Improved rice for uplands, lowlands and in-between |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Improved rice varieties for rainfed upland (BG 1442, Sarwati), medium land (Pant Dhan 10, Rampur Masuli) and lowlands (Swarna) for the terai region of Nepal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thousands of farmers in Nepal now have a choice of rice varieties to suit their particular needs, whether they farm in the uplands, lowlands or on the slopes in between. In conventional plant-breeding, new varieties developed on experimental stations can take up to 18 years to become widely used. This means that varieties suitable for a range of climates, environments and purposes just aren't available. Now that farmers are involved, the process of improving varieties is much quicker. Plus farmers' choices give them not only higher yields but other qualities they value - perhaps good quality straw, grain that cooks well, drought tolerance, or early ripening so as to allow a follow-on cash crop. Thousands of farmers are already growing the improved rice varieties and they have major potential to improve livelihoods. Project Ref: PSP02:
Research Programmes: Plant Sciences Research Programme
Relevant Research Projects: R6748, R7542
We developed and formalised a participatory crop improvement (PCI) approach. It employed participatory varietal selection (PVS) to overcome the limitations of traditional, on-station testing systems by testing new varieties with farmers. Farmers were given a choice of already existing but non-recommended varieties several of which were greatly liked by farmers (Table 1) for the rice cropping systems of the terai. In addition to other advantageous traits, these varieties yield 16-54% more than the best locally available alternatives (Table 2). Table 1. Summary of varieties with their adaptation and important traits identified by PVS from 1996.
Fig. 1. The rice continuum in Nepal and the adaptation of the rice varieties Rice is the most important commodity in Nepalese agriculture and its economy as it is grown on about 1.6 M ha producing 4.5 M t of rough rice with an average productivity of about 2.9 t ha-1 (MoAC, 2004). Rice contributes 20% to the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) and 50% to the total calorie requirement of the Nepalese. Nepal imported >19,000 tons of milled rice in 2003 (IRRI, 2005) reflecting the slow pace of rice growth in the country. Rice straw meets about 35% of total digestible nutrients required for 8.6 million livestock (NRRP, 1997). It is estimated that of the 73% of the rice area in terai, 24% of the area is in the hills, of which >70% (1.1 M ha) is grown under rainfed conditions that suffers from drought and floods each year (CBS, 2003). The conventional system of crop improvement in rice has been unable to provide varietal options to the farmers for different maturity classes suitable for rainfed upland, medium land and lowland domains. This is evident from the fact that farmers in Nepal are growing either very old rice varieties or varieties introduced informally from the Indian border. Baseline data (Rana et al., 2004) collected in Chitwan showed a great lack of varietal diversity with some old varieties, such as Mansuli, occupying nearly 80% of the rice area in Chitwan and Nawalparasi districts (Fig. 2). The most popular cultivars, such as CH 45 in the Chaite season and Masuli in the main season are over 25 years old and vulnerable to pests and diseases. Varietal diversity in Chaite rice is very narrow (Witcombe et al, 2001). In main-season rice, though more varieties are grown, the diversity is low when weighted by the area occupied by each variety (Witcombe et al., 2001).
Fig. 2. Varietal diversity in two districts (Chitwan and Nawalparasi) of Nepal terai, from a survey in 1997 (Year of release of variety in parentheses; NR = not released).
Rice, which is the most important commodity in Nepalese agriculture, is the main commodity upon which the output is focussed. PVS as a technique can be applied to all crops. Production Systems:
Other interventions that are synergistic with the new rice varieties are in the areas of crop protection and improved crop agronomy. Since farmers evaluate material for all traits including fodder quantity and quality then clustering with improved livestock nutrition would be synergistic. It can be combined with testing, verification and scaling up of many other rice varieties (COB rice varieties cluster PSP13), quality seed production (cluster PSP36) and improved agronomic practices such as seed priming (PSP25) and interventions related to crop protection. The new rice varieties that are of earlier duration can facilitate the growing of a following (second) crop (PSP35). It can be combined with outputs from other RNRRS themes:
How the outputs were validated: How validated: Varieties were tested with farmers inPVS trials (see PSP33). In PVS, validation is always by the first end users of a new variety – farmers - in on-farm participatory trials. They used participatory evaluation (employing many techniques e.g., matrix ranking, focus group discussion, surveys) of many traits considered important by farmers. Validation of yield increases was done jointly by farmers, researchers from implementing organizations in on-farm trials and by government organisations in on-station trials. Wider dissemination tested the acceptability of these varieties on a much larger scale and area. The impact of these varieties on yield increment, overall food security and livelihoods was done by independent organizations (Rawal et al., 2006; Gauchan et al., 2006). None of the varieties found acceptable in PVS trials proved unpopular when scaled up. See also outcome assessments under "Poverty Impact Studies". Increases in grain productivity were achieved of up to 54% over the local cultivars (see Table 2) well over 1 t of additional grain per hectare. There was improvement in traits other than grain yield such as earlier maturity, better lodging resistance, higher straw yield, increased drought tolerance. Better grain and cooking quality resulted and a higher market price. Table 2. Examples of yield increases
Validation was done by researchers independent of the implementing organizations, by farmers and farmers’ groups working with researchers, and to a large extent by governmental officials. The institutions involved were LI-BIRD, CAZS-NR, the National Rice Research Programme (NRRP) of the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), several other NARC stations, District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs) from the terai (21 districts) and the midhill (10 districts), 10 community based seed producer (CBSP) groups, several CBOs and Agrovets and individual farmers from various parts of the country. (See also Promotion of Outputs below). The target groups of male and female farmers were from all social groups representing resource-rich, resource-medium and poor farmers. Wealth categories (usually three) were determined through local informants using key proxies for wealth such as landholding size. Evaluation of PVS trials included participating farmers (with a representative proportion of women) and their neighbours, relatives and friends (this always included some women). Where the Outputs were Validated: The performance of these varieties was validated across diverse farming systems ranging from marginal rainfed to high potential production systems involving thousands of farmers from various districts of Nepal. Validation over wide areas was done by a number of DADOs from terai and midhill districts of Nepal (Fig. 3), by NGOs and INGOs (Fig. 5). In addition, several CBSP groups from several terai districts (Fig 6), several Agrovets (Fig. 7), individual farmers (Fig. 4 ) NRRP, and other NARC research stations of Nepal have validated these outputs. Details of validation by geographic location and by variety are shown in Table 3. 
Fig. 3 Validation and promotion of outputs from 1998 to 2004 in various districts of Nepal by DADOs using PVS, IRD, Minikits and seed production programmes Table 3. Geographical location and year of validation of these varieties
Who are the Users? Thousands of farmers are currently growing these rice varieties in Nepal for the significant benefits they bring. The short-duration varieties for shallow rainfed bunded conditions give farmers sufficient time to cultivate an additional crop of vegetable, oilseed or cash crop after the rice harvest. Hence, BG 1442 and Sarwati are popular with vegetable growers. Pant Dhan 10 and Rampur Masuli are grown in medium land for their high yield and better grain quality. Most of the lowland in Nepal has high fertility, long-standing water conditions and is suitable for single or double rice cultivation only. For that situation, farmers prefer to grow a high yielding and long maturity variety such as Swarna. Where the outputs have been used: Large amount of seed of these varieties has been produced and marketed in many districts of Nepal by DADOs of terai, inner terai and mid-hill districts by NGOs such as LI-BIRD, FORWARD, SUPPORT Foundation and several CBSP groups from different districts. This has resulted in their widespread use (Figures 4a and 4b).
Fig. 4a. Districts of Nepal where PCI outputs are currently being used. 
Fig. 4b Use of these varieties by individual farmers from seed purchased from LI-BIRD, Chitwan Scale of Current Use: The PSP research began in 1996 to increase the access of farmers to new crop varieties in Chitwan and Nawalparasi districts. The area under these varieties in the terai, inner terai and mid-hill districts of Nepal is increasing rapidly (Rawal et al, 2006) with huge potential to improve food security and overall livelihoods of the resource poor farmers (Joshi et al, 2006). Community-based seed producer groups have begun to produce and market substantial quantity of seeds and this is increasing every year (Table 4) in several terai and mid-hill districts of Nepal. There are functional seed producers groups at least in nine districts producing and supplying a significant amount of rice seeds (see also PSP36 and PSP01). LI-BIRD and FORWARD are strengthening CBSP groups in these and several other districts in the terai and hills. Even though the current use of seed of these varieties is quite high, it is still on a very small scale compared to actual needs. It is a reasonable assumption that these varieties are better alternatives to others on at least 30% of the total of 1.1 M ha of rice in the terai and 10% of the total of 0.3 M ha of rice in the hills of Nepal. If only 10% of this area is sown to purchased, quality seed each year then sufficient seed to transplant 0.03 M ha of rice is needed. This amounts to 1,500 t of rice seed each year at a rate of 50 kg ha-1. Considering the seed supply figures of 2005/06 through CBSP, currently <7 % of 0.03 M ha is being supplied through this approach (Table 4). Table 4. Amount of seed of these varieties produced and distributed (t) since 2000-2005 through individual farmers and community based seed production (CBSP) groups
†Breakdown by variety not available Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: The rice varietal promotion in Nepal is coordinated by NRRP; varieties introduced or bred in Nepal are evaluated by the NRRP/NARC system for yield and other agronomic performances, proposed for release to the National Seed Board. Once released the varieties are then widely disseminated by the Department of Agriculture and its network, other NGOs, CBOs and seed companies. However, in this approach, there are many delays and actual adoption takes place 5-6 years after a variety is released. Considering a variety development phase of 12 years, it would need at least 18 years before any appreciable adoption of any variety takes place. We have found that when working with this linear research and extension system it is extensionists (who deal normally with Minikit trials) who have assisted the most, i.e. the District Agricultural Development Offices (DADOs). NGOs that are oriented towards NRM also conducted PVS trials using these varieties. Thus several DADOs and NGOs have helped promote these varieties through the PVS approach. NGOs have been working with community-based organisations, community-based seed producers groups, self-help groups, Agrovets and other private sector organisations. Adoption of multi-partnership and multi-stakeholders approaches for on-farm experimentation, testing, validation and scaling up of these varieties is the key for success by a wider scale of impact. Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: Various stakeholders currently involved in the promotion of these varieties in Nepal are shown in Figures 5 to7. These stakeholders include various organisations from grassroots civil societies, private companies through to governmental organisations involved both in the research and development. Pant Dhan 10 and PNR 381 are also currently being promoted in Bangladesh by PROVA, DAE and other NGOs etc
Fig. 5 Promotion and validation of outputs by NGOs and special projects in districts of Nepal 
Fig. 6 Promotion and validation of outputs by community-based seed producer (CBSP) groups in various districts of Nepal 
Fig. 7 Promotion of outputs by Agrovets in various districts of Nepal Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: The formal sector seed channels in Nepal do not officially promote non-released varieties. The collaboration from the Department of Agriculture in promoting non-released varieties was a very innovative and bold step but still there is no official policy on this as the initiatives have been taken as a district level. Changes in the seed regulatory frameworks that encourage participation of farmers have been made. For example, in a release proposal for rice variety Barkhe 3004, on-station and on-farm data from participatory trials, i.e. mother and baby trials were combined and they had equal status. Farmer participation in varietal testing by providing a wider choice of varieties and testing under farmer managed conditions is an integral part of the process. However, the release procedure is resource-consuming, complex and the diverse stakeholders in the release process can hold different worldviews on the value of releasing a great diversity of varieties that have not been ‘officially’ tested. Hence, it is impossible for all of these varieties to be released even though all are of value to the farming community. Official recommendation does help. BG 1442 was officially released as a result of the raised awareness of its value in NARC following the PVS programme, and is the only variety where seed production is increasing. The lack of clarity on the promotion of unreleased varieties has probably contributed to the inertia in the process of actually marketing them, as is evidenced by the still small proportion of the demand that is being met. How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs: The major barrier to the widespread adoption of these varieties is that some of these are yet to be officially released. One of these varieties, i.e. BG 1442 was released in 2004 as a result of widespread promotion by the PCI projects and subsequent demand of the variety by the farmers. However, other outstanding varieties are still in the informal domain and they need to be released. The production and marketing of seeds using ‘Truthful labelling’ needs to be mainstreamed as this approach would reduce the need for official release and allow CBSP groups to be fully involved in the seed trade with reduced administrative hurdles. There is a need for capacity building on community-based seed production and marketing and linking such groups not only with the private sector but with the government programmes for the internalisation of the approach by the system. Lack of knowledge among the farmers is also hindering the widespread adoption of these varieties. In recent years, FM Radio stations have really emerged in Nepal and they are very interested to collaborate in the dissemination of technical information to the communities. Widespread use of FM Radio stations in strategic locations could be one of the most important ways forward in the faster promotion of the outputs. Another important factor to remove the barriers to adoption are the changes in mindset of a ‘transfer-of-technology’ approach through the wide-scale training of GO staff and, to a lesser extent, NGO staff in the PVS process. Lessons Learned: Using Rogers (2003) diffusion of information as a framework for the lessons learnt:
Poverty Impact Studies: There are several impact assessments that have been done both internally and externally or a combination. These are concerned with the impact of these varieties as well as those produced by client-oriented breeding. 1. DTZ Peida. (1998). An Evaluation Study of Participatory Crop Improvement in Nepal. A Final Report Prepared for Department for International Development, UK. Edinburgh, UK: DTZ Peida Planning, Economic and Development Consultants. This study analyses the impact of PVS in the high potential production in Nepal. It covers the impact of PVS in several crops. 2. Witcombe, J.R. Joshi, K.D., Gyawali, S., Devkota, K. and Subedi, A. (2003). An impact assessment of participatory crop improvement in the low-altitude regions of Nepal. PSP Annual Report 2002. Section 1: Introduction and General Overview. Research Outcomes. pp 11-18. 3. Joshi, K.D., Biggs, S., Devkota, K. and Gyawali, S. (2003). Delivering impacts from participatory crop improvement projects in Nepal. PSP Annual Report 2003. Section 1: Introduction and General Overview. Research Outcomes. pp 11-18. 4. Witcombe, J.R. Joshi, K.D., Gyawali, S., Devkota, K. and Subedi, A. (2004). Participatory crop improvement in the low-altitude regions of Nepal. Plant Sciences Research Programme. Highlights and impact. Participatory crop improvement. pp 21-50. 5. Gauchan, D. (2006). Assessment of the Outcomes of Rice-fallow Rainfed Rabi Cropping (RRC) Project in Nepal the terai. A report of the RRC outcome assessment in Kapilvastu, Saptari and Jhapa districts, Nepal. Bangor, UK: CAZS-Natural Resources, University of Wales, Bangor. 6. Joshi GR, Paudel PK, Rawal KB and Singh U. (2006). Assessment of adoption and spread of rice varieties bred by COB and identified by PCI. SUPPORT Foundation, PO Box: 24, Mahendranagar, Kanchanpur, Nepal. 7. Rawal, K.B., Bhatta, V.R., Joshi, G.R. and U., Singh (2006). Adoption and spread of rice varieties in Sarlahi and Kailali districts identified by participatory crop improvement (PCI) and bred by client-oriented breeding (COB). Kanchanpur, Nepal: SUPPORT Foundation. 8. Devkota K.P., Gyawali S., Subedi A., Witcombe J.A.D. & Joshi K.D. (2005) Adoption study of main season rice in Chitwan and Nawalparasi districts of Nepal from 2001 to 2002. Discussion paper no. 6. Wales, Bangor: CAZS-Natural Resources, University of Wales. Available at www.dfid-psp.org Cost benefit analyses have been made (see PSP document PSP13). The internal rate of returns (IRR) and net present values (NPV) was 43-126% while the NPV ranged from £2 to £29 million by 2010 and £4 to £52 million by 2012 (Witcombe et al., 2004). Many interviews have been made with farmers on the impact of these varieties on their livelihoods. Below is one example from Witcombe et al., 2004.
Sun Maya Mahato of Agauli village, Chitwan. Owns about 1.3 ha land and has grown Swarna for the last four years. This year the variety occupies nearly 80% of her rice area. She reckons that Swarna yields nearly 1.5 to two times more than Masuli, the variety she grew before.
How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups): The extent of adoption was assessed (Devkota et al., 2005, Rawal et al., 2006; Gauchan, 2006, Joshi et al., 2006) and there was significant adoption. For main season rice varieties it was 18% of the rice area in project villages within two to six years of intervention with a high number of adopting households. Since 2002, a significant amount of seed of several rice varieties has been distributed and sold in various districts of Nepal. Considering a seed rate of 50 kg ha-1 and at least a trebling in farmer-to-farmer seed distribution every year, at least several thousands of farmers are growing the varieties on thousands of hectares. For the spring Chaite season rice the yield advantage was:
For main season rice the yield advantage over the best available alternatives was:
The yield gains in all of these varieties clearly showed that the participating farmers significantly benefited from the use of these varieties (Table 2). The increased yield and quality of these new varieties contributed considerably to reducing poverty and addressing food and livelihood security, e.g. food sufficiency was increased from six months to one year in the majority of the studies. Increased family income was crucial for e.g., life-saving health care, children’s’ schooling, meeting household requirements, social obligations (marriage), and farm improvements and for food surplus households cash income increased from the sale of surplus grains (Joshi et al.,2003). Results of the outcome assessment indicated that >75% of the sampled adopters for Chaite rice activities were indigenous people and from disadvantaged communities, while this percentage was nearly 53% for main season rice (Joshi et al., 2006). Rice varietal diversity increased considerably in the study villages through the reduction of area under old, obsolete and disease-susceptible varieties by new, better-adapted, early-maturing, higher-yielding varieties improving the overall system productivity and strengthening food security (Devkota et al, 2005). Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: Direct and indirect benefits:
Adverse Environmental Impacts:
Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters:
References CBS (2003). Statistical Year Book of Nepal 2005. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal CBS (2005). Statistical Year Book of Nepal 2005. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal DADO Bara. 2002. Participatory variety selection of main season rice varieties in Bara district. Paper presented on “Review and Planning Workshop on “Institutionalization of Participatory Research and Scaling up Approaches for Rice in Nepal. Dec 11-12 2002, LI-BIRD, DFID-PSP, DOA and NARC, Nepal. Devkota K.P., Gyawali S., Subedi A., Witcombe J.A.D. & Joshi K.D. (2005) Adoption study of main season rice in Chitwan and Nawalparasi districts of Nepal from 2001 to 2002. Discussion paper no. 6 Wales, Bangor: CAZS-Natural Resources, University of Wales. Available at www.dfid-psp.org Devkota, K.P., Tripathi M., Chaudhary M., Gurung M., Poudel H., & Gyawali S. (2006). Final Technical Report of R8071-Participatory Plant Breeding in High Potential Production Systems-Validating PPB products, testing different breeding methods and scaling up of new rice varieties. Available at www.dfid-psp.org Evenson, R. E & Gollin D. (2003) Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300: 758–762. Gauchan, D. (2006). Assessment of the Outcomes of Rice-fallow Rainfed Rabi Cropping (RRC) Project in Nepal terai. A report of the RRC outcome assessment in Kapilvastu, Saptari and Jhapa districts, Nepal. Bangor, UK: CAZS-Natural Resources, University of Wales, Bangor. Gyawali, S, Devkota, K P, McDonald, M A, Joshi, K D, Poudel, D, Subedi, A & Witcombe, J R (2006). Participatory evaluation of Flemingia congesta (macrophylla) for livestock fodder in the terai region of Nepal. Agroforestry Systems (in press) IRRI (2005). World rice facts. International Rice Research Institute. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. Joshi GR, Paudel PK, Rawal KB & Singh U. (2006). Assessment of adoption and spread of rice varieties bred by COB and identified by PCI. SUPPORT Foundation, PO Box: 24, Mahendranagar, Kanchanpur, Nepal. Joshi, K.D., Biggs, S., Devkota, K. & Gyawali, S. (2003). Delivering impacts from participatory crop improvement projects in Nepal. PSP Annual Report 2003. Section 1: Introduction and General Overview. Research Outcomes. pp 11-18. Joshi, K.D., Biggs, S., Gauchan, D., Devkota, K.P., Devkota, C.K., Shrestha, P.K., & Sthapit B.R. (2006). The evolution and spread of socially responsible technical and institutional innovations in a rice improvement system in Nepal. Discssion Paper 8. Bangor, Wales, UK: CAZS NR. Available at www.dfid-psp.org MoAC (2004). Statistical information on Nepalese Agriculture 2002/2003. HMG Nepal, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Agricultural Business Promotion and Statistical Division, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal NRRP (1997). 25 years of Rice Research in Nepal (1972-1977). Parwanipur Bara, Nepal: National Rice Research Programme, Nepal Agricultural Research Council. Rahaman, A and Yadav BK. 2002. Participatory Scaling up Of Farmers Preferred Rice varieties in Rautahat District. Paper presented on “Review and Planning Workshop on “Institutionalization of Participatory Research and Scaling up Approaches for Rice in Nepal. Dec 11-12 2002, LI-BIRD, DFID-PSP, DOA and NARC, Nepal. Rana, R.B., Joshi, K.D., Gyawali, S. & Witcombe, J.R. (2004). Participatory crop improvement project of Chitwan and Nawalparasi districts of Nepal. A baseline report. Discussion Paper no. 5. CAZS Natural Resources and Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD). Rawal, K.B., Bhatta, V.R., Joshi, G.R. & Singh, U. (2006). Adoption and spread of rice varieties in Sarlahi and Kailali districts identified by participatory crop improvement (PCI) and bred by client-oriented breeding (COB). Kanchanpur, Nepal: SUPPORT Foundation. Thagunna P. 2002. Participatory variety selection of main season rice varieties in Sunsari district. Paper presented on “Review and Planning Workshop on “Institutionalization of Participatory Research and Scaling up Approaches for Rice in Nepal. Dec 11-12 2002, LI-BIRD, DFID-PSP, DOA and NARC, Nepal. Witcombe J R, Joshi K D, Rana R B & Virk D.S. (2001) Increasing genetic diversity by participatory varietal selection in high potential production systems in Nepal and India Euphytica 122: 575-588 Witcombe, J.R., Joshi K.D., Gyawali, S., & Subedi, A. (2003). Participatory crop improvement in the low-altitude regions of Nepal. Impact assessment working document: Version 5.1. Bangor, Wales, UK: CAZS-Natural Resources, , Pokhara, Nepal: LI-BIRD. Available at www.dfid-psp.org Witcombe, J.R. Joshi, K.D., Gyawali, S., Devkota, K. & Subedi, A. (2004). Participatory crop improvement in the low-altitude regions of Nepal. Plant Sciences Research Programme. Highlights and impact. Participatory crop improvement. pp 21-50. Yadav R.S. (2002). Performance of different PVS varieties in Siraha district from a combined activities of FORWARD and DADO, Siraha. Paper presented on “Review and Planning Workshop on “Institutionalization of Participatory Research and Scaling up Approaches for Rice in Nepal. Dec 11-12 2002, LI-BIRD, DFID-PSP, DOA and NARC, Nepal. Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information
|
