See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226233876

Towards a methodology for on-farm conservation of plant genetic

resources

Article  in  Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution · February 2002

DOI: 10.1023/A:1013896401710

CITATIONS READS

103 207

4 authors, including:

Luigi Guarino
Global Crop Diversity Trust
107 PUBLICATIONS   3,101 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AEGIS, a virtual European genebank View project

Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luigi Guarino on 06 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 49: 31–46, 2002.
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
31

Towards a methodology for on-farm conservation of plant genetic

resources

N. Maxted1,∗ , L. Guarino2 , L. Myer3 and E.A. Chiwona4

1 The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; 2 International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute, Regional Office for the Americas, c/o CIAT, A.A. 6713 , Cali, Colombia; 3 Department of Social Anthropo-
logy, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa; 4 Malawi Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Chitedze
Agricultural Research Station, P O Box 158, Lilongwe, Malawi; ∗ Author for correspondence (fax: 121-414-5463;
e-mail: n.maxted@bham.ac.uk)

Received 24 December 1999; accepted in revised form 21 November 2000

Key words: conservation, in situ, land races, methodology, on-farm, PGR

Abstract
The signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity at the “Earth Summit” in 1992, its ratification and its
subsequent entering into force have highlighted the need for an approach to biodiversity conservation that employs
both ex situ and in situ techniques in a complementary manner. Though much research has focused on ex situ
techniques, less progress has been made in developing methodologies for the conservation of genetic diversity
in situ. The definition of in situ conservation used in the Convention on Biological Diversity encompasses two
distinct processes: conservation of wild species in genetic reserves and of crops on-farm. Of these two, the latter,
where the genetic diversity of crop land races is conserved within traditional farming systems, has been the less
studied and remains less well understood. While there are still relatively few practical examples of on-farm genetic
resources conservation, most genetic diversity of immediate and potential use to plant breeders is found among
land races, and there is evidence that it is being rapidly eroded. This paper attempts to set on-farm conservation
within the context of plant genetic resource conservation as a whole, to introduces a possible generalised model for
the conservation of genetic diversity on-farm and to promote debate around the science of on-farm conservation.

Introduction ity that can arise from its exploitation in improved

The critical challenge facing the world’s conservation
scientists is threefold: to study and classify biological
diversity, to halt the rate of loss of ecosystems, species
and genetic diversity, and to feed the ever increas-
ing human population (Maxted et al. 1997a). This
is reflected in the objectives of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD):
The objectives of this convention ... are the con-
servation of biological diversity, the sustainable
use of its components and the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation
of genetic resources. . . Article 1 - CBD (UNCED
1992)
The conservation of plant diversity is of critical
importance, because of the direct benefits to human-
agricultural and horticultural crops, because of the po-
tential for development of new medicinal and other
products and because of the pivotal role played by
plants in the functioning of all natural ecosystems. It
is generally agreed that a dramatic loss of plant ge-
netic diversity is occurring, and this process seems
likely to become even more grave in the future (Raven
and McNeely 1998; Crucible II Group 2000). Ge-
netic erosion (loss of genetic diversity) is particularly
severe among land races of crop species (FAO 1998).
Plant breeders throughout the world are rightly en-
gaged in developing better and higher yielding cul-
tivars of crop plants. Their adoption results in at least
the partial replacement of the generally genetically
variable, lower yielding, locally adapted strains or
land races grown traditionally. Thus, uniformity is
replacing diversity. These same plant breeders are,
32
however, dependent upon the availability of a pool of
diverse genetic material for success in their work, and
thus are, at least partially, causing the genetic erosion
of plant diversity that they themselves will need in
the future. Hawkes et al. (2000) refer to this as the
conservation/development paradox.
Awareness of the increasing threats to biodiversity
and of the scientific problems associated with con-
servation and sustainable utilisation have highlighted
the need for more efficient and effective protocols and
methodologies. The need for increased efficiency of
conservation effort, particularly in the field of in situ
conservation, is also expressed in the Convention on
Biological Diversity, which calls on nations to:
Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the se-
lection, establishment and management of protec-
ted areas or areas where special measures need to
be taken to conserve biological diversity. Article 8
– CBD (UNCED 1992)
This requirement is particularly important with re-
gard to on-farm conservation, which aims to conserve
genetic diversity in crops. Although little practical
work has been undertaken in developing models for
the conservation of genetic diversity of wild species
in reserves, much experience of species- and habitat-
level conservation is available, and the underlying
techniques are likely to be analogous for conservation
at the genetic level. In contrast, there are no analogous
models or exemplar studies for on-farm conservation
of genetic diversity of traditional crops.
There is, therefore, an urgent requirement to clarify
and enhance the methodologies and science associ-
ated with on-farm conservation (Fowler et al. 1999).
For conservationists to be able to intervene effectively
and efficiently, it would clearly be helpful to have ba-
sic guidelines at their disposal for the development
of on-farm conservation activities, in the same way
as guidelines are available for various aspects of ex
situ conservation, e.g. germplasm collecting, storage
in cold rooms and regeneration protocols. The genesis
of this paper arose out of a request for such a pro-
tocol. During a plant genetic resource training course
given in South Africa in 1997, the trainees repeatedly
asked the question: how do you we actually do on-
farm conservation? Therefore this paper is meant as
a contribution to the process of providing a practical
framework which national plant genetic resource pro-
grammes and others can use as they develop plans
for effective on-farm conservation projects. In sug-
gesting a generalised protocol or methodology we are
not, however, attempting to be prescriptive or to imply
that any single methodology would be appropriate for
all situation. In fact we believe the application of a
single methodology would be inappropriate because of
the heterogeneity in crops, farming practices and eco-
nomic systems involved. We simply wish to provide
a framework for conservation managers to explore the
science of on-farm conservation, as well as promoting
further debate of the issues involved.
Plant genetic resources conservation
The raw materials of plant genetic resource conser-
vation are genes within gene pools, the total genetic
diversity of the particular plant taxon being conserved.
The product of gene pool conservation is utilised or
potentially utilisable genetic diversity. Conservation
is the process that actively retains and manages the
diversity of the gene pool with a view to actual or po-
tential utilisation. Maxted et al. (1997a) have proposed
a model which attempts to make explicit the fun-
damental elements of genetic resource conservation,
and the interrelations among them. This model dis-
tinguishes two primary complementary conservation
strategies, ex situ and in situ, each of which includes a
range of different techniques that can be implemen-
ted to achieve the aim of the strategy. The point is
stressed by Maxted et al. (1997a) that no one conserva-
tion technique alone can effectively conserve the gene
pool, greater biodiversity security results from the ap-
plication of a range of ex situ and in situ techniques
applied in a complementary manner. One technique
acting as a backup to the other techniques. Having
emphasised the need for a complementary approach
to conserving the gene pool this paper focuses on one
technique, on-farm conservation.
In situ conservation is defined by the Convention
on Biological Diversity as follows:
In situ conservation means the conservation of
ecosystems and natural habitats and the mainten-
ance and recovery of viable populations of species
in their natural surroundings and, in the case of
domesticates or cultivated species, in the surround-
ings where they have developed their distinctive
properties. Article 2 – CBD (UNCED 1992)
This definition thus includes two distinct con-
cepts (and techniques), which may be distinguished
as “genetic reserve conservation” and “on-farm con-
servation.” Both involve the maintenance of genetic

diversity in the locations where it is encountered (i.e.,
in situ), but the former primarily deal with wild species
in natural habitats/ecosystems and the latter domestic-
ated species in traditional farming systems. Maxted et
al. (1997b) provide the following working definitions
for the two activities:
Genetic Reserve Conservation: the location, man-
agement and monitoring of genetic diversity in
natural wild populations within defined areas des-
ignated for active, long-term conservation.
On-farm Conservation: the sustainable manage-
ment of genetic diversity of locally developed
crop varieties (land races), with associated wild
and weedy species or forms, by farmers within
traditional agricultural, horticultural or agri-
silvicultural systems.
On-farm conservation involves the maintenance of
traditional crop varieties (generally known as "land
races") or cropping systems by farmers within tradi-
tional agricultural systems (Altieri and Merrick 1987;
Oldfield and Alcorn 1987; Brush 1991). Each season
the farmers keep a proportion of harvested seed for
resowing in the following year. The farmer selects
from his or her current crop a sample to act as seed
for the following, in other words the farmer makes a
conscious decision about which sample to retain for
seed.
The factors that influence the choice of seed
sample will be various, but are likely to include:
yield, quality, disease and pest resistance. The farmer
may even have some form of crop ideotype (Machado
2000). The farmers’ selections of seed for planting in
the following year are likely to be directed toward and
favour characteristics that enhance the crop’s produc-
tion in the local environment where the farmer lives or
even for different field within the farm or production
for different markets (Jarvis et al. 2000). For example,
a wheat farmer in Turkey may have different land races
for hillsides or valley bottom, for home consumption
or for market sale (Brush and Meng 1998). Thus the
land race will have been selected by the farmer and/or
nature to be highly adapted to the local environment,
is likely to contain geographically specific, ecotypic-
ally adapted alleles or gene complexes, which may be
unique within the gene pool as a whole and this is why
they have such conservation and utilisation potential.
The farming system is, however, not closed, in the
sense that fresh genetic diversity is likely to enter the
system periodically as a result of partial ‘seed replace-
ment’, as described by Zeven (1999), but this material
33
is likely to be relatively similar to the land race as
it is likely to come from local farms. Therefore, the
immigration of alien genetic diversity is unlikely to
eradicate locally adapted diversity due to farmer and
local environmental selection pressures.
Although it is possible to provide a single work-
ing definition of on-farm conservation, the literature
highlights a distinction in focus between at least two
distinct, but associated, activities that are currently
both referred to as on-farm conservation. The dis-
tinction between the two is based on whether the
focus is the conservation of genetic diversity within
a particular farming system or the conservation of the
traditional farming system itself, irrespective of what
happens to the genetic diversity of land races material
within the farming system. An important distinction
that was debated at the recent European Cooperative
Programme for Genetic Resources Task Force meet-
ing on In situ and On-farm Conservation meeting
(Laliberté et al. 2000). These two variants of on-farm
conservation are obviously interrelated and may in
certain cases be seen as one, but in other instances
this may not be possible. For example, the introduc-
tion of a certain percentage of high-yielding varieties
(HYV’s) to a traditional farming system may sustain
the farming system at that location, but could lead to
gene replacement or displacement and therefore ge-
netic erosion of the original land race material. The
distinction between these two related activities has yet
to be clarified but here where the focus is the conserva-
tion of genetic diversity within a particular farming, it
will be referred to as on-farm conservation, and where
the focus is the conservation of the traditional farming
system itself as on-farm management.
Finally, before discussing the actual methodology,
it is important to stress the need for sustainability in
any on-farm project. There is no less a requirement
for sustainability in on-farm conservation than for any
other genetic conservation technique. To be assessed
effective in terms of genetic conservation, the on-farm
project once established must be sustainable into the
foreseeable future. There is little point in viewing
an on-farm project in terms of the standard 3–5 year
grant framework, unless the focus of the project was
research into the establishment processes rather than
actual genetic conservation. To establish an on-farm
project for a short, limited period would be waste-
ful of scarce genetic conservation funding. Therefore,
long-term sustainability must be considered in the
planning, establishment and on-going management of
any on-farm conservation project.
34
A methodology for in situ conservation on-farm
As discussed above, the CBD attempts to encourage
conservationists to develop more efficient and effect-
ive conservation protocol. Simple methodologies are
particularly useful for those conservationists working
in centres of diversity where genetic erosion is often
rife, conservation finances are severely limited and
appropriately trained personnel are relatively few. A
model for plant genetic resource conservation and spe-
cifically for conservation in a genetic reserve have
been proposed by Maxted et al. (1997a, b) respect-
ively. For a number of reasons, developing a similar
generalized methodology for on-farm conservation is
more problematic. Firstly, because there have been,
until recently, relatively few attempts to scientifically
study on-farm conservation (Brush et al. 1981; Old-
field and Alcorn 1987; Cromwell 1990; Bellon 1991;
Jarvis and Hodgkin 1998; Brush 1999; Jarvis et al.
2000). Secondly, because the farmers ultimately un-
dertake the conservation, not the scientists (Maxted
et al. 1997b). On-farm conservation is less directly
under the control of the conservationist. Farmers are
aware of the importance of land races and the need
for broadly-based agricultural biodiversity (Campilan
1998; Prain and Hagmann 2000), but their principal
goal is economic, agricultural security for them and
their family is paramount and not the more nebulous
conservation of genetic diversity. Thus the role of
the conservationist is indirect but pro-active, to help
promote and preserve the conditions in which the tra-
ditional farmer can maintain genetic diversity in land
races and related crop weeds, within the traditional
production systems employed. The conservationist is
unlikely to intercede directly in the actual act of con-
servation, for instance by advising the farmer on which
land races to sow or which seed to keep for seeding
the following year. Their role, compared to other ex
situ and in situ conservation techniques, is more pass-
ive, monitoring farming practices or genetic diversity
of the target taxa and interceding only if the farming
system is threatened or there are significant deleterious
changes in genetic diversity.
Having argued that the formulation of a general
methodology is more difficult for on-farm conserva-
tion, the literature is now sufficiently detailed (Old-
field and Alcorn 1987; Cromwell 1990; Bellon 1991;
Brush, 1991, 1995, 1999; Brush et al. 1981, 1992;
Quiros et al. 1992; Sperling and Loevinsohn 1992;
Sperling et al. 1992; Worede 1992, 1993, 1997;
Worede and Hailu 1993; Kashyap and Duhan 1994;
Lando and Mak 1994a, b and c; Pham et al. 1994;
Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga 1996a; Louett and Smale
1996; Bellon et al. 1997; Jarvis and Hodgkin 1998;
Jarvis et al. 2000; Almekinders and de Boef 2000)
to show that a number of activities are generally in-
volved. These are described and discussed in relation
to one another in the rest of this paper. A model for on-
farm conservation is proposed in Figure 1. This model
attempts to summarise the entire process of plant ge-
netic conservation, from selection of a target crop gene
pool through to its utilisation. As such, the specific
on-farm element sits within the general model for ge-
netic conservation proposed by Maxted et al. (1997a).
Therefore, before any interventions are made to pro-
mote the conservation of land races of a target crop in a
farming system (should they be needed), several steps
in the conservation process must have already been
undertaken. In particular, (1) the decision must have
been taken that the target taxon is of sufficient import-
ance to warrant active conservation and that the gene
pool is not currently adequately conserved (Maxted et
al. 1997c), (2) an ecogeographic survey has been un-
dertaken to define the most appropriate conservation
strategy (Maxted et al. 1995), and (3) specific con-
servation objectives formulated, involving both ex situ
and in situ components (Maxted et al. 1997a).
Once the specifically on-farm element of the ge-
netic conservation strategy is complete, conservation
products must also be made available for current and
future use (Maxted et al. 1997a). As the components
of the model not specifically associated with on-farm
conservation have been described elsewhere (Maxted
et al. 1997a, b, c), that discussion will not be repeated
here. It can be seen from the section of the model
that focuses on on-farm conservation that the proposed
process is divided into three phases: (1) project plan-
ning and establishment, (2) project management and
monitoring, and (3) on-farm utilisation of diversity.
The structure of the on-farm model broadly follows
that proposed for in situ conservation of wild spe-
cies in genetic reserves, though necessarily the way
each component is implemented will differ markedly.
The different components of the on-farm conservation
process are discussed in detail below.
Phase 1 - Project planning and establishment
The first step of any on-farm project will focus on
the selection of sites, communities and farmers where
the conservation activities could most effectively be
 35

Figure 1. Proposed model of on-farm plant genetic conservation.

implemented. The objective of an on-farm project is
to ensure that the maximum possible range of genetic
diversity of the target crop continues to be managed by
farmers within their farming systems in a given region.
This is a complex goal to achieve because it requires
information on the amount and structure of genetic
variation, breeding system, ecogeographic distribution
of the target taxon which will not usually be available
for any but the most studied of crops.
36
The process is further complicated because it is
not totally under the control of the conservationist.
Nor should it be, as it is the farmer that is actively
undertaking the conservation, and the farmer makes
his or her decisions in a complex socio-economic and
cultural environment. Although in-depth social sci-
ence research can begin to understand farmer needs
and how it impacts their management of genetic di-
versity, it is important to recognise that these may vary
considerably among farmers and communities. A hu-
man dimension is thus added to on-farm conservation
which is not generally a common component of ex
situ conservation. As we shall see, this requires that
the conservationist acquire or access novel skills and
expertise in such fields as ethnobotany, anthropology
and participatory methodologies.
Identification of project sites
The ecogeographic survey or study, which is the
necessary preliminary of any conservation activity,
should conclude with a clear, concise statement of
the proposed conservation objectives and priorities. It
should also identify regions where both collecting for
ex situ conservation and on-farm conservation activ-
ities could usefully be initiated. This will be due to
a combination of high levels of genetic diversity at
the site(s), interest the user community in the specific
genetic diversity found at or believed to be found at
the site, lack of previous conservation activities, and
imminent threat of genetic erosion.
The overall criterion in site selection will be to
maximise the conserved genetic diversity of the target
crop or crops, ensure suitable environmental condi-
tions and population levels for continued evolution and
that the dynamic of the farming system is maintained.
This will involve determining the minimum effective
population size and hence the minimum viable pop-
ulation size necessary for sustainable conservation at
that location. Too small a population size may not be
able to sustain its inherent genetic diversity. The min-
imum effective population size will vary from species
to species depending on the biology of the species, but
a minimum population size of N = 5000 has been tent-
ative suggested by Lawrence and Marshall (1997) for
wild species conservation in a genetic reserve. In the
context of on-farm conservation the size of the crop
population required to maintain genetic diversity at
a location will be complicated by the biology of the
crop, the dynamics of the farming system employed
and external economic factors. Therefore once the
minimum population size has been reached, it would
be more appropriate to focus on including a coherent
unit, a distinct farm, village, community structure or
seed exchange cooperative rather trying to incorporate
a specific population size, which will often be easily
met anyway in the crop monoculture context.
In contrast to ex situ conservation, in situ conser-
vation additionally aims to preserve the evolutionary
process which has led to the development of the ge-
netic diversity found at a particular site, and which
will presumably lead to the further modification of this
diversity in the future. Regions for on-farm conserva-
tion will therefore be chosen not just for the genetic
diversity currently found there and the threat it faces
(as germplasm collecting sites might be) but also be-
cause the evolutionary process is, for whatever reason,
particularly significant. Thus, areas which might be es-
pecially appropriate for on-farm conservation projects
will include those with high pest and disease diversity
and pressure, those where the wild and weedy re-
latives of the target crop are diverse and abundant,
and those where local communities have a tradition of
active experimentation with, and manipulation of, ge-
netic diversity. Regions should be purposely selected
to complement each other in terms of genetic diversity
and local human and ecogeographic conditions. Dif-
ferent cultural groups (ethnic, language) should also
be targeted, as they may have different approaches and
attitudes to the management of genetic diversity of the
crop.
The Atlas of Common Bean Production in Africa
(Wortmann et al. 1998) illustrates the kind of data
that could be used in developing priorities for on-farm
conservation. Among others, it contains maps of:
• production levels
• production environments
• cropping systems
• genetic diversity
• importance of pests and diseases
• importance of abiotic stresses
The data was derived from agricultural censuses,
specialized surveys and crop experts. For example,
for Malawi, the sources used were the National Rural
Development Programme of the Ministry of Agricul-
ture for 1988/89, Agrostat files from the Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO
1990–1993) and expert opinion. The maps are digit-
ized and could be manipulated using Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) software to identify a set
of regions which are be complementary to each other
in terms of production environments, have high and

complementary levels of genetic diversity and are sub-
ject to high levels of various biotic and abiotic stresses.
These would clearly make good candidates for re-
gions within which to seek specific sites for on-farm
conservation activities.
An essentially desk-based ecogeographic survey as
described above will highlight regions of high genetic
diversity, but is unlikely to single out specific loca-
tions for on-farm projects. To establish more precisely
where project activities could be located, selected
regions will need to be visited and potential sites as-
sessed directly for genetic diversity within the target
taxon or taxa, farming practices and local knowledge,
threat of genetic erosion, presence of interesting bi-
otic and/or abiotic conditions, presence of wild/weedy
relatives, etc. This is likely to involve some form of
rapid ethnobotanical investigation and survey of land
race morphological diversity. In the same way as ex
situ collections are duplicated, ideally more than one
site should be established for a given crop within each
agroecological zone or cultural area, otherwise there
would be no possibility of any seed replacement.
At a pragmatic level, the relative costs of estab-
lishing and monitoring the project will also affect
selection of alternative sites. If faced with a choice of
equally suitable sites and different costs, there would
be little justification for selecting a site other than the
least expensive. The costs of establishment and mon-
itoring will depend on such factors as the accessibility
of the site to the conservationist and potential external
users of the genetic diversity, the availability and local
costs of services, supplies and other items necessary
for the smooth running of the project.
Project sustainability
Sustainability is fundamental to any form of conser-
vation (Maxted et al. 1997a; Hawkes et al. 2000).
In situ conservation techniques are not an inexpens-
ive option compared to ex situ (Maxted et al. 1997a).
The on-farm project, once established, may require
some form of conservation intervention. Apart from
the necessity to monitor the target population levels
and sample the material for ex situ duplication, there
may be a need, for example, for some form of incent-
ives to encourage the farmer to continue cultivation of
the land races. This may necessitate the commitment
of substantial levels of resources over the long term to
ensure sustainable genetic conservation in the reserve.
In situ conservation is unlike ex situ conservation,
where, if the original collection is lost from one gene
37
bank the curator may either obtain a sample of the
duplicate collection placed in another gene bank or
possibly return to the original collection site and re-
collect from the original or a similar population. Both
of which options may be associated with relatively
minor costs. If the material is lost from an on-farm
project the large quantity of resources expended on
establishing the project would have been wasted and
the cost of rehabilitating populations using materials
stored ex situ would have to be considered. Therefore,
it is vital that the dynamics of the target crop within
the cultivation system are understood and from this
understanding of the relationship between the farmer,
the cultivation system and the land race sustainable
conservation will result.
It would appear most straightforward to establish
on-farm projects in regions that are less likely to be
affected by any form of human development project
(Ingram and Williams 1984). On-farm projects sited
near development projects, such as dams, industrial or
urban development projects are likely to be affected by
those projects and the associated influences of external
agencies. However, on-farm conservation need not be
in opposition to all development, on-farm conserva-
tion could be incorporated into sensitive agricultural
development programmes that aim to improve the pro-
duction of traditional farming systems (Atlin et al.
2000). The on-farm manager must therefore be aware
of local development projects and be in a position to
assess their impact on the putative on-farm project.
It may be difficult or even impossible to assess the
short term requirements for land use in a region, but
checks for development plans for potential sites should
be routinely undertaken. It is, however, impossible to
assess the long term human requirements and there-
fore development plans within a region. Legislation
could be used to ensure that once on-farm projects
are established, the site is secure from environment-
ally unfriendly development. However, experience has
shown that legislation can often be circumvented if
the political will is sufficiently strong and legislation
to protect individual sites is uncommon. A pragmatic
approach would involve the establishment of multiple
sites for any on-farm project, then the destruction of
any one site will obviously have less overall impact.
The point should be made that if the genetic diversity
contained in any traditional farming system is ex-
tremely rare or unique, then ex situ techniques must
be used in a complementary fashion. In fact ex situ ap-
proaches are absolutely essential if the population size
of the crop has become so low that survival in situ can-
38
not be guaranteed or when the traditional cultivation
systems are so seriously threatened that survival of the
crop in that location is doubtful. Even if this were not
the case it would always be advisable to provide ex situ
backup for as many target taxa as possible.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly if the project
is to be sustainable, the local people among whom it
will be working must be fully supportive of it. This
means that they must be involved from the very begin-
ning. If farmers are relegated to a kind of support role
where they are working ‘for’ the scientists, and not re-
cognized as the joint designers of, and full partners in,
the project, then the project is unlikely to be a success,
or indeed to get off the ground in the first place. Con-
sultations should also be held at an early stage during
the planning phase of the project with the relevant re-
gional and national authorities, thus ensuring that any
necessary permits, clearances and agreements are in
place in good time.
Identification of project partners
Having identified that a specific village or district
would make an effective site for an on-farm conserva-
tion activity or project, it will be necessary to identify
particular key people and institutions with whom col-
laboration will be possible on a long-term basis. The
main project partners in the community will obviously
be farmers, but may also include, among others, the
local agricultural extension office, non-governmental
organisations (NGO) and community leaders of dif-
ferent kinds, depending on local conditions.
It may be possible for the project to interact with
all the farmers in a small community, but in most cases
there will be a need to select which farmers to include
as collaborators in the project. Rural communities are
not homogeneous, and the selection of partner farmers
will depend on a number of factors, the relative im-
portance of which will vary from place to place. Some
of these factors will include:
1. Genetic diversity. Farmers currently maintaining
high levels of land race diversity, and with good
knowledge of this diversity, are clearly more likely
to make appropriate partners.
2. Age. The importance of the knowledge people
have of diversity and its management suggests that
older people could be specifically targeted by on-
farm conservation activities. However, there is the
question of sustainability, and it would certainly
be advantageous if younger farmers were involved
in the project as well. In fact, an element of the
project could be awareness-building of the import-
ance of land races among younger farmers, e.g. if
the lack of transmission of knowledge is identified
as a constraint to continued land race use.
3. Gender. Management and knowledge of land races
of a particular crop may be in the hands of men
only, women only, or both. This gender disaggreg-
ation may well differ among crops, and even for
different land races within a given crop. In ad-
dition, control of access to the diversity may not
necessarily rest with the same group as knowledge
of that diversity.
4. Wealth. There are two possibilities here. It could
be that wealthier farmers grow more land races,
because they can afford to do so almost as a hobby,
for sentimental or non-economically derived reas-
ons. On the other hand, it could be that the poorest
farmers will be the ones growing most land races,
because they cannot afford inputs and are prob-
ably on the most marginal land anyway, where
land races tend to have an advantage. In any case,
wealth will be a factor to consider in identifying
project partners within the community. Even if dif-
ferent wealth groups grow equal numbers of land
races, they may grow different ones, as part of
necessarily quite different subsistence strategies.
5. Social status. This is connected with wealth, but
will need to be considered separately as well. It
could be that the local authority figure in the area
will be the key project partner in some situations,
in particular if he (or she) traditionally exercises
control over different aspects of agriculture, such
as the testing of new varieties, crop husbandry
variables such as the timing of harvest, etc. On the
other hand, it would be a mistake to discount the
disadvantaged, in particular as, confined to mar-
ginal lands, they may be the ones with the greatest
need for land races.
6. Ethnicity. Different ethnic groups living side by
side may grow different complements of land
races and employ different traditional management
approaches.
The process of selecting collaborators need not be
divisive and disruptive within the community. For ex-
ample, arrangements could be made for any benefits
arising from the project to be shared more widely in
the community than just among participating farm-
ers. Farmers in the study area may be organized
into, or be collaborating with, some form of group-
ing, for example farmer cooperatives, development
committees, women’s clubs, church groups, chapters

of the national farmers’ association or a local Non-
Governmental Organisation (NGO). It may well be
useful for partner selection (and benefit sharing) to
be focused in a participatory manner through such
groups, which can act as so-called ‘gatekeepers’to the
community. Local extension agents, school teachers
and religious leaders could also play a similar role.
The local civil authorities will need to be involved in
the project from an early stage. These will include not
only the relevant local government structures, but also
traditional institutions such as elders’ councils and the
like, depending on the situation.
A specific example from Malawi may be instruct-
ive (Chiwona 2000). Extension planning areas in
Malawi comprise numerous local farmers’ clubs and
are the foci of active agricultural development inter-
ventions. These could be used as the administrative
structures for on-farm projects. The advantages of
such an approach would be that they are:
1. already mapped and well studied,
2. already have an extension worker/farmer interac-
tion structure in place, which could be used to
coordinate on-farm conservation activities,
3. relatively small units and so fairly manageable,
4. already used for the collection of germplasm for
ex situ conservation, and farmers are therefore
already aware of formal-sector conservation activ-
ities.
All this presupposes a preliminary socio-economic
survey of the potential partner community or com-
munities, to complement the sort of preliminary ge-
netic diversity surveys mentioned in the previous sec-
tion. Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal meth-
odologies will be important tools in carrying out this
work (e.g., Guarino and Friis-Hansen 1995). In some
societies, it may be difficult for an outsider to meet
the “best” potential collaborators. The problem can be
approached by careful selection of the survey team, for
example as regards to gender balance. Where women
are known to play key roles with respect to the target
species, a team member experienced in working with
women farmers is essential. The help could be sought
of female members of home economics or community
development departments. Various tools are available
to attempt to overcome the barriers which male re-
searchers in particular might face in reaching women
and engaging their active collaboration (Feldstein and
Jiggins 1993).
The ultimate rationale for genetic conservation is
utilisation. In the case of on-farm conservation, the
conservationists (i.e. the farmers) are also the main
39
users. However, users outside the community where
the project is being implemented should also be con-
sidered when designing the management plan for the
project. Plant breeders will be important long-term
beneficiaries of the genetic diversity managed by the
project partners, but there may also be scope for other
types of scientific utilisation and even eco-tourism.
The requirements and possible contribution of each
group of potential users should be surveyed before the
project is established and considered when developing
the management plan (see below).
Formulation of project activities
The early stages of the model deal with the process of
selecting on-farm conservation sites and partners. The
next stage is to design interventions to be implemen-
ted by the project partners that will ensure sustainable
conservation of the target crop within the agricultural
system at that site. This will require research at the
farmer, community and macro levels.
The initial focus of this research will probably be
to support the formulation of an on-farm management
plan by investigating in more detail why land races are
being grown at the project site in the first place, and
whether these reasons are likely to persist. To what
extent farmers adopt modern varieties to replace their
multiplicity of land races ultimately depends on the
extent to which the varieties offered by scientific plant
breeding and the formal seed industry better satisfy
their household livelihood strategy. This in turn will be
shaped not just by what may be termed ‘culture’ (be-
lief, art, moral law, custom and religion), but also by
such socio-economic factors as: access to land, labour
and capital; governmental macro-economic initiatives;
and the influence of extension workers. For millions of
resource-poor farmers in marginal areas still land races
serve them best, though there may be considerable
turnover of material within a community.
Relevant research questions at the farmer level can
be divided generally into those concerned with un-
derstanding the processes of farmer decision-making,
and understanding how farmers’ perceptions and de-
cisions affect genetic diversity. These topics have been
receiving enough attention for a generalized research
agenda to be developed. Past anthropological research
concerned with how farmers recognise and classify
infra-specific diversity (e.g., Boster 1984) provides the
first step in correlating farmer conceptions of genetic
diversity with those of science. In addition, there is
ongoing research attempting to link the largely qual-
40
itative data which social research produces with the
quantitative results of molecular marker and other
genetic diversity studies in an attempt to begin to
describe how genetic diversity within a species is
affected over time by farmer selection. In contrast,
the nature of farmer decision-making with regards to
crop diversity has been less studied. However, Bel-
lon (1996) investigated the rationale farmers use in
deciding to retain or discard crop varieties and from
this generated a valuable hypothesis based on the role
infra-specific diversity plays in the household’s well-
being. If verified during preliminary on-farm research,
this model could provide the designers of a con-
servation programme with a basis for understanding
farmers’ views of agricultural change.
While having less direct implications for con-
serving genetic diversity, understanding community
interaction is important in developing an understand-
ing of the changing contexts which effect farmers’
decisions. The role of local agricultural income, and
more specifically of the target taxa, in household and
community economics as a whole is an important
starting point for evaluating the place of agricultural
diversity in local markets as well as in considering
potential incentive packages. For example, in show-
ing that the extensive exchange of genetic diversity
between communities can often make a geographic-
ally ‘closed’ model unrealistic, Louette and Smale
(1996) demonstrate that to be successful, some on-
farm conservation may have to cover a wider range
of populations and localities than was originally anti-
cipated. By revealing complexities which would have
been invisible within a single community or even at the
farmer level, this work illustrates the value of broader
levels of analysis.
The relationship between these levels of analysis
enables us to understand the ways in which national
and international activities and policies affect the
grassroots. It is a form of research which has until
now received little attention within the plant genetic
resource community despite the importance of policy
issues (Jarvis et al. 2000). Of the three potential levels
of analysis, macro-economic is certainly the most re-
moved from genetic diversity as it exists in farmers’
fields. But examples from agricultural development
literature clearly reveal the usefulness of this type of
research in understanding how changing economic,
agricultural and political policies impact local agro-
ecosystems (DeWalt and DeWalt 1992). There is con-
siderable potential in on-farm conservation projects
for understanding the effects of policy on diversity
within countries and even across the range of a target
taxon.
The conservationist will want to identify any pos-
sible factors that may lead to the abandonment of
land races, i.e. constraints to the continued use of
land races. Forces which have the potential to cause
crop genetic erosion are numerous, and they include
the introduction of incentives for modern cultivars or
exotic crops, the promotion of changes in agricultural
practices by the extension service, migration of young
people to urban centres, the improvement of infra-
structure such as roads, the proximity of development
projects, civil strife and the associated arrival of food
aid. On the other hand, some forces may tend to work
to protect the use of land races in an area, for example:
fragmentation of farm holdings, allowing farmers to
maintain land races in at least one field; increasing
cultivation of marginal land, where land races tend to
have an advantage over modern varieties and intens-
ive agriculture; economic isolation, creating market
distortions which give land races a competitive advant-
age; and cultural values and preferences for diversity
(Brush 1995).
If the reasons that farmers continue cultivation of
land races of the target crop are considered suffi-
ciently robust, there may be no need for intervention
by conservationists beyond baseline description and
monitoring. If this is not the case, however, then the
maintenance of land race genetic diversity may in-
volve some form of management intervention aimed
at counteracting the specific, actual or potential agents
of genetic erosion identified at the site. A far from ex-
haustive list of such (not mutually exclusive) activities
could include:
• raising awareness among various stakeholders
(e.g. decision makers, the extension service, devel-
opment agencies operating locally, and the young
of the community) of the benefits of growing loc-
ally adapted land races (McNeely 1988; Qualset et
al. 1997),
• facilitating interested farmers’ access to planting
material of land races (e.g through community
gene banks, farmer exchange networks, train-
ing in better storage techniques, seed fairs, re-
introduction of material from national and inter-
national gene banks),
• improving those characters and qualities of land
races seen by farmers and consumers as inadequate
(e.g. by participatory breeding, see Ceccarelli et al.
1996; Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga 1996; Sthapit et al.
1996; Witcombe et al. 1996),

• increasing access to markets, or creating new
preferential markets for land races (e.g. by train-
ing farmers in processing, marketing, and quality
control),
• promoting agro-ecotourism,
• halting or ameliorating the unhelpful effects on
land race diversity of subsidies (perverse incent-
ives – McNeely 1988) for competing HYV’s,
• access to local land races that have been lost from
the region and establishment of farmer’s networks
to promote seed exchange,
• introducing indirect (e.g. enhance local services,
build better roads) or direct (e.g. monetary re-
wards) subsidies for the cultivation of local land
races.
Zeven (1996) has argued that farmers will only
continue to grow landraces when they are payed to
do so, which is one reason for his rejection of on-
farm conservation as a technique to conserve genetic
diversity for perpetuity. If we accept that the con-
servation of land races in on-farm projects must be
long-term to be viable in terms of genetic conserva-
tion, then it does appear logical that the continued
payment of financial incentives to farmers over exten-
ded periods is untenable. Many countries have suffi-
cient problems finding sustainable long-term funding
for their national gene bank, let alone paying farmers
in multiple on-farm conservation projects. Therefore,
the direct payment of farmers to grow land races can
only be a short-term resort, while other incentives are
investigated and implemented by the project partners.
In this sense the conservationist’s role is clearly
not exclusively passive, he or she may intervene to
promote the well-being of the community involved in
the on-farm project, as well as maintaining the desired
genetic diversity and farming system. Although where
this involves the genetic diversity within the farming
system, such as in the participatory plant breeding of
local landraces (Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga 1996b; Wit-
combe et al. 1996), care must be taken to ensure the
security of the locally adapted genetic diversity and
the fundamental nature of the farming system.
A list of possible options for interventions, if
required, at the particular project site should be de-
veloped and discussed together with all project part-
ners, focusing on their relative appropriateness, likely
effectiveness and practical feasability.
It is recommended that the time is taken to for-
mulate an on-farm management plan as it will assist
with the efficient project implementation and man-
agement, but could also be used for fund-raising and
41
public awareness purposes. The actual content or style
of an on-farm management plan will vary depending
on the location, target-crop(s), local community, or-
ganisation, staff, that are involved, but items likely to
be included will be:
1. a statement of the rationale for the on-farm project
in the context of an overall conservation strategy
for the target gene pool,
2. the results of the ecogeographic survey and explor-
atory ethnobotanical/diversity survey, including a
list of specific potential sites for implementation
of the project,
3. specific target crop (e.g. taxonomy, phenology,
habitat preference, breeding system, minimum
population size),
4. morphometric and genetic description of the land
races present at the site (e.g. mapping of land
race distribution and density within the site, de-
tails of farmers management practice, relationship
with other crops in the cultivation system, genetic
diversity),
5. the results of the preliminary socio-economic sur-
vey of the potential sites, including a list of pos-
sible project partners both in the proposed project
sites and beyond,
6. a preliminary assessment of the reasons why man-
agement of land races is currently taking place at
the proposed project site(s) and discussion of the
any potential threats to the status quo,
7. conservation management prescription, a set of
proposed interventions aimed at overcoming the
potential causes of genetic erosion identified above
that can be implemented if required,
8. training and research agendas,
9. a strategy for monitoring (relative to a known
baseline) both the potential cause of genetic
erosion and the effects of the proposed interven-
tions on genetic diversity,
10. a strategy for use of conserved genetic diversity by
different groups,
11. budget, manpower, local, national and interna-
tional conservation agency involvement, and local
and national political involvement.
Phase 2 B On-farm project management and
monitoring
Implementation of project activities
Probably the first step in implementation will be to
set up a small project management team. This will
42
probably be multi-disciplinary, reflecting the import-
ance of different biological as well as social science
disciplines. One of its earliest tasks will be to organize
a thorough baseline study of the crop at the project
site. This should document in much more detail than
was possible in the preliminary surveys the levels and
patterns of genetic diversity in the target crop(s) at
the project sites. It should also document the prac-
tices currently employed by project farmers (both men
and women) in managing genetic diversity through the
agricultural cycle, aspects of the socio-economic and
policy setting, and features of the physical and biotic
environment. A participatory approach will be vital
not only in carrying out the baseline study, but also
in deciding on its structure and contents in the first
place. The different proposed interventions could then
be initiated, perhaps (depending on their nature) only
at a subset of target sites, in order to provide “controls”
against which to gauge their effectiveness.
Training could also be an important early project
activity. Enough professionals with appropriate quali-
fications and experience may not be available to work
on project activities and at least short courses or work-
shops may need to be organized in key topics at an
early stage (Jarvis and Hodgkin 1998). Both biolo-
gical and social science expertise will be necessary,
and specialists in one of these fields rarely have much
experience in the other. Thus, for example, training of
the biological scientists involved in the project in par-
ticipatory methodologies and of the social scientists
in germplasm characterization may well prove useful.
People in the local community could be recruited by
the project to carry out different support activities, for
example record-keeping during monitoring, and may
need training early on.
All project activities should be implemented in true
partnerships with the participating local communit-
ies, who should have the final say in all decisions
and be closely involved in the planning and man-
agement of the project, resulting in a strong sense
of project ownership. It is likely to be necessary to
develop a formal written agreement between the parti-
cipating communities and other partners to govern the
implementation, management and review of project
activities.
The initial implementation of the management plan
will be experimental at first and will, at least ini-
tially, require regular review. Thus, the initiation of
the management plan will require careful introduction
combined with evaluation, revision and refinement in
the light of its practical application. Therefore, the ini-
tial level of management will be relatively high, with
intensive and extensive monitoring procedures and the
plan will need to flexibly applied.
Monitoring
The judgement as to whether an intervention should be
continued or changed will be made on the basis of the
results of regular monitoring of the levels and structure
of genetic diversity of the target crops at the project
sites. This monitoring will be done relative to the
baseline survey and, as already mentioned, perhaps us-
ing some of the target sites as controls. On-farm con-
servation is a dynamic process and qualitative changes
of genetic diversity are to be expected. What the con-
servationist will particularly be on the lookout for are
significant quantitative declines in genetic diversity.
The details of the monitoring process will vary de-
pending on target crop, local situations and resource
availability. It is however likely to involve regular,
standardized sampling of the crop in order to compare
specific characteristics, as well as consultations with
the farmers involved in the project. The samples taken
could range from seeds to be sown for morphological
characterization of the resulting plants to leaf mater-
ial for DNA extraction and molecular marker analysis.
This is not the place to go into details – Maxted et al.
(1997d) discuss the process in a fuller manner for wild
species in genetic reserves – but the following interre-
lated questions need to be considered in developing a
monitoring regime for crop genetic diversity:
1. Where will samples be taken? In particular, in
which fields, in which villages, in which agroe-
cological zones? And how many samples will be
taken in each of these strata? This will determine
the magnitude of differences and changes that the
monitoring regime will be able to pick up.
2. How will samples be taken? When sampling ma-
terial from a field, systematic, random and strati-
fied random strategies could be followed.
3. When during the crop cycle will samples be taken?
For example, seeds could be sampled at sowing, at
harvest, after selection or a combination of these.
4. How frequently will samples be taken? Every year,
every other year?
5. What characters will be assessed? These could
be conventional characterization and evaluation
of genotypic characters (morphology, phenology,
quality, etc.), farmer-recognized characters and/or
protein or DNA markers. Among morphological
characters, they could include features which are

actively selected for by farmers and others which
are not.
6. How will the data be analysed? What it is pos-
sible to do by way of statistical analysis of the
data will depend on all of the above. A null hypo-
theses should be explicitly set out at the beginning
of the process, and the monitoring regime which
would enable data to be analysed to address these
hypotheses. The hypothesis could be formulated
in terms of the original genetic composition of the
land races present. The management regime would
attempt to maintain levels of genetic diversity and
the population monitoring would assess whether
the management regime were effective.
Ideally when monitoring genetic diversity mo-
lecular techniques would be applied, but for those
on-farm projects that do not have access to mo-
lecular laboratories there is, for example, the op-
tion of undertaking infra-specific taxonomic identific-
ation and/or field characterisation using standard agro-
morphological descriptors or even the nomenclatural
analysis (farmer-recognized entities) using compar-
ison and counts of the named land races grown to
monitor changes in the diversity contained within the
on-farm project.
It should be remembered that on-farm conservation
is a dynamic process and so the conservationist should
expect to find morphometric or molecular changes
occurring, but the conservationist should be able to
distinguish ‘normal’ evolutionary changes from ge-
netic erosion. The management plan should ideally
contain a clear picture of the amount of genetic vari-
ation within the target populations and population size
that are acceptable within the project. The monit-
oring process should act as a feedback mechanism
indicating when these levels have been reached and
triggering changes in the management regime to en-
sure the secure conservation of the target taxa. So the
conservationist is looking for any large quantitative
decrease in genetic diversity rather than changes in
genetic diversity per se. It will be important to monitor
at similar stages in the target crops life cycle on each
occasion to be able to record comparable results.
As well as monitoring genetic diversity of the
land races themselves there is also a need to mon-
itor the farmer practices employed. For example, what
seed selection strategy, area sown, cultivation practice,
disease and pest control regime or strategy for the in-
troduction of alien germplasm has the farmer used in
the past and what is now being employed. Are any
changes likely to have an adverse effect on the genetic
43
diversity maintained by the on-farm project? There
will also be a need to monitor broader aspects of the
socio-economic and policy setting that though remote
from the project site could impact on the project. The
questions posed above in the context of sampling for
genetic diversity assessment will be equally valid for
such ethnobotanical, socio-economic and ecological
monitoring.
Review of project activities
Having collected the data for a particular monitoring
occasion, the conservationist will want to compare the
data with previous sampling occasions. Statistical ana-
lysis of the data sets will indicate whether there has
been significant change in genetic diversity, and over
the longer term whether a trend is becoming apparent.
However, as stated above, care must be taken to dis-
tinguish between natural dynamic changes and those
which may require corrective management interven-
tion. If necessary, the management plan may need to
be revised and action taken to avert genetic erosion of
the target crop.
Phase 3 B Diversity utilisation
Traditional, general and professional utilisation
The establishment of on-farm conservation activities is
not an end in itself. There is an explicit link between
genetic conservation and utilisation: conservation of
genetic resources must facilitate their use, either im-
mediately or in the future (Maxted et al. 1997a).
Utilisation of genetic material conserved on-farm may
for convenience be classified as traditional, general
and professional.
The direct users of the germplasm conserved on-
farm will be the farmers who have traditionally de-
veloped, managed, and exchanged land races, and
continue to do so. Conservation of genetic resources is
not the primary focus of farmers’ activities: what they
are interested in is the livelihood of their households.
They grow land races because in many situations they
still provide the best means of fulfilling their liveli-
hood strategy – whether to complement the products
of modern plant breeding or not. In proposing and im-
plementing an on-farm project, professional conserva-
tionists must be sensitive to the needs of the local com-
munities and flexible in the application of the man-
agement plan. The goal should be conservation that
contributes to the quality of life of the local people.
44
The general population, whether locally, nationally
or internationally, can provide significant support to
the project, aiding its long-term political and financial
viability. The value of conservation – for utilitarian
and scientific as well as ethical and aesthetic reasons
– is increasingly accepted by the general public. This
is an important point for professional conservation-
ists to note as it is the general public who ultimately
finance the bulk of conservation activities. However,
there is considerable scope for further increasing pub-
lic interest. The on-farm project is a potentially very
useful tool for raising public awareness of the need
for both conservation in general, and conservation
of the genetic resources of the target crop in par-
ticular. To this end, it may be possible to arrange
for school groups, university students, farmers from
other regions, tourists, etc. to visit project sites as
an educational exercise. The sensitive management of
cultural and eco-tourism could well result in the local
community (and the project itself) reaping significant
financial and other benefits without undue disruption.
If such visits are envisaged, the on-farm management
plan should take into account the needs of visitors, by
way of visitor centres, guided trails, demonstrations,
lectures and information packs in different media.
One of the disadvantages of in situ as opposed to
ex situ conservation that is often mentioned is that
it is more difficult for the plant breeder and other
professional users to gain access to the germplasm
(Hawkes 1991). The onus is on on-farm project man-
agers, just as it is on gene bank managers, to promote
use of conserved material. For example, regular vis-
its to the project site could be arranged for breeders
and other potentially interested users. Indeed, breed-
ers are likely to be key partners in the project from
the start, contributing to the choice of conservation
sites by highlighting areas where the adaptations and
characteristics they are seeking in their improvement
programmes are present and continuing to evolve.
Documentation is as crucial to the use of ger-
mplasm conserved in situ as ex situ (see Ford-Lloyd
and Maxted 1997), and passport, characterization and
evaluation data, as well as indigenous knowledge, will
need to be made available by the on-farm project. The
project should also ensure that particularly interesting
germplasm is conserved in ex situ facilities, where it
will be more easily available to outside users (see be-
low). The community making the germplasm available
for use by outsiders should be made fully aware of the
use to which the material will be put, and their “prior
informed consent” obtained. Provision should also be
agreed for the sharing of benefits arising from outside
use of the material. These are key requirements of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
A well-established on-farm conservation project
should act as a focus for ancillary field research. Bio-
logical and social science research activities should
be encouraged at the project sites, as they represent
an important form of use for the material which can
feedback to more effective interventions.
Linkage to ex situ conservation and duplication
Something has already been said in the section on site
selection about the need for some measure of duplic-
ation of on-farm conservation activities across sites,
insofar as resources allow. To provide further back-
up to on-farm conservation of diversity, germplasm
should also be deposited in appropriate long-term ex
situ collections. Repeated sampling over time would
be ideal, but given that these gene banks may have re-
source limitations of their own, for example as regards
seed testing materials, storage space and facilities for
regeneration, it will probably be necessary to be some-
what selective in the material that is sampled for ex
situ storage. Both ex situ and in situ conservation have
disadvantages as well as strengths (see Maxted, et al.
1997a), and the point is re-emphasised here that the
two strategies are not alternatives or in opposition to
one another, but complementary. The storage of mater-
ial from on-farm sites in an ex situ facility will mean
that it will be more easily available to other users. It
also means that it would be possible to re-introduce it
to the community which originally developed it and
donated it, should it be lost on-farm for whatever
reason.
Conclusion
The authors have attempted to provide a generalised
methodological framework which can be applied by
researchers to establish and implement an on-farm
conservation project as part of an overall conserva-
tion strategy for a crop gene pool. However, it is
stressed that the methodology outlined is not meant
to be prescriptive or to imply that any single meth-
odology would be appropriate for all situations, we
simply wish to provide a framework for conservation
managers to explore the science of on-farm conserva-
tion, as well as promoting further debate of the issues
involved. The structure of this framework is similar
to that previously presented for in situ conservation of

the genetic diversity of wild plants in so-called ‘ge-
netic reserves’, though there are differences in how
the activities would be implemented in the two cases.
In particular, the centrality of the human dimension
in on-farm conservation has been highlighted, and
what this means to the mode of operation of the pro-
ject and the expertise necessary on the part of the
researchers involved. The key point to reiterate in
conclusion is that whenever possible an on-farm con-
servation needs to build on and strengthen the existing
genetic diversity management practices of subsistence
farmers. This can only successfully be done if the
kind of framework suggested here is applied in true
partnership with local communities.
Acknowledgements
The first draft of this paper was discussed during a
UK government Darwin Initiative course on In Situ
Genetic Conservation given in South Africa (Febru-
ary 1997) and we wish to thank all the participants for
their contribution to development of the ideas presen-
ted here. We also wish to thank Dr. D. Jarvis for her
helpful comments on the manuscript.
References
Almekinders C. and de Boef W., 2000, Encouraging Diversity: The
Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources, In-
termediate Technology Development Group, London, pp. 1–362.
Altieri M.A. and Merrick L.C., 1987. In situ conservation of crop
genetic resources through maintenance of traditional farming
systems. Econ. Bot. 41: 86–96.
Atlin G., Berg T. and Almekinders C., 2000. Synthesis: towards in-
tegrated plant breeding. In: Almekinders, C. & W. de Boef (eds),
Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation And Development of
Plant Genetic Resources, Intermediate Technology Development
Group, London. pp. 213–217.
Bellon M.R., 1991. The ethnoecology of maize variety manage-
ment: A case study from Mexico. Human Ecology 19, 389–418.
Bellon M.R., 1996. The dynamics of crop infraspecific diversity:
A conceptual framework at the farmer level. Econ. Bot. 50 (1):
29–36.
Bellon M.R., J.L. Pham & M.T. Jackson, 1997. Genetic conser-
vation: a role for farmers. In: Maxted, N., B.V. Ford-Lloyd
& J.G. Hawkes (eds), Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ
Approach, Chapman & Hall, London. pp. 263–289.
Boster J.S., 1984. Selection for perceptual distinctiveness: Evidence
from Aguaruna cultivars of Manihot esculenta (Euphorbiaceae).
Econ. Bot. 39 (3): 310–325.
Brush S.B., 1991. A farmer based-approach to conserving crop
germplasm. Econ. Bot. 45, 153–165.
Brush S.B., 1995. In situ conservation of land races in centers of
crop diversity. Crop Sci. 35, 346–354.
Brush S.B., 1999. Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation of
Crop Diversity. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
45
Brush S.B., Carney H.J. and Huaman Z., 1981. Dynamics of Andean
potato agriculture. Econ. Bot. 35, 70–88.
Brush S.B., Kressell R., Ortega R., Gisneros P., Zimmerer K. and
Quiros C., 1995. Potato diversity in the Andean centre of crop
domestication. Conserv. Biol. 9, 1189–1198.
Brush S.B. and Meng E. 1998. Farmers’ valuation and conservation
of crop genetic resources. Genet. Resourc. Crop Evol. 45: 139–
150.
Campilan D., 1998. Dynamics of household food security in rural
Philippines. Paper presented at the FAO Technical Consultation
on Rural Household Food Security, Bangkok, Thailand, 15–19th
September 1998.
Ceccarelli S., Guando S. and Booth R.H. 1996. International breed-
ing programmes and resource-poor farmers: crop improvement
in difficult environments. In: Eyzaguirre, P. & M. Iwanaga (eds),
Participatory Plant Breeding, IPGRI, Rome, Italy. pp. 99–116.
Chiwona E.A. 2000. On-farm conservation study of associated
farmers’ varieties in Malawi. Department of Agricultural Re-
search and Technical Services, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Cromwell E. 1990. Seed diffusion mechanisms in small farmer
communities: Lessons from Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Network Paper 21, Agricultural Administration (Research and
Extension) Network, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Crucible II Group, 2000. Policy for genetic resources (people, plants
and patents revisited). Seeding solutions. Volume 1. International
Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome and Dag Hammarskjöld
Foundation, Uppsala.
DeWalt K.M. and DeWalt B.R., 1992. Agrarian reform and the food
crisis in Mexico: Microlevel and macrolevel processes. In: Pog-
gie, J.J., B.R. DeWalt & W.W. Dressler (eds), Anthropological
Research: Process and Application, State University of New
York Press, Albany, NY, USA. pp. 159–184.
Eyzaguirre P. and Iwanaga M., 1996a. Farmers’ contribution to
maintaining genetic diversity in crops, and its role within total
genetic resource systems. In: Eyzaguirre, P. & M. Iwanaga (eds),
Participatory Plant Breeding, IPGRI, Rome, Italy. pp. 9–18.
Eyzaguirre, P. and M. Iwanaga, 1996b. Participatory Plant Breeding.
IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Feldstein, H. and J. Jiggins, 1993. Tools for the Field. Kumarian
Press, West Hartford.
FAO, 1998. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome.
Ford-Lloyd, B.V. and N. Maxted, 1997. Genetic conservation in-
formation management. In: Maxted, N., B.V. Ford-Lloyd &
J.G. Hawkes (eds), Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ
Approach, Chapman & Hall, London. pp. 176–191.
Fowler, C., G.C. Hawtin and T. Hodgkin, 1999. Forward. In: Brush,
S.B. (ed.), Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation of Crop
Diversity. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Guarino L. and Friis-Hansen E. 1995. Collecting plant genetic re-
sources and documenting associated indigenous knowledge in
the field: a participatory approach. In: Guarino, L., V. Ramanatha
Rao & R. Reid (eds), Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity: Tech-
nical Guidelines, CAB International, Wallingford. pp. 345–365.
Hawkes J.G. 1991. International workshop on dynamic in situ
conservation of wild relatives of major cultivated plants: sum-
mary of final discussion and recommendations. Israel J. Bot. 40:
529–536.
Hawkes J.G., Maxted N. and Ford-Lloyd B.V., 2000. The Ex Situ
Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Ingram, G.B. and J.T. Williams, 1984. In situ conservation of wild
relatives of crops. In: Holden J.H.W. & J.T. Williams (eds), Crop
Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, George Allen
& Unwin, London. pp. 163–179.
 46
Jarvis D. and Hodgkin T. 1998. Strengthening the scientific basis of
in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm. Options
for data collection and analysis. Proceedings of a workshop to
develop tools and procedures for in situ conservation on-farm,
25–29 August 1997. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Jarvis D., Sthapit B. and Sears L., 2000. Conserving agricultural
biodiversity in situ: a scientific basis for sustainable agriculture.
Proceedings of a workshop, 5–12 July 1999 Pokhara, Nepal.
IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Kashyap R.K. and Duhan J.C., 1994. Health status of farmers’ saved
wheat seed in Harayana, India – A case study. Seed Sci. Technol.
22: 619–628.
Laliberté B., Maggioni L., Maxted N. and Negri V., 2000. Report
of a joint meeting of a Task Force on Wild Species Conservation
in Genetic Reserves and a Task Force on On-farm Conservation
and Management. 18–20 May 2000, Isola Polvese, Italy. IPGRI,
Rome.
Lando R.P. and Mak S., 1994a. Rainfed lowland rice in Cambodia:
A baseline study. IRRI Research Paper Series, 152.
Lando R.P. and Mak S., 1994b. Deepwater rice in Cambodia: A
baseline survey. IRRI Research Paper Series, 153.
Lando R.P. and Mak S. 1994c. Cambodian farmers decision making
in the choice of traditional rainfed lowland rice varieties. IRRI
Research Paper Series, 154.
Lawrence M.J. and Marshall D.F., 1997. Plant population genetics.
In: Maxted, N., B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes (eds), Plant
Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach, Chapman & Hall,
London, pp. 99–110.
Louette D. and Smale M., 1996. Genetic diversity and maize seed
management in a traditional Mexican community: Implications
for in situ conservation of maize. NRC Paper 96–03. CIMMYT,
Mexico.
Machado A.T. 2000, The collaborative development of stress-
tolerant maize varieties in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In: Alme-
kinders, C. & W. de Boef (eds), Encouraging diversity: The
Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources,
Intermediate Technology Development Group, London, pp. 199–
202.
Maxted N., van Slageren M.W. and Rihan J., 1995. Ecogeographic
surveys. In: Guarino, L., V. Ramanatha Rao & R. Reid (eds),
Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity: Technical Guidelines, CAB
International, Wallingford, pp. 255–286.
Maxted N., Ford-Lloyd B.V. and Hawkes J.G., 1997a. Complement-
ary conservation strategies. In: Maxted, N., B.V. Ford-Lloyd
& J.G. Hawkes (eds), Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ
Approach, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 15–40.
Maxted N., Hawkes J.G., Ford-Lloyd B.V. and Williams J.T., 1997b.
A practical model for in situ genetic conservation. In: Maxted,
N., B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes (eds), Plant Genetic Con-
servation: The In Situ Approach, Chapman & Hall, London, pp.
339-367.
Maxted N., Hawkes J.G., Guarino L. and Sawkins M., 1997c. The
selection of taxa for plant genetic conservation. Genet. Resourc.
Crop Evol. 7: 337–348.
Maxted N., Guarino L. and Dulloo M.E., 1997d. Management and
monitoring. In: Maxted, N., B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes
(eds), Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach, Chap-
man & Hall, London, pp. 144–159.
McNeely J.A. 1988. Economics and biological diversity; developing
and using economic incentives to conserve biological resources.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, Gland.
Oldfield M.L. and Alcorn J.B., 1987. Conservation of traditional
agroecosystems. Bioscience 37: 199–208.
View publication stats
Pham J.L., Ghesquière A. and Second G., 1994. On-farm conser-
vation of rice genetic resources based on the management of
populations made with land races. In: Discussion Workshop on
on-farm Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources. IRRI, Los
Baños, Philippines, 24–26 March 1994.
Prain G. and Hagmann J., 2000. Synthesis: farmers management
of diversity in local systems. In: Almekinders, C. & W. de
Boef (eds), Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and De-
velopment of Plant Genetic Resources, Intermediate Technology
Development Group, London, pp. 94–100.
Qualset C.O., Damania A.B., Zanatta A.C.A. and Brush S.B., 1997.
Locally based crop plant conservation. In: Maxted, N., B.V.
Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes (eds), Plant Genetic Conservation:
The In Situ Approach, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 160-175.
Quiros C.F., Ortega R., van Raamsdonk L., Herrera-Montoya M.,
Cisneros P., Schmidt E. and Brush S.B., 1992. Increase of potato
genetic resources in their center of diversity: the role of natural
outcrossing and selection by the Andean farmer. Genet. Resourc.
Crop Evol. 39: 107–113.
Raven P.H. and McNeely J.A., 1998. Biological extinction: its scope
and meaning for us. In: Lakshman, D.G. & J.A. McNeely (eds),
Protection of Global Biodiversity: Converging Strategies, Duke
University Press, Durham, pp. 376–390.
Sperling L. and Loevinsohn M.E., 1992. The dynamics of adoption:
Distribution and mortality of bean varieties among small farmers
in Rwanda. Agricultural Systems 41: 441–453.
Sperling L., Loevinsohn M.E. and Ntabomvura B., 1992. Rethink-
ing the farmer s role in plant breeding: Local bean experts and
on-station selection in Rwanda. Exper. Agric. 29: 509–519.
United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, 1992.
Biodiversity Convention. UNCED, Geneva.
Witcombe J.R., Joshi A., Joshi K.D. and Sthapit B.R., 1996. Farmer
participatory crop improvement. I: varietal selection and breed-
ing methods and their impact on biodiversity. Exper. Agric. 32:
445–460.
Worede M. 1992. Ethiopia: a gene bank working with farmers.
In: Cooper, D., R. Vellvé & H. Hobbelink (eds), Growing di-
versity: genetic resources and local food security, Intermediate
Technology Publications, London, pp. 78–94.
Worede M. 1993. The role of Ethiopian farmers on the conserva-
tion and utilization of crop genetic resources. International Crop
Science Society of America 1: 395–399.
Worede M. 1997. Ethiopian in situ conservation. In: Maxted, N.,
B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes (eds), Plant Genetic Conser-
vation: The In Situ Approach, Chapman & Hall, London, pp.
290–301.
Worede M. and Hailu M., 1993. Linking genetic resources conser-
vation to farmers in Ethiopia. In: de Boef, D. (ed.), Cultivat-
ing Knowledge: Genetic Diversity Farmer Experimentation and
Crop Research, Intermediate Technology Publications, London,
pp. 78–84.
Wortmann C.S., Kirby R.A., Eledu C.A. and Allen D.J., 1998. Atlas
of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Production in Africa.
CIAT, Cali, Columbia.
Zeven A.C. 1996. Results of activities to maintain landraces and
other material in some European countries in situ before 1945
and what we may learn from them. Genet. Resourc. Crop Evol.
43: 337–341.
Zeven A.C. 1999. The traditional inexplicable replacement of seed
and seed wares of landraces and cultivars: a review. Euphytica
110: 181–191.
Zimmerer K.S. and Couches D.S., 1991. Geographical approaches
to native crop research and conservation: the partitioning of
allelic diversity in Andean potatoes. Econ. Bot. 45: 176–189.