I have a thing about extension. I believe it is the great missing link in most thinking — and doing, for that matter — about conservation and use of agrobiodiversity. Genebanks around the world usually have reasonably well-established links with national agricultural research systems, but hardly any contact with extension workers, except maybe when it comes to germplasm collecting. Thats a pity, because extension systems would be valuable at all stages of the conservation-use continuum, from monitoring genetic erosion to targeting collecting to identifying breeding objectives to facilitating the evaluation and adoption of improved varieties.
The problem is that is public agricultural research is under-resourced and dysfunctional in many countries around the world, extension has, if anything, fared even worse. But that doesn’t mean that people dont have any good ideas about how to fix it.
A new KIT publication I saw announced today, for example, looks at the generally positive African experience with outsourcing agricultural advisory services to the private sector. And an IFPRI study reviews the recent reform of the Indian extension service, and also finds good things to say about the increased role of the private sector on the supply side, together with a more participatory approach to planning and implementation on the demand side.
It remains to be seen whether such macro-level changes will result in better linkages among researchers, extensionists and genebanks on the ground. I suspect it will take a major initiative to educate all three sectors in the need to work better together.
The relationship between research and extension has been a hot issue for many years. Don’t know how the divorce happened but it really exists. They just snob and scorn each other. Researchers see extensionist as basic and not able to understand the “noble” principles of research, extensionists see researchers as snobs, incapable of understanding the farmers’ real needs and priorities. Are they both right, or are they both wrong? Probably a little bit of each!
Putting the public interest in private hands always incurs in danger. I would rather see the the gap problem be solved in a frontal way than be avoided bypassing the real issue. I downloaded the referred KIT publication but, 152 pages, are not read in a minute. I will certainly read it with much interest. I might even change my mind …
I also think that PGR management should much more revolve around local and regional networks of farmers. In the classic way of doing things, extension would be the natural link between (public) science and gene banks on the one hand and farmers on the other. But if extension services become privatized and people start to think about more participatory ways of doing things, perhaps you have to think differently about these interactions.
For one thing, adapting to a more competitive, business-oriented culture would become necessary, I guess.
Instead of classic germplasm collection, think about organizing contests on “Who Has the Rarest Variety?” (measured against a reference set of already available germplasm, using SSR markers or so) with real prize money. Diversity monitoring could be done by registering seed sales and variety pedigrees. Participatory variety selection would become part of the product development routine of local seed companies.