I’d like to pretend that our absence yesterday was a mark of solidarity with all the netizens protesting against the proposed SOPA/PIPA laws in the US. It wasn’t; we were just both snowed under. But we do think SOPA/PIPA is a mistake.
The latest issue of IRRI’s magnificent organ Rice Today contains an article on Seeds of life in Nepal. All good stuff, about how private companies and the state supply less than 10% of Nepal’s rice seed needs. The rest comes from the informal seed sector. IRRI stigmatizes those seeds as being “low quality”. So, along with the National Rice Research Program, IRRI swung into action, setting up farmer trials of modern varieties, which “within a short time … were identified as superior to local lines”.
They were Radha-32, Ghaiya-2, IR55435-5, Pakhejhinuwa, Radha-4, Ram Dhan, Barkhe-3017, Sunaulo sugandha, Barkhe-2024, and NR-1824-21-1-1.
To get seed to farmers, the project helped set up local seed producer groups, which ramped up production from 4 tonnes to 30 tonnes over three years. Even that, however, was enough for only about 1 in 10 of the farmers in the immediate neighbourhood. More groups followed in other villages, and everyone is now happy.
Except us and some people in Nepal.
The article boasts that “millet and maize that used to replace rice on the table are now feeds for livestock and poultry”. Is that an unalloyed good thing?
Were the local varieties really that bad, and were they conserved? Nepal has a good record of participatory plant breeding (PPB) and community seedbanks and seed producers, set up with local NGOs and other research centres, although one wouldn’t know it from IRRI’s article. Some of the PPB varieties produced in those projects were used by IRRI in the on-farm trials; no mention of those either. Were they rubbish? Or are their names in the list without saying where they came from? LI-BIRD, the NGO most closely associated with PPB and seed producer groups in Nepal, recently published its report for 2009-2010; it contains an article on Community based seed production and another on Community seed banks.
“…stigmatizes those seeds as being ‘low quality'”?? That’s a somewhat harsh misinterpretation of the actual wording: “Farmers therefore risk poor harvests because of low-quality seeds.” Risk of low quality doesn’t mean low quality.
Just google it and you will find the risk is real. You’ll find stats demonstrating a higher percentage of sub-standard seeds in uncertified than in certified seed. You’ll find many projects aiming to help farmers produce higher quality farm-saved seed. Look at the QDS system that aims to help farmers generate high quality seed where the formal seed certification system can’t reach.
Thanks Luigi asking for my comments.
Nepalese farmers distinguish ecosystems for rice primarily on the basis of moisture and fertility of soils. They allocate individual varieties to each ecosystem, based on the principle of ‘best fit’ between ecosystem characteristics and varietal traits, indicating that competition between varieties mainly occurs within the ecosystems. Because of ecological diversity and variation in farmer’s preferences, no one “star’ variety meet needs of millions small holder mountain farmers. Land use and ecosystems determine rice genetic diversity, with marginal land having fewer options for varieties than more productive areas. Modern varieties are mostly confined to productive land, whereas landraces are adapted to marginal ecosystems. Success mostly reported in story “Seeds of life in Nepal” in Rice Today in most productive high potential lower hills of mid western Nepal. Three of these varieties (e.g. Barkhe-3017, Sunaulo sugandha, Barkhe-2024) are outputs of PPB/client oriented plant breeding carried out by NGO-LI-BIRD with support from Research into Use Best-Bet DFID. Good that IRRI programs have included them as all of us wish to provide better options to farmers. There are over 25 Community Based Seed Producers Groups in LI-BIRDs network , in 12 districts , engaging 300 tons of rice seed (this include enhanced local variety like Jethobudho, anadi), over 10 tons of maize and over 10 tonnes of legumes as the outlet of access to new and old diversity to farmer seed system. We should not measure success of the intervention by replacing the farmer seed system. They are dynamic, open genetic resource system that provides diversity, flexibility and selection options to farmers to adapt and buffer changing adversity. Good farmers do understand this perspective but we researchers need to understand the ecosystems and varietal distribution within ecosystems better in order to address food security in geographically diverse and complex country .
Our experiences from on farm work in Nepal shows that farmers continued to grow landraces in several of the case studies areas-even closed to the rice research institute (Bara) and maintain almost 53 local rice varieties and maintained at the Kochorwa community seed bank. Threats are areas under such local varieties are decreasing and demand of such seed increase when the crop hits by stochastic events or bad year. Over last 7 years majority of small holder and poor farmers came to access landrace seed from the Community seed bank as there is other source of local seed outlet as social network and informal seed system is breaking down. Most donor and government funds are not used to strengthen local seed system that provide 95% of seed access to farmers.
It is true that farmers still growing 30 to 70 rice varieties at the community level and divergence of these varieties from one community to other community are also high. This was most likely because there were no suitable modern varieties in rainfed area of Nepal Terai region because of a lack of plant breeding for the target domain or because plant breeding efforts were insufficiently client-oriented. When landraces were found there was often a richness of diversity that could exist for several reasons. Most of them are maintained because of quality traits (Basmati types for market value), socio-cultural (needed in small quantity for festivity) and adapted to diverse abiotic stressed fields. In some areas landraces are too competitive to available modern varieties and therefore many modern varieties discontinued after initial years of adoption. Farmers may be following a risk aversion strategy and consider a portfolio of varieties will reduce the risk of poor production years or will sustain production under adverse environmental changes. Other explanations are that different varieties have different bundles of traits and farmers choose the varieties for different purposes or because farmers experiment with partial adoption over extended periods before deciding on more complete adoption.
The point I was making that we researchers whether we have CG or GO or NGO hats-one should ask whose lives we would like to change? If all of us goal is to contribute food security and nutrition of small holder poor farmers in marginal environments, then 1) access of portfolio of good varieties (both locally adapted landrace and modern of rice and any other nutritious crops) is important through the outlet of community seed producers groups and strengthening technical capacity of informal healthy seed system, 2) cultivating and supporting partnership with active NGOs and research systems by acknowledging their contribution by international agencies like IRRI and Bioversity and 3) not measuring success of rice by replacing area in expense of other important crops especially neglected and underutilized crops. In real life we all enjoy diversity and let’s keep some for future!!
Are we not mixing up here seed quality with variety quality? It is perfectly possible for land races to be the best variety around yet to have very poor quality as farm-saved seed – with weed seed, viruses, and off-types that will never contribute to a useful genetic base. A formal seed system, with field inspection, rogueing, seed cleaners and back-up seed pathology labs can help farmers maintain seed quality that continuous farm-saved seed can miss out on.
LI-BIRD seems to have got it right with an emphasis on `open’ and `dynamic’ and with the idea that a portfolio of varieties is needed to meet a range of needs. In my (limited) experience of rice varieties, it is this portfolio, rather than within-variety diversity, that is important. At least genetic diversity be quantified by number of varieties with different performance, rather than the unquantified and perhaps false assumption often made that within-variety diversity (= broad genetic base) is actually of any use to farmers. I see two problems around within-variety diversity: 1) it is difficult to get an `eyeball’ quantification of valuable diversity within a variety; 2) if this diversity is a buffer against environmental conditions it of course subject to selection, which, of course, reduces the genetic base in a way that cannot be quantified.
So the take-home message is to go for a portfolio of distinct varieties, keep your seed clean, and, ever and always, keep the system open to new varieties.