Seed has traditionally been the
most important and often least expensive input in farming. Quality seed alone
enhances yield by as high as 10-35%. In the old day’s farmers tended to avoid
planting seed other than the one they themselves or their fellow farmers had
previous good experience with. Being natural breeders, farmers historically
practiced the process of superior plants selection for more than 5000 years;
leading to increased diversity of varieties within and across crop species,
though yields were increasing at a low pace.
Scientific plant breeding started in the early 19th century. With the passage of
time, commercial breeding companies progressed with major focus on the
development of vegetable and other field crop hybrids / GM crops. The main
objective of such companies has been and still is profit making. They seem
reluctant to care about the negative impact of their research on human health
and sustainable agricultural production. Today, the Multi National Seed
Corporations (MNSC) like Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Bayer are monopolizing
global seed markets through F1 hybrids and transgenic crops that often require
high doses of artificial fertilizer beyond the reach of subsistence farmers and
the carrying capacity of their marginal lands. Farmers have been kept aside from
the so called modern process of variety development.
During the past 100 years in the developed world and about 50 years in the
developing world profit driven monopolistic approach of artificial private
sector breeders tended to opt for increased yield at the cost of reduced
biological diversity and increasing risks to human health. The shift from
selection within the local land races to high yielding F1 hybrids has
necessitated excessive use of inputs like artificial fertilizers. As a result
genetic base of crops has narrowed. In other words the number of varieties of a
particular crop grown has squeezed to just a few.
The MNSC sell seeds that lacks regenerative ability or suitability for
re-planting, thus, arresting farmers to buy fresh seed each year. Such practice
encourages genetic uniformity and monocultures while threatening biodiversity
through gradual genetic erosion. There is no doubt such companies have played a
vital role in enhancing crop productivity to avoid the so called food insecurity
of the early nineteenth century. However, the main objectives of these companies
has consistently been to make profit. The demon of profit making has dominated
the intellect of such companies to the extent that the sustainable progress of
agriculture and the carrying capacity of mother soil is wickedly being ignored.
May, I assume human welfare and sustainable co-existence with nature should be a
priority, not pseudo profit to individuals or groups of individuals at the risk
of damage to agro biodiversity and environment.
Being Muslims, we are expected not to exercise full freedom in any walk of life.
Doing things in decent limits is the limit. However, who would fix decent
limits? Off course, democratic societies determine ways to live in harmony with
nature, which is the basic purpose of life. Great assistance can be derived from
the religion of Islam, which comprehensively protect the rights of animals and
plants in addition to human rights while referring to the holy Quran and
teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Almost all world religions share such
noble teachings one way or the other.
The introduction of high yielding exotic crop varieties has undoubtedly
increased yield, however:
• The genetic base of crop varieties in cereals, vegetables and fruits has
narrowed, considerably.
• The devastating effects of imbalanced fertilizer use and non-judicious
pesticides applications in countries such as Pakistan has already started to
show up in the shape of deteriorated soil fertility status and increased
incidence of insects / diseases.
• A weekly spray of insecticide on mid and late Peach varieties has become a
must, if the crop has to survive pest attack mainly fruit fly.
• The intensity of chemical sprays on Onion and Tomato has increased
considerably in the past two decades.
• Throughout Pakistan, many Onion seed-producing farmers have suffered a great
deal in 2015, due to purple blotch disease not responding to several ineffective
/ adulterated fungicides available in local markets.
• Even high quality imported OPV’s and F1 hybrids have produced discouraging
results on marginal lands and under specific growing conditions.
• Due to lack of adequate awareness farmers have greatly suffered from re
planting of seed produced from F1 hybrids.
• An imported onion seed sold for more than twice the price of local onion seed
inflicted huge losses on a large number of farmers in district Swat attributed
to severe bolting. Bolting is an unwanted shift from vegetative to reproductive
growth in onion bulbs production.
• High level of adulteration in seed packed in colorful tins and packets has
frustrated many vegetable farmers.
In fact, the already registered so-called local seed companies are seed dealers
in vegetables seed; imported mostly from India and Europe. Some pseudo seed
companies often located in big cities sell vegetables seed to ordinary
shopkeepers operating in small villages. Seed purchased by individuals from
pseudo dealers is sold unchecked in Friday, Saturday and Sunday markets. The
chances of such seed being true to type / quality are erratic. Above all
administrative capabilities and resolve to tackle such problems are next to
nothing.
Unfortunately, plant breeding in the public sector agricultural research in
Pakistan has not come up to the standard; attributed to poor capacity, miserable
service structure, low morale of researchers, ineffectual management and
financial constraints. All these problems have contributed to severe brain drain
from public sector research in KP. The miserable attitude of remaining
researchers towards well thought-out research can also be attributed to these
problems. The public sector research in Pakistan comprises mostly of researchers
possessing 20 years of experience in changing experiences rather than twenty
years of experience in a specialized field.
Consequently:
• Plant breeding in the public sector of agricultural research is almost limited
to an extremely poor process of introduction-selection for the release of new
crop varieties.
• Fruit research is trivial part of the total efforts devoted to fruits
research. In fact 90% of the public research system efforts are diverted to
production of fruit nursery plants; which in fact should be the task of
registered fruit plant nurseries.
• Most public sector varieties of common vegetables are product of a poor
introduction selection process and fail to compete with imported varieties.
• Linkages of our public sector research organizations within and with
international research organizations are extremely weak and erratic, if any.
• Systematic research prioritization process is not in practice primarily due to
lack of training in such methodologies.
• In reality, the public sector research system in KP is inclined to focus on
extension type activities.
On the other hand the challenges for public research are on the rise because
climate change has also become a reality as evident from drastic changes in
temperatures, precipitation and rise in sea levels. Enhancement of agro
biodiversity is certainly one of the most useful tools to face the challenges of
climate change as well as the negative effects of arrested modern agricultural
systems. Pakistan is regarded as one of the hotspots for climate change. For
Pakistan, the challenges of climate change are viewed as real, dangerous and can
be catastrophic. A drastic shift in temperatures, rainfall pattern and tendency
of increased floods has already been observed in Pakistan. Here, I recommend
readers especially the youth of today to understand and accordingly react to
climate change, as they are more likely to face its challenges in the not very
far future.
Countries such as Pakistan are an easy prey to the Multi- National Seed
Corporations, because we are keen to produce more yield to feed rapidly
increasing population. Nonetheless, our land holdings are small; mostly
fragmented, which makes us more vulnerable to the negative effects of so-called
modern agriculture dominated by F1 hybrids. To harness maximum yield from
imported hybrids our farmers mostly rely on excessive / imbalanced artificial
fertilizers and excessive or non-judicious use of pesticides causing gradual
deterioration of fertile lands and causing a variety of health risks. The
application of farmyard and green manure is negligibly low mostly due to
shortage and partly due to lack of awareness.
Soil is the source of almost all plant nutrition except CO2 and it has to be
supplied with or allowed to refresh its fertility status for the next crop.
Excessive, particularly imbalanced use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides
discourages biological activity of friendly microorganisms in the soil and
creates health risks for human and wild life because a large portion of such
inputs becomes part of the habitat. I like to conclude in light of ground
realities that shift to the so called improved and input intensive hybrid
technologies is most likely to put the sustainability of agriculture at risk for
our future generations.
Pakistan is a signatory of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). CBD requires
signatories to protect and promote the rights of communities, farmers and
indigenous people over their biological resources and knowledge systems. The CBD
also declares that intellectual property rights must not conflict with
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Over exploitation of natural resources may be attractive but neither feasible
nor acceptable with dire consequences, if allowed to continue without
restrictions. The most worrying trend in Pakistan is the involvement of public
sector researchers in promotion of F1 vegetables hybrids. This trend has gone so
far so that such F1 hybrids purchased from local markets are used in farmer’s
demonstration plots throughout Pakistan by researchers of a project financed by
the world most renowned international vegetable research organization. Such
organizations are expected to raise the pathetic vegetable breeding capacity of
public sector research in countries such as Pakistan. Is it not a pity that the
resources of a renowned organization are spent to promote F1 hybrids of
multinational seed companies?
We have no option, but to learn to release our farming community from the
increasing grip of the multinationals. Fortunately, international support is
there to support countries like Pakistan in achieving such goals. The awareness
created by the German Government assisted BKP Project implemented by GIZ is an
example of such support and this article is an example of the awareness created
by BKP in a series of workshops and adaptation measures undertaken. Several
donors around the world would be more than willing to support BKP style projects
in the future. Keeping in mind the pathetic state of related public sector
departments, it would be a pity if, donors have no choice, but to implement such
highly technical projects through NGO’s. Therefore, it’s a challenge for
relevant public sector departments to adjust to donor requirements so that the
global targets of desired biodiversity could be achieved for sustained benefits
to Pakistan in particular and global community in general.
What is the answer? The answer is simple, but not immediate and would require
drastic shift in the approaches to solve seed problem on a sustainable basis.
Progressive and educated farmers can play a key role in Participatory Varietal
Trials (PVT) after consultative breeding on the research farm gradually shifting
to Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) and subsequent certified seed production
by progressive farmers for fellow farmers. There are two types of approaches in
this regard, described below:
Participatory Varietal Trials (PVT) or Consultative Plant Breeding: In PVT or
consultative PPB, the public research breeders can involve farmers in
determining breeding objectives and test a wide range of diverse varieties in
collaboration with farmers to identify suitable varieties on the research farm.
Selected varieties are then tested on farmers field in a particular
agro-ecological zone with farmers playing a dominant role in the selection
process.
Until, 2-3 decades ago this kind of approach was being practiced in the public
sector research of KP, but without farmers involvement; on a very limited scale,
attributed mostly to inadequate plant breeders and resources. The process of PVT
became progressively weaker, instead of being strengthened, mainly due to top
driven involvement of researchers in certified seed and nursery plants
production. Gradually, the focus from variety and production technology
development was diverted to fixing income targets for the public research
institutes in KP. In this unconvinced shift of approach researchers got involved
in extension type activities continuing to this date.
Collaborative Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB): Collaborative PPB is an effort
of farmers and professional breeders to jointly develop & promote improved crop
varieties on farmers field in a particular agro ecological zone contributing to
enhanced agro biodiversity. It also offer resilience to the challenges of
climate change and encourages a sustainable agricultural production system. In
this kind of plant breeding local land races of crop varieties receive due
attention. At least one parent in a cross must be very well adapted to the local
environment.
I recommend to search google for further reading on Participatory Plant
Breeding, which is successfully being practices in India and around the world.
Examples of some key questions that need to be addressed before PVT or PPB are
as under:
Question 1: PPB is attractive, but is it feasible in an environment where the
supposedly privileged public and private seed sector has failed to address the
seed issue.
Answer 1: Participatory Plant Breeding is attractive as well as feasible. To
prove this assumption PPB at least deserve to be tested on a pilot scale. Two
vegetables such as onion and tomatoes can be considered at two locations in two
different districts at a reasonable cost of not more than 2-4 million for 5-7.
To support this assumption let me mention the case study of successful
intervention of onion seed production by onion growers in Buner district
supported by the Project for Horticultural Promotion (PHP) in the years 1990 to
2001. Farmers are still reaping the benefits of that intervention until this
date; though the intervention had several weaknesses in its implementation.
Moreover, PPB is successfully being carried out in several provinces of India,
some African countries and in Europe mostly in Germany.
Question 2: If the public or private sector crop research system has the desired
capacity and skills to get involved in PPB with farmers. Is it possible to
enhance their skills?
Answer 2: For the pilot scale testing the public sector has reasonable capacity
that would need minor adjustments and breeding skills enhancement within the
pilot scale-testing program of PPB. Once the results of pilot scale testing are
positive the program can be gradually extended to other crops and other
districts together with capacity enhancement.
Question 3: Does the desired coordination needed in PPB exists among the public
crop research and extension systems of KP?
Answer 3: Desired coordination does not exist; however, such coordination is
feasible and can be enhanced by mutual agreement of the provincial Director
Generals of both the systems.
Question 4: Do farmers have the skills, capacity and desire to participate in
PPB?
Answer 4: We as professionals often under estimate the skills / capacity of
farmers and the level to which skills of some farmers can easily be raised. Not
most, but some of our practical progressive farmers would highly appreciate to
participate, if adequately motivated.
Question 5: Is there any example of PPB successfully being practiced elsewhere
in similar environments with ground realities such as ours?
Answer 5: Participatory Plant Breeding is successfully being practiced in
several countries around the world with encouraging results also including
countries with ground realities such as ours, such as India and African
countries.
Stakeholders can off course sit together and discuss a lot more of such
questions before jumping into the idea of PPB. Personally, I am pretty convinced
that PPB is indispensable for KP. In addition, KP farmers have a great edge to
harness the benefits of organic vegetable farming in the future, attributed to
our diverse agro ecological zones ranging from 300 to 2500 meters above sea
level.
Let’s adjust ourselves to nature than expecting the nature to adjust to our
filthy desires. Also, let me thank BKP-GIZ consultant Natyagali workshop Mr.
Johannes Kotschi for his valuable comments and inspiring me to write this
article.