league for pastoral peoples€¦ · differences between animal and plant genetic resources..... 22...

Building an InternationalLegal Framework on

Animal Genetic ResourcesCan it help the drylands

and food-insecure countries?

LEAGUE FORPASTORAL PEOPLES

Ilse Köhler-Rollefson

League for Pastoral Peoples

Building an InternationalLegal Framework on

Animal Genetic ResourcesCan it help the drylands

and food-insecure countries?


League for Pastoral Peoples

2005

2

Published by

German NGO Forum on Environment & DevelopmentAm Michaelshof 8–1053177 Bonn, GermanyPhone: +49-(0)228-359704Fax: +49-(0)228-92399356Email: [email protected]: www.forumue.de

Author


Editing and layout

Paul Mundy, Bergisch Gladbach, www.mamud.com

Cover

A herd of camels and goats in southern Somalia.Photo: Wolfgang Bayer

This document was produced and printed with the sup-port of the Sector Project: Global Food Security of theGerman Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Theopinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of theSector Project or of GTZ.

Printed by

ICS, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, 2005

3

Contents

Summary.......................................................................... 4

Acknowledgements .......................................................... 6

Introduction...................................................................... 7

Background ...................................................................... 8

What are animal genetic resources? ......................................... 8Animal breeds: A legacy of cultural diversity .............................. 9Why are animal genetic resources important for food security? .. 9Why are breeds disappearing? ............................................... 10Status of animal genetic resources .......................................... 10

How to conserve livestock genetic diversity? ................... 12

Advantages and disadvantages of conservation approaches .... 12How to select breeds for conservation ..................................... 13Whose responsibility is it? ....................................................... 13Who will pay for conservation? ............................................... 14Experiences from Europe ........................................................ 14Summary of main points ........................................................ 14

Where are domestic animal diversity hotspots? ............... 15

High density of breeds in remote and peripheral areas ............ 15Why are drylands rich in animal genetic resources? ................. 15Pastoralists and indigenous knowledge of animal breeding ...... 16Breeding for diversity ............................................................. 16Lack of infrastructure and remoteness ..................................... 18Summary of main points ........................................................ 18

Drylands......................................................................... 19

People in drylands ................................................................. 19Food insecurity ...................................................................... 19Summary of main points ........................................................ 20

An international legal framework on animal geneticresources for food and agriculture .............................. 21

Arguments for a legal framework ........................................... 21Contents of a legal framework on animal genetic resources ..... 22Differences between animal and plant genetic resources .......... 22Livestock Keepers’ Rights ........................................................ 23

Conclusions.................................................................... 25

References and further reading ....................................... 26

4

Summary

AAAAAnimal genetic resources nimal genetic resources nimal genetic resources nimal genetic resources nimal genetic resources are essen-tial for food security from at leasttwo angles:

• As a means of utilizing marginal envi-ronments not suitable for crop cultiva-tion.

• As building blocks for future livestockdevelopment that will enable animalproducers to respond to changes in pro-duction circumstances and new con-sumer preferences.

Since the International Treaty on PlantGenetic Resources was signed, there havebeen moves to negotiate an equivalentagreement for animal genetic resources.According to FAO, one-third of the world’slivestock breeds are endangered. So thereis a strong rationale for a legal frameworkto create an appropriate context for thesustainable use of animal genetic re-sources.

Livestock breeds are linked to culturaldiversity, and there is often a link betweenethnic or social groups and specific breeds.For livestock (unlike plants), only in situconservation (in the original productioncontext) achieves all conservation goals.There is a consensus that ex situ conserva-tion should be used only as a backup.

Scientists also agree that while animalgenetic resources are subject to nationalsovereignty, regional and international co-operation is necessary. Breeds occur acrossborders, and market failures to conserve

genetic diversity warrant public interven-tion. Market forces currently favour inten-sive or industrialized animal monocultures,while production systems that conservegenetic diversity are not rewarded for thisservice. The European experience with in-centive payments demonstrates one wayto support breed conservation.

Remote, arid and semi-arid areas havegiven rise to a disproportionately largenumber of different breeds, which alsohave a great degree of intra-breed diver-sity. Pastoral livestock production systems,in particular, inherently conserve geneticdiversity. Many of the countries and regionsthat are richest in animal genetic resourcesare among the most food-insecure, whiletheir pastoral populations are among thepoorest and most vulnerable in the world.By conserving livestock genetic diversity,pastoralists provide a service to humanitythat is currently not rewarded by marketforces.

Supporting dryland communitiesthrough better infrastructure, services, ani-mal health care, marketing opportunitiesand other interventions would make a sig-nificant contribution to both poverty alle-viation and food security on one hand, aswell as to the conservation and sustainablemanagement of animal genetic resources.

An international legal framework onanimal genetic resources would seek tocreate a level playing field between dry-land production systems that conserve ge-

5

netic diversity, and intensive and industri-alized systems that erode it.

In international negotiations, coalitionstend to form around specific issues to press

for their interests. Dryland countries withpastoral populations and rich animal ge-netic resources could form such a bloc fornegotiations on an international legalframework on animal genetic resources.

SummarySummarySummarySummarySummary

6

TTTTThe authorhe authorhe authorhe authorhe author would like to thank JacobWanyama and Evelyn Mathias fortheir useful comments, Evelyn Barth

for supportive research, and Paul Mundyfor editing the manuscript.

The League for Pastoral Peoples is grate-ful to the Sector Project on Global Food

Acknowledgements

Security of the German Agency for Techni-cal Cooperation (GTZ) for funding thisstudy.

We would also like to thank the Ger-man NGO Forum on Environment and De-velopment for making this publication pos-sible.

7

EEEEEnvironmental issuesnvironmental issuesnvironmental issuesnvironmental issuesnvironmental issues that have a glo-bal dimension need to be managedat a global level and in coordination

between individual countries. Based on thisrecognition, the international communityhas agreed on a number of legal instru-ments and policy frameworks that apply tothe entire world. Examples are the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change, the UN Convention to Com-bat Desertification, the UN Convention onBiological Diversity, and the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Spe-cies.1

The International TInternational TInternational TInternational TInternational Treaty on Plant Gereaty on Plant Gereaty on Plant Gereaty on Plant Gereaty on Plant Ge-----netic Resources for Fnetic Resources for Fnetic Resources for Fnetic Resources for Fnetic Resources for Food and Agricultureood and Agricultureood and Agricultureood and Agricultureood and Agriculture2

(the “Seed Treaty”) is one such global in-strument. It was negotiated as somethingof an afterthought to the Convention ofBiological Diversity, because the Conven-tion did not adequately address importantquestions. The Seed Treaty aims to main-tain the plant genetic resources that coun-tries need to feed their people, and to con-serve genetic diversity for future genera-tions. It was finalized in 2001 and has nowbeen signed by more than 80 countries.

However, this treaty relates only to themajor crop and fodder plants. It does notdeal with the other component of agricul-tural biodiversity: our farm animals. Anequivalent legal framework for animal ge-netic resources is still missing, although theissues at stake are of equal magnitude. In2004, several developing countries tookthe lead to demand negotiations towardssuch a legal framework. But developedcountries are still skirting this proposition.

This paper shows that a fair, compre-hensive international legal framework onanimal genetic resources is possible. Sucha framework should contribute to globalfood security, and also benefit the popula-tions of some of the world’s most drought-stricken and food-insecure countries. Forit happens that certain countries that aredisadvantaged in all other ways – remote,with a harsh climate, without infrastructure– are exceptionally rich in animal geneticresources, much of it still unknown. Thesecountries and their people play a vital rolein conserving these important reservoirs ofgenetic diversity. A way needs to be foundto acknowledge, support and reward thisservice, so they can continue to do so. Sucha mechanism would be a significant con-tribution not only to these people’s foodsecurity, but also to global wellbeing.

This paper calls for dryland countriesthat have pastoral populations and are richin livestock genetic resources to form acoalition in negotiations for an interna-tional treaty. It offers arguments that ne-gotiators can use when pressing their case.

Introduction

1 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,www.unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html; UN Conven-tion to Combat Desertification, www.unccd.int; UNConvention on Biological Diversity, www.biodiv.org;Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies, www.cites.org2 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture, www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm

8

What are animal geneticresources?

TTTTThe Fhe Fhe Fhe Fhe Food and Agricultureood and Agricultureood and Agricultureood and Agricultureood and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations (FAO) de-fines farm animal genetic resourcesfarm animal genetic resourcesfarm animal genetic resourcesfarm animal genetic resourcesfarm animal genetic resources

as “those animal species that are used, ormay be used, for the production of foodand agriculture, and the populations withineach of them. These populations withineach species can be classified as wild andferal populations, landraces and primarypopulations, standardized breeds, selectedlines, and any conserved genetic material”.

Domestic animal diversity Domestic animal diversity Domestic animal diversity Domestic animal diversity Domestic animal diversity is the collec-tive name for the whole spectrum of do-mesticated animal species and breeds, andthe genetic information they contain.

Over millennia, humans have devel-oped a cornucopia of breeds from a rela-tively small number of once-uniform wildspecies. Horse breeds include the tiny Shet-land pony, the Thoroughbred racehorseand the massive Shire draft horse. Cattlerange from the Spanish fighting bull, toHolstein-Friesian dairy cattle, to the SmallEast African Zebu.

The number of different breeds is oftenused as an indicator of domestic animaldiversity. But that ignores the diversity withineach breed. High-performance breedshave been intensively selected: the semenfrom a very few of the “best” males is usedto inseminate huge numbers of females.

So these breeds are much less diverse thanthe extensively kept breeds in traditionalsystems. The diversity in a population is anindicator of the potential room for geneticchange.

Since the 1980s, FAO has been build-ing a global database of the world’s breedsto document and monitor domestic ani-mal diversity. In 1999, 6379 breeds were

Farm animal genetic resourcesand other termsDomesticated animal diversity Thespectrum of genetic differences withineach breed, across all breeds within eachdomestic animal species, and between thedifferent animal species.

Species Species are groups of animalsthat mate freely with each other andproduce fertile offspring. Cattle, sheep,goats, donkeys, pigs, horses, chickens andducks are all species.

Breed A breed is a group of domesticanimals of the same species that:

• Has identifiable external characteris-tics that distinguish it from otherbreeds. For example, black-and-whiteHolstein-Friesian cattle can easily bedistinguished from brown-and-whiteGuernseys or white Charolais;

or

• Is accepted as a separate breedbecause it is separated geographicallyor culturally from groups of animalsthat look similar. Examples are Ngunicattle, Lesotho pony, Tswana sheep,and Boer goat.

Background

9

BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackground

registered in this Global Data Bank forFarm Animal Genetic Resources (Scherf,2000).

Animal breeds:A legacy of culturaldiversity

We have a huge range of breeds as a re-sult of the interaction between differentcultures or social groups, their animals, andthe environment.

For individual breeds to evolve and todevelop their distinct characteristics, ani-mal populations have to be “reproductivelyisolated” (prevented from breeding witheach other). That can happen in variousways. Geographical barriers are one. Invery mountainous areas, for example, theanimals in each valley may represent sepa-rate gene pools, each with their own dis-tinct characteristics, so might be regardedas separate breeds. When people colo-nized new continents, they brought animalswith them. They then selected those ani-mals that adapted best to the new envi-ronment. Over generations, they devel-oped a new breed, different from the par-ent stock.

Geographical barriers are not the onlyway to ensure reproductive isolation. Onecommunity or group of people may keepits animals separate from those of othergroups. This is an important influence onthe formation of breeds. Members of for-mal breed societies, for example, use forbreeding only those animals that are reg-istered in a common herdbook. But evenwithout herdbooks, people often tend toexchange animals only within their com-munity, so creating more-or-less closedgene pools, i.e. separate breeds. Tradi-tional pastoral societies regard their ani-mals to some extent as common property,rather than as belonging to individuals.They aim to pass their animals on fromone generation to the next – through in-

heritance, dowry, bride wealth, birthpresents, etc. – and avoid sharing themwith outsiders. Ethnic groups are often as-sociated with particular breeds: examplesinclude the Borana cattle breed and theRashaida camel.

Domestic animals have been shapednot only by their physical environment, butalso by the cultures they are associatedwith. Individual cultures use animals in dif-ferent ways, and have different ideals forwhat an animal should look like – so theyselect them for different traits. Some cul-tures prefer certain colours or patterns;others are particular about horn shapes.They also use animals in different ways.For example, the Somali regard camelsmainly as a milk animal, and select theirbreeding animals accordingly. Others usecamels only to pull carts and ploughs, soprefer larger, stronger animals.

In short, livestock genetic diversity is verymuch related to cultural diversity. In a goodmany cases, particular genetic resourcesare associated with distinct social or ethnicgroups.

Why are animal geneticresources important forfood security?

Animal genetic resources are important forfood security on different levels.

••••• TTTTTo use marginal environments o use marginal environments o use marginal environments o use marginal environments o use marginal environments that areunsuitable for cultivation. Extensive live-stock husbandry and pastoralism are theonly way to produce food in many ofthe world’s harshest environments –deserts, steppes and mountains. Locallyadapted breeds enable these vast ar-eas to be used sustainably.

• As building blocks for future livestockfuture livestockfuture livestockfuture livestockfuture livestockdevelopment. development. development. development. development. Livestock keepers dependon animal genetic resources so they canadapt to changing conditions – climatechange, shifts in consumer preferences,

10


or new diseases. There is no room foradaptation and adjustment if the live-stock population is genetically uniform.Conserving animal genetic resources isjust as important for long-term foodsecurity as the ability to produce lots ofprotein.

Why are breedsdisappearing?

Individual breeds disappear when the hus-bandry system they are adapted to changesor is replaced (Hall, 1990). “Globalization”is a prime driver of this erosion. Traditionalcultures and livelihoods are being replacedwith western values and ways of life. Manygovernments began promoting cross-breeding or the replacement of indigenousbreeds with high-performance exotics sev-eral decades ago. The current “LivestockLivestockLivestockLivestockLivestockRevolutionRevolutionRevolutionRevolutionRevolution” – the increased consumptionof meat and other livestock products in thedeveloping world, with its expansion ofanimal monocultures and industrializedproduction systems – further exacerbatesthe trend.

In many developing countries, there isanother important cause of breed loss.Pastoralists in semi-arid areas are losingtheir livelihoods because their grazing ar-eas are being used for other purposes: ir-rigated cropping, rainfed farming, naturereserves and wildlife parks (LPPS, 2004;Vivekanandan and Paulraj, 2002).

Other factors – drought, the loss ofwater supplies, restrictions on movementacross borders, armed conflict – often con-found these problems.

When pastoralists are forced to give uplivestock keeping, their animal genetic re-sources also become extinct.

Status of animal geneticresources

According to FAO, about 1000 of the 64001000 of the 64001000 of the 64001000 of the 64001000 of the 6400recognized breeds have become extinctrecognized breeds have become extinctrecognized breeds have become extinctrecognized breeds have become extinctrecognized breeds have become extinctduring the last 100 years. One-third ofthese died out between 1985 and 2000(FAO, 2001).

Why conserve farm animalgenetic variability?Opportunities to meet future marketdemand Rising incomes lead to risingdemand for specialized foods generated bya diversification of animal productionsystems (Oldenbroek, 1999).

Insurance against future changes inproduction circumstances Risinghuman populations mean higher demandfor food. That means increasing the use ofdrylands – which can be used effectivelyonly for raising livestock. This is possibleonly by using breeds that are adapted tothese conditions.

Present socioeconomic value Livestockbreeds are a source of income for poorfarmers. Losing them would deprive thesepeople of their livelihoods.

Cultural and historical reasons Manybreeds reflect the cultural and historicalidentity of the communities that developedthem. Conserving the breed is necessaryto maintain their cultural identity.

Ecological value Breed diversity enablespeople to exploit various ecological niches.For example, cattle breeds that are resistantto trypanosomosis are one of the few waysto produce meat and milk in large swathesof the tropics.

“From a long-term point of view it ispossible that concentration on high-yielding environmentally-sensitivebreeds will create a serious problemfor the sustainability of livestock pro-duction... It is possible that farmers willlose their ability to manipulate natu-ral environmental conditions. If all en-vironmentally tolerant breeds are lostin the interim, the level of livestock pro-duction could collapse.” (Tisdell2003:373)

11


Among the 5330 mammal breeds, 17%are already extinct, and another 29% areendangered. For poultry, only 4% of breedsare thought to be extinct, but a massive61% are endangered.

How accurate are these data? It is hardto tell. They are based on information pro-vided by individual countries. But manycountries have never surveyed their breedssystematically. Many breeds may still beunrecognized – and some will become ex-tinct even before they have been docu-mented.

A case in point is India – a country wellstaffed with agricultural researchers, andwhich has instituted a special NationalBureau of Animal Genetic Resources. Butcursory field research by a local NGO in alimited area identified two distinct breedsthat had escaped the attention of scien-tists: the Malvi camel, and the Nari cattle(Köhler-Rollefson and Rathore, 1996:Rathore and Köhler-Rollefson, 2002). Boththese breeds are threatened.

On the other hand, the FAO databaserecords breeds as “critical” or “endan-gered” as soon as the population in a coun-

try falls below a certain threshold. This in-cludes recently imported, non-nativebreeds, which are inevitably present onlyin small numbers. For example, the list ofcritical and endangered sheep breeds inGermany includes the Soay sheep fromScotland, the Ungarisches Zackelschaffrom Hungary, the Hampshire sheep fromEngland, the Kamerun sheep fromCameroon, the Karakul sheep from Cen-tral Asia, and the Gotlaendisches Pelzschaffrom Sweden. This artificially inflates thenumbers of endangered breeds.

Despite these weaknesses, the FAO dataare the most comprehensive available, andthey are the only systematic effort to moni-tor the erosion of animal genetic resources.The utility of this global database could beimproved if individual countries took theircommitment seriously. They should conductrigorous field surveys that take into accountlocal and indigenous breed classificationsand draw on indigenous knowledge aboutanimal breeding.

FAO and governments working on a“State of the World” report that should givea better picture than existing statistics. Thisis expected to be published in 2007.

12

GGGGGenetic diversity enetic diversity enetic diversity enetic diversity enetic diversity is best upheld byconserving individual breeds.There are two ways to do this: ex

situ and in situ.

• Ex situEx situEx situEx situEx situ conservation means keeping thegenetic material outside its original pro-duction context. This can be in twoforms: by cryopreservationcryopreservationcryopreservationcryopreservationcryopreservation (deep freez-ing) of genetic material (semen, oocytes,embryos, DNA), or as a live populationlive populationlive populationlive populationlive populationin a zoo or on an experimental or showfarm.

• In situIn situIn situIn situIn situ means in the original productionenvironment. This can also be done intwo ways: on-farmon-farmon-farmon-farmon-farm or “communitycommunitycommunitycommunitycommunity-----basedbasedbasedbasedbased”.

Advantages anddisadvantages ofconservation approaches

Ex situ

CryopreservationCryopreservationCryopreservationCryopreservationCryopreservation is successful in some spe-cies (e.g., cattle), but technically difficult inothers. Developing countries often lack thefacilities and resources for cryo-preservation. A drawback of conservationin a gene bank is that it does not upholdthe breed’s socioeconomic role, nor doesit save its cultural and historical value, orits ecological role (Oldenbroek, 1999).

If breeds are conserved as a live popu-live popu-live popu-live popu-live popu-lationlationlationlationlation outside their natural habitats, then

they may be in danger of inbreeding. Fur-thermore they are bound to graduallychange their characteristics in adaptationto their new environment.

In situ

In situ conservation has usually meantkeeping the animals on a government farmlocated in the production area. Such farmshave several advantages: they maintainanimals in the same general conditions asin their usual habitats, they enable highlyqualified staff to manage the stocks, andthey provide controlled conditions forbreeding and research. But they also suf-fer from disadvantages from a conserva-tion perspective: management by govern-ment staff on the farms is bound to be dif-ferent from management by herders in thefield; the animals may be spared just thosechallenges (migration, drought, disease)

“Genetic variation is best conservedon the species level by maintainingseparate pure breeding populationsrather than establishing large popu-lations without reference to breed. Thisis because of the danger of marketforces pushing large populations to beselected for a very narrow breedinggoal abetted by reproductive tech-niques that allow individual animalsor families to gain major influence onthe genetic make-up of a population.The breed should thus be the key unitin conservation of animal genetic re-sources” (Ruane, 1999).

How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?

13

How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?

that force a breed to adapt; animal num-bers may be too small to represent the fulldiversity of the breed; and the animals maybecome isolated from the wider gene pool.In addition, special farms are subject touncertain long-term funding.

Community-based management hasbeen hailed as a way of conserving ani-mal genetic resources in developing coun-tries. It combines the sustainable use of abreed with the empowerment of the ruralpeople that keep it. While this concept holdsconsiderable promise, projects have beenrare so far and have attracted little donorsupport. There are however several suc-cessful examples of conservation projectsin Europe which reflect the standards setfor community based management.

How to select breeds forconservation

In view of the large numbers of breeds thatare considered endangered, there hasbeen much discussion on how to set pri-orities. Criteria include the degree of en-dangered-ness, as well as specific adap-tations, traits of economic importance,unique traits, cultural value, and geneticuniqueness (Tables 1 and 2).

Whose responsibility is it?

Legally, national governments have theresponsibility for conserving farm animalgenetic resources. All signatory countriesof the Convention on Biological Diversityare committed to conserving their farm ani-mal genetic resources as a component oftheir overall biological diversity. Nationalsovereignty over genetic resources alsocomes with the obligation to conservethem. But many breeds are dispersedacross several countries, so internationalcooperation is a must.

While conserving animal genetic re-sources is both a national and internationalresponsibility, the conservation itself shouldoccur in a decentralized manner.

TTTTTable 2.able 2.able 2.able 2.able 2. Relationship between selection criteria and conservation objectivesRelationship between selection criteria and conservation objectivesRelationship between selection criteria and conservation objectivesRelationship between selection criteria and conservation objectivesRelationship between selection criteria and conservation objectives

Conservation objectivesSelection Future Changes in Socio- Opportunity Cultural– Ecologicalcriteria market production economic for historical value

demands circumstances value research reasons

AdaptationTraits of economic importanceUnique traitsCultural historical valueGenetic uniqueness

yes noAdapted from Ruane (1999)

TTTTTable 1.able 1.able 1.able 1.able 1. How do the different conserHow do the different conserHow do the different conserHow do the different conserHow do the different conser-----vation techniques achieve the differentvation techniques achieve the differentvation techniques achieve the differentvation techniques achieve the differentvation techniques achieve the differentconservation objectives?conservation objectives?conservation objectives?conservation objectives?conservation objectives?

Cryo- Ex situ In situObjective preser- live

vationMeet future insuranceSocioeconomic valueResearch and educationCultural–historical valueEcological value

yes poor noSource: Oldenbroek and Gandini (1999)

14

How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?How to conserve livestock genetic diversity?

Who will pay forconservation?

The fact that so many animal genetic re-sources with possible commercial poten-tial in the future are becoming extinct canbe regarded as a “market failure”. Marketforces currently favour genetically uniform,intensive and industrialized livestock pro-duction systems. On the other hand, manyof the extensive pastoral production sys-tems in which animals are exposed to theelements (and that therefore conserve ge-netic diversity) are on the brink.

Livestock industries are able to external-ize the costs for genetic erosion, while sys-tems that conserve genetic diversity are notrewarded for their role. Thus a case canbe made for subsidizing the latter througha genetic erosion tax imposed on theformer.

“Governments consequently have arole to play in preserving uneconomicspecies or breeds for future geneticresearch. Because the genetic valueof the stock is likely to be a publicgood, any genetic storage program isnot likely to pay for itself. Revenueswill probably be less than costs. How-ever, one could argue that the socialbenefits of future breeds could easilyoutweigh the costs if the programs areefficiently designed. The facility or or-ganization that conserves the breedmight not be able to reap the benefits,but society at large would enjoy them.There is consequently a good eco-nomic argument for establishing agovernment program to protect en-dangered domesticated breeds. Be-cause the beneficiaries of this programare likely to be spread throughout theworld there is every reason that thisshould be an international responsi-bility.” (Mendelsohn 2003:506)

“There is another important alterna-tive to a centralized facility. It mayprove more viable and less expensiveto preserve animals in the very sys-tems they were adapted to survive in.This suggests that the internationaleffort be more of a program than asingle laboratory. Farmers in locationsaround the world would be paid an-nually to sustain adequate populationsof desired animals. This would protectthe animals from unintended inter-breeding, disperse the beneficiaries ofthe program widely, and keep costsdown since the animals are best suitedfor where they exist now anyway”(Mendelsohn 2003:507).

Experiences from Europe

European Union regulations try to createuniform mechanisms and proceduresacross countries for conserving breeds. In-centive payments have halted breed de-cline (Gandini, 1999). In countries such asGermany, no breed has become extinct,due to the efforts of NGOs and a largenumber of societies for individual breeds.In the Mediterranean countries, especiallyItaly, France and Spain, keepers of rarebreeds have been able to plug into a nichemarket for culinary specialities, and this hasrevived many endangered breeds.

Summary of main points

• Only in situ conservation achieves allconservation goals.

• While animal genetic resources are sub-ject to national sovereignty, regional andinternational cooperation is necessary.

• Genetic diversity conserving productionsystems are currently not rewarded forthis service.

• Incentive payments have been success-ful in conserving breeds in Europe.

15

Where are domestic animal diversity hotspots?

breeds in relationship to the human popu-lation density.

Why are drylands rich inanimal genetic resources?

Hall and Ruane did not say why breed di-versity was greater in some places than inothers, and why “remoteness’ appeared tobe correlated with the number of breeds.

But if we recall what was said aboveabout breed formation, and the correla-

Indigenous knowledge aboutanimal breeding amongpastoralistsPastoralists apply a wide range of con-cepts and strategies in order to manipulatethe genetic composition of their livestockholdings (Köhler-Rollefson, 2000). This isalso known as “indigenous knowledgeabout animal breeding”. It includes thefollowing components:

• Cultural concepts about how to use ananimal.

• Local preferences for certain charac-teristics, such as colour, size, orbehavioural patterns.

• Selection practices for certain qualities(castration, culling, offspring testing).

• Pedigree-keeping.

• Social restrictions on selling animalsthat lead to closed gene-pools.

FFFFFor wild species, or wild species, or wild species, or wild species, or wild species, there are certainbiodiversity hotspots. About 70% ofthe world’s wild biodiversity is con-

tained in only 12 out of the approximately170 countries3 .

What about livestock genetic diversity?Are there also certain areas that are espe-cially rich in animal genetic resources?

High density of breeds inremote and peripheralareas

In the early 1990s, Hall and Ruane (1993)correlated the number of breeds that hadbeen reported in a country with humanpopulations and land areas. They notedthat peripheral and remote countries havethe highest ratios of breeds per millionpeople and concluded that remoteness canpromote breed diversification.

According to their calculations, in Asia,it is Mongolia, Yemen and Oman that havethe greatest concentrations of breeds (Ta-ble 3). In Africa, it is countries such as Bot-swana and Namibia, as well as those ofthe Sahel. Within large countries such asChina and India, it is the peripheral prov-inces that maintain the largest numbers of

3 These so-called “megadiverse” countries includeAustralia, Brazil, China, Colombia, the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Ecuador, the United States,India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico and Peru.

16

Where are domestic animal diversity hotspots?Where are domestic animal diversity hotspots?Where are domestic animal diversity hotspots?Where are domestic animal diversity hotspots?Where are domestic animal diversity hotspots?

tion between cultural diversity and breeddiversity, it becomes quite obvious whysemi-arid and arid areas can be expectedto be especially well endowed with animalgenetic resources. Drylands are not con-ducive to crop cultivation, so have givenrise to a multitude of pastoralist cultures.These cultures in turn have developed in-dividual breeds to fit their specific ecologi-cal and cultural requirements.

Pastoralists andindigenous knowledge ofanimal breeding

The breeds that pastoralists have devel-oped are very much a product of their in-digenous knowledge. Pastoralists havedeveloped extensive indigenous knowledgeabout animal breeding and astute ways ofmanipulating the genetic composition oftheir herds, out of the necessity to survivein their respective environments, and overmany generations.

Breeding for diversity

“Cultivating” genetic diversity in livestockholdings appears to be an integral part ofpastoral production systems. In order tominimize risks and to cover their variousneeds, pastoralists often herd a mix of spe-cies. They sometimes keep breeds with dif-ferent productivity levels to protect them-selves from drought and other problems,and so they can take advantage of yearswith abundant grazing. For instance, Raikasheep pastoralists in Rajasthan keep Botisheep (which are extremely drought resist-ant but grow very slowly), together withBhagli sheep (which can cope less well withadverse conditions, but are very produc-tive in good years) (LPPS, 2003).

Pastoralists therefore do not have theconcept of an “ideal animal” (Adams andKaufmann, 2003), as exists in formalbreeding societies. Rather, they aspire to

How to measure livestockgenetic diversityNumber of breedsThe number of breeds of a country or area,correlated to the human population density,has been used as a measure of diversity(Hall and Ruane, 1993).

Such calculations produce some interest-ing results. They show that remote areashave a high degree of diversity. But thisapproach fails to take into account therelative abundance of each breed.

Simpson indexWhen ecologists measure biologicaldiversity, they take into account richnessand evenness of species. Richness refersto the number of species (or other group-ing, such as genus or breed). Evennessconsiders the relative abundance ofspecies. A community dominated by one ortwo species is considered less diversethan one where several different speciesare similarly abundant.

No. of individualsBreed Country 1 Country 2Holstein-Friesian 900 320Brown Swiss 80 380Gir 20 300Total 1000 1000

In the above example, the two countrieshave the same number of animals and thesame number of breeds. But Country 2would be considered to have a morediverse cattle population than Country 1.

Genetic distancingThis involves estimating the geneticdistances between two or more popula-tions, using directly observed features ormolecular characteristics. It is used tomeasure diversity in wild plants andanimals, and to ensure conservation of amaximum amount of evolutionary history(Hall and Bradley, 1995).

There may be problems applying molecu-lar genetic investigations to livestockbreeds because many breeds are closelyrelated and diverged from each other onlyrecently, in evolutionary terms. The samecaveat obtains for analysis of mitochondrialDNA (Hall and Bradley, 1995).

17


TTTTTable 3able 3able 3able 3able 3 Number of livestock breeds (all species) per million peopleNumber of livestock breeds (all species) per million peopleNumber of livestock breeds (all species) per million peopleNumber of livestock breeds (all species) per million peopleNumber of livestock breeds (all species) per million people

Asia

Country No. of native Breeds perbreeds million people

Yemen 36 195.3Mongolia 14 6.7Oman 7 5.8Bahrain 2 4.8Bhutan 4 2.9Israel 12 2.7Lebanon 5 1.8Afghanistan 22 1.4Syria 16 1.4Nepal 24 1.3Turkey 55 1.0Iran 55 1.0Jordan 3 1.0Saudi Arabia 11 1.0Iraq 16 0.9Pakistan 96 0.9Cambodia 6 0.8Sri Lanka 12 0.7Laos 2 0.5Malaysia 8 0.5Cyprus 7 0.5Vietnam 18 0.3Philippines 17 0.3China 236 0.2India 171 0.2Taiwan 4 0.2Thailand 10 0.2Japan 21 0.2Indonesia 28 0.2Bangladesh 17 0.2Myanmar 6 0.2North & South Korea 7 0.1Source: Hall and Ruane (1993)

Africa

Country No. of native Breeds perbreeds million people

Seychelles 1 14.9Djibouti 1 10.0Botswana 9 7.4Namibia 9 6.9Gambia 5 6.3Guinea-Bissau 5 5.4Mauritania 10 5.3Somalia 20 3.2Chad 16 3.0Mali 21 2.7Niger 15 2.1Sudan 51 2.0Senegal 14 2.0Libya 7 1.7Liberia 4 1.6South Africa 46 1.6Tunisia 13 1.5Morocco 36 1.5Togo 5 1.5Swaziland 1 1.4Lesotho 2 1.2Cameroon 13 1.2Benin 5 1.1Kenya 24 1.1Sierra Leone 4 1.0Uganda 16 1.0Angola 9 1.0Burkina Faso 7 0.8Zimbabwe 7 0.8Algeria 16 0.7Ethiopia 33 0.7Malawi 4 0.5Tanzania 14 0.6Egypt 30 0.6Ghana 6 0.4Guinea 3 0.5Madagascar 5 0.5Zaire 13 0.4Mozambique 6 0.4Nigeria 32 0.3Rwanda 2 0.3Core d’Ivoire 2 0.2Zambia 1 0.1

18


build up a herd composed of animals withdifferent characteristics to prepare them-selves for all eventualities and avoid risks.

Ritual needs can also enhance diversity.Different rituals and occasions (weddings,circumcisions, funerals, etc.) require ani-mals with a specific colour, horn shape, orother characteristics.

Lack of infrastructure andremoteness

Extension services throughout the worldtend to promote exotic breeds or cross-breeds. Because keeping these animals isregarded as progressive, and they dazzlewith their high production outputs, pasto-ralists too may be tempted to acquire suchanimals. However, in many cases, theseanimals succumb to the next drought orepidemic, and they fail to reproduce. InRajasthan, the desert state in western In-dia, the Department of Animal Husbandryhas for decades been fostering crossbreed-ing through artificial insemination. But evenafter 30 years, crossbred cows provide onlyabout 1% of the State’s milk yield. Similarresults were obtained from the introduc-tion of exotic Rambouillet and Merinosheep breeds.

Nepal is not an arid country, but alsofaces a severe climate and suffers from lackof infrastructure. Although cattle improve-ment programmes were started three dec-

ades ago, their impact has been limited tothe peri-urban area. Some 95% of the cat-tle, more than 70% of the sheep and mostof the goats are of local breeds (Tulachan,1998).

In some countries in the former USSR,the loss of Soviet inputs and markets hasled to a return to more traditional breedsand species: local fat-tailed sheep (whichcan forage better under the snow) anddowny goats and meat horses instead ofcattle (Kerven and Lunch, 1998).

It can be concluded that in areas withharsh environmental conditions, naturalselection processes preclude the establish-ment of exotic or crossbred populations,so reducing the risk of genetic dilution.However, the lack of support for develop-ment in these areas could in the long runlead to the total loss of the pastoral andagropastoral systems in these areas, alongwith the animal diversity they support.


• Remote, and arid and semi-arid areashave given rise to a large number ofdifferent breeds. These breeds have agreat degree of intra-breed diversity.

• Pastoral livestock production systemsinherently conserve genetic diversity.

• Intensive animal production is not pos-sible in such ecological contexts.

19

Drylands

DDDDDrylands are areas rylands are areas rylands are areas rylands are areas rylands are areas where rainfall isvery low and rates of evaporationare high. They cover about 40% of

the world’s land surface and 54% of theworld’s productive land. Drylands come inthe form of plains, grasslands, savannas,steppes or pampas. They can be subdividedinto hyper-arid, arid, semi-arid and drysubhumid ecosystems. The term “drylands”specifically excludes real deserts since thesehave very limited potential for productiveuse and are not permanently inhabited.

The world’s drylands have a wide rangeof topography, elevation, temperature,geology, and biological conditions. But alldrylands have something in common: theirrainfall is low and very variable. Droughtsare the rule rather than the exception, anddifferences between night and day tem-peratures are often very high.

The plants and animals native to suchareas have developed special adaptivetraits to cope with such harsh environmen-tal conditions. These traits are importantin the context of global climate change.

People in drylands

More than 2 billion people live in drylands,and about 1 billion of them are rural poor(Dobie, 2001). A predominant livelihoodstrategy in drylands is pastoralism.

Food insecurity

Drought, together with other climatic exi-gencies, is the major cause for famine andfood insecurity in the world, according to

Where pastoralists are: Livestock-only, rangeland farming areas (adapted from ILRI)

Arid/semi-aridHumid/subhumidTemperate

20

DrylandsDrylandsDrylandsDrylandsDrylands

FAO’s State of Food Insecurity in the Worldstudy (FAO, 2003b). Strife and conflict arealso important reasons.

According to this study, “traditional live-stock production systems sustain some ofthe world’s most vulnerable communitiesin some of its harshest environments.”

FAO concludes that there is a need foremergency prevention and rehabilitationprogrammes to respond to the particularneeds of livestock owners. Pastoral com-munities typically need different kinds ofaid, over longer periods, than farmers whorely mainly on crops. When rains returnafter a drought, for example, farmers mayrequire little more than seeds, fertilizer andone successful cropping season to get backon their feet. But pastoralists may needseveral years of assistance to weather thecrisis, replenish their breeding stock andrebuild the herds that represent both theirlivelihoods and their life savings. In the longterm, alternatives must be found for thosewhose livelihoods can no longer be sus-tained by nomadic herding

Livestock genetic diversity:The competitive advantageof drylands and harshenvironments?

While FAO banks on emergency relief, oth-ers conclude differently. “The secrets arenot in welfare and crisis management, butin establishing systems of governance andmarketing that will provide incentives topeople to work and invest in drylands”(Dobie, 2001).

Drylands suffer from many disadvan-tages and constraints. But they do have acompetitive advantage in one area: theyact as a reservoir for animal genetic re-sources, and for traits and fitness charac-teristics that have disappeared from breedsselected only for their production perform-ance. Unfortunately, current market

mechanisms do not reward this contribu-tion of the pastoral peoples in drylands.So there is a rationale for public interven-tion to compensate for this market failure.An international legal framework on ani-mal genetic resources could be a pillar ofa governance system that would provideincentives for people in drylands.


• Drylands are chronically food-insecure,and their populations are among thepoorest and most vulnerable in theworld.

• By conserving livestock genetic diversity,pastoralists provide a service to human-ity that is currently not rewarded bymarket forces. An international legalframework on animal genetic resourcescould set up support and incentivemechanisms for pastoral productionsystems.

Million peopleaffected by drought

Drought and famine in Africa, 1971–2000Drought has been the most common cause offood emergencies and has contributed to severalfamines in Africa over the past 30 years.

Source: UNDP/GRID Arandal

>10

10

510.1

57

21

An international legal framework on animalgenetic resources for food and agriculture4

CCCCCalls by developing countriesalls by developing countriesalls by developing countriesalls by developing countriesalls by developing countries for es-tablishing an international legalframework on animal genetic re-

sources are intensifying. The need for sucha legally binding agreement was first for-mulated by the NGO/CSO forum duringthe World Food Summit in June 2002.

During the 3rd Session of the Intergov-ernmental Technical Working Group onAnimal Genetic Resources in spring 2004,a number of developing countries, includ-ing Botswana, Uganda, and Kenya, pro-posed starting negotiations on an interna-tional treaty on animal genetic resources(FAO 2004).

At the Commission on Genetic Re-sources for Food and Agriculture in No-vember 2004, the issue was picked upagain. But countries of the North resisted,so further consideration was postponeduntil the First Report on the State of theWorld’s Animal Genetic Resources is com-pleted. That is expected only in 2007.

Arguments for a legalframework

We can take a cue from the “Seed Treaty”– the recently concluded InternationalTreaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture. An international frame-work on farm animal genetic resourceswould be a logical follow-up to this treaty.Developing countries have assembled thefollowing arguments for crafting an equiva-lent treaty for animal genetic resources.

• Animal genetic resources are a globalAnimal genetic resources are a globalAnimal genetic resources are a globalAnimal genetic resources are a globalAnimal genetic resources are a globalconcern.concern.concern.concern.concern. They are essential to achievefood security and to ensure sustainablelivelihoods, especially in marginal ar-eas. Their use is interlinked with theenvironment and other types of biodi-versity.

• Domestic animal diversity is essentialDomestic animal diversity is essentialDomestic animal diversity is essentialDomestic animal diversity is essentialDomestic animal diversity is essentialfor future generationsfor future generationsfor future generationsfor future generationsfor future generations to develop breedsadapted to largely unforeseeable eco-logical and economical scenarios. Farmanimal genetic resources form the rawmaterial that farmers depend on toadapt to changes in the natural envi-ronment and in production conditions,to cope with disease outbreaks and torespond to emerging market opportu-nities. If all livestock becomes uniform,there is no more potential for adjust-ment. The present domestic animal di-versity – as represented in the multitudeof our livestock breeds – is the result ofmany generations of rural communitiesmanipulating their livestock populations

4 There is no universally accepted term to refer todomesticated animal genetic resources. The argu-ment against “farm animal genetic resources” isthat not all livestock is kept on farms but ratherraised by pastoralists. The term “animal genetic re-sources for food and agriculture”, on the other hand,would also include fish – which need to be dealtwith separately.

22

An international legal frameworkAn international legal frameworkAn international legal frameworkAn international legal frameworkAn international legal framework

according to the requirements of theirenvironment, their subsistence needsand cultural concepts. It is a conse-quence of cultural diversity and repre-sents a legacy that needs to bestewarded wisely for the future of all ofhumanity.

• The conservation of animal genetic reThe conservation of animal genetic reThe conservation of animal genetic reThe conservation of animal genetic reThe conservation of animal genetic re-----sources needs to be promotedsources needs to be promotedsources needs to be promotedsources needs to be promotedsources needs to be promoted andmuch more awareness about the issueraised. For several decades, plant ge-netic resources have captured all the at-tention, and the term “agricultural bio-diversity” has too often used to refer toplant genetic resources alone. Animalgenetic resources have to do a consid-erable amount of catching up.

• Biotechnology is advancing rapidlyBiotechnology is advancing rapidlyBiotechnology is advancing rapidlyBiotechnology is advancing rapidlyBiotechnology is advancing rapidly, andhuge sums are being channelled intostudies of livestock genomes.5 This ishappening in a legal vacuum. Livestockholders risk losing their intellectual prop-erty rights, while biotechnology firmsrequire a stable regulatory frameworkin which to operate. “Livestock Keep-ers’ Rights”, the equivalent to “Farm-ers’ Rights” need to be fleshed out andrecognized internationally.

• The Convention on Biological Diversityrequires “access and benefitaccess and benefitaccess and benefitaccess and benefitaccess and benefit-----sharingsharingsharingsharingsharing”.It needs to be examined whether theseconcepts are applicable in any mean-ingful way to the situation of animalgenetic resources.

• An international instrument is necessaryto ensure compliance with rulescompliance with rulescompliance with rulescompliance with rulescompliance with rules thatmay be agreed.

• A legal instrument, and the negotiationsleading up to it, could be a means ofleveraging fundsleveraging fundsleveraging fundsleveraging fundsleveraging funds for the conservationof animal genetic resources.

5 For instance, $ 53 million are being invested intothe Bovine Genome Sequencing Project, a jointproject of the US Department of Agriculture, theState of Texas, National Institute of Health, andseveral international institutions (Livestock Inter-national, Nov. 2004, p.4).

Contents of a legalframework on animalgenetic resources

Some of the obvious requirements of a le-gal framework would include that it em-phasize that animal genetic resources areof global concern, are essential for usingmarginal areas, and that secure access tothem is vital for the rural poor.

The instrument should also point out thespecial significance of in situ conservationand acknowledge the critical role playedby farmers and pastoralists in the sustain-able management of domestic animal di-versity.

Furthermore, NGOs insist that it shouldalso seek to protect the livelihoods of com-munities that conserve animal genetic di-versity by according them “Livestock Keep-ers’ Rights”, as equivalent to the “FarmersRights” that are such an important aspectof the Seed Treaty.

However, an “Animal Treaty” should notjust be an adaptation of the Seed Treaty,but should be developed explicitly for thespecific requirements and characteristics ofthe livestock sector.

Differences betweenanimal and plant geneticresources

There are important differences betweenplant and animal genetic resources. Thesewill need to be reflected in the legal frame-work to be developed. Negotiations for theSeed Treaty were precipitated to a signifi-cant extent by the recognition that impor-tant ex situ collections were held by vari-ous institutions and countries, and thatmultilateral access to these collections isneeded for the sake of global food secu-rity.

23


For animal genetic resources, such col-lections do not exist on a similar scale. Incontrast to seeds, animal genetic resourcesare much more difficult and expensive tostore ex situ, in the form of semen and ova.For some species, such methods have noteven been satisfactorily developed. Scien-tists tend to agree that the best way of sav-ing animal genetic resources is by means

of sustainable utilization in their originalproduction environments. FAO also pro-motes this approach.

We can conclude that livestock-keepingcommunities, be it farmers or pastoralists,have a much more significant role to playin the conservation of animal genetic re-sources than is the case with plant geneticresources.

Livestock Keepers’ Rights

In November 2003, representatives of in-digenous livestock breeding communitiesmet in Karen, Kenya. They issued a state-ment requesting FAO to start negotiationstowards Livestock Keepers’ Rights (Köhler-Rollefson and Wanyama, 2003).

The rights should include the following:

• The right to continue to use their knowl-edge on the conservation and sustain-able use of animal genetic resources,without fears of its appropriation.

The “Seed Treaty”The International Treaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture, or “SeedTreaty”, aims to ensure the continued avail-ability of the plant genetic resources thatcountries will need to feed their people, and toconserve for future generations the geneticdiversity that is essential for food and agricul-ture. The treaty is in harmony with the Con-vention on Biological Diversity.

Its main objectives are:

• The conservation and sustainable use ofplant genetic resources for food andagriculture, and

• The fair and equitable sharing of benefitsderived from their use for sustainableagriculture and food security.

The Seed Treaty also establishes the conceptof “Farmers’ Rights” (see the box below).

The Treaty is believed to benefit all stakehold-ers in many ways:

• Farmers and their communities, throughFarmers’ Rights.

• Consumers, because of a greater variety offoods and agricultural products, as well asincreased long-term food security.

• The scientific community, through accessto the plant genetic resources crucial forresearch and plant breeding.

• International agricultural research centres,whose collections the Plant Treaty puts ona safe and long-term legal footing.

• Both the public and private sectors, whichare assured access to a wide range ofgenetic diversity for agricultural develop-ment.

• The environment, and future generations,because the Seed Treaty will help con-serve the genetic diversity necessary toface unpredictable environmental changes,and future human needs.

Farmers’ RightsThe International Treaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculturerecognizes “Farmers’ Rights”. Theseinclude the protection of traditional knowl-edge, and the right to participate equitablyin benefit-sharing and in national decision-making about plant genetic resources.

This recognition is based on the enormouscontributions that farming communitieshave made in the conservation, develop-ment and sustainable use of plant geneticresources. While all regions of the worldhave contributed, women, and people inthe centres of origin or diversity of crops,have been particularly important.

The responsibility for implementing theserights rests with individual governments.

24


• The right to participate democraticallyin making decisions on matters relatedto the conservation and sustainable useof animal genetic resources.

• The right to access, save, use, exchange,sell their animal genetic resources forfood and agriculture, unrestricted by In-tellectual Property Rights and (modifi-cation through) genetic engineering

technologies that may disrupt the integ-rity of these genetic resources.

• The right to have their breeds recog-nized as products of their communitiesand indigenous knowledge, and there-fore remain in the public domain.

• The right to benefit equitably from theuse of animal genetic resources in theirown communities and by others.

The “Karen Commitment” on pastoralist/indigenousLivestock Keepers’ RightsLeaders of traditional livestock breeding andpastoral communities, government repre-sentatives, civil society organizations focusingon livestock genetic resources, academicsand livestock researchers met in Karen,Kenya, in October 2003 to discuss theconcept of “Livestock Keepers’ Rights”.

The conference was organized by the Inter-mediate Technology Development Group–East Africa (ITDG–EA) and the League forPastoral Peoples. The participants issued thefollowing statement.

We call on governments and relevantinternational bodies to commit them-

selves to the formal recognition of the histori-cal and current contribution of pastoralists andpastoralism to food and livelihood security,environmental services and domestic animaldiversity.

We also demand that they recognize thecontributions of pastoralists and other live-stock keepers, over millennia, to the conser-vation and sustainable use of animal geneticresources for food and agriculture includingassociated species and the genes theycontain.

Furthermore, we insist that there is interna-tional legally-binding recognition of inalienableLivestock Keepers’ Rights and the Rights oftheir communities to:

• Continue to use their knowledge concern-ing the conservation and sustainable useof animal genetic resources, without fear ofits appropriation.

• Participate democratically in makingdecisions on matters related to the conser-vation and sustainable use of animalgenetic resources.

• Access, save, use, exchange, sell theiranimal genetic resources, unrestricted byIntellectual Property Rights and (modifica-tion through) genetic engineering technolo-gies that we believe will disrupt the integrityof these genetic resources.

• Have their breeds recognized as productsof their communities and IndigenousKnowledge and therefore remain in thepublic domain.

• Benefit equitably from the use of animalgenetic resources in their own communitiesand by others.

We call on FAO to start negotiating such alegally binding agreement, without delay,ensuring that it will be in harmony with theConvention on Biological Diversity.

We further call on the FAO to develop aGlobal Plan for the conservation and sustain-able use of animal genetic resources bypastoralists, other livestock keeping communi-ties and relevant public institutions.

Finally, we insist that animal genetic resourcesfor food and agriculture be excluded fromIntellectual Property Rights claims, and thatthere should be a moratorium on the releaseof genetically modified livestock until bio-safety is proven, in accordance with thePrecautionary Principle. We call on relevantinstitutions concerned with food, agriculture,trade, intellectual property and animal re-search to provide assurances and such legalprotection as is necessary to sustain the freeflow and integrity of animal genetic resources,vital to global food security and the environ-ment.

See www.pastoralpeoples.org/docs/karen.pdffor the full proceedings of this conference.

25

Conclusions

IIIIIndividual conservation programmesndividual conservation programmesndividual conservation programmesndividual conservation programmesndividual conservation programmes forall breeds are not feasible and realistic.

CommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityCommunity-based management-based management-based management-based management-based management is apromising way to conserve animal geneticresources

Dryland countries Dryland countries Dryland countries Dryland countries Dryland countries have a disproportion-ately high number of breeds. These breedsare endowed with important fitness and dis-ease-resistance traits. Dryland countries areespecially rich in animal genetic resourcesbecause of the rich traditional knowledgeand sense of guardianship of pastoralistsocieties, their remoteness and lack of in-frastructure, as well as the inability of highperformance breeds to become estab-lished.

The drylands are also among the mostfood-insecurefood-insecurefood-insecurefood-insecurefood-insecure areas of the world. Theywitness frequent droughts and famines.Livestock-raising and pastoralism – usingindigenous breeds – are among the fewways to use these areas in a sustainableway.

The conservation of a significant numberof animal genetic resources and an impor-tant part of domestic animal diversity islinked to the survival of traditional culturestraditional culturestraditional culturestraditional culturestraditional cultureswith a livestock-rearing identity.

Supporting dryland communitiesSupporting dryland communitiesSupporting dryland communitiesSupporting dryland communitiesSupporting dryland communitiesthrough better infrastructure, services, ani-mal health care, marketing opportunities,and other interventions would make a sig-nificant contribution to both poverty alle-

viation and food security on one hand, aswell as the conservation and sustainablemanagement of animal genetic resources.

An international legal framework international legal framework international legal framework international legal framework international legal framework onanimal genetic resources would seek tocreate a level playing field between dry-land production systems that conserve ge-netic diversity, and intensive and industri-alized systems that erode it.

Like the Like-Minded Countries?Seventeen countries that are home to 70%of the world’s “biological resources” haveformed a group known as the Like-MindedMegadiverse Countries.

These countries include Bolivia, Brazil,China, Colombia, Costa Rica, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Ecuador, India,Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia,Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa,and Venezuela.

They are in the process of developing acommon negotiating position towardsdeveloped countries, such as a 20%royalty of the revenue from any productdeveloped from their biological resources(Hindustan Times, 9 January 2005,Business).

Dryland countries with pastoral populationsand rich animal genetic resources couldform a similar bloc of like-minded livestock-diverse countries in negotiations for aninternational legal framework on animalgenetic resources.

26

Adams, M. and B. Kaufmann. 2003.Description of Kenyan camel breedsby pastoralists’ indigenous criteria.Pp. 65–90 in Hülsebusch, C.G., andB.A. Kaufmann (eds). Camel breedsand breeding in northern Kenya.Kenya Agricultural Research Institute,Nairobi.

Blench, R. 1999. Traditional livestockbreeds: Geographical distribution anddynamics in relation to the ecology ofWest Africa. Working Paper 122.Overseas Development Institute,London.

Dobie, P. 2001. Poverty and the drylands.The Global Drylands Partnership.UNDP, Nairobi. www.surf-as.org/DDC/Poverty-and-the-Drylands-Challenge-Paper.pdf

FAO, 2001. Report of the Second Ad-hocSession of International Stakeholdersin Animal Genetic Resources, held atFAO headquarters in Rome, 5–6 June2001. Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO. 2003a. Community-based man-agement of animal genetic resources.Proceedings of a workshop held inMbabane, Swaziland, 7–11 May,2001. Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO. 2003b. The state of food insecurityin the world (SOFI). Food and Agricul-

ture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome.

FAO. 2004. Report by the Commissionon Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture on the IntergovernmentalTechnical Working Group on AnimalGenetic Resources for Food andAgriculture, Third Session, 31 March–2 April 2004. (CGRFA/WG-AnGR-3/04/REPORT). Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations,Rome.

Gandini, G. 1999. Review of AnGRvaluation work to date. Pp. 28–33 inJ.E.O. Rege (ed.) Economic valuationof animal genetic resources. Proceed-ings of an FAO/ILRI workshop held atFAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 15–17 March, 1999. FAO Rome/ILRINairobi.

Gandini, G.C., and J.K. Oldenbroek.1999. Choosing the conservationstrategy. Pp. 11–32 in J.K. Olden-broek (ed.) Genebanks and the con-servation of animal genetic resources.DLO Institute for Animal Science andHealth, Lelystad, Netherlands.

Geerlings, E., E. Mathias and I. Köhler-Rollefson. 2002. Securing tomorrow’sfood. Promoting the sustainable use offarm animal genetic resources. Infor-mation for action. League for PastoralPeoples, Ober-Ramstadt, Germany.www.pastoralpeoples.org/securing.htm

References and further reading

27

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Geerlings, E., E. Mathias and I. Köhler-Rollefson. 2002. Securing tomorrow’sfood. Promoting the sustainable use offarm animal genetic resources. Issuesand options. League for PastoralPeoples, Ober-Ramstadt, Germany.www.pastoralpeoples.org/securing.htm

GTZ. 2003. Traditional knowledge aboutanimal breeding and breeds.Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit, Sector projectPeople and Biodiversity in Rural Areas,Eschborn, Germany. www.gtz.de/agrobiodiv/download/Trad_Wissen_engl.pdf

Gura, S., and League for Pastoral Peo-ples. 2003. Losing livestock, losinglivelihoods. Seedling, January 2003:8–12. www.eldis.org/static/DOC11670.htm

Hall, S.J.G. 1990. Genetic conservationof domestic livestock. Pp 289-318 in:S.R. Milligan (ed.) Oxford Reviews ofReproductive Biology 12. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, UK.

Hall, S.J.G., and D.G. Bradley. 1995.Conserving livestock breed biodiver-sity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution10(7):263–270.

Hall, S., and J. Ruane. 1993. Livestockbreeds and their conservation: Aglobal overview. Conservation Biology7(4):815–25.

ILRI. 1998. ILRI 1997: Livestock, peopleand the environment. InternationalLivestock Research Institute, Nairobi.

Kerven, C., and C. Lunch. 1998. Routesto privatisation for livestock collectivesin Kazakstan and Turkmenistan.AgREN Newsletter 38:10, 15–17.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2004. Farm animalgenetic resources: Safeguarding

national assets for food security andtrade. A summary of workshops onfarm animal genetic resources held inthe Southern Africa DevelopmentCommunity (SADC). GTZ, FAO andCTA, Eschborn, Germany.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2001. Intellectualproperty rights regime necessary fortraditional livestock raisers. Indig-enous Knowledge and DevelopmentMonitor. 9(1):12–15.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2000. Managementof animal genetic diversity at commu-nity level. Deutsche Gesellschaft fürTechnische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ),Eschborn, Germany. www.gtz.de/agrobiodiv/download/koehl.pdf

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1997. Indigenouspractices of animal genetic resourcemanagement and their relevance forthe conservation of domestic animaldiversity in developing countries.Journal of Animal Breeding andGenetics 114:231–238.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. and C. McCorkle.2004. Domestic animal diversity, localknowledge and stockraiser rights. In:Bicker, A., P. Sillitoe, and J. Pottier(eds). Development and local knowl-edge. Routledge Harwood Anthropol-ogy, London. Pp. 164–173.

Köhler-Rollefson, I., and H.S. Rathore.1996. The Malvi camel: A newlydiscovered breed from India. AnimalGenetic Resource Information 18:31-42.

Köhler-Rollefson, I., and J. Wanyama(eds). 2003. The Karen Commitment:Proceedings of a conference of indig-enous livestock breeding communitieson animal genetic resources. GermanNGO Forum on Environment andDevelopment, Bonn.www.pastoralpeoples.org/karen.htm

28

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

LPPS. 2003. From wool to meat: Innova-tion and indigenous knowledge ofsheep breeding among the GodwarRaika in Rajasthan (India). LokhitPashu-Palak Sansthan, Sadri, Rajas-than, India.

LPPS. 2004. The camel in Rajasthan.Agricultural biodiversity under threat.Background information for theInternational Conference Saving thecamel and peoples’ livelihoods:Building a multi-stakeholder platformfor the conservation of the camel inRajasthan. Lokhit Pashu-PalakSansthan, Sadri.

Mendelsohn, R. 2003. The challenge ofconserving indigenous domesticanimals. Ecological Economics45:501–510.

Oldenbroek, J.K. 1999. Introduction. Pp.1–10 in Oldenbroek, J.K. (ed.)Genebanks and the conservation ofanimal genetic resources. DLO Insti-tute for Animal Science and Health,Lelystad, Netherlands.

Rathore, H.S. and I. Köhler-Rollefson.2002. Indigenous institutions ofmanaging livestock genetic diversity inRajasthan (India). Pp. 57–68 in Locallivestock breeds for sustainable rurallivelihoods: Towards community-basedapproaches for animal genetic re-source conservation. Proceedings of aconference/workshop held on 1–4November 2000 in Udaipur andSadri, Rajasthan, India. Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan, Sadri and League forPastoral Peoples, Ober-Ramstadt,Germany.

Ruane, J. 1999. Selecting breeds forconservation. Pp. 59–74 inOldenbroek, J.K. (ed.) Genebanksand the conservation of animal ge-netic resources. DLO Institute forAnimal Science and Health, Lelystad,Netherlands.

Scherf, B., ed. 2000. World Watch list fordomestic animal diversity. Third edi-tion. Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion, Rome.

Simianer, H. 2002. Noah’s dilemma:Which breeds to take aboard the Ark?Proceedings of the Seventh WorldCongress on Genetics Applied toLivestock Production. Montpellier,France.

Tisdell, C. 2003. Socioeconomic causesof loss of animal genetic diversity:analysis and assessment. EcologicalEconomics 45:365-376.

Tulachan, P. 1998. Livestock developmentin mixed crop framing systems. Les-sons and research priorities. Issues inmountain development 98/5. ICIMOD(International Centre for IntegratedMountain Development), Kathmandu,Nepal.

Vivekanandan,P. and B. Paulraj. 2002.Community conservation ofMalaimadu breed of cattle. Pp. 81–90in Local livestock breeds for sustain-able rural livelihoods. Towards com-munity-based approaches for animalgenetic resource conservation. Pro-ceedings of a Conference/Workshopheld on 1–4 November, 2000 inUdaipur and Sadri, Rajasthan, India.Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan, Sadriand League for Pastoral Peoples,Ober-Ramstadt, Germany.

league for pastoral peoples€¦ · differences between animal and plant genetic resources..... 22...

Documents