Agrobiodiversity in Agroforestry – Harmonizing Agriculture and Biodiversity

Agrobiodiversity in Agroforestry – Harmonizing Agriculture and Biodiversity[1]
Virgilio T. Villancio[2] and Roselyn Paelmo[3]

BACKGROUND
T
he Philippines has 30 million hectares and a home for “about 13,500 plants species (5% of the world flora), 1,090 vertebrate species (45% are endemic to the country) and more than 23,000 invertebrates species were recorded in the Philippine forest (UNEP and DER, 1997). However, various unsustainable activities are threatening the high biodiversity of Philippine forests and numbers of species are in threat lists. Among the threats to Philippine biodiversity identified are the over-exploitation of our forest resources and habitat destruction through commercial logging, land use conversion, and development aggression ( such as mining, energy and infrastructure projects, big dams, etc.). As of 2002, Only about 800,000 hectares were reported to be under the natural forest and about 5 million hectares under residual forests. About 9 million hectares of forest lands are currently settled by as much as about 25 million people. There are extensive migrations of farmers from the lowland to the uplands in search for livelihood and land speculation purposes. Further intrusion to the natural forest has to be averted. There are residual forest remnants of commercial logging operations but these also has to be protected from poachers to allow natural regeneration. There are limited efforts to reforest and establish forest plantations in public and private lands but are not extensive enough to replace the rapid deforestation that took place.

Among agricultural areas, there are about three (3) million hectares under rice-based farming systems and another three (3) million hectares in the corn-based farming systems. The recent estimate of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) reported about four (4) million hectares under coconut-based farming systems. Farmers used to maintain a large number of crops varieties and animal breeds on-farm. Crops and animals were produced on-farm for food, feed, fiber, fuel, shelter, fertilizer and medicine. In trying to maximize productivity and profitability, agriculture specialized on few crops and animals. The changing consumption pattern also affected the agricultural systems form diversified to more specialized system. In the Philippines for example, rice has been the dominant specie in lowland agriculture while corn, coconut and sugar cane were planted in the upland areas. For rice, the diversity of cultivars being grown also diminished with the advent of the green revolution with the high yielding varieties which have common parental source dominating the lowland agriculture landscape. The genetic homogeneity of rice cultivars grown resulted to vulnerability to pests, diseases, drought, flooding and other stresses. The traditional diversified agriculture which primarily caters to the needs of farm households gave way to market oriented monoculture farming. This in a way accelerated genetic erosion and loss of biodiversity.

The prevalent poverty and social problems in the upland and its relationship to increasing biodiversity losses are also of equal importance. The pressure placed upon our biodiversity resources and other components of our natural resources by the expanding populations and economic development results to its degradation thus limiting its capability to provide livelihood not only for the people in the upland but the lowland areas as well. It is recognized that the sustainability of agriculture in the lowlands are heavily dependent on the management of the uplands, water being a major productivity determinant. In the same manner, the gradual influx of migrants to the uplands also threatened the remaining forest (only about 800,000 hectares remaining as of 2003). Forest residuals and regeneration are also being logged even with the existing logging ban. The deterioration of the watersheds reduced the water storage and flow potentials thus even in areas that are previously fully irrigated experienced drought during the dry season. Major irrigation dams have reduced storage life due to siltation caused by soil erosion from unprotected uplands. The recent calamities caused by floods and landslides are examples of disasters that may occur due to limited concerns given to the management of the Philippine uplands particularly those in the sloping lands.

The situation is not hopeless. We can do something to avert the situation. Stakeholders can work together and restore the uplands in two fronts: reforestation in the public lands and critical watersheds, and agroforestation in the buffer zones and private lands. Beside its employment, productivity and income implication, Agroforestry has an important role to play in the restoration of the watershed and biodiversity function of the uplands. Agroforestry will enhance capacity of the uplands to provide the basic amenities such as food, fiber, fuel, fodder, medicines and water for household, agriculture, industry and power generation. Floods, landslides and other associated hazards will be reduced if not abated. While the biodiversity of the natural forests can not be attained, the diverse floral and faunal composition as more species are being domesticated in agroforestry provides a venue where agriculture and biodiversity are harmonized.

AGROFORESTRY AND AGROBIODIVERSITY

Agroforestry is defined as “the science, art and practice that deals with the production, management and utilization of woody perennials in combination with other agricultural crops, animals, aquatic and/or other resources either zonally, mixed simultaneously or sequentially for the twin purpose of conservation and socio-economic productivity” (UAP, 1992). Agroforestry combines woody perennial crops and short duration agricultural crops grown simultaneously or sequentially in the farm. It is also referred to as a system of growing trees on farm. Agrobiodiversity is one important services promoted in agroforestry.
Agrobiodiversity had been defined and described in various ways. Agrobiodiversity is also known as agricultural biodiversity. Swaminathan, (1996) defined agrobiodiversity as the genetic variability in plants, animals and micro-organisms of economic value. CIP-UPWARD (2003) defined agrobiodiversity as “a part of biodiversity linked to agricultural production in a broad sense, including food production (e.g. crops, aquatic species, and livestock), livelihood sustenance (e.g. raw materials, medicinal plants, animals for transport) and habitat conservation of agroecosystem.”

Vernooy (2003) viewed agrobiodiversity as a broad concept that includes a variety of biological diversity components -- from agricultural ecosystems, to crop varieties, to genes in plant and animal species. It is generally regarded as biodiversity in an agricultural context and described as the “variety and variability amongst living organisms (of animals, plants, and microorganisms) that are important to food and agriculture and associated with cultivating crops and rearing animals and the ecological complexes of which they form a part.” Agrobiodiversity supports and protects human lives, it provides continued inputs for evolution; it increases the productive capacity of ecosystems. Improvement in agrobiodiversity improves the resilience of the system and its capacity to deal with change. This provides more options for communities to manage their land and resources. The opportunities for the creation and re-creation of knowledge and experimentation -- the very processes that are essential for agrobiodiversity conservation, evolution, and improvement -- are enhanced.

Agrobiodiversity is the result of the anthromorphic interaction between “humans, natural ecosystems and the species that they contain” thus include in it not just the product of environment and natural process but the social, cultural, political and economic influences as well. Adaptation, modifications or transformations within the agroecosystems happens as a result of the matching of new technologies and other interventions in the natural and agricultural systems through a series of adjustments being made on the technical, bio-physical, socio-economic, cultural and other variables at various levels – plot, farm, household, community, landscape.

There are several authors that consider agrobiodiversity as not just a subset of biodiversity but rather an extension of it. While it may be lacking of a lot of characteristics of natural biodiversity, “it can fulfill range of societal values that native biodiversity does not" (Angermeier 1994). “Agrobiodiversity includes all those species and the crop varieties, animal breeds and races, and microorganism strains derived from them, that are used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture, both as human nutrition and as feed (including grazing) for domesticated and semi-domesticated animals, and the range of environments in which agriculture is practiced. It also includes habitats and species outside of farming systems that benefit agriculture and enhance ecosystem functions. “

The components of Agrobiodiversity can be considered at three main levels—those of ecological diversity, organismal diversity, and genetic diversity (Heywood 1995)- and covers a whole range of variables that are important in agriculture and forestry (Table 2). Agroecological diversity deals with the macro aspect of biodiversity from the species, plot, farm to landscape and ecosystems level. The analysis of the Philippine team to the adaptation of the lecture ASB Syllabus (Baguinon, 2004), which segregate the natural ecosystem (P) from agroecosystem (Q). The Philippine land area being constant (about 30,000 hectares) are divided into these broad category of land use. As the area under Q gradually increase then P will also decrease. Given the monocropping nature of Q, the loss of habitat would then results to gradual loss of natural biodiversity.

Agroforestry systems are practiced at various levels- plots, farm, and landscape. Agroforest gardens integrate leguminous trees and vegetables, fuel wood, fodder, and animals in the backyard and homestead. On farm, there are agroforestry systems that integrate at least five crops, three trees, and several animals. The Institute of Agroforestry documented about fifty cases of farmers successfully practicing agroforestry.


THREATS TO AGROBIODIVERSITY

The loss of agrobiodiversity in the lowland and upland agricultural systems were noted (UNEP and DENR, 1997) to be characterized by loss of variability in crops grown with the massive loss of traditional crops and cultivars, narrow biodiversity in the farmers filed and the lost of access to and control over seeds and germplasm. The massive loss in crop biodiversity is attributed to the monocropping and monovariety (HYVs) of agriculture particularly with the advent of the green revolution. Monocropping is basically promoted by the consumer- and export oriented agricultural systems which general favor the marketed commodities. The commodity oriented programs on rice, corn, sugar cane, coconut and selected high value crops are examples of this orientation.

In the 1980s, the introduction of hybrid seeds in corn and recently in rice resulted to increasing control of the big multinational private corporations to agrobiodiversity. The intellectual property rights are controlled by private research organizations which are also sponsored by these big corporations. The use of hybrid seeds are also keep the access to and control of germplasm and seeds resources away from the farm to private enterprises. This dependence are expanded to other production inputs as well.

The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was alleged to be contaminating biodiversity. The introduction of Bt corn in the Philippines was met with opposition among the civil society on that grounds as well us the uncertainty of its impact on human and the environment. Among the objections on the commercialization of Bt corn in the Philippines as follows:
1. There is a possibility of irreversible contamination of non-genetically engineered seeds and crops as a result of cross-pollination. Anti-Bt Corn advocates forward the possibility that cross-pollination’s between Bt Corn and native open pollinated varieties (OPV) will lead to contamination of the Bt toxin gene and this will be passed on to subsequent generations. This problem, however, can be avoided by planting Bt corn varieties 21-25 days before or after the native or non-Bt varieties to avoid tasselling at the same time thus no cross pollination will happen.
2. The Bt corn may affect human and animals. A NORWEGIAN scientist was reported to have conducted an independent research on the effects of transgenic crops in the Philippines and claimed to have detected increased levels of three antibodies from the blood sample of se­veral members of B’laan tribe living near a Bt corn farm in South Cotabato province. However, local health authorities also refute this claim as the cause could have been of pesticide rather than the pollen of Bt corn.
3. Corn borer in the Philippines can already be managed using various integrated pest management approaches such as the use of trichogramma, proper timing of planting, and detasselling thus there is no need for Bt corn to be promoted.
4. With widespread planting, the corn borer may easily develop resistance from Bt Corn. There were reports about the development of insect resistance particularly to chemical pesticides thus may also apply for Bt corn.
5. Farmers become dependent on the seed companies producing the seeds. Seeds are also promoted to work best with other input such as herbicide, which is also produced by the same seed producer. Thus with tight linkages of those inputs with each other to attain desired yield may develop dependence of farmers from the company.

Apart from these, the introduction of exotic species affected agrobiodiversity and the ability of the species to withstand local conditions. In the case of the Leucaena hybrid that was introduced of the Philippines in the 1980s which had been promoted in various agroforestry endeavor for soil conservation and amelioration as well as in integrating livestock to the farming systems. A leguminous tree with high protein content, the leaves are excellent feed ingredients for livestock and fertilizer materials in the uplands. The trees were planted all over the Philippines and dominated its landscape until such time that it was attacked by Phsylid in the late 1980s to the extent that it is almost wiped out. The Philippines have a wide experience in this regards with Golden apple snail, Thailand mudfish, tilapia, Swietennia macrophylla, Gmelina arborea, and many other dominant exotic floral and faunal species displacing local species.

CHALLENGES AHEAD

While there are threats to agrobiodiversity, there are also some trends favoring the promotion of agrobiodiversity in agroforestry in the Philippines as follows:
Moves towards sustainable agriculture. Attempts to develop sustainable agricultural production in such a way that its negative impacts on natural biodiversity are minimized. Integration of organic farming in agriculture does only favor the crops but the soil biodiversity as well.

Domestication. Cultivating a greater diversity of crops and the domestication of new species are recognized as a way of promoting agricultural sustainability. The need to survey and inventory those plant and animal resources that may be used in agricultural development is imperative as this will led to the domestication of several wild species and reduce the pressure from harvesting in the forest. The diversity of wild and semi-domesticated species play significant role in food and livelihood security of farm households and their potential for further development and wider use.

Bioregional perspective. Adoption of a broader perspective of agriculture as an element within a broader panorama of bioregional and landscape development. The concept of the sustainable development unit (SDU) and delineating biodiversity corridor provides a framework where agroforestry can provide the link and fill up the gaps.

Genetic resource conservation. With the very narrow diversity maintained in agriculture, there is a need to broaden the genetic basis of crops and animals. Efforts to conserve genetic resources both in situ and ex situ are being intensified.

Mobilizing stakeholders. There are various NGOs focusing on increasing and maintaining agrobiodiversity in farmer’s fields as well as strengthening farmer’s management system of plant genetic resources through community empowerment and actions. Indigenous people are also empowered to conserve and protect biodiversity. The importance of on-farm management of crop genetic diversity in the form of land races and the need to manage and enhance these are also recognized.

Importance of biodiversity in natural ecosystems. Recognition of the fact that natural and semi-natural ecosystems contain wild plant species, races, and populations that are of importance for food and agriculture, such as wild relatives of crops, are important sources of material for agroforestry, habitat restoration, and reforestation, and species that are wild harvested and contribute to farm household incomes.

Importance of traditional knowledge. Recognition of the importance of traditional knowledge about agricultural practices and individual species and the need to record and conserve this knowledge.

Reducing the impact of biotechnology and GM crops. Recognition of the need to assess the effects of biotechnology on agriculture, the need to review mechanisms by which GM crops could be monitored, and impacts on Intellectual property rights.

REFERENCES

CIP-UPWARD. 2003. Conservation and Sustainable use of Agricultural Biodiversity: A Sourcebook. International Potato Center-User’s Perspectives with Agricultural research and Development. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. 3 volumes.

DENR & UNEP (1997): Philippine biodiversity. An assessment and plan of action. Bookmark, Makati City, Philippines

Ignacio, J. Undated. Addressing the threats on the environment and on the people of Dingalan. Integrated Rural Development Foundation of the Philippines (IRDF)

Jarvis, D.I. et al. Agrobiodiversity as a Natural Resource for Sustainable Production in Agroecosystems: Examples from IPGRI's Global In situ Conservation On-Farm Programme.

Pelegrina , W.R.. Managing Local Agrobiodiversity Under Changing Philippine Market and Agricultural Production Systems: SeaRice Experiences, South East Asia Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE)

Ravanera, O. Undated. Farmers’ & Fisherfolk’s Actions To Protect the Environment & Achieve Food Security. Center for Alternative Rural Technology (CART

Reid, W. and K. Miller. 1989. keeping options alive: The scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. World resources Institute, Washington DC.

Swaminathan, M.S. (ed). 1996. Agrobiodiversity and Farmers' Rights, xvi, 303 p.,

Vernooy, R. 2003. In_Focus: SEEDS THAT GIVE Participatory plant breeding. IDRC

Villancio, V.T. and R. Paelmo. 2004. Agrobiodiversity in Agroforestry – Harmonizing Agriculture and Natural Resources Management in Southern Sierra Madre. Paper presented during the Sierra Madre Stakeholders’ Consultative Workshop, Las Brisas, Antipolo City, 2-3 September 2004

[1] Paper presented during a Workshop on “Harmonious co-existence of Agriculture and biodiversity, Tokyo, 20-22 October 2004.
[2] Chair, Philippine Agroforestry Education and Research Network; and Manager, UP Land Grant Management Office, UPLB, College, Laguna
[3] University Research Associate, Institute of Agroforestry, CFNR, UPLB, College, Laguna