Growing Diversity Project

Local management of biodiversity in Latin America

Prospects and issues for the international workshop

      20 January 2002

German Velez

Introduction

Latin America has much genetic diversity and its tropical and subtropical regions are centers of origin for more than 35% of the world's food products. This region gave rise to crops like corn, beans, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, cassava, yams, sweet potatoes, cotton, tobacco, cocoa and a variety of tubers, roots, grains, fruit, medicinal plants and others. The creation of these species and varieties was the result of collective labor accumulated over thousands of generations of farmers, who have developed crops adapted to different environmental characteristics, as well as to cultural and productive requirements.

Latin America has only 8% of the world's population, but it has 23% of the world's potentially arable land (700 million hectares). The region has 46% of the planet's tropical forests and 31% of its fresh water. It is estimated that one hectare of the Amazon forest may contain 1000 to 2000 plant species, much more than in all of Europe. Brazil is the country with the world's greatest biodiversity, with approximately 44,000 species, followed by Colombia, with 45,000. These data contrast for example, with Europe, which has a total of 13,000 species. Other countries such as Mexico, Peru, Ecuador and Costa Rica also have enormous biological diversity.

Since the middle of the 20^th Century, Latin America has undergone an intense process of urbanization. In 1950, 40% of the population lived in cities, a proportion which grew to an average of 70% in 1993 (77% in South America, 53% in Central America). In countries like Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras and Paraguay, 50% of the population still lives in rural areas. It is estimated that around 2010 Latin America's rural population will have fallen to 21%. This process of urbanization has brought changes in food security, eating habits and nutritional quality.

In Latin America, one of the major obstacles to the region's development has been the inequity within its societies, particularly in the distribution of wealth, the high concentration of land tenure and unequal access to the means of production, especially for small farmers. This all has lead to greater poverty and food insecurity. In 1995, there were six million undernourished children in the region. In 1997, 58% of the population was poor: 135.5 million in the cities and 85.4 million in rural areas. Over 100 million live in destitution.

In the late 1990s, 26% of all farm owners continued to control 90% of all farmland, while at the other extreme, 50% of farm operations took place on 2% of the land. This kind of land distribution accentuates inequities, because small farmers are progressively cornered into unproductive, degraded and poor-quality land, while the best land is concentrated in ever fewer hands and in economically powerful groups. In the early 1990s in Latin America there were 15.7 million small family farms under 3 hectares, but they accounted for less than 7% of the 700 million hectares under cultivation. About half of the family farms in Latin America and the Caribbean have no land deeds, and in many countries today there are intense conflicts and uprisings by indigenous, peasant and Afro-American communities, trying to recover control over their traditional lands.

Land tenure situations differ within Latin America, with the following trends predominant:

?    In Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil there are mostly medium-sized and large farms, with mechanized monoculture. These regions have reduced the number of small farmers and the rural population in general

?    In central and southern Mexico, in the hills and mountains of Central America, the Andean region, the Dominican Republic and northeastern Brazil, there is a predominance of small farmers.

?    In Chile and in the fertile tropical plains and hills of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico, there is a predominance of large mechanized plantations as well as of vast cattle-grazing ranches, which use large volumes of agrochemicals.

The Land Reform programs carried out in several Latin American countries have not brought major changes in inequitable land distribution, and in some countries have even increased the concentration of land holding patterns. Currently, after the failure of so many land reform models in the region, there is a new "market-based" strategy being pushed, guided by the principle of not expropriating land from landowners but rather making the transfer of land a voluntary action through financial mechanisms. This model is being applied in countries such as Brazil, Colombia and Guatemala (FAO, 2000); however in most cases there have been no significant changes, since landholders are only willing to voluntarily put unproductive land on the market.

Agricultural models in the region

In the 1960s there was a world-wide wave of concern, including Latin America, over the alarming population growth rates, especially in the South. As a result, many northern countries, international agencies and research centers proposed that the only alternative to overcome hunger and growing demand for food in the world would be a structural change in farming policies and approaches, as well as technological innovation to produce more food and raw materials. This led to the design of very intensive farming systems based on mechanized monoculture and the use of "improved" seeds that were highly responsive to external inputs, and the emergence of the so-called "Green Revolution" models.

Of course the introduction of "Green Revolution" technologies did increase the volume of food, particularly in northern countries, to the point of creating food surpluses. If we look at the availability of this food, however, we discover that its distribution to the world's inhabitants falls far short of the productive potential. The gap between the production of and access to food shows up in the 800 million people who are hungry in today's world. The hunger problem is not "technological" in nature but above all a political and economic problem of distribution and equitable access to food and to the means of production.

The introduction of intensive technology based on chemicals, genetics and mechanization has also led to a loss of biodiversity in our countries. Over the past 40 years world-wide insecticide and herbicide production has grown about 1,200% (FAO - Agrostal/Pc, 1994), while the planet has suffered an alarming incidence of genetic erosion. The situation of plant genetic resources is critical as the 20^th Century brought the loss of over 85% of the varieties of major crops that sustain agriculture and food production in the world. The Green Revolution model also transformed and destroyed many local farming and local-knowledge systems based on the management of the vast biodiversity present in our countries.

What happened to Latin America's natural resources in recent decades?

Deforestation: In 1974 nearly half of Latin America was still covered by forests. Since 1960 more than 250 million hectares of forests have disappeared and current rates of deforestation continue to be alarming, above all in Central America, Mexico and the Amazon region of Brazil and Colombia. There have been major impacts on the soil, river basins, biodiversity and climate regimes. The major causes of deforestation include the expansion of farming and ranching areas, the process of settlement and industrial forestry activities.

Soil degradation: Over 220 million hectares in Latin America currently are suffering from moderate to serious degradation. Between 40% to 60% of hillside areas in the Andes, Central America and the Amazon jungle have erosion problems. Moreover, in many regions with intensive, mechanized agriculture, there is a growing problem with salinization and alcalinization. Soil degradation is mostly caused by deforestation, by the expansion of the farming frontier into marginal areas, by intensive monocultures poorly adapted to fragile ecosystems and open-range cattle grazing.

Agrochemical consumption: According to the FAO (1995) chemical fertilizer consumption in Latin America increased from 3.6 million tons in 1973 to 8.0 million tons in 1993. From 1983 to 1993, insecticide use increased 67% and herbicide use by 146%. This trend has caused major environmental impacts such as the loss of biodiversity, damage to and pollution of natural ecosystems and water sources, resistant pests, weeds and plant diseases and public health problems caused by poisonings and the residual effects in food. In several countries in the Andes and Central America, 50 of the 250 chemical products in use have been banned in other countries.

Transgenic crops

In recent years new techniques using recombinant DNA have allowed for the transfer of genetic traits among plants, animals and microorganisms, giving rise to so-called "genetically modified organisms" (GMOs) or "transgenic" organisms. This genetic manipulation opened up vast horizons in the new biotechnology industry for the commercial use, manipulation and application of genetic resources. To develop these technologies Northern countries seek free access to genetic resources, through bioprospecting and biopiracy in countries like ours, which are centers of origin for wild and agricultural biodiversity. These genetic resources are stored in germplasm banks and are subject to intellectual property systems through the use of biological patents and plant breeders' rights (PBRs), riding roughshod over the sovereign rights of our countries and the collective rights of local communities that provide these resources.

Just like during the Green Revolution, the biotech industry now says that the only way to make enough food available for the world in the 21^st Century to solve the hunger problem is to develop "super-seeds" and genetically-modified products. Most biotechnological innovations, however, have nothing to do with how agriculture can produce more food for human populations, but simply generate expensive GMOs protected by IPRs (intellectual property rights) to assure total control over the means of production. The companies do not want to invest in biosafety assessments of the environmental, social, economic and health risks and impacts that GM crops may create.

The area covered by GM crops in the world has grown exponentially. In 1996 there were only 2.3 million hectares. In 2000, 44.2 million hectares were planted with transgenic crops, three quarters of which (32.7 million has.) were herbicide-resistant soybeans, corn and cotton. Of these, 25.8 million hectares (59% of the total area) were planted with Monsanto's RR soybeans resistant to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate. Three countries contain nearly all the transgenic crop area: the US with 30.3 million hectares, followed by Argentina with 10.3 million and Canada with 3 million (ISAAA, 2000).

In Latin America the industry's priority for introducing transgenic crops is on soybeans and corn in Southern Cone countries, as well as GM corn in Mexico, the Andean countries and Central America. There has been research and field trials in many countries with GM potatoes, cotton, manioc, rice, tomatoes, tobacco and others. The most critical aspect in Latin America, however, is the massive introduction of GMOs through food imports, particularly corn and soybeans from the US and Argentina, with no adequate biosafety controls or standards in place.

Impacts of globalization, free trade and trade agreements on small farmers:

Adjustments carried out in Latin America in the 1980s and 90s brought structural reforms to the states, including the political opening, deregulation and the unilateral opening of their economies and markets, as well as the reduction of trade barriers, the privatization public activities and drastic changes in the role of governments. Adjustment programs demanded reductions in public spending, especially for social security, health, education and agriculture, yet in most countries spending on the state bureaucracy, the foreign debt and corruption have increased. Agriculture grew little at the end of the century, only about 2% per year.

The opening of their economies forced governments to eliminate protectionism and subsidies for farming, at least in the South, since developed countries still protect and subsidize their own farmers. According to the OECD, payments to agriculture in these Northern countries amounted to US$362 billion in 1998. Subsidies to farm products in the North have lowered their international market prices, but costs in the South have increased tremendously, leaving many products off the national and international markets on which they can no longer compete.

Today huge volumes of basic food products, subsidized in the North, are exported throughout a world "without barriers," competing with weakened and suffocated national farmers. The distortion of world markets has had an impact on most Latin American countries' agricultural sectors, above all on small farmers who supply the domestic markets. In many countries there has been a drastic fall in local production of corn, potatoes, rice and other crops, which until recently made most of the region's countries self-sufficient, but which now must be imported.

Governmental tax regimes in recent decades have drained off farm surpluses to subsidize urban industries, bringing lower production and crisis for agriculture and for rural living standards. National macroeconomic policies have provided discriminatory support and actions for rural sectors, promoting the development of agribusiness through the granting of subsidized loans to exporters. Yet the state has abandoned small farmers and others producing for domestic markets. Trade agreements in the region such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), Mercosur, the Central American Common Market and bilateral agreements, and also the initiative to create a Free Trade Area for the Americas (FTAA) have all been arenas for the implementation of free-trade models for agriculture, intensifying the crisis for small farmers production systems in particular.

Small peasant and indigenous farmers in Latin America

Indigenous peoples, peasants and Afro-American communities have been the hardest hit by the macroeconomic models imposed on agriculture in Latin American countries. In recent decades many indigenous and peasant movements have fought to recover and have access to land, to traditional territories and to means of production. There have also been many reactions and initiatives in response to official policies and programs that have denied small farmers decent and sustainable living conditions based on their traditional culture and forms of production.

Movements have arisen such as the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, the Zapatista movement of indigenous people in Chiapas, Mexico, the movement of the National Indigenous Confederation in Ecuador to promote national revolts, as well as the Via Campesina movement with its many local peasant organizations from around the world. In many countries there are struggles for land, such as the Landless Peasants' Movement (MST) in Brazil, the indigenous peoples and peasant communities in Colombia, the Mapuche Indians in Chile and the indigenous and peasant movements in Bolivia.

Since the 1980s, Latin America has also seen the emergence of a large number of alternative initiatives and proposals from peasant and indigenous organizations in response to the breakdown of models based on the "Green Revolution." These sustainable-agriculture initiatives are based on the management of biodiversity and on a harmonic relationship between farming and the environment, through the adoption and combination of traditional farming with techniques and principles based on modern approaches to agroecology.

There are many examples of such initiatives throughout Latin America. They have grown particularly over the past decade, and become part of networks of agroecological experiences locally, nationally and regionally. One of the major networks is the Agroecological Movement of Latin America and the Caribbean (MAELA), an umbrella for several national networks and independent organizations. In many countries there are also national networks and many organizations, communities, farmers and NGOs with experience based on the local management of biodiversity through agroecological approaches.

The "Growing Diversity" Project

It is in this context of flourishing local experiences in biodiversity management that the Growing Diversity Project is taking place, as a worldwide initiative with the participation of local groups and organizations, along with institutions in Latin America, Asia and Africa. The GD project is holding an International Workshop in May 2002. In preparation for this event, during 2001 regional preparatory workshops were also held. The Latin American regional workshop was held from September 15-18, 2001 in Sasaima, Colombia. The workshop's own preparatory process included the call, consultations with organizations and individuals working on these issues and a selection of experiences to be documented. In Latin America eleven local experiences were selected for documentation. The process of documentation itself was done before the regional workshop by each local group, with support from the accompanying institution in the region.

One of the objectives of the Latin American workshop was to allow for exchanges among these local experiences, as well as to provide inputs for discussion and share local, national, regional and international experiences amongst the groups involved in local biodiversity management, in order to learn from successful experiences, identify bottlenecks and organize new strategies, approximations and projections for the work. At the workshop the experiences were presented at stands prepared by each of the groups. The workshop also allowed for much reflection and group discussions on issues related to the problems of local agro-biodiversity management in Latin America and possible solutions.

Local experiences in Latin America selected for documention - GD Project

o    NICARAGUA: Soil conservation and diversification of small peasants' farming systems in the Municipality of Concepción, Masaya. Peasant-to-Peasant Program (PcaP)

o    PERU: Peasants growing diversity in the Vicos peasant community - Ancash. Vicos Community and URPICHALLAY Association

o    ARGENTINA: The tree and peasant agriculture. Formosa – Pirané. Southern Formosa Small Farmers' Organization, Carpincha Cooperative and INCUPO.

o    EQUADOR: Biodiversity production and conservation farms. Pastaza, Amazon foothills. Pastaza Indigenous Peoples' Organization (OPIP). With Kichwa and Terranova indigenous groups

o    BRAZIL: Defending family farming and diversity in Solânea. Solânea - Paraíba Municipal Farmworkers's Union and AS-PTA.

o    BOLIVIA: Peasant strategies to conserve agricultural diversity in Ayllu Ayllu Majasaya Mujlli. Ayllu Majasaya Mujlli Communities (Tapacari - Cochabamba) and AGRUCO

o    BRAZIL: Experience in Amazonian genetic resource management by Xingú Indians (Mato Grosso, eastern Amazon region). ATIX and Instituto Socioambiental

o    COLOMBIA: Experiences in local biodiversity management by indigenous and peasant organizations. 22 local organizations in the Caribbean and Andean regions.

o    CUBA: Integrated agriculture/livestock farms to grow biodiversity. Groups of farmers in 5 provinces and the Pasture and Forage Research Institute

o    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Integrated Agro-forestry development in Zambrana (Cotuí-Prov. Sánchez Ramírez). Zambrana Agro-forestry Producers Association (APA) and ENDA Caribe

o    MÉXICO: Organic coffee production and its contribution to natural resource management and conservation, Chiapas highlands. Union of Ejidos and coffee-growing communities - Beneficio “MAJOMUT”

Challenges to the local management of Agro-biodiversity

The following reflections arose from the working groups that met at the Latin American Growing Diversity Workshop, in response to these three questions:

·     What are the key problems for the consolidation of your experience and prospects for their solution?

·     What do we do after this workshop?

·     How can we disseminate the results of the Growing Diversity Project process?

Problems:

o    Governmental vision and policies contrary to the conservation and protection of biodiversity, which ignore peasants. Governmental programs give no technical or financial support to initiatives of local organizations trying to promote, teach and disseminate agroecological approaches.

o    There are many peasants and communities with no land or not enough good land for their survival. The best land is concentrated in very few hands.

o    Governmental programs and multinationals promote agro-industrial farming systems based on monoculture, using seeds and animal breeds with a high response to inputs, transgenic seeds and large volumes of agrochemicals. These farming models have had major environmental, social and economic impacts on local communities and threaten or displace farms based on the diversity of farmers' seeds.

o    Replacement of traditional systems of in situ seed conservation with ex situ conservation in state-controlled seed banks and international agricultural research centers, leading to the loss of traditional seeds.

o    To overcome water shortages, governments propose huge projects that mainly benefit agribusiness sectors, leaving small farmers out of programs of access to irrigation water.

o    Degradation of ecosystems through the creation of "mega-projects" such as oil fields, hydroelectric dams, highways, etc. in indigenous territories, generating environmental, social, cultural and productive impacts.

o    Loss of natural resources, especially of agrobiodiversity to sustain food security in local communities.

o    Lack of communication media and transportation for local communities to help them connect their production systems to the market.

o    The market does not respect or accept local, traditional peasant seeds and products that do not meet the pre-established standards of homogeneity and presentation. Middlemen block the economic viability of local products on markets.

o    Lack of knowledge among small farmers regarding appropriate techniques for the conservation and commercial production of local seeds.

o    Governmental policies, research centers and industry do research the allows and promotes biopiracy, bio-trade and the patenting of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, thus violating collective rights to biodiversity, since these are the collective heritage of communities from which they are taken.

o    Governmental farm programs, formal education systems and health policies to not value local culture or farming systems or traditional medicine. This means a loss of cultural identity, local knowledge and biodiversity. The introduction of lifestyles alien to traditional culture and local communities has also changed customs, knowledge, beliefs, religions, traditional festivals, consumption habits, food habits and clothing.

o    Manipulation of the media to promote the interests of multinationals and to make traditional farming systems invisible.

o    Pressure from settlers moving into indigenous territories, causing a loss of cultural identity and of traditional production systems. Migration of youth to the cities also interrupts the transmission of knowledge and the preservation of local production systems.

o    Weak management capacity for agroecological proposals in local organizations.

o    Public policies and political parties divide and block indigenous and peasant movements and organizations that fight for their rights and make demands on the state and powerful groups, at times generating persecution and even the extermination of leaders in organizations and the displacement of local populations from their land.

o    Introduction of illegal crops which bring major ecological, social, economic and political impacts, as well as the loss of traditional lifestyles, the increase of violence and the displacement of local communities.

Proposals

o    Influence public agencies to change their vision on traditional farming, to recognize the need for funding for family farming through support programs and local initiatives and experiences based on biodiversity management and agroecological approaches, reforestation with native species and traditional medicine, along with plans for access, infrastructure and water management in accordance with the needs of small farmers.

o    Pressure the state to open space for consultation with and the participation of local communities and their organizations in designing and implementing policies and legislation to protect communities' collective rights over biodiversity and traditional knowledge and to food security.

o    The state must have real and effective policies for the fair and equitable distribution of land to peasants and recognize collective titles to traditional territories, so they can be controlled and managed by local and indigenous communities.

o    Promote initiatives and experiments in agroecology carried out by local organizations and farmers, based on the recovery, conservation, improvement, production and exchange of local seeds adapted to local conditions and needs, as well as in the use of soil and water conservation and management practices.

o    Promote and recover cultural identities, traditional knowledge, traditional education systems and community organization processes through collective reflection on problems and the search for alternative proposals.

o    Capacity building for communities and their organizations in the agroecological management of farms, in community organization, production project management and resource administration.

o    Promote self-sufficiency and food security, in both quantity and quality, based on local biodiversity management and organic farming.

o    Develop and strengthen marketing spaces and networks, including seeds and local biodiversity-based products, along with peasant- and farmer-controlled organic certification systems

o    Reject biological patents and all other forms of privatizing life. Create control mechanisms to limit bioprospecting and bio-trade activities in local communities, to assure the protection and recognition of collective rights over biodiversity and traditional knowledge.

What comes next? How do we disseminate the results of G.D?

o    Identify and interlink common and complementary aspects of the local experiences participating in the G.D. Project. Advance in the methodological work and in Project follow-up. Promote exchanges, socialization and dissemination of information generated at the workshop with other grass-roots initiatives and organizations. Seek alliances with other local organizations and promote their participation in the G.D. Project. Disseminate the workshop declaration on national and international scales.

o    Strengthen the various levels of training for local organizations in aspects such as: cultural identity, exchange of traditional knowledge and promotion of formal and traditional education of local promoters to participate in political and organizational discussions. Create awareness of the importance of biodiversity in peasant communities and urban areas.

o    Create an Andean Network of Local Organizations, in order to promote communication and exchanges of local experiences. Prepare a portfolio of biodiversity conservation projects and coordinate funding to strengthen the Network's activities.

o    Influence public policies regarding allocation of public funds to support local biodiversity conservation and management systems, new laws to allow for recognition of and creation of markets for local seeds, election of representatives committed to supporting local agroecological initiatives and in situ conservation.

o    Strengthen local organizations' technical capacity regarding: local seed conservation, soil and water management and conservation and biological pest control. In addition, put these proposal in practice through training and exchanges involving local groups, using methodologies based on "peasant-to-peasant" approaches, community participation and publications that contribute to a better understanding of these themes, aimed at local communities and other interested people.

o    Make use of the media to make denunciations, campaigns and awareness-building of national and international agencies and of society as a whole on issues affecting biodiversity conservation and management and to promote sustainable-agriculture proposals carried out by local groups.

Discussion points for the International Workshop:

o    IPRs: bioprospecting and biopiracy

o    Collective and community rights

o    Biodiversity and biosafety regulatory systems

o    CBD – FAO

o    Biodiversity and gender

o    Globalization, the WTO and their impacts on farmers

o    In situ  versus ex situ conservation

o    Impacts of GMOs on biodiversity and on farmers

o    Local empowerment and control: research and participatory action

o    Local experiences in GD biodiversity management (Africa, Asia, Latin America)

o    Other initiatives related to local biodiversity management.

Major obstacles to the consolidation of local biodiversity management experiences in Latin America, and prospects for their solution