Required citation:

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

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

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

ISBN 978-92-5-132041-9
E-ISBN 978-92-5-132147-8 (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 Regional context

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

1.2.1 Main drivers of change affecting genetic resources for food and agriculture

1.2.2 Status, trends and drivers of change of associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources

1.2.3 National information systems on associated biodiversity

1.2.4 Associated biodiversity actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services

1.2.5 Wild food species

1.3 Needs and priorities

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

2.1 Sustainable use

2.1.1 Management practices supporting the maintenance and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

2.1.2 Effect of diversity per se on productivity, food security and nutrition, and rural livelihoods

2.1.3 Use of biodiversity for food and agriculture for coping with climate change, invasive alien species and natural or human-made disasters

2.1.4 Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches for the management and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

2.1.5 Activities promoting the maintenance and use of traditional knowledge of associated biodiversity and wild foods

2.1.6 Needs and priorities

2.2 Conservation

2.2.1 In situ conservation

2.2.2 Ex situ conservation

2.2.3 Needs and priorities

2.3 Access and exchange

III.   POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS AND CAPACITY

3.1 Policies, programmes, institutions and stakeholders

3.1.1 Policies and programmes

3.1.2 Interministerial cooperation

3.2 Capacity and research needs

IV.   REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

4.1 Major regional initiatives to conserve and use biodiversity for food and agriculture

4.2 Needs and priorities

REFERENCES

TABLES

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

Table 2. Production systems reported in Asia

Table 3. Associated biodiversity species most frequently reported to be managed for the provision of ecosystem services in Asia

Table 4. Wild food species reported by three or more countries in Asia

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

Table 6. Reported examples of the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture to cope with climate change, invasive alien species or natural or human-made disasters in Asia

Table 7. Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches reported to have improved the management and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Asia

Table 8. Examples of protected areas in Asia with in situ conservation initiatives for associated biodiversity and wild foods

Table 9. Reported status of ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity and wild foods in Asia

Table 10. Reported measures regulating access and benefit-sharing for biodiversity for food and agriculture in Asia

Table 11. Disaster management and response policies, programmes and enabling frameworks in Asia reported to embed the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

Table 12. Climate change adaptation and mitigation policies, programmes and enabling frameworks in Asia reported to embed the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

Table 13. Reported regional and international initiatives addressing the conservation and/or use of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Asia

Foreword

We have known for some time that human activity is eroding biodiversity – the amazing variety of life at genetic, species and ecosystem levels. We know that forests are being lost to agriculture, that many fish stocks are overfished and that species, breeds and varieties are sometimes lost even before we can record them. The report on The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, published by FAO earlier this year, provides an in-depth account of this decline.

This synthesis report for Asia, prepared as a contribution to the global report, explores in detail the information provided by eight countries on the state and trends of the species, breeds, varieties and strains of wild and domesticated terrestrial and aquatic plants, animals and micro-organisms that contribute to food production and agriculture.

It also looks at the multiple challenges countries face, individually and as a region, in sustainably managing and better safeguarding these resources, and describes countermeasures and innovative solutions. Countries in the region are adopting biodiversity-friendly practices in the crop, livestock, forest, fisheries and aquaculture sectors, with the implementation of ecosystem approaches to fisheries and aquaculture, restoration, diversification, home gardening, agroforestry, organic agriculture, integrated pest management and various approaches to sustainable pasture management all widely reported.

This is good news in terms of two of FAO’s regional priorities – enhancing equitable, productive and sustainable natural resource management and utilization and strengthening food and nutritional security. However, the declining state of biodiversity and the high level of hunger in the region are compelling evidence that much more action is needed. With 74 percent of the estimated 570 million farms, 85 percent of the world’s fishers and fish farmers and over 60 percent of the world’s undernourished people located in Asia, decisions taken in the region will affect the livelihoods and food security of a large portion of the world’s population.

Acknowledgements

Lead author: Kim-Anh Tempelman Mezzera

Contributors: Julie Bélanger, Agnès Bernis-Fonteneau, Irene Hoffmann, Ladina Knapp, Dan Leskien, Dafydd Pilling, Manuel Pomar, Vladimir Shlevkov Pronskiy, Miriam Widmer

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

Logistical support to the organization of an informal regional consultation on the state of Asia’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Bangkok, Thailand, 26 to 28 April 2016, was provided by FAO’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Financial support for both the organization of the informal regional consultation and the preparation of the regional synthesis report was provided by the Governments of Germany, Spain and Switzerland.

About this report

BACKGROUND

This report summarizes the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA) in Asia based on the information provided in country reports submitted to FAO as part of the reporting process for the report on The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. A first draft, based on six country reports, was prepared as supporting documentation for an informal regional consultation on the state of Asia’s BFA held in Bangkok, Thailand, 26 to 28 April 2016. The document was later revised based on feedback received from the participants of the informal consultation, additional country reports (two) and country-report updates received by FAO before September 2016. During the informal consultation, participants also discussed regional needs, priorities and possible actions for the conservation and sustainable use of BFA.[1]

SCOPE

The report addresses the BFA (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

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

Associated biodiversity

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

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

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

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 Asia’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA-16/17/Inf.11.2) (FAO, 2016).

Executive summary

WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE?

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

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report summarizes the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture in Asia 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 Asia’s biodiversity for food and agriculture held in Bangkok, Thailand, 26 to 28 April 2016.

SUMMARY

As of September 2016, 8 out of 24 countries from the Asia region had officially submitted a country report to contribute to the preparation of The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. This regional synthesis report provides a synthesis of their inputs, organized into four main areas: (i) assessment and monitoring; (ii) conservation and sustainable use; (iii) policies, institutions and capacity; and (iv) regional and international cooperation.

Asia, the world’s largest and most populated continent, is characterized by many different forms of diversity. It has various religions, cultures and traditions, encompasses a wide range of climatic and topographic conditions, and is also one of the world’s most biodiverse regions, including in terms of biodiversity for food and agriculture (BFA). For centuries, farmers, livestock keepers, fishers and forest dwellers have maintained and used a broad range of species in and around production systems, shaping the region’s landscapes, seascapes and ecosystems. Over the past decades, however, Asia’s wealth of BFA has been declining. Changes in land and water use and management have been one of the main factors leading to this decline. To intensify production, large areas forest and wetland have been converted into arable land farmed under monoculture systems. The use of pesticides, herbicides and mineral fertilizers has been drastically increased. These changes have led, inter alia, to widespread soil and water pollution and concentration on an ever-smaller number of economically profitable, higher-yielding species, varieties and breeds. Other factors that have taken their toll on BFA include overexploitation and overharvesting, climate change and the proliferation of invasive alien species. Natural and human-made disasters also have adverse impacts on BFA.

Awareness of the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss in the region is increasing and several countries are undertaking efforts to reverse declining trends, for example by establishing protected areas to maintain forests and other ecosystems.

As is the case of other regions, Asia’s associated biodiversity is monitored less systematically than its animal (livestock), plant (crop), forest and aquatic (fisheries and aquaculture) genetic resources. Data on associated biodiversity are often gathered through one-off surveys or in the context of short-term projects and therefore provide no more than snapshots of the status of given components of biodiversity. Despite the lack of precise data, all the reporting countries indicate that the status of associated biodiversity is deteriorating. They also generally agree that there is a need to collect baseline data on associated biodiversity and to establish systematic monitoring programmes.

Where wild food resources are concerned, despite the lack of recorded and published details, countries indicate that their availability and diversity, as well as knowledge of their characteristics and possible uses, have been declining. This is a matter of concern given that numerous communities across the region rely heavily on wild food resources for their food intake, particularly during periods of food scarcity. Countries expressed the need for an inventory of wild food species, including of their characteristics and possible untapped values, and for the development of plans and strategies to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of these resources.

Management strategies and practices that are considered to support the maintenance and use of BFA seem to be more frequently applied in crop and forest systems than in aquatic, livestock and mixed production systems. Integrated pest management, integrated plant nutrient management and water management were among the most frequently reported practices in crop production systems. In the case of forest production systems, agroforestry, integrated plant nutrient management and restoration practices were among the most commonly reported. The importance of diversification was highlighted both for capture fisheries and for fed-aquaculture systems. Overall, more research is needed on the effectiveness of diversity-based and other potentially biodiversity-friendly management practices in terms of the maintenance and use of BFA. Findings in this field also need to be made available to the relevant stakeholders, ranging from farmers to policy-makers.

In Asia, BFA is widely used to cope with natural or human-made disasters. For example, saline-tolerant varieties of rice are supplied to farmers following cyclones to help them cope with soil salinization. Diversification and crop-cycle management strategies have been put in place to ensure food availability during floods. The importance of the availability and use of wild foods during severe food shortages, some of which are caused by natural disasters, is also emphasized in the country reports. Crop and livestock diversity, in particular the diversity of locally adapted plant and animal genetic resources, including underutilized and neglected crops and crop wild relatives, is considered of key importance for adaptation to climate change, including through genetic improvement. The country reports also describe a few cases in which components of BFA have been used to slow the spread of invasive alien species in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. However, in none of these cases have the negative impacts of the invasive species been kept fully under control.

Fewer than half of the reporting countries indicated that they had adopted landscape, seascape or ecosystem approaches, including the ecosystem approach applied to fisheries. Several countries reported that they considered the development and application of such approaches to be a priority, in particular in agricultural production systems. They expressed the need for guidelines and action plans to assist them in the development of relevant policies and strategies.

In Asia, traditional knowledge plays an important role in the use of BFA. Indigenous communities in particular hold and maintain unique knowledge about the uses of local species, varieties and breeds. Some countries noted the crucial role of women, whose decision-making power in agricultural production greatly influences the use and conservation of BFA.

The conservation of many components of BFA remains challenging. The absence of adequate data, along with a lack of financial and human resources, poses severe constraints to the reinforcement of existing conservation initiatives and the development of new strategies.

Protected areas seem to be the most common form of conservation of associated biodiversity and wild food species in the region. For the conservation of aquatic resources and ecosystems in particular, several countries highlighted the importance of marine protected areas and national parks containing lakes, rivers and wetlands. Despite hindrances and setbacks, varying from illegal exploitation to political instability and social unrest, the region’s total area covered by protected areas continues to expand.

The country reports include a number of examples of initiatives specifically targeting the ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity and wild food species, including microbial culture collections maintaining taxonomically diverse groups of micro-organisms for utilization in the agriculture, horticulture, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, agrifood or other industries, conservation of biological control agents under ambient laboratory conditions and cryopreservation of milt from various fish species.

Countries generally agree that an integrated approach involving in situ and ex situ conservation strategies is the best way to conserve biodiversity for food and agriculture. In situ conservation enables species to evolve by allowing natural selection to act. Ex situ conservation can be a safety net for threatened species that may, for example, need to be reintroduced and/or be included in restoration programmes following natural or human-made disasters.

The need to regulate access to components of BFA and facilitate the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from their use is recognized across the region. Most of the reporting countries have revised, are in the process of revising or are developing new laws and policies in this field, including provisions related to access to and the utilization of resources belonging to indigenous and local communities and their associated knowledge. With respect to the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in particular, most countries reported that they needed additional guidance at institutional level on the development of appropriate national legislation.

Countries in Asia have put in place a range of national policies, laws and programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of BFA. While some of these regulatory frameworks focus on animal, plant, forest and/or aquatic genetic resources (e.g. national livestock development policies or seed acts), others aim to conserve and promote the sustainable use of entire ecosystems and the species they contain (e.g. coastal zone and wetland policies or soil and water conservation acts). With respect to the conservation and, to a far lesser extent, use of associated biodiversity and wild food species, many country reports note the importance of national biodiversity and action plans. National disaster management plans and climate change adaptation and mitigation policies and programmes were also reported to be highly relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of BFA.

Overall, cooperation between different ministries in the management of BFA seems to be limited to non-existent, even where national policies and programmes of relevance to more than one sector are in place. This lack of cross-sectoral collaboration is considered to be a serious impediment to the successful implementation of such policies and programmes.

Across the region, many higher education institutions offer courses related to the conservation and sustainable use of BFA, including associated biodiversity. As in other regions, however, in most education and research programmes, issues related to conservation of biodiversity are usually addressed separately from those related to sustainable use. As a result of this “decoupling”, trained experts tend to lack skills in interdisciplinary work. Overall, education programmes do not adequately cover cross-cutting issues of relevance to BFA, such as climate change, nutrition and access and benefit-sharing. Some countries consider training and capacity building of farmers in the sustainable management of BFA and to be a priority.

Strengthening knowledge on associated biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is considered a priority by most countries. Advancing research in these fields requires effective prioritization of the species or groups of species to be targeted, a continuous flow of sufficient funding and adequate human resources. To improve the conservation and sustainable use of BFA, knowledge also needs to be strengthened on the contribution of wild food species to food security and livelihoods, the application and effect of sustainable management practices, the adoption and implementation of ecosystem approaches and the introduction and ecological and economic impacts of invasive alien species.

Regional collaboration in the field of BFA could be strengthened, particularly with respect to work on micro-organisms, invertebrates, invasive alien species, the application of sustainable management practices, the adoption and implementation of ecosystem approaches and the use BFA in coping with climate change, invasive alien species and natural or human-made disasters.

I. Assessment and monitoring of biodiversity for food and agriculture

1.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam are the eight Asian countries from a total of 24[1] to have submitted a national report as a contribution to the preparation of The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.[2] These countries combined cover an area of approximately 14 270 740 km^2, including land and water, which is about 67 percent of the region’s total territory (Table 1). Even if contributions from megadiverse countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines are missing, the countries that submitted a national report are close to providing a representative sample of the region’s ecosystems, production systems and biodiversity hotspots.

Biodiversity hotspots in Asia

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund identified eight biodiversity hotspots in Asia, located in the Himalaya, Indo-Burma, Japan, the Mountains of Southwest China, the Philippines, Sundaland, Wallacea and the Western Ghats, and Sri Lanka.[3] These hotspots are spread over large parts of Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam. They are known for their wide variety of climates and ecosystems and are home to an unusually high number of endemic bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian and vascular plant species. For example, in the Himalaya, ecosystems range from alluvial grasslands and subtropical broadleaf forests to alpine meadows above the tree line; Indo-Burma holds remarkable endemism in bird and freshwater-turtle species; the Mountains of Southwest China include the most endemic-rich temperate flora in the world; and the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka are rich in an endemic assemblage of plants, reptiles and amphibians.

The primary threats to biodiversity in Asia’s hotspots include the clearing of forests (e.g. for farming or other economic activities or to accommodate growing human populations), increasing demand for timber and fuelwood, illegal hunting, overgrazing and infrastructure development.

Five of the world’s 17 most megadiverse countries[4] are in Asia: China, Indonesia, India, Malaysia and the Philippines. In terms of species richness in vascular plants, China ranks third in the world after Brazil and Colombia with 35 000 species, more than half of which are endemic.[5] The country is also rich in wetlands and hosts more than 20 000 marine species (more than 10 percent of the world’s total). Harbouring nearly 8 percent of the total number of recorded species of the world, India also stands out as a highly biodiverse country.[6] China and India are also two of the world’s eight Vavilovian centres of origin and diversity of crop plants.

Main production systems in the region

The country-reporting guidelines provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization for the United Nations (FAO) invited countries to list their production systems in accordance with the categories shown in Table 2. Some constraints were encountered in this regard; for example:

1. countries interpreted the various production system categories differently; and

2. countries faced difficulties in providing information according to the proposed classification (e.g. the areas covered by each production system).

Because of these constraints, no decisive conclusions can be drawn at the production-system level based on the information provided in country reports.

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

1.2.1 Main drivers of change affecting genetic resources for food and agriculture

Asia is one of the richest regions in the world in terms of BFA. Its broad array of agroecological zones supports a wide range of animal, forest, plant and aquatic genetic resources, which are typically grown or kept by smallholders, very often in mixed production systems (e.g. mixed crop–livestock farming, integrated rice–prawn farming and agroforestry systems). For centuries, the rich species diversity found in and around the region’s production systems has been maintained and used by farmers, livestock keepers, fishers and forest dwellers. Typically, the diversity within these species is also high, which contributes, inter alia, to the species’ potential to adapt to environmental changes.

The report from Bangladesh refers to the country’s immense diversity in rice (approximately 8 000 landraces), jute, millet, legume, pulse, oilseed, taro, yam, sweet potato, litchi, melon, citrus, mango, jackfruit, jamun, guava, banana, plantain, areca nut, coconut and jujube varieties. Sri Lanka identifies more than 400 species of wild relatives of rice and other crops in farmlands, forests and wetlands. Nepal refers particularly to its large diversity of underutilized crop species. The country hosts more than 500 edible plant species, only about 200 of which are cultivated. China reports that it has more than 50 varieties of rice, wheat and beans, more than 30 varieties of maize, millet, sweet potato and peanut, 18 varieties of cotton and more than 600 tea varieties. In terms of fruit trees, China reports 1 015 varieties of mulberry tree and about 300 varieties of other fruit-tree species, including of apple, pear, citrus, peach, apricot, plum, litchi, longan, chestnut, walnut and date (palm) trees. It also has a range of different strawberry, pineapple and grape varieties.

The region is also characterized by a rich diversity of livestock species and breeds and of aquatic genetic resources. For example, Viet Nam reports that it has more than 45 local livestock breeds, including 14 pig and 16 poultry breeds. India reports 13 mammalian and avian livestock species, within which there are numerous breeds (the country has officially registered 42 sheep, 40 cattle, 26 goat, 17 chicken ,13 buffalo, 9 camel, and 6 pig breeds). It also hosts a wide array of fish species, including 3 398 finfish (1 887 marine, 936 freshwater, 113 brackish-water and 462 exotic fish species). China reports that it has about 600 domesticated breeds of animals, including ass, cattle, horse, sheep, pig, chicken, duck, goose, pigeon, rabbit, dog, silkworm, bee and goldfish breeds. China also mentions its rich aquatic biodiversity, which includes more than 800 freshwater fish species and 2 156 marine fish species. Nepal likewise refer to its rich freshwater biodiversity, which includes the more than 230 fish species present in the country’s three major river systems, along with an array of other aquatic animals and plants.

China harbours more than 8 000 species of woody plants, including about 2 000 tree species. The country is also rich in endemic tree species, belonging to, inter alia, the Ginkgoaceae, Rhoipteleaceae, Sargentodoxaceae, Laniidae, Eucommiaceae, Tapisciaceae and Nyssaceae families. About 1 000 tree species are considered to be of important economic value, among which more than 300 species are grown in plantations. Nepal also stands out for the diversity of the forest-tree species present in the country’s 118 recognized forest ecosystems and 35 forest types, ranging from tropical forests to alpine shrub (Paudel, Bhattarai and Kindlmann, 2012).

The reporting countries seem to agree that the region’s wealth of BFA has been declining over recent decades. Changes in land and water use and management, including those caused by production intensification, were identified as the main drivers negatively affecting biodiversity in and around production systems. The introduction of monocultures, increasing mechanization (even if still moderate in some countries), pollution caused by the use of external inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, overexploitation and overharvesting have taken a particular toll on BFA and related ecosystems. China is among the reporting countries that refers to pollution as one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. It notes that it accounts for 40 percent of the world’s total consumption of synthetic fertilizers and uses 2.5 times more pesticides per unit area than the world average.

Plant genetic resources

With regard to plant genetic resources, all reporting countries consider the introduction of high performing, mostly hybrid, varieties to be a major threat to local crop diversity. India mentions having subsidy programmes in place to encourage farmers to grow high-yielding crop varieties. While recognizing that the use and dissemination of new improved rice varieties enabled the country to become self-sufficient in rice production, Sri Lanka points out that low-yielding traditional rice varieties taste better, are more nutritious and are more resilient to pests and diseases. Bangladesh reports that many local vegetable varieties, while still available in genebanks, are no longer cultivated.

More than 80 percent of Viet Nam’s native crop varieties are also reported to have been lost through various forms of modernization. This loss is particularly pronounced among the country’s rice, tea, fibre crop and fruit varieties. In China, the simplification of agriculture as a result of the country’s “one village, one product” policy, is reported to have contributed to the spread of high-yielding crop varieties at the expense of local ones. As the result of, inter alia, the use of chemical fertilizers and the vigorous promotion of hybrid rice varieties, the Take Hani community on the south bank of the Red River, for example, lost its knowledge of rice seed selection and cultivation, and its festival custom connected to terraced rice cultivation also disappeared.

Animal genetic resources

Many different livestock species are raised in the region, including cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, chickens, ducks and pigs. Livestock farming is predominantly small scale and based on the use of indigenous livestock breeds. Over recent decades, largely driven by population growth, the rapidly increasing demand for livestock products has led to the introduction of numerous high-producing exotic breeds across the region. The spread of such breeds has led to a decline in native livestock populations and to the loss of several indigenous breeds.

Viet Nam reports that the populations of some of its animal breeds are believed to be declining at a rate of about 10 percent per year. India reports that its indigenous livestock breeds are under serious threat from the introduction of exotic breeds. In the case of cattle, for example, indigenous breeds are often replaced by exotic, high-producing dairy cattle breeds or their crosses. Nepal, a country that is also known to be rich in animal genetic resources, both in terms of diversity and population sizes, reports that its yak populations are experiencing drastic declines. These declines are attributed to cross-breeding with cattle, but also to herders abandoning yak rearing, for example to move into activities such as tourism. China reports that its single-product development approach, along with cross-breeding between local and exotic breeds, has contributed to the decline of its mammalian and avian livestock breeds. At the same time, however, it indicates that the rapid development of industrial livestock farming, large-scale breeding and the application of innovative breeding techniques have greatly enhanced production performance.

Forest genetic resources

Most of the country reports indicate that forest tree species diversity is under threat from, inter alia, changes in land and water use and management, pollution, overexploitation, market dynamics, pests and diseases and climate change. At the same time, however, they note that recent sociopolitical changes appear to be having a positive effect the status of tree species diversity. For example, Nepal mentions that it has established four kinds of protected areas (national parks, wildlife reserves, conservation areas and buffer zones) to protect its forest ecosystems and forest types. Bangladesh reports that its forest cover is expanding, although this is mainly as a result of an increase in forest plantations that have lower species diversity than natural forests. Trees have been planted along roads and railroads and mangroves have been planted along the southern coastal frontier. The area covered by biodiversity-rich natural forests is however declining and increasingly fragmented. Over the past two decades, vast forest areas have disappeared because of their conversion to aquaculture and agriculture. China also reports that the loss of its forest genetic resources accelerated over the past decade. Many tree species in the country are estimated to be critically endangered or at the verge of extinction, mainly as a result of overexploitation and the simplification of afforestation approaches (i.e. the promotion of large-scale, single species plantations). Viet Nam reports that two-thirds of its natural forests are in poor condition or regenerating. It refers to a serious decline in valuable tree species used for timber, construction and furniture and notes that forest loss and degradation have caused desertification and land impoverishment, which have led to more floods and droughts. Sri Lanka reports that the natural intraspecific genetic diversity of forest tree species used in forest regeneration is narrow and that only a limited number of indigenous tree species are used in this context.

Aquatic genetic resources

Overall, the number of freshwater and marine fish species at risk of being lost in the region seems to have significantly increased over recent decades. This trend is reported to be driven by numerous factors, including overfishing, increased poaching, irresponsible use of freshwater and marine ecosystems, pollution (eutrophication), climate change (e.g. rising temperatures are leading to erratic rainfall and increased flooding, as well as to the melting of snow in the Himalaya), natural disasters in the form of floods, landslides, river blockages and avalanches, draining of wetlands, poor law enforcement and political unrest. India reports that in 2015 its total fish production fell by 5.3 percent due to climate change and the effects of El Niño. The main fish species affected were sardine, mackerel and other small pelagic fish. It also mentions that the number of fishing craft operating and the types of fishing gear employed are leading to overharvesting. China indicates that climate change, along with pollution caused by industrial, urban and agricultural wastes, has severely affected the country’s aquatic ecosystems over the past ten years, including the species composition of their fish populations. Viet Nam reports similar trends, but identified overexploitation as the main driver of change behind the decline of both freshwater and marine fish populations, including of fish species of economic importance. Bangladesh reports that it is very rich in indigenous fish species. Its water bodies harbour 267 freshwater, 475 marine and 24 exotic fish species, as well as a number of other vertebrate and invertebrate species. However, the country’s aquatic biodiversity seems to be rapidly declining. More than 100 of its riverine fish species are in danger of extinction, with a number of species having already disappeared, including a significant number of smaller indigenous fish species that were once consumed by poor people in rural areas. Bangladesh also reports that the production share of inland capture fisheries is declining, largely to the benefit of aquaculture.

The country reports indicate that invasive alien species are having a significant impact on aquatic biodiversity. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) are, for example, reported to be particularly destructive of aquatic biodiversity in Nepal. The spread of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) is also negatively affecting the ecological balance in the country’s warm-water wetlands and ponds.

1.2.2 Status, trends and drivers of change of associated biodiversity, ecosystem services and wild food resources

Correlation between genetic resources for food and agriculture, associated biodiversity and ecosystem services

Knowledge of the relationships between genetic diversity in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, associated species and ecosystem functioning is still relatively limited in the region. Sri Lanka reports that in some cases increased crop diversity is known to promote the diversity of associated organisms. It also mentions a positive correlation between forest-tree species diversity and the occurrence of both associated biodiversity and wild food species. Nepal mentions that it lacks data on whether the diversity of plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources positively influences ecosystem functioning.

Invertebrates

Nepal reports that, while it has no any specific monitoring system for associated biodiversity, declines of local honey-bee species, such as Apis laboriosa and A. florea, have been observed and that the main causes of these declines are honey harvesting, habitat destruction and the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Viet Nam reports that pollution is one of the main threats to the survival of the natural enemies of insect pests. Similarly, Sri Lanka notes that high levels of use of chemical inputs, as well as mechanical disturbance of soils, are among the main factors leading to the erosion of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem functioning (e.g. soil formation and protection, water purification and waste treatment) in agricultural and aquatic production systems.

Micro-organisms

India mentions its concern over the effects of environmental degradation on the country’s microbial species richness and abundance. It emphasizes the importance of conserving and studying this microbial diversity.

Associated biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems

Several countries report that water-management practices, such as the construction of dams and reservoirs, as well as hydroelectric power schemes, have led to the fragmentation of rivers, which has in turn led to the loss aquatic biodiversity and the degradation of river ecosystems. Countries also mention that hydropower constructions block the migration routes of commercially valuable fish species, disturb the spawning grounds and habitats of various aquatic species, contribute to the loss of forest-tree species in valleys and on riverbanks, and negatively affect downstream habitats, including estuaries and coastal ecosystems.

Most countries report rapid industrialization and urbanization among the main factors causing eutrophication of rivers and lakes. The increasing amount of waste and sewage containing high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus is causing biodiversity loss and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. Viet Nam notes that intensive aquaculture, in particular catfish farming in the Mekong Delta, significantly contributes to eutrophication in fish-farming areas. The country’s fisheries-harvest policies are reported to have led to overexploitation and poaching of fish in marine ecosystems. They have also contributed to the degradation of natural habitats, such as intertidal zones, coral reefs and seagrass beds. Bangladesh also refers to overexploitation as a major threat to a number of wild-food resources, including marine species such as crabs and oysters.

Associated biodiversity in forest ecosystems

In Viet Nam, overexploitation is reported to negatively affect the status of wild plant species associated with forests, including of those that are used for construction, medicinal, cosmetic and ornamental purposes. While Viet Nam also refers to the continuous degradation of its mangrove forests,[7] it reports that downwards trends in mangrove area have levelled off as a result of planting. The planted mangrove forests are, however, less diverse than the wild ones.

Ecosystem services in production systems

Nepal reports that agroforestry positively contributes to the maintenance of ecosystem services that are essential to sustainable agriculture, such as soil formation. India indicates that increased use of cross-bred animals has made the prevention and control of livestock diseases more difficult. It notes, in particular, higher incidence of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and mastitis in cattle, foot rot in sheep, swine fever in pigs and bird flu in poultry.

Wild food species

All the reporting countries indicate that wild food species are of key importance to livelihoods and food security. Some tribal communities in Nepal are reported to depend heavily on wild food resources for their food intake, particularly during periods of food scarcity. One tribe in particular, the Chepang, is believed to have lived solely from hunting and gathering for the past 150 years. Nepal also mentions the importance of forest-associated wild food species, including wild edible plants, to food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Wild edible plants provide staple food and essential nutrients to indigenous peoples and local communities, reducing their vulnerability to food insecurity and providing a buffer in times of food shortage. They can also serve as complementary food and as an alternative source of cash income. In addition, they can be used for the development of new crop varieties through domestication or hybridization.

Bangladesh mentions that mountain communities largely depend on meat derived from wild animals, such as wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa), red jungle fowl (Gallus domesticus murgi) and wild quail (Cotamix coromandelica), for their protein intake. It also reports that a number of wild animals such as the swamp dear (Cervus duvaucelii), the one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) and the wild water buffalo (Bubalus arnee) that were once abundant and used as food have become extinct in the country.

China indicates that, in recent years, with improving living standards and increasing health consciousness among consumers, local governments and enterprises have shown increased interest in the maintenance, improvement and utilization of wild plants as some are believed to have a higher nutrient content than some cultivated ones.

Countries report that in recent decades there has been a decline (to varying degrees across the region) in the availability and diversity of certain wild food species and that knowledge of such species has also been negatively affected. While only few of Nepal’s wild edible plant (WEP) species have been documented, particularly in the case of medicinal plants, the status of WEPs is believed to have deteriorated as a result of (the often cumulative) effects of land-use changes (e.g. expansion of agricultural lands and infrastructure development, habitat destruction as a result of timber harvesting, fuelwood collection, forest fires, overharvesting, overgrazing and invasive species). Increasing reliance on processed foods is also reported to have led to a significant loss of knowledge related to the diversity, use and status of WEPs. In view of their vital and multiple roles, Nepal considers the evaluation and documentation of traditional knowledge about WEPs to be a priority. It also mentions that land-use changes such as infrastructure development have increased access to wild foods in remote areas.

India notes that its fungi diversity is rapidly depleting as a result of deforestation, urbanization and climate change, with some species, particularly mycorrhizal mushrooms, reported to be on the brink of extinction. Wild tubers, fruit and nut trees and fish species are reported to be threatened by overharvesting, and the latter also by habitat loss and alteration.

1.2.3 National information systems on associated biodiversity

Overall, associated biodiversity species are less systematically monitored in the region than animal (livestock), plant (crop), forest and aquatic genetic resources.

Most countries have established red lists to monitor the status and trends of native flora and fauna species and the threats that affect them. These lists are based on the Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and are reviewed at regular intervals. While information is recorded on the ecosystems in which the monitored species occur (including agricultural, forest and marine ecosystems) no information is recorded on their functions within these ecosystems.

China reports that it has established 2 389 stations across the country in recent years for long-term monitoring of, inter alia, forests and coastal and marine ecosystems. India mentions that it monitors pests and diseases in biodiversity hot spots and crop production systems through exploratory surveys. It also notes that several agencies monitor micro-organisms, parasites and pests in the livestock sector. Bangladesh indicates that it monitors some species associated with plants, livestock and fish through its Agriculture Information System. It also mentions that the few existing research activities on associated biodiversity conducted in the country have mostly been undertaken on a project basis and that it lacked the funds needed to undertake baseline surveys of components of associated biodiversity. Viet Nam’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment carried out a four-year project in collaboration with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), entitled Formulation of the National Database on Biodiversity. The project aimed to develop a structure for Viet Nam’s future national biodiversity database system and to build capacity to ensure the sustainable management and utilization of the system. Nepal and Sri Lanka indicated that they have no specific monitoring systems in place to assess the status and trends of associated biodiversity. Nepal does, however, mention that the Information Desk of its Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation gathers data that could be of relevance.

1.2.4 Associated biodiversity actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services

The associated biodiversity species most frequently reported by countries in Asia to be actively managed for the provision of ecosystem services are listed in Table 3.

1.2.5 Wild food species

The wild food species most frequently reported by countries in Asia are listed in Table 4.

1.3 Needs and priorities

Needs and priorities in terms of the assessment and monitoring of plant, animal, forest and aquatic genetic resources are largely covered in the respective sectoral state of the world reports. This section therefore essentially focuses on the needs and priorities of relevance to associated biodiversity.

With the exception of China, none of the reporting countries seem to have engaged in systematic monitoring activities for associated biodiversity. Most countries report that there is a need to undertake surveys to gather baseline data on the status and trends of associated biodiversity. This would, however, require long-term funding and skilled human resources, both of which seem to be lacking in the region.

Overall, the state of wild food resources in the region is not well recorded. Countries note the need for an inventory of wild food species, as well as for the development of plans and strategies to ensure their conservation and sustainable use. This will require political commitment, technical skills, equipment and financial resources, all of which are currently in short supply.

Bangladesh mentions that wild food species have been used by rural communities across the region for centuries, but that there are still no organized programmes or projects in place to highlight the value of these species to food and nutrition. It also mentions that the decline of many wild edible plant species as a result of the expansion of agricultural lands, development projects, etc. means that there is an urgent need to develop breeding programmes and other activities that maintain and sustainably use such species. India indicates that, as its fisheries sector still largely depends on wild fish stock, knowledge generation on the productive value and conservation of wild fish genetic resources is considered a priority.

Several countries report that natural and human-made disasters have affected BFA, but that the extent of their effects is not being systematically documented. To facilitate data gathering in this field, Bangladesh mentions the need to strengthen institutional capacities, for example by establishing a national body or agency focusing on BFA. India highlights the need for modalities for the reintroduction of lost or threatened local genetic resources into disaster-struck areas.

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

2.1 SUSTAINABLE USE

2.1.1 Management practices supporting the maintenance and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

Table 5 summarizes reported trends in the adoption of selected management practices that countries were invited to report on, and lists additional measures reported to be taken to support the sustainable use of associated biodiversity and/or wild foods and where available indicates reported trends.

2.1.2 Effect of diversity per se on productivity, food security and nutrition, and rural livelihoods

Sri Lanka reports that its commercial poultry production is largely based on improved exotic breeds; domestic breeding of local poultry breeds almost completely ceased at the end of the 1990s. Like other countries in the region, Sri Lanka has no local commercial poultry breeds/lines to fall back on in the event of a critical situation (e.g. unforeseen disease outbreaks).

China reports that the forests in the country’s Western Hunan Province are exceptionally rich in biodiversity. The increased use of local fruit and other plant species found in these forests (e.g. papaya, kiwi and wild edible and medicinal plants), as well as the development of other forest-related activities of economic value (e.g. livestock keeping), has led to the development of local enterprises in various areas of the province, including in Xiangxi. The country report suggests that with adequate planning this forest biodiversity could be even more optimally and sustainably utilized, positively contributing to the incomes and food security of local communities while respecting the environment.

India notes the positive effects of aquatic species diversification on the nutritional content of the food supplied by capture fisheries and fed-aquaculture. It also refers to the importance of its rich diversity of native cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep, pig, equine, camel, yak, mithun and poultry breeds. Being adapted to a variety of extreme weather and climatic conditions, as well as to limited resource availability, these breeds greatly contribute to the resilience of livestock production systems. The diversity of livestock and of livestock systems also contributes to poverty reduction and food and nutrition security through the supply of nutrient-rich food products and the generation of income and employment. In India, crop–livestock mixed-farming systems are reported to play a particularly important role in nutrient recycling, which is a critical part of sustainable farming. In such production systems, crop residues (e.g. cereal straws and maize and sorghum stover) are generally used as animal feed and livestock manure is used as fertilizer. The benefits of these practices include an increase in crop production and a decrease in the application of chemical fertilizers.

2.1.3 Use of biodiversity for food and agriculture for coping with climate change, invasive alien species and natural or human-made disasters

Countries provided a number of examples of the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture as part of their efforts to address climate change, invasive alien species or disasters of various kinds. This information is summarized in Table 6.

2.1.4 Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches for the management and use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

Fewer than half of the reporting countries indicated that they had adopted landscape, seascape or ecosystem approaches, including the ecosystem approach applied to fisheries. Several countries reported that they considered the development and application of such approaches to be a priority, in particular in agricultural production systems. They expressed the need for guidelines and action plans to assist them in the development of relevant policies and strategies. Ecosystem, landscape and seascape approaches mentioned by reporting countries as having improved the management of BFA are listed in Table 7.

2.1.5 Activities promoting the maintenance and use of traditional knowledge of associated biodiversity and wild foods

The roles of indigenous peoples and gender in the management of biodiversity for food and agriculture and its associated knowledge

The country report from Nepal notes that about 35 percent of all vegetables consumed in Nepalese households are collected from forests and bushes. These highly nutritious wild plants are important to the livelihood of rural communities, particularly prior to the harvest of staple foods and during natural disasters and periods of food deficiency. However, they tend to be neglected in sustainable use and conservation programmes. The report mentions that local communities have expressed a strong desire to establish community-based enterprises based on wild-food resources for long-term income generation. Most knowledge about gathering locations and seasonality, preservation, processing and culinary uses of local plant varieties, which could play an important roles in the conservation and potential commercialization of indigenous vegetables, is reported to be held by rural women and indigenous communities.

In 1997, with the support of FAO, the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation conducted a research project on gender dimensions in biodiversity management in different locations throughout India. It found that women and men have different knowledge, needs and roles with regard to the conservation and use of BFA, mainly because they undertake different activities in agricultural production. While men are generally in charge of land preparation (e.g. clearing and soil tilling), women are responsible for sowing, hoeing, crop maintenance, harvesting, food processing, storage and seed selection for future planting. Traditionally, women are the caretakers of genetic diversity in agriculture, while men tend to be more concerned with converting these resources into cash.

The country report from China notes that the crucial role of women in protecting BFA is closely related to their roles in the family, community and agricultural production. Women have considerable decision-making power in agricultural production, including with respect to the selection and breeding of local crop varieties, intercropping, control of pests and diseases, and fertilizer use. Their involvement in agriculture thus has a significant impact on the conservation and use of BFA. Women also promote the conservation of biodiversity at community level through their engagement in village affairs.

Traditional knowledge and the use of biodiversity for food and agriculture

The country report from Sri Lanka notes that traditional knowledge of the various uses of local and indigenous plant material for medicinal purposes could prove to be invaluable to modern medicine and to the development of the country’s local pharmaceutical industry. Some indigenous plant species are already being used in commercially available medicinal and dietary products. However, patents related to these uses are mostly held outside the country, as are the resulting benefits. The report from China also refers to the importance of knowledge related to genetic resources in traditional medicine and mentions the country’s Intangible Cultural Heritage Law. It also notes that in 2004 an Atlas of Chinese Herbal Medicine and Ethnic Medicinal Herbs was prepared within the framework of the project Collection, Collation and Preservation of Herbal and Ethnic Medicine Specimens.

The report from India notes that various traditional and religious practices used by the country’s tribal and other local communities contribute to the conservation of BFA. For example, several tribes contribute to the conservation of dammer bees through the use of traditional beekeeping methods. In 2000, the Government of India established the National Innovation Foundation to strengthen the use of traditional knowledge and grassroots technological innovations. The country also recognizes the importance of maintaining and documenting traditional knowledge. Across India, different institutions have documented the traditional knowledge of fisherfolk in major aquatic ecosystems, while information on Ayurveda, a traditional system of Indian medicine, is stored in the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Various legal instruments have been developed to protect traditional knowledge, including the Geographical Indication of Goods Act of 1999 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001. Nepal reports that it has developed a number of information systems to document traditional knowledge on BFA. None of these systems are reported to have a particular focus on traditional knowledge related to the use of associated biodiversity.

2.1.6 Needs and priorities

Several country reports note that more research is needed to identify the effectiveness of management practices that are believed to favour the maintenance and use of BFA. They also mention that relevant results in this field should be made available to policy-makers and farmers.

Several countries express the need to promote the adoption of ecosystem approaches in agricultural production systems, noting also that this could be facilitated through the development of guidelines and action plans. However, most countries mention that a lack of human, technological, infrastructural and financial resources constrains progress in this field. India notes that the implementation of ecosystem approaches is a priority for the conservation and sustainable use of BFA. It reports that it plans to apply such approaches in ecologically fragile areas that contain high levels of genetic diversity, for example in gene sanctuaries, national parks and forest reserves in the northeastern and northwestern Himalayas and the Western Ghats. It is expected that this will contribute to the conservation of, inter alia, crop wild relatives and neglected and underutilized crops, some of which may prove to be important in future crop production thanks to their ability to tolerate various environmental stresses. Sri Lanka notes that its exceptional endemic richness in BFA represents a huge potential for bioprospecting, in particular for pharmaceutical and cosmetic applications. Opportunities of this kind have not yet been adequately explored.

2.2 CONSERVATION

2.2.1 In situ conservation

The importance of in situ conservation is acknowledged by all the reporting countries. Countries note that protected areas are important to the conservation both of wild food species and of associated biodiversity. For example, Bhutan reports that more than 50 percent of its territory is covered by protected areas. In some of these areas, conservation programmes for emblematic endangered species such as tigers, snow leopards and elephants are being implemented both to protect the species and to ensure their roles in habitat provisioning are maintained. Protected areas are also reported to play an important role in the conservation of wild foods in Afghanistan and Viet Nam. Bangladesh mentions that protected areas contribute to the conservation of forests, mangroves and freshwater wetlands. It reports that it has 37 protected areas that particularly focus on conserving the diversity of forest ecosystems. Viet Nam reports that it has established a series of special-use forests to protect rare forest-tree species. It also mentions that six ministries jointly established a national conservation system involving both in situ and ex situ conservation programmes for animal, plant, forest, aquatic and micro-organism genetic resources. Several countries refer to the importance of home gardens as sites of in situ conservation.

Countries report that there is a need to strengthen in situ conservation efforts for BFA by reinforcing existing initiatives and developing new programmes and strategies. Some countries mention that raising awareness and strengthening the involvement of local stakeholders in in situ conservation efforts should be prioritized. Protected areas are considered important by most countries for in situ conservation of BFA, and of wild food species in particular. Managing these areas requires funding and human resources, both of which seem to be lacking across the region.

Viet Nam is continuing to expand its broad network of protected areas, including national parks, nature reserves, cultural and historical sites and “special-use” forests, which are home to many rare and endangered species, including species of relevance to food and agriculture. Illegal exploitation of plant and tree species with high economic value is, however, not uncommon in these areas and needs to be addressed. Similarly, Afghanistan reports that it has designated new sites as national parks/protected areas for the conservation of, inter alia, alpine vegetation, wild plant, fruit and nut varieties, and bird species. It notes that in situ conservation efforts of this kind have been constrained by political instability and social unrest.

Several countries mention the important contribution that national parks that include rivers and wetlands make to the protection and conservation of aquatic resources, and of endemic fish species in particular. At the same time, however, they mention that such areas could be managed more actively. India mentions that it has four major national marine parks, three marine sanctuaries and four biosphere reserves that contribute to the conservation of aquatic ecosystems. It notes, however, that coverage of aquatic biodiversity still lags behind that of terrestrial biodiversity. Some examples of actions taken to address specific drivers of change threatening BFA are presented in Box 5.

2.2.2 Ex situ conservation

All the country reports from the region include information on the status and trends of ex situ conservation efforts for genetic resources for food and agriculture, in particular for crops and livestock, and on challenges in this field. Several also include lists of species of associated biodiversity and wild foods preserved ex situ. A number of countries note that zoological gardens make an important contribution to ex situ conservation, particularly in the case of game species.

Viet Nam reports that it established its Biodiversity Conservation Agency to guide the implementation of conservation and sustainable development programmes and activities for biodiversity, including BFA. With regard to ex situ conservation specifically, activities include the maintenance of cryoconserved semen from several fish species including the common carp (Cyprinus carpio), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus), rohu (Labeo rohita), mrigal carp (Cirrhinus mrigala), pangas catfish (Pangasius hypophthalmus), Javanese carp (Barbodes gonionotus), basa fish (Pangasius bocourti) and various marine species including groupers and cobia. The Viet Nam Type Culture Collection (VTCC), established in 1996, conserves approximately 9 000 strains of bacteria, fungi, yeast and streptomyces that are of high value to the food, medical and cosmetic industries.[8] Where edible mushrooms are concerned, a total of 124 accessions are conserved ex situ. The country report notes that while each of these strains has been evaluated for its growth and adaptation properties, little genetic characterization has been done.

Table 9 provides an overview of the countries in the region that reported on the status of the ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity and wild foods.

2.2.3 Needs and priorities

Overall, the main challenges for ex situ conservation of associated biodiversity and wild foods are the lack of qualified human resources, funds and strategies or action plans that embed the conservation of these components of biodiversity. The absence of up-to-date data is reported as one of the main gaps in relation to both in situ and ex situ conservation of BFA. Although several national plans for the conservation of natural resources are mentioned in the country reports, these do not necessarily address wild foods.

Countries generally agree that an integrated approach that involves both in situ and ex situ methods is the best way to conserve BFA. Maintaining species in situ has the advantage of allowing ongoing adaptation to local conditions through natural selection, something that cannot be recreated ex situ. However, ex situ conservation can act as an “insurance policy” in that it preserves genetic resources that can potentially be reintroduced if in situ populations are lost. It also provides opportunities to study the conserved resources and hence potentially to improve conservation strategies. The country reports describe a number of cases in which conservation strategies for plant (crop), animal (livestock), forest and aquatic genetic resources involve combining in situ and ex situ activities. However, there are very few such examples for associated and/or wild food species. Some countries indicate that integrated approaches to conservation should be further explored.

There is general agreement among the reporting countries that breeding programmes are of great importance to the conservation and sustainable use of BFA. However, some mention that they are unable to operationalize breeding programmes because of a shortage of funding. Nepal mentions that a lack of national legislation, monitoring programmes, appropriate incentive mechanisms and linkages between formal institutions and communities is a serious constraint to the conservation of plant genetic resources, crop associated biodiversity and wild edible plants.

2.3 ACCESS AND EXCHANGE

Table 10 lists the main reported measures taken in the region to (i) regulate access to and (ii) ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of BFA.

While recognizing the need to regulate access to components of BFA and facilitate the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from their use, most countries indicate that they do not have the institutional frameworks, capacity and knowledge needed to develop and implement appropriate legislation. The diverse, and often conflicting, interests of different stakeholder groups, as well as limited understanding of the value of biodiversity to food security, climate change adaptation and economic stability, are also reported to hinder the development of laws and policies. There seems to be general agreement among the reporting countries that additional guidance is needed on access and benefit-sharing, in particular with respect to the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, especially at the institutional level.

Nepal reports that an increase in external disaster-relief interventions and assistance (e.g. following earthquakes and landslides) has been accompanied by an increase in biopiracy and mentions that it has no policy or legal measures in place to control the problem. It mentions, citing Upreti and Upreti (1999), that buckwheat (Bhate phapar), balsam-pear (Momordica charantia) and wild-rice germplasm has been taken to other countries without legal arrangements under such circumstances. India reports the need for legislation similar to its Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act to address animal breeds and livestock keepers’ rights.

III. Policies, institutions and capacity

3.1 POLICIES, PROGRAMMES, INSTITUTIONS AND STAKEHOLDERS

3.1.1 Policies and programmes

A large number of policies and programmes with a direct or indirect impact on the conservation and use of BFA are reported to be implemented in the region.

Most reporting countries have national policies and programmes and legal and operational frameworks in place for the conservation and sustainable use of animal, plant, forest and aquatic genetic resources. In most countries, these genetic resources are addressed in instruments such as forest acts, seed acts, fish acts and river protection acts.

With respect to national policies and programmes for the conservation and (to a lesser extent) use of associated biodiversity and wild food species, most countries refer to the importance of their respective national biodiversity strategy and action plans (NBSAP).[9] For example, as part of its NBSAP, China integrated biodiversity into local economic and social development plans through the establishment of more than 1 750 ecological towns and villages.

Other relevant national policies and programmes mentioned include the following: agro-environmental schemes and rural development programmes; forest, water and environmental policies and strategies contributing, inter alia, to the conservation of habitats and biodiversity; policies for the maintenance of wetlands and their integration into natural resource management and economic development; policies and management plans facilitating the implementation of ecosystem approaches (e.g. Bangladesh’s coastal zone policies that promote the conservation of coastal ecosystems and their biodiversity and Viet Nam’s Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve’s management plan); buffer zone management regulations that contribute to the conservation of plant genetic resources and wild relatives (e.g. in Nepal); programmes to prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate invasive alien species; policies promoting integrated pest management and biological control; and climate change policies, strategies and action plans, such as national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs), energy-saving and emission-reducing schemes and a range of legal measures.

Countries also note the relevance of several specific legal instruments in this context, including biological diversity acts, environment conservation and protection acts (e.g. seven areas have been defined as ecologically critical under a such an act in Bangladesh), acts related to local and indigenous communities or forest dwellers (e.g. India has an act specifically recognizing the rights of forest communities); soil and water conservation acts; and wildlife acts providing a legal framework for the conservation and management of wildlife.

The country report from India highlights the establishment of its National Green Tribunal, a dedicated statutory environmental court dealing with civil cases related to the environment, including biodiversity. It also notes that jurisprudence on biodiversity continues to evolve.

A number of countries mention having national disaster management plans in place and note that they are highly relevant to the conservation and use of BFA (see Table 11). Some countries mention the importance of the support they receive in natural disaster situations from the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Similarly, a number of countries report climate change policies, programmes and frameworks that embed the use of BFA (see Table 12).

3.1.2 Interministerial cooperation

Most Contracting Parties to the CBD, including those from the Asia region, have national strategies and enabling frameworks in place to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. In most cases, these strategies were developed through a collaborative process, involving all relevant ministries, various civic groups and other interested parties. These stakeholders then continue to cooperate in national-level implementation activities and in reporting to the CBD on progress made.

Overall, interministerial cooperation specifically targeting the management of BFA seems to be very limited to non-existent in the region. Countries report that, even where national programmes and policies that are relevant to all sectors of food and agriculture are in place, these are not being implemented through cross-sectoral collaboration. India reports that it would rather harmonize policies and actions between sectors before promoting intersectoral cooperation. China and India both indicate that they have several in situ conservation initiatives in place for biodiversity that would benefit from cross-sectoral cooperation. However, they did not provide any details as to what needs to be done to bring this about.

3.2 CAPACITY AND RESEARCH NEEDS

Across the region, universities and other educational institutions have incorporated conservation and sustainable use of associated biodiversity into their curricula. Courses are, for example, offered on agroecology, soil fertility and soil management, forest ecology, marine ecology and general biodiversity. The country report from China includes a list of more than 100 relevant courses spanning a range of topics. At the same time, some countries report that, in most education and research programmes, issues related to the conservation of biodiversity are addressed separately from those related to its sustainable use. As a result of this “decoupling”, trained experts tend to lack skills in interdisciplinary work.

Nepal reports that the academic courses on forest genetic resources need to be updated so as to provide the skills needed to implement conservation programmes and also need to better address cross-cutting issues. India reports that it considers farmer training to be a priority and has developed several projects to improve work in this field. It notes that specific priorities in this context include the following: grassroots capacity-building programmes for the management of BFA to improve livelihood security; capacity development to improve post-harvest management; and marketing support for agriculture and fisheries, through the formation of self-help groups and farmer/community-based organizations such as agricultural cooperatives.

Several country reports indicate that associated biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed into national policies, research programmes and other activities in the food and agriculture sector. They note that this will first and foremost require awareness-raising on the roles and functions of associated biodiversity in production systems among decision-makers, farmers, local communities and the broader public.

Several countries report that research institutions should be given a mandate to study interrelationships between the various organisms present in and around production systems at various scales. Strengthening knowledge in this field is considered a priority for the development and implementation of adequate policies and programmes and of appropriate farm-level practices. A number of countries mention that farmers applying sustainable farming practices should be entitled to subsidies. Others mention that studies should be undertaken to explore new market opportunities and post-harvest technologies. Countries also reported that the linkages between associated biodiversity, food production and nutrition are still not well understood. They note that farmers need to be made aware of any progress made in this regard.

Overall, even if knowledge on associated biodiversity (particularly in soils) and ecosystem functioning is still limited across the region, countries are increasingly aware of the importance of strengthening research in this field. Given the various resource constraints countries face, they will need efficient strategies for prioritizing and implementing their research activities. A number of country reports indicate that coordination among research, extension and education in the field of BFA is very weak. Several countries note the need for relevant institutions to establish joint strategies to support research and monitoring. China refers to the need for national biodiversity surveys to gather baseline data, mentioning that these data would be used to build a national biodiversity monitoring and early warning system and establish national biodiversity assessments.

With many communities across the region highly dependent on wild foods for their food security and livelihoods, several countries report that research on wild food resources needs to be strengthened. Knowledge on edible wild food species, as well as technical and scientific research on the conservation and sustainable use of key and often vulnerable wild food species (e.g. water chestnut, wild plants in wetlands, etc.) needs to be improved.

Nepal mentions that more research could be undertaken on the positive effects of livestock production systems on the delivery of supporting ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling. Some countries consider research on the conservation and sustainable use of aquatic biodiversity a priority. Viet Nam mentions that additional efforts need to be made to strengthen research on the introduction and the possible ecological and economic impacts of invasive alien species. A few countries mention the need to develop action plans and research and development programmes to facilitate and promote the adoption and implementation of ecosystem approaches and sustainable management practices.

IV. Regional and international cooperation

4.1 MAJOR REGIONAL INITIATIVES TO CONSERVE AND USE BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Regional policies and programmes embedding the conservation and/or use of biodiversity for food and agriculture, and in particular of associated biodiversity, wild food species and ecosystem services, are described in Table 13.

4.2 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

Generally speaking, regional collaboration in relation to the management of associated biodiversity is very limited and fragmented. Several countries mention that it needs to be strengthened. The country report from Nepal mentions the need to strengthen collaboration at local, national, regional and international levels to improve the use of BFA in disaster response mechanisms. In this context, it particularly stresses the importance of sharing information and enhancing capacity building. It also notes that in order to better respond to the loss of genetic resources for food and agriculture there is a need for national, regional and global collaborative projects promoting bioprospecting.

Worldwide, invasive alien species are considered to be the second most important threat to biodiversity, behind land-use change. Given that they are of international concern, there might be a need to develop a regional and/or international methodology to assess the environmental impacts of alien species. Viet Nam proposes establishing invasive alien species National Focal Points to coordinate invasive alien species-related activities at regional and international levels, including sharing of scientific research results on species ecology and on methods of control and eradication. It also mentions the potential usefulness of establishing a regional multilingual IAS database linking all relevant national databases.

References

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2012. Guidelines for climate proofing investment in agriculture, rural development and food security. Mandaluyong City, Philippines. (available at https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33720/files/guidelines-climate-proofing-investment.pdf).

Aziz, N., Motaleb, M.A. Wahed, M.A., Alam, A.B.M.S. & Sultana, M. eds. 2014. Biodiversity in the floodplain ecosystem of Bera, Santhia and Sujanagar Upazilas of Pabna District in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Wetland Biodiversity Rehabilitation Project, Department of Fisheries.

FAO. 2016. Report of the Informal Regional Consultation on the State of Asia’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Information Document. Sixteenth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, 30 January to 3 February 2017. CGRFA-16/17/Inf.11.2. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-mr763e.pdf).

FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf).

Mustafa, M.G., Ilyas, M. & Mahalder, B. 2014. Community based fish sanctuaries: improving fish biodiversity and protects inland fisheries of Bangladesh. In M.A. Wahab, M.S. Shah, M.A.R. Hossain, B.K. Barman & M.E. Hoq, eds. Advances in fisheries research in Bangladesh: Proceedings of the 5th Fisheries Conference & Research Fair, 18–19 January 2012, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 115–128. Dhaka, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council and Bangladesh Fisheries Research Forum. (available at http://bfrf.org/publications/Advances%20in%20Fisheries%20Research%20in%20Bangladesh.pdf#page=125).

Paudel, P.K., Bhattarai, B.P. & Kindlmann, P. 2012. An overview of the biodiversity in Nepal. In P. Kindlmann, ed. Himalayan biodiversity in the changing world, pp. 3–43. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.

SFA (State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China). 2013. White paper on climate change mitigation policies and actions of the forestry sector. Beijing.

Upreti, Y.G. & Upreti, B.R. 1999. Indigenous knowledge, agricultural practices and food security in developing countries: opportunities and challenges. 16th Symposium of the International Farming Systems Association, 27–29 November 2000, Santiago, Chile.

1 Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam.

2 The following webpages give an overview of FAO Member countries 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/

3 See Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) at: http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/Asia-Pacific/Pages/default.aspx

4 The 17 megadiverse countries are a group of nations that together are home to more than 70 percent of the Earth’s biodiversity, while covering a territory of only 10 percent of the Earth’s surface.

5 https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=cn

6 https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=in

7 Viet Nam lost 270 000 of its 400 000 hectares of mangrove forests between 1943 and 2012.

8 http://imbt.vnu.edu.vn/en

9 Countries in Asia with NBSAPs as of December 2019: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam.