8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

1/10

Peasant Agriculture and the Conservationof Crop and Wild Plant ResourcesMIGUEL A. ALTIERI* LAURA C. MERRICKDivision of Biological ControlUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA 94720M. KAT ANDERSONDepartment of Forestry and Resource ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA 94720

Abstract:Peasant agroecosystems are seen as a continuumof integrated farming units and natural ecosystems whereplant gathering and crop production are actively practicedMany of these traditional agroecosystems still foundthroughout developing countries constitute major in s itu re-positories of both crop and wild plant gemzplasm. Theseplant resources are directly dependent upon management byhuman groups; thus, they have evolved in part under theinfluenceof arming practices shaped by particular cultures.

Because genetic conservation programs are more effectivewhen preserving the ecosystems in which the resources occur,maintenance of traditional farming systems and adjacentnatural ecosystems is proposed as a sensible strategyfo r insitupreservation of crop and wild pla nt genetic resources. Itis here argued that preservation efforts should be linked torural development projects that take into account the eth-nobotanical knowledge of rural people and that emphasizeboth food self-sufficiency as well as local resource conser-vation. Preservationof these traditional agroecosystems can-not be achieved when isolatedfrom maintenance of the cultureof he local people. Therefore,projects should also emphasizemaintenance of cultural diversity.

Department of Vegetable CropsUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, CA 95616

Resumen: Los agroecosistemas campesinos se consideranparte de una continua integracion de unidades de produc-cion y ecosistemas naturales, donde la produccion y reco-leccion de las cosechas son actividades diarias. Muchos deestos agrosistemas tradicionales se encuentran en paises endesarrollo y constituyen un deposit0 importante in situ degemzoplasma de plantas tanto cultivadas como silvestres.Estos recursos vegetales dependen directamente del manqopor grupos humanos; por ello ban evolucionado en partebajo la influencia de practicas agricolas de culturas parti-culares.

Dado que losprogramas de conservacion geneticason m hefectivos cuando se protegen 10s ecosistemas donde se en-cuentran, el mantenimiento de sistemas tradicionales deagricultura con 10s ecosistemas adyacentes se propone comouna estrategia razonable para lapreservacion in situ de 10srecursos geneticos agricolas y silvestres. Se argumenta aquique 10s esfuerzos por preservar deben ser vinculados a 10sproyectos de desarrollo rural que consideran 10s conoci-mientos etnobotanicos de las poblaciones rurales y que en-fatizan tanto la autosuficiencia domestica como laconservacion de 10s recursos a nivel local. La preservacionde estos agroecosistemas locales no puede subsistir aisla-damente del mantenimiento de las culturas locales. Es porello que 10sproyectos de desarrollo tambidn deben enfatizarel mantenimiento de la diversidad cultural.

IntroductionTraditional farming systems in the developing countrieshave emerged over centuries of cultural and biological

evolution and represent accumulated experiences ofpeasants interacting with the environment without ac-cess to external inputs, capital, or scientific knowledge(Chang 1977, Wilken 1977, Egger 1981). Using inven-tive self-reliance, experiential knowledge, and locally

resources,peasants have Often farm-ing systems with sustained yieids (Harwood 1979, Klee

49

'Correspondenceand requestsfor reprints should be mailed to thisuuthot:

Conservation BiologyVolume 1, No. 1, May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

2/10

50 Peasant Agriculture & Conservation Altim' et al

1980). These agroecosystems, based on the cultivationof a diversity of crops and varieties in time and space,have allowed traditional farmers to maximize harvestsecurity under low levels of technology and with limitedresources and space (Clawson 1985).

So far, most of the research and development effortsto improve traditional agriculture have been focusedonthe productive units where crops are grown. This lim-ited view of the peasant agroecosystem ignores thefact that many peasants utilize, maintain, and preservewithin or adjacent to their properties, areas of naturalecosystems (forests, hillsides, lakes, grasslands, streamways, swamps, etc. ) that contribute valuable food sup-plements, construction materials, medicines, organic fer-tilizers, fuels, religious items, etc. (Toledo 1980). In fact,the crop-production units and adjacent ecosystems oftenare all integrated into a single agroecosystem (Fig. 1).Thus studies of subsistence patterns in peasant societiesmust also consider plant gathering, hunting, and fishingas productive activities, besides agriculture (Caballeroand Mapes 1985).Although gathering has normally beenassociated with conditions of poverty (Wilken 1969),recent evidence suggests that this activity is closely as-sociated with the persistence of a strong cultural tra-dition. In addition, vegetation gathering hasan economicand ecological basis, as collected wild plants provideessential supplies of food, raw materials for cottage in-dustries, and other resources, especially during times oflow agricultural production owing to natural calamitiesor other circumstances. The wild plant ecosystems alsoprovide ecological services to peasants such as habitatsfor wildlife and natural enemies of agricultural pests,watersheds, litter for fields, etc.

Figure 1. An integrated agroecosystem in Tlaxcala,Mexico, where the crop production units are closelylinked to aajacent natural plant communities,through farmers who collect plant litter and gatherother resources in such habitats (photo by M. A. Al-tierg.

The peasant agricultural production activity com-monly reflects a total multiple-usesystem of both naturaland artiticial ecosystems. This more holistic view hasimportant implications for the conservation of plant ge-netic resources in agriculture.By rejecting the conceptthat the source of potential crop germplasm only resideswithin the confines of traditional agroecosystems (thatis, the productive units), it is likely that more attentionwill be paid to the importance of many wild plants thathave desirable chemical constituents or genetic traits,and that are present in adjacent natural ecosystems(Thompson 1985). Furthermore, the important role ofpeasants in the management and maintenance of adja-cent ecosystems where these plant resources are gath-ered is often overlooked, and the urgent need to placegreater priority on recording ethnobotanical and agro-ecological information from local peasants cannot beoverestimated.

In this context, concern for the rapid loss of geneticresources in Third World agriculture must not only beaddressed to the conversion from self-provisioning ormsof farming to commercial agriculture. It must also focuson the preservation of natural ecosystems that provideecological services to peasants. The latter are usuallyperceived as marginally productive and profitable bygovernments and industries, and as utilizing valuablespace otherwise needed by more highly capitalized ag-riculture and industry. It is within this broader definitionof an agricultural production system that we will discussthe various genetic, ecological, and socioeconomic is-sues that interplay when simultaneously considering cropand wild plant resource conservation and peasant agri-cultural development.

The Agricultural Production UnitsTraditionalAgroecosystemand Crop GermplasmResourcesA salient feature of traditional farming systems is theirdegree of plant diversity in the form of polycultures and/or agroforestry patterns (Chang 1977, Clawson 1985).This peasant strategy of minimizing risk by planting sev-eral species and varieties of crops stabilizes yields overthe long term, promotes diet diversity, and maximizesreturns under low levels of technology and limited re-sources (Harwood 1979). Traditional multiple croppingsystems provide as much as 15 percent to 20 percentof the world food supply (Francis 1985). Tropical agro-ecosystems composed of agricultural and fallow fields,complex home gardens, and agroforestry plots, com-monly contain well over 100 plant species per field,which are used for construction materials,firewood, ools,medicines, livestock feed, and human food. Examplesinclude multiple-use agroforestry systems managed bythe Huastecs and Lacandones in Mexico, the Bora andKayapo Indians in the Amazon basin and the Pekarangan

Conservation BiologyVolume 1 , No. 1, May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

3/10

Altieri et al Peasant Agriculture C Conservation 5 1

in West Java (Alcorn 1984, Denevan et al. 1984, Chris-tanty et al. 1985).

Many traditional agroecosystems are located in cen-ters of crop diversity, thus containing populations ofvariable and adapted land races as well aswild and weedyrelatives of crops (Harlan 1965). Clawson (1985) re-cently described several systems in which tropical farm-ers plant multiple varieties of each crop, providing bothintraspecific and interspecific diversity, thus enhancingharvest security. For example, in the Andes farmers cul-tivate as many as 50 potato varieties in their fields (Brush,1982). Similarly, in Thailand and Indonesia farmersmaintain a diversity of rice varieties in their paddiesadapted to a wide range of environmental conditions,and they regularly exchange seeds with neighbors (Grigg1974). The resulting genetic diversity heightens resis-tance to diseases that attack particular strains of the crop,and enables farmers to exploit different microclimatesand derive multiple nutritional and other uses from ge-netic variation within species.

Many plants within or around traditional croppingsystems are wild or weedy relatives of crop plants. Theecological amplitudes of wild relatives may exceed thoseof the crops derived from or otherwise related to them,a feature exploited by plant breeders to enhance theresistance or adaptive range of crops for specific pur-poses (Frankel and Bennett 1970,Harlan 1976,Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen 1982). In these settings, landraces and wild or weedy relatives have coexisted andcoevolved over a long period of time with each otherand with human cultures (Altieri and Merrick 1987).This long history results in a relatively stable equilibriumamong crops, weeds, diseases, cultural practices, andhuman habits (Barlett 1980). In fact, the great variabilityof primitive crop cultivars correspond well with theheterogeneity of the social and ecological environment(Brush 1982). Cycles of natural hybridization and in-trogression have often occurred between crops and wildrelatives, increasing the variability and the genetic di-versity available to farmers (Harlan 1976). Through thepractice of nonclean cultivation, whether uninten-tional or intentional,farmers may increase the gene flowbetween crops and their relatives. For example, in Mex-ico farmers allow teosinte to remain within or near cornfields, so that when the wind pollinates corn some nat-ural crosses occur resulting in hybrid plants (Wilkes1977). Encouragement of specific weeds by peasantfarmers in their agroecosystems may represent progres-sive domestication, a process described by Davis andBye ( 1982) forJaltomata, a herbaceous perennial usedby the Tarahumara in Mexico.

Despite the fact that weeds may reduce yields signif-icantly, certain weeds are viewed by peasants as usefuland are deliberately left in association with crops. Inmany areas of Mexico, for example, local farmers do not

completely clear all weeds from their cropping systems.This relaxedweeding is usually seen by agriculturalistsas the consequence of a lack of labor and low return forthe extra work; however,a closer look at farmer attitudestoward weeds reveals that certain weeds are managedand even encouraged if they serve a useful purpose. Inthe lowland tropics of Tabasco, Mexico, there is a uniqueclassification of noncrop plants according to use poten-tial on the one hand and effects on soil and crops onthe other. According to this system, farmers recognized2 1 plants in their cornfields as mal monte (bad weeds)and 20 as buen monte (good weeds) that serve asfood, medicines, ceremonial items, teas, soil improvers,etc. (Chacon and Gliessman 1982).

Similarly, the Tarahumara Indians in the MexicanSierras depend on edible weed seedlings (Amaranthus,Chenopodiecm, Brassica) from April through July, a crit-ical period before maize, bean, cucurbits, and chiles ma-ture in the planted fields in August through October.Weeds also serve as alternative food supplies in seasonswhen the maize crops are destroyed by frequent hailstorms.In a sense the Tarahumara practice a double cropsystem of maize and weeds that allows for two harvests:one of weed seedlings of quelites greens) early in thegrowing season and another of the harvested maize latein the growing season (Bye 1981 ) (Fig. 2). Farmers de-

Figure 2. Tlmcalteca women carrying quelites(Amaranthus, Chenopodium and Portulaca) sponsoredand harvested in truditional corn fields (photo by M .A Al t i m )

Conservation BiologyVolume 1,No. , May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

4/10

52 Peasant Agriculture & Conservation Altim et al

rive other benefits from the presence of tolerable levelsof weeds in their fields. Certain weeds are used directlyfor medicinal and culinary purposes (Datta and Banerjee1978), while, in many cases, weed communities are man-aged within cro p fields, resulting in increased biologicalinsect pest control (Altieri et al. 1977) and enhancedorganic matter accumulation and soil conservation(Chacon and Gliessman 1982).Similarly, farmers accrue general ecological servicesfrom natural vegetation growing near their properties.For example, in the Maheweli region of Sri Lanka, theindigenous flora of the higher forests not only providevaluable native plants for commercial and subsistenceproducts, but also serve as natural barriers to the lowlandagricultural crops against the spread of plant diseasesand insect pests (Cramer 1977). Also, clearing compar-atively small agricultural plots in a matrix of secondaryforest vegetation permits easy emigration of natural ene-mies of insect pests from the surrounding jungle (Matte-son et d. 1984).

In western Guatemala, small farms depend on nearbyforests to manage marginal unfertile soils. Leaf litter iscarried from nearby forests and spread each year overintensively cropped vegetable plots to improve tilth andwater retention. Litter is raked up, placed in bags ornets, and carried to fields by men or horses, or frommore distant sources by trucks. After spreading, the leaflitter is worked into the soil with a broad hoe. In somecases litter is first placed beneath stabled animals andthen, after a week or so, the rich mixture of pulverizedleaves, manure, and urine is spread over the fields andturned under. Although quantities applied vary, farmersin Almolonga, Zunil, and Quezaltenango apply as muchas 40 metric tons of litterha each year. Rough calcula-tions made in mixed pine-oak stands indicate that a hec-tare of cropped land requires the litter production from10 ha of regularly harvested forest , or less if harvestingis sporadic (Wilken 1977).The Impacts ofAgriculturalModernizationAs conversion from subsistence to cash agriculturaleconomy occurs, often variable, indigenous varieties arereplaced by new, high-yielding ones (Harlan 1976). Thenew varieties are many times less dependable than tra-ditional varieties when grown under traditional agri-cultural management (Barlett 1980). Moreover, theplanting of vast monocultures with genetically uniformcultivars, a characteristic of modern agricultural systems,makes agricultural productivity extremely vulnerable toyield limiting factors (Adams et al. 1971,NAS 1972).

This type of top-down agricultural development cantransform the social relations of production in funda-mental ways. It can also result in the loss by rural peopleof knowledge of the traditional cropping patterns andmanagement practices and the ecological rationale be-

hind them (Chambers 1983). Large-scale promotion ofuniform crop varieties, technologies and farming sys-tems has largely ignored the environmental,cultural, andsocioeconomic heterogeneity typical of traditional ag-riculture (Altieri 1983), thus creating a mismatch ofagricultural development and the needs and potentialsof local people and localities (de Janvry 1981). In fact,research evidence shows that as peasants abandon sub-sistence crops to produce cash crops or are deprived ofsufficient land and forced to work as wage laborers, theresulting economic, social, ecological, and dietarychanges often lead to poorer health and nutrition (Dewey1981, Eder 1978). The integration between plant gath-ering and crop production tends to disappearas peasantagroecosystems are modernized.

Although the Green Revolution has been widely pro-moted in Third World countries, improved varieties haveonly hastened the disappearance of wild relatives andtraditional varieties of crops in areas strongly linked tocommercial agriculture and the national market (Brush1980). However, as areas become more marginal in nat-ural resources and in institutional support, the use ofimproved varieties declines; farmers abandon them be-cause of their risk and expense and relyon their century-tested, regionally adapted stocks. Thus today the rurallandscape consists of mosaics of modern and traditionalvarieties and technologies. tn Peru, for example, as al-titude increases, the percentage of native potatoes in thefield increases steadily (Brush 1980). In Thailand, ricefarmers plant the modern semidwarf varietieson part oftheir land during the dry season and sow traditionalvarieties during the monsoon season. They have thusestablished a system that maximizes the productivity ofirrigated modern varieties during dry months and thestability of the traditional varieties in the wet seasonwhen pest outbreaks are common (Grigg 1974).

As the economic crisis deepens in most developingcountries, with rural populations becoming increasinglyimpoverished, a sizable portion of the peasantry is re-newing use of the traditional varieties and low-inputmanagement practices according to the demands of sub-sistence agriculture (Altieri and Anderson 1986). Thisnew strategy gives peasants the extra margin of resis-tance to pests, diseases, and other environmental haz-ards, an important consideration when working underconditions of economic uncertainty. Unfortunately, inmany areas the farming base of peasant communities hasbeen so eroded that return to native cultivars is difficultbecause of inevitable genetic erosion. Several factorshave contributed to this loss of crop genetic resources:decrease in the number of growers, decrease in croppopulation size per field, decrease in the planting fre-quency, loss of seed saving and collection skills, andchanges in the crops vulnerability to pests and weeds,etc. (Nabhan 1985, 1986).

Conservation BiologyVolume 1, No. 1 , May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

5/10

Altieri et al

r &

Peasant AgricultureC Conservation 5 3

, IIis I

Adjacent Natural EcosystemsThe Ecology of Plant GatheringIn many parts of the world, the peasant sector still ob-tains a signrficant portion of its subsistence requirementsfrom the ecosystems that embed and surround the ag-ricultural plots (Fig. 3). The use of such ecosystems isnot random; it is based on a deep understanding of theelements and interactions of the ecosystems, many timesguided by complex taxonomic classification systems(Berlin et al. 1973). For example, the ethnobotanicalknowledge of certain campesinos in Mexico is so elab-orate that the Tzeltals, Purhepechas, and Mayans canrecognize more than 1200, 900, and 500 plant species,respectively (Toledo et al. 1985). Similar folk soil clas-sification systems have also proved to be scientificallyvalid (Williams and Ortiz-Solario 1981 . Such nomen-clature has allowed peasants to assign each landscape

~

00mafiN*0z

Shlftlng CultlvatoraII Chlnampa Farmers

:$ Mexlcan Chlnanteca,..:.I:...:.II . . an d

O0z1

Figure 3. A gradient of the interface of plant gather-ing and crop production in the face of agriculturalmodernization as exemplified by existing peasantagroecosystems in Mexico.

unit a given productive practice, thus obtaining a di-versity of products through a strategy of multiple use.A number of researchers have provided valuable dis-cussions of wild plant consumption in the agriculturalcommunities that they have studied. For example, forthe Purhepecha Indians who live in the region of LakePatzcuaro in Michoacan, Mexico, in addition to agricul-ture, gathering is part of a complex subsistence patternbased on multiple uses of their natural resources (Ca-ballero and Mapes 1985). These people use more than224 species ofwild native and naturalized vascular plantsfor dietary, medicinal, household, and fuel needs. Simi-larly, the Jicaque Indians of central Honduras, who liveon the Montana de la Flor reservation, use over 45 plantspecies from the pine-oak forest, riverine habitat, ordooryard as foods, medicines, fuel, etc. Like their mestizoneighbors, the Jicaque grow corn (Zea mays L.) usingslash-and-burn techniques. The cultivated fields arewidely spaced throughout the forest and in travelingfrom one field to the next, the Jicaque usually collectwild plant food along the way to be added to the cookingpots of the familys compound (Lentz 1986). The Pimaand Papago Indians of the Sonora Desert base most oftheir subsistence needs on more than 15 species of wildand cultivated legumes (Nabhan et al. 1983). In humidtropical conditions the procurement of resources fromthe primary and secondary forests is even more im-pressive. For example, in the Uxpanapa region of Ve-racruz, Mexico, local peasants exploit about 435 wildplant and animal species, of which 229 are used as food(Toledo et al. 1985). In the Mexican Huasteca areasaround villages and households commonly average 80to 125 useful plant species, mostly native medicinal plants(Alcorn 1984). Agroforestry systems and adjacent for-ests of west Java contain about 100 plant species, ofwhich 42 percent provide building materials and fuel-wood, 32 percen t provide fruits and vegetables, and theremainder are medicinals, ornamentals, spices, and cashcrops (Christanty et al. 1985).

In many agropastoral African societies collection ofedible leaves, roots, tubers, berries, and fruits in thebushlands surrounding the villages provides a diversi-fication of the food base. For example, in the easternKalahari Desert and semi-arid regions of Botswana andnorthern Cape Province, South Africa, Bantu-speakingTswana women collect edible wild greens throughoutthe year. Bulbs, roots, and tubers are used primarilybetween October and January. In summer (Decemberthrough February) attention turns to the berries, fruits,and a few succulent bulbs (Grivetti 1979). Although itis generally assumed that wild plant foods are an emer-gency or supplementary food in African agropastoralcommunities during droughts or other times of envi-ronmental stress, there have been few systematic studiesof the extent to which such plants are actually consumedand of their nutritional importance. From her study of

Conservation BiologyVolume 1,No. , May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

6/10

54 Peasant Agriculture G Conservation Altim et al

michicha wild green leafy vegetables) in northeasternTanzania, Fleuret ( 1979) concluded that wild plants pro-vide significant mounts of carotene, calcium, iron, andprotein to the peasant diet. These plants also have aneconomic importance. Apart from the fact that their usemeans that households are expending less cash on pur-chased foods and making available more crops for con-sumption and sale, the greens themselves are a sourceof cash as they are periodically sold in the local ruralmarkets.

Although wild green vegetables have been regardedas peripheral to the peasant household, gathering, ascurrently practiced in many peasant communities, af-fords a meaningful addition to the peasant subsistenceeconomy. It provides not only dietary diversity, but alsofirewood, medicines, and other resources that supportnonagricultural activities in the households by depend-ing on plant resources present in adjacent ecosystems.For example, in Palawan, Philippines, indigenous peoplehave adopted a mixed upland economy combining theshifting cultivation of rice and secondary crops withpart-time exploitation of marine and forest resources.Rattan and copal are collected for sale to lowland mer-chants, providing a vital source of cash income for manyfamilies (Conelly 1985). As many as 450,000 subsist-ence-level households in Brazil rely on the sale of ba-bassu kernels from stands of babassu palms for animportant share of their cash incomes. In addition tocash income, the palm supplies these people with food,fuel, and shelter. The palms contribute important re-sources to their farming systems and provide organicmatter, animal feed, and other services (May et al. 1985).Minor forest products such as perfumery oils, gums andexudates, dyes, and tannins are often significant in theeconomies of tropical lands (Robbins and Matthews1974).In many cases, gathering is more closely associatedwith the persistence of a strong cultural tradition thanto poverty (Caballero and Mapes 1985). In areas of Na-garhaveli and Daman, India, 52 plants are gathered bylocal people for medicinal and other purposes from theregional forests. Although the local ethnic communitiesuse the government health facilities, they seem to havemore faith in their own cures (Sabnis and Bedi 1983).Preference for traditional medicines, gathered and cul-tivated, persists throughout much of the developingworld despite access to government-funded health cen-ters (Browner 1985).

The diversity and ready accessibility of the closelyadjacent ecosystems also contribute to the persistenceof gathering (Wilken 1970) and thus help maintain cul-tural ties to the land, as well as a diversity of approachesto the perception and use of natural resources. The mostfrequently ignored or overlooked aspect of conservationof natural resources and economic development is hu-man cultural diversity. In Central America, no two Indian

cultures have identical ecologies. Each group has workedout its own unique ways of using the land and the localnatural resources (Bennett 1975).Policy Questions in the Conservation ofWild Plant AreasContrary to prevalent views, gathering is a widespreadelement in the subsistence economy of many peasantagricultural societies. The evidence suggests that nutri-tional success is linked with diversification of the foodbase both through agricultural production and plant col-lecting (Grivetti 1979).In many areas of semi-aridAfrica,peasant and tribal groups continue to be nutritionallysuccessful even when drought strikes. Grivetti (1979)argues that drought need not produce famine as long asthe tradition of recognizing, procuring, and using wildfood resources is not disrupted.

A major problem with the evaluation of the economicand environmental significance of the collection ofplant products from natural ecosystems is that policy-makers and developers consider the current peasantgathering techniques as primitive, poverty-related,anddestructive. Such views often ignore the more seriousenvironmental destruction caused by large-scalegrazing,flood-control,mining, and logging operations. Many nat-ural ecosystems (i.e., wetlands, mangroves, forests, grass-lands, etc.) have been selectively harvested on a smallscale for generations for such products as fuelwood,poles, charcoal, tannin and basketry materials, medi-cines, etc. Most species regenerate readily after beingsubjected to low-intensity management and harvesting(Richardson 1977). For example, in many African shift-ing cultivation systems, the soil fertility restoring powerof the bush fallow is linked to the regrowth of spareddeep rooted trees and shrubs that recycle plant nutrientsand build up soil organic matter. Species such as Acioabarterii, Anthonata baterii, etc., are intentionally re-tained and the in situ tree stakes are used for stakingyam, while the cut tree tops provide animal feed, tire-wood, compost material and herbal medicine (Nye andGreenland 1965). Similar regeneration patterns can beobserved in swidden fallows under low-intensity man-agement by Bora Indians (Denevan et al. 1984).

On the other hand, large intensive-scaleharvestingormodification of natural habitats through agriculture, og-ging, etc., may leave cleared areas well beyond the bi-ological capacity of the species for natural regeneration(Richardson 1977).The more intense the alteration fromhuman activity, the further the plant and animal com-munities diverge from their original state. Deforestationpressures and technological innovations for more inten-sive agriculture often conflict with the basic needs ofpeasants dependent on wild plant resources for theirlivelihood. Few studies assess the disruptive effects ofthese operations on the people whose lives may dependon these ecosystems. It is also imperative to developpolicies that promote preservation of natural resources

ConservationBiologyVolume 1, No. 1, May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

7/10

Altimet ul. Peasant Agriculture C Consmution 55

effectively but, at the same time, do not negatively affectthe livelihood of the local peasants. In this regard, de-velopers, ecologists, and nutritionists can learn muchfrom the local ethnobotanical and agroecological loreto help farmers who have long depended on the forestand other ecosystems acquire alternative ways of suste-nance. In fact, it may be advantageous to capitalize onexisting social arrangements ollowed by peasant groupsthat result in environmental protection. For example, incentral Chile peasants retain bands of natural vegetation(Peumus boldus, Quillaja saponaria, Maytenus boaria,and Cryptocaria alba) along streams to conserve waterresources and they elect a local villager to enforce reg-ulations that protect these trees (Rodriguez et al. 1987).

X 20 km) at as few as 100 sites around the world wherenative agriculture is still practiced, particularly areaswhere both indigenous crops and their close wild rel-ativesmay interbreed periodically, have been suggestedto be set aside by governments to preserve crop-plantdiversity (Wilkes 1983). Such areas must include reten-tion of small blocks of forest and other adjacent naturalecosystems to provide farmers with a constant futuresupply of fuelwood, medicines, and other wild plantproducts (Spears 1979). Such areas would allow pres-ervation of all the constituent plant species rather thanthose that are judged to be of immediate economic value.Moreover, in these areas protection and propagation ofwild plants with specific ecological requirements oth-erwise difficult to cultivate in fields, would be assured.Some of these areas could well prove to be samples of

In Of Resources the ecosystems from which early humans selected theA major argument against ex situ crop germplasm con-servation methods is that they remove crops from theiroriginal cultural-ecological context (Nabhan 1985), thehuman-modified systems by which they have evolved(Oldfield 1984). In contrast, in situ conservation allowsfor continued, dynamic adaptation of plants to the en-vironment (Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen 1981 ),which is an important phenomenon in traditional agri-cultural areas where crops are often enriched by geneexchange with wild or weedy relatives in fields or inadjacent natural ecosystems (de Wet and Harlan 1975,Harlan 1965).

A number of scientists have emphasized the need forin situ conservation of crop genetic resources and theenvironments in which they occur (Wilkes and Wilkes1972,Iltis 1974,Prescott-Allenand Prescott-Allen 1982,Nabhan 1985). However, most researchers believe insitu preservation of land races would require a returnto or the preservation of microcosms of primitive ag-ricultural systems, which many would consider an un-acceptable, impracticable proposition (Frankel and Soule1981, Ingram and Williams 1984).We contend, never-theless, that maintenance of traditional agroecosystemsand closely associated natural ecosystems is the onlysensible strategy to preserve in situ repositories of cropgermplasm (Altieri and Merrick 1987). Conservation ofcrop genetic resources can still be integrated with ag-ricultural development, through rural developmentprojects that preserve the vegetation diversity of tradi-tional agroecosystems and that are anchored in the peas-ants rationale to use local resources and their intimateknowledge of the environment (Alcorn 1984, Nabhan1985, Sarukhan 1985).

Recommendations for in situ conservation of cropgermplasm have emphasized the development of a widesystem of village-level land race custodians (a farmercurator system), whose purpose would be to continueto grow a limited sample of endangered land races nativeto the region (Nabhan 1985). Carefully chosen strips ( 5

progenitors of modern crop plants (Melville 1970).The idea of setting aside parks for crop relatives and

land races is obviously a luxury in countries where farmland is already at a premium; however, to some this maybe less costly than allowing native crop varieties to dis-appear (Brush 1980, Wolf 1985). In many areas theurgent short-term issue is survival, and diverting thelimited land available to peasants for conservation pur-poses, per se, so that this germplasm may be used byindustrialized nations is totally inappropriate. A morerealistic and desirable proposition should allow for sub-sistence agriculture and plant gathering within thesereserve areas. Plant management would be integratedinto the human uses of the local ecosystems, and perhapssome nonintrusive but ecologically based modificationsof the traditional use patterns could result in greateryields of plant species most valued as food, fuel, medi-cine, etc. (Bennett 1975).

Supporters of in situ strategies argue that farmersshould be incorporated into conservation programs bycreating biosphere reserves where peasants are subsi-dized to continue with their traditional agriculture(Wilkes 1983). Once identified, these areas would bedesignated as germplasm centers and would quallfy forspecial agricultural assistance aimed at promoting thecultivation of native varieties. Industrial countries usingthis germplasm would subsidize farmers cultivating na-tive varieties and would help them in marketing theproduce. Brush ( 1980) believes that, in addition, thesesupport programs should include the machinery andfinancial aid to compensate farmers who maintain germ-plasm for monetary losses incurred by not substitutingimproved varieties.In other words, some means of com-puting the cost of maintaining these cultivars must beestablished.

Although Nabhan (1985) agrees with the creation ofcenters of traditional agriculture, he believes that con-servation measures will be most effective when nativefarmers are cognizant of, and involved in, their planning

Conservation BiologyVolume 1. No. 1 , May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

8/10

56 Peasant Agriculture 6 Conservation Altieri et al.

and implementation. Such efforts are likely to succeed,he argues, as long as members of a culture identlfy theirown reasons for maintaining their crop heritage andpersevere in conducting the practices for nurturing theseplants.

Linking Rural Development and ConservationAn obvious incentive for resource-poor peasants is toenhance harvest security and to become independentof the market for costly seeds and inputs. It is for thistype of farmer that preservation efforts should be linkedto the overall rural development agenda. Design of sus-tainable farming systems and appropriate technologiesaimed at upgrading peasant food production for self-sufficiency should incorporate locally adapted nativecrops and wild/weedy relatives within and around agro-ecosystems to complement the various production proc-esses (Altieri and Merrick 1987).

At present there are many programs of assistance topeasants temporarily directed at meeting their subsist-ence needs (Altieri and Anderson 1986,Altieri and Mer-rick 1987). By incorporating indigenous crops and othernative plant germplasm into the design of self-sustainedagroecosystems, local genetic diversity availableto farm-ers is maintained. Important economic as well as con-servation goals can be achieved for a large area by usingseeds of crops like beans, potatoes, soybeans, wheat, andmaize that the farmer can select and save for the nextseason. Moreover, this agricultural strategy based on na-tive crop diversity brings moderate to high levels ofproductivity through manipulation and exploitation ofthe resources internal to the farm and can be sustainableat a much lower cost and for a longer period of time(Altieri 1983, Altieri and Anderson 1986).

Evaluation of current programs in the Third World isshowing that functions of nutrient recycling, natural pestcontrol, and soil conservation can be optimized throughthe design of crop associations and regionally adaptedpatterns (Gliessman et al. 1981,Altieri 1983). Very fewrural development projects to date have emphasizedpreservation of natural vegetation associations near ag-ricultural fields to foster the beneficial interactions thatresult from the exchange of materials, energy, and or-ganisms at the interface of agroecosystems and adjacentwoodlands. The creation of forest reserves to improvethe quality of local agriculture should then be seriouslyconsidered by agricultural planners.

ConclusionsTo some, a surprising conclusion that emerges from therelevant anthropological and ecological literature is that,when not disrupted by economic or political forces, thepeasant mode of production generally preserves ratherthan destroys natural resources. In fact, in any particular

region, capitalist development through promotion oflarge-scale, commercial agriculture is bound to affectnatural resource conservation more than some of theexisting peasant systems do. Besides crop diversity, farm-ers in the Andean potato fields and in the rice paddiesof southeast Asia use a set of practices that cause minimalland degradation. These include the use of terraces andhedgerows in sloping areas, minimal tillage, small fieldsizes, and long fallow cycles (Grigg 1974,Brush 1980).By concentrating on short rotations and fewer varieties,agricultural modernization in the same areas has causedenvironmental perturbation and eroded genetic diver-sity, making farmers increasingly dependent on seedcompanies for their seasonal seed supply (Mooney 1983).Peasantsloss of control over agricultural production isby far the most crucial effect of development on theirhealth, nutrition and economic survival (Dewey 1981 ).We do not intend to romanticize subsistence agri-culture or consider development per se as detrimental.We want, however, to stress the value of traditionalagriculture in the preservation of native crop diversityand the adjacent vegetation communities (Toledo 1980).Basing a rural development strategy on traditional farm-ing and ethnobotanical knowledge not only assures con-tinual use and maintenance of valuable genetic resourcesbut also allows for the diversification of peasant sub-sistence strategies (Alcorn 1984, Caballero and Mapes1985),a crucial issue in times of economic uncertainty.As Alcorn ( 1984) suggested, it is time to recognize peas-ants active role in genetic resource conservation. How-ever, it behooves the industrial nations interested in thisgermplasm to subsidize peasants fairlyfor the ecologicalservice of maintaining native cultivars and wild plantswith new crop potential.References and NotesAdams, M.W.; Ellingbae, A.H; Rossineau, E.C. Biological uni-formity and disease epidemics.B i d c i e n c e 21 1067- 1070;1971.Alcorn, J.B. Development policy, forests and peasant farms:reflections on Huastec-managed orests contributions to com-mercial production and resource conservation. Econ. B o t38:389-406;1984.Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternativeagriculture. Berkeley,CA:Div. Biol. Control, Univ. Calif.; 1983.Altieri, MA.; Anderson, M.K. An ecological basis for the de-velopment of alternative agricultural systems for small farmersin the Third World. American Journa l of Alterna t ive Agri-culture 1 30-38;1986.Altieri,M.A.; Merrick,L.C. In situ conservation of crop geneticresources through maintenance of traditional farming systems.E C O ~ O ~1:86-96;1987.Altieri, M.A.; van Schoonhoven, A.; Do& J.D. The ecologicalrole of weeds in insect pest management systems: a reviewillustrated with bean (Pbaseolus vu lg a r is L.) cropping sys-tems.PANS 23:195-205; 1977.

Conservation BiologyVolume 1, No. , May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

9/10

Altieri et al. Peasant Agriculture E. Conservation 57

Barlett, P.F. Adaptation strategies in peasant agricultural pro-duction. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 9:545-573;1980.Bennett, C.F. The advantages of cultura l diversity. Unasylva27:11-15;1975.Berlin, B.; Breedlove, D.E.; Raven, P.H. General principles ofclassification and nomenclature in folk biology.American An-thropologist 75:214-242;1973.Browner, C.H. Plants used for rep roductive health in Oaxaca,Mexico. Econ. Bot. 39482-504;1985.Brush, S.B. The environment and native Andean agriculture.America Zndigena 40:161-172;1980.Brush, S.B. The natural and human environment of the centralAndes. Mountain Research and Development 2:14-38;1982.Brush, S.B. Genetic diversity and conservation in traditionalfarming systems.J Ethnobiol. 6:151-167;1986.Bye, R.A. Quelities-ethnoecology of edible greens-past,present and future.J Ethnobiol. 1:109-123;1981.Caballero, J.N.; Mapes, C. Gathering and subsistence patternsamong the Purhepecha Indians of Mexic0.J Ethnobiol. 5:31-47;1985.Chacon, J.C.; Gliessman, S.R. Use of the non-weed conceptin traditional tropical agroecosystems of south-eastern Mexico.Agro-Ecosystems8:1- 1;1982.Chambers, R. Rural development: putting the last frrst. Essex,England: Longman Group Limited; 1983.Chang, J.H. Tropical agriculture: c ro p diversity and crop yields.Econ. Geogr. 53241-254;1977.Christanty, L.; Abdoellah, 0.; skander, J. Traditional agrofor-estry in West Java: the pekarangan (homegarden) and talun-kebun (shifting cu ltivatio n) cropp ing systems. In: G. Marten,ed. The Human Ecology of Traditional Tropical Agriculture.Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1985.Clawson, D.L. Harvest security and intraspecific diversity intraditional tropical agriculture. Econ. Bot. 3956-67;1985.Conelly, W.T. Copal and rattan collecting in the Philippines.E C O ~ot. 39:39-46;1985.Cramer, L.H. The significance of the indigenous flora in theareas of the Mahaweli complex. The Sri Lanka Forester 8:9-18;1977.Datta, S.C.; Banerjee, A.K. Useful weeds of West Bengal ricefields. Econ. Bot. 32:297-310;1978.Davis IV,T.; Bye Jr., R.A. Ethnobotany and progressive do-mestication ofJaltomata (solanaceae) in Mexico and CentralAmerica. Econ. Bol; 36:225-241;1982.de Janvry, A. The agrarian question and reformism in LatinAmerica. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press; 1981.Denevan, W.M.; Treace,J.M.; Alcorn, J.B.; Padoch, C.; Denslow,J.; Paitan, S.T. Indigenous agroforestry in th e Peruvian Amazon:

Bora Indian management of swidden fallows. Znterciencia9346-357; 1984.de Wet, J.M.J.; Harlan, J.R. Weeds and domesticates: evolutionin the man-made habitat. Econ. Bot. 29:99-107;1975.Dewey, K.G. Nutritional consequ ences of the transformationfrom subsistence to commercial agriculture in Tabasco, Mex -ico. Human Ecology 9:151-188;1981.Eder, J.F. The caloric r eturns to food collecting: disruption andchange among the bat& of the Philippine tropical forest. Hu-man Ecology 6:55-69;1978.Egger, K. Ecofarming in the tropics-characteristics and po-tentialities. Pt. Res. Developm. l 3:96- 106;198l .Ewell, P.T.; Poleman, T.T. Uxpanapa: resettlement and agri-cultural development in the Mexican tropics. Znt. Agric. Eco-nomics Study 82-87;1982. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.Felger, R.S.; Moser, M.B. Seri Indian food plants: desert sub-sistence without agriculture. Ecology of Food and Nutrition5:13-27;1976.Fleuret, A. The ro le of wild foliage plants in the diet. Ecologyof Food and Nutrition 8:87-93;1979.Francis, C.A. Variety development for multiple cropping sys-tems. CRC Crit. Rev. Pl. Sci. 3133-168;1985.Frankel, O.H.; Bennett, E., editors. Genetic resources in plants-their exploration and conservation. International BiologicalProgramme Handbook # I I . Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Pub-lications; 1970.Frankel, O.H.; Soule, M.E. Comervation and Evolution. Cam-bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1981.Gliessman, S.R.; Garcia, E.; Amador, A. The ecological basis forthe application of traditional agricultural technology in themanagement of tropical ago-ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems7:173- 185;1981.Grigg, D.B. The Agricultural Systems of the World:An Evo-lutionay Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;1974.Grivetti , LE. Kalahari agro-pastoral-hunter-gatherers:heTswanaexample. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 7:235-256;1979.Grossman, L.S. Peasants, Subsistence Ecology and Develop-ment in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ. Press; 1984.Harlan, J.R. The possible role of weed races in the evolutionof cultivated plants. Euphytica 14:173-176;1965.Harlan, J.R. Genetic resources in wild relatives of crops. CropSci. 16:329-333;1976.Harwood, RR S m a l l Farm Development-Understanding andZmproving Farming Systems in the Humid Tropics. Boulder,CO: Westview Press; 1979.Iltis, H.H. Freezing the genetic landscape-the preservation ofdiversity in cultivated plants as an urgent social responsibility

ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No . 1, May 1987

8/3/2019 Altieri et al., 1987

10/10

58 Peasant Agriculture C Conservation Altim' et al

of the plant geneticist and plant taxonomist. Maize Genet.Coop. Newsletter 48:199-200;1974.Ingram, G.B.; WiIliams, J.T. i n situ conservation of wild rela-tives of crops. In: J.H.W. Holden, J.T. Williams, eds. Crop Ge-netic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation. London: Allenand Unwin; 1984:163-178.

Johnston, A. Blackfoot Indian utilization of the flora of thenorthwes tern Great Plains. Econ. Bot. 24301-324;1970.Klee, G.A. World Systems of Traditional Resource Manage-ment New York: J. Wiley & Sons; 1980.Lentz, D.I. Ethnobotany of the Jicaque of Honduras.Econ. Bot.40:210-219;1986.Matteson, P.C.; Altieri, M.A.; Gagne, W.C. Modification of smallfarmer practices for better pest management. Ann. Rev. En-tomol. 24383-402;1984.May, P.H.; Anderson, A.B.; Balick, M.J.; Frazao, .M.F. Subsistencebenefits from the babassu palm (Orbignya martiana). Econ.BOt. 39~113-129;1985.Melville, R. Plant conservation and the red book. BiologicalConservation 2:185- 188;1970.Mooney, P.R. The law of the seed. Developm Dialogue 1 : l -172;1983.Nabhan, G.P. Papago Indian Fields: arid lands ethnobotany andagricultural ecology. Unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Univ. Arizona, Tuc-son, AZ;1983.Nabhan, G.P. Native crop diversity in Aridoamerica: conser-vation of regional gene pools. Econ. Bot 39:387-399;1985.Nabhan, G.P. Native American crop diversity, genetic resourceconservation and the policy of neglect. Agriculture and Hu -man Values 2:14-17;1986.National Academy of Sciences. Genetic vulnerability of majorcrops. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences; 1972.Nye, P.H.; Greenland, DJ. The soil under shifting cultivation.Technical Communication 51. Harpenden, England: Com-monwealth Bureau of Soils; 1965.Oldfteld,M.L. The value of conserving genet ic resources. Wash-ington, DC: Dept. Interior, U S . Govt. Print. Office; 1984.Plucknett, D.L.; Smith, N.J.H.; Williams, J.T.; Anishetty, N.M.Crop germplasm conservation and developing countries. Sci-ence 220:163- 169;1983.Prescott-Allen, R.; Prescott-Allen, C. In situ conservation ofcrop genetic resources: a report to the International Board forPlant Genetic Resources. Rome: IBPGR;1981.

Richardson, D. A Faustian dilemma. Unasylva 29:12-14;1977.Robbins, S.R.J.; Matthews, W.S.A. Minor forest products. Una-sylva 26:7- 14;1974.Rodriguez, J.A.; Altieri, M.A.; Siques, S.S.;Barrera, C.A. Agro-ecological typification of traditional farming systems in centralChile. In: Proc. 6th IFOAM International Scientific Confer-ence. Santa Cruz, CA :University of California (in press).Sabnis, S.D.; Bedi, S.J. Ethnobotanical studies in Dadra-NagarHaveli and Daman. Indian Journal of Forestry 6:65-69;1983.Sarukhan,J. Ecological and social overviews of ethnobotanicalresearch. Econ. Bot. 39:431-435;1985.Spears, J.S. Can the we t tropical forest survive? Commonw.For. Rev. 58:165-180;1979.Thompson, A.E. New native crops for the arid southwest.Econ.BOt. 39:436-453;1985.Toledo, V.M. La ecologia del mod0 campesino de producion.Antropologia y Marxism0 3:35- 5 5;1980.Toledo, V.M.; Carabias, J.; Mapes, C.; Toledo, C. Ecologia yAutosuficiencia Alimentaria Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Ed-itors; 1985.Wiersum, KF., editor. Viewpoints on Agroforestry.Wagenin-gen, The Netherlands: Agricultural Univ.; 1981.Wilken, G.C. The ecology of gathering in a Mexican farmingregion. Econ. Bot. 24286-295;1969.Wilken, G.C. The ecology of gathering in a Mexican farmingregion. Econ Bot. 24206-245;1970.Wilken, G.C. Integrating forest and small-scale farm systems inmiddle America. Agro-Ecosystems3291-302;1977.Wilkes, H.G. Hybridization of maize and teosinte, in Mexicoand Guatemala and the improvement of maize. Econ. Bot.3 1:254-293;1977.Wilkes, H.G. Current status of crop plant germplasm.CRCCrit-ical Review of Plant Sciences 1:133-181;1983.Wilkes, H.G.; Wilkes, S.K.The green revolution. Environment14:32-39;1972.William, B.J.; Ortiz-Solario, C. Middle American folk soil tax-onomy. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers71:335-358;1981.Wolf, E.C. Conserving biological diversity. In: The State of theWorld A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward aSustainable Society. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.;1985:124- 126.

Prescott-Allen, R.; Prescott-Allen, C. The case for in situ con-servation of crop genetic resources. Nature and Resources2 3 15-20;1982.

Conservation Biology