On-farm Agrobiodiversity in West Asia: Status, Threats and Impact on Rural Livelihoods

Ahmed Mazid, Ahmed Amri, Kamel Shideed. (2/7/2004). On-farm Agrobiodiversity in West Asia: Status, Threats and Impact on Rural Livelihoods. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

Since 1999, ICARDA has been coordinating a five-year project funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to promote on-farm/in situ conservation and sustainable use of dryland agrobiodiversity. The project, implemented in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, focused on conserving landraces and wild relatives of barley, wheat, lentil, alliums, feed legumes, and fruit trees. Project activities were implemented by national research institutes in each coun- try: the National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Jordan, the Lebanese Agricultural Research Institute in Lebanon, the General Commission for Scientific and Agricultural Research in Syria, and the Ministry of Agriculture and UNDP Program of Assistance to Palestinian People in Palestine. Farmers and herders were fully involved throughout the project. The project developed a community-driven approach that helped increase aware- ness, at all levels, of the benefits and need to conserve agrobiodiversity. It has also prompted research institutions in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria to implement their own agrobiodiversity programs; and national authorities to make greater use of wild relatives of fruit trees in afforestation efforts. A detailed socioeconomic assessment was conducted in 2004 and 2005 (building on a baseline survey in 1999-2000) to assess the impacts of the project on liveli- hoods of local communities. ICARDA researchers and national partners surveyed 276 households that had participated in the project and 294 households that had not. These surveys were conducted in the eight project target areas (two per coun- try) in August and September 2004, using a formal questionnaire. The survey cov- ered various topics including household livelihood strategies, household and farm assets, sources of income, and access to credit, cooperatives, and healthcare. The study compared livelihood strategies, agrobiodiversity use, and incomes (i) within and across countries, (ii) among poorer and better-off households. Using factor analysis, households were classified into four wealth groups or quartiles, taking into account all types of capitalâ??human, natural, financial, physical, social â??available to a household. Livelihood strategies: Conservation practices and investments must be appropriate to local livelihood strategies, agroecological conditions and the farming produc- tion system. In all four countries, the poorest households (lowest wealth quartile) obtained their income mainly from crop production, although off-farm labor and government employment were also important. By contrast, households in the highest wealth quartile mainly depended on the sale of livestock products and live animals, though they also produced crops and worked off-farm, including govern- ment employment. Over all wealth groups, livestock was the main source of on- farm income in Jordan, while crops and fruit trees were the major source in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. Overall, off-farm income was important in all the target areas, accounting for 43-68% of household income. Clearly, although agri- culture was not the only source of income, it was still a major component of livelihoods. Importance of target crops by wealth group: The relative importance of different crops to a household depended on the household's wealth level. Wheat and barley were more important for better-off farmers, while apricot and apple were more important to poor farmers. In all groups, fruit trees were generally more important than field crops. This finding has important implications for national and interna- tional efforts to conserve agrobiodiversity. It suggests that in situ conservation of cereal crops should focus on well-off farmers; whereas fruit tree conservation is more appealing for poorer farmers. Appropriate conservation strategies will improve the livelihoods of all farming groups, especially the poor, and contribute directly to poverty reduction. Project impacts on agricultural incomes: Average household incomes ranged from US$2200 to 9000 per year, equivalent to a daily per capita income of less than US$1 to US$5. Per capita incomes were around US$2 per day in Jordan, Lebanon, and Jenin (Palestine), and lower in Syria and Hebron (Palestine). Agriculture provided 32-57% of household income. In most cases, households that participated in the project had average agricultural incomes greater than those of non-participating households; the difference was US$1148, US$1754 and US$1914, in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, respectively. Gini coefficients were cal- culated to assess income equity within participating and non-participating house- holds in each country. The values were not significantly different, indicating that enhancing agrobiodiversity did not increase inequalities between poor and well- off farmers. The results highlight the importance of agrobiodiversity conservation in improving the livelihoods of all segments of farming communities. However, to be effective, research should be based on the importance of targeted species to different farming groups. This study provides clear indications that diversification of farming systems to include livestock, field crops and fruit trees, along with off- farm activities, are needed to conserve and sustain the use of agrobiodiversity