Monitoring On-Farm Diversity in the United States by Cathleen McCluskey, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, USA A modeling approach for on farm crop diversity management by Abdel Kader Naino Jicka, INRA, France Management of plant health and crop diversity – a case study by Stephanie Klaedtke, Univ. de Liège - SEED, Belgium Conservation and usage of chestnut biodiversity: a case study of partnership research by Cathy Bouffartigue, INRA, France Mapping European CSAs’ Practices for Cultivated Biodiversity by Jocelyn Parot, INRA, France From Cosmopolitan maize to Identitarian maize: collective management of maize landraces in France and Italy by Marianna Fenzi, INRA, France Governance and organizational models of informal seed systems in Italy by Riccardo Franciolini, RSR, Italy

1. Management of plant health and
crop diversity –
a case study
Stephanie M. Klaedtke (ITAB, ULiège)
François Mélard (ULiège)
Véronique Chable (INRA)
Pierre M. Stassart (ULiège)

2. Management of plant health and crop diversity –
a case study
Objective
• Specifying how a group
of seed producers
articulate crop diversity
and plant health
management
Methods
• Interdisciplinary
combination of field
trials, and qualitative
inquiry: interviews and
participant observation

3. Main result
Plant health is managed in
situ and conceived in amidst
the interactions between the
local environment, the
plants and the farming
practices.
Managementofplanthealthandcropdiversity–
acasestudy

4. • Boundaries of plants
and their health are
redrawn
• In situ management
links plant health and
crop diversity
management
• Need to consider plant
health at the collective
scale
Stephanie.klaedtke@itab.asso.fr
TakeHomeMessage
Managementofplanthealthandcropdiversity–
acasestudy

5. Conservationandusage
ofchestnutdiversity:
acasestudyofpartnershipresearch
CathyBouffartiguea,TimothéeFlutreb,NathalieCouixa,
TeresaBarenechec,LucHarvengtd,LaurentHazarda
aAGIR,UniversitédeToulouse,INRA,INPT,INP-EIPURPANCastanetTolosan,France,bINRA,UMRAmélioration
GénétiqueetAdaptationdesPlantesméditérranéennesettropicales,F-34060Montpellier,France;cINRA,UMR1332
deBiologieduFruitetPathologie,F-33140,Villenaved'Ornon,France;dGeneticsandBiotechnologyteam,Biotech
andAdvancedForestryDepartment,FCBAtechinstitute,CampusRechercheForêt-BoisdePierroton,71route
d'Arcachon,33610Cestas,FRANCE

6. Number of chestnut sampled
per geographic area
63
• Considering together the
social and biological aspects
embedded in the diversity of
an underutilized fruit tree
species
• Partnerships with
associations/conservatoires –
mostly amateurs
• Microsatellites
• Interviews and workshops
Conservationandusageofchestnutdiversity:
acasestudyofpartnershipresearch
Sampling sites Objective
Methods
Whatistheroleofamateurs’practicesandviewsonthe
conservationofchestnutdiversity?

7. Conservationandusageofchestnutdiversity:
acasestudyofpartnershipresearch
Main result Mostsampledsites
havegenotypes
belongingto
differentclusters
CultivatedchestnutisquitediverseinFrance
(227allelesin238genotypes,meanofallellesperloci:10.4)

8. Conservationandusageofchestnutdiversity:
acasestudyofpartnershipresearch
• Cathy.bouffartigue@inra.fr
• Funders : Fondation de France, Région
Occitanie
• Research partners : INRA Biogeco,
FCBA
• Field Partners : ACRC, Rénova,
Renouveau de la châtaigne en Hautes-
Pyrénées, Paysans du Rance, Vergers
d’Antan, Croqueurs de pommes du
Limousin, Syndicat des producteurs de
châtaignes du Var
Islocalchestnutfromhere?

9. Monitoringon-farmgeneticdiversity
offieldcornintheUnitedStates
Cathleen McCluskey

10. Monitoringon-farmgenetic
diversityoffieldcornintheU.S.
Objective
• How do U.S. field corn
growers perceive,
monitor, and manage
crop genetic diversity
on their farms?
Methods
• Conducted a series of
in-person interviews
with Midwestern corn
growers about how
they monitor and
manage on-farm
genetic diversity on
their farms.

11. Monitoringon-farmgenetic
diversityoffieldcornintheU.S.
Main result
• Majority of farmers
interviewed rely on
seed dealers to make
variety decisions and
responses varied
drastically as to their
understanding of what
pedigree information
they have access to.

12. Monitoringon-farmgenetic
diversityoffieldcornintheU.S.
• If farmers do not have
access to the genetic
background details of
their seed and rely on
seed dealers’ variety
recommendations, who
is monitoring and
managing on-farm
diversity in U.S. fields?
• Contact email:
cmccluskey@wisc.edu
• These interviews were
funded by a Center for
Integrated Agricultural
Systems Mini-Grant
TakeHomeMessage

13. Mappingeuropean
CSAs’practicesfor
CultivatedBiodiversity
Jocelyn Parot1, Cathy Bouffartigue2, Charline Ducottet3
1 URGENCI Maison de la vie associative 13400 Aubagne, France;2 AGIR Université de
Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INP-EI PURPAN Castanet Tolosan, France; 3 Biodiversité Cultivée et
Recherche Participative, UMR Bagap, INRA, Le Rheu, France

14. MappingeuropeanCSAs’
practicesforCultivated
Biodiversity
Objective
• Are the close
partnerships between
farmers and consumers
a source of social
innovation for in-situ
management of
biodiversity?
Methodology
• Online survey
circulated among
URGENCI, network and
allies
• In-depth semi-directed
interviews with
identified stakeholders

15. MappingeuropeanCSAs’
practicesforCultivated
Biodiversity
Main result
• CSAs’ consumer
participation in seeds
production and
conservation is rare
• The initiatives on
cultivated biodiversity
are mostly initiated and
done by the farmer(s)
Farmer
CSA
collective
decision
facilitator of
the CSA
one member
or small
group in the
CSA
Average percentage of stakeholders
launching in situ conservation
actions for all species

16. MappingeuropeanCSAs’
practicesforCultivated
Biodiversity
• What would be the conditions for
a stronger involvement of CSAs’
consumers in cultivated biodiversity
considerations ?
• What would be the benefits of
increased consumers' awareness
and commitment to the field of in
situ conservation ? For consumers
themselves? For farmers? For the
CSA networks?
• jocelyn.parot@urgenci.net
• cathy.bouffartigue@posteo.net
• charline.ducottet@inra.fr
AdemandofsomeCSAs’consumers,afarmerinitiative

17. Amodelingapproachforon
farmcropdiversitymanagement
AbdelKaderNainoJika,MathieuThomas,MatteoPetiti,Riccardo
BocciandIsabelleGoldringer

18. Amodelingapproachforonfarmcrop
diversitymanagement
Objective
Exploretheimpactof
differentcommunityseed
systemsorganisationmodes,
farmers’practicesand
environmentalconditionson
geneticdiversityand
populationadaptationover
generations
Methods
-Scenarioco-constructon
withRSR
-Simulaton
-Outputanalysis
1
2
3

19. Mainresult
Thereisagradualeffect
ofselectionongenetic
diversityandgenetic
differentiationwhen
movingfromasingle
environmenttothe
environmentalgradiant
andtothetwoconstrated
environment.
HS
Fst
Generatons
Amodelingapproachforonfarmcrop
diversitymanagement

20. Themodelingbased
approach(CropMetapop)
canhelpuscompare
severalmanagement
strategiesandtoidentify
themostinteresting
strategyintheshortand
mediumterm.
•Kader.jika@inra.fr
•Acknowledgements:
RSR,Diversifood
TakeHomeMessage
Amodelingapproachforonfarmcrop
diversitymanagement

21. Governanceandorganizational
modelsofinnovatineseed
systemsinItaly
L. Ortolani, B. Bussi, R. Franciolini, M. Petitti, R. Bocci
Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtrede
mémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrez
l'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujours
a!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer.

22. Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,
vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer.
Governanceandorganizational
models...
Objective
• Describe participatory
processes to
strengthen
agrobiodiversity
management
capabilities
Methods
• Participatory design based
on integrated seed system
picture

23. Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.
Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'image
avantdelaréinsérer.
Governanceandorganizational
models...
Main result
• Describe governance
and organizational
models of CBM
• Acknowledgement and
capacity to compare
CBM
Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaule
fichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer.
Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveau
lefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer.

24. Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer.
Governanceandorganizational
models...
• Identify governance
models
• More case studies
• Dynamics in
governance
info@semirurali.net

25. Restoringcultivatedagrobiodiversity:
theroleofknowledgegovernance
withinpeasantseednetworks
AcasestudyonWheatParticipatoryBreeding
GroupoftheRSP
Armelle Mazé, Aida Calabuig Domenech, Isabelle Goldringer
SENAC project – Socio-Ecological Systems in a Changing World

26. Theselectivenatureofknowledge
networksandgovernance.
TheWheatParticipatorybreedinggroupoftheRSP
Objective
How the structure of the
network & models of collective
action influence knowledge
dissemination on landrace
varieties
• What impact of the institutional
environment on
• What impact on the network
dynamics and participation in a
context of growth
Methods
• IAD2 framework (Ostrom,
2005, 2009)
• Network structure
• Knowledge systems
• Governance and Rules-in-
use of the member groups
• Network formalization of
knowledge exchanges
between the groups
• Giuliani (2007) on innovative
wine clusters

27. Theroleofknowledgegovernance
withinpeasantseedsnetwork
Main result
• A polycentric and open
network covering
discontinuous territories
• A diversity of rules and
models of collective action
• With differentiated positions
of the groups within the
network
• The groups with the stronger
“knowledge base” are more central
• Size of the collection
• Type of activity
• Level of investment in
network seed activities
Table2-ThreemainmodelsofcollectivegovernanceofPWBG’scollectivegroups
Model1
Specializedconservation-propagation
orientedmodelofgovernance
Model2
Value-oriented
modelof
governance
Model3–
Commonbaselinefor
participatory
breedingrules
Type1-Ptn:
Adistributed
governancemodel
withoutafacilitator
Type2GdN:A
locallycentralized
governancemodel
withafacilitator
Modelmanagedby
anotherorganization
(cooperatives,
nationalparks,etc.)
Modelmanagedbythe
nationalnetworkand
appliedonavoluntary
basis
Lessformalizedwith
strongerinformal
coordinationamong
peasants/gardeners;no
compensationscheme
Moreformalized
rules,witha
facilitatoranda
compensation
scheme
Formalizedrulesand
contractswithaprice
systemforderived
finalproducts(flour,
bread,etc.)
Optionalinternalrules
(RI)andguidelinesto
beusedbyPWBG
members;managedby
thePWBGfacilitator;
Ptn,M,SPT,Trp,AD
R-A,Ganj,MSP46,
C32
GdN,CTB,ADNAB04,G65allgroupsexceptAB04
andMSP46
Adapted from Calabuig Domenech (2017). The groups dedicated to peasant seeds are in bold, and the
core historical groups or individuals are underlined.

28. Theroleofknowledgegovernance
withpeasantseednetworks.
• Beyond seed exchanges: recreating
a shared knowledge base
• Different trade-offs between
distributed and locally centralized
models depending of the human
and financial (facilitator + €€€ )
• Against institutional
monocropping:
• Maintaining a diversity of models of
collective action
• A dynamic of mutual learning and
hybridization of rules
maze@agroparistech.fr
TakeHomeMessage

29. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize:
collectivemanagementofmaizelandraces
inFranceandItaly
Marianna Fenzi, Laurent Hazard, Nathalie Couix
INRA-SAD, UMR 1248 Agir, Toulouse, France.

30. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize
Objective
To analyze forms of
organization related to maize
landraces management.
To trace the construction of
new connections, narrations,
imaginaries on maize culture.
To identify motivations, values
and limitations related to
maize landraces management.
Methods
France – Italy Comparative
analysis based on:
• Semi-structured interviews
with 47 farmers
• 29 in Aquitaine
• 18 in Veneto
• Observant participation.
• Historical research.

31. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize
• Aquitaine:
• maize landraces from Latin
America and from different
European countries
• genetic mixing
• animal feeding
• interest in having their “own
seeds”.
• Veneto:
• local maize form Veneto
landraces
• conservation "in purity”
• use for human food
• interest in typicity and
commercial valorization.
Varieties of maize landraces
Main reasons for growing maize landraces

32. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize
• Different and often
opposite management
strategies between the two
maize collectives. These
different paths shaped
farmers’ approaches to
maize conservation and
breeding, as well as their
attachment to maize.
• Acknowledgements:
• AgroBioPerigord association
• Marano & Sponcio cooperatives
• DIVERSIFOOD
TakeHomeMessage
marianna.fenzi@gmail.com
laurent.hazard@inra.fr
nathalie.couix@inra.fr