Conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives

Conservation of crop wild relatives (CWRs) is a complex interdisciplinary process that is being addressed by various national and international initiatives, including two Global Environment Facility projects ('In situ Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives through Enhanced Information Management and Field Application' and 'Design, Testing and Evaluation of Best Practices for in situ Conservation of Economically Important Wild Species'), the European Community-funded project 'European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum (PGR Forum)' and the European 'In situ and On Farm Network'. The key issues that have arisen are: (1) the definition of what constitutes a CWR, (2) the need for national and regional information systems and a global system, (3) development and application of priority-determining mechanisms, (4) the incorporation of the conservation of CWRs into existing national, regional and international PGR programmes, (5) assessment of the effectiveness of conservation actions, (6) awareness of the importance of CWRs in agricultural development at local, national and international levels both for the scientific and lay communities and (7) policy development and legal framework. The above issues are illustrated by work on the conservation of a group of legumes known as grasspea chicklings, vetchlings, and horticultural ornamental peas (Lathyrus spp.) in their European and Mediterranean centre of diversity. (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Conservation and sustainable use of wild species as sources of new ornamentals

While only about 1-200 species are used intensively in commercial floriculture (e.g. carnations, chrysanthemums, gerbera, narcissus, orchids, tulips, lilies, roses, pansies and violas, saintpaulias, etc.) and 4-500 as house plants, several thousand species of herbs, shrubs and trees are traded commercially by nurseries and garden centres as ornamentals or amenity species. Most of these have been introduced from the wild with little selection or breeding. In Europe alone, 12 000 species are found in cultivation in general garden collections (i.e. excluding specialist collections and botanic gardens). In addition, specialist collections (often very large) of many other species and/or cultivars of groups such as orchids, bromeliads, cacti and succulents, primulas, rhododendrons, conifers and cycads are maintained in several centres such as botanic gardens and specialist nurseries, as are 'national collections' of cultivated species and cultivars in some countries. Specialist growers, both professional and amateur, also maintain collections of plants for cultivation, including, increasingly, native plants. The trade in ornamental and amenity horticulture cannot be fully estimated but runs into many billions of dollars annually and there is considerable potential for further development and the introduction of many new species into the trade. Despite this, most of the collections are ad hoc and no co-ordinated efforts have been made to ensure that adequate germplasm samples of these species are maintained for conservation purposes and few of them are represented at all adequately in seed banks. Few countries have paid much attention to germplasm needs of ornamentals and the Ornamental Plant Germplasm Center in conjunction with the USDA National Plant Germplasm System at The Ohio State University is an exception. Generally there is a serious gap in national and international germplasm strategies, which have tended to focus primarily on food plants and some forage and industrial crops. Adequate arrangements need to be put in place to ensure the long- and medium-term conservation of representative samples of the genetic diversity of ornamental species. The problems of achieving this will be discussed. In addition, a policy for the conservation of old cultivars or 'heritage' varieties of ornamentals needs to be formulated. The considerable potential for introduction of new ornamental species needs to be assessed. Consideration needs to be given to setting up a co-ordinating structure with overall responsibility for the conservation of germplasm of ornamental and amenity plants.

Sustainable food? Teikei, co-operatives and food citizenship in Japan and the UK

This paper explores in particular how Teikei groups, as forms of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), operate in Japan, focussing on one particular group. The paper links the Teikei approach to debates around social capital and consumer-citizenship, arguing that pre-existing consumer/citizen institutions may usefully be engaged in developing food citizenship and CSA operations. The discussion is linked to CSA and various other alternative food networks (AFNs) that have grown up in various forms in Japan, the US, the UK and elsewhere in Europe over the past thirty years or so. CSA in similar fashion to Teikei involves bringing producers and consumers closer together in terms of reconnecting the agricultural producer and consumer to aid food traceability and quality (including organic). CSA also exhibits elements of new assemblies of agricultural governance based on enhanced consumer-citizenship where consumers, to varying degrees, have a say in what and how produce is grown and how the land is managed.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems do often not fully (i) take into account the multifunctionality of agriculture, (ii) include multidimensionality, (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade-offs. This chapter reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator-based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis and (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies: first, top-down farm assessments, which focus on field or farm assessment; second, top-down regional assessments, which assess the on-farm and the regional effects; and third, bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches, which focus on a regional scale. Our analysis shows that the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

Climate change and sustainable food production

One of the greatest challenges we face in the twenty-first century is to sustainably feed nine to ten billion people by 2050 while at the same time reducing environmental impact (e.g. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss, land use change and loss of ecosystem services). To this end, food security must be delivered. According to the United Nations definition, ‘food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient,safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’. At the same time as delivering food security, we must also reduce the environmental impact of food production. Future climate change will make an impact upon food production. On the other hand, agriculture contributes up to about 30% of the anthropogenic GHG emissions that drive climate change. The aim of this review is to outline some of the likely impacts of climate change on agriculture, the mitigation measures available within agriculture to reduce GHG emissions and outlines the very significant challenge of feeding nine to ten billion people sustainably under a future climate, with reduced emissions of GHG. Each challenge is in itself enormous, requiring solutions that co-deliver on all aspects. We conclude that the status quo is not an option, and tinkering with the current production systems is unlikely to deliver the food and ecosystems services we need in the future; radical changes in production and consumption are likely to be required over the coming decades.

Sustainable agricultural intensification or Jevons paradox? The role of public governance in tropical South America

The process of global deforestation calls for urgent attention, particularly in South America where deforestation rates have failed to decline over the past 20 years. The main direct cause of deforestation is land conversion to agriculture. We combine data from the FAO and the World Bank for six tropical Southern American countries over the period 1970–2006, estimate a panel data model accounting for various determinants of agricultural land expansion and derive elasticities to quantify the effect of the different independent variables. We investigate whether agricultural intensification, in conjunction with governance factors, has been promoting agricultural expansion, leading to a ‘‘Jevons paradox’’. The paradox occurs if an increase in the productivity of one factor (here agricultural land) leads to its increased, rather than decreased, utilization. We find that for high values of our governance indicators a Jevons paradox exists even for moderate levels of agricultural productivity, leading to an overall expansion of agricultural area. Agricultural expansion is also positively related to the level of service on external debt and population growth, while its association with agricultural exports is only moderate. Finally, we find no evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve, as agricultural area is ultimately positively correlated to per-capita income levels.

Governance, agricultural intensification and land sparing in tropical South America

In this paper we address two topical questions: How do the quality of governance and agricultural intensification impact on spatial expansion of agriculture? Which aspects of governance are more likely to ensure that agricultural intensification allows sparing land for nature? Using data from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, the World Database on Protected Areas, and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, we estimate a panel data model for six South American countries and quantify the effects of major determinants of agricultural land expansion, including various dimensions of governance, over the period 1970–2006. The results indicate that the effect of agricultural intensification on agricultural expansion is conditional on the quality and type of governance. When considering conventional aspects of governance, agricultural intensification leads to an expansion of agricultural area when governance scores are high. When looking specifically at environmental aspects of governance, intensification leads to a spatial contraction of agriculture when governance scores are high, signaling a sustainable intensification process.

Evaluating the sustainable intensification of arable farms

Sustainable Intensification (SI) of agriculture has recently received widespread political attention, in both the UK and internationally. The concept recognises the need to simultaneously raise yields, increase input use efficiency and reduce the negative environmental impacts of farming systems to secure future food production and to sustainably use the limited resources for agriculture. The objective of this paper is to outline a policy-making tool to assess SI at a farm level. Based on the method introduced by Kuosmanen and Kortelainen (2005), we use an adapted Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to consider the substitution possibilities between economic value and environmental pressures generated by farming systems in an aggregated index of Eco-Efficiency. Farm level data, specifically General Cropping Farms (GCFs) from the East Anglian River Basin Catchment (EARBC), UK were used as the basis for this analysis. The assignment of weights to environmental pressures through linear programming techniques, when optimising the relative Eco-Efficiency score, allows the identification of appropriate production technologies and practices (integrating pest management, conservation farming, precision agriculture, etc.) for each farm and therefore indicates specific improvements that can be undertaken towards SI. Results are used to suggest strategies for the integration of farming practices and environmental policies in the framework of SI of agriculture. Paths for improving the index of Eco-Efficiency and therefore reducing environmental pressures are also outlined.