As a young African with a farming background, like many out there, I cannot underestimate the contributions of agroecology to the sustainability of our fragile ecosystems. It is undeniable that African land is being destroyed by short sighted industrial monocultures. And it’s evident that agroecology works to preserve the important resources and communities that are destroyed by industrial agriculture.

Agroecology is gaining interest amongst many small scale farmers in Africa and especially in Uganda where they still mostly control agriculture and food production. They are finding in agroecology elements of traditional African systems, reversing the trend towards monocropping and feeding themselves during lean seasons. Production does not encroach upon the health of their families, communities or natural resources. Unlike the ‘production gospel’ that only benefits seed monopolies and agrochemical dealers, agroecology does not promote profit at the expense of the environment or other people. It is unfortunate that some young producers are swept into believing the propaganda of quick returns from their farms. They turn a blind eye to healthy production techniques and ignore calls for sustainability.

I appeal to all fellow young African farmers, agronomists and food activists to resist the seed of greed sown by multinational profit oriented agro-input dealers that force us to believe that the excessive consumption, waste and extreme destruction of resources we have today is normal and fair. Agroecology offers different ways of farming and eating that safeguard our future and that of those who will come after us.

Edward Mukiibi (ediemukiibi@gmail.com) is the national coordinator of Slow Food in Uganda and the Vice President of Slow Food International.

The post Agroecology ensures our future well-being appeared first on Ileia.

As farmers we have been entrusted with the seed for thousands of years. If we – the small farmers – do not continue to grow diverse, unique crops that are open pollinated and adaptable to the climate, we lose control of our food source,” said my mum Shelley, expanding on the importance of seed sovereignty, not only for Canadian food sovereignty, but also for farmers and consumers.

My parents, Shelley and Tony, have been farming for more than 28 years. They own and operate 97 hectares not far from Ottawa. Two years ago, in 2014, they decided to use about 16 hectares of their land to grow heritage grains for local markets. These are old varieties or species of grains that have not been hybridised or genetically modified to fit mainstream farming practices and have, as a result, been largely forgotten or neglected. This is important in a country where the diversity of grains has been dwindled down to almost nothing with the majority of farmers growing only a few varieties of maize, wheat and barley. Developing new and alternative production models and markets is therefore at the heart of Shelley and Tony’s efforts to revive heritage grains.

Growing Against the Grain

They aptly named their new venture ‘Against the Grain’ and started experimenting with a range of wheat and barley varieties – Purple Ethiopian Barley, Scottish Bere Barley, Tibetan Barley, Blue Utrecht Wheat, Einkorn Wheat, Black Emmer Wheat, Brazilian Laurus Wheat, Kamut and White Sonoma Wheat– amongst others. Although wheat and barley were not domesticated in Canada, generations of selection and breeding by Canadian farmers has resulted in locally-adapted heritage varieties. For instance, beta-glucan barley, which Tony and Shelley grow and sell, directly from the farm and, online. This variety was researched and developed specifically for the Canadian food market.The rarity of these grains created practical challenges, from difficulties to source enough seeds to acquiring suitable equipment to harvest, thrash, clean and store the grains. On top of this, finding other farmers who’ve grown these crops and can share information on the history and provide tips and tricks of the trade has been difficult. Overcoming these challenges has been a lesson in persistence. Each year Shelley and Tony learn more about the grains’ growing characteristics – planting time, row spacing, favoured soil type, resistance to wind and fungus and time to maturity. For instance, last spring it became evident that a number of these older varieties needed an additional step in the cleaning process to remove the hard outer shell of the grain and the long bracts. While it was not easy to find them, they have also been able to connect with other farmers who have, for instance, helped them with the equipment needed for harvest. Shelley and Tony are members of the Ontario Ecological Farmers Association. The organisation helps to connect farmers across Ontario looking to grow alternative grains, create seed banks and who are interested in small farm ownership. The membership has enabled them to connect with other like minded farmers along the way.

Heritage grains

‘Heritage’ and ‘ancient’ are often used interchangeably. Heritage grains are an alternative to so called mass-market grains and are seen as a part of the resistance against the consolidated seed industry. Three quarters of the worlds’ seed market is controlled by ten companies who concentrate on only a few crops and varieties. For example, in Canada, 95 % of seeds used to grow major crops are bred for uniformity and performance under routine use of synthetic inputs. Heritage grains are also becoming more popular amongst consumers where their superior nutritional properties are recognised and marketed. For example, purple corn has between 15 and 20 % more of the eight essential amino acids found in yellow corn.

New partnerships, new markets

Beyond the farm gate, the challenge of this adventure continues as markets still need to be created for nonGMO, open pollinated and non-patented seeds in Canada. This is where the connection between seeds and food comes in, and the role of building relationships between farmers and consumers. Shelley has invested in creating new partnerships with bakers, artisans, chefs and businesses across southern Ontario. As a result, several chefs and bakers in the Ottawa area now use Against the Grain products. For instance, one chef is substituting imported rice with Against the Grain barley berries. And a bakery in Ottawa sells various pastries and pies made with their barley flour and purple corn meal. Moreover, Against the Grain is currently working together with an enterprise that supplies food to 1200 schools to develop a healthy cookie made from barley flour.

There is increasing awareness amongst chefs and consumers about the importance of how grains are grown
There is increasing awareness amongst chefs and consumers about the importance of how grains are grown, and the correlation between non-GMO products and health. The response from customers has been overwhelming, particularly when consumers understand the health benefits of whole grains. “Seeing people interested and wanting to know more about heritage and Canadian grains is proof that there’s power to create change within the food and agriculture system,” said Shelley. A challenge in this arena has been to meet all the regulations for the processing of the grains, such as getting approval and meeting food processing and health standards for the millers that Against the Grain works with.

Keeping seed diversity alive

Shelley continues to work with new partners to build and broaden the movement to keep the seed genetic diversity alive in Canada. Against the Grain is working with scientists from the University of Manitoba to trial different varieties of grains to determine the suitability and productivity of these grains in various Canadian climates. Currently, three varieties of hulless oats – which are crosses of different heritage grains – are being tested.Wanting to maintain and expand seed diversity, Against the Grain donates their heritage seeds to organisations such as Seeds of Diversity and USC Canada, who have created seed banks with more than a thousand rare Canadian-adapted seed varieties. This project is organised through the Canadian Bauta Initiative, which works with various organisations to preserve rare varieties of seeds for future generations. And this spring, Shelley and Tony initiated a ’Grow a Row’ project on their farm – a community initiative where gardeners and farmers share their excess produce with local soup kitchens and food banks. As part of this effort, high school students will be growing heirloom tomatoes on Shelley and Tony’s farm and donate the produce to a local food bank.

While it’s never easy to take a different course than society dictates, Shelley has always been a believer in the notion that small steps can have big impacts: “We have the power to create change, one seed at a time.”

Kristen Spruit (kristen.spruit@gmail.com) is a communications student and journalism graduate. Her passion for travel has taken her to more than 40 countries around the world, providing inspiration for her second passion: writing. For more information visit www.againstthegrainfarms.ca

The post Heritage grains in Canada: digging our roots, planting our seeds appeared first on Ileia.

What is meant by non-commercial ‘orphan crops’?

Traditional crops such as cowpea, sorghum, millet, pigeon pea, cassava and sweet potato are referred to as non-commercial ‘orphan crops’, as part of a particular narrative that values crops that are produced commercially and traded on international markets, while everything else, like traditional or indigenous crops, are considered ‘orphan’. But on the ground, these crops form the basis of our food and farming systems. The value of these crops is not recognised. They’ve been neglected in regional, national and international policy, and in research and development spaces.

"GM crops simply cannot address multiple nutritional challenges"

But we do not agree with the use of the term ‘orphan crops’. In the same way that we changed the discourse around ‘informal seed systems’ to ‘farmer-managed seed systems’ we have to question whether crops are really orphan or underutilised. Terms like ‘orphan crops’ are derogatory and I regret that we used it in our recent report, but it’s out there now and it’s a learning curve for us. The more we work with farmers on the ground the more we are humbled and we go back to the drawing board to rethink our strategy and way forward.

What is your concern with genetic modification of these crops?

First, we are very critical of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa and have been opposing GM in Africa for almost 20 years. We are fundamentally opposed to reductionist solutions imposed upon Africa by powerful external forces that are based on replacing existing farmer-managed food and farming systems with a model that is ecologically unsustainable and inherently socially unjust.Claims that GM addresses vitamin and nutrient deficiencies through biofortification is turning the attention and resources of politicians and researchers towards new technologies such as gene editing and genesilencing. There has been a spate of articles and discussion around this, yet very little attention goes to the biosafety risks nor the past failures associated with GM crops. It is surprising that biofortification receives so much attention when GM crops simply cannot address multiple nutritional challenges arising from, amongst others, environmental degradation and lack of access to public health and sanitation. Our main objection is that this diverts resources and the policy making trajectory away from real solutions which can be found in the diversity of food and farming

"There is clearly an opportunity to embrace an alternative transformation agenda based on agroecology"

In some parts of Southern Africa, and in the USA, Canada and Latin America, farmers can’t even imagine agriculture without GM. At the same time, smallholder farmers in Africa produce 80 % of our food largely based on their own seed systems. So in our recent report (see box), we look at what the GM industry is doing with farmers’ traditional seeds and crops, and where public research funding is going. Now at least groups have, in one document, an outline of who are the companies donating technology, which traits in crops are being researched, which crops are being targeted, and how much money is going into these projects. The report reveals that there are whole host of agendas at play. For instance much of the research is on new GM traits and is in the stage of either greenhouse containment or confined field trials. The prospects of commercialisation are unclear as approval of new traits takes a long time and depends on the evolution of biosafety regulations and new or existing moratoriums. It is not clear when, or whether or not, any of these GM crops will reach the commercialisation stage.

But in general, we are very concerned about the GM industry and multinational companies further prying open Africa’s food and farming system through its expansion into non-commercial crops, while there is clearly an opportunity for governments and a host of actors to embrace an alternative transformation agenda based on agroecology.

New ACB report: For your own good. The chicanery behind non-commercial ‘orphan crops’ and rice for Africa

The African Centre for Biodiversity released For your own good in April 2016, outlining the GMO industry’s expansion across Africa. The report focuses on non-commercial crops – cassava, sorghum, sweet potato, pigeon pea and millet, as well as rice – revealing that a great deal of research and development is currently underway into the genetic modification of these crops. Most of the ongoing trials are focused on drought and salt tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, resistance to tropical pests and diseases and nutritional enhancement (biofortification). The key countries that have been targeted include Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Malawi. The current wave of GM research is not enabling smallholders in Africa to choose their means of production and survival and is shifting control over the future of farming in Africa from farmers to those who will benefit from profits to be made from GM. Moreover GM crops threaten genetic diversity that exists amongst traditional plant varieties. The report concludes that “the GM industry appears to be expanding its grasp over traditional subsistence crops. […] By focusing research on traits that are meant to ‘benefit’ farmers and malnourished populations, the industry is bent on winning the hearts and minds of Africans regarding genetically modified crops.” This report complements work already produced on GM banana (Schnurr, 2014) and GM cowpea (ACB, 2015).

Can you elaborate some of these real solutions?

It is important to support the right of farmers to choose their means of production and survival. And this means starting with where farmers are and emboldening and strengthening their systems. Moreover, the protection of farmermanaged seed systems is needed. In these systems you find diversity and resilience. We need to shift away from the idea that seeds within farmer-managed seed systems are sub standard or of poor quality. Within these seeds, you may have drought resistant or nutritional properties and characteristics with cultural importance.

What steps can be taken towards these solutions?

We are pushing for big policy change towards recognition and protection of these systems and supporting local campaigns. For us information is key and ACB tries to put current information and knowledge in the public domain, complemented by other activities and events. Earlier this year we organised a course where we brought together activists from across Africa and spoke at length about GM of non-commercial, indigenous crops.

I think the revaluation of traditional crops will increasingly become part of the resistance campaigns against GM. There is a conference coming up in Nigeria where church groups will discuss the rise of GM cowpea. Nigeria is the world’s largest producer of cowpea and field trials with Bt cowpea are in quite an advanced stage so we expect a lot of resistance there. Our previous report on cowpea was translated into French and is being used by our friends in Burkina Faso, where there is a growing resistance to GM from the grassroots, for example through an event to coincide with the international march against Monsanto in May 2016. When our colleagues in Africa integrate information from our reports into their local campaigns that way, it’s a big victory for us.

Diana Quiroz and Madeleine Florin work at ILEIA (www.ileia.org)

The post Interview: Mariam Mayet on protecting farmers’ crops from GM appeared first on Ileia.

Experiments with tomato and sweet pepper varieties were successful and the results show promise for continuing to encourage farmers in gaining access to horticultural crop genetic resources. The resulting diversity could be the basis for diversified farming systems that are more resilient under progressive climate change and in the context of price volatility, while providing nutritious food crops as well. This case study therefore calls for the inclusion of more horticultural crops in the annex 1 list of species covered by the multilateral system (see this article on theory and practice of ABS), such as tomato and sweet pepper.

Why mix coffee production with tomato and sweet pepper?

In Turrialba, Costa Rica, climate change and low coffee prices motivated small scale coffee farmers to spread risk and diversify their farms by integrating new crops. Eight small scale coffee farmers in Turrialba chose to participate in an experiment with tomato and sweet pepper led by the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre (CATIE). These crops were chosen for the experiment for the following reasons:

1) Farmers in this region have expressed strong interest in horticulture crops as alternative cash crops complementary to coffee, as well as for domestic consumption;

2) CATIE’s gene bank maintains highly diverse collections of these two crops, which provides the necessary variety for selection of interesting materials, and are openly accessible under the multilateral system (MLS) established by FAO´s International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRA).

The experiment’s premise is that diversified farming systems are often ecologically and economically more resilient than those with less components. Diversified systems provide farmers a range of benefits, including stable income and production, as well as diverse food for consumption. This diversity has led to systems becoming more resilient to climate change and price volatility.

However, farmers often do not have access to appropriate seed material to diversify their systems with food and/or cash crops of their interest. In this project we explore how access to diverse genetic material can improve a farmer’s ability to effectively diversify their farm in a way that makes it resilient and sustainable.

How did farmers conduct the experiment?

Eight farmers, four organic and four conventional, were invited to participate in the study based on their interest in diversification and willingness to participate. The farmers evaluated three types of tomato and sweet pepper varieties. These included (a) popular commercial varieties, (b) traditional varieties from CATIE’s seed bank that were selected according to farmer preferences indicated in initial interviews, and (c) new varieties that were developed by breeders from the World Vegetable Centre (AVRDC) in Taiwan to respond to specific biotic and abiotic conditions in Central America. Seeds from CATIE’s seedbank were ordered using the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA, see this article) developed by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Seeds of the AVRDC varieties were obtained by CATIE after signing a SMTA to test them in Central America. In addition, the commercially most common tomato and sweet pepper varieties were ordered from a local greenhouse.After the seedlings were transplanted to each farm, plastic bands were installed as protective roofs above each variety. Conventional and organic seedlings were given to each producer, along with a management guide that was used to ensure that the same management approaches were used at all farms.
Each farm was visited once a week from the time the transplant began in April 2015 until the end of the field experiments in November 2015. During the visits, the following data was recorded: (a) morphological and evaluation data of each variety, (b) site characterisation of each farm, (c) management evaluation of each producer, (d) climate data, (e) yield data, (f) participatory evaluations with the producers, and (g) individual interviews with the producers about their preferences.

Farmers’ preferences

Many factors affected the variety preferences of each farmer, including the type of management used on the farm and local market factors as well as local biotic factors. Although many farmers appreciated the commercial varieties because of their pest and disease resistance and their high yields, several CATIE accessions as well as a few AVRDC varieties were ranked either equally or more preferred than the commercial varieties.

Most of the producers involved in this project expressed satisfaction with the unfamiliar varieties that were brought to their farms. Rosa Hernández Céspedes, a coffee farmer who has been trying to diversify her 7 hectare farm for the last eight years, is very excited: “These new varieties also give us something new to sell. The local people want new kinds of vegetables, new options, but I never knew where to find the seeds. So I have started saving the seeds from the new varieties and I can now sow my own seedlings and produce these great vegetables again.”

What started out as purely a coffee plantation had already been converted by Rosa into a diverse organic farm that now includes a vegetable greenhouse, a restaurant and tree nursery. Yet, before her involvement in this project Rosa had limited success in diversifying with vegetables: “I always planted the same commercial varieties of vegetables, including commercial varieties of tomato and sweet pepper. But with this project, I have discovered many traditional varieties of great quality, some of which are more resistant to the increase in rain we have had this year. It’s great to have all of these new options on the farm.”

For farmers like Rosa who are searching for diverse products with unique characteristics, the traditional CATIE varieties were of most interest. Many of the traditional varieties tested in the study showed characteristics that were appealing to these farmers, such as high resistance to pests and diseases as well as fruit forms that were uncommon, but often preferred. The commercial varieties were often most preferred by producers selling strictly to the conventional market.

What lessons can be drawn from this study? This study shows the importance of facilitating farmers’ and breeders´ access to the genetic resources of horticultural crops and the key role that could be played by accessible collections, such as those of CATIE and AVRDC. Tomato and sweet peppers, as well as other important vegetable crops like cucurbits, are not yet part of the list of crops that are covered directly by the multilateral system. This means that access to a wide range of varieties for these crops is difficult to obtain for small scale family farmers due to the bureaucracy, cost and intellectual property rights involved.

Access to a range of varieties of horticultural crops is difficult to obtain for family farmers due to the bureaucracy, cost and intellectual property rights

Although the resources contained within gene bank collections are important, without proper access to particular information for farmers, breeders and agronomists, the material cannot be used efficiently. In this study for example, morphological data of gene bank accessions were used to select the varieties according to farmer preferences and in the evaluation their on-farm potential under different conditions. It´s important that such morphological characterisation and evaluation data is made accessible by seed banks to enhance its use by different actors. On the basis of this study, we propose six measures to improve access to plant genetic resources for growers and breeders once the crops are included in the MLS:

1) A clear documentation system with relevant information on agronomic and other commercial properties of the crops covered by the MLS collection is made available in accessible language and media;

2) An online system to directly request seeds and also includes contact data for farmers to call in case of questions;

3) Active assistance to farmers for negotiating a Standard Material Transfer Agreement ;

4) Establishment of straightforward paymentsystems that cover the costs for regeneration of the material by the gene bank, which should remain economically accessible to farmers and breeders;

5) Distribution of hardcopy catalogues that include the most promising materials and contact data to farmers and relevant organisations;

6) Increasing the number of on-farm participatory varietal validation research projects with farmers.

When farmers have better access to the information and seed material that is currently available in seed banks, they can broaden the genetic base of their crops. Our research shows that this is of interest to individual farmers and organisations who seek to diversify their farms to respond to climatic and/or economic shocks, and to strengthen their management of crop varieties by developing participatory evaluation and breeding programmes.

Farmer based experimentation and peer learning

Farmers like Rosa are motivated to seek out new varieties and new markets to enhance their adaptive capacity. However, many producers have lost essential knowledge about ecosystem resilience and the way that diverse, traditional seed systems contribute to this resilience. Therefore, knowledge sharing must also be enhanced in addition to improved access to gene bank material under multilateral seed systems if the material is going to be used effectively.

However, this genetic material cannot simply be brought back to farms by outside intermediaries. Rather, we have seen that knowledge sharing works best when innovative smallholder farmers like Rosa encourage other producers to seek out new material, multiply and breed diverse varieties. Such horizontal learning and farmer based experimentation should be at the centre of knowledge sharing processes, in which other parties (scientists, NGOs) can play a supportive role. This will contribute to the effective use of genetic resources for more resilient and sustainable farming communities.

Lindsey Hethcote (lhethcote@gmail.com) is a student at CATIE, Escuela de Posgrado, Turrialba, Costa Rica
Maarten van Zonneveld (m.vanzonneveld@cgiar.org) is Associate Scientist with Bioversity International, Costa Rica Office, Turrialba, Costa Rica
William Solano (wsolano@catie.ac.cr) is a researcher at CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica
V. Ernesto Méndez (ernesto.mendez@uvm.edu) is a researcher at the Agroecology and Rural Livelihoods Group, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
Nelly Vasquez (nvasquez@catie.ac.cr) is academic coordinator of the agroforestry and sustainable agriculture masters program at CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica

This project was developed by CATIE, Bioversity International and the University of Vermont. It was financially supported by CATIE, Bioversity International, Hivos, CCAFS and the World Vegetable Center (AVRDC). We thank Rosa Hernández Céspedes and all other seven farmers who participated in this project.

The post Improving access to vegetable seeds for resilient family farms in Costa Rica appeared first on Ileia.

Access to genetic resources and genuine collaboration between farmers and scientists is lacking in most parts of the world. A model in Iran that has given a large number of farmers access to a great amount of biodiversity in a relatively short time is evolutionary plant breeding (EPB). A dynamic and inexpensive strategy, EPB rapidly enhances the adaptation of farmers’ crops to climate change. It was developed by the Centre for Sustainable Development (CENESTA) in Iran. It builds on experience with participatory variety selection, in which farmers plant a number of different varieties of the same crop and, after several years of selection, choose a small number of varieties for multiplication and use.

In EPB, farmers begin by planting a large mixture of hundreds or thousands of different varieties, and do not necessarily aim to arrive at the selection of a few varieties. EPB instead relies on mixing as many different types of a particular crop as possible, leaving them to cross freely between each other. Genetically, the seed which is harvested is never exactly the same as the seed which was planted. Several farmers in different regions plant and harvest a small sample of seed (4-5 kg) in the same 250 m2 plot for successive years. These plant populations then evolve under different types of agronomic management and in the face of specific combinations of stress from diseases, insects, weeds, drought, extreme temperatures and salinity. In this way, the frequency of genotypes that have adapted to local conditions gradually increases.

The idea of EPB is not new, although it wasn’t until 2008 that EPB was implemented as a formal project. As early as 1929, methods were developed for generating heterogeneous populations of barley where locally adapted varieties were needed. In 1956, this was labelled as the ‘evolutionary plant breeding method’. Yet there was already a strong demand for uniformity in the most important food and feed crops. This was driven by the growing use of chemical inputs, which require uniformity to give a consistent response. In addition, emerging seed companies attempted to protect their breeding programmes and associated products by promoting this uniformity.

Farmers at the centre

EPB rapidly enhances the adaptation of farmers’ crops to climate change

Before CENESTA launched participatory breeding projects, all the breeding programmes in Iran had excluded farmers from the most important stages of the breeding process, and farmers often did not adopt the products of these programmes. EPB follows a completely different approach, with farmers at the centre of producing new varieties and applying the principles of natural selection themselves. In 2008, with support from Dr Salvatore Ceccarelli, CENESTA started with EPB by providing five farmers in provinces of Kermanshah and Semnan with mixtures of 1600 different types of barley that was supplied by the International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). This mixture included a wide range of germplasm: the wild progenitor Hordeum spontaneum, landraces from several countries, and modern breeding material. Within this ‘evolutionary’ mixture different plants crossed naturally to produce new types. Each year, the types produced more seed and gradually the population became better adapted to the specific and changing circumstances of farmers.

The success of EPB spread far beyond these first five farmers of the first years. They were so satisfied with the population’s performance that they shared their mixtures of barley with other farmers in several provinces, via both CENESTA’s PPB programme and also informally with neighbours, friends and relatives. As of early 2016, the seeds cover several hundred hectares and are planted in 19 provinces by about 300 farmers.

EPB is increasingly used in other crops. Based on the success of the barley population, the Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARSI) established a similar programme for bread wheat. In 2013, we started to turn our attention towards rice. By combining Iranian landraces currently in use in Iran, with 202 repatriated Iranian landraces provided by the International Rice Research Institute, we created a new mixture to start EPB in rice. Evolutionary populations for a variety of crops are now also grown in several other countries.

Living gene banks

Gene banks perform an important role in the conservation of species, but they ‘freeze’ not only seeds but also their evolution at the time of collection. Local varieties and wild relatives must also be conserved in situ. By combining participation and evolution in breeding programmes, farmers can guide the evolution of their crop mixtures in the most desirable way for them. In the words of Abdol-Reza Biglari, a farmer in Garmsar: “Thirty years ago we used to have many different varieties. Most of the new varieties introduced to us were not suitable for more than one or two years. This shows that we have to return to biodiversity.”

The evolutionary populations can be considered as a living gene bank. Farmers (by themselves or in collaboration with scientists) select the most desirable plants and use them in participatory breeding programmes. For farmers who prefer to sow mixtures rather than single varieties, the evolutionary populations serve as a source of genetic resources for creating new mixtures. The importance of having secure access to such a collection of seeds became apparent in Jordan, for instance, where farmers and scientists are turning to evolutionary populations now that the civil war in Syria disrupted their regular source of breeding materials. With EPB, farmers become the owners of their future; with the best varieties evolving in their fields, there is little or no need to buy seeds.

Access to better seeds

Nemat Salemian, a farmer in Anjirak, recalls his first encounter with EPB. “We received this wheat from another farmer who told us that it’s a mixture of hundreds of different varieties and that we should plant it in our worst soil. My father said that in the 80 years that he has been a farmer, he has never seen better plants, despite the very bad soil and the climatic conditions this year.”

The EPB mixtures have been shown to produce higher yields and perform better in adverse conditions than their local or improved counterparts. Despite late sowing, in the first year of CENESTA’s programme, the evolutionary populations of barley outyielded the local barley and performed almost as well as the improved barley cultivar. In the following year, the evolutionary populations of wheat yielded more than twice as much as the local varieties.

The EPB populations are also more resistant to weeds, diseases and pests. In 2011-2012, a farmer in the district of Garmsar witnessed that his evolutionary population of wheat had higher yields than the local improved variety and the evolutionary population did not need to be treated with pesticides and herbicides. This suggests that evolutionary populations could be very useful in agroecology and organic agriculture and are cheaper to grow.

Farmers have faced some challenges with EPB, but they have also found creative solutions which provide important lessons. For example, very small plots of land may not be enough to grow their own evolutionary population. To resolve this, a community of smallholder farmers can rotate the evolutionary population among them. Another challenge would be severe climatic events in which only a small fraction of the population may survive – leaving too little diversity in the mixture to continue to adapt. In this event it may be necessary to supplement the mixture with new types. Nevertheless, in such circumstances the farmers growing the evolutionary population will still have more chance of harvesting some of their crops, while fields with only one variety may be entirely destroyed.

Unexpected results

After receiving a small amount of seed in the first year of the EPB trials, we expected farmers to continue to sow just enough to allow the population to evolve and to act as a source of locally adapted varieties. One of the most unexpected outcomes of the evolutionary population trials was that some farmers decided to sow all the seed they had harvested, multiplying and cultivating the seed as their main crop.

“About 20 farmers have asked me for this seed after they saw it in my field last year,” farmer Faraj Safari recalls. “This year I am only going to grow this mixture. I’m going to plant about 40 hectares with this mixture. I can give seed to about 10 or 15 other farmers this year, and more next year.”

Similarly, the cultivation of evolutionary population of barley started in 2010 in the nomadic tribal territory of Bakhtiari and had positive results. In the first year, 55 kg of seed was produced on each hectare, reaching 6 tons per hectare in 2015. Five other tribes in different areas joined in, also using EPB. Among the reasons for the success in Bakhtiari they mentioned the adaptability of the evolutionary populations of barley to drought and the fact that they can feed their livestock highly nutritious EPB barley, which reduces cost for feed, contributes to better animal health, and provides better milk.

The consumer and the market

Many people wonder whether the final product from EPB mixtures is of a high enough quality for use and sale. But there is no need to worry. A protein analysis of the Iranian barley varieties, which are mostly used as an animal feed in Iran, showed that the evolutionary population had more protein in them than the local improved variety. For wheat, farmers and bakers in the provinces of Seman and Kermanshah have made bread from the evolutionary populations and were very pleased with the results. Some are even marketing this bread in local artisanal bakeries. Farmers growing evolutionary populations in France and Italy confirmed that creating mixtures not only brings greater yield stability, but also produces greater aroma and quality when making bread.

Evolutionary plant breeding is reviving a traditional system of access and benefit sharing

In the case of rice, farmers first thought the mixture of rice varieties would not be good for cooking and eating, and as such were afraid they wouldn’t be able to sell it. But after harvest, they tested the rice and found that the taste to be excellent. Farmers are currently negotiating agreements with several restaurants who are interested in buying their EPB products.

The suitability of evolutionary populations as a farmer’s main crop depends on the use of the crop and the cultural preferences of farmers and consumers. Even when the crop does not lend itself to being consumed as a mixture (which is the case with many vegetable varieties), evolutionary populations can still serve as living gene banks for farmers to source individual varieties. The use of EPB with vegetables is currently underway in Italy with tomato, beans and courgettes.

Access and benefit sharing in evolutionary plant breeding

Iran has no formal ABS policy, but this does not mean that there is no access and benefit sharing. Since the varieties that constituted the first evolutionary populations were taken from ICARDA (barley), DARSI (wheat), and IRRI (rice), there was some sort of access to genetic resources for small scale farmers and local communities. However, in relation to benefit sharing, evolutionary plant breeding does not fit within the official ABS framework.

The main issue is the condition that seeds must be commercialised, and in doing sp needs to be registered and certified. The formal seed release system in Iran requires that new seed varieties pass a series of tests: the value for cultivation and use (VCU) test and the distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (DUS) test. But EPB populations are unlikely to comply with these variety release criteria, which are tailored to the characteristics of modern varieties, since farmer improved varieties cannot show ‘clear improvement’ under different growing conditions and can hardly meet the DUS criteria. In addition, Iran’s seed regulations do not recognise collective intellectual property rights and there is no national ABS regulation.

Yet evolutionary plant breeding is reviving an informal and traditional system of access and benefit sharing. Many EPB farmers share their seeds with other local small scale farmers free of charge, while others sell their seed to other farmers. And CENESTA identifies seed producing farmer cooperatives around the country and works with them to distribute EPB populations in new areas.

Where next?

The evolutionary populations of wheat and barley continue to be spread throughout Iran, both through farmer-to-farmer exchanges and through exchanges organised through DARSI, the Department of Agriculture of Fars Province, and CENESTA. Since 2013, there have been annual national workshops on EPB where farmers from several provinces shared their experiences. Regular local, regional and national workshops and field visits continue to be needed to strengthen farmers’ knowledge about how to use these populations. The main challenge is to keep up with the fast spread of these seeds, to track the spread and the outcomes, and to support farmers’ management practices.

Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture have been developed over millennia to satisfy the most fundamental of human needs. The free flow and exchange of these resources was once governed by individuals and communities. However, this has changed as intellectual property regimes have been applied to agriculture. In international and national law intellectual property laws often overshadow or even extinguish the natural rights of farmers and farming communities to the landraces and varieties they have developed. Commercial plant breeders have benefited from this, as they have been able to develop new seeds, often based on farmers’ plant genetic resources, and then protect their investment through commercial patents or plant variety protection laws which prevent farmers from legally exchanging and saving seed for future use.

Therefore, at the same time, we must try to develop awareness of the potential impacts of different seed laws and policies on farmers’ rights to save, exchange, develop and sustainably use their seeds.

Maryam Rahmanian (maryam@cenesta.org) and Maede Salimi (maede@cenesta.org) are Research Associates at CENESTA, www.cenesta.org.
Khadija Razavi (khadija@cenesta.org) is CENESTA’s Executive Director.
Dr Reza Haghparast is an expert at the Rainfed Cereals Department at DARSI in Kermanshah, Iran (khadija@cenesta.org).
Dr Salvatore Ceccarelli is a consultant at ICARDA (s.ceccarelli@cgiar.org).
Ali Razmkhah (ali.razmkhah88@gmail.com) is Legal Advisor at Cenesta. This contribution is adapted from an article first published in Farming Matters (‘Cultivating diversity’, March 2014, www.farmingmatters.org)

The post Evolutionary populations: Living gene banks in farmers’ fields in Iran appeared first on Ileia.

Historically, crops have always adjusted to their natural and cultural environments. The outcome is the rich biocultural heritage that is agrobiodiversity. This process was disrupted when maximising yields became the major guiding principle in crop improvement. According to the dominant view, modern, agro-industrial technologies are needed to create and maintain the necessary environmental conditions for a crop to realise its full genetic potential.

Seed policy

The Brazil federal government and the state of Paraíba launched several programmes in accordance with this agronomic view, promoting varieties that respond well to intensive agrochemical application. Family farmers were encouraged to replace their wide array of local varieties of beans, corn, cassava and peanuts with a few so-called ’improved’ varieties. As these new varieties spread, agrobiodiversity declined.

This agricultural approach, or paradigm, was further institutionalised as new regulations defined what a ’seed’ is. According to Brazil’s seed law, certified varieties can only be commercialised if they are recognised by research institutes and agricultural commissions in the Ministry of Agriculture, which are strongly influenced by the economic interests of seed breeding companies. The country’s cultivars law (plant variety protection) sets stability, uniformity and homogeneity requirements on seeds in order to be registered as protected varieties.

There are various problems with this development. Local varieties carry high genetic variability, which is exactly what makes them so resilient to environmental stress. But until 2003 local varieties were not considered to be seeds and were called ‘grains’ instead. In addition, farmers had to use protected varieties in order to benefit from various support programmes, creating another huge disincentive for the use of indigenous varieties.

This has become an arena of struggle for agroecological farming. Agroecological production favours the use of ecological capital above external inputs, in which locally adapted varieties and agrobiodiversity play a key role. Also, contrary to the State’s seed policies, agroecology supports the creation of an increasingly autonomous agriculture, free from the workings of input markets and the agribusinesses that control these markets. The Paraiban Semi-arid Articulation (ASA-PB), a coalition of civil society organisations, has challenged this dichotomy by mobilising farmers and movements around ’seeds of passion’: local varieties that, in contrast to most of the seeds distributed by public programmes, are environmentally as well as culturally grounded.

Practices that enhance access

Practices that use and conserve agrobiodiversity in the Brazilian semi-arid region are an important livelihood strategy for family farmers. Although these practices take place everywhere, they were largely invisible, deemed irrelevant by dominant ideological and economic forces. This is why identifying and enhancing the visibility of these practices was a crucial first step. ASA-PB started this process in 1996. Lead by local farmers’ unions and advised by AS-PTA, a participatory appraisal was carried out with farmers to identify local bean varieties in the municipalities of Solânea and Remígio. Through this appraisal, the farmers identified 67 varieties of beans with different characteristics including resistance to droughts and pests, good taste, and acceptance in the market.

They also identified farmer driven mechanisms that enhance access, diversity and seed security. For example, farmers store their seeds and exchange them with other families, allowing for the free circulation of genetic material and of the knowledge associated with each variety in the communities. In another example, local church organisations established seed banks in the drylands of Paraíba in the 1970s proved highly effective in times of drought when crops failed and farmers’ own seed stocks were depleted. The bank lends seeds to the farmers which the farmers return, with a small percentage increase, after the harvest. For the organisations that are part of ASA-PB, understanding these practices was the first step towards enhancing the visibility of these mechanisms and scaling them up.

The local seed banks formed an important entry point for a new seed security system based on improved access and availability of diverse and high quality seeds. ASA-PB established the Seeds Network, a knowledge exchange platform around seed practices and agrobiodiversity conservation. This network links 230 seed banks in 61 municipalities, covering 6,500 family farms in Paraíba. During one of the network meetings, Joaquim de Santana, a farmers’ union representative coined the term ‘seeds of passion’. “Seeds of passion are those that are good, that adapt to our reality,” he said, “and people are only passionate about what is significant.”

Changing policy and politics

The Seeds Network formed a space for critical policy analysis and the promotion of alternatives. A drought in 1993 triggered a protest where ASA-PB and other social movements challenged the state’s measures that were based on the notion of ’tackling the effects of drought’. ASA-PB and others instead proposed another slogan: ’living with the semi-arid’. As a response, the state government launched a seed banks policy in order to reinforce existing community seed banks, and donated stocks of seeds as an impetus for communities to construct new seed banks. However, the banks were replenished with conventional rather than local seeds. After the drought of 1998/99, local seed banks were again refilled with conventional seeds, after which protests followed.

ASA-PB persuaded the government of Paraíba to acquire local farmer seeds for the following year. The initiative then stumbled against a legislative barrier: local seeds were not recognised as seeds and therefore could not be distributed officially by the state through the seed bank network. In a creative move, the government bypassed this problem by acquiring the seeds as ’grains’, then transferred them to ASA-PB, who then distributed them through their seed bank mediators. In 2002 a law in Paraíba enabled direct transfers.

Local organisations should play a leading role in maintaining the biocultural heritage embodied in local varieties

When local varieties became formally recognised by the national government in 2003, largely as a result of pressure by the National Articulation for Agroecology, the door was opened to more progressive innovations in the government seed programme. One of the strategies of the Lula da Silva government to eliminate hunger was the Food Acquisition Programme. In 2003, as part of this programme, the government and organisations connected to ASA-PB helped farmers to produce and distribute local varieties that were free from transgenic and pesticides contamination. Seeds were directly purchased from, and distributed to, farmers.

This experience confirms that local organisations can and should play a leading role in the maintenance of the rich biocultural heritage embodied in local varieties. The state can play a supportive role in strengthening collective action by redistributing and regulating the diversity of local varieties, something which is for the common good of agriculture.

Engaging with science

Despite the successes achieved by the programme in Paraíba and some other States, most government seed programmes continue to be biased in favour of the conventional paradigm. This is based on the argument that improved seeds have been scientifically proven to work under semi-arid conditions and that initiatives such as those by ASA-PB, while desirable, cannot be scaled up to reach all the farmers who are in need of seeds. This has led ASA-PB to engage in partnership with scientific institutions.

To demonstrate that local use, management and conservation practices are effective and viable, the Seed Network entered into a partnership with Embrapa, the Brazilian government’s most influential agricultural research agency. This helped them gain both acceptance in academia and legitimacy among officials involved in seed programmes.

All of the organisations that are part of the Seed Network were involved in the research that followed, which sought to compare the performance of local and conventional varieties. The research team used participatory methods to determine which varieties to compare, which locations to use for testing and how the interactions between farmers and researchers should be structured. Together with farmers, they identified performance parameters. These included grain quality, plant health, the amount of straw a plant produces, and the effect of intercropping with other crops.

Local varieties outperformed conventional varieties in all regions and in each of the three years that the experiment lasted. Conventional varieties only yielded better in highly fertile soils with plenty of rainfall, which are exceptional conditions for family farmers in semi-arid regions. The varieties that performed best in a certain area usually originate from there. Local varieties were also found to produce more biomass, which is highly valued as animal feed, especially in the erratic climate of the region. Finally, research showed that the seed storage facilities constructed by farmers, often using only local materials and no pesticides, performed well.

Although the research confirmed what farmers already knew, local practices are now scientifically recognised. Moreover, much was learnt, both contentwise and methodologically, from the interaction between farmers and researchers.

The important role the State can play

Recently, under the context of the National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production, Embrapa has committed to give farmer organisations access to its germplasm collection in order to reintroduce to farming systems varieties that were lost by the push for conventional seeds described above but were conserved in state facilities.

The case of Paraíba illustrates four core functions of community seed banks: conserving genetic resources, enhancing the technical autonomy of family farmers, enhancing access to and availability of diverse local crops, and ensuring seed and food sovereignty. The protests against conventional seeds in ‘98/’99 and the subsequent governmental action to bypass formal seed laws further confirms that the lack of enabling policy and supportive legal environment is most likely the greatest challenge that most community seed banks face.

But this experience also shows that the state can indeed play an important role in supporting civil society organisations and networks in the construction of seed security systems that allow family farmers in semi-arid regions to build their own food and nutrition strategies and increase their resilience to climatic change. Finally, the case demonstrates the importance of social mobilisation in enhancing the capacity for collective action in rural communities. The struggle fought in Paraíba may well open the way for a different national seed regime with its own access and benefit sharing mechanisms; one that is grounded in the reality of family farmers.

Paulo Petersen (paulo@aspta.org.br,
Gabriel Fernandes (gabriel@aspta.org.br),
Luciano Silveira (luciano@aspta.org.br) and
Emanoel Dias (emanoel@aspta.org.br) work at AS-PTA Agricultura Familiar e Agroecologia.

AS-PTA is part of ASA-PB and also a member of the AgriCultures Network. This contribution is adapted from an article first published in Farming Matters (‘Cultivating March 2014, www.farmingmatters.org)

The post Seed banks and national policy in Brazil appeared first on Ileia.