agriculture in Guatemala. IOB Discussion Papers
Hodgkin, T. 2000. Core collections of plant genetic
2003.04. Antwerp, Belgium, Universiteit Antwerpen,
resources. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 3. Rome,
Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
Valette, D. 2014. Invisible helpers: women’s views on
the contributions of working donkeys and mules to
their lives. London, The Brooke & Voices for Women.
Valiela, I., Bowen, J. & York, J. 2001. Mangrove
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI).
van Hoof, L. 2015. Fisheries management, the
ecosystem approach, regionalisation and the
elephants in the room. Marine Policy, 60: 20–26.
van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H.,
forest: one of world´s threatened major tropical
Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G. & Vantomme,
environments. Bioscience, 51(10): 807–815.
P. 2013. Edible insects: future prospects for food and
Van Bruggen, A.H.C., He, M.M., Shin, K., Mai, V.,
Jeong, K.C., Finckh, M.R. & Morris, J.G. 2018.
Environmental and health effects of the herbicide
glyphosate. Science of The Total Environment,
616–617: 255–268.
Vandecandelaere, E., Teyssier, C., Barjolle, D.,
Jeanneaux, P., Fournier, S. & Beucherie, O. 2018.
Strengthening sustainable food systems through
feed security. FAO Forestry Paper No. 171. Rome,
FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/
i3253e/i3253e.pdf).
Van Lavieren, H., Spalding, M., Alongi, D.M., Kainuma,
M., Clüsener-Godt, M. & Adeel, Z. 2012. Securing
the future of mangroves. A policy brief. Hamilton,
USA, United Nations University – Institute for Water,
Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH).
geographical indications. Rome, Nutrition and Food
Van Lenteren, J.C., Bolckmans, K., Köhl, J., Ravensberg,
Systems Division and the Investment Centre Division,
W.J. & Urbaneja, A. 2018. Biological control using
under the FAO/EBRD cooperation. (available at
invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new
http://www.fao.org/3/I8737EN/i8737en.pdf).
Vandermeer, J.H. 2011. The ecology of agroecosystems.
Sudbury, USA, Jones & Bartlett.
van der Zijpp, A.J., Verreth, J.A.J., Le Quang, T., van
Mensvoort, M.E.F., Bosma, R.H. & Beveridge,
M.C.M., eds. 2007. Fishponds in farming systems.
opportunities. BioControl, 63(1): 39–59.
Van Noordwijk, M., Coe, R. & Sinclair, F. 2016. Central
hypotheses for the third agroforestry paradigm
within a common definition. ICRAF Working Paper
No. 233. Nairobi, ICRAF.
van Noordwijk, M., Bizard, V.,
Wageningen, Netherlands, Wageningen Academic
Wangpakapattanawong, P., Tata, H.L., Villamor,
Publishers.
G.B. & Leimona, B. 2014. Tree cover transitions
van Dijk, K.C., Lesschen, J.P. & Oenema, O. 2016.
Phosphorus flows and balances of the European
Union Member States. Science of the Total
Environment, 542: 1078–1093.
Van Dijk, T.C., Van Staalduinen, M.A., Van der Sluijs,
J.P., Maxim, L., der Sluijs, J.P. Van, Krupke, C.H.,
Hunt, G.J. et al. 2013. Macro-invertebrate decline
and food security in Southeast Asia. Global Food
Security, 3(3–4): 200–208.
van Oosten, C. 2015. The landscape puzzle: an
introduction to the landscape approach - YouTube.
[Cited 15 May 2018]. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fB5BiKCerF0
van Oppen, M.J.H., Puill-Stephan, E., Lundgren, P.,
in surface water polluted with imidacloprid.
De’ath, G. & Bay, L.K. 2014. First generation fitness
PLoS ONE, 8(5): e62374.
consequences of interpopulational hybridisation in a
Van Engelsdorp, D. & Meixner, M.D. 2010. A historical
review of managed honey bee populations in Europe
Great Barrier Reef coral and its implications for assisted
migration management. Coral Reefs, 33: 607–611.
and the United States and the factors that may affect
van Oppen, M.J.H., Oliver, J.K., Putnam, H.M. &
them. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 103: 80–95.
Gates, R.D. 2015. Building coral reef resilience
van Hijum, S.A.F.T., Vaughan, E.E. & Vogel, R.F. 2013.
Application of state-of-art sequencing technologies
through assisted evolution. PNAS, 112: 2307–2313.
van Oppen, M.J.H., Gates, R.D., Blackall, L.L., Cantin,
to indigenous food fermentations. Current Opinion
N., Chakravarti, L.J., Chan, W.Y., Cormick, C. et
in Biotechnology, 24(2): 178–186.
al. 2017. Shifting paradigms in restoration of the
524
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
world’s coral reefs. Global Change Biology, 23(9):
Gramacho, K. & da Silva, F.O. 2014. Stingless bees
3437–3448.
further improve apple pollination and production.
Van Tussenbroek, B.I., Villamil, N., MárquezGuzmán, J., Wong, R., Monroy-Velázquez, L.V.
Journal of Pollination Ecology, 14: 261–269.
Vicens, N. & Bosch, J. 2000. Pollinating efficacy of
& Solis-Weiss, V. 2016. Experimental evidence of
Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera:
pollination in marine flowers by invertebrate fauna.
Megachilidae, Apidae) on ‘Red Delicious’ apple.
Nature Communications, 7: 12980.
Environmental Entomology, 29(2): 235–240.
Vanni, M.J. 2002. Nutrient recycling by animals in
Vigne, J.D. 2011. The origins of animal domestication
freshwater ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology
and husbandry: a major change in the history of
and Systematics, 33: 341–370.
humanity and the biosphere. Comptes rendus
Velarde, E., Ezcurra, E. & Anderson, D.W. 2013. Seabird
diets provide early warning of sardine fishery declines
in the Gulf of California. Scientific Reports, 3: 1332.
Velasco, D., García-Llorente, M., Alonso, B.,
Dolera, A., Palomo, I., Iniesta-Arandia, I. &
Martín-López, B. 2015. Biodiversity conservation
biologies, 334(3): 171–181.
Vilela, C.L.S., Bassin, J.P. & Peixoto, R.S. 2018. Water
contamination by endocrine disruptors: impacts,
microbiological aspects and trends for environmental
protection. Environmental Pollution, 235: 546–559.
Villanueva, A.B., Halewood, M. & Noriega, I.L.
research challenges in the 21st century: a review of
2017. Agricultural biodiversity in climate change
publishing trends in 2000 and 2011. Environmental
adaptation planning. European Journal of
Science & Policy, 54: 90–96.
Sustainable Development, 6(2).
Veldman, J.W., Overbeck, G., Negreiros, D., Mahy,
Vinceti, B., Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Kehlenbeck, K.,
G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G.W., Durigan, G.,
Termote, C., Cogill, B. & Hunter, D. 2013. The
Buisson, E., Putz, F.E. & Bond, W.J. 2015. Tyranny
contributions of forest foods to sustainable diets.
of trees in grassy biomes. Science, 347(6221):
Unasylva, 64(241): 54–64.
Vira, B. & Kontoleon, A. 2012. Dependence of the
484–485.
Veldman, J.W., Silveira, F.A.O., Fleischman, F.D.,
poor on biodiversity: which poor, what biodiversity?
Ascarrunz, N.L. & Durigan, G. 2017. Grassy
In D. Roe, J. Elliott, C. Sandbrook & M. Walpole, eds.
biomes: an inconvenient reality for large-scale forest
Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation:
restoration? American Journal of Botany, 104:
exploring the evidence for a link, pp. 52–84.
649–651.
Hoboken, USA, Wiley-Blackwell.
Velthuis, H.H.W. & van Doorn, A. 2006. A century
of advances in bumblebee domestication and
the economic and environmental aspects of its
commercialization for pollination. Apidologie, 37:
Vogel, S. 1969. Chiropterophilie in der neotropischen Flora.
Neue Mitteilungen III. Flora, Abt. B., 158: 289–323.
Vorley, B. 2003. Food, Inc. Corporate concentration from
farm to consumer. London, IIED and UK Food Group.
Waage, J. 2007. The sustainable management of
421–451.
Verdonschot, P.F.M., Spears, B.M., Feld, C.K., Brucet,
biodiversity for biological control in food and
S., Heizer-Vlek, H., Borja, A., Elliot, M., Kernan,
agriculture: status and needs. Commission on
M. & Johnson, R.K. 2013. A comparative review
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and
Background Study Paper No. 38. Rome, FAO.
coastal waters. Hydrobiologia, 704(1): 453–474.
(available at http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/
Verones, F., Bartl, K., Pfisterl, S., Jiménez Vílchez, R.
& Hellweg, S. 2012. Modeling the local biodiversity
meeting/014/k0150e.pdf).
Wagg, C., Bender, S.F., Widmer, F. & van der Heijden,
impacts of agricultural water use: case study of a
M.G.A. 2014. Soil biodiversity and soil community
wetland in the coastal arid area of Peru. Environmental
composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality.
Science & Technology, 46(9): 4966–4974.
PNAS, 111(14): 5266–5270.
Viana, B.F., da Encarnacao Coutinho, J.G., Garibaldi,
L.A., Braganca Gastagnino, G.L., Peres
Wagner, B., de Leeuw, J., Liyama, M. & Jamnadass,
R. 2013. Towards greater resilience in the drylands:
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
525
trees are the key. Policy Brief No. 18. Nairobi, World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
Waliyar, F., Collette, L. & Kenmore, P.E. 2002. Beyond
the gene horizon: sustaining agricultural productivity
and enhancing livelihoods through optimization of
crop and crop-associated biodiversity with emphasis
biodiversity importance. December 2015 edition.
2017 extract. Cambridge, UK, UNEP-WCMC.
Webb, E.L. & Kabir, M.E. 2009. Home gardening for
tropical biodiversity conservation. Conservation
Biology, 23(6): 1641–1644.
Welcomme, R.L. 1999. A review of a model for
on semi-arid tropical agroecosystems. Patencheru,
qualitative evaluation of exploitation levels in multi-
India, International Crops Research Institute for the
species fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology,
Semi-Arid Tropics.
Wallberg, A., Han, F., Wellhagen, G., Dahle, B.,
6: 1–19.
Wenny, D.G., DeVault, T.L., Johnson, M.D., Kelly, D.
Kawata, M., Haddad, N., Simoes, Z.L.P. et al.
& Sekercioglu, C.H. 2011. The need to quantify
2014. A worldwide survey of genome sequence
ecosystem services provided by birds. The Auk,
variation provides insight into the evolutionary
history of the honeybee Apis mellifera. Nature
Genetics, 46: 1081–1088.
Walters, B.B., Sabogal, C., Snook, L.K. & De
Almeida, E. 2005. Constraints and opportunities
for better silvicultural practice in tropical forestry:
an interdisciplinary approach. Forest Ecology and
Management, 209(1–2): 3–18.
Wang, Q., Cheng, L., Liu, J., Li, Z., Xie, S., & De Silva,
S.S. 2015. Freshwater aquaculture in PR China: trends
and prospects. Reviews in Aquaculture, 7(4): 283-302.
Wang, J., Guleria, S., Koffas, M.A.G. & Yan, Y. 2016.
128(1): 1–14.
Westwood, J.H., Charudattan, R., Duke, S.O.,
Fennimore, S.A., Marrone, P., Slaughter,
D.C., Swanton, C. & Zollinger, R. 2018. Weed
management in 2050: perspectives on the future of
weed science. Weed Science, 66(3): 275–285.
Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Dore, T., Francis, C., Vallod,
D. & David, C. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a
movement and a practice: a review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 29: 503–515.
Wezel, A., Soboska, G., McClelland, S., Delespesse,
F. & Boisseau, A. 2015. The blurred boundaries
Microbial production of value-added nutraceuticals.
of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological
Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 37: 97–104.
intensification: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Warner, K.D. 2005. Extending agroecology: grower
participation in partnerships is key social learning.
Development, 35: 1283–1295.
White, P. 2017. Aquaculture pollution: an overview
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
of issues with a focus on China, Vietnam, and
21: 84–94.
the Philippines. World Bank Regional Agricultural
Warren-Thomas, E., Dolman, P.M. & Edwards,
D.P. 2015. Increasing demand for natural rubber
necessitates a robust sustainability initiative
to mitigate impacts on tropical biodiversity.
Conservation Letters, 8(4): 230–241.
Watson, J., Dudley, N., Segan, D. & Hockings, M.
Pollution Study. Washington, DC, World Bank Group.
White, R., Murray, S. & Rohweder, M. 2000. Pilot
analysis of global ecosystems: grassland ecosystems.
Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.
White, S.L., Miller, W.L., Dowell, S.A., Bartron,
M.L. & Wagner, T. 2018. Limited hatchery
2014. The performance and potential of protected
introgressions into wild brook trout (Salvelinus
areas. Nature, 515: 67–73.
fontinalis) populations despite reocurring stocking.
Waycott, M., Duarte, C., Carruthers, T.J.B., Orth, R.J.,
Dennison, W.C., Olyarnik, S., Calladine, A. et
al. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the
Evolutionary Applications, 11(9): 1567–1581.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1994.
Environmental health criteria 159: glyphosate.
globe threatens coastal ecosystems. PNAS, 106(30):
International Programme of Chemical Safety (IPCS).
12377–12381.
Geneva, Switzerland.
Weatherdon, L.V., Fletcher, R., Jones, M.C., Kaschner,
WHO. 2016. Frequently asked questions. Third WHO
K., Sullivan, E., Tittensor, D.P., Mcowen, C. et
Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database. Updated
al. 2017. Manual of marine and coastal datasets of
May 2016. Geneva, Switzerland.
526
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
WHO. 2018. Obesity and overweight. World Health
Organization Fact Sheets. (available at http://www.
who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-
Williams, A.G. & Coleman, G.S. 1992. The rumen
protozoa. Berlin, Springer Verlag.
Williams, N.M., Crone, E.E., Roulston, T.H., Minckley,
R.L., Packer, L. & Potts, S.G. 2010. Ecological and
overweight).
WHO & CBD. 2015. Connecting global priorities:
biodiversity and human health. A state of knowledge
review. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health
Organization, and Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of
life-history traits predict bee species responses to
environmental disturbances. Biological Conservation,
143(10): 2280–2291.
Willis, B.L., Babcock, R.C., Harrison, P.L. & Wallace,
C.C. 1997. Experimental hybridisation and breeding
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Wickneswari, R., Rajora, O.P., Finkeldey, R.,
incompatibilities within the mating systems of mass
Aravanopoulos, F., Bouvet, J.M., Vaillancourt, R.E.,
Kanashiro, M., Fady, B., Tomita, M. & Vinson, C.
spawning reef corals. Coral Reefs, 16(Suppl.): 553–565.
Willis, B.L., van Oppen, M.J.H., Miller, D.J., Vollmer,
2014. Genetic effects of forest management practices:
S.V. & Ayre, D.J. 2006. The role of hybridization
global synthesis and perspectives. Forest Ecology and
in the evolution of reef corals. Annual Review of
Management, 333: 52–65.
Ecology, Evolution & Systematics, 37: 489–517.
Wijkström, U.N. 2012. Is feeding fish with fish a viable
practice? In R.P. Subasinghe, J.R. Arthur, D.M.
Bartley, S.S. De Silva, M. Halwart, N. Hishamunda,
Willmer, P. 2011. Pollination and floral ecology.
Princeton, USA, Princeton University Press.
Winfree, R., Williams, N.M., Gaines, H., Ascher, J.S. &
C.V. Mohan & P. Sorgeloos, eds. Farming the waters
Kremen, C. 2008. Wild bee pollinators provide the
for people and food, pp. 33–55. Proceedings of the
majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients
Global Conference on Aquaculture 2010. Phuket,
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of
Thailand, 2225 September 2010. Rome, FAO, and
Bangkok, Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-
Applied Ecology, 45(3): 793–802.
Winfree, R., Reilly, J.R., Bartomeus, I., Cariveau, D.P.,
Pacific. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/
Williams, N.M. & Gibbs, J. 2018. Species turnover
i2734e/i2734e.pdf).
promotes the importance of bee diversity for crop
Wilkaniec, Z. & Radajewska, B. 1997. Solitary bee
Osmia rufa L. (Apoidea, Megachilidae) as pollinator
of strawberry cultivated in an unheated plastic
tunnel. Acta Horticulturae, 439: 489–493.
pollination at regional scales. Science, 359(6377):
791–793.
Winston, M.L. 1987. The biology of the honey bee.
Cambridge, USA, Harvard University Press.
Wilkie, M.L., Holmgren, P. & Castañeda, F., eds.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization).
2003. Sustainable forest management and the
2017. Geographical Indications: An introduction.
ecosystem approach: two concepts, one goal. Forest
Geneva, Switzerland.
Management Working Papers, Working Paper FM
Wittenberg, R. & Cock, M.J.W. 2001. How to address
25. Forest Resources Development Service, Forest
one of the greatest threats to biodiversity: a toolkit
Resources Division. Rome, FAO. (available at http://
of best prevention and management practices.
www.fao.org/forestry/6417-0905522127db12a324c
Wallingford, UK, CABI.
Wolmarans, K. & Swart, W.J. 2014. Influence of
6991d0a53571fa.pdf).
Wilkinson, C. 2008. Status of coral reefs of the world:
glyphosate, other herbicides and genetically
2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, and
modified herbicide-resistant crops on soil microbiota:
Townsville, Australia, Reef and Rainforest Research
a review. South African Journal of Plant and Soil,
Centre.
31(4): 177–186.
Willer, H. & Lernoud, J. 2018. The world of organic
agriculture, statistics & emerging trends 2018.
Frick, Switzerland, Research Institute of Organic
Agriculture (FiBL), and Bonn, Germany, IFOAMOrganics International.
Woodland Trust. 2012. Woodwise: conservation
grazing in woodland management. Grantham, UK,
The Woodland Trust.
Woodward, G., Gessner, M.O., Giller, P.S., Gulis, V.,
Hladyz, S., Lecerf, A., Malmqvist, B. et al. 2012.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
527
Continental-scale effects of nutrient pollution on
Wright, J.S., Fu, R., Worden, J.R., Chakraborty, S.,
stream ecosystem functioning. Science, 336(6087):
Clinton, N.E., Risi, C., Sun, Y. & Yin, L. 2017.
1438–1440.
Rainforest-initiated wet season onset over the
Worku, B.B., Woldegiorgis, A.Z. & Gemeda, H.F. 2016.
Indigenous processing methods of cheka: a traditional
fermented beverage in Southwestern Ethiopia.
Journal of Food Processing & Technology, 7: 540.
World Air Quality. 2018. World-wide air quality
monitoring data coverage. [Cited 29 October 2018].
http://aqicn.org/sources/
World Bank. 2008. World Development Report 2008:
southern Amazon. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 114(32): 8481–8486.
Wrona, F.J., Prowse, T.D., Reist, J.D., Hobbie, J.E.,
Lévesque, L.M. & Vincent, W.F. 2006. Climate
change effects on aquatic biota, ecosystem structure
and function. Ambio, 35(7): 359–369.
Wu, X.M., Long, Y.H., Li, Y.R., Liu, R.X. & Li, M.
2014. Effects of napropamide on microbiological
Agriculture for development. Washington, DC.
characteristics of tobacco rhizosphere soil and
(available at https://siteresources.worldbank.org/
its dissipation. Journal of Soil Science and Plant
INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf).
World Bank. 2010. Valuing protected areas.
Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2012a. Landscapes : Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) (English). Rio+20: a framework for
action for sustainable development. Washington,
Nutrition, 14(1): 151–159.
Wuana, R.A. & Okieimen, F.E. 2011. Heavy metals in
contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry,
risks and best available strategies for remediation.
ISRN Ecology, 2011: 1–20.
WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment
DC. (available at http://documents.worldbank.org/
Programme). 2017. The United Nations World
curated/en/468091468153281587/Landscapes-
Water Development Report 2017. Wastewater: the
Frequently-Asked-Questions-FAQ).
World Bank. 2012b. Hidden harvest : The global
contribution of capture fisheries. World Bank, FAO,
World Fish Center. 92 pp.
untapped resource. Paris, UNESCO.
WWAP & UN-Water. 2018. The United Nations World
Water Development Report 2018: nature-based
solutions for water. Paris, UNESCO.
World Bank. 2018. Personal remittances, received (% of
WWF. 2004. Rivers at risk – Dams and the future of
GDP). [Cited 16 May 2018]. https://data.worldbank.
freshwater ecosystems. Surrey, UK, WWF Dams
org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.DT.GD.ZS
World Bank, FAO & IFAD. 2009. Gender in agriculture
sourcebook. Washington, DC.
WoRMS. 2018. World Register of Marine Species. [Cited
8 May 2018]. http://www.marinespecies.org at VLIZ
Wortley, L., Hero, J.-M. & Howes, M. 2013. Evaluating
Initiative.
WWF. 2015. Illegal fishing. Which fish species are at
highest risk from illegal and unreported fishing?
Washington, DC.
WWF International & Institute for Environmental
Studies. 2004. Living waters. Conserving the source
ecological restoration success: a review of the
of life. The economic values of the world’s wetlands.
literature. Restoration Ecology, 21(5): 537–543.
Gland, Switzerland, WWF International, and
Wraight, S. & Ramos, M. 2002. Application parameters
affecting field efficacy of Beauveria bassiana
Amsterdam, Institute for Environmental Studies.
Yang, R. & Keding, G.B. 2009. Nutritional contributions
foliar treatments against Colorado potato beetle
of important African indigenous vegetables. In C.M.
Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Biological Control, 23(2):
Shackleton, M.W. Pasquini & A.W. Drescher, eds.
164–178.
African indigenous vegetables in African agriculture,
WRI (World Resources Institute). 2014. Atlas of
forest and landscape restoration opportunities.
Washington, DC.
WRI, UNDP, UN Environment & World Bank. 2000.
World Resources 2000-2001, People and Ecosystems:
The Fraying Web of Life. Washington, DC.
528
pp. 105–135. London, Earthscan.
Yang, J., McBride, J., Zhou, J. & Sun, Z. 2005. The urban
forest in Beijing and its role in air pollution reduction.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3: 65–78.
Yaninek, S. & Hanna, R. 2003. Cassave green mite in
Africa – a unique example of successful classical
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
biological control of a mite pest on a continental
Zhang, Y., Ma, Y., Wan, P., Mu, L. & Li, G. 2013. Bacillus
scale. Biological control in IPM systems in Africa, pp.
thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins affect
61–75. Wallingford, UK, CABI.
lifespan and reproductive performance of Helicoverpa
Yates, K.K., Rogers, C.S., Herlan, J.J., Brooks, J.R.,
Smiley, N.A. & Larson, R.A. 2014. Diverse coral
communities in mangrove habitats suggest a novel
armigera and Spodoptera exigua adults. Journal of
Economical Entomology, 106(2): 614–662.
Zhang, Y., Cao, C., Guo, L., Wu, Q. & Cui, Z. 2015. Soil
refuge from climate change. Biogeosciences, 11:
properties, bacterial community composition, and
4321–4337.
metabolic diversity responses to soil salinization of a
Yengoh, G.T. & Svensson, M.G.E. 2008. Low external
input strategies for sustainable small-scale farming
in Kenya: a systems dynamic approach. In B.C.
semiarid grassland in northeast China. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 70(2): 110–120.
Ziegler, M., Seneca, F.O., Yum, L.K., Palumbi, S.R. &
Dangerfield, ed. Proceedings of the 26th International
Voolstra, C.R. 2017. Bacterial community dynamics
Conference. July 20 – July 24, 2008 Athens, Greece.
are linked to patterns of coral heat tolerance. Nature
Albany, USA, System Dynamics Society.
Communications, 8: 14213.
Yu, Y., Stomph, T.J., Makowski, D. & van der Werf,
Zimmermann, H.G., Moran, V.C. & Hoffmann, J.F.
W. 2015. Temporal niche differentiation increases
2000. The renowned cactus moth, Cactoblastis
the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: a
cactorum: its natural history and threat to native
meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 184: 133–144.
Opuntia floras in Mexico and the United States of
Zander, S. V, Jacobs, K. & Hawkins, H.-J. 2016. The
impact of crop rotation on soil microbial diversity: a
meta-analysis. Pedobiologia, 59(4): 215–223.
Zeder, M. 2012. Pathways to animal domestication.
America. Diversity and Distributions, 6: 259–269.
Zomer, R.J., Trabucco, A., Coe, R., Place, F., van
Noorwijk, M. & Xu, J. 2014. Trees on farms: an
update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent
In P. Gepts, T.R. Famula, R.L. Bettinger, S.B. Brush,
and socio-ecological characteristics. ICRAF Working
A.B. Damania, P.E. McGuire & C.O. Qualset, eds.
Paper No. 179. Nairobi, ICRAF.
Biodiversity in agriculture: domestication, evolution,
Zongo, S. 2011. Analyse de la contribution de
and sustainability, pp. 227–259. Cambridge, UK,
l’opération «fosses fumières» à l’amélioration
Cambridge University Press.
des rendements des cultures cerealieres dans les
Zehnder, G., Gurr, G., Kühne, S., Wade, M., Wratten,
Regions du Nord, du Centre-Ouest et du Sud-Ouest
S. & Wyss, E. 2007. Arthropod pest management in
du Burkina Faso. Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso,
organic crops. Annual Review of Entomology, 52(1):
Département de Vulgarisation Agricole, Université
57–80.
technique de Bobo-Dioulasso.
Zeilinger, S., Gruber, S., Bansal, R. & Mukherjee,
ZSL (Zoological Society of London). 2017.
P.K. 2016. Secondary metabolism in Trichoderma –
International Zoo Yearbook. Volume 51. D. Field,
Chemistry meets genomics. Fungal Biology Reviews,
C. Lees, K. Leus, R. Miller, P. Pullen & A. Rubel, eds.
30(2): 74–90.
London.
THE S TAT E O F THE WORL D'S BI O DI V ER SI T Y FOR FOO D A N D AGRICU LT URE
529
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture presents
the first global assessment of biodiversity for food and agriculture worldwide.
Biodiversity for food and agriculture is the diversity of plants, animals and
micro-organisms at genetic, species and ecosystem levels, present in and
around crop, livestock, forest and aquatic production systems. It is essential
to the structure, functions and processes of these systems, to livelihoods and
food security, and to the supply of a wide range of ecosystem services. It has
been managed or influenced by farmers, livestock keepers, forest dwellers,
fish farmers and fisherfolk for hundreds of generations.
Prepared through a participatory, country-driven process, the report draws
on information from 91 country reports to provide a description of the roles
and importance of biodiversity for food and agriculture, the drivers of
change affecting it and its current status and trends. It describes the state of
efforts to promote the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for
food and agriculture, including through the development of supporting
policies, legal frameworks, institutions and capacities. It concludes with a
discussion of needs and challenges in the future management of biodiversity
for food and agriculture.
The report complements other global assessments prepared under the
auspices of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,
which have focused on the state of genetic resources within particular sectors
of food and agriculture.
ISBN 978-92-5-131270-4
9
7 8 9 2 5 1
ISSN 2412-5474
3 1 2 7 0 4
CA3129EN/1/02.19