Required citation:

FAO. 2019. Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Synthesis for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-131991-8
E-ISBN 978-92-5-132160-7 (MOBI)
© FAO, 2019

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

About this report

Executive summary

General introduction

I.   ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING

1.1 Regional context

1.2 Status, trends and drivers of change of biodiversity for food and agriculture

1.2.1 Associated biodiversity

1.2.2 Wild food species

1.2.3 Summary of country assessments on drivers and trends

1.3. Needs and priorities

II.   SUSTAINABLE USE AND CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

2.1 Sustainable use

2.1.1 Biodiversity and human nutrition

2.1.2 Biodiversity and ecosystem services

2.1.3 Biodiversity and agroecosystem resilience

2.1.4 Biodiversity adaptation to climate change

2.1.5 Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches

2.1.6 Traditional knowledge

2.1.7 Needs and priorities

2.2. Conservation

2.2.1 In situ conservation

2.2.2 Ex situ conservation

2.2.3 Needs and priorities

2.3 Access and exchange

2.3.1 Needs and priorities

III.   POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS AND CAPACITY

3.1 Policies, programmes, institutions and other stakeholders

3.1.1 Strengths and weaknesses

3.1.2 Interministerial cooperation

3.1.3 Needs and priorities

3.2 Capacity

3.2.1 Training and education needs

3.2.2 Research needs

IV.   REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

4.1 Major regional initiatives addressing the conservation and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

4.2 Needs and priorities

REFERENCES

TABLES

Table 1. Land and water areas of the countries covered in this synthesis report

Table 2. Production systems reported in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 3. Reported constraints to mapping production systems and the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 4. Associated biodiversity species most frequently reported to be actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 5. National information systems for associated biodiversity reported in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 6. Wild food species reported by two or more countries in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 7. Threats to biodiversity, indicators and trends reported by Costa Rica

Table 8. Reported needs and priorities for the assessment and monitoring of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 9. Reported trends in the adoption of selected management practices and approaches in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 10. Reported policies and initiatives addressing the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture to cope with climate change, invasive alien species and natural or human-made disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 11. Reported examples of initiatives that use an ecosystem/landscape/seascape approach in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 12. Reported needs and priorities for the sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 13. Reported examples of in situ conservation initiatives for wild relatives and landraces of cultivated plant species in Mexico

Table 14. Reported needs and priorities for the conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 15. Reported needs and priorities for the assessment and monitoring of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 16. Reported needs and priorities in terms of access to and exchange of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 17. Examples of reported policies and programmes supporting the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 18. Reported needs and priorities for the assessment and monitoring of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 19. Reported research needs related to the conservation and sustainable use of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services in Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 20. Regional policies and programmes embedding the conservation and/or use of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean

Foreword

This regional synthesis report highlights the many ways in which biodiversity is vital to food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly given the need for region’s production systems to adapt to a rapidly changing world, including to the effects of climate change. It also highlights the many threats facing the region’s biodiversity, many of which are associated with effects of land-use change within the food and agriculture sector itself. On the more encouraging side, it notes the increased use, in some countries and production systems, of various potentially biodiversity-friendly management practices and approaches. It also describes a range of policies, programmes and projects that aim to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity for food and agriculture, including some specifically aimed at enhancing its role in the supply of important regulating and supporting ecosystem services.

The objective of the report, however, is not merely to outline the status of the region’s biodiversity for food and agriculture and its management, but also to contribute to the identification of ways forward in terms of promoting its sustainable use and conservation. To this end, it provides a summary of the main needs and priorities identified in the country reports submitted as contributions to the preparation process for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, published earlier this year, and at the informal regional workshop held in Panama City in 2016. These converge with the conclusions and recommendations of the High Level Regional Dialogue on Biodiversity and the Agricultural Sector (DRANIBA) held in Mexico City in 2018.

It is clear, for example, that management initiatives are often constrained by gaps in knowledge and by ineffective institutional frameworks. It is also clear, however, that we need more than just individual projects aimed at conserving or utilizing specific components of biodiversity. It is time for a concerted effort to address the drivers of change that are contributing to the loss of biodiversity and to build a more sustainable food and agriculture sector. This will require action not only at national level, but also globally and regionally. The report draws attention to many of the benefits that can flow from regional initiatives in the field of biodiversity management – from technology transfer to avoiding duplication of work. While there are examples of success, much more could be done to promote this kind of collaboration.

To conclude on a positive note, it is very heartening that so many of the region’s countries engaged in the process that led to the preparation of this document and remain engaged in efforts to identify opportunities to promote the sustainable management of biodiversity for food and agriculture.

Acknowledgements

Lead author: Pablo Tittonell

Contributors: Julie Bélanger, Agnès Bernis Fonteneau, Irene Hoffmann, Ladina Knapp, Dafydd Pilling, Manuel Pomar, Pilar Roman, Vladimir Shlevkov Pronskiy, Kim-Anh Tempelman Mezzera, Miriam Widmer

Authors of and contributors to country reports included in the Latin America and the Caribbean regional synthesis are listed below.

Logistical support to the organization of an informal regional consultation on the state of Latin America and the Caribbean’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Panama City, Panama, 8 to 10 March 2016, was provided by FAO’s Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. Financial support for both the organization of the informal regional consultation and the preparation of the regional synthesis report was provided by the Governments of Germany, Spain and Switzerland.

About this report

BACKGROUND

This report summarizes the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) in Latin America and the Caribbean based on the information provided in country reports submitted to FAO as part of the reporting process for the report on The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. A first draft was prepared as supporting documentation for an informal regional consultation on the state of Latin America and the Caribbean’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Panama City, Panama, 8 to 10 March 2016. The document was later revised based on feedback received from the participants of the informal consultation and on additional country reports and country-report updates received by FAO before September 2016. The final report is based on 13 country reports. During the informal consultation, participants also discussed regional needs, priorities and possible actions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture.[1]

SCOPE

The report addresses the biodiversity for food and agriculture (see working definition below) found in plant, animal, aquatic and forest production systems and the ecosystem services associated with them. It focuses particularly on associated biodiversity (see working definition below) and on species that are sources of wild foods.

WORKING DEFINITIONS

The working definitions of biodiversity for food and agriculture and associated biodiversity used for the purposes of this report (and in the country-reporting process for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture) are described, along with other key concepts, in FAO (2019).

Biodiversity for food and agriculture

Biodiversity for food and agriculture includes the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels that sustain the ecosystem structures, functions and processes in and around production systems, and that provide food and non-food agricultural products and services. Production systems, as defined for the purposes of this report, include the livestock, crop, fisheries and aquaculture and forest sectors. The diversity found in and around production systems has been managed or influenced by farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisherfolk over many hundreds of generations and reflects the diversity of both human activities and natural processes. Biodiversity for food and agriculture also encompasses wild foods of plant, animal and other origin.

Associated biodiversity

Associated biodiversity comprises those species of importance to ecosystem function, for example, through pollination, control of plant, animal and aquatic pests, soil formation and health, water provision and quality, etc., including inter alia:

a) micro-organisms (including bacteria, viruses and protists) and fungi in and around production systems of importance to use and production, such as mycorrhizal fungi, soil microbes, planktonic microbes, and rumen microbes;

b) invertebrates, including insects, spiders, worms, and all other invertebrates that are of importance to crop, animal, fish and forest production in different ways, including as decomposers, pests, pollinators and predators, in and around production systems;

c) vertebrates, including amphibians, reptiles, and wild (non-domesticated) birds and mammals, including wild relatives, of importance to crop, animal, fish and forest production as pests, predators, pollinators or in other ways, in and around production systems;

d) wild and cultivated terrestrial and aquatic plants other than crops and crop wild relatives, in and around production areas, such as hedge plants, weeds, and species present in riparian corridors, rivers, lakes and coastal marine waters, that contribute indirectly to production.

Domesticated species may also provide ecosystem services other than provisioning ones and affect crop, animal, fish and forest production in different ways.

1 See Annex 2 of the Report of the Informal Regional Consultation on the State of Latin America’s and the Caribbean’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA-16/17/Inf.11.4) (FAO, 2016).

Executive summary

WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE?

“Biodiversity is the variety of life at genetic, species and ecosystem levels. Biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) is, in turn, the subset of biodiversity that contributes in one way or another to agriculture and food production. It includes the domesticated plants and animals raised in crop, livestock, forest and aquaculture systems, harvested forest and aquatic species, the wild relatives of domesticated species, other wild species harvested for food and other products, and what is known as ‘associated biodiversity’, the vast range of organisms that live in and around food and agricultural production systems, sustaining them and contributing to their output [such as natural enemies of pests, pollinators, soil micro-organisms]. Agriculture is taken here to include crop and livestock production, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture” (FAO, 2019).

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report summarizes the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean based on the information provided in country reports submitted to FAO as part of the reporting process for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. The document was prepared as supporting documentation for an informal regional consultation on the state of Latin America and the Caribbean’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Panama City, Panama, 8 to 10 March 2016.

SUMMARY

This report summarizes the state of knowledge on biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) in the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region as a contribution to the global report on The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. BFA includes the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels that sustain the ecosystem structures, functions and processes in and around production systems, and that provide food and non-food agriculture products and services. Production systems, as defined in this report include the livestock, crop, fisheries and aquaculture and forest sectors.

Agriculture needs to break its increasing dependence on non-renewable resources (FAO and PAR, 2011), and signs that policy is shifting in this direction are increasingly evident in the LAC region. Public policies for the promotion of agroecology and other forms of biodiversity-rich agriculture are in place or under development at national, district or municipal levels in several countries. At the same time, the region is experiencing significant demographic, market and land-use changes and has an increasingly urban population that is placing growing demands on agriculture and rural areas.

The countries that contributed to this report are the Bahamas, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Saint Lucia and Suriname. These countries represent about 21 percent of the region’s total area of agricultural land, forest and water. The following paragraphs present major highlights from the four main sections of the report.

Assessment and monitoring of biodiversity for food and agriculture

Most reporting countries indicated that a lack of information, data or monitoring systems, along with insufficient knowledge or research, is limiting their ability to map production systems and BFA.

Most countries indicated that they have difficulties reporting on associated biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide. Countries reported that a number of species of associated biodiversity are being actively managed to promote the supply of ecosystem services: most commonly for soil formation and protection services, pollination, habitat provisioning, regulation of pests and diseases and atmospheric regulation. Fewer species were reported to be actively managed for water purification and waste treatment or for nutrient cycling.

The most frequently reported species of wild foods were terrestrial mammals, followed by terrestrial plants and freshwater fish. Countries indicated that there is not enough information to provide proper assessments and proposed that more support should be given to ethnobotanical research.

The country reports differed in terms of the level of detail with which the various trends and drivers of change affecting associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources were reported. The most commonly mentioned drivers included:

• replacement of local production systems and genetic resources;

• emergence of new weeds, pests and diseases;

• adverse climatic factors (frost, droughts, floods);

• uncontrolled fire;

• overgrazing and overexploitation of wild species;

• urbanization and population pressure;

• migration;

• inadequate policies and legislation;

• inequity and other social problems; and

• hunger and poverty.

In terms of needs and priorities, countries that do not have an inventory of BFA or do not have monitoring systems in place highlighted the need to address these gaps.

Sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture

The country reports indicate that at regional level there is a generalized decline in the implementation of integrated pest and nutrient management and an increase in diversity-based strategies such as domestication of wild species and the use of native tree diversity in the maintenance or conservation of landscape complexity.

As incomes rise, the region is undergoing a rapid transition towards a so-called “western” diet, dominated by refined sugars and carbohydrates, refined fats, oils and meat. This has negative consequences for BFA.

In many parts of the region, the supply of energy depends almost entirely on associated plant biodiversity, particularly in places where rural populations do not have access to electricity or gas for their domestic needs.

Most of the plans and initiatives reported in the country reports as addressing the use of BFA to cope with climate change, invasive alien species and natural or human-made disasters do not show very specifically how BFA is contributing to efforts to tackle these problems.

Several countries reported on the use of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches for the conservation of biodiversity in general and BFA in particular, especially in marine and forest ecosystems.

All countries reported in situ and ex situ conservation efforts. The list of associated biodiversity and wild foods species reported to be conserved ex situ comprised 25 plant species, 16 terrestrial vertebrate species, 10 fungi species (including 8 mycorrhizas), 10 species of bacteria, 8 aquatic vertebrate species and 8 invertebrate species.

Most countries mentioned research and knowledge gaps with respect to traditional forms of sustainable use of biodiversity, noting in this regard the need for capacity development and for improved material and human resources, institutional capacities, innovation and dissemination of knowledge to policy-makers and decision-makers.

Several countries indicated the need to consolidate BFA-related policies and actions, responsibility for which is now typically spread over several ministries within a given country (agriculture, environment, culture, natural resources, fisheries, development, etc.), creating institutional islands, miscommunication and competition.

The need for better information about illegal practices (e.g. in the case of fishing activities) and their impact on biodiversity conservation was also highlighted.

There were also calls for better integration of biodiversity conservation and agricultural agendas. Several countries proposed that support for the diffusion of agroecological approaches should be a priority in this regard.

Several countries reported that prior informed consent is a prerequisite for access to BFA, both genetic resources for food and agriculture and associated biodiversity and wild foods. However, most countries indicated the need to develop norms and policies on access, exchange and benefit-sharing and to train personnel in the implementation of legal mechanisms in this field.

Policies, institutions and capacities

Strictly speaking, most of the policies and programmes reported by countries are not policies but national laws that regulate, mandate and guide the development of relevant policies.

Countries also reported laws that are under development or that have been approved but not yet promulgated or implemented. Several of these address the need to align national policies with international agreements such as the Nagoya Protocol.

Most countries reported food security policies and programmes, but did not explicitly indicate how these instruments are linked to BFA. In some cases, different strategies or programmes within a country have conflicting objectives.

Most countries also reported a lack of connectedness and collaboration between ministries or a lack of clarity regarding responsibilities for BFA management.

Countries that do not have policies and regulations on BFA in place indicated that developing and implementing instruments of this kind is a priority. Countries that have such instruments indicated that promoting greater interinstitutional (interministerial) coordination is the main priority.

The main priorities in terms of training, education and capacity development can be summarized as follows:

• establishment of higher-education programmes that focus on, or include, BFA and its management;

• capacity development for professionals on technical and legal matters and for field technicians on biodiversity management and conservation;

• training for farmers on aspects of sustainable use and management, particularly of associated biodiversity; and

• training of communicators who can raise awareness among the general public.

Several countries reported research needs related to micro-organisms, their conservation and their management for agricultural (crop and livestock) and forest production. Inventory and characterization of genetic resources and associated biodiversity were also repeatedly mentioned, as was research on wild pollinators and on indigenous management of BFA.

Regional and international cooperation

The regional initiatives reported (e.g. the Mesoamerica Network on Genetic Resources) have the following objectives:

• technology transfer;

• increasing the participation of stakeholders;

• improving access to financial resources through participation;

• improving research facilities;

• exchanging expertise;

• training scientists from national programmes;

• exchanging information;

• providing access to advanced research results;

• characterization and evaluation of germplasm;

• increasing public awareness of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; and

• avoiding duplication of activities.

Several of the transnational/regional initiatives reported were not explicitly concerned with BFA. Conversely, not all relevant regional programmes were necessarily mentioned in the country reports (e.g. the Latin American Forest Genetic Resources Network [LAFORGEN], the Andean and Amazonian Plant Genetic Resources Network [REDARFIT, TROPIGEN] and the Regional Global Environment Facility project Strengthening the Implementation of Regimes of Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing in Latin America and the Caribbean).

General introduction

Delivering safe and nutritious food for a growing, increasingly affluent, but socio-economically unequal, world population poses serious challenges to future plant, forest, aquatic and animal production. Prominent among these challenges is the need to increase global production while preserving the ability of landscapes and seascapes to deliver other ecosystem services that are essential for life on Earth, now and in the future. In spite of repeated warnings about the rapid loss of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) (FAO and PAR 2011) and the mounting evidence about the key role of biodiversity in food security and nutrition (e.g. Kawarazuka and Béné, 2011; Powell, 2012; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2013), agricultural systems worldwide are becoming ever simpler, more structurally uniform and more oligospecific (e.g. Foley et al., 2005; Grau et al., 2005; Fischer et al., 2007; Kleijn et al., 2009; Geiger et al., 2010; Godfray et al., 2010; Tilman et al., 2011; Barnosky et al., 2011; Kremen and Miles, 2012; Tscharntke et al., 2012; Cunningham et al., 2013; Puma et al., 2015; MacFadyen et al., 2016). Today, a few crop and animal species account for most of the food consumed by humans worldwide (Khoury et al., 2014). This trend has serious implications for (i) human nutrition and diet-related risks, (ii) biodiversity and associated ecosystem services and (iii) the resilience of agricultural systems and their adaptability to global change.

Biodiversity offers promising opportunities to design innovative production systems that contribute to the four pillars of food security by enhancing the efficiency of biological processes in agroecosystems. In addition to being a “global theatre for biodiversity” in general (ICSU-LAC, 2010), the Latin America and the Caribbean region also hosts the widest genetic resource base for some of the crop species most commonly cultivated and consumed worldwide, including maize, potatoes, cassava, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, beans, peanuts and pumpkins. The number of wild food, non-traditional and underutilized edible plant and animal species is also vast (e.g. Peñafiel et al., 2011). The region has vast areas of biodiverse and resilient native grasslands and rangelands that are able to maintain large and diverse livestock populations (including endemic camelids) year round, as well as wild biodiversity (Modernel et al., 2016). All this exists alongside rich and diverse indigenous knowledge on the maintenance and utilization of BFA (Padulosi et al., 2013).

The 2011 publication Biodiversity for food and agriculture (FAO and PAR, 2011) starts by stating that worldwide agriculture needs to break its increasing dependence on non-renewable inputs. Signs that policy is shifting in this direction are increasingly evident in Latin America and the Caribbean. National government programmes oriented towards food security and nutrition, such as the Food Acquisition Programme that was part of the Fome Zero Strategy in Brazil, have increased on-farm biodiversity in the smallholder farming systems that characterize family agriculture in the region (Medaets, Pettan and Takagi, 2003; IFPRI, 2015). Public policies promoting agroecology[1] and other forms of biodiversity-rich agriculture are in place or under development at national, district or municipal levels in several of the region’s countries (Goulet et al., 2012). Cuba, in particular, serves as a long-standing example, having been utilizing BFA-focused measures to address food insecurity since the 1990s (Funes-Monzote et al., 2010).

Latin America and the Caribbean is experiencing significant changes in its demography, markets, land use and land cover, with an increasingly urban population placing growing demands on agriculture and rural areas (cf. Martinelli, 2012). Bigger and wealthier cities will gradually require more and better food, water and energy. Agriculture has a major role to play in meeting these regional demands. At the same time, Latin American soils, water and genetic resources have a key role to play in efforts to achieve food and nutritional security worldwide. In the last decade, about 70 percent of the agricultural and food exports from Latin America and the Caribbean went to Africa and Asia. Demand from these sources is expected to continue growing. Chemically and energy-subsidized crop and animal production are expanding rapidly in the region and this is leading to the disruption of natural mechanisms that underpin the supply of energy, water and nutrients (cf. FAO and PAR, 2011). As a result of these developments, there is a risk that in the near future the region will be unable to meet local and global demands for food and agricultural products. Intensive crop and animal production, as currently practised, depend largely on externally sourced resources and know-how, most of which is produced outside the region.

Through its contributions to greenhouse-gas emissions, nutrient misbalances, biodiversity loss and changes in land and water use, the current food system is largely responsible for the world’s critical proximity to environmental planetary boundaries (Eshel et al., 2014; Kahiluoto et al., 2014, Springer and Duchin, 2014). BFA can make a major contribution to reducing the impact of the food system on the environment by enabling the design of agricultural systems that enhance the efficiency of biological processes. Assessing the current state of BFA and its relation to ecosystem services is an essential prerequisite for (i) the development of comprehensive systems approaches to the evaluation of sustainability, (ii) the design of sustainable agricultural production landscapes and (iii) the promotion of sustainable diets among consumers through knowledge-intensive communication campaigns.

1 Agroecology has been variously defined as a scientific discipline, as a set of farming practices, and as a social movement (Wezel et al., 2009; Tomich et al., 2011). In this report, agroecology is regarded as a scientific approach to agricultural management, following the definition of Gliessman (2006): the use of ecological principles and concepts for the design and management of sustainable food systems. Note that the focus is on the food system, beyond the individual farm or rural community. The science of agroecology differs from classical agronomy in a number of dimensions, as well as in the type of indicators used to assess the performance and sustainability of agricultural production systems (Tittonell, 2014a).

I. Assessment and monitoring

1.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT

This report synthesizes the information presented in the country reports submitted by the Bahamas, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Saint Lucia and Suriname as contributions to the report The State of the World Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.

The total area of land covered by FAO member countries in the region is 2041 million ha. Some 753 million ha are agricultural land, 931 million ha are forest and 38 million ha are water areas, including lakes, rivers and marine coastal zones. Based on the country reports that were submitted and analysed, this report covers about 21 percent of the region’s total agricultural, forest and water area (Table 1). Of the 685 million ha covered by the report, 55 percent corresponds to agricultural land, 42 percent to forest and 2 percent to water area.

Although the area covered by the present report is vast, not all the region’s countries submitted a country report and thus some important ecosystems are under-represented.

• The report does not cover Brazil, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Colombia or Paraguay, countries that host large shares of the Amazon, Chaco and Atlantic forests across climatic gradients. These biodiversity hotspots are partly covered by the country reports of Peru, Ecuador and Suriname.

• The temperate climatic regimes of the Southern Cone of Latin America, corresponding to Chile, Uruguay and the southern highlands of Brazil, are under-represented in the analysis. These are important locations for introduced BFA: “traditional”[1] wheat varieties, chicken landraces, local wine grapes, etc. that have been managed and bred by local farmers since their introduction by Europeans.

• The region of extended plains corresponding to the Orinoco basin, lying within Colombia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, is not represented in the report. This is an area that deserves attention, as it is experiencing rapid expansion of the agricultural frontier through large agribusiness investments that are displacing traditional family farming and livestock systems.

The report has good coverage of the Andean region, thanks to the reports Ecuador and Peru, and of the wide climatic gradients of Meso and North America, thanks to the reports of Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama. It also covers several Caribbean countries. Some of the countries covered are considered to be megadiverse, a status they owe to their variations in altitude and their location in the tropics. These countries’ ecosystems included wet and dry lowlands and coastal plains, as well as midhill valley zones, highland valleys and plains, and highland plateaus. Many of the countries covered in the report host centres of origin of some of the most important crops grown worldwide, including maize, potato, beans and tomato, and of domestic animals such as llamas, alpacas and guinea pigs.

The production systems featured in the various country reports are summarized in Table 2. Several countries reported production systems under the category “others”. Such production systems have been incorporated in one or more of the categories presented in Table 2. Mexico reported a rangeland-based livestock system, regarded as distinct from grassland-based livestock systems.[2] Grasslands in the region include both naturally occurring or human-created grass steppes and prairies consisting of native and adapted-exotic species and ley pastures, regularly re-sown, mostly with exotic species, but also with some native species,[3] and often grown in rotation with annual crops. A differentiation of this kind makes sense not only for Mexico but for most countries in the region, particularly those that have vast areas of shrubby or savannah-like drylands (e.g. the Caatinga in Brazil and the Monte in Argentina) where grasses may not be the main source of forage for grazing animals.[4] A strict ecological definition of rangelands encompasses a wide range of grazed ecosystems including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, wetlands and deserts.

Another category that generated some confusion was “irrigated crops”. Most vegetable and fruit horticulture in the region takes place under complementary or supplementary irrigation. However, in some locations irrigation is used also for broad-acre crops, such as wheat, maize, potatoes, sugar cane and lucerne, that are normally grown under rainfed conditions – and of course for rice. Irrigating crops using pivot or other aerial systems, only at key moments of the crop season, such as crop establishment or flowering, is not equivalent to producing crops under year-round irrigation using surface flooding, permanent beds or drip systems that require major infrastructure. The types of crop and livestock activities that can be practised in these respective systems influences the level of BFA associated with them. Peri-urban gardening, which was reported as a separate category only by Saint Lucia, may have been reported by most countries as vegetable horticulture, and thus under irrigated crops. Other factors noted in the country reports as constraints to mapping the region’s production systems, calculating the area they cover and reporting on the state of BFA in general are summarized in Table 3.

1.2 STATUS, TRENDS AND DRIVERS OF CHANGE OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

The sources and magnitudes of threats to BFA vary from place to place across this vast region and are affected by global drivers such as changes in the climate, international markets and demography. Drivers combine to form “sustainability syndromes” characterized by a range of symptoms inherent in unsustainable agricultural practices that degrade resources and contaminate soil, water and air and erode native germplasm. Only a limited number of the country reports refer explicitly and directly to drivers of change. However, the influence of such drivers is noted at various points in the reports.

Agricultural productivity and the provision of other ecosystem services are severely affected by multiple resource-degradation processes. For instance, water provision to cities located in mountainous valleys (e.g. Mexico City) is seriously compromised by land-use and land-cover changes in surrounding watersheds (Aguilar, 2008).[5] Disruption of the ecological infrastructure of rural landscapes through deforestation and monocropping compromises the provision of ecosystem services such as pollination and pest control and turns common species of birds and mammals into agricultural pests (Garibaldi et al., 2011). Advocacy for land-sparing policies, under which intensive forms of agriculture are utilized with the aim of releasing land from production so that it can be dedicated to nature conservation, has often led to undesirable outcomes in the region, including the conversion of primary forest into intensive oil-palm plantations in some parts of the Amazon region (Gutiérrez-Vélez et al., 2011; Gibbs, 2012). Forest protection laws are often met with strong opposition from commercial farmers’ organizations that have representatives in politics (e.g. Caceres, Silvetti and Diaz, 2016). In general, signs of resource degradation through rapid loss of biodiversity are already conspicuous in the region, particularly in areas where the agricultural frontier is expanding (e.g. Grau and Aide, 2008; Ran et al., 2013). In most situations, loss of BFA is concomitant with a dwindling of the rural population. Outmigration from rural areas is common in the region, often occurring as a result of a shortage of opportunities for young people (due to remoteness and isolation), inaccessibility of medical care for the elderly or growing insecurity or violence (e.g. Cortez-Arriola et al., 2014).

1.2.1. Associated biodiversity

Some associated-biodiversity species are actively managed to promote the supply of ecosystem services. Others may benefit inadvertently from particular management practices. The first category includes naturally occurring perennial plant species that are deliberately grown to provide a range of ecological functions. A typical example of the second category is soil biodiversity, which is influenced by land-use and agricultural practices, but is not necessarily always evident to land managers. Table 4 provides a list of the associated-biodiversity species most frequently mentioned in the country reports as being actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services.

Most of the actively managed associated-biodiversity species mentioned in the country reports are managed for soil formation and protection services, pollination, habitat provisioning, regulation of pests and diseases, and atmospheric regulation. Fewer species are reported to be actively managed for water purification and waste treatment or for nutrient cycling. Some species, such as trees and soil micro-organisms, are reported to be providers of various services.

Actively “managing” biodiversity was frequently taken in the country reports to mean planting or keeping the respective species on farms or in the landscape. In the case of trees and perennial plant species, active management can, for example, involve their introduction into agroecosystems in the form of windrows, hedgerows or woodlots or in multilayer home gardens where they contribute to soil formation and protection, water capture, nutrient cycling, habitat provisioning and microclimate regulation for crops and soil micro-organisms. Actively managing wild species of associated biodiversity, on the other hand, may require more complex mechanisms and institutional support. For example, sea turtles (Chelonian mydas, Eretmochelys imbricate, Dermochelys coriacea and Caretta caretta) contribute to the maintenance of the sea floor by grazing on seagrass beds, which are breeding grounds for fish and crustacean species. They also contribute to dune fixation through the provision of nutrients to dune grasses via their egg detritus and other dejections. Actively managing sea turtles requires efforts on a broad scale and engagement on the part of a range of actors, including those outside the fisheries and aquaculture sector, whose activities may influence sea-turtle populations.

The inventory and monitoring of associated biodiversity and the functions and services it provides are a precondition for its proper conservation and management to the benefit of agricultural and food production. Table 5 summarizes the information provided in the country reports on national information systems. Good examples of national-level information systems include Peru’s National Environmental Information System and Mexico’s National Information System on Natural Resources. Some countries reported that national information systems still need to be created. El Salvador’s country report refers to technological constraints hampering the creation of a national information system. As can be seen from Table 5, some countries referred to programmes, ministries, institutes, universities, laboratories, museums, encyclopaedias or other sources of information that do not, strictly speaking, constitute information or monitoring systems. Some countries (e.g. Suriname) monitor species that are considered invasive or potential agricultural pests. Often the bodies that monitor agricultural pests are disconnected from those that are in charge of monitoring associated biodiversity. National-level initiatives to monitor ecosystem functions and services provided by associated biodiversity were not reported. Frameworks for evaluating ecosystem services are available and are known to scientific, policy-making and agricultural-extension communities (e.g. the ECOSER protocol in Argentina – Laterra, Castellarini and Orué, 2011), yet their adoption by national governments in the region remains rather incipient.

1.2.2 Wild food species

The region has a unique range of wild food species. For example, Peru alone has 523 species of edible fruits, of which only 66 are domesticated, 149 are either cultivated or found in the wild, and the rest are collected directly from the wild. Nicaragua’s report mentions a series of studies that provide information on some 150 wild and domesticated plant species, found mostly in well-conserved forests and used mainly by indigenous communities and by communities of African origin living on the country’s Caribbean coast. The species most frequently reported by the countries in the region are presented in Table 6. Most frequently reported were terrestrial mammals, followed by terrestrial plants and freshwater fish. Some species of birds were also reported, as well as one reptile and one crustacean species. Table 6 shows wild food species reported by more than one country. Individual countries provided much longer lists. The country report of Mexico, for instance, includes a total of 186 wild food species.

The inventory and monitoring of wild food species in the region generally leaves much to be desired. Nicaragua lists several domesticated plant species in this section of its report, including some 611 genotypes of creole grains, 203 fruit species, 157 cocoa varieties and 54 grass and fodder species. This information, while highly valuable and interesting, does not provide a good overview of the status of wild food species. Some countries may not have reported wild species used for food if their use is currently forbidden for conservation-related reasons (e.g. certain trout species). Countries such as Costa Rica, which delivered an otherwise comprehensive report, indicated that there is not enough information in the country to provide proper assessments of the utilization of wild food species and the threats affecting them, and proposed that more support should be given to ethnobotanical research. Published scientific studies indicate at least 46 underutilized native edible species in Costa Rica (González, 2008).

A category of biodiversity that sits somehow between associated biodiversity and wild-food species is that of medicinal species, which were repeatedly mentioned in the country reports. While the contribution of different botanical families to medicinal and wild food resources differs across ecological regions, a study by Bermúdez and Ramos Chue (2014) notes that a wide range of medicinal plant species are used by indigenous communities in Panama, even in peri-urban areas.

1.2.3 Summary of country assessments on drivers and trends

The country reports differed in the level of detail with which the various trends and drivers of change related to associated biodiversity, ecosystem services (regulating and supporting) and wild food resources were reported. Some of the drivers that were most commonly mentioned, not in order of frequency, were:

• replacement of local production systems and genetic resources;

• emergence of new weeds, pests and diseases;

• adverse climatic factors (frost, drought, floods);

• uncontrolled fire;

• overgrazing and overexploitation of wild species;

• urbanization and population pressure;

• migration;

• inadequate policies and legislation;

• inequity and other social problems; and

• hunger and poverty.

The frequency with which these processes were reported as drivers of change for biodiversity differed between country reports. Panama’s country report provides a broad overview and scoring of the impact of drivers of change on associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources, spanning its various agroecosystems. A noteworthy driver of change that is reported to have very negative effects on several ecosystem services in Panama is the emergence and current expansion of mining activities (gold and copper), fuelled by high international prices. This trend is also mentioned in the reports of Peru and Mexico. Mining disrupts entire ecosystems, affecting the availability and diversity of wild food species and knowledge of these resources, as well as incentivizing rural people to move out of agriculture.

The countermeasures that have been put in place to reduce the impact of drivers of change on associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food species were not reported in great detail in the country reports, albeit with some exceptions (Box 1). The report of Mexico, following the approach of Challenger and Dirzo (2009), distinguishes root factors from direct or proximal factors. The first category includes demographic trends, such as population growth rate and density, as well as governance, policy, economic and cultural factors. The direct or proximate factors include changes in land use and cover, natural-resource extraction, invasive exotic species, pollutants, climate change and transaction costs associated with the implementation of sectoral policies.

The report of Costa Rica illustrates some trends by means of key indicators (Table 7). It also identifies ecosystem types that are increasing in their extent or conservation quality (e.g. mature native forest and secondary forest) and types that are diminishing in their extent and/or quality (e.g. mangroves, páramos [highland moorlands], palm forests, lakes and shallow lakes, subterranean waters and rivers). The report of the Bahamas provides a graphical representation of drivers and their impacts on biodiversity components, focusing on climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and overexploitation of natural resources (Figure 1). Coastal coral reefs and mangroves are among the components of biodiversity most seriously threatened by these drivers in the Bahamas.

1.3 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

The main reported needs and priorities in terms of the assessment and monitoring of BFA, and in particular of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services, are summarized, by country, in Table 8. Countries that do not currently have an inventory of BFA or do not have monitoring systems in place indicated that developing these is priority. The need to collect data and create public databases on associated biodiversity and wild foods was often mentioned. Countries that have such systems in place indicated the need for more trained personnel and more material and human resources. Some countries reported that relevant laws and legal mechanisms have already been approved but have not yet been promulgated or implemented, and indicated that this is a priority. Reported research needs included the design of national inventories, studies on the impact of current agricultural, forestry and livestock practices on associated biodiversity and ecosystem services, and studies on the design of sustainable agricultural systems based on efficient use of BFA. The need to communicate knowledge and research results to the wider society, especially to policy-makers and decision-makers, was mentioned as a priority in many reports.

1 Note that the term “traditional” in this context does not necessarily mean native. Introduced species of plants and animals may become traditional after a “certain” amount of time. The length of this period is hard to define, but is enough to allow the species to become culturally embedded and ecologically adapted in the form of landraces. This lack of precision inevitably raises the rhetorical question: when does the introduced become traditional?

2 Note, however, that the definition provided by FAO for the ranching (i.e. as opposed to pastoralist) subcategory of grassland system includes the term “rangelands”.

3 Forage crops grown in the region include rye grass and tall fescue in temperate areas, Bracchiaria, Chloris and Pennisetum species in tropical areas and several legume species such as clovers, lucerne and lotus.

4 It is not always clear from the country reports how areas corresponding to this type of grassland are being reported, i.e. whether as agricultural land or as forest. There are several woodland ecosystems in the region that would fall into the forest category but are used for livestock production.

5 In the particular case of Mexico Valley, the expansion of the urban footprint also threatens the persistence of a form of family farming that maintains a large diversity of traditional maize germplasm.

II. Sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture

2.1 SUSTAINABLE USE

The sustainable use and maintenance of BFA in farming landscapes depends – and will increasingly depend – on the value that society as a whole, and decision-makers in particular, ascribe to its various roles. The roles of biodiversity for food and agriculture can be grouped into three major categories:

• the contribution of biodiversity to food security and nutrition;

• the co-dependence between biodiversity and ecosystem services; and

• the biodiversity-mediated mechanisms of resilience and adaptability of agroecosystems in the face of shocks and stresses.

Table 9 provides a list of the most frequently reported management and diversity-based practices that support the maintenance and use of BFA and summarizes reported trends in their use. The information reported highlights some important regional trends, such as a general decline in the use of integrated pest and nutrient management and an increase in the use of diversity-based strategies such as the domestication of wild species and the use of native tree diversity for the maintenance or conservation of landscape complexity.

2.1.1 Biodiversity and human nutrition

BFA is essential to the four pillars of food security: (i) availability, because it contributes to producing more of a diverse portfolio of crops and animals on-farm or in the landscape and allows niche complementarities to be explored through polycultures; (ii) access, because it promotes locally diverse production on-farm, with positive effects in terms of diversification, substitutability, supply and price stability in local and national markets; (iii) stability, because it contributes to building resilient food systems through biodiversity-mediated mechanisms for coping with and adaptation to external shocks and stresses; and (iv) utilization, because vitamins and essential minerals present in a diverse diet prevent diseases associated with their deficiency, which are often the result of the inability to absorb and utilize major nutrients contained in staple foods.

As incomes rise, the region is undergoing a rapid transition towards a so-called “western” diet, dominated by refined sugars and carbohydrates, refined fats, oils and meat (Popkin, Adair and Ng, 2012). Diets of this kind are responsible for one-third of the world’s adult population being overweight (Ng et al., 2014) and have been associated with obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and some cancers (Murray et al., 2013). The trend towards simplification of diets is also affecting BFA. The country report of Peru clearly illustrates how recent dietary trends have had a number impacts on biodiversity and vice versa:

• The Peruvian population is consuming increasing quantities of carbohydrate in the form of potatoes and rice, most of which is imported (imports of these products grew by 120 percent in the last five years according to the country report). The consumption of quinoa, a grain long considered to be poor people’s food, has increased slightly in recent years as a result of its popularization in foreign markets. However, the consumption of traditional tubers such as mashua, oca and olluco continues to decline and these crops are tending to disappear from the highland agroecosystems (at elevations of 3 000 to 4 000 m) where they are normally cultivated. Such agroecosystems are becoming increasingly uniform in terms of their biodiversity.

• A range of products are extracted from Peru’s forests by local populations and either consumed locally (e.g. camu-camu, palmito, cocona) or exported. Exports of native species from Peru generated, on average, about US$250 million per year in the last decade, approximately 45 percent of which was accounted for by animal species and the rest by plant species. About 80 percent was generated from the export of cultivated plant and animal species, but the export of wild native species has been growing substantially in recent years (e.g. by 130 percent from 2009 to 2012) according to the country report.

• The document entitled Pesca y seguridad alimentaria: el abastecimiento del pescado fresco en el Perú (Fish and food security: the supply of fresh fish in Peru) cited in the country report notes important changes in the consumption of fish in Peru, with an increasing share being accounted for by species such as jurel (Chilean jack mackerel: Trachurus murphyi), pota (jumbo flying squid: Dosidicus gigas) and perico (common dolphinfish: Coryphaena hippuruses). Consumption of frozen fish – sold as fresh – is increasing, even in coastal regions. The proportion accounted for by species captured through artisanal, small-scale fishing is declining, as they are replaced by jurel or pota from industrial factory ships or by imported frozen fish sold as fresh.

• According to the same study, growing demand for fish meals and oils has led to an increase in the tonnage of fishing boats used for large-scale capture of anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) and other coastal species. This activity is having a serious effect on fish species that are important for human consumption, underpin the livelihoods of artisanal fishers and serve as a major food source for their households. Loss of the species captured in small-scale fisheries leads in turn to more consumption of imported frozen fish at the national level. The report points out that the well-intended objective of increasing the country’s per capita fish consumption led to unforeseen ecological problems that are affecting the sustainability of local fisheries.

2.1.2 Biodiversity and ecosystem services

Biodiversity is the basis for the provision of most ecosystem services (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997; Hooper et al., 2005; Ricketts et al., 2008; Blazy et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2013). Some of these services result in direct benefits to agricultural production, on-farm or at landscape level (e.g. pollination), while others are beneficial to local communities, to nearby rural and urban areas (e.g. water regulation) or to humanity in general (e.g. carbon sequestration). Sometimes a given component of BFA can serve multiple purposes and benefit multiple users. Two examples from the region can serve to illustrate this:

• Associated and shade trees in coffee gardens provide a range of well-documented ecosystem services, including microclimate regulation, pollination, shade for coffee plants and nutrient cycling (e.g. Babbar and Zak, 1995; Soto-Pinto et al., 2000; Vaast et al., 2006; van Oijen et al., 2010; Siles, Harmand and Vaast, 2010) and can also enhance biological pest control. Studies in agroforest coffee gardens in Brazil show that Inga subnuda, a tree species that farmers often grow in association with coffee, has extrafloral nectaries in its leaves that represent a local energy source that enhances the activity of natural parasitoids of coffee leaf miners (Leucoptera coffeella) and berry borers (Hypothenemus hampei) (Rezende et al., 2014). Trees can also provide additional income if they produce fruits or commercial wood. Trees can contribute substantially to reducing soil erosion (e.g. Ataroff and Monasterio, 1997) and thereby reduce the siltation of waterways and prevent the loss of stored soil carbon. Trees themselves can store carbon from the atmosphere and their dead leaves and roots contribute to soil carbon storage. Trees provide habitat for a range of animal species of conservation importance.

• In Latin America, more specifically in the Southern Cone of South America, native grasslands occupy some 700 000 km^2 and, support 65 million head of cattle and the livelihoods of 430 000 rural families in Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. These grasslands are home to about 4 000 endemic plant species, including some 800 native grass and 200 legume species (Overbeck et al., 2007) and provide permanent or transitory habitats for a wide range of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians (Parera and Kesselman, 2000; Alianza del Pastizal, 2015). They store about 5 percent of the soil carbon of the entire region, control floods and regulate water provision to cities and hydroelectric plants, and constitute the heartland of the local gaucho culture (Modernel et al., 2016). Intensification of crop and livestock production in the region threatens the viability of these biodiverse production systems (Baldi and Paruelo, 2008). However, even when individual farmers intensify their production through continuous cropping or sowing ley pastures with exotic species, they always keep part of their farm as native grassland, as this can allow production to continue in dry years or during droughts.

The provision of energy is an important ecosystem service in many parts of the region, particularly in places where rural populations do not have access to electricity or gas for their domestic needs. In many cases, the supply of this service depends almost entirely on associated plant biodiversity. In the dry Altiplano (high plateau) region of Peru, an area dominated by grass steppes with some shrub and short-tree species, the pressure on the natural ecosystem as a result of demand for fuelwood and other fuel plants is very strong. Resinous shrubs such as tholas (Parastrephia lepidophylla, Baccharis spp.) and yareta (Azorella compacta) and trees such as the local keñua (Polylepis spp.) are heavily exploited for fuel. The region also has a number of native grass species that are of high forage value and are becoming rare as a result of overgrazing and other human activities (Orsag, 2009).

2.1.3 Biodiversity and agroecosystem resilience

BFA contributes to the ability of crop and livestock production systems to cope with climatic variability, pest and disease outbreaks and price shocks, thus increasing the resilience of food systems (Gattinger et al., 2012; Kremen and Miles, 2012). Climatic trends for the Latin America and Caribbean region show decreasing average rainfall, increasing temperatures, greater rainfall variability and greater frequency of extreme weather events such as hurricanes (Marengo et al., 2014). This will have consequences for land use and for agricultural practices. Resilience is not granted by biodiversity per se. Rather, it is mediated by human agency and results from social–ecological interactions that determine the way individual farmers and communities manage BFA (Tittonell, 2014b).

For example, in years of drought or excessive rainfall, biodiverse home gardens are often the only place on the farm from which food can be harvested; these relatively small pieces of land (typically between 0.1 and 0.25 ha) are key to overcoming famines or hunger risk in dry years (Lok, 1998; Torquebiau and Penot, 2006; Pulido et al., 2008). Home gardens are common in the region. They are found on most family-based farms, irrespective of their size, but are most common in the tropical agroecosystems of Central America, the Caribbean and the northern part of South America. They constitute a reservoir of BFA and are given various different names in different parts of the region: traspatio, quinta, solar, huerto casero, jardim da casa, etc. Home gardens and other agroforestry systems have been well documented in the region for more than two decades (Greenberg, 1994). They constitute complex, small-scale polycultures that commonly contain more than 100 species of annual and perennial plant species per field.

The management of these complex agroforestry systems relies on solid ethnobotanical knowledge. For example, the Tzeltal Mayans of Mexico can recognize more than 1 200 species of plants, P’uerepechas more than 900 and Yucatan Mayans some 500 (Altieri, 1991). They represent a repository of genetic resources for cultivated species (e.g. Schneider, 2004) and can host important associated biodiversity. For example, Greenberg (1994) reports the presence of up to 180 bird species that help control insect pests or distribute seeds in a coffee plantation in Mexico. Home gardens are dynamic systems that go through phases of establishment, maintenance and eventual abandonment, with their vegetative associations changing over time. In the Peruvian Amazon, for instance, species such as Carica papaya (papaya), Manihot esculenta (cassava) and Ananas comosus (pineapples) and annual crop species such as maize and rice decrease in frequency as the home garden ages, and perennial species such as Inga edulis, Pouteria caimito, Genipa Americana, Citrus reticulata and Crescentia cujete come to dominate and shade the garden (Wezel and Ohl, 2005).

2.1.4 Biodiversity and adaptation to climate change

Adaptation to climate change requires genetic diversity and constant selection by rural communities working across climatic gradients. For example, the capacity to explore different ecological niches in the extreme ecosystems of the high Andes depends on a broad base of BFA (Skarbø, 2014). Rich sources of BFA such as these can play a major role in future adaptation to global change. A current example of how BFA hotspots can play a global role is the recent explosion in international demand for quinoa, fuelled by its nutritional properties (Winkel et al., 2012). Examples of genetic resources from the region that may prove useful in efforts to sustain food production in future climates include short-cycle maize varieties adapted to high altitudes in the Andes or to the dry and cold valleys of northern Patagonia. Studies conducted in traditional maize seed systems in eastern Mexico have shown that seed exchanges between farmers take place within a 10 km radius around each farm and across a range of altitudes (Bellon, Hodson and Hellin, 2011). These exchange systems are key to effective local adaptation of maize varieties to climate change.

A literature review of 97 references undertaken by Rossing, Modernel and Tittonell (2014) provides solid evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean that agroecology and other biodiversity-rich production systems provide higher performance in terms of climate change mitigation and adaptation than do conventional systems based on a few crop species and input of non-renewable energy and agrochemicals. Significantly greater carbon sequestration capacity, better energy-use efficiency, greater soil water holding capacity and more resilience to droughts, heavy rainfall and hurricanes were documented (ibid). The resilience of diverse agroecological systems in Central America and the Caribbean following severe physical damage caused by hurricanes has been repeatedly studied. For example, a study of the effects of hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua and Honduras (Holt-Giménez, 2002) found that farms that used agroforestry techniques generally suffered less economic loss than conventional coffee farms. Philpott et al. (2008) showed that after hurricane Stan in Chiapas, Mexico, significantly smaller fractions of the land areas of structurally more complex farms were affected by landslides than of those that were less structurally complex.

Table 10 provides a summary of the information provided in the country reports on the use of BFA for coping with climate change, invasive alien species and natural or human-made disasters. It should be noted, however, that many of the plans and initiatives reported do not show very specifically how BFA is contributing to efforts to cope with these problems. A number of countries report, national and regional policies for climate change adaptation and mitigation that have implications for research investments in, for example, climate-smart agriculture or community-based strategies or for the creation of funding or insurance mechanisms. However, none of the reported instruments address, at least not explicitly, the role that biodiversity can play in adaptation and mitigation. The measures reported also include biodiversity conservation initiatives that do not explicitly address links to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.

The contribution of BFA to efforts to cope with and manage the spread of invasive species has been limited, or at least seldom documented (Table 10). Some countries reported on the introduction of exotic biological control agents or the exploration of native biological control agents to regulate pests, weeds and diseases of crops, livestock, forests or species used in aquaculture. The report from Ecuador highlights the Galapagos verde 2050 (Green Galapagos 2050) initiative, which proposes the use of biologically based agriculture to achieve food self-sufficiency on the islands, which have National Park status, and thereby avoid the involuntary introduction of invasive species through food imports from the mainland. The report from Mexico provides a detailed description of the situation of potentially invasive aquatic species used in aquaculture (not shown in Table 10). These species, which are nowadays reproduced under strictly controlled laboratory (nursery) conditions, include carp, rainbow trout, bagre (Ictalurus punctatus) and ostión japonés (Crassostrea gigas) (Mendoza and Koleff, 2014). The Mexico report also mentions freshwater invasive species, the pez diablo or plecos (Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus and Pterygoplichthys pardalis) and the freshwater lobster (Cherax quadricarinatus), for which commercial capture and utilization is incentivized in order to reduce their populations.

2.1.5 Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches

Reported examples of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches[6] in the region are presented in Table 11. Seascape approaches to the management of marine reserves and sustainable-fishing schemes (Box 2) and landscape approaches to the management of forest resources and sustainable forestry were the most commonly reported measures of this kind. Landscape approaches in agricultural (crop and livestock) systems were less commonly reported.

2.1.6 Traditional knowledge

The small-donations programme implemented in Ecuador supports community-based initiatives aimed at strengthening traditional – in some cases ancestral – approaches to the management of BFA through the implementation of agroecological practices. The programme aims to maintain and restore agrobiodiversity, recover “old” or forgotten genetic resources and manage soil biodiversity without the use of agrochemicals. The objective is to achieve local food sovereignty by combining traditional and more recent knowledge on the functioning of ecosystems to promote sustainable and economically viable agroecosystems that are able to stop the expansion of the agricultural frontier into fragile ecosystems. Cooperation and collective action at community level are actively promoted. Also in Ecuador, the direct participation of artisanal fishers as taxonomists and ecologists makes a key contribution to the design and implementation of plans for the conservation of aquatic resources, territorial planning, fisheries management and the identification of research needs (Begossi et al., 2008). Costa Rica’s small donations programme is described in Box 3.

Costa Rica’s Law on Biodiversity[7] addresses the protection of traditional knowledge systems associated with biodiversity in general. Costa Rica’s indigenous population consists of eight groups, inhabiting 24 territories throughout the country. Their knowledge and traditional practices associated with biodiversity management include medicinal practices, hunting and fishing, handicrafts and management of crops (e.g. maize, beans and tubers) and various livestock species. A similar situation was reported by Peru, where a national law (dating from 2002)[8] protects indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge of biological resources. Domestication is one of the aspects of traditional knowledge protected by the law, which also provides the framework for studies on propagation systems, photochemical studies of medicinal plants and pigments, and studies on the nutritional value of edible wild species.

“Chaku”, the method used in the Andes to capture vicuñas to obtain their wool, is based on ancestral techniques used by the Incas and is protected by the aforementioned law. Dehydration of fish and its conservation in salt is another important protected traditional food-processing practice that has outlived other conservation technologies. There is also a countrywide initiative to establish agrobiodiversity conservation areas, as well as projects on the revalorization of campesino technologies in the Andes.

In Grenada, there are programmes that aim to strengthen the use of traditional knowledge associated with BFA and wild foods, including through the use of holders of traditional knowledge in training activities coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and the provision of technical and financial support to communities endowed with traditional knowledge. Popularization of wild foods and traditional knowledge is facilitated through the participation of communities associated with these resources in national exhibitions, such as the FAO-sanctioned World Food Day and national food festivals, and promoting the development of recipes that use traditional knowledge and wild foods.

One way to protect and strengthen traditional knowledge is through policies that regulate their use and create legal mechanisms to protect intellectual property rights. The Government of Panama has taken several steps in this direction including through the promulgation of a national law on intellectual property rights[9] that includes indigenous knowledge and through sui generis measures to protect all indigenous rights, including practices and knowledge related to indigenous medicines. At a more practical level, Panama’s Institute for Agriculture and Livestock Research engaged with indigenous communities of the Ngäbe Buglé region in an effort to preserve and strengthen their local agricultural knowledge by providing support in institutional capacity building and in the establishment of a local science and technology system.

2.1.7 Needs and priorities

Reported needs and priorities related to the sustainable use of BFA, and in particular of associated biodiversity and wild foods, are listed in Table 12. Research needs and knowledge gaps related to traditional forms of sustainable use of biodiversity were noted by most countries, as well as the need for capacity development and for strengthening material and human resources. Institutional capacities and institutional innovation, as well as dissemination of knowledge among policy-makers and decision-makers, were also frequently mentioned. Most notably, several countries indicated the need for institutional changes that consolidate BFA-related policies and actions, the responsibility for which is now typically spread across various ministries (agriculture, environment, culture, natural resources, fisheries, development, etc.) within the respective country. This creates unnecessary institutional islands, miscommunication and some degree of competition for resources and responsibilities.

2.2 CONSERVATION

2.2.1 In situ conservation

Reporting countries that have in situ conservation programmes in place for associated biodiversity and wild food species include Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru. The species conserved are mostly plants and vertebrates, with some examples of invertebrates and micro-organisms. In most cases, the conserved species represent associated biodiversity. Many of the reported cases of in situ conservation refer to ecosystems, landscapes, seascapes or watersheds that include a broad range of life forms. Some such sites, for example marine reserves in coastal areas, serve as in situ conservation sites for associated biodiversity and wild food species. However, some countries reported conservation areas (e.g. nature reserves) that may not – strictly speaking – host associated biodiversity or wild foods per se or were not created with the objective of conserving these categories of biodiversity. Several countries reported examples that pertain to BFA, but not strictly to associated biodiversity or wild food species.

Reported examples of marine protection reserves and fishing restriction zones for seascape regeneration and in situ conservation from Saint Lucia (Box 2) and Grenada are discussed above. Examples from Jamaica are presented in Box 4. In situ conservation of BFA and associated biodiversity has been practised for centuries in countries such as Peru, particularly in its Andean zone. Since 1996, several in situ conservation projects have been launched, including the In Situ Conservation of Native Crops and their Wild Relatives Project, implemented between 2001 and 2006 by the national agricultural research organization and four NGOs (Asociación ARARIWA, Centro de Servicios Agrarios, Proyecto de Alternativas Tecnológicas Campesinas and Coordinadora de Ciencia y Tecnología Andina) with the aim of conserving biodiversity in farmers’ fields, protecting wild relatives of cultivated crops, creating awareness of ecological, cultural and nutritive values, strengthening community organization, developing and consolidating markets, developing supportive policies and designing an information and monitoring system. This initiative targeted 11 native crop species, 19 crop associations and involved 154 communities in 53 districts.

Mexico presented an extensive report on in situ conservation initiatives for associated biodiversity, wild foods and other components of BFA. Examples include 25 community seed banks that can be used to address climatic contingencies via the donation of seeds to farmers. Table 13 provides examples of in situ conservation and monitoring of wild relatives and landraces of cultivated species such as jatropha, jojoba and cotton. Several initiatives, in various parts of the country, are reportedly targeting the conservation of at least 85 wild food species of plants, vertebrates, invertebrates and micro-organisms. Several marine fishing refuge zones along the country’s coastline protect a total of 163 species of fish, crustaceans, conches and sea turtles. A total of 16 freshwater fishing refuge zones have been established to protect the eggs and juvenile stages of freshwater fish species, mostly in dammed lakes.

Regional initiatives reported for the in situ conservation of biodiversity and wild food species include the C-Fish Project devised by the environmental not-for-profit CARIBSAVE Partnership. The project aims to strengthen community-based fish sanctuaries and marine protected areas in five countries across the Caribbean – Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – with the objective of generating significant environmental, social and economic benefits in fields ranging from sustainable fisheries to tourism and natural coastal defences. These efforts reflect a growing international focus on ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change and cost-effective strategies for small island developing states, where strengthening the resilience and productivity of coastal ecosystems can reduce the impacts of climate change.

2.2.2 Ex situ conservation

Ex situ conservation facilities were reported by Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru, Grenada, Jamaica, Panama and Nicaragua. These facilities provide for the ex situ conservation of 25 plant species, 16 terrestrial vertebrate species, 10 fungi species (including 8 mycorrhizas), 10 bacterial species, 8 aquatic vertebrate species and 8 invertebrate species of associated biodiversity and wild foods.

Other examples of ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity and wild food species and other categories of biodiversity also reported. The report from Guyana, for example, mentions the ex situ conservation of the micro-organisms Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp. and Beauveria bassiana for the control fungal diseases, and of the arthropods Telenomus sp. (a wasp) and Coccinella septempunctata (a ladybird beetle) for the control of and rice pests (paddy bugs [Oebalus poecilus]). El Salvador and Mexico reported ex situ conservation facilities for various types of BFA, including associated biodiversity and wild food species. Costa Rica reported invertebrate collections consisting of 3 577 274 specimens (extracts and dead organisms), of which 66 900 constitute an inventory of arthropod biodiversity. Grenada reported on incipient ex situ conservation initiatives for germplasm of high-value species such as spices, exotic tropical fruits, cut flowers and roots and tubers.

The objectives of the reported ex situ conservation initiatives include inventory and research, conservation and reproduction, genetic improvement and certified seed production, maintenance of resources for potential use in future production systems, repopulation, dissemination and commercial use. Objectives less frequently mentioned included production of feed for aquaculture fish and fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by bacteria. Peru reported the ex situ conservation of native domestic camelids (llamas and alpacas) for reproduction purposes at the Quimsachata site and for breeding at the Centro de Investigación La Raya in Puno. Peru also reported the conservation of butterflies for reproduction purposes. In Jamaica, the Tissue Culture Unit of the Scientific Research Council was established to preserve rare, endangered and economically important species, while the Tissue Culture Unit of the Research and Development Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has cultures of 28 varieties of local sweet potato types and 11 varieties of cassava.

2.2.3 Needs and priorities

Reported needs and priorities in terms of the conservation of BFA, and in particular associated biodiversity and wild food species, are listed in Table 14. In several cases, these priorities do not differ much from those identified for sustainable use (Table 12). The two major needs and priorities that stand out, as they were mentioned virtually by all countries, are:

• generating knowledge and information pertinent to conservation; and

• addressing current limitations in terms of funding and the availability of qualified human resources.

Baseline field research to assess the current status of BFA was mentioned as a prerequisite for conservation plans. Other frequently mentioned priorities included strengthening political support, developing relevant policies and legal frameworks, greater dissemination of knowledge, and expansion of ongoing conservation initiatives. Also mentioned was the need for greater integration of biodiversity-conservation and agricultural-productivity agendas. The need for better information about illegal practices, for example in the case of fishing activities, and their impact on biodiversity conservation was also highlighted.

2.3 ACCESS AND EXCHANGE

Measures facilitating access to the various components of BFA usually vary according to the intended use of the resource (e.g. any use, research and development, or commercial use). Examples of possible measures include the need to obtain prior informed consent, share benefits based on mutually agreed terms and have special considerations in place for access to resources held by indigenous peoples and local communities. Table 15 summarizes information provided in the country reports about measures to regulate access and ensure the fair sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of BFA. The reporting was generally not very extensive. The need for prior informed consent as reported by some countries applies both to genetic resources for food and agriculture and to associated biodiversity and wild foods.

Costa Rica provides detailed examples of measures facilitating and regulating access to genetic resources, their biochemical compounds and the indigenous knowledge associated with their use, for example the need for prior informed consent and equitable sharing of benefits. The indigenous communities of the country are engaged in a participatory process to determine how to implement prior informed consent based on similar agreed criteria throughout the country. The process is also addressing regulation of access to the intellectual property of indigenous communities. In terms of the sharing of benefits, the concept of benefit in the Costa Rica regulation can mean different things, ranging from monetary benefits such as royalties to free access to the technologies developed with the genetic resource or other non-monetary benefits of a cultural, social or environmental nature, including sharing of research results and strengthening local capacities, so long as agreement has been reached with the local communities.

According to the Costa Rica regulation on monetary benefits, a down payment of 10 percent of the research and/or bioprospection budget in a designated bank account owned by the community at the beginning of the project is mandatory. The utilization and/or exploitation of the genetic resource for commercial purposes implies payments to the community of up to 50 percent of the economic profit obtained. A limitation in this respect is that the provisions do not clearly differentiate between a biological resource (virtually any living organism) and a genetic resource (biological elements that have been scientifically proven to carry relevant genetic information for a given purpose). According to the country report, the Technical Office of the National Commission on Genetic and Biological Resources has, to date,[10] issued more than 450 access permits for basic research on and prospection for genetic resources, with applications having been submitted in the fields of biotechnology, human and animal health, taxonomy and evolution, conservation and ecology, agriculture and industrial applications.

2.3.1 Needs and priorities

Most country reports indicate needs and priorities with regard to the regulation of access and exchange, especially with regard to specific BFA-related needs (see Table 16 for a summary). Countries noted (i) the need to develop policies concerning access and exchange, with emphasis on the sharing of benefits and (ii) the need to train personnel and develop institutional capacities to implement such legal mechanisms. The need to bring current national regulations into line with the Nagoya Protocol and other standards was also singled out. Several reports note a legal gap in terms of access and benefit sharing regulations addressing associated biodiversity (as opposed to domesticated genetic resources and wild foods).

6 The ecosystem approach concept is generally understood to encompass the management of human activities, based on the best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes, so as to ensure that ecosystem structure and functions are sustained for the benefit of present and future generations. Ecosystem approaches include the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Ecosystem Approach, Integrated Land Use Planning, Integrated Water Resource Management, Sustainable Forest Management, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Ecosystem approach to fisheries management, etc. According to the World Bank “a landscape approach” means “taking both a geographical and socio-economic approach to managing the land, water and forest resources that form the foundation – the natural capital – for meeting our goals of food security and inclusive green growth. … By taking into account the inter-actions between these core elements of natural capital and the ecosystem services they produce, rather than considering them in isolation from one another, we are better able to maximize productivity, improve livelihoods, and reduce negative environmental impacts” (World Bank, 2012).

7 Ley N° 7788 del 30/04/1998 de biodiversidad (modificada por última vez por la Ley N° 8686 del 21 de noviembre de 2008) (available in Spanish at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/details.jsp?id=11314).

8 Ley N° 27811, del 24 de julio de 2002, mediante la cual se establece el régimen de protección de los conocimientos colectivos de los pueblos indígenas vinculados a los recursos biológicos (available, in Spanish, at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/details.jsp?id=3420).

9 Ley 20 de 26 de junio de 2000. Del régimen especial de propiedad intelectual sobre los derechos colectivos de los pueblos indígenas, para la protección y defensa de su identidad cultural y de sus conocimientos tradicionales, y se dictan otras disposiciones. Gaceta Oficial No. 24,083 of 27 June 2000 (available, in Spanish, at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/details.jsp?id=3397).

10 The country report is dated December 2015.

III. Policies, institutions and capacity

3.1 POLICIES, PROGRAMMES, INSTITUTIONS AND STAKEHOLDERS

This section describes relevant policies and programmes that countries in the region have adopted and are implementing to support the conservation and sustainable use of BFA, specifying where possible the extent to which they address associated biodiversity and wild foods. Relevant policies and programmes in this realm include those that address:

• the coordinated use and conservation of genetic resources;

• food security and nutrition;

• the sustainable use and conservation of associated biodiversity;

• the maintenance of ecosystem services;

• improving the resilience and sustainability of production systems; and

• the application of ecosystem/landscape/seascape approaches.

Relevant policies and programmes also include those that support farmers, livestock keepers, forest dwellers and fisher folk in the adoption and maintenance of practices that strengthen the conservation and use of BFA. Such policies and programmes include those that provide incentives or benefits such as payments, provision of inputs and subsidies. Among the policies and programmes concerned with food security and nutrition that countries reported, only those that make explicit reference to associated biodiversity and/or wild foods are considered here.

Some countries indicated that they currently have no policies in place that explicitly address the use and management of BFA and therefore did not respond to the respective questions in the country-reporting guidelines. The country reports do not mention policies or programmes that specifically target associated biodiversity and wild foods. Costa Rica, for instance, indicates that current efforts to preserve, for example, micro-organisms of importance for agriculture have been personal initiatives on the part of individuals and not coordinated policies. Nonetheless, many of the policy mechanisms described by countries, for example general regulations on biodiversity, cover components of BFA. Only a few of the reports analyse the strengths and weaknesses of current policies and programmes.

Examples of reported policies and programmes that address the dimensions outlined above are summarized in Table 17. In selecting the examples, the role of and/or the implications for BFA were examined and only the most relevant cases included. The intention was also to select examples from a range of reporting countries and to illustrate the diversity in the types of support mechanisms reported. Strictly speaking, some of the policies and programmes reported, including some of those presented in Table 16, are not policies but national laws that regulate, mandate and guide the development of relevant policies. In several cases, countries reported that such laws are being developed or have been approved but not yet promulgated or implemented.

Several country reports indicate international conventions and agreements as mechanisms of support for the sustainable use of BFA, including the Nagoya Protocol, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, the International Agreement on Tropical Timbers, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and Droughts and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Some countries reported that they did not have specific programmes for genetic resources or BFA, but had programmes and laws that indirectly protect biodiversity. For example, El Salvador has no national programme or law on BFA, but the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock has delegated the conservation, sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of plant genetic resources to the National Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Technology “Enrique Alvarez Córdova” (CENTA),[11] which has formed a national commission involving public and private institutions, universities and non-governmental organizations to address the management and conservation of genetic resources. CENTA is one of the founding institutions of the Mesoamerican Plant Genetic Resources Network. Suriname reported on the recent creation of its National Coordinating Commission on Plant Genetic Resources[12] and referred to mechanisms such as its National Biodiversity Action Plan, Fourth National Biodiversity Report, National Biodiversity Strategy Plan 2006–2020 and National Bio-Inventory, as well as to the establishment of Mangrove Forum Suriname in 2014 and awareness campaigns for farmers regarding Criollo cattle and the Oso-fowru’s chicken breed, which face the risk of extinction.[13]

Most countries reported food security policies and programmes, but their links to BFA were not made explicit. There may even be conflicting objectives in different strategies or programmes. Mexico’s Strategic Project for Food Security, led by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA), with technical support from FAO, aims to achieve food security among the population in marginal rural environments, with BFA playing a central role (cf. PESA Mexico, 2014). At the same time, SAGARPA’s the Integral Programme for Rural Development: Sustainable Modernization of Traditional Agriculture, led by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, aims to “modernize” traditional agriculture in Mexico through, inter alia, the replacement of local and traditional maize biodiversity with high-yielding hybrids and the use of external inputs of energy, nutrients and toxic agrochemicals that have adverse impacts on biodiversity.

Ecuador’s National Assembly is preparing an environmental code (Codigo Orgánico Ambiental) on biodiversity and genetic resources as a major step towards the development of strategies to guide conservation and to control and promote biodiversity including BFA. Highlights from the draft law include:

• Article 2, “… and help promote conservation, sustainable management and restoration of ecosystems, biodiversity and its components, national forest patrimony, management of environmental services, coastal marine zones and other natural resources.”

• Article 19, “Regulating and controlling access, conservation, management, sustainable use of biological resources, genetic resources, their derivatives and synthetics, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits associated with biodiversity in coordination with the Science Technology Innovation and Ancestral Knowledge Authority.”

• Article 20, “… regulates the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from them.”

• Article 21 refers to the objective “… to conserve, manage and sustainably use biodiversity, ecosystems, species and genetic resources maintaining ecological functions and dynamics to ensure its resilience, both for intrinsic reasons and for human welfare.”

In terms of programmes that provide support to rural and coastal people for the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity, the report from Mexico mentions the Programme of Subsidies to Civil Society Organizations, which promotes processes that relate to sustainable development, self-employment, natural-resource conservation and food self-sufficiency among groups of men and women belonging to rural communities. Subsidies are provided to civil society organizations to finance gender-sensitive sustainable development initiatives with emphasis in indigenous peoples. The description of the initiative does not provide explicit information on links to BFA. However, several indirect but positive effects may be expected, as knowledge about the conservation and management of BFA is largely embedded within rural and indigenous communities, and particularly among women.

3.1.1 Strengths and weaknesses

As noted above, most countries did not report on strengths and weaknesses related to policies, programmes, institutions and stakeholders and those that did (with one exception) reported exclusively on weaknesses. The report of Grenada identifies the following strengths: that policies and programmes are very comprehensive and have been developed through public consultations; that action plans are implementable; that instruments have been endorsed by the political directorate; and that they were developed with inputs from technical experts. As weaknesses, it notes that some of the programmes have not been supported with the necessary levels of financing and that programmes have not been widely adopted. Weaknesses indicated in other country reports include:

• lack of clear delimitation of mandates and responsibilities regarding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity across governmental ministries (Costa Rica);

• lack of political will and economic resources for the implementation of a true national plan for both genetic resources for food and agriculture and associated biodiversity (Costa Rica);

• protracted delays in enacting new laws and public consultations, which require designation of a green paper by the Cabinet (Jamaica);

• poor enforcement of laws and regulations and insufficient monitoring, with responsible agencies inadequately staffed (Jamaica);

• insufficient financial resources and a general lack of understanding of the consequences of biodiversity loss for the island (Jamaica);

• need for a more coherent framework that will integrate all the existing policies and provide a mechanism for creating the necessary synergies between policies (Saint Lucia);

• need to strengthen programmes that coordinate activities in the country, including all institutions; need for closer integration with the environmental sector and NGOs and harmonization with the CBD (El Salvador);

• need to review legal frameworks, particularly in the realm of protected areas, to eliminate jurisdictional conflicts and optimize resource allocation (Grenada);

• lack of resource-management plans and baselines, especially in the marine environment and continental fisheries, but also in the use of wild palm trees such as aguaje and chonta (Peru); and

• dismantling of the state and partially incomplete decentralization in all sectors; for example, in the fisheries sector, there is an overlap of functions and mandates between marine and land authorities; they interfere with each other with respect to the definition of priorities, provision of use rights, monitoring and enforcement – and this prevents the implementation of ecosystems approaches (Peru).

3.1.2 Interministerial cooperation

As noted at various points above, a number of countries mentioned a lack of connectedness and collaboration between ministries or a lack of clarity regarding responsibilities and mandates. This subsection presents some examples, taken from the country reports, of interministerial cooperation in the field of conservation and sustainable use of BFA, including, where available, information on the collaboration mechanisms involved. What is not always clear from the reports is how successful the cooperation has been so far.

The Government of Jamaica Adaptation Fund Program started in 2012 and is being implemented by the Planning Institute of Jamaica in partnership with the National Environmental and Planning Agency, the National Works Agency, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Rural Agricultural Development Authority, the National Irrigation Commission, the Ministry of Tourism and Entertainment and the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management. The first component of this project was developed in response to the problem of coastal erosion and involved installing breakwater structures along the Negril coastline to reduce the exposure of coastal and environmental assets to storms and storm surges, restore and improve the functions and services of coastal ecosystems (seagrass beds and coral reefs) and protect fishing livelihoods.

Saint Lucia’s Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Education have increased their collaborative efforts in the last three years to highlight the nexus between agriculture, nutrition and health and to promote the use of safe locally produced foods in the fight against non-communicable diseases. This collaboration is ongoing and is expected to increase awareness of the role of agricultural biodiversity in healthy lifestyles and to promote the sustainable use of agricultural biological resources. Diversifying local agriculture and promoting local production of healthy foods is expected to improve food availability and help ensure food and nutritional security. In Panama, the Ministry of Environment is promoting cooperation and coordination between different institutions within the country to meet the Aichi Targets. The Interinstitutional Environmental System was created in 2006 to coordinate efforts on environmental issues, including biodiversity conservation. Ecuador reports on the Food and Nutrition Integral Programme,[14] within the framework of the “Nutrition Action” National Strategy,[15] which involves the Ministry for the Coordination of Social Development, Ministry of Public Health, Ministry of Housing, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Food and Fisheries and the Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion.

Climate change is another issue that brings together ministries and other governmental bodies. Costa Rica, for example, has created a Technical Interinstitutional Commission for Climate Change. This body currently involves the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and there are plans to involve other ministries in the future. Its task is to prioritize agendas and implement the National Strategy on Climate Change. Similar approaches have been followed by Panama, Peru and Mexico.

3.1.3 Needs and priorities

The needs and priorities reported by countries with regard to policies, programmes and institutions addressing BFA were not necessarily specific to these areas of activity. For example, needs for research funding, qualified personnel, baseline studies and databases are not specific to policy development. Likewise, as described above, reported needs and priorities related to sustainable use and conservation and to access and benefit sharing often included the need to establish policies and programmes. As a general pattern, countries that do not have policies and regulations targeting BFA in place regard the development and implementation of instruments of this kind as a priority. Countries that have instruments in place indicate that greater interinstitutional (interministerial) coordination is the main priority. Reported needs and priorities in this field are listed in Table 18.

3.2 CAPACITY

3.2.1 Training and education needs

Most reporting countries identified training and education needs related to BFA management. Particular emphasis was placed on the management of associated biodiversity for the delivery of ecosystem services of importance to agricultural production. The main reported priorities can be summarized as follows:

• higher education programmes on, or that include, BFA and its management;

• capacity development and training of professionals and field technicians on biodiversity management and conservation (covering technical and legal matters);

• training of farmers on aspects of sustainable use and management, particularly of associated biodiversity; and

• training of communicators in the sensitization of the public opinion.

The report from Mexico suggests the creation of an institute or national centre for research and university-level education in the field of BFA. The report links the lack of interest in genetic resources in legislative agendas partly to the lack of trained professionals in the policy-making arena. The creation of a national centre of this kind would contribute to the development of well-informed policies, a national information system, university curricula on BFA and a national strategy for the use and conservation of associated biodiversity. Constraints to achieving this objective are mostly financial and material, according to the report, but there are also constraints in terms of human capacities. In terms of existing capacity, the report mentions the Institute of Genetic Resources and Productivity with its Postgraduate Programme on Genetic Resources for Food, and the National Centre for Training on Fisheries and Aquaculture, which identifies capacity gaps and develops ad hoc programmes for training and capacity development.

Grenada’s report, at the other end of the spectrum, points to “a dire need for professional capacity building and training” in basic areas such as ecology, land-use management, fisheries management, forestry management, watershed management, entomology, plant pathology, water-resources management, biosafety, veterinary medicine, zoology, botany, general biology, invasive species, nematology, bacteriology, environmental sciences, marine biology and plant breeding. The report from Jamaica indicates that training is needed in responsible fishing practices, promotion of fishers’ associations, data collection and compliance with licenses for fishers and vessels. Guyana’s report notes that training can improve awareness, and suggests incorporating training on biodiversity into agricultural undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at the University of Guyana.

The report from Panama notes the need for postgraduate study programmes on genetic resources and biodiversity, but also emphasises the need for training and capacity development among farmers and field professionals on the sustainable management of BFA. It identifies the need to train experts on practical legal aspects of genetic resources management such as patents, rights, benefits, regulations, negotiations and international conventions. It also identifies capacity gaps in the fields of collection and conservation (in situ and ex situ), inventory and evaluation of associated biodiversity and underutilized food species, domestication of wild species, ethnobotany, prebreeding, management of the natural resource base, and commercialization of underutilized species. Ecuador’s report highlights the recent creation by the government of a centre for academic excellence in Amazonia, the Ikiam, which constitutes an opportunity for the development of a curriculum on the sustainable use and conservation of BFA.

3.2.2 Research needs

Research needs on associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services are generally not singled out or prioritized, as such, in the country reports, which makes it difficult to tabulate them in this synthesis report. Nonetheless, research needs in these areas are noted throughout the country reports in the various “needs and priorities” subsections, where they often appear as knowledge, information and data needs (see Tables 8, 14, 16 and 18). Table 19 provides a summary. Further research needs, as identified by regional experts during the informal regional consultation in Panama City, in March 2016, are listed in the report of that meeting (FAO, 2016). Soil micro-organisms, their conservation and their management in agricultural (crop and livestock) and forest production stand out as frequently reported research priorities. Several countries noted the need for baseline inventories and national-level diagnosis of genetic resources and associated biodiversity. The need for research on wild pollination and on indigenous management of biodiversity was also repeatedly noted.

Constraints to addressing the research areas listed in Table 19 were chiefly reported to be a lack of funding and human resources, and secondarily a lack of qualified personnel and infrastructure. Absence of political interest and will and insufficient institutional support were also reported to be constraints. Several countries indicated that conducting one-off baseline research is not enough: it was noted that funding needs to be secured by law in order to allow databases to be updated regularly and trends to be monitored. Another point raised was that changes of government and administrations in the region often lead to changes in research funding and that this affects the long-term continuity of research programmes. The report of Peru compiles a number of testimonies from national stakeholders from the research sector and academia, whose statements indicate a worrying absence of material support both for the basic research needed to support decision-making and for more-applied research related to the development of technologies. The reports from Costa Rica and Mexico note that the compartmentalization of research in the hands of different public organizations and companies that respond to particular interests means that information is fragmented and very often difficult to access. Actors, capacities and fields of interest in research on biodiversity urgently need to be mapped. Another major challenge identified in the field of research was the need to establish links between biodiversity inventories and ecosystem functions, particularly those relevant to the supply of ecosystem services to agriculture.

11 http://www.centa.gob.sv/2015/

12 http://www.fao.org/pgrfa-gpa-archive/sur/comiteil.html

13 The country report cites the country’s MDG Progress Report 2014 (Government of Suriname, 2014) with regard to these awareness-campaigns.

14 http://plataformacelac.org/programa/39

15 https://educacion.gob.ec/estrategia-accion-nutricion

IV. Regional and international cooperation

4.1 MAJOR REGIONAL INITIATIVES ADDRESSING THE CONSERVATION AND USE OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

In their reporting on regional policies and programmes, most countries focused on regions within their respective territories rather than on regions in the sense of groups of neighbouring countries. Most of the regional policies and programmes reported were thus subnational or national initiatives. Examples include Mexico’s REDD+ National Strategy, El Salvador’s Agroforestry Network, Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Plan and Peru’s National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation. These programmes, although relevant to BFA, are not multicountry initiatives. Table 20 lists the initiatives mentioned in the country reports that involve more than one country. The truly regional initiatives[16] reported involved the following collaborative elements and objectives:

• technology transfer;

• increasing stakeholder participation;

• increasing access to financial resources through participation;

• improving research facilities;

• exchange of expertise;

• training of scientists from national programmes;

• exchange of information;

• providing access to advanced research results;

• characterization and evaluation of germplasm;

• raising public awareness of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; and

• avoiding duplication.

Some of the (transnational) regional initiatives reported were not explicitly concerned with BFA. Conversely, some relevant regional programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean that were not mentioned in the country reports. Examples include the Latin American Forest Genetic Resources Network,[17] the Andean and Amazonian Plant Genetic Resources Network and the Regional Global Environment Facility Project Strengthening the Implementation of Regimes of Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing in Latin America and the Caribbean, executed by the Regional Office for South America of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and implemented by the Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations Environment Programme. The reports of Peru and Ecuador call for stronger common action to conserve Andean crops and the knowledge associated with them, and note the need to foster technology transfer among countries.

4.2 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

Although international coordination is essential, as demonstrated by existing – though not reported – regional initiatives, the countries reports do not explicitly indicate needs and priorities in terms of integrating BFA, and in particular associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services, into regional and international initiatives. This issue was, however, highlighted by the national focal points that participated in the regional consultation meeting. Moreover, as described in the respective sections above, countries indicated that regional/international cooperation and integration are priorities in the fields of monitoring, sustainable use, conservation and capacity development.

16 International instruments such as the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol were reported as examples of regional cooperation by some countries.

17 http://www.bioversityinternational.org/research-portfolio/forests/laforgen/

References

Aguilar, A.G. 2008. Peri-urbanization, illegal settlements and environmental impact in Mexico City. Cities, 25: 133–145.

Alianza del pastizal. 2015. Alianza del Pastizal [Website] (available at http://www.alianzadelpastizal.org/). Accessed 3 Januray 2015.

Altieri, M. 1991. Traditional farming in Latin America. The Ecologist, 21(2): 93–96.

ANAM (Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente). 2014. Informe de gestión técnica y financiera del Proyecto Incorporación de la Conservación de la Biodiversidad mediante el ecoturismo de bajo impacto en el sistema nacional de áreas protegidas (Ecotur-AP) (PN-X1003). Proyecto Productividad Rural/Consolidación Del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano Del Atlántico Panameño (CBMAP II). Panama City.

Ataroff, M. & Monasterio, M. 1997. Soil erosion under different management of coffee plantations in the Venezuelan Andes. Soil Technology, 11: 95–108.

Babbar, L.I. & Zak, D.R. 1995. Nitrogen loss from coffee agroecosystems in Costa Rica: leaching and denitrification in the presence and absence of shade trees. Journal of Environmental Quality, 24: 227–33.

Baldi, G. & Paruelo, J.M. 2008. Land-use and land cover dynamics in South American temperate grasslands. Ecology and Society, 13(6): 6.

Barnosky, A.D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O.U., Swartz, B., Quental, T.B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E.L., Maguire K.C., Mersey, B. & Ferrer, E.A. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471: 51–57.

Begossi, A., Clauzet, M., Figueiredo, J.L., Garuana, L., Lima, R.V., Lopes, P.F., Ramires, M., Silva, A.L. & Silvano, R.A.M. 2008. Are biological species and higher-ranking categories real? Fish folk taxonomy on Brazil’s Atlantic Forest Coast and in the Amazon. Current Anthropology, 49(2): 291–306.

Bellon, M., Hodson, D. & Hellin, J. 2011. Assessing the vulnerability of traditional maize seed systems in Mexico to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(33): 13432–13437.

Bermúdez, I. & Ramos Chue, J. 2014. Etnobotánica en El Cacao, Capira, Panamá: identificación y usos de plantas medicinales. Prisma Tecnológico, 5(1): 48–52.

Blazy, J.M., Ozier-Lafontaine, H., Dore, T., Thomas, A. & Wery, J. 2009. A methodological framework that accounts for farm diversity in the prototyping of crop management systems. Application to banana-based systems in Guadeloupe. Agricultural Systems, 101: 30–41.

Caceres, D.M., Silvetti, F. & Diaz, S. 2016. The rocky path from policy-relevant science to policy implementation — a case study from the South American Chaco. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19: 57–66.

Challenger, A. & Dirzo, R. 2009. Factores de cambio y estado de la biodiversidad. In R. Dirzo, R. González & I.J. March, eds. Capital natural de México, Volumen II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio, pp. 37–73, Mexico City, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO).

Cortez Arriola, J., Groot, J.C.J., Amendola Massiotti, R.D., Scholberg, J.M.S., Mariscal Aguayo, D.V., Tittonell, P.A. & Rossing, W.A.H. 2014. Resource use efficiency and farm productivity gaps of smallholder dairy farming in North-west Michoacán, Mexico. Agricultural Systems, 126, 15–24.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–60.

Cunningham, S., Attwood, S., Bawa, K., Benton, T., Broadhurst, L., Didham, R., McIntyre, S., Perfecto, I., Samways, M., Tscharntke, T., Vandermeer, J., Villard, M., Young, A. & Lindenmayer, D. 2013. To close the yield-gap while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally relevant strategies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 173: 20–27.

Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T. & Milo, R. 2014. Land, irrigation, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(33): 11996–12001.

FAO. 2016. Report of the Informal Regional Consultation on the State of Latin America’s and the Caribbean’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Information document. Sixteenth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, 30 January – 3 February 2017. CGRFA-16/17/Inf.11.4. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-mr768e.pdf).

FAO & PAR (Platform for Agrobiodiversity). 2011. Biodiversity for food and agriculture: contributing to food security and sustainability in a changing world. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/biodiversity_paia/PAR-FAO-book_lr.pdf).

FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome.

Fischer, J., Manning, A., Steffen, W., Rose, D., Daniell, K., Felton, A., Garnett, S., Gilna, B., Heinsohn, R., Lindenmayer, D., MacDonald, B., Mills, F., Newell, B., Reid, J., Robin, L., Sherren, K. & Wade, A. 2007. Mind the sustainability gap. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(12): 621–624.

Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P.K. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309: 570–574.

Funes-Monzote, F.R., Boilat, S., Martín Martín, G., Blanco, D., González, O., Donis, F. & Correa, H. 2010. Co-innovación en sistemas integrados bio-intensivos para la producción sostenible de alimentos y energía en Cuba. In Congreso en Co-Innovación de Sistemas Sostenibles de Sustento Rural. 28, 29 y 30 de abril de 2010. Lavalleja, Uruguay, pp. 33–34. Montevideo, Departamento de Publicaciones de la Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la República Oriental del Uruguay (available at http://edepot.wur.nl/159995).

Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J.M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S.A., Carvalheiro, L.G., Chacoff, N.P., Dudenhöffer, J.H., Greenleaf, S.S., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M., Morandin, L.A., Potts, S.G., Ricketts, T.H., Szentgyörgyi, T.H., Viana, B.F., Westphal, C., Winfree, C. & Klein, A.M. 2011. Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters, 14: 1062–1072.

Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A., Buchmann, N., Mäder, P., Stolze, M., Smith, P., El-Hage Scialabba, N. & Niggli, U. 2012. Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4): 18226–18231.

Geiger, F., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Weisser, W., Emmerson, M., Morales, M., Ceryngier, P., Liira, J., Tscharntke, T., Winqvist, C., Eggers, S., Bommarco, R., Pärt, T., Bretagnolle, V., Plantegenest, M., Clement, L., Dennis, C., Palmer, C., Oñate, J., Guerrero, I., Hawro, V., Aavik, T., Thies, C., Flohre, A., Hänke, S., Fischer, C., Goedhart, P. & Inchausti, P. 2010. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology, 11(2): 97–105.

Gibbs, H. 2012. Trading forests for yields in the Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters, 7(1): 1–2.

Gliessman, S. 2006. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press.

Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F. & Pretty, J. 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327: 812–818.

González, R. 2008. De flores, brotes y palmitos: alimentos olvidados. Agronomía Costarricense, 32(2): 183–192.

Goulet, F., Magda, D., Girard, N. & Hernandez, V. 2012. L’agroecologie en Argentine et en France. Regards croisés, coll. Sociologie et environnement. Paris, L’Harmattan.

Government of the Bahamas. 2011. The Fourth National Biodiversity Report of the Bahamas to the UNCBD. Nassau (available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/bs/bs-nr-04-en.doc).

Government of Suriname. 2014. Government of the Republic of Suriname MDG Progress Report, 2014. Paramaribo (available at http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9661).

Grau, H.R. & Aide, M. 2008. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society, 13(2): 16.

Grau, H.R., Gasparri, N.I. & Aide, T.M. 2005. Agriculture expansion and deforestation in seasonally dry forests of northwest Argentina. Environmental Conservation, 32(2): 140–148.

Greenberg, R. 1994. Phenomena, comment and notes. Smithsonian, 8(25): 24–7.

Gutiérrez-Vélez, V.H., DeFries, R., Pinedo-Vásquez, M., Uriarte, M., Padoch, C., Baethgen, W., Fernandes, K. & Lim, Y. 2011. High-yield oil palm expansion spares land at the expense of forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4): 1–5.

Holt-Giménez, E. 2002. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93(1): 87–105.

Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. & Wardle, D.A. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1): 3–35.

ICSU-LAC (International Council for Science Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean). 2010. Biodiversity in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Assessment of Knowledge, Research Scope, and Priority Areas. Brazil, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, International Council for Science (available at https://council.science/cms/2017/08/ICSU-ROLAC-Science-Plan-Biodiversity-EN.pdf).

IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2015. Biodiversity for food and nutrition in Brazil. A4NH Outcome Note | November 2015. Washington DC. (available at http://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/files/2014/03/BFN-in-Brazil_-final-12.17.15.pdf).

Kahiluoto, H., Kuisma, M., Kuokkanen, A., Mikkilä, M. & Linnanen, L. 2014. Taking planetary nutrient boundaries seriously: can we feed the people? Global Food Security, 3(1): 16–21.

Kawarazuka, N. & Béné, C. 2011. The potential role of small fish species in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries: building evidence. Public Health Nutrition, 14(11): 1927–1938.

Khoury, C., Bjorkman, A., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L. & Struik, P. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11): 4001–4006.

Kleijn, D., Kohler, F., Baldi, A., Batary, P., Concepcion, E.D., Clough, Y., Diaz, M., Gabriel, D., Holzschuh, A., Knop, E., Kovács, A., Marshall, E.J.P., Tscharntke, T. & Verhulst, J. 2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276(1658): 903–909.

Kremen, C. & Miles, A. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4): 40.

Laterra, P., Castellarini, F. & Orué, E. 2011. Ecoser: un protocolo para la evaluación biofísica de servicios ecosistémicos y la integración con su valor social. In P. Laterra, E.G. Jobbagy & J.M. Paruelo, eds. Valoración de servicios ecosistémicos: Conceptos, herramientas y aplicaciones para el ordenamiento territorial, pp. 359–389. Buenos Aires, INTA.

Lok, R., ed. 1998. Huertos caseros tradicionales de América Central: características, beneficios e importancia desde un enfoque multidisciplinario. Turrialba, Costa Rica, Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Enseñanza.

Macfadyen, S., Tylianakis, J., Letourneau, D., Benton, T., Tittonell, P., Perring, M., Gómez-Creutzberg, C., Báldi, A., Holland, J., Broadhurst, L., Okabe, K., Renwick, A., Gemmill-Herren, B. & Smith, H. 2016. The role of food retailers in improving resilience in global food supply. Global Food Security, 7: 1–8.

Malpartida, E., Calugua, J., Passioni, F. & Horna, D. 2007. Enfoque sistémico para el diagnóstico de la oferta ambiental en la microcuenca Chunta Huayjo, Arequipa. Anales Cientificos. Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, 68(1): 58–66.

Marengo, J.A., Chou, S.C., Torres, R.R., Giarolla, A., Alves, L.M. & Lyra, A. 2014. Climate change in Central and South America: recent trends, future projections, and impacts on regional agriculture. CCAFS Working Paper no. 73. Copenhagen, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (available at https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/climate-change-central-and-south-america-recent-trends-future-projections-and-impacts#.WNIxF1Xytpg).

Martinelli, L.A. 2012. Ecosystem services and agricultural production in Latin America and Caribbean.Washington, DC, Inter-American Development Bank (available at https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/5403?locale-attribute=en).

Medaets, J.P., Pettan, K. & Takagi, M. 2003. Family farming and food security in Brazil. Paper presented at the OECD Global Forum on Agriculture, Designing and Implementing pro-Poor Agricultural Policies, Paris, 10–11 December 2003. Brasilia, Ministry of Agrarian Development and Extraordinary Ministry for Food Security (available at http://www.oecd.org/tad/25836756.pdf).

Mendoza, R. & Koleff, P., eds. 2014. Especies acuáticas invasoras en México. Mexico City, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.

Modernel, P., Rossing, W.A.H., Corbeels, M., Dogliotti, S., Picasso, V. & Tittonell, P. 2016. Land use change and ecosystem service provision in Pampas and Campos grasslands of southern South America. Environmental Research Letters, 11(11): 1–21.

Murray, C.J., Atkinson, C., Bhalla, K., Birbeck, G., Burstein, R., et al, 2013. The state of US health, 1990–2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(6): 591–608.

Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N., et al, 2014. Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet, 384(9945): 766–781.

Orsag, V. 2009. Degradación de suelos en el altiplano boliviano, causas y medidas de mitigación. Análisis IBEPA, 1(3): 27–30.

Overbeck, G.E., Mu, S.C., Fidelis, A., Pfadenhauer, J., Pillar, V.D.D., Blanco, C.C., Boldrini, I.I., Both, R., Froneck, E.D., Mueller, S.C. & Forneck, E.D. 2007. Brazil’s neglected biome: the South Brazilian Campos. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 9(2): 101–116.

Padulosi, S., Thompson, J. & Rudebjer, P. 2013. Fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition with neglected and underutilized species (NUS): needs, challenges and the way forward. Rome, Bioversity International (available at http://www.bioversityinternational.org/index.php?id=244&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=2663&cHash=8ce75c6de581068fe806f76c611fa9d7).

Parera, A. & Kesselman, D. 2000. Diagnóstico sumario de la fauna de mamíferos de la eco- región pampeana: caracterización y estado del conocimiento. In C. Bertonatti & J. Corcuera, eds. Situación ambiental Argentina 2000, pp. 181–184. Buenos Aires, Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, World Wildlife Fund.

Peñafiel, A.D.D., Lachat, C., Espinel, R., Van Damme, P. & Kolsteren, P. 2011. A systematic review on the contributions of edible plant and animal biodiversity to human diets. Ecohealth, 8: 281–399.

PESA Mexico. 2014. Del traspatio a la mesa y de la mesa a mi cuerpo. Mexico City, Proyecto Estratégico de Seguridad Alimentaria (PESA) (available at https://issuu.com/pesamx/docs/oaxaca__recetario_2014).

Philpott, S.M., Lin, B.B., Jha, S. & Brines, S.J. 2008. A multi-scale assessment of hurricane impacts on agricultural landscapes based on land use and topographic features. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 128(1-2): 12–20.

Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2013. Can agriculture meet future nutrition challenges? European Journal of Development Research, 25(1): 5–12.

Popkin, B.M., Adair, L.S. & Ng, S.W. 2012. Now and then: the global nutrition transition: the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1): 3–21.

Powell, B. 2012. Biodiversity and human nutrition in a landscape mosaic of farms and forests in the east Usambara mountains, Tanzania. Montreal, Canada, School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition., McGill University (PhD thesis).

Pulido, M.T., Pagaza-Calderon, E.M., Martinez-Balleste, A., Maldonado-Almanza, B., Saynes, A. & Pacheco, R.M. 2008. Home gardens as an alternative for sustainability: challenges and perspectives in Latin America. In U.P. de Albuquerque & M.A. Ramos, eds. Current topics in ethnobotany, pp. 55–79. Kerala, India, Research Signpost.

Puma, M.J., Bose, S., Chon, S.Y. & Cook, B.I. 2015. Assessing the evolving fragility of the global food system. Environmental Research Letters, 10(2): 1–14.

Ran, Y., Deutsch, L., Lannerstad, M. & Heinke, J. 2013. Rapidly intensified beef production in Uruguay: Impacts on water related ecosystem services. Aquatic Procedia, 1: 77–87.

Rezende, M., Venzon, M., Perez, A., Cardoso, I. & Janssen, A. 2014. Extrafloral nectaries of associated trees can enhance natural pest control. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 188: 198–203.

Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Bogdanski, A., Gemmill-Herren, B., Greenleaf, S.S., Klein, A.M., Mayfield, M.M., Morandin, L.A., Ochieng, A. & Viana, B.F. 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecology Letters, 11(5): 499–515.

Rossing, W.A.H., Modernel, P. & Tittonell, P. 2014. Diversity in organic and agro-ecological farming systems for mitigation of climate change impact, with examples from Latin America. In J. Fuhrer & P.J. Gregory eds. Climate change impact and adaptation in agricultural systems, pp. 69–87. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.

Santos, A. & González, P. 2006. Distribución de especies de la subfamilia Epyrinae (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) en Panamá. Tecnociencia, 8(2): 37–50.

Schneider, J. 2004. Toward an analysis of home-garden cultures. On use of sociocultural variables in home garden structures. In P.B. Eyzaguirre & O.F. Linares, eds. Homegardens and agrobiodiversity, pp. 41–55. Washington DC, Smithsonian Books.

Siles, P., Harmand, J.M. & Vaast, P. 2010. Effects of Inga densiflora on the microclimate of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) and overall biomass under optimal growing conditions in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems, 78(3): 269–286.

Skarbø, K. 2014. The cooked is the kept: factors shaping the maintenance of agro-biodiversity in the Andes. Human Ecology, 42(5): 711–726.

SOMASPA (Sociedad Mastozologógica de Panamá). 2016. Investigación y educación sobre la ecología y la conservación de los mamíferos y de la biodiversidad de Panamá. Proyectos / investigaciones. Monitoreo Alto Chagres. Panama City (available at http://www.somaspa.org/proyecto_alto_chagres_02.html). Accessed 24 March 2017.

Soto-Pinto, L., Perfecto, I., Castillo-Hernandez J. & Caballero-Nieto, J. 2000. Shade effect on coffee production at the northern Tzeltal zone of the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 80(1-2): 61–69.

Springer, N.P. & Duchin, F. 2014. Feeding nine billion people sustainably: conserving land and water through shifting diets and changes in technologies. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(8): 4444–4451.

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B.L. 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, 108(50): 20260–20264.

Tittonell, P. 2014a. Ecological intensification – sustainable by nature. Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability, 8: 53–61

Tittonell, P. 2014b. Livelihood strategies, resilience and transformability in African agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems, 126: 3–14.

Tomich, T., Brodt, S., Ferris, H., Galt, R., Horwath, W., Kebreab, E., Leveau, J., Liptzin, D., Lubell, M., Merel, P., Michelmore, R., Rosenstock, T., Scow, K., Six, J., Williams, N. & Yang, L. 2011. Agroecology: a review from a global-change perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1): 193–222.

Torquebiau, E. & Penot, E. 2006. Ecology versus economics in tropical multistrata agroforests. In B.M. Kumar & P.K.R Nair eds. Tropical homegardens: a time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry, pp. 269–282. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer Science.

Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger T.C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. & Whitbread, A. 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1): 53–59.

USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2008. FAA 118/119 tropical forests and biodiversity assessment Jamaica (2008). Washington DC (available at https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1862/USAID_OECS_FAA_118_119_2008.pdf).

Vaast, P., Bertrand, B., Perriot, J.J., Guyot, B. & Genard, M. 2006. Fruit thinning and shade improve bean characteristics and beverage quality of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) under optimal conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86(2): 197–204.

van Oijen, M., Dauzat, J., Harmand, J.M., Lawson, G. & Vaast, P. 2010. Coffee agroforestry systems in Central America: I. A review of quantitative information on physiological and ecological processes. Agroforestry Systems, 80(3): 341–59.

Wezel, A. & Ohl, J. 2005. Does Remoteness from urban centres influence plant diversity in homegardens and swidden fields?: a case study from the Matsiguenka in the Amazonian rain forest of Peru. Agroforestry Systems, 65(3): 241–251.

Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D. & David, C. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(4): 503–515.

Winkel, T., Bertero, H.D., Bommel, P., Bourliaud, J., Chevarría Lazo, M., Cortes, G., Gasselin, P., Geerts, S., Joffre, R., Léger, F., Martinez Avisa, B., Rambal, S., Rivière, G., Tichit, M., Tourrand, J.F., Vassas Toral, A., Vacher, J.J. & Vieira Pak, M. 2012. The sustainability of quinoa production in southern Bolivia: from misrepresentations to questionable solutions. Comments on Jacobsen. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 198(4): 314–319.

World Bank. 2012. Landscapes: Frequently asked questions (FAQ) (English). Rio+20: a framework for action for sustainable development. Washington, DC. (available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/468091468153281587/Landscapes-Frequently-Asked-Questions-FAQ).