Document(s) 25 de 38

Abstract: Over the last three decades, there has been a progressive decline in the number of rice varieties, cereals and millets cultivated in India, with rapid changes in agricultural technology being responsible for this trend. As the biodiversity and sustainability debates have led us to rethink our traditional practices, a study has been started to understand the processes by which communities have maintained their biodiversity of seeds, their current seed status, and the means by which farmers can be encouraged to revive systems of varietal maintenance. The work described below has been taken up in the Chengam Taluk of the Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District in Tamil Nadu. Several traditional varieties are still being preserved by farmers, with an initial survey showing that most of the cultivators of traditional rice are marginal and small farmers, owning 0.5-1 ha of land. Being poor, both groups have had little access to institutional credit for sinking wells and their investment could not have repaid their loans. The quality of their land is also invariably poor, although the traditional rainfed paddy has fared well on these margins, assuring the farmer food security. Breakdown of traditional water management systems and the falling of the water table have contributed to the spread of traditional varieties in this area. Surveys results show that there is a great demand for the revival of traditional varieties, and through a community effort, a community seedbank is being established.

Introduction

Thirty thousand indigenous varieties of rice grew in India prior to Green revolution. Today, there not more than fifty are widely known and cultivated. The alarming rate of ecological and biodiversity destruction has now been recognized, and the need for conservation is acknowledged at the level of farmers and the State. According to the Agenda 21 (Article 15.2), "Major adjustments are needed in agricultural, environmental and macro-economic policy, at both national and international levels, in both developed as well as developing countries" (in Keating, 1993). The Agenda also calls for both in situ and ex situ conservation and suggests that national governments take prime responsibility for conserving their biodiversity and for using their biological resources sustainably.

Ex situ conservation

In situ conservation

1. Ecological
   1. a. Insurance against pest and diseases
   2. b. Insurance against drought and climate change

2. Economic: strengthening internal inputs supply

3. Nutritional

4. Political
   1. Strengthening farmers rights
   2. Strengthening third world rights.

The case of Chengam Taluk: the background setting for a community seedbank

Chengam Taluk

Area under cultivation of high yielding and local varieties of paddy in Tamil Nadu

Figure 1: Area under high yielding/local variety of paddy in North Arcot. Source: Season and Crop Report of Tamil Nadu, Directorate of Statistics, Madras.

Table 1: Area (ha) under high yielding/local varieties of paddy in each district of Tamil Nadu. In each set, top figure = HYV, bottom figure = local.
District	1983-84	1984-85	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88	1990-91
Chengalpattu MGR	193874 77629	214479 59212	234874 41593	135506 39426	206868 12329	222466 9494
South Arcot	200261 20175	277820 7430	292052 9731	281002 8021	235291 1769	17942
North Arcot	199460 37801	219736 23705	225917 20838	142993 7362	137051 6036	86780 1103
Salam	49308 11457	45110 8347	30106 6769	31479 9485	40838 10384	28199 2176
Dharmapuri	20972 22808	20645 15188	22466 13804	28215 14107	29123 11989	22714 7213
Coimbatore	30273	39786	21684	26997	15741	18156
Periyar	79634	73611	28810	63748	33974 88	64255
Tiruchirapalli	122196 15065	109355 11771	80421 4462	89545 4000	89897 7763	78002 14680
Pudukkotai	102318 4325	84436 3610	90213 6349	91962 180	99262 620	68443
Thanjavur	491232 2504	628289 1969	512909 4395	465535 335	445120 2445	453528 5894
Madurai	140092 2694	141537 1482	96586 870	84374 243	103393 635	118726 423
Dindigul Anna			22638	18711 629	28602 635	21439 515
Ramanathapuram	187746 15194	53294 889	42447 8849	41580 8487	55958 88173	55164 96101
Kamarajar		31245 4418	24534 3358	25381 3216	39615 3305	35962 820
Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevara		70483	54964 5003	53338 3630	91194 11585	84434 4909
Thirunelveli Kattabomman	109221 19977	127546 9078	121413 8446	57396 1755	85942 1247	99974 1428
V.O. Chidambaram				18223 295	22366 42	28756 33
The Nilgiris	159	160	160	165	61 2182	274 2509
Kanniyakumari	14720 24899	16812 29450	18015 26608	15609 15336	18350 14950	26635 14593
Source: Season and Crop Report of Tamil Nadu, Directorate of Statistics, Madras.

Paddy cultivation in Chengam

Reasons for the cultivation of traditional rice varieties: Most of the cultivators of these traditional varieties are marginal and small farmers, owning 0.5 to 1 ha of land, with much of the population falling in this category (see Table 2).

Table 2: Statistics on land distribution in Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District of Tamil Nadu, 1980.
Size of holding	Total holdings	Percentage of total holdings
Below 1 hectare	465,095	69.80
Between 1 and 2 hectares	78,748	11.82
Between 2 and 4 heectares	70,635	10.60
Over 4 hectares	51,824	7.78
All sizes	666,302	100.00

There are many reasons why these poorer farmers continue to grow traditional varieties; I briefly list them below:

• Being small and marginal farmers, they have little access to institutional credit for sinking wells and their investment would not bring much return to repay the loans. The quality of lands is also invariably poor.

• The breakdown of traditional water management systems has contributed to the spread of traditional rice varieties since a number of traditional varieties can be grown under unirrigated conditions (see Figure 2). Most irrigation tanks are currently working below their real potential due to encroachment on and breakdown of traditional water management practices. Last year, farmers who planted high-yielding varieties (HYVs) in Pudupet village near Chengam, suffered heavy yield losses while those who planted the traditional variety (Vadan Samba) were quite successful. This year, many farmers in the same village have cultivated the traditional rainfed variety.

• Traditional rainfed paddy fares well on marginal lands, at least assuring farmers food security for the year.

• Under good soil conditions, certain farmers grow particular traditional varieties like Kitchidi samba, which gives 35 bags per acre, a good yield.

• The pesticide requirement is nil, or very low.

• They are extremely tasty and delicious. Most farmers grow a traditional variety for their own consumption and a high yielding variety for the market.

• When rain fails, local varieties seem to do better; farmers switch over to them.

• A number of traditional varieties can be sown by broadcasting and the labor is reduced.

• Soil constraints also contribute towards looking toward the local varieties. The term 'cheru' is used by the farmers to denote the mud created by flooding and plowing in the paddy field. This is essential for transplanting the paddy. The depth of cheru varies on different soils. On deeper cheru, high yielding varieties do not grow well. Local varieties may also do well under "soil-stress" conditions. For example, in saline soils, only the traditional variety Kalar palai grows. Kalar denotes saline soil.

• Certain varieties like Sirumani, Neelam samba etc., are specially preferred for lactating mothers. They are preserved for this reason.

Figure 2: Area under high yeild/local variety of paddy in North Arcot. Source: Tamil Nadu agricultural census reports (1981-82), Department of Statistics, Madras.

Table 3 shows the reasons for farmers not adopting high yielding varieties in the areas of North Arcot district (Farmer, 1977).

Table 3: Percentage of never-adopters (1972-73), de-adopters (1973-1974) and non-adopters (1973-1974) of HYV paddy among paddy cultivators by reasons given, North Arcot District
Reasons	1972-73 Farm Survey (n = 200)		1973-74 Cultivator Survey (n = 200), non-adopters
	Never adopters	De-adopters	Sornavari	Samba	Navarai	All seasons
Fertilizer problems: availability, cost, timeliness, distance of source, etc.			39	80	79	69
Pesticide problems: availability, cost, timeliness, distance of source, etc.			17	56	50	45
HYVs not profitable	4	15	42	50	29	44
Water problems: control, needs pump-set, insufficiency, etc.	27	23	19	34	29	29
Soil problems: needs testing, not suitable, etc.	12	15	14	38	15	27
Inadequate knowledge, lack of advice	4	2	12	35	13	24
Grain quality not satisfactory, unpalatable, etc.	1	6	14	18	23	17
Credit problems: lack of funds for inputs	36	32	15	17	23	16
Family members opposed	na	na	3	22	17	15
Not convinced about high yields of HYVs	4	2	10	18	4	12
Season not suitable because of pests	na	na	25	9		12
Tractors too expensive	na	na		12	4	7
Seed not available, price too high, etc.	1			10	4	6
Labour problems	na	na	2	8	6	6
Note: "Never-adopters" were those who had never tried HYV paddy; "de-adopters" were those who had tried HYV paddy before 1972-73; "non-adopters" were those not growing HYV paddy in 1973-74; na = not available. Source: Green Revolution? by B.H. Farmer, 1977.

Setting up a seedbank in Chengam

References

Directorate of Statistics, Government of the State of Tamil Nadu, 1981-82. Tamil Nadu Agricultural Census Reports.

Farmer, B.H., ed., 1977. Green Revolution? Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.

Keating, M., 1993. The Earth Summit's agenda for change. Centre for Our Common Future.

Navdanya, 1993. Cultivating Diversity. India: The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy.

Footnotes:

1. We wish to acknowledge the Third World Network India for providing financial support for this study. We would personally like to thank Dr. Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy who has been the guiding force behind this effort. We also wish to express our thanks to all the members of our project team. (BACK)

Document(s) 25 de 38