The Project
The GEF has awarded $9 million to a consortium of seven countries
(Brazil, Mexico, Cote d’Ivoire, Uganda, Kenya, India and Indonesia) for a project (of
total cost with co-financing of $22 million) on the above topic. The project will be
administered by the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT (TSBF)` located
in Nairobi, Kenya.
The project addresses the means by which below-ground biodiversity
(BGBD) may be adequately managed and conserved in tropical agricultural landscapes. The
processes of land conversion and agricultural intensification are a significant cause of
biodiversity loss, including that of BGBD, with consequent negative effects both on the
environment and the sustainability of agricultural production.
The
objective of the project is “to enhance awareness, knowledge and understanding of
below-ground biological diversity important to sustainable agricultural production in
tropical landscapes by the demonstration of methods for conservation and sustainable
management”. The project has a particular focus on tropical forests and the
complex community of organisms which regulates soil fertility, greenhouse gas emissions
and soil carbon sequestration, and which is routinely ignored in biodiversity conservation
and assessment projects. The project will explore the hypothesis that, by appropriate
management of above- and below-ground biota, optimal conservation of biodiversity for
national and global benefits can be achieved in mosaics of land-uses at differing
intensities of management and furthermore result in simultaneous gains in sustainable
agricultural production.
In order to achieve this goal the project will produce five primary outcomes:
Internationally accepted standard methods for characterization and
evaluation of BGBD, including a set of indicators for BGBD loss.
(a) Inventory and evaluation of BGBD in benchmark sites representing a range of globally
significant ecosystems and land-uses.
(b) A global information exchange network for BGBD.
Sustainable and replicable management practices for BGBD
conservation identified and implemented in pilot demonstration sites in representative
tropical forest landscapes in seven countries.
Recommendations of alternative land use practices, and an advisory
support system, for policies that will enhance the conservation of BGBD.
Improved capacity of all relevant institutions and stakeholders to
implement conservation and management of BGBD in a sustainable and efficient manner.
Background and Rationale
The soil organism community, including bacteria, fungi, protozoa and
invertebrate animals, is extremely diverse with, for example, over 1000 species of
invertebrates identified in 1m2 of soil in temperate forest. The diversity of the
microbial component may be even greater than that of the invertebrates yet is only just
beginning to be realised by phylogenetic and ecological studies using molecular methods
Soil organisms contribute a wide range of essential services to the
sustainable function of all ecosystems. They are the driving agents of nutrient cycling;
they regulate the dynamics of soil carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emission; they
modify soil physical structure and water regimes; they enhance the amount and efficiency
of nutrient acquisition by the vegetation through mycorrhiza and nitrogen fixing bacteria;
and they influence plant health through the interaction of pathogens and pests with their
natural predators and parasites. These services are not only essential to the functioning
of natural ecosystems but constitute an important resource for the sustainable management
of agricultural ecosystems.
Sustainable and profitable management of agricultural biodiversity,
including BGBD, is dependent on information about the current status, the value perceived
by the various sectors of society, and the factors which drive change in one direction or
other. Despite its importance to ecosystem function the soil community has been almost
totally ignored in considerations of biodiversity conservation and management even at the
inventory level. This failure is partially attributable to the absence of agreement on
standardised methods for the study of BGBD, and a lack of both knowledge and awareness of
this key component of global biodiversity.
Amidst a policy and economic environment that largely does not
acknowledge the importance of managing and conserving agrobiodiversity; farmers, rural
communities, scientists, NGOs and the general public have become increasingly aware of the
high environmental cost of many intensive high-input agricultural practices.
Furthermore, it is now accepted that loss in biodiversity (including BGBD) is one of the
major factors leading to degradation of ecosystem services and loss of ecosystem
resilience. In many countries, however, conflicts have arisen between policies to
support biodiversity conservation and ecosystem protection and those of agricultural
development.
Documentation of BGBD, including the biological populations conserved
and managed across the spectrum of agricultural intensification, is an essential component
of the information required for assessment of environment-agriculture interactions, as is
the evaluation of the impact of agricultural management on the resource base, particularly
that of the soil. Development of appropriate policy requires, in particular,
reconciling the needs for meeting food-sufficiency by high levels of agricultural
productivity with those for conserving biodiversity and environmental protection. A
major barrier here has been the lack of data on changes in diversity within agricultural
landscapes and the assumption that there is necessarily a trade-off between biodiversity
and agricultural productivity. There is now however growing evidence that farm
landscapes can conserve significant levels of biodiversity.
Agricultural intensification can take a variety of paths. The
conventional ‘green revolution’ path of arable cultivation (and its equivalents
in livestock and vegetable production), utilizing high yielding varieties and supported by
high levels of input is only one of a number of trajectories. Among the alternatives
are those which deliberately retain higher levels of biodiversity. Examples include
agroforestry systems, inter-cropping, rotational farming, green cover-cropping and
integrated arable-livestock systems. All of these approaches are more or less
closely derived from traditional practices of agriculture in the tropical regions.
The values perceived in this dependence on diversity as opposed to the homogeneity of
modernized agriculture are multiple and extend beyond the market value. They
include, in addition to product profitability, the desire for multiple products, the
spreading of risk, the social and cultural value of certain products and perceptions of
resource conservation and enhanced pest control.
The total biological diversity of such intermediate systems can be
very high.The deliberate maintenance of even a limited diversity of crops and other plants
(particularly if trees are included), results in substantial multiplication of the
associated diversity - for example of the above-ground insect population and of the
below-ground invertebrates and micro-organisms. Landscapes which include such
systems are more likely to conserve biodiversity in comparison with those restricted to
high-input systems. There is evidence that mosaics of different systems, including
those at different levels of intensification, maintain a higher diversity than monotypic
landscapes of any kind including natural ecosystems on their own. A major issue to
be examined in this project is that of whether there are additional benefits in
integrating, as compared with segregating, different types of land-use.
The current inability to evaluate and manage BGBD is also hampered by
a lack of capacity and a shortage of expertise in many countries to perform this task. The
wide spectrum of stakeholders affected includes the scientific community with respect to
training in the taxonomy, ecology, economic valuation and management of agrobiodiversity
(particularly BGBD); and members of both the agricultural and environmental sectors from
practitioner to national decision-maker with respect to awareness and access to knowledge.
Seven countries with significant expertise in soil have joined
together to participate in this project. This present capacity will be built upon, or
provided when lacking by “South-South” exchanges and training.
|
