Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T07:04:54.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of on-farm conservation of dryland agrobiodiversity and its impact on rural livelihoods in the Fertile Crescent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2013

Ahmed Mazid ,
Kamil Shideed  and
Ahmed Amri
Ahmed Mazid*
Affiliation:
The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic.
Kamil Shideed
Affiliation:
The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic.
Ahmed Amri
Affiliation:
The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic.
*
*Corresponding author: a.mazid@cgiar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Fertile Crescent encompasses a mega-center of diversity of crops and livestock of global importance. The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) coordinated a 5-year regional project funded by the Global Environment Facility to promote in situ conservation of dryland agrobiodiversity in Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Syria. The project focused on conserving landraces and wild relatives of Allium, Vicia, Trifolium, Medicago and Lathyrus spp. and barley, wheat, lentil and dryland fruit trees (olive, prune, pear, pistachio, almond, cherry and apricot). ICARDA and national programs assessed the status and importance of local agrobiodiversity by surveying 570 farm households in the project target areas including the characterization of their livelihood strategies, agrobiodiversity use and household income sources. A wealth index was created considering human, natural, financial, physical and social assets and was used to classify households into four wealth quartiles. The results indicated that agriculture and agrobiodiversity continue to be important for supporting the livelihoods of poor communities in dry and mountainous regions. The poorest households obtained their income from diverse sources including crop production, off-farm labor and government employment. However, households in the highest wealth grouping are mainly dependent on income from selling livestock products and live animals. They also practiced crop production, worked off-farm and took advantage of government employment. Off-farm income was important for livelihoods in all areas, representing 43–68% of household incomes. For all groups, fruit trees were generally more important than field crops for income generation, mainly in mountainous areas. The finding of this study showed that all farmers’ groups contribute greatly to on-farm conservation of landraces, with a bigger role for poor farmers in conserving the landraces of fruit trees. Diversification of income and farming systems to include livestock, field crops and fruit trees along with off-farm activities are contributing to the conservation of agrobiodiversity in these marginal environments. Several opportunities for income increase and diversification through add-value activities and alternative sources of income are demonstrated to the custodians of dryland agrobiodiversity. Their benefits can contribute to the sustainability of agrobiodiversity conservation, provided that marketing of local products can be enhanced.

Keywords

dryland agrobiodiversitylandracesin situ conservationlivelihood analysisFertile Crescent
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 366 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and Annexes. CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
2 Vavilov, N.I. 1926. Studies on the origin of cultivated plants. Bulletin of Applied Botany, Genetics and Plant Breeding 16:1–248.Google Scholar
3 Hawkes, J.G. 1991. International workshop on dynamic in situ conservation of wild relatives of major cultivated plants: Summary of final discussion and recommendations. Israel Journal of Botany 40:529–536.Google Scholar
4 Harlan, J.R. 1992. Crops and Man. American Society of Agronomy Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V., and Hawkes, J.G. 1997. Complementary conservation strategies. In Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V., and Hawkes, J.G. (eds). Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach. Chapman & Hall, London. p. 20–55.Google Scholar
6 Amri, A., Shideed, K., Mazid, A., and Valkoun, J. 2006. Agrobiodiversity conservation and the livelihoods of local communities in the dry areas of West Asia. In Saxena, M.C. (ed.). The Eighth International Conference on Dryland Development. Abstracts of Papers Presented; 25–28 February 2006, Beijing, China. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
7 United Nations. 2000. Agenda 21. Available at Web site http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/ Google Scholar
8 United Nations. 2001. Millennium Development Goals. Available at Web site http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.shtml (accessed June 26, 2013).Google Scholar
9 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2001. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
10 Jarvis, D. and Hodgkin, T. 2000. Farmer decision making and genetic diversity: Linking multidisciplinary research to implementation on-farm. In Brush, S.B. (ed.). Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation of Crop Diversity. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. p. 261–278.Google Scholar
11 Jarvis, D. 1999. Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm. Botanical Lithuania Suppl. 2:79–90.Google Scholar
12 Eyzaguirre, P. and Iwanaga, M. 1996. Farmer's contribution to maintaining genetic diversity in crops, and its role within the total genetic resources system. In Eyzaguirre, P., and Iwanaga, M. (eds). Proceedings of a Workshop on Participatory Plant Breeding. IPGRI, Rome. p. 9–18.Google Scholar
13 Mazid, A., Shideed, K., and Amri, A. 2008. Status of and Threats to On-Farm Agrobiodiversity and its Impact on Rural Livelihoods in Dry Areas of West Asia. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
14 Mainka, S.A. and Trivedi, M. (eds). 2002. Links between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods and Food Security: The sustainable use of wild species for meat. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. vi+135pp.Google Scholar
15 Carletto, G., Covarrubias, K., Davis, B., Krausova, M., Stamoulis, K.G., Winters, P.C., and Zezza, A. 2007. Rural income generating activities in developing countries: Re-assessing the evidence. Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics 31 (4): 146–193. Available at Web site ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai195e/ai195e00.pdf (accessed June 26, 2013).Google Scholar
16 Collinson, M.P. 1982. Farming Systems Research in Eastern Africa: The Experience of CIMMYT and some National Agricultural Research Services, 1976–81. MSU International Development Paper no. 3, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
17 Bond, I., Grieg-Gran, M., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hazlewood, P., Wunder, S., and Angelsen, A. 2009. Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: A review and lessons for REDD. Natural Resource Issues No. 16. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK, with Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, and World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA. Available at Web site http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/13555IIED.pdf (accessed June 26, 2013).Google Scholar
18 Cavendish, W. 1999. Incomes and Poverty in Rural Zimbabwe During Adjustment: The Case of Shindi Ward, Chivi Communal Area, 1993/94 to 1996/97. Rep/99-1. Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
19 Campbel, B.M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutambo, M., and Zindi, C. 2002. Household Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Regions: Options and Constraints. CIFOR, Jakarta.Google Scholar
20 Ellis, F. 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Studies 35:1–38.Google Scholar
21 Reardon, T., Delgado, C., and Matlon, P. 1992. Determinants and effects of income diversification amongst farm households in Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Studies 28:264–296.Google Scholar
22 Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27:2021–2044.Google Scholar
23 de Haan, L.J. 2000. Globalization, localization and sustainable livelihood. Sociologia Ruralis 40:339–365.Google Scholar
24 Kusterer, K. 1989. Small Farmer Attitudes and Aspirations. USAID Program Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 26. USAID, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
25 Valdivia, C. 2001. Gender, livestock assets, resource management, and food security: Lessons from the SR-CRSP. Agriculture and Human Values 18:27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Dunn, E., Kalaitzandonakes, N., and Valdivia, C. 1996. Risk and the Impacts of Micro-enterprise Services. Assessing the Impacts of Microenterprise Services (AIMS). MSI, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
27 Charles-Coll, J.A. 2011. Understanding income inequality: Concept, causes and measurement. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences 1(3):17–28.Google Scholar