An article in the NY Times tells a frustrating tale of agrobiodiversity use: stunning use by researchers, followed by disappointing use by farmers. It’s the story of Nerica ((The piece has been picked up elsewhere. The Economist’s Free Exchange blog also comments on it.)) — New Rice for Africa. This is a family of varieties derived in the 90s from a biotechnological breakthrough, the hybridization of African and Asian rice. ((Don’t get me wrong, these are not transgenics, though molecular methods were used to overcome the huge challenge of interspecific hybridization.)) Combining “the toughness of O. glaberrima with the productivity of O. sativa,” Nerica varieties have:
– Higher yields (by 50% without fertilizer, and 200% with).
– Earlier maturity (by 30-50 days).
– Resistance to local stresses.
– Higher protein content (by 2%).
A great example of researchers really unleashing the potential of genetic diversity. And one that has been rightly widely recognized. So why have the resulting varieties “spread to only a tiny fraction of the land in West Africa where they could help millions of farming families escape poverty”? It hasn’t been for want of trying:
To quickly move the NERICA technology into farmers’ hands, WARDA and its partners have adopted farmer-participatory approaches, such as the Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) and community-based seed production systems (CBSS).
The NY Times piece suggests that the reason for Nerica’s disappointing use by farmers comes down to infrastructure. The seeds — even information about them — are not getting to the farmers that need them, and the harvest finds it hard to get to market. That’s because there are few seed companies, roads are bad, telecommunications poor, credit not available. The article also suggests that yield of Nerica has been known to decrease over time “because the new seed was not pure.”
It is undeniable that seed systems could be strengthened in Africa, and that doing so would improve the lot of smallholders. But I don’t know. Farmers are not stupid. They know how to select material for next year’s sowing, and they exchange seeds all the time, often over large distances. Their lives depend on it. Is there something else holding Nerica back? Or maybe it’s just too soon to be expecting miracles of adoption?
I was astonished by this comment from the Economist blog, about the effect of access to markets etc:
The authors estimated, for instance, that by picking up Zimbabwe and plopping it down in central Europe one might increase that nation’s GDP by 80% at a stroke.
It is so easy to lose sight of the real difficulty of doing business in Africa.
Tell me about it. And yet some things do take off. Look at leafy green veggies. Go figure.
I don’t think being Switzerland would help Zimbabwe much if their president were to follow.
That aside, this post got me thinking about a problem with the one-dimensional concept of food security you often hear from the Plant Genetic Resources camp: We conserve PGR to make it available to plant breeders, they will use them to breed improved varieties which will boost crop production and feed the poor. This is one-dimensional because it only emphasise the production side and not the demand side of food security. In other words availability not access. I see the NERICA story involves participatory plant breeding methods etc. so this is probably not be the right breeding effort to pick on, but the rhetoric of the conservation-and-use people is often in need of an overhaul.