Document(s) 26 de 38

A. Joshi and J. Witcombe present results from a project focusing on participatory varietal rice selection in three Indian States: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. They describe the stages of identifying farmers' preferences; an India-wide search process which seeks released cultivars with characteristics matching these preferences; and farmer participatory varietal trials. They argue that the reliability of the formal, organized yield trials is low and that many of the recommended cultivars are suitable only for high input systems. However, there are suitable released within India which because of poor popularization and poor definition of recommendation domains don't reach appropriate farmers. They conclude with recommendations to decentralize both breeding and the varietal release system.]

GUPTA: I want to comment on the suggestion of reorienting the multilocational trials. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Gao Chavan, a castor variety, was developed in Gujarat but released in Andhra Pradesh, and there are many such examples where the multilocation trials have made suitable choices possible. What should be mentioned is that within the multilocational system, there should be the possibility to take trials to a greater number of locations. This would also mean that the number of lines to be advanced have to be segregated and advanced at different levels for different projections as you cannot take very large numbers of varieties because the seed requirements will increase enormously. So there are some practical ways in which the existing system can be modified — rather then releasing the varieties and then taking them for zonal selection.

... Another point is that the incentives for breeding for localized diffusion present an institutional issue of great importance which cannot be de-linked from the entire discussion. Unless and until the research system recognizes breeders for a task which is to develop lines for localized diffusion, it is unlikely that breeders will allocate time and energy to achieve that goal. So farmer participatory breeding will remain a peripheral, cosmetic activity unless institutional change takes place and local adaptation becomes an important mainstream criterion.

WITCOMBE: I want to elaborate a bit on my suggestion for reorganization. Even though we tested Kalinga 3, now for over three years, and it is one of the most popular cultivars in India, if you look at it in terms of breeder seed production and probably even in terms of hectarage grown, it is still only released in Orissa. When we sent proposals to the State Release Committees in the three states in which we were working, all those State Committees have said that they will need more data, even though we have so much farmer participatory data, which is so convincing. Therefore, it seems to me absolutely essential that the material, once it is identified and has been popular with farmers in a particular area, must be put into the multilocational trials in the appropriate zone to generate data to support NGOs who are working in farmer participatory research. Otherwise, the process will go on and on and I can see that it will take us another three years to get Kalinga 3 released in any of the States in which we are working.

SINHA: But you don't need to get it released again — once it has been released by the Central Varietal Release Committee and in a state. I can give examples, not one, but many. Variety C-306 was released only for Haryana; today it grows in all parts of the country. There is no restriction.

WITCOMBE: You are absolutely correct in what you are saying, but in practice, not having official release is a disadvantage, the reason being that the KVK's [adaptive research/demonstration centers] are not willing to take up varieties which are not released in that state. The varieties are also not recommended by the State Agricultural University in their package of practices and we are not able to get the varieties to be taken up by the State Seed Corporations because, again, they are not recommended cultivars. So what you are saying is legally correct but, in practice, release is required.

OOSTERHOUT: l think we should be really careful not to repeat what happened with the Green Revolution: the HYV was given as the answer for all problems. In the same way, this farmer participatory breeding is not the answer for all problems. As there should be a basket of choices for farmers, let there be a basket of choices for breeders. And that brings me to the next point. A lot of breeders are quite stuck because they have been taught in a certain way: they have to produce the product and there is a lot of legislation to restrict them.

What I would like to see coming out of this workshop is some sort of trainingprogram or awareness program for breeders, because a lot of breeders are really stuck .... Let us be open and creative and not think that there is only one solution.

SPERLING: I found it interesting that IPGRI is interested in decentralized selection and you have also spoken about re-introducing varieties. Has IPGRI ever thought about decentralized selection in order to reintroduce varieties, for instance, in cases like the Zimbabwean drought described this morning or in extreme cases of disruption like Rwanda or Cambodia? What kinds of mechanisms do you have for reintroducing varieties?

RILEY: I think that is a very important mechanism which I tried to present in my talk. Genebanks need to be more involved with breeders in a decentralized way. There have been many instances, as you know, where in emergencies, genebanks have been very involved in bringing material to a particular area where there has been tremendous erosion.

What we are trying to focus on here is that when we talk about in situ conservation, there is an opportunity for farmers to maintain a large amount of variation that they have been maintaining traditionally. There must be mechanisms to enable them to do that better. The paper tried to focus particularly on what breeders can do to change. One of the many components would be in re-introducing material that was lost and that is where national systems have to be very much involved with the breeders so that the process works. I think it can work best on a national basis.

KOTHARI: lndia,asmanyothercountries,isgoingverymuchintoprivatesectorbreeding,rather than public sector. Given also our concerns about site-specific breeding and selection, etc., — which are necessarily less profitable than wide adaptability selection — what is the scenario we are going into? Are we going into a situation where, in fact, we are going to lose more diversity or do you think private sector breeding could also fit into this kind of scenario of increasing diversity?

SINHA: Well, only last week, I had a meeting with the industry in Hyderabad, some 20 companies. It now seems very clear that the target of the private industry in this country is essentially the hybrids. ln the hybrids, also, the first target is the vegetable crops and then come maize, sorghum, pearl millet and there will soon be an effort in rice. The public sector as such will have a major concern for all those crops which are self-pollinated; whether it is wheat or rice or sorghum or Bajra. The public sector will have to remain seriously involved, otherwise the country will come into great difficulty .... One would not expect that the private sector would help farmers' participation in selection.

GUPTA: Another view is that the number of varieties marketed by the National Seed Corporation or State Seed Corporation in the last 20 years has been well perceived. If you look at genetic growth, the contribution of the public sector is singularly important and is continuing .... That is a matter of fact. At the same time, the regulatory framework for release, for testing of the material developed by small seed companies is very unfavorable. The small companies have to pay the same testing fee as the large multinational corporations. So, if you really wish the small private sector to be competitive and to generate varieties, then the regulatory framework has to be altered. It is not now feasible for small companies to come and play a major role.

SATHEESH: I wonder whether in the context of diversity, the question of public sector seed corporations or private sector is relevant at all because I think that both of them work toward one goal — anti-diversity. There was some suggestion that the private sector will ultimately look at consumer preferences and will make something for their preferences, but everyone knows that the private sector manipulates consumers. So I think that if biodiversity is the goal, then the seed producers will have to be the people themselves and the communities themselves and no national corporation, whether public or private sector or multinational.

Document(s) 26 de 38