Required citation:

FAO. 2019. Africa Regional Synthesis for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome. 68 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

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 978-92-5-131464-7
E-ISBN 978-92-5-132162-1 (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

I.   ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Regional context

1.3. Regional state, trends and drivers of change of biodiversity for food and agriculture

1.3.1 Main drivers of change affecting genetic resources for food and agriculture across sectors in the region

1.3.2 National information systems on associated biodiversity

1.3.3 Associated biodiversity species most frequently reported by countries in the region as being actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services

1.3.4 Wild food species most frequently reported by countries in the region

1.3.5 Main drivers of change affecting associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources

1.3.6 State and trends of associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources

1.4 Needs and priorities in terms of the assessment and monitoring of biodiversity for food and agriculture

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

2.1 Sustainable use

2.1.1 Examples whereby diversity per se, or its lack, has had a direct effect on productivity, food security and nutrition, rural livelihoods, ecosystem services, sustainability, resilience or sustainable intensification

2.1.2 Countries in the region reporting the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture for coping with climate change, invasive alien species, and natural or human-made disasters

2.1.3 Ecosystem/landscape/seascape approaches that have improved the management and use of BFA in the region

2.1.4 Examples of activities undertaken in the region to maintain and use traditional knowledge of associated biodiversity and wild foods

2.1.5 Needs and priorities in terms of the sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture, and in particular of associated biodiversity and wild foods

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 Implementation challenges

2.3.2 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 and collaboration mechanisms

3.1.3 Needs and priorities

3.2 Capacity and research needs

IV.   REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

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

4.2 Needs and priorities

REFERENCES

TABLES

Table 1. Percentage of land, water, agricultural and forest areas in Africa lying in countries that provided country reports

Table 2. Main production systems reported by countries in the region

Table 3. Associated biodiversity species most frequently reported by countries in the region to be actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services

Table 4. Wild food species reported by two or more countries in the region

Table 5. Reported trends in the adoption of selected management practices and approaches in the region

Table 6. Examples from countries in the region of use of biodiversity for food and agriculture to cope with climate change, invasive alien species or natural or human-made disasters

Table 7. Initiatives that use an ecosystem/landscape/seascape approach as reported by countries

Table 8. Implementation of ecosystem/landscape approaches in naturally regenerated and planted forests in Cameroon

Table 9. Implementation of ecosystem/seascape approaches in self-recruited and capture-based fisheries in Cameroon

Table 10. Reported in situ conservation activities or programmes for associated biodiversity for food and agriculture

Table 11. Reported in situ conservation or management activities or programmes for wild food species

Table 12. Reported ex situ conservation or management activities or programmes for associated biodiversity for food and agriculture

Table 13. Reported ex situ conservation or management activities or programmes for wild food species

Table 14. Examples of policies and programmes for the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture reported by countries in the region

Table 15. Reported regional and international initiatives embedding the conservation and/or use of biodiversity for food and agriculture, and in particular of associated biodiversity, wild food species and ecosystem services

Foreword

Africa is home to a rich biodiversity in its forests, grasslands, mountains, lakes, rivers and oceans. Over millennia, native plants and animal species, varieties and breeds of crops and livestock have diversified, through adapting to the local environment, domestication and even natural selection. Across its range of landscapes and seascapes, humans have been co-existing with nature while sustaining their livelihoods and utilizing the region’s lands, forests, grasslands and aquatic ecosystems to directly provide food, and to develop agriculture sectors. These sectors range from crop production to livestock and pastoral systems, forestry and agroforestry, as well as fisheries and aquaculture.

In all these production systems, micro-organisms, fungi, plants, animals and the agroecosystems, provide irreplaceable goods and services to food, agriculture, and people, including pollination, pest control, nutrient cycling, purification of water supplies, conversion of CO_2 into oxygen, regulation of local microclimates and provision of habitats for fish, non-wood forest products and other sources of wild and cultivated food. Moreover, many ecosystems used for food and agriculture supply services that are significant on landscape, continental or global scales.

Unfortunately, it is becoming ever clearer that Africa’s biodiversity is under threat, putting at risk the sustainability of the region’s production systems, livelihoods and food security and nutrition. On the positive side, there is an increasing awareness at the political level to conserve, manage and sustainably use biodiversity for food and agriculture.

This regional synthesis focuses on increasing awareness on the importance of biodiversity to food and agriculture in Africa as well as gathering evidence of threats and challenges of biodiversity loss.

The outcomes in this report contributed to the publication of a global Report this year on The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, which stemmed from a large number of individual country reports, and discussions of gaps, needs and priorities at the national, regional and global levels. Africa has always been an active partner for this collective effort by fostering regional dialogues on biodiversity for food and agriculture, and creating knowledge and evidence through this regional synthesis report.

The country reports from the Africa region indicate that there is a great deal of scope for improvements to biodiversity-related policies and programmes, whether by ensuring a greater focus on links to food and agriculture, improving cross-sectoral cooperation, deepening stakeholders involvement or strengthening implementation capacity. It is also abundantly clear that significant knowledge gaps need to be filled. Furthermore, knowledge of biodiversity threats needs to be improved and acted upon. On a positive note, many biodiversity-friendly management practices built on diversification, sustainable use and restoration are becoming more widespread in the Africa region’s production systems.

The report calls on countries and partners to improve the use and conservation of Africa’s biodiversity for food and agriculture, and to safeguard the rich biodiversity of the continent.

There is still hope despite the important challenges. Countries in collaboration with partners are joining in their efforts to sustainably manage their natural resources and restore forests and landscapes under different regional initiatives such as, for example, the African Union Great Green Wall and the AUDA-NEPAD African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100).

In this respect, FAO is planning to organize in collaboration with partners, an Africa Regional Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Mainstreaming Biodiversity across Agricultural Sectors in October 2019. This report provides an excellent opportunity to raise the profile of biodiversity for food and agriculture. It also serves as a basis to launch a constructive dialogue within Africa leading to developing a comprehensive road-map, guiding and facilitating concrete actions on conservation and sustainable use, management and restoration of Africa’s biodiversity.

Conserving biodiversity is a must for Africa’s future.

Abebe Haile-Gabriel

Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Africa Regional Office for Africa (RAF), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Acknowledgements

Lead authors: Pablo Tittonell and Raymond Vodouhé

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

Authors and contributors of country reports included in the Africa regional synthesis are listed below.

Logistical support to the organization of an informal regional consultation on the state of Africa’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 24 to 26 May 2016, was provided by FAO’s Subregional Office for Eastern Africa. 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 in Africa 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. A first draft, based on 14 country reports, was prepared as supporting documentation for an informal regional consultation on the state of Africa’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 24 to 26 May 2016. The document was later revised based on feedback received from the participants of the informal consultation, on additional country reports (three) and country-report updates received by FAO before November 2016. 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 agriculture 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 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 Report of the informal regional consultation on the state of Africa’s biodiversity for food and agriculture (CGRFA-16/17/Inf.11.1) (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-mr766e.pdf).

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

The Africa report summarizes the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Africa 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 Africa’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 24 to 26 May 2016.

SUMMARY

The Africa region has a diverse range of production systems, varying from small and mostly mixed systems to large-scale industrial systems. In African smallholder agricultural landscapes, home gardens constitute a particularly important source of biodiversity for food and agriculture and their contribution to plant species richness and diversity is increasingly gaining interest among researchers. Naturally regenerated forests also represent an important repository of biodiversity for food and agriculture.

As with other regions, the state and trends of Africa’s plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources tend to be better documented than those of its associated biodiversity; only a few countries report having national databases or knowledge-management systems specifically focusing on associated biodiversity. Generally, countries report that the status of biodiversity for food and agriculture is declining. Land-use change, land degradation, pollution, climate variability and climate change, natural disasters, displacement of local species, varieties and breeds by improved ones, overexploitation, pests and diseases, and the spread of invasive alien species are among the main reported threats to biodiversity for food and agriculture in the region. Several countries report a gradual reduction in the diversity and availability of wild foods, especially in forests and freshwaters, noting, inter alia, the significance of wildlife–human conflicts, overexploitation and overharvesting. Overall, there is evidence that changes in biodiversity for food and agriculture, especially changes in crop and forest systems, also affect the supply of supporting and regulating ecosystem services.

Overall, the assessment and monitoring of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services in the region are inadequate and severely hampered by a lack of human, technical and financial capacity, and they need to be strengthened.

Several countries report implementing management practices, often with the participation of local communities, to strengthen the sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture. Generic measures are taken to limit unsustainable use and/or support the sustainable use of associated biodiversity and wild food resources. Many such measures are intended to protect forest ecosystems. More-specific interventions include the active management of associated biodiversity for the provision of ecosystem services, in particular pollination, soil formation and protection, nutrient cycling, pest and disease regulation and habitat provisioning. In the case of oxygen production and gas regulation services, countries tend to manage entire ecosystems, such as savannahs and rangelands.

Some countries report on initiatives, projects or frameworks promoting the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture to cope with climate change, natural disasters and control of invasive species. For example, quite a few countries mention rearing and using weevils (Neochetina echhorniae and N. bruchi) to biologically control the invasive species water hyacinth, a serious and growing threat to key fish reproducing sites.

The implementation of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches remains limited in the region. The intensive promotion of agroforestry over the past ten years is reported to have led to better productivity and resilience to droughts in some countries. In the case of fisheries, adoption of the ecosystem approach is a recent development and results have not yet been documented.

A significant number of national and international projects in the region are aiming to document, maintain and use traditional knowledge of the region’s wild food species and associated biodiversity. While several country reports highlight gender specializations in this respect, few details of studies addressing this topic are provided. Countries identify a strong need for further and more wide-ranging studies in this field.

Knowledge of sustainable management practices and ecosystem approaches could be improved and efforts to promote these methods, for instance by improving and reinforcing rural extension services or training facilities (e.g. training on agroforestry management practices in local communities and on family farms), could be strengthened.

Several countries provided information on in situ conservation initiatives targeting associated biodiversity and/or wild foods. These generally involve the establishment of protected areas and/or the introduction of controls on activities such as agriculture, mining, hunting and the harvesting of wild products.

A few countries mention having national ex situ conservation programmes or activities for associated biodiversity and wild foods. Even if some countries report quite large collections of associated biodiversity species, the majority seem to lack or have limited ex situ collections of wild food species and associated biodiversity. In the case of wild foods, countries report the ex situ conservation of a wide range of plant species and also some fish and invertebrate species.

Associated biodiversity and ecosystem services tend to be neglected in conservation programmes, partly because of a lack of awareness of their importance to food and agriculture. While the conservation of wild food resources has been incorporated into policies addressing biodiversity in general, there is a need for policies that specifically address these resources, especially given their contribution to food security in vulnerable areas.

All the reporting countries are Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing. A few of these countries have put in place domestic legislation on access and benefit-sharing, while others indicate being in the process of developing regulatory and legal frameworks including provisions on access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such resources. Overall, the institutional and human capacity needed to implement and enforce international treaties and national measures of relevance to access and benefit-sharing at national level needs to be strengthened.

The country reports indicate that many countries currently have no policies in place that explicitly address the management of biodiversity for food and agriculture and that associated biodiversity and wild foods are particularly commonly neglected in this regard. A number of countries, however, mention more broadly focused instruments such as national biodiversity strategy and action plans. Some countries note that national policies and legislation governing the conservation and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture tend to be sector-based and that multidisciplinary, multistakeholder consultation in the development of relevant policy and legal instruments needs to be strengthened.

Particularly with respect to associated biodiversity, establishing baseline datasets and long-term monitoring mechanisms to inform decision-making and information exchange is required. Several countries also mention the need for capacity development at national level to support the development of legislation and policies that comply with international laws, conventions, treaties and protocols. Countries also mention the need to support targeted research and to develop new models of partnership and cooperation that strengthen capacity building in scientific research and development. Support for information collection and dissemination is regarded as an essential basis for bridging knowledge gaps and ensuring sound implementation of relevant measures and activities.

Most countries adhere to regional and international initiatives but fail to take appropriate measures to implement the recommendations arising from these initiatives. Reported reasons for this generally relate to limited capacity and a lack of effective enforcement and follow-up mechanisms.

I. Assessment and monitoring of biodiversity for food and agriculture

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The world’s population continues to rise steadily, especially in developing countries. Population growth in sub-Saharan Africa, estimated to have been 2.74 percent in 2016 (World Bank, 2017), is one of the highest in the world. Providing safe and nutritious food to this fast-growing population poses serious challenges to plant, forest, aquatic and animal production. Substantially increasing the production of food and other ecosystem goods and services while preserving the environment is a major present and future challenge for the region.

The richness of Africa’s biodiversity for food and agriculture is in part a consequence of the diversity of the region’s landscapes and seascapes: elevations ranging from below sea level to 5 895 m at the summit of Kilimanjaro; climatic and ecological zones ranging from deserts to rain forests; a wide variety of soil types; diverse freshwater environments, with some of the longest rivers and largest lakes on the planet; and thousands of kilometres of coastline, washed by tropical and temperate seas. This diversity, in combination with some of the world´s most ancient crop and livestock systems and the region’s traditional coastal, river and lake fisheries, has given rise to a diverse range of crop, livestock, aquatic, forest-tree and associated biodiversity species and rich within-species diversity that is essential as a source of resilience in the face of climate variability and change and the region’s growing demand for food, fibre and energy. Wild foods, including fruits, vegetables, mushrooms, spices, and terrestrial and aquatic animals, are an important source of nutrients for both rural and urban families across the region. They are mainly consumed to fill food gaps and for supplementary purposes. Within the different countries, the consumption of wild foods can vary significantly. In some areas, more than two-thirds of the population is reported to consume wild edible plants.

Much of the potential of Africa’s biodiversity for food and agriculture is being underutilized or abandoned. For example, among crops, a few recently introduced species such as maize and cassava are now grown on a large proportion of the continent’s agricultural land and are displacing local crops such as sorghum and millet (McCann, 2005). Similar trends can be observed with the spread of exotic breeds of livestock and with the introduction of invasive fish species. Exotic tree species such as eucalyptus have been introduced to many parts of the continent to replace local species, particularly in the East African highlands (Omoro and Luukkannen, 2011). In the fisheries sector, especially off the coast of West Africa, the use of large vessels has threatened various locally important fish species and artisanal fishing livelihoods (Bassey, 2017).

Despite repeated warnings about the rapid loss of biodiversity for food and agriculture the focus of agricultural research for development in recent decades has been on simplifying cropping and livestock systems, and with this has come a great loss of biodiversity from the agricultural landscape. Intensification of production has also come at a high cost to the environment and to the livelihoods of smallholders.

1.2 REGIONAL CONTEXT

As of November 2016, the following 14 countries out of a total of 47 in the Africa region[1] had submitted a country report as a contribution to the preparation of The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Gabon, the Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Mali, Senegal, Togo, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. These countries combined cover an area of approximately 7 827 520 km^2, including land and water, which is about 26 percent of the region’s total territory (30 318 630 km^2) (Table 1).

Although the area covered by the country reports represents only about one-quarter of the region, the countries in question represent a significant share of the region’s diversity in terms of climate, soils, vegetation and agroecosystems (including their cultural components). The zones represented include the Sahel and the Sudan savannah (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, the Gambia, Mali and Senegal), the upper (Guinea and Togo) and lower (Cameroon) Guinea forests, the Congo basin, even if only marginally represented (Gabon and Cameroon), the Rift Valley (Ethiopia and Kenya), the Great Lakes (Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania), the East and Southern African highlands and savannahs (Ethiopia, Kenya, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe), and the West African (Cameroon, Gabon, the Gambia, Guinea, Senegal and Togo) and East African (Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania) coastlines.

The region dominated by soils formed on Kalahari sands is only partly represented – via the country report from Zimbabwe. Areas not represented include the Mediterranean vegetation zone of the continent´s southern tip, including South Africa’s fynbos and temperate acid-soil wine highlands, the highland region of Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, where endemic highland bananas are the major staple food (and dwarf goats and a diverse range of chicken landraces are also prominent), the rich coastal and marine zone of Mozambique and the Strait of Madagascar, the Niger delta region, and the densely populated region around Lake Malawi.

As indicated in Table 2, the region has a diverse range of production systems. A total of 11 production systems are identified in the country reports. The major production systems reported are mixed systems, self-recruiting capture fisheries, livestock grassland-based systems, livestock landless systems, rainfed crop systems, naturally regenerated forests and planted forests. Irrigated rice and other irrigated crop systems, culture-based fisheries and fed aquaculture systems are less commonly reported. Other production systems mentioned include traditional agroforestry systems, artisanal and industrial apiculture, peasant agriculture and industrial agriculture.

Classifying production systems according to the categories set out in the country-reporting guidelines caused countries some problems. Most smallholder production systems in Africa are mixed systems that include different forms of crop and livestock production in combination with forestry and sometimes fishing or aquaculture. In some cases, industrial or cash-crop agriculture, such as sugar-cane, coffee, oil-palm or cotton production, coexists on the same farm with mixed agriculture practised to provide for household consumption. Even in irrigated rice production schemes, families grow a range of other crops (mostly rainfed) and/or keep livestock to cover their household needs and as an investment.

Home gardens constitute an important source of biodiversity for food and agriculture in African smallholder agricultural landscapes. These gardens are small parcels of land close to the homestead, where perennial and annual crops, fruit trees and horticultural crops, and sometimes small livestock such as poultry or pigs, are raised together, mostly to provide food for the household. Although generally less documented than in Latin American and Asia, the role of home gardens in Africa, including in terms of their contribution to plant species richness and diversity, has increasingly gained interest among researchers (Bernholt et al., 2009; Gbedomon et al., 2015, 2017). The country reports indicate the presence of home gardens in rainfed crop systems and in irrigated crop systems.

Some smallholder families practise dry-season irrigated horticulture in lowland or riverine areas, growing either cash crops or crops for home consumption. These systems fall within the irrigated (non-rice) systems category. However, they are not irrigated all year round.

Livestock landless systems in the region are often so-called zero-grazing systems, i.e. systems in which animals are confined in stalls and fed through a cut-and-carry system. Crossbred dairy cattle or goats are often managed in this way in order to secure milk production from a costly animal asset. However, farmers who keep one or two animals in a stall often also keep locally adapted animals that graze freely or are herded as part of a village herd. Thus, landless and grassland-based systems often coexist.

Naturally regenerated forests represent an important repository of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Equatorial West Africa, for instance in Cameroon, where a range of food crops are grown under a secondary forest canopy.

1.3 REGIONAL STATE, TRENDS AND DRIVERS OF CHANGE OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

1.3.1 Main drivers of change affecting genetic resources for food and agriculture across sectors in the region

The Africa region is home to important wild and domesticated biological diversity. However, countries report negative trends in the diversity of many components of this diversity (see FAO, 2010, 2014a, 2015a for further details of the status and trends of crop, livestock and forest genetic resources). For example, loss of diversity is reported in crop varieties, crop wild relatives, wild edible plants and associated biodiversity. The main drivers of the changes reported by countries to be affecting crop genetic resources, including tree crops, are:

– displacement of local varieties by improved varieties;

– a shift to market-oriented crop production;

– pests and diseases; and

– frequent droughts and unreliable rainfall.

The country reports point to a number of other drivers, although some are mentioned only in one report. The report from Cameroon, for example, mentions that volcanic eruptions frequently cause the loss of cropping systems and hence crop genetic resources. It also reports that a lack of land-tenure rights for women is a driver of biodiversity loss. In most country reports, the main drivers identified as threats to crop wild relatives are habitat loss (including as a result of urbanization), habitat degradation and habitat fragmentation.

Threats to forest genetic resources and wild edible plants as identified in the country reports include:

– deforestation;

– habitat destruction;

– spread of invasive (native and non-native) species;

– agricultural expansion and settlement;

– forest fires;

– illegal logging;

– fuelwood collection; and

– livestock grazing.

In Ethiopia, a total of 103 tree and shrub species are considered to be endangered according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List. Among these, Boswellia papyrifera (Sudanese frankincense) and Oxytenanthera abyssinica (lowland bamboo) are classified as threatened (the country report cites EBI [2014]).

Threats to domesticated animal diversity mentioned in the country reports include:

– feed shortages as a result of pasture degradation;

– human resettlement;

– competition for agricultural land;

– overgrazing and overstocking;

– invasion of exotic weeds and shrubs;

– pests and diseases;

– use of exotic breeds for upgrading local breeds and market demand for improved breeds; and

– pesticide use (particularly affects domestic bees).

The country report from Zambia mentions that the threat caused by pests and diseases is being aggravated by climate change, which is affecting the distribution of disease vectors. It notes, for example, that as a result of climate change, the distribution of the tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, the main vector involved in the transmission of East Coast fever (an often-deadly tick-borne disease of cattle, caused by the protozoal parasite Theileria parva), is projected to expand in the country.

The major threats to aquatic and terrestrial wild animals in Ethiopia are reported to be:

– habitat degradation;

– change in land use;

– overharvesting;

– unbalanced water utilization;

– siltation; and

– mining and pollution.

While most of the drivers noted above as threats to crop, forest, livestock, fishery or aquaculture genetic resources are also detrimental to associated biodiversity, other major threats to the region’s soil biodiversity are land degradation and desertification, including soil degradation. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) estimates that land degradation affects up to two-thirds of productive land area in Africa (UNCCD, 2013; Jones et al., eds, 2013). Burkina Faso reports that soil erosion caused by water and wind affects as much as 50 and 20 percent, respectively, of the country’s total land area.

Overall, there is a significant amount of information on the state and trends of domesticated plants and animals and forest genetic resources. However, little is known about associated biodiversity.

Several countries report that their responses to the threats identified have included the establishment of conservation strategies. Reported measures include the establishment of community seed banks (e.g. Ethiopia reports 12 community seed banks, of which six are functional) and on-farm field genebanks in different agroecological zones (e.g. Ethiopia reports that over 6 000 accessions of coffee, spices and root and tuber crops are being conserved in five field genebanks). Some countries also report that they have established ex situ genebanks.

1.3.2 National information systems on associated biodiversity

Few countries report a national information system for associated biodiversity. Where systems are reported, they may include newsletters, national reports on the state of biodiversity produced by relevant ministries (e.g. forestry or environment), radio and television programmes and Internet resources. Only a few countries report national databases or knowledge-management systems specifically focusing on associated biodiversity. The following list provides examples of the information systems reported:

– Cameroon reports six different paper-based information systems (periodic reports and newsletters) and three radio and television programmes. Cameroon, the Gambia and Togo report activities related to the Clearing House Mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which covers all biodiversity.

– Kenya reports the electronic databases of the Botanical Research and Herbarium Management System. The main components of associated biodiversity reported to be covered by the country’s information systems are fungi (mushrooms and mycorrhizae), bryophytes and some invertebrate and vertebrate species.

– Mali reports having two information systems in place that contribute to the management of associated biodiversity: the Information System for Sustainable Land Management (Système d’information sur la gestion durable des terres) includes recommendations for sustainable land management, including pollination management, in different ecosystems; and the national information system for agriculture sectors (Système national d’information sur les filières agricoles), established under the Law on Agricultural Orientation (Loi d’orientation agricole),[2] includes data related to the management of micro-organisms in the context of climate change adaptation.

– The United Republic of Tanzania reports several ongoing programmes that contribute to building national-level information systems by strengthening institutions and agencies that manage biodiversity, including the Tanzania Forest Services Agency, Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute, Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Tanzania Forestry Research Institute and several agricultural research institutes. The longest-term monitoring initiative targeting associated biodiversity in the United Republic of Tanzania is the National Forest Resources Monitoring and Assessment programme.

– Zimbabwe mentions a national information system known as Zimstat, in which information on various components of associated biodiversity is stored in the form of electronic and hard-copy reports. It also mentions the Zimbabwe Research Council database, which contains information on various components of associated biodiversity, mostly in the form of scientific research papers. Other information systems reported by Zimbabwe pertain mostly to crop and livestock genetic resources.

– Chad mentions several committees that contribute to monitoring associated biodiversity, including at local and regional levels (comités locaux et regionnaux d´action). It also mentions its national strategy and action plan for biodiversity.

– Togo reports national information systems on marine and fishing resources and several information systems that mostly feature crop and livestock genetic resources, i.e. do not specifically focus on associated biodiversity.

1.3.3 Associated biodiversity species most frequently reported by countries in the region as being actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services

Several country reports provide information on associated biodiversity species actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services (Table 3). Most reports list a broad range of components of biodiversity, including species that are cultivated or domesticated but provide essential supporting or regulating ecosystem services. Among these, the most frequently listed were Apis mellifera and Eucalyptus spp.

The main ecosystem functions and services provided by the species listed in the country reports are pollination, soil formation and protection, nutrient cycling and habitat provisioning. A large number of species, ranging from fish to trees and grasses, are reported to contribute to pest and disease regulation. In the case of oxygen-production and gas-regulation services, countries often report entire ecosystems, such as savannahs and rangelands. Among the plant species reported to be managed for their contributions to nutrient cycling, several cultivated tree species used in agroforestry systems (improved fallows, alley cropping, etc.) are mentioned, as are several naturally occurring tree species found in parkland agricultural landscapes, which are common in West Africa. Some countries report domestic animal species as being managed for their contributions to nutrient cycling.

1.3.4 Wild food species most frequently reported by countries in the region

Wild foods are an important source of nutrients and incomes for rural families in most of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Recent studies in the region also indicate the importance of wild-food consumption in the urban areas of certain countries and show that these foods are accessed through quite sophisticated market chains. For example, an analysis of 371 households and urban markets in Cameroonian cities revealed that many traditional wild foods, including fruits, vegetables, spices and insects, are physically available to urban dwellers most of the time (Sneyd, 2013). Cameroonians spend considerable shares of their food budgets on wild foods. However, the high cost of city living is pushing urban families to opt increasingly for cheaper staples, such as imported rice, instead of wild foods, and this is having negative consequences for their nutrition. A study on local traditional vegetable species consumed by rural households in Kenya revealed that a wide range of naturally occurring herbaceous species, often regarded as “weeds” in agriculture, contribute substantially to household nutrition throughout the year (Figueroa-Gomez et al., 2008).

Table 4 lists the wild food species mentioned most frequently in the country reports. Ten countries supplied information in this regard. Only species reported by at least two countries are presented in the table. In total, countries reported 100 species of trees, 31 species of herbaceous plants, 20 species of mammals, 7 species of birds and 3 species of reptiles. Cameroon mentioned more than 500 wild food species, including fruit, vegetable, herb, fungi, invertebrate, mammalian, fish, amphibian, reptile and bird species. With respect to edible mushrooms, the country listed 11 Termitomyces species. The national biodiversity study conducted in Zambia estimated that one-third of rural households harvest wild food resources in the form of fruits, mushrooms and roots/tubers, with a gross annual output of about 31 kg per household. Referring to activities that do not involve wild foods per se but are nevertheless significant in terms of the use of local biodiversity, Kenya mentions that Acacia tree and shrub species are used to produce charcoal.

The country report from Ethiopia notes that in the country’s Benishangul Gumuz region, where wild foods contribute a far greater proportion of the food supply than in other parts of the country, 30 to 40 percent of food consumption comes from wild edible plants. It further notes (citing Mekuanint et al., 2014) that in some parts of the country as much as 66.7 percent of the population consume wild edible plants. In the country’s Gambella region, the proportion of the population consuming wild food of animal origin is reported to exceed 50 percent, although there is also no information on the proportion of the diet that comes from wild foods. Wild foods are reportedly consumed mainly in order to fill food gaps and for supplementary purposes.

1.3.5 Main drivers of change affecting associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources

The reported state and trends of components of associated biodiversity within production systems vary from country to country across the region. Overall, little information is available on the state and trends of associated biodiversity. Where information is available, country reports mainly indicate a decline in associated biodiversity in intensively managed or exploited production systems such as planted forests self-recruiting capture fisheries and irrigated crops (non-rice) systems. The following paragraphs provide a non-exhaustive description of drivers reported by two or more countries.

Overgrazing

The country report from Kenya points to overgrazing, especially among nomadic communities, as a factor that reduces vegetative cover, negatively affects micro-organism diversity and favours the spread of insect disease vectors such as tsetse flies. Similarly, the report from the Gambia mentions that the seasonal pattern of livestock concentration and movement between the uplands and the lowlands in search of grazing and water has been partly responsible for accelerated habitat degradation and loss. The report from Ethiopia mentions that overgrazing and excessive browsing by livestock has contributed to the degradation of the country’s rangeland and forest ecosystems and their associated biodiversity.

Invasive species

The water hyacinth – a plant that spreads across water bodies and asphyxiates other aquatic organisms – is a growing concern in several countries and is regarded as a threat to the survival of some aquatic species. It also provides habitat for many organisms that are vectors of disease. The country report from Mali mentions that ponds and structures such as water-storage and irrigation installations near the Niger River are the sites most affected by this species.

Pollution

The country report from Zambia, citing Chama and Siachoono (2015), mentions that effluents from the mines in the Copperbelt discharge into the country’s main river systems and negatively affect the diversity of butterflies and dragonflies and other benthic invertebrates as a result of elevated levels of redox, electrical conductivity and turbidity. Mali reports that the advent of gold mining has negatively affected the flora of the Sudano Guinean zone, which is home to the best timber species in the country. Ethiopia, citing Kifle, Hora and Merti (2014), reports that herbicide use is a major contributor to the decline of bee colonies.

Natural disasters

Kenya reports that frequent uncontrolled fires destroy forests and grasslands leading to the loss of plant, insect and micro-organism diversity. Cameroon also notes the threat posed by fires and also mentions volcanic eruptions. Ethiopia mentions that river floods, hailstorms and droughts have caused a significant amount of damage to livestock and crops in mixed systems and are likely to have resulted in the loss of a considerable amount of biodiversity, including associated biodiversity.

Climate change

Senegal reports that land salinization brought about by global warming is causing the death of many woody species. It also notes that land acidification is eliminating vegetative cover and that erosion is reducing plant biomass and degrading soil fertility, leading in turn to the emergence of parasitic plants such as Striga spp.

1.3.6 State and trends of associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources

Kenya reports an increase in associated plant biodiversity in mixed and in irrigated (non-rice) crop production systems. In forest countries such as Cameroon, while there is reported to be an increase in biodiversity in natural forest production systems, there is a continuous decrease in biodiversity in other agro-ecosystems (livestock, fishery and crop systems). Overall, there is evidence that such changes in biodiversity for food and agriculture, especially changes in crop and forest systems, have affected the supply of supporting and regulating ecosystem services. According to the country reports, the main causes of these changes are (i) uncontrolled and illegal logging (in forest countries such as Cameroon and Gabon) and (ii) land conversion for agriculture. The country reports provide little information on the effects of changes in biodiversity in livestock and aquatic production systems.

The decline of forest genetic resources negatively affects the availability and diversity of wild food species. Countries report that land conversion for agriculture, climate change and invasive alien species are driving these effects. Overexploitation and overharvesting are also widely reported to be affecting the availability of wild foods, especially in the forest and fishing sectors. Zambia mentions a gradual depletion of timber resources that in turn affects the availability of non-wood forest products, including wild-food resources such as edible caterpillars and edible orchids. Similar trends are described for fish species in Zambia´s major rivers. Kenya reports a reduction in the diversity of natural products from forestry and fisheries, mentioning in particular saddle wood trees and the omena fish (the silver cyprinid, Rastrineobola argentea) in Lake Victoria. Cameroon and the Gambia report a gradual reduction in the diversity and availability of wild foods and note the significance of wildlife–human conflicts. Changes in wild-food availability in naturally regenerated forests are not documented in the country reports.

1.4 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES IN TERMS OF THE ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

The main gaps, needs and priorities highlighted in the country reports with regard to the assessment and monitoring of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services include the following:

• There is insufficient knowledge of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services. Data on the status and populations trends are limited to wildlife species such as large mammals and threatened tree species. There is a need for wide-ranging studies on the status, trends and conservation of components of biodiversity and on the traditional knowledge pertaining to them.

• Institutions working on biodiversity focus mainly on the provisioning aspect of biodiversity for food and agriculture or on the conservation of wildlife and do not directly address associated biodiversity.

• Access to data on associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services needs to be improved.

• A lack of trained human resources, technology and finance is hampering the development of methods for the assessment and monitoring of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services.

• Staffing shortages often mean that collection management and curation, the arbiters of correct species names, are inadequate. There is also a lack of growth/expansion of collections, largely as a result of changing policies on the collection of, and access to, genetic resources.

• Research on associated biodiversity and wild foods suffers from a general lack of funding, a lack of appropriate facilities (especially collection centres) and a lack of basic research on taxonomy and molecular systematics.

• Turnover of experienced taxonomists from collection facilities (e.g. museums) to universities, without replacement, coupled with diminishing interest in taxonomy among the younger generation of scientists, is contributing to a lack of capacity in this field.

• Institutional capacity and policy frameworks relevant to the assessment and monitoring of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services need to be strengthened.

• Although the conservation of wild food resources has been integrated into general biodiversity policies, there are no specific policies or institutional arrangements directly targeting these resources. Given their contribution to food security in vulnerable areas, there is a need for policies that specifically address these resources.

• Legal frameworks addressing assessment, monitoring and national information systems need to be put in place, reviewed and/or strengthened and need to be enforced.

• There is a need to raise awareness of the importance of associated biodiversity, wild foods and ecosystem services to food security, nutrition and livelihood sustainability.

The country reports indicate that associated biodiversity is a rather new concept for policy-makers and agricultural researchers in the region and has seldom been incorporated, as such, into research and conservation programmes addressing biodiversity or genetic resources for food and agriculture. Most country reports highlight the need for research on wild food resources and the need to create awareness of their importance in local cultures and diets. With regard to protecting livestock diversity, several countries mention the need to expand and intensify surveillance and control activities for vector species of major diseases, many of which are benefiting from the effects of drivers such as overgrazing and climate change.

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

2.1 SUSTAINABLE USE

The livelihoods of rural people in sub-Saharan Africa have traditionally been closely tied to the use of biodiversity as a source of food, energy, fibre and other provisioning ecosystem services. However, these links are weakening. Reasons include increasing rural population densities, land fragmentation and habitat degradation. Closer ties between urban and rural cultures are often increasing pressure on natural resources and contributing to the homogenization of production systems. These trends are aggravated by changes in the climate and in global demand for food, timber, land and minerals. Ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa requires urgent measures to counteract these trends.

A number of country reports provide information on the implementation of various management practices relevant to the sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture (Table 5). However, the reports provide limited information on the extent of area coverage of these management practices within production systems, on trends in their use or on their impacts on biodiversity for food and agriculture. The management practices reported by countries span almost all of the production systems identified above (Table 2). In most cases, their implementation is reported to be increasing or stable. Several of the successful examples of the implementation of management practices reported by countries involve the participation of the local communities (Box 2).

Several countries report generic measures taken to limit unsustainable use and/or support the sustainable use of associated biodiversity and wild food resources. Many such measures are intended to protect forest ecosystems. The report of Mali, for example, mentions, inter alia, the following measures:

– updating the list of target species actively managed in conservation programmes;

– development of a resource-conservation policy;

– establishment of local agreements for the management of community forests in several localities;

– promotion of synergy between forestry research and development;

– conservation of forest seeds;

– application of methods for evaluating non-timber forest products (NTFPs);

– application of techniques for the domestication of forest species;

– application of methods for the sustainable management of forest species;

– wide dissemination of research results (assessment of 30 years of forestry research, dissertations, theses, scientific articles and technical sheets);

– development of participatory approaches;

– establishment of a multi-institutional committee to monitor the conservation of forest species and the development of incentives for the conservation of forest species; and

– provision of material and financial resources.

The country reports generally reflect a perception that there are close links between associated biodiversity and wild foods and forest ecosystems. The report from Zambia states that harvested forest products make a significant contribution to the incomes of the rural poor. Citing Puustjärvy, Mickels-Kokwe and Chakanga (2005), it notes that forests have been estimated to supply 20.6 percent of the income of rural households.

2.1.1 Examples whereby diversity per se, or its lack, has had a direct effect on productivity, food security and nutrition, rural livelihoods, ecosystem services, sustainability, resilience or sustainable intensification

Biodiversity, food security and nutrition

The country reports generally include few documented examples of direct positive effects of diversity on productivity, food security and nutrition or rural livelihoods. However, several mention that the loss of biodiversity has had negative effects on food security and nutrition. For example, Ethiopia reports that the use of inappropriate fishing gear, overfishing and the spread of alien invasive species (specifically water hyacinth) have significantly affected fish yield and diversity, reducing the availability of fish for consumption and increasing fish prices on the market. The report further mentions that drainage of nitrogen and phosphorus from irrigated agricultural fields and greenhouses into freshwater bodies has led to gradual depletion of fish diversity, again with negative effects on the availability of fish for local consumption. The same report also indicates that high levels of pesticide use have affected local bees and other pollinators, with negative consequences for crop productivity. The report from Zimbabwe refers to rural people having less access to medicinal plants due to the loss of various herb and tree species and/or the degradation or disappearance of the ecosystem patches where they occurred. Zambia, as noted above, mentions that loss of forest cover is affecting the availability and accessibility of wild foods that are key to some local diets.

The report from Ethiopia notes that in order to strengthen the contribution of biodiversity to food security and nutrition, new varieties of fruits and vegetables – and associated management practices – have been introduced in various parts of the country, mostly in mixed production systems. For example, in southwestern Ethiopia, new varieties of fruits and vegetables, use of organic manure and integrated pest management have resulted in a 70 percent improvement in nutrition and a 60 percent increase in crop yields (the country report cites Scialabba and Hattam, eds, 2002). The report further notes that the productivity of agricultural crops increased by 40 percent between 2005 and 2010 as result of the integration of different crop management systems and the use of improved varieties. Most of these varieties were developed from landraces by agricultural research centres within the country. Finally, the report also mentions that marketing opportunities are vital to efforts to improve rural livelihoods. It notes that up to 47 082 households in the Oromia, Amhara and Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regions are benefiting from improved marketing strategies for agricultural products (coffee, durum wheat, teff and enset) (the report cites UNDP, 2013).

Where livestock are concerned, Ethiopia reports that efforts have been made to improve livelihoods in grassland-based systems by devising strategies to improve pasture management within a value-chain approach. Zambia mentions a government programme that promotes local small-ruminant and chicken breeds through the “pass-on”[3] system and has helped to improve productivity, food security and rural livelihoods. A project in Senegal promoting locally adapted livestock breeds that are resistant to diseases is described in Box 3.

The report from Burkina Faso notes that NTFPs are important contributors to food, nutrition and incomes and offer opportunities to improve people’s lives while protecting forest resources. NTFPs are reported to contribute to the diets of more than 43 percent of the country’s households and to provide rural households with 23 percent of their income. The report mentions (citing MEDD, 2011) the generation of approximately CFA franc 25.6 billion from NTFPs and notes that an increasing number of small and medium-sized forest enterprises have been created. It further notes (citing Lamien and Vognan, 2001) that NTFPs represent 44 percent and 26 percent, respectively, of women’s and men’s incomes in the southwestern part of the country. Another study cited (Somda et al., 2010) showed that the value of timber resources and NTFPs represented, respectively, 37 percent and 21 percent of the overall economic value attributed to the Sourou Valley (located in the north of country). Wild game meat reportedly contributes significantly to food security in villages close to hunting areas and even in some medium-sized towns.

The report from Senegal mentions the country’s rich fish biodiversity: about 799 species, including 652 marine species and 147 freshwater species (the report cites FishBase, 2012); of these, 142 species are reported to be of commercial and economic interest. The report also mentions the presence of nearly 260 species of multipurpose marine algae, which are harvested by some fishers and other coastal people, especially women. Daily harvests can reportedly reach as much as 500 tonnes of biomass, although the report notes that in the absence of a monitoring system, precise levels of harvesting remain unknown. In the case of river and lake ecosystems, fisheries reportedly provide only about 25 percent of fresh-produce requirements and are therefore complemented by aquaculture. The report further notes that fishing is a crucial activity for the country’s poor people, with artisanal sea fishing accounting for more than 95 percent of output. The output of industrial fisheries is reported to have declined during the period 2005 to 2011, while the value of the catch rose. The latter trend is explained by the export of fish to the highly profitable European market – a factor that is, at the same time, creating strong tensions in domestic markets due product scarcity.

The report from Mali notes that the country’s rural populations have a long tradition of maintaining home gardens – plots located close to dwelling places that combine fruit trees, forest trees and horticultural plants and provide products for commercial purposes and home consumption. It highlights the fact that these gardens are important to the diets of rural households and notes that they have contributed to the maintenance of many fruit and horticultural varieties.

Relevant initiatives not mentioned in the country reports include the NutriHAF-Africa “Diversifying agriculture for balanced nutrition through fruits and vegetables in multi-storey cropping systems” project. Launched in 2015 and involving the Center for Development Research (ZEF)[4] of the University of Bonn, Germany, the Global Horticulture Initiative (GlobalHort)[5] the World Vegetable Center[6] and others, the initiative promotes the introduction of new varieties of fruits and vegetables with the aim or reducing malnutrition and conserving biodiversity and natural resources in Ethiopia and Madagascar.[7]

Biodiversity, ecosystem services, sustainability and resilience

Biodiversity is the basis for ecosystem service provision and hence for value production in rural landscapes and seascapes. The most widely accepted definition of ecosystem services follows the “cascade” approach proposed by Haines-Young and Potschin (2010), according to which the structures and processes of an ecosystem result in a number of ecological functions. These functions are seen as services when they “serve” human societies in one way or another. Societies ascribe values, monetary or otherwise, to such services according to their needs, priorities and culture. A somewhat alternative view is that ecosystem services are co-produced by humans and nature and hence that their assessment requires a social–ecological approach (Reyers et al., 2013).

In a diverse landscape, ecosystem functions and services are highly interdependent. For example, a landscape with sufficient associated biodiversity in the form of trees, shrubs and grasses to provide shelter and feed for insect pollinators is also likely to host a wide range of arthropods that can act as pest-control agents, to have rich soil biodiversity, to contribute to regulation of the microclimate by providing shade or shelter from the wind and to contribute to water regulation by controlling infiltration, runoff and evapotranspiration. This is why there is now a tendency to refer to ecosystem service bundles (Raudsepp-Hearne, Peterson and Bennett, 2010) and/or multifunctional landscapes (Turner et al., 2014). A study in Kenya by Henry et al. (2009) showed a strong positive relationship between perennial plant biodiversity and carbon sequestration at farm level. However, ecosystem services may come at the expense of one another and potential trade-offs needs to be considered when planning management interventions (Wang and Fu, 2013).

The report from Ethiopia mentions that a participatory forest management scheme has been developed and implemented to strengthen the contribution of the country’s forests to ecosystem services and resilience. It notes that participatory forest management has been implemented on 82 000 ha of natural forests in Amhara National Regional State and in ten forest areas covering a total of 333 704 ha in Oromia National Regional State. In the latter region, 76 cooperatives consisting of 148 796 members of local communities are reported to have been established. The report from Burkina Faso notes (citing PAGREN, 2012) that enrichment of the gazetted forests of Dindéresso and Kou with baobab, grafted jujube (Ziziphus spp.) and the local plum tree (Sclerocarya birrea) increased the quantity of NTFPs exploited by women (ibid.), ensured food security and brought substantial revenues to local populations. These changes have contributed to sustainable forest management and to reducing vulnerability. The Gambia notes that, in addition to contributing about 1 percent to its gross domestic product, the country’s forests provide 85 percent of its domestic energy requirements, in the form of fuelwood and charcoal, and 17 percent of the population’s timber requirements, and also serve as an important source of medicines and livestock forage. The Gambia’s National Forest Assessment 2008–2010 notes that forests also provide a number of other services to the country’s people, including windbreaks, grazing areas, shade, and soil and water conservation.

Biodiversity, sustainable intensification and landscape restoration

The concept of sustainable intensification generates much debate, partly because of the “soft”, subjective nature of the term “sustainability”. What is perceived as being sustainable by one individual or community may be regarded as unsustainable by others. The concept of ecological intensification, in contrast, refers specifically to strategies that pursue intensive use of the natural functionalities of an ecosystem through species diversification (Tittonell, 2014). An example of such an approach is the so-called push–pull pest management strategy. The push–pull is a stimulus–deterrent strategy that consists of repelling (or “pushing”) insect pests away from a crop and simultaneously attracting (or “pulling”) them to a “trap” crop. Natural enemies are also attracted to the crop to provide biological pest control. Push–pull effects may be achieved through a number of ecological mechanisms mediated by volatile compounds called semiochemicals (semio = signal). These substances are produced by plants, insects and other organisms and send specific chemical signals to target insects, in this case pushing undesirable insects away from the crop and attracting predator or parasitoid insects into the area.

Although the chemical ecology of many of the plant defence mechanisms behind the push–pull effect is not fully understood, there is strong evidence, especially from Africa (Box 4), that careful planning of cropping systems in space and time can substantially reduce pest infestation. The right choice of companion plants, trap crops and intercropping systems can greatly influence pest population dynamics. Kebede et al. (2018) show that the abundance and dynamics of pests and natural enemies in farmers’ fields in highly populated and intensively farmed landscapes of southern Ethiopia are greatly influenced by the surrounding biodiversity.

Other examples of the use of biodiversity for ecological intensification in Africa can be found in the field of integrated soil fertility management and soil restoration. For example, Nezomba et al. (2015) show the potential of using indigenous, naturally occurring herbaceous legume species as “improved” fallows to restore soil fertility in Zimbabwe. Taking advantage of remaining soil moisture, these legumes can continue growing into the dry season, providing soil cover, producing biomass and fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Kintché et al. (2015) show the potential of short-period fallows that promote associated biodiversity to reduce long-term yield decline in continuously cropped agricultural soils in Togo. In Ethiopia, community exclosures to remove grazing pressure resulted in the recovery of the organic-matter content of farmland soils and in greater carbon sequestration and water regulation (Corral-Nuñez et al., 2014). In the Sahel, farmers have been using native ligneous species in combination with other soil conservation measures to manage long-term soil productivity. For example, shrub species of the genera Piliostigma and Guiera can be seen growing in and around crop fields in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Senegal, where they are managed by famers to serve as islands of fertility that trap nutrient-rich sediments, host soil biodiversity and/or provide hydraulic lift effects (Lahmar et al., 2012). Soil amendment with woody biomass collected from shrubs and trees has contributed substantially to the restoration of degraded soils – or halting degradation – in Burkina Faso (Félix et al., 2018).

In the United Republic of Tanzania, ngitili is a traditional management practice whereby grazing in areas of rangeland is restricted during wet seasons to provide forage for livestock during dry periods (Barrow and Mlenge, 2003). There are two types of ngitili: enclosures owned by individuals or families and communal enclosures owned and managed in common. Both were originally developed by the Sukuma people in response to acute animal-feed shortages caused by droughts, conversion of grazing land into cropland and declining land productivity (ibid.). The Shinyanga Soil Conservation Programme, better known by its Swahili acronym HASHI, aims to work with local people to revive ngitili, first by identifying areas requiring urgent land restoration and then by restoring these areas according to customary practice (WRI, 2005). In many villages, residual natural seed and rootstock have been used to restore ngitili enclosures. Some of the restored ngitili date back to the 1960s and 1970s, before “villagization” in the United Republic of Tanzania, and others have been newly created. Restoration and tree planting around homesteads has helped improve soil fertility and provided fuelwood. It has also had the additional benefit of helping farmers to stake out and formalize their land rights within villages (ibid.).

The country report from Ethiopia describes a “system of crop intensification” based on raising seedlings and transplanting them at a young age with wide spacing. The country’s Agricultural Transformation Agency is applying, evaluating and extending these concepts and practices as a means of increasing production of Ethiopia’s main staple grain, teff. In the 2012/13 cropping season, 160 000 Ethiopian farmers who participated in on-farm trials using the less-intensive, direct-seeded version of the system obtained an average yield increase of 70 percent, while another 7 000 farmers who used the recommended, more-intensive method, which involves transplanting, obtained yield increases of 200 to 300 percent, while using 50 to 90 percent fewer seeds (the report cites ATA, 2013). The approach does not necessarily involve the use of a wider range of biodiversity. However, it contributes to farmers’ incomes and thereby to maintaining a rural population active in agriculture, which is essential to the conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture.

2.1.2 Countries in the region reporting the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture for coping with climate change, invasive alien species or natural or human-made disasters

The country reports do not provide extensive information on the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture to cope with climate change, natural disasters or control invasive species. The focus is mostly on reporting genetic improvement programmes aimed at increasing the ability of crops to withstand increasing climatic variability. Where the country reports do note initiatives, projects or frameworks promoting the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture to cope with climate change, natural disasters or invasive species they generally provide little detail. Actions mentioned are included among the examples presented in Table 6.

Seed banks and farmer–researcher partnerships are mentioned in several country reports as a means of ensuring the uptake and conservation of crop and animal genetic diversity that builds resilience to the effects of climate change. Tree plantations are also mentioned as a mechanism for coping with climate change. Some countries – Kenya for example – have national climate change adaptation strategies that, where agriculture is concerned, place great emphasis on diversification and the management of genetic resources. Use of local varieties and switching to drought-resistant crops and cultivars in dry years is mentioned in several country reports. Both Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania have launched open seed source projects, sponsored by FAO. The following list of actions presented in the country report from Senegal provides a good illustration of the types of measures most countries are taking to adapt their agriculture to climate change:

– use of very early crop varieties in agricultural production systems;

– raising several species within the holding;

– planting various species to fix dunes along the whole coast and in other areas that are being reforested and to promote the conservation of soil in the face of wind or water erosion; and

– integrated pest management.

The country report from Gabon refers to forest conservation in general and specifically to the creation of 13 national parks as actions that promote climate regulation through carbon sequestration and storage. The forest cover also provides other goods and services relevant to climate change adaptation, including the supply of food, energy and medicines. The report from Guinea also emphasizes forest management and conservation as mechanisms through which biodiversity’s contributions to climate change adaptation and mitigation can be enhanced. Actions mentioned include the following:

• creation of forest plantations;

• provision of protected areas;

• implementation of agrosilvopastoral practices;

• co-management of classified forests; and

• creation and management of community forests.

Many country reports mention the invasive species water hyacinth as a serious and growing threat. For example, the report from Chad highlights the impact of water hyacinth and other invasive species of the genus Typha on the hydrology of Lake Chad and habitats where key fish species reproduce, noting that this poses a threat to fishing livelihoods. It further notes that such invasions are greatly influenced by human interventions upstream. Similarly, Mali mentions problems with water hyacinth, typhas and water ferns (Salvinia molesta), all of which are associated with water pollution. Senegal notes that pollution is affecting river and lake environments, including in the valley of the Senegal River, where the use of chemicals in agriculture has led to eutrophication of water, which in turn has greatly contributed to the proliferation of southern cattail (Typha domingensis). In many cases, countries do not mention any biological or biodiversity-based approaches to control water hyacinth. In Cameroon, for example, control efforts are reported to be based mainly on manual removal or in some cases the use of sprays. Ethiopia, however, reports that activities under its National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (associated with a Global Environment Facility project) include the development of facilities to rear weevils (Neochetina echhorniae and N. bruchi ) used in the biological control of water hyacinth. Zambia mentions that this method has been used to control water hyacinth in the Maramba River. It also mentions the use of biological control measures against invasive shrubs in national parks.

Some countries note that biodiversity for food and agriculture provides key resources for rural communities during drought-driven famines and other disasters. Ethiopia and Zambia mention trees and other species that are harvested as food during droughts but not during years when rainfall is normal.

2.1.3 Ecosystem/landscape/seascape approaches[8] that have improved the management and use of BFA in the region

Although some examples are provided, the country reports suggest that the implementation of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches remains limited in the region. In some cases, plans and programmes that may follow an ecosystem approach are in place but are not reported as such in the country reports. In other cases, initiatives reported as ecosystems approaches do not really follow this approach. Reported cases are summarized in Table 7. A good example can be found in the report from Zambia, which describes the adoption of an ecosystem approach to fisheries, forestry and rainfed crop production. The report mentions that adoption of the ecosystem approach in forestry is being promoted through the involvement of local communities and traditional leaderships in the implementation of interventions. In the case of rainfed crop production, agroforestry has been intensively promoted over the past ten years and this has led to better productivity and resilience to droughts. In the case of fisheries, adoption of the ecosystem approach is a recent development and results have not yet been documented.

The report from the Gambia states that most of the relevant institutional frameworks in the country follow an ecosystem approach to natural-resources management. For example, the Gambia Environmental Action Plan (2009–2015), which addresses the protection of existing forests, vegetative cover and coastal wetlands, the Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy (2009–2015), which advocates a multifocal approach to natural resources management, the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan of Action (2007), which involves strengthening integrated management of coastal and terrestrial zones to preserve biological diversity, the Gambia Biodiversity Policy (2003), the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (1999) and the National Action Programme to Combat Desertification (2015) seek to discourage uncontrolled expansion of agriculture into virgin forests, wetlands, marginal lands and other environmentally sensitive areas and to promote the development of sound communal grazing management systems.

The country report from the United Republic of Tanzania mentions that some of the country’s ecosystems and biodiversity are protected at levels surpassing the 2020 Aichi Targets, noting that about 40 percent of the country’s total land area is protected. It reports that this has been achieved as a result of direct interventions by the relevant ministries – which have established policies, legislation, strategies and guidelines for the protection of biodiversity – supported by research and development programmes.

The report from Cameroon provides extensive information on the application of ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches in naturally regenerated and planted forests, as well as in self-recruiting capture fisheries and culture-based fisheries (Tables 8 and 9). It emphasizes that the involvement of local communities is crucial in the implementation of these approaches. With regard to community management of naturally regenerated forests, it notes the need for more training and education and strengthening institutions that enforce relevant legislation. In the case of planted forests, the report mentions a lack of planting material and identifies the need to improve state regulation and financial support. Another initiative mentioned is the establishment of community cooperatives targeting the use of fishery and marine resources, in particular shrimps. Here again, the report emphasizes the need for awareness raising about environmental impacts, especially the effects of uncontrolled fishing.

2.1.4 Examples of activities undertaken in the region to maintain and use traditional knowledge of associated biodiversity and wild foods

A large and growing number of ethnobotanical and ethnological studies are documenting traditional knowledge of the region’s wild food species and associated biodiversity, including knowledge of species’ management, traits and uses. Many studies are also investigating the scientific foundation of this knowledge and how it can be improved or utilized (e.g. through documentation of recipes, traditional food-processing techniques or best practices or through diversity fairs) (Azokpota, 2005; Madode, 2012; Munyi, Grum and Sdungu-Skilton, 2008; Sidibe et al., 2016). However, limited information on traditional knowledge of associated biodiversity has been generated to date, at least not explicitly in such terms. For example, ethnomycological studies on associated fungal biodiversity have not been reported. On the other hand, the above-mentioned work of Lahmar et al. (2012) documenting farmers´ use of native shrubs for soil fertility management in the Sahel is an example of the management of associated biodiversity to provide very specific local ecosystem services using traditional knowledge. The management of termite mounds, parkland trees and indigenous legumes to maintain and restore soil productivity are examples of the use of local traditional knowledge to manage associated biodiversity. A significant number of national and international projects in the region are aiming to document, maintain and use knowledge of this kind.

Several country reports highlight gender specializations with respect to traditional knowledge of wild foods and associated biodiversity. However, few details of studies addressing this topic are provided. Countries identify a strong need for further and more wide-ranging studies in this field.

The country report from Cameroon mentions that the Ministry of Culture is collecting and recording information on the traditional knowledge of some communities and storing it in the National Museum in the form of books, pictures and carvings. It also notes that agroforestry research is recognizing the need to valorize and utilize traditional knowledge, as some of the tree species planted on crop farms have important nutritional, medicinal and cultural values. The creation of the Institute of Medical and Medicinal Plants Research and the survey of medicinal plants that led to the publication of The National Pharmacopeia (Adjanohoum et al., 1996) are reported to have led to progress in the study of medicinal plants and animals. Traditional practitioners are reported to collaborate with the Ministry of Health.

Guinea provides the following examples of the use traditional knowledge of associated biodiversity and wild species used for food:

• use by indigenous farmers of different ecosystems in the context of transhumance;

• use of various plants in traditional medicine (e.g. use of the bark of dry zone mahogany [Khaya senegalensis] in the treatment of trypanosomiasis and use of latex from Ficus iteophylla in the treatment of dermatosis and wounds); and

• use of wild plant species in human diets (e.g. oil from dwarf red ironwood [Lophira lanceolate] seeds, young leaves and buds of the wild African black plum [Vitex doniana] or koronfinfin in the Bambara language).

Zambia reports that it has developed a policy on the documentation of traditional knowledge to support the recognition and maintenance of this knowledge, particularly in the fields of biodiversity and folklore. It also mentions that traditional knowledge has been used to inform conservation and use decisions through the involvement of local communities in the planning of programmes in the forest and fisheries sectors.

Mali reports that farmers’ seed purchases are generally not subject to financial transactions and that maintaining informal mechanisms is essential to the maintenance of the country’s crop diversity. Farmers in the villages obtain seeds from other farmers. Traditional self-help systems allow seedless farmers to obtain seeds free of charge from other self-help group members. Seed exchange or barter takes place between farmers according to links of kinship, neighbourhood and/or marriage.

Kenya reports that its government, within the framework of Vision 2030 (the country’s long-term development policy),[9] has committed to protecting traditional knowledge under intellectual property laws. It also notes that the National Museums of Kenya documents traditional knowledge through various research activities, usually coordinated through the Kenya Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge.

Zimbabwe reports that its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014 aims to utilize traditional knowledge in efforts to protect the environment and conserve and sustainably use ecosystems and biodiversity. It notes that although there is ample traditional knowledge on the use of traditional foods and wild foods, especially insects, this knowledge has not been fully documented. It also mentions that traditional knowledge is supported via national legislation, including Statutory Instrument 61 of 2009 on access to genetic resources and indigenous resource-based knowledge.

2.1.5 Needs and priorities in terms of the sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture, and in particular of associated biodiversity and wild foods

Countries reported the following needs and priorities in terms of the sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture:

• improving the awareness of local communities about the importance of natural heritage and the intangible benefits it provides to the environment and humanity;

• implementing studies on the economic value of associated biodiversity, sustainable management practices and the contribution of wild foods to food security, and utilizing the outcomes as a basis for awareness raising;

• establishing inventories of associated biodiversity and wild foods and making these inventories accessible;

• ensuring that inventories are based on participatory surveys involving local communities;

• strengthening knowledge of sustainable management practices and ecosystem approaches and promoting these methods for instance by improving and reinforcing rural extension services or training facilities (e.g. training on agroforestry management practices in local communities, on family farms, etc.);

• establishing investment plans to combat the degradation of biodiversity for food and agriculture and securing sufficient funding to ensure the implementation of sustainable management practices and ecosystem approaches;

• facilitating collaboration and coordination between stakeholders working in the fields of biodiversity restoration, genetic resources management and desertification;

• strengthening links between rural communities and government policy-makers and improving communities’ communication with and access to institutions that provide services;

• improving the technical and management capacities of personnel within institutions dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture and improving the facilities of these institutions; and

• ensuring that sustainable management plans adequately address the utilization of the indigenous species found in specific local areas (e.g. to ensure the use of appropriate tree species in agroforestry).

Several country reports note that accounting for the economic/demographic dynamics affecting rural landscapes is an important component of sustainable use and conservation. For example, the report from Mali notes that the introduction of cash crops (cotton, groundnuts, etc.) has increased farmers’ incomes, but has also changed traditional production systems, causing migration to cities and pushing some populations towards less-productive agricultural areas that are more ecologically sensitive.

2.2 CONSERVATION

2.2.1 In situ conservation

A debate about strategies for in situ biodiversity conservation has been apparent in Africa – and other developing regions – for some time. Although in situ conservation programmes have the advantage of preserving species in their habitats and, in the case of domesticated species, allowing them to undergo constant breeding by farmers, livestock keepers etc., the risk of habitat loss through land-use change and population growth is high in many developing countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the fastest growing regions in the world in terms of human population and will continue to be so for at least the next 40 years (FAO, 2015b). Moreover, agricultural methods promoted by governments, companies and most international development agencies tend to reduce biodiversity for food and agriculture by encouraging producers to adopt “high-yielding”, modern crops, cultivars and breeds (DeClerck et al., 2011; Khoury et al., 2014). In the case of associated biodiversity, it is often argued, for similar reasons, that conservation is only possible within reserves and protected areas. On the other hand, a recent study by Kebede et al. (2018), quantifying the effects of population growth on biodiversity over the last 30 years in the basin of Lake Hawassa in southern Ethiopia, observed that although population growth tends to lead to a decline in associated biodiversity as a result of deforestation, land fragmentation and monoculture, further population growth beyond a certain threshold leads to an increase in associated biodiversity in the form of more frequent hedgerows, home gardens, woodlots, etc. This results, for example, in the expansion of alternative habitats for species that serve as biological control agents of insect pests.

Among the countries that provided country reports, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, the Gambia and Kenya report in situ conservation initiatives targeting associated biodiversity (Table 10). Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, the Gambia and Togo report in situ conservation initiatives or related activities for wild food species (Table 11). It should, however, be noted that the distinction between these two components of biodiversity for food and agriculture is not clear-cut. For example, Ethiopia reports on in situ conservation initiatives for spirulina (Arthrospira fusiformis) algae in the alkaline water ecosystems of Lakes Chitu, Killole, Arenguade and other lakes in the country’s Oromiya region. Although this is reported as an example of an in situ conservation initiative targeting associated biodiversity, it could also be considered to be an in situ conservation initiative for a wild food species. Spirulina algae are used to produce a dietary supplement to combat malnourishment, malnutrition and protein deficiencies such as kwashiorkor. Spirulina algae are also a source of highly available iron; 5 grams of the algae cover the entire daily requirement of an adult person (Ciferri, 1983). Likewise, many of the species reported as wild food sources by Burkina Faso (desert date [Balanites aegyptiaca], tree grapes [Lannea microcarpa], African locust bean [Parkia biglobosa], marula [Sclerocarya birrea], tamarind [Tamarindus indica], shea butter tree [Vitellaria paradoxa], jujube [Ziziphus mauritiana]) could also be considered associated biodiversity species, as they are important sources of ramial wood and leaves used by some farmers to mulch or boost organic matter in degraded soils (Félix et al., 2015) .

2.2.2 Ex situ conservation

Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Kenya and Zimbabwe report national ex situ conservation programmes or activities for associated biodiversity and wild foods. Many countries seem to lack or have limited ex situ collections of wild food and associated-biodiversity species. Some countries, however, report quite large collections of associated-biodiversity species (Table 12). In the case of wild foods, countries report the ex situ conservation of a wide range of plant species and also some fish and invertebrate species (Table 13).

In the case of plant (crop) genetic resources, there are several regional conservation initiatives, including a major initiative in each of the three main subregions: East, West and Southern Africa. For example, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Plant Genetic Resource Centre (SPGRC) works in coordination with centres in each of its member states to conserve the genetic diversity and viability of Southern African plant stocks. This is achieved through the collection, documentation and long-term storage of seed samples.

2.2.3 Needs and priorities

The country reports identify the following gaps and priorities with respect to the conservation of associated biodiversity:

• Assessment of the status and trends of associated biodiversity and ecosystem services is inadequate. Research has focused mainly on the provisioning aspect of biodiversity. A lack of awareness has contributed to the neglect of associated biodiversity and ecosystem services.

• Limitations in terms of skills, technology, methodology and financial resources hamper research and development relevant to conservation.

• Policies addressing natural resources are in place. However, in addition to shortcomings in their implementation, these instruments focus on biodiversity in general and do not specifically address associated biodiversity.

• Knowledge gaps relevant to conservation need to be addressed through research.

Additional priorities identified include awareness raising on the importance of associated biodiversity and ecosystem services, strengthening institutional capacity and addressing weaknesses in policy frameworks.

The country reports identify the following gaps and priorities with respect to the conservation of wild food species:

• The state of knowledge of wild edible plants is inadequate in many countries.

• There is a strong need for further and more wide-ranging studies on the status, trends and conservation of wild food resources and on the associated traditional knowledge pertaining to them.

• Limitations in terms of financial resources, awareness and human and material resources need to be addressed.

• Although the conservation of wild food resources has been incorporated into policies addressing biodiversity in general, there are no specific policies directly targeting these resources. There are similar limitations with respect to institutional arrangements.

• Given the contribution of wild foods to food security in vulnerable areas, there is a need for policies that specifically address these resources.

• Knowledge of wild food resources needs to be improved through research.

• Awareness raising on the importance of wild food resources needs to be strengthened.

2.3 ACCESS AND EXCHANGE

All reporting countries are Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (CBD, 2018). Domestic legislation on access and benefit-sharing has been put in place in a few countries. For example, Ethiopia requires prior informed consent (PIC) and benefit-sharing arrangements for access to genetic resources, including associated biodiversity and wild foods, for commercial use. In the case of access to genetic resources for research purposes it requires PIC only. Kenya requires PIC and benefit-sharing agreements for access to genetic resources both for research and commercial purposes. In Kenya, access and benefit-sharing is regulated by Legal Notice No. 160[10] (implementing the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act of 2009),[11] which covers both genetic resources and local knowledge. Ethiopia issued a proclamation on access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge in 2006[12] and regulations in 2009[13] (Medaglia, Perron-Welch and Phillips, 2014). The Ethiopian Institute of Biodiversity Conservation is the competent national authority empowered to monitor and ensure the compliance of the domestic access and benefit-sharing permit system with the Nagoya Protocol, including the granting of PIC by the institute for both commercial and non-commercial applications. The institute also issued a code of conduct that establishes the basic principles for access to, and utilization of, genetic resources and traditional knowledge; these principles include integrity and good faith, confidentiality, conservation and sustainable use, PIC, mutually agreed terms and benefit-sharing (ibid.).

In 2012, Cameroon adopted its National Strategy on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. In this Strategy, Cameroon committed to putting in place a “national ABS legal and institutional framework”. Starting in 2013, Cameroon began preparing a regulation to lay down modalities covering genetic resources, including any material from plants, animals, micro-organisms or other organisms that contains functional units of heredity. Indigenous and local communities are defined separately in the regulation (ibid.).

The Environmental Management Act (2004)[14] of the United Republic of Tanzania includes provisions on access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of such resources. In its country report, the Gambia notes that it is currently working with its partners to secure funds to put in place a legislative framework that will ensure the smooth implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. None of the other reporting countries indicate that they have national policy and legal frameworks specifically regulating access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources and associated biodiversity. The legal instruments related to biodiversity management in these countries do not necessarily take into account, at least not explicitly, the interests of indigenous and local communities.

2.3.1 Implementation challenges

The implementation and enforcement of international treaties and national measures are still challenging in most of the region’s countries, not least because of the need to adjust institutional channels in order to do so. For example, the country report from Kenya notes that the implementation of its legal notice on access and benefit-sharing (see above) faces many constraints, including a lack of clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of the structures involved. It also notes that in many circumstances it is difficult to sign a PIC agreement because of a lack of clear institutional structures at community level, which can mean that an agreement signed by one group within the community may be disputed by other community members. The report from Cameroon mentions that the principle of PIC is not being taken seriously at community level and that biodiversity users in rural areas have not mastered their rights and benefits with respect to genetic resources.

The country report of Ethiopia reports the country’s experience in regulating access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their use. In 2005, Ethiopia signed access and benefit sharing agreements for tef (Eragrostis tef) and and vernonia (Vernonia galamensis) with the Dutch company Health and Performance Food International (Andersen and Winge, 2012). However, the benefit-sharing aspects of these agreements have never been properly implemented, which has led to some frustration and disagreement (ibid.). Despite this experience, Ethiopia’s country report mentions that the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute has recently signed an agreement with a private company based in the United States of America on access to and the sharing of benefits arising from the use of sicklebush (Dichrostachys cinerea), wild tea plant (Osyris quadripartita) and Indian ginseng (Withania somnifera) for the purpose of producing essential oils, cosmetics and herbal medicine. Ethiopia earned an upfront payment, and the agreement stipulates that benefits accruing from access to these genetic resources will be shared equitably between the company and the local communities/the Government of Ethiopia. The country report notes that the benefits serve as incentives to the local communities/the government to conserve and sustainably utilize biodiversity. Local companies that are using genetic resources such as aloe and cabbage tree (Moringa stenopetala) for various commercial purposes have come to similar legal agreements.

2.3.2 Needs and priorities

Aside from addressing the challenges illustrated by the examples presented above, the three main needs identified in the country reports with respect to access and benefit-sharing were:

• provision of more funding for research on access and benefit-sharing;

• development and adoption of domestic legislation on access and benefit-sharing; and

• development of the institutional and human capacity needed to implement and enforce the Nagoya Protocol at national level.

Countries have established policies pertaining to natural resources. However, in addition to shortcomings in their implementation, these instruments focus on biodiversity in general rather than directly addressing associated biodiversity.

III. Policies, institutions and capacity

3.1 POLICIES, PROGRAMMES, INSTITUTIONS AND STAKEHOLDERS

This section discusses the main policies and programmes that countries in the region have adopted and are implementing to support the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture, and the extent to which these instruments address associated biodiversity and wild foods. Relevant policies and programmes include those that address:

• coordinated use and conservation of sectoral genetic resources;

• food security and nutrition;

sustainable use and conservation of associated biodiversity;

• ecosystem services;

• the resilience and sustainability of production systems;

• adoption of practices that strengthen the conservation and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture in crop, livestock, forest and aquatic production systems; and

• ecosystem/landscape/seascape approaches.

The country reports indicate that many countries currently have no policies in place that explicitly address the management of biodiversity for food and agriculture and that associated biodiversity and wild foods are particularly commonly neglected in this regard. A number of countries, however, mention more broadly focused instruments such as national biodiversity strategy and action plans.

Examples of reported policies and programmes addressing the topics listed above are presented in Table 14. Several countries report policies targeting food security and nutrition. However, the focus of most of these initiatives is on increasing productivity using “conventional” technologies such as mineral fertilizers and improved crop varieties or animal breeds. Few reports mention initiatives that focus specifically on the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture (i.e. on the use of associated biodiversity or the use of more diverse portfolios of crops, livestock, trees, etc.) to promote food security. Some countries mention “diversification” as one of the components of their national food security programmes. However, few details are provided.

Another field in which countries reported policy mechanisms was seeds and genetic resources. The seed policy of Zambia, for example, aims to ensure that plant genetic resources of actual and potential economic value will be collected, preserved, evaluated and utilized for crop development. It stipulates that the government will encourage the participation of farmers in local germplasm conservation and utilization (ISSD Africa, 2012). The government (through the Seed Control and Certification Institute of the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute) and some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in agricultural development and poverty reduction formulated and initiated programmes to encourage the on-farm production and marketing of seeds from multiple improved crop varieties to increase their availability (ibid.). The country’s informal seed systems include those in which farmers themselves multiply seeds, barter them, or buy and sell them in rural grain markets and those in which NGOs assist community groups or farmer cooperatives in seed multiplication and marketing (USAID, 2016). Smallholder farmers in Zambia who grow crops other than maize nearly always acquire seeds through these two systems, which do not involve any formal inspection by the country’s official seed certification system (ibid.). In Mali, the government supports a variety release and seed system, which is regulated by a national law[15] that is based on a regional regulation adopted by member countries of the Economic and Monetary Union of West African Nations (UEMOA).[16] The system is flexible enough to accept adapted (resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses, good cooking qualities, high nutritional values or adapted to local dishes) and high-performing local varieties. Certified seeds of these varieties are produced and made available to farmers.

Biodiversity conservation strategies and environmental policies were mentioned in several country reports. For example, the Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia (1997) covers national and regional strategies and sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, action plans and programmes and provides the basis for the development of appropriate institutional and legal frameworks for implementation. Institutions with specific mandates to work on conservation, development and utilization of forest, aquatic, animal and plant genetic resources have been established and are functional. In Cameroon, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was developed following the ecosystem approach and involving all biodiversity stakeholders. It recommends a cross-sectoral approach to conservation and sustainable use. The Ministry of Environment’s conservation strategy aims to have 30 percent of the national territory designated as protected area. Chad’s National Action Plan for Environment, drafted in 2005, is a general framework for reflection/exchange and for sustainable management of natural resources. It comprises several action plans: the National Action Plan for Combating Desertification, the National Action Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change, the National Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Chad, the National Strategy on Biological Diversity and the National Profile for the Management of Chemical Products.

Several country reports mention international conventions and agreements as mechanisms that support the sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture, including the Nagoya Protocol, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. For example, Ethiopia mentions that, after ratifying CBD and ITPGRFA and adopting international model laws and guidelines, it issued Regulation 169/2009 and Proclamation No. 482/2006 on Access to Genetic Resources and Community Knowledge and Community Rights (see above). It also notes that its recent ratification of the Nagoya Protocol will enhance the implementation of national access and benefit-sharing laws.

3.1.1 Strengths and weaknesses

Only a few of the country reports discuss the strengths and weaknesses of current policies and programmes. On the one hand, some reports describe governmental support and commitment to national policies as major strengths. On the other, some outline a number of weaknesses in national policies and legislation. For example, the report from the Gambia mentions that the country’s policies and legislation governing the conservation and use of biological diversity are too sector based and that most instruments are obsolete, too rigid and/or have been formulated in a top-down fashion. It notes that although the country’s National Environment Management Act[17] seeks to establish a general framework for the conservation of biodiversity its provisions are too general to serve this purpose. Provisions for public participation in the country’s sectoral legislation are reported to be virtually absent. The report further notes that the regulatory regime is riddled with gaps and serious legal conflicts and that the situation is exacerbated by poor enforcement caused by a lack of trained staff, poor logistics and shortages of funds and other resources. Specific gaps identified in the country’s legislation include a lack of explicit provisions addressing ex situ conservation, control of alien species, risks associated with genetically modified organisms, protection of threatened species and populations, regulation of access to genetic resources, protection of indigenous knowledge and the intellectual property rights of local people, and joint development and transfer of technologies that use genetic resources. The report concludes that existing sectoral legislation on biodiversity is generally not adequate to ensure successful conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity under the prevailing socio-economic circumstances. Lack of financial resources is also mentioned as a major constraint to national policies in Cameroon, Chad and Gabon.

3.1.2 Interministerial cooperation and collaboration mechanisms

Although several country reports mention collaboration and cooperation among the various ministries and institutions involved in implementing national biodiversity strategies and action plans,[18] few details of specific cooperation mechanisms are provided. Even where mechanisms are mentioned, there is often a lack of clarity regarding mandates and responsibilities. Some examples of reported initiatives are presented below. What is not always clear from the country reports is how successful the initiatives mentioned have been.

The report from Cameroon describes a decentralized cooperation mechanism and indicates the responsibilities of some ministries, as follows:

• All biodiversity-related ministries are active participants in the implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Their front-line and field representatives who work with rural communities on a day-to-day basis are also involved.

• Every ministry informs other biodiversity-related ministries before enacting any policy or regulation addressing the management of any sector of biodiversity.

• The Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovations disseminates research findings in all sectors of biodiversity and collaborates with all other ministries in building capacity in the management of biological resources.

• There is regular collaboration and sharing of information through meetings and seminars on biodiversity issues.

• All biodiversity-related ministries have been sensitized regarding the Aichi Targets and each ministry is programming efforts to meet relevant Aichi Targets into its work.

Ethiopia has a centralized and functional cooperation mechanism, with responsibility for coordination lying with the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute. Other major actors involved include the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, higher learning institutions, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the regional bureaus of agriculture, the recently established biodiversity offices, and regional pastoral agencies. The report from Guinea mentions, as an example of successful interministerial cooperation, the partnership between the Ministry of Livestock and the Ministry of the Environment within the framework of the implementation of the PROGEBE project (see Box 3). It notes that the project signed agreements with the Environmental Monitoring and Information Centre on environmental monitoring and with the National Water and Forestry Directorate on the sustainable management of natural resources (development of land-use plans, training of staff in various forestry techniques and establishment of community forests).

In Kenya, a secretariat has been established to coordinate the Kenya Vision 2030 programme across all government ministries. In the Gambia, conservation, management and development of natural resources have been the shared responsibility of a multitude of actors since the passing of the Banjul Declaration in 1977. The main players include governmental and non-governmental organizations, along with numerous projects and programmes supported by external donors and financing agencies. The National Environmental Management Council has overall responsibility for environmental policy-making and coordination at national level. The Agriculture and Natural Resources Working Group is responsible for coordination and harmonization of all cross-sectoral natural resources development issues.

3.1.3 Needs and priorities

Many of the needs and priorities reported by countries with regard to policies, programmes and institutions governing biodiversity for food and agriculture relate to resource constraints (human, physical and financial) of the type that affect many areas of biodiversity management. Many countries also express the need for sensitization and assessment activities specific to associated biodiversity. As described above (Sections 2.1.5, 2.2.3 and 2.3.2), reported needs and priorities in specific areas of management such as sustainable use, conservation, and access and benefit-sharing often include the development of relevant policies and programmes. Major needs and priorities identified by reporting countries in terms of policies, programmes and institutions targeting biodiversity for food and agriculture, associated biodiversity and wild foods include the following:

• building human-resource capacity to implement national policies, including through training and sensitization;

• respecting existing legal frameworks on biodiversity;

• implementing sustainable national biodiversity coordination mechanisms;

• mainstreaming biodiversity issues in the government, business, scientific and education sectors to ensure that they are not ignored in development processes or in government and industry decisions;

• establishing baseline datasets and long-term monitoring mechanisms to inform decision-making and information exchange;

• inventorying the resource base to inform stakeholders, and systematizing and computerizing data collected on associated biodiversity; and

• increasing research efforts on the various dimensions of associated biodiversity – upgrading of existing research facilities and development of a financial resources mobilization strategy are major priorities in this regard.

3.2 CAPACITY AND RESEARCH NEEDS

The main priorities in terms of training and education identified in the country reports were as follows:

• capacity development at national level to support the development of legislation and policies that comply with international laws, conventions, treaties and protocols;

• strengthening the capacity of all actors to understand and implement legal instruments;

• training of professionals and field technicians on technical and legal aspects of biodiversity management;

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

• training of communicators to support the implementation of awareness-raising programmes targeting the public.

Priorities reported by a smaller number of countries include the following:

• training on scientific methodology, including on taxonomy and the implementation of biodiversity censuses;

• training on the development of improved biocontrol methods for established invasive alien species, pest and diseases;

• capacity development for relevant organizations on climate change impacts, use of the latest climate change-related technologies, identification of vulnerable areas and mitigation analysis;

• capacity development in climate change science; and

• capacity development with regard to strategies for controlling and/or mitigating land degradation.

The country reports also mention the need to support targeted research and to develop new models of partnership and cooperation that strengthen capacity building in scientific research and development. Support for information collection and dissemination is regarded as an essential basis for bridging knowledge gaps and ensuring sound implementation of relevant measures and activities. Some reports note an urgent need to strengthen core activities such as education and training, awareness raising, data management, access to information and networking (data collection, quality control and archiving).

As indicated above in the various needs and priorities subsections of this report, many countries mentioned the need to strengthen research on associated biodiversity and wild foods. The following major priorities were identified in this regard:

• further strengthening research capacities in universities and research centres in the fields of biodiversity management and monitoring (countries noted the lack of sufficient funding to address this need);

• raising awareness among stakeholders, including through the establishment of accessible information systems; and

• reviewing and harmonizing relevant policies.

Most country reports that identify capacity and research needs emphasize needs related to crop genetic resources. A number of countries also refer to research needs related to particular practical aspects of management such as restoring soil fertility, identifying crops suitable for specific agroecological zones and identifying and utilizing crop species that are resistant to climatic hazards. The report from the Gambia refers to the key role that combining traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge can play in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture. Strengthening research that involves local knowledge is identified as a priority. The report particularly highlights an initiative that brings together women´s traditional knowledge and scientific research on oysters and cockles in the Niumi National Park on the country’s coast. The report from Senegal highlights the need for integrated, multisectoral and multidisciplinary approaches to research on biodiversity for food and agriculture.

IV. Regional and international cooperation

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

Several types of regional and international cooperation initiatives are mentioned in the country reports. However, aside from initiatives targeting the management of crop and livestock genetic resources, none of these specifically target the conservation or sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture as such. They target instead the management of relevant ecosystems (e.g. forests, seas and costal zones), particular resources (e.g. soils), landscapes or biodiversity in general. Regional initiatives (initiatives involving more than one country) reported in the country reports are listed in Table 15. Reported initiatives include those at global, continental and subcontinental levels. They can be grouped into the following three major categories:

1. initiatives that provide platforms for common regulations or actions relevant to the management of a common resource or to a common challenge: examples include the Niger River Basin Authority, the Lake Chad Basin Commission and the Pan-African Agency for the Great Green Wall; these initiatives are generally very broad and biodiversity-management activities may be a relatively small component of their work;

2. initiatives dealing with policy, scientific and management issues (most of the initiatives listed in Table 16 fall in this category); depending on the context, biodiversity management may be a major or minor component of such initiatives; and

3. initiatives focusing exclusively on biodiversity management and dealing with scientific, technical and practical issues (conservation, capacity building, regional exchange and commerce, etc.); regional networks for management of plant genetic resources fall in this category.

Funding sources for these three types of initiatives vary substantially. The majority receive funds from external sources. Some are funded by contributions from member countries. Some receive funds from multiple donors. The country reports indicate that the effectiveness and functionality of the various reported initiatives depend heavily on the nature of their funding sources. None of the initiatives is self-sufficient or autonomous in terms of funding.

The country reports indicate that participation in the reported cooperation initiatives varies from one initiative to the other. Generally, the countries that host the headquarters of the respective initiatives are the most active in day-to-day management. Countries appear generally to be more active in the initiatives in the second and third categories than in those in the first category. The benefits of cooperative initiatives tend to accrue to countries that are able to ensure the availability of the minimum human, physical and financial resources needed to implement recommendations. Countries that are in a weaker position in this regard benefit more from financial resources made available via the initiatives to support the development of local institutions and research or development facilities.

4.2 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

Full and effective participation in regional and international initiatives requires that countries adopt or develop local legislation and institutions and train human resources to implement regional and international guidelines. For various reasons, most countries adhere to regional and international initiatives but fail to take appropriate measures to implement the recommendations arising from these initiatives. Reported reasons for this generally related to limited capacity and a lack of effective enforcement and follow-up mechanisms.

References

Adjanohoum, J.E., Aboubacar, N., Dramane, K., Ebot, M.E., Ekpere, J.A., Enow-Orock, E.G., Focho, D. et al. 1996. Traditional medicine and pharmacopoeia: contribution to ethnobotanical and floristic studies in Cameroon. Porto-novo, Centre national de production de manuels scolaire. 227 pp.

Andersen, R. & Winge, T. 2012. The Access and Benefit-Sharing Agreement on Teff Genetic Resources. Facts and lessons. Lysaker, NorwayFNI Report 6/2012. (available at https://www.fni.no/getfile.php/131843-1469869194/Filer/Publikasjoner/FNI-R0612.pdf).

Assefa, A. & Abebe, T. 2011. Wild edible trees and shrubs in the semi-arid lowlands of Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Science and Development, 1(1): 5–19. (available at http://www.hu.edu.et/hu/images/pdf/journals/Wild edible trees and shrubs.pdf).

ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency). 2013. Results of 2012 new tef technology demonstration trials. Addis Ababa, ATA, and Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

Azokpota, P. 2005. Etude de la dynamique physico-chimique et microbiologique de la fermentation des graines de néré (Parkia biglobosa) pour la production de l’afintin, de l’iru et du sonru. Benin, Université d’Abomey-Calavi.

Barrow, E. & Mlenge, W. 2003. Trees as key to pastoralist risk management in semi-arid landscapes in Shinyanga, Tanzania and Turkana, Kenya. Paper presented at the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity 19–23 May 2003. Bonn, Germany. 15 pp. (available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.9732&rep=rep1&type=pdf).

Bassey, N. 2017. Fish species are disappearing [online]. [Cited 30 July 2018]. https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/west-africa-coastal-communities-livelihoods-are-risk-because-overfishing-and-oil-production

Bernholt, H., Kehlenbeck, K., Gebauer, J. & Buerkert, A. 2009. Plant species richness and diversity in urban and peri-urban gardens of Niamey, Niger. Agroforestry Systems, 77: 159. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9236-8

Boy, G. & Witt, A. 2013. Invasive alien plants and their management in Africa. Synthesis Report of the UNEP/GEF Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa (RBIPMA) Project. Gutenberg Press, Malta, CABI Africa. 177 pp.

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2018. Parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity [online]. [Cited 11 July 2018]. https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/default.shtml

Chama, L. & Siachoono, S. 2015. Effectiveness of birds, butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies and invertebrates as indicators of freshwater ecological integrity. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 17. (available at http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/EGU2015-13383.pdf).

Ciferri, O. 1983. Spirulina, the edible microorganism. Microbiological Reviews, 47(4): 551–578.

Corral-Nuñez, G., Opazo-Salazar, D., GebreSamuel, G., Tittonell, P., Gebretsadik, A., Gebremeskel, Y., Tesfay, G. & van Beek, C.L. 2014. Soil organic matter in Northern Ethiopia, current level and predicted trend: a study case of two villages in Tigray. Soil use and management, 30(4): 487–495. (available at https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12157).

DeClerck, F.A.J., Fanzo, J., Palm, C. & Remans, R. 2011. Ecological approaches to human nutrition. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 32(1): 41–50.

EBI (Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute). 2014. Ethiopia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Addis Ababa. (available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/et/et-nr-05-en.pdf).

Di Falco, S., Bezabih, M. & Yesuf, M. 2010. Seeds for livelihood: crop biodiversity and food production in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics, 69: 1695–1702.

FAO. 2010. The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 370 pp. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e00.htm).

FAO. 2014a. The State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources. Rome, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fgr/64582/en/).

FAO. 2014b. Promoting open source seed systems for beans, forage legumes, millet and sorghum for climate change adaptation in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda [online]. [Cited 29 July 2018]. http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/countries/membership/country-details/en/c/359308/?iso3=KEN

FAO. 2015a. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources. Rome, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. (available at http://www.fao.org/publications/sowangr/en/).

FAO. 2015b. Regional overview of food security: African food security prospects brighter than ever. Accra.

FAO. 2015c. Genetic diversity a hidden tool in coping with climate change [online]. [Cited 29 July 2018a]. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/275041/icode/

FAO. 2016. Technical and socio-economic characteristics of small-scale coastal fishing communities, and opportunities for poverty alleviation and empowerment. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. C1111. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5651e.pdf).

FAO. 2018. Promoting open source seed systems for beans, forage legumes, millet and sorghum for climate change adaptation in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. In: International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture [online]. [Cited 29 July 2018]. http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/areas-of-work/benefit-sharing-fund/projects-funded/bsf-details/en/c/359497/?iso3=KEN

FAO/PAR. 2011. Biodiversity for food and agriculture: contributing to food security and sustainability in a changing world. Outcomes of an expert workshop held by FAO and the Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research from 14–16 April 2010 in Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/biodiversity_paia/PAR-FAO-book_lr.pdf).

FAOSTAT. 2014. FAO Online Statistical Database [online]. http://www.fao.org/faostat

Félix, G.F., Douzet, J.-M., Ouédraogo, M., Belliard, P., Lahmar, R., Clermont-Dauphin, C., Scholberg, J., Tittonell, P. & Cournac, L. 2015. Ecosystem services for West African farming families: the role of woody shrub mulch. Paper presented at the 5th International Symposium for Farming Systems Design, 7–10 September 2015. Montpellier, France. (available at http://www.wassa-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FSD5_F%C3%A9lix-et-al-2015_v2.pdf).

Félix, G.F., Clermont-Dauphin, C., Hien, E., Groot, Jeroen, C.J., Penche, A., Barthès, B.G., Manlay, R.J., Tittonell, P. & Cournac, L. 2018. Ramial wood amendments (Piliostigma reticulatum) mitigate degradation of tropical soils but do not replenish nutrient exports. Land Degradation & Development, 29(8): 2694–2706. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3033

FishBase. 2012. Fishbase [online]. [Cited 19 July 2018]. http://www.fishbase.org/search.php

Gbedomon, R.C., Fandohan, A.B., Salako, V.K., Idohou, A.F., Kakaï, R.G. & Assogbadjo, A.E. 2015. Factors affecting home gardens ownership, diversity and structure: a case study from Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0041-3

Gbedomon, R.C., Salako, V.K., Fandohan, A.B., Idohou, A.F.R., Kakaï, R.G. & Assogbadjo, A.E. 2017. Functional diversity of home gardens and their agrobiodiversity conservation benefits in Benin, West Africa. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 13:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-017-0192-5

GeRRI (Genetic Resources Research Institute). 2015. Kenya National Strategy on Genetic Resources Within the Context Of Climate Change 2016 – 2020. Kikuyu, Kenya. (available at http://www.kalro.org/genetic/sites/default/files/Kenya-national-strategy-on-PGR-web.pdf).

GGW (Great Green Wall). 2018. The Great Green Wall [online]. [Cited 26 July 2018]. http://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall

Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: D. Raffaelli & C. Frid, eds. Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis (Ecological Reviews), pp. 110–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007

Henry, M., Tittonell, P., Manlay, R.J., Bernoux, M., Albrecht, A. & Vanlauwe, B. 2009. Biodiversity, carbon stocks and sequestration potential in aboveground biomass in smallholder farming systems of western Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 129: 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.09.006

ICIPE (International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology). 2015. The ‘push–pull’ farming system: climate-smart, sustainable agriculture for Africa. (available at http://www.push-pull.net/planting_for_prosperity.pdf).

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2014. Republic of Zambia: Enhanced Smallholder Livestock Investment Programme. Rome. (available at operations.ifad.org/documents/654016/7ce4f9a6-cbd5-4f56-8a60-da116f0189f2).

IRI (International Research Institute for Climate and Society). 2007. Food security in Ethiopia. In: Climate risk management in Africa - learning from practice, pp. 31–44. (available at https://iri.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Climate-and-Society-No1_en.pdf).

ISSD Africa. 2012. ISSD Briefing Note - Zambia Seed Sector Assessment.

Jones, A., Breuning-Madsen, H., Brossard, M., Dampha, A., Deckers, J., Dewitte, O., Gallali, T. et al., eds. 2013. Soil atlas of Africa. Luxembourg, European Commission, Publication Office of the European Union. 176 pp. (available at http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/maps/africa_atlas/).

Kebede, Y., Bianchi, F., Baudron, F., Abraham, K., de Valenca, A. & Tittonell, P. 2018. Implications of changes in land cover and landscape structure for the biocontrol potential of stemborers in Ethiopia. Biological Control, 122: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.03.012

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

Kifle, T.B., Hora, K.W. & Merti, A.A. 2014. Investigating the role of apiculture in watershed management and income improvement in Galessa protected area, Ethiopia. Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3(5): 380–385. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140305.18

Kintché, K., Guibert, H., Bonfoh, B. & Tittonell, P. 2015. Long-term decline in soil fertility and responsiveness to fertiliser as mitigated by short fallow periods in sub-Sahelian area of Togo. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 101(3): 333–350. (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9681-x).

Lahmar, R., Bationo, B.A., Lamso, N.D., Guéro, Y. & Tittonell, P. 2012. Tailoring conservation agriculture technologies to West Africa semi-arid zones: Building on traditional local practices for soil restoration. Field Crops Research, 132: 158–167.

Lamien, N. & Vognan, G. 2001. Importance of non-wood forest products as source of rural women’s income in Western Burkina Faso. In D. Pasternak & A. Schlissel, eds. Combating desertification with plants, pp. 69–79. Boston, USA, Springer.

Leakey, R.R.B., Schreckenberg, K. & Tchoundjeu, Z. 2003. The participatory domestication of West Africanndigenous fruits. International Forestry Review, 5: 338–347.

Madode, Y.E.E. 2012. Keeping local foods on the menu: a study of the small scale processing of cowpea. Wageningen, Netherlands, Wageningen University. (available at http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/431609).

Mali NAPA. 2007. Programme d’Action National d’Adaptation aux Changements Climatiques [online]. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/mli01f.pdf

McCann, J.C. 2005. Maize and grace: Africa’s encounter with a new world crop, 1500–2000. Cambridge, USA, Harvard University Press.

Medaglia, J., Perron-Welch, F. & Phillips, F.K. 2014. Overview of national and regional measures pn access and benefit sharing: challenges and opportunities in implementing the Nagoya Protocol. Montreal, Canada, Centre for International Sustainable Development Law.

MEDD (Ministère de l’environnement et du développement durable). 2011. Plan d’action national 2011-2015 du Burkina Faso pour la mise en œuvre de la Convention sur la Diversité Biologique. Ouagadougou. 136 pp. (available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/bf/bf-nbsap-v2-fr.pdf).

MoE (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources). 2016. Sessional Paper No. 3 on National Climate Change Framework Policy. Nairobi. 38 pp.

Munyi, P., Grum, M. & Sdungu-Skilton, J. 2008. Framework for transforming best practices for landscape conservation to policies. Rome, Bioversity International. 28 pp.

Nezomba, H., Mtambanengwe, F., Tittonell, P. & Mapfumo, P. 2015. Point of no return? Rehabilitating degraded soils for increased crop productivity on smallholder farms in eastern Zimbabwe. Geoderma, 239–240: 143–155. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.10.006

Omoro, L.M.A. & Luukkannen, O. 2011. Native tree species regeneration and diversity in the mountain cloud forests of East Africa. In O. Grillo, ed. Biodiversity loss in a changing planet, pp. 241–256. Helsinki. (available at http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23612/InTech-Native_tree_species_regeneration_and_diversity_in_the_mountain_cloud_forests_of_east_africa.pdf).

PAGREN. 2012. Evaluation finale. Projet d’Appui à la Gestion participative des Ressources naturelles dans la Région des Hauts-Bassins. Burkina Faso. (available at https://luxdev.lu/files/documents/BKF_012_EF_FR.pdf).

Puustjärvy, E., Mickels-Kokwe, G. & Chakanga, M. 2005. The contribution of the forestry sector to the national economy and poverty reduction in Zambia. Forestry Department, Zambia, and Ministry For Foreign Affairs of Finland.

Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. & Bennett., E.M. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107: 5242–5247.

Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.P. & Polasky, S. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11: 268–273.

Scialabba, N. & Hattam, C., eds. 2002. Organic agriculture, environment and food security. Environment and Natural Resources Series No. 4. 258 pp. Rome, FAO. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4137e/y4137e00.htm).

Sidibe, A., Coulibaly, H., Berthé, N.A., Koreissi, D.Y., Brahima, D., Vodouhe, R., Padulosi, S. & Meldrum, G. 2016. Promoting fonio (Digitaria sp.), Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) and nutritious underutilized vegetables in Sikasso and Ségou regions of Mali. In: S. Padulosi, G. Meldrum & G. Gullotta, eds. Agricultural biodiversity to manage the risks and empower the poor, pp. 74–84. Proceedings of the International Conference 27-29 April 2015. Bioversity International, Rome.

Sneyd, L.Q. 2013. Wild food, prices, diets and development: sustainability and food security in urban Cameroon. Sustainability, 5: 4728–4759.

Somda, J., Zonon, A., Ouadba, J.M. & Huberman, D. 2010. Valeur économique de la vallée du Sourou : une évaluation préliminaire. Ouagadougou. 63 pp. (available at https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/valeur_economique_vallee_sourou_f.pdf).

Tchoundjeu, Z., Duguma, B., Fondoun, J.-M. & Kengue, J. 1998. Strategy for the domestication of indigenous fruit trees of West Africa: case of Irvingia gabonensis in southern Cameroon. Cameroon Journal of Biology and Biochemical Sciences, 4: 21–28.

Tchoundjeu, Z., Asaah, E.K., Anegbeh, P., Degrande, A., Mbile, P., Facheux, C., Tsobeng, A., Atangana, A.R., Ngo-Mpeck, M.L. & Simons, A.J. 2006. Putting participatory domestication into practice in West and Central Africa. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 16: 33–69.

Tchoundjeu, Z., Degrande, A., Leakey, R.R.B., Nimino, G., Kemajou, E., Asaah, E., Facheux, C., Mbile, P., Mbosso, C., Sado, T. & Tsobeng, A. 2010. Impacts of participatory tree domestication on farmer livelihoods in West and Central Africa. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 19: 217–234.

Tittonell, P. 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture — sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 8: 53–61. (available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006).

Turner, K.G., Odgaard, M.V., Bocher, P.K., Dalgaard, T. & Svenning, J.-C. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125: 89–104.

UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification). 2013. The economics of desertification, land degradation and drought: methodologies and analysis for decision-making. Bonn. (available at http://2sc.unccd.int/fileadmin/unccd/upload/documents/Background_documents/Background_Document_web3.pdf).

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2013. Mainstreaming agro-biodiversity: engaging farming communities to conserve wild crop relatives and landraces [online]. http://www.et.undp.org/content/dam/ethiopia/docs/bio-diversity pager 2 (2).pdf

USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2016. Zambia Early Generation Seed Study: Country Report. (available at http://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Zambia-EGS-Study-Final-Report.pdf).

Wang, S. & Fu, B. 2013. Trade-offs between forest ecosystem services. Forest Policy and Economics, 26: 145–146.

Westengen, O.T. & Brysting, A.K. 2014. Crop adaptation to climate change in the semi-arid zone in Tanzania: the role of genetic resources and seed systems. Agriculture & Food Security, 3(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-3-3

Worede, M. 2011. Establishing a community seed supply system: community seed bank complexes in Africa. In: L. Li Ching, S. Edwards & N.E. Scialabba, eds. Climate change and food systems resilience in sub-saharan Africa, pp. 361–377. Rome, FAO.

World Bank. 2017. Population growth (annual %) | Data [online]. [Cited 5 July 2017]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2016&locations=ZG&start=1961&view=chart

WRI (World Resources Institute). 2005. The wealth of the poor: managing ecosystems to fight poverty. Washington, DC. (available at http://population.wri.org/worldresources2005-pub-4073.html).

1 The following web pages give an overview of FAO Member States grouped according to their regional distribution: Africa: http://www.fao.org/africa/countries/en/; Asia and the Pacific: http://www.fao.org/asiapacific/countries/en/; Europe and Central Asia: http://www.fao.org/europe/countries/en/; Near East and North Africa: http://www.fao.org/neareast/countries/en/; Latin America and the Caribbean: http://www.fao.org/americas/paises/en/; North America: http://www.fao.org/north-america/fao-in-north-america/about-us/en/.

2 Available, in French, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC067609/

3 The Government of Zambia has initiated a livestock-stocking and restocking programme, based on the pass-on repayment system. In this system, smallholders receive animals and agree, through a signed contract, to transfer the equivalent first female offspring to another member of the group when the animals reach 6–12 months of age. Male offspring will be reared and sold, with the income generated used to purchase female stock. One-third of the smallholder group that participates in the programme will receive a predefined livestock investment package, which will be passed on in the following year to the other group members. It is expected that each group will engage in at least two pass-on cycles (IFAD, 2014).

4 https://www.zef.de/zefhome/

5 http://www.globalhort.org/

6 https://avrdc.org/

7 https://www.zef.de/projects/project-details.html?project=44&contact=1767&cHash=a2a1f682b1ccbffdf063d0601119166d

8 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 ecosystems 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. 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 interactions 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.

9 http://www.vision2030.go.ke

10 Environmental Management and Co-ordination (Conservation of Biological Diversity and Resources, Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing) Regulations, 2006 (L.N. No. 160 of 2006) (available at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC071757/).

11 Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, 1999 (Cap. 387) (available at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC041653).

12 Access to Genetic Resources and Community Knowledge, and Community Rights Proclamation (No. 482/2006) (available at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC080475).

13 Council of Ministers Regulation to provide for Access to Genetic Resources and Community knowledge and Community Rights (No. 169/2009) (available at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC121678/).

14 Environmental Management Act, 2004 (No. 20 of 2004) (available at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC061491/).

15 Loi 10-032 du 12 juillet 2010 relative aux semences d’origine végétale (available, in French, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC141928).

16 Règlement n°03/2009/CM/UEMOA portant harmonisation des règles régissant le contrôle de qualité, la certification et la commercialisation des semences végétales et plants dans l’UEMOA (available, in French, at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC148414).

17 National Environment Management Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994) (available at http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/?details=LEX-FAOC006275).

18 Most of the countries in the region have a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.