Advances in the Registration of Farmers’ Varieties: Four Cases from the Global South

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-written case study of four geographically representative developing countries (Bolivia, Laos, Nepal, and Zimbabwe) on the opportunities and challenges related to the registration of farmers’ varieties.

The manuscript would have benefitted from the additional inclusion of the experience of a developed country, perhaps from the European Union, for the purpose of comparing different approaches between developing and developed countries on this important aspect of landrace or conservation variety registration and lessons learnt from these different approaches. However, in the Discussion section, the authors expanded their view on this aspect by also mentioning the findings of other studies (Spataro & Negri, 2013; Halewood, 2016).

The authors end the Abstract with a concluding sentence that farmers' variety registration systems can generate benefits including faster and cheaper variety releases, improved farmer incomes, and a larger diversity of well-adapted varieties in the market. While improved farmer incomes from seed production after successful variety registration has yet to be demonstrated in the pilot countries and elsewhere, it might be worthwhile to highlight the success stories of production and marketing of African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs) in East Africa. In Kenya, the production of AIVs as cash crops positively influenced the total per capita household income and the food security status of the households (see, for example, Krause, H., Faße, A., & Grote, U. (2019). Welfare and food security effects of commercializing African indigenous vegetables in Kenya. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 5(1), 1700031). In this case, small-scale farmers benefitted not really from additional income as seed producers of indigenous varieties but mostly from the cultivation and marketing of AIVs. The success of the AIVs called seed companies into action to produce and market seed of AIVs, and farmers focused on what they are good at, the production and marketing of these highly sought after varieties by domestic consumers.

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment:

This is a well-written case study of four geographically representative developing countries (Bolivia, Laos, Nepal, and Zimbabwe) on the opportunities and challenges related to the registration of farmers’ varieties.

The manuscript would have benefitted from the additional inclusion of the experience of a developed country, perhaps from the European Union, for the purpose of comparing different approaches between developing and developed countries on this important aspect of landrace or conservation variety registration and lessons learnt from these different approaches. However, in the Discussion section, the authors expanded their view on this aspect by also mentioning the findings of other studies (Spataro & Negri, 2013; Halewood, 2016).

Authors’ response:

The above is well noted and we fully agree. The reason why we have not done so in this article is because the European experiences are captured by colleagues in another article of this same special issue (i.e. Batur et al). We have clarified this by adding “Four cases from the Global South” in the article’s title.

Reviewer’s comment:

The authors end the Abstract with a concluding sentence that farmers' variety registration systems can generate benefits including faster and cheaper variety releases, improved farmer incomes, and a larger diversity of well-adapted varieties in the market. While improved farmer incomes from seed production after successful variety registration has yet to be demonstrated in the pilot countries and elsewhere, it might be worthwhile to highlight the success stories of production and marketing of African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs) in East Africa. In Kenya, the production of AIVs as cash crops positively influenced the total per capita household income and the food security status of the households (see, for example, Krause, H., Faße, A., & Grote, U. (2019). Welfare and food security effects of commercializing African indigenous vegetables in Kenya. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 5(1), 1700031). In this case, small-scale farmers benefitted not really from additional income as seed producers of indigenous varieties but mostly from the cultivation and marketing of AIVs. The success of the AIVs called seed companies into action to produce and market seed of AIVs, and farmers focused on what they are good at, the production and marketing of these highly sought after varieties by domestic consumers.

Authors’ response:

We are aware of the above mentioned work on AIVs in Africa but since these do not involve -as far as we know- farmers in the registration nor the production of seed we do not consider this example a good one for the article.

We attach a revised version of the paper taking into consideration both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2's comments and recommendations. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper addresses a very important topic: registration of farmers varieties.  It seems grounded in sound background research and direct field research and implementation.  The dense description of current and developing legal processes is quite valuable.  The paper is well written.  It fills an important gap.  It is a pleasure to read.

 

I highly recommend this paper for publication.

There are some minor issues that might be addressed to strengthen the work.

 

Content issues

1. The paper seems to imply that registration of farmer varieties is something totally new. In select countries, landraces have been released with some regularity: for example, the case of climbing beans in Rwanda.  If possible, a brief review of such cases might be useful for fleshing out the broader universe in which such practices unfold.

 

2. The terminology around farmer varieties is confusing. Sometimes, authors refer to both farmer varieties and landraces.  Sometimes authors just speak of farmer varieties.  Are the authors assuming that the legal processes around landraces and farmer varieties are the same?  Are there any instances where legal actions might be markedly different (such as in ownership issues?)  If the authors are just collapsing all the variation under the rubric 'farmer variety', this blanket combining might be stated explicitly (and the terminology in the paper simplified).   Also, how do 'traditional', 'local', 'amateur' varieties relate to 'farmer'.

 

3. lines 334/335 seem to be at odds with 286/287. Once varieties are registered, seed companies will establish MoUs with owners (334/335).  But 286/287 suggests that customary African society has different concepts of ownership.

 

4. line 490. The figure of 52% of total varieties as hybrids (total being 740 varieties of 75 crops) seems high.  It would be useful to specify for which crops hybrids have been developed and introduced.

 

5. Line 496. varieties not in the Gazette cannot be traded legally.  Does this mean that trading farmer varieties is illegal?

 

6. Line 643. QDS is not comparable quality to certified.

 

Stylistic issues

1. References that site internal reports, for example CTDT. To write 'available upon request' seems insufficient.  Such work, if cited, might best be placed in public domain

 

2. Terminology issue: maize and corn both used. Best to use one-- or explain why corn is more appropriate term for Bolivian context

 

3. Terminology issue: modern and improved variety are both used.  Are they both the same?  if so, may be best to use just one.

 

4. A good number of small grammatical mistakes. (Several authors might make a careful last read). a few examples:  line 373  at F6, (add comma); line 569 NARC (add end parenthesis), line 620 falls not fall.

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment:

This paper addresses a very important topic: registration of farmers varieties.  It seems grounded in sound background research and direct field research and implementation.  The dense description of current and developing legal processes is quite valuable.  The paper is well written.  It fills an important gap.  It is a pleasure to read.

I highly recommend this paper for publication.

Authors’ response:

Thank you very much. This is much appreciated.

Reviewer’s comment:

The paper seems to imply that registration of farmer varieties is something totally new. In select countries, landraces have been released with some regularity: for example, the case of climbing beans in Rwanda.  If possible, a brief review of such cases might be useful for fleshing out the broader universe in which such practices unfold.

Authors’ response:

We had no intention to imply that registration of farmers’ varieties is something totally new. We Have revised the introduction of the paper and added the example of climbing beans in Rwanda and another example.

Reviewer’s comment:

The terminology around farmer varieties is confusing. Sometimes, authors refer to both farmer varieties and landraces.  Sometimes authors just speak of farmer varieties.  Are the authors assuming that the legal processes around landraces and farmer varieties are the same?  Are there any instances where legal actions might be markedly different (such as in ownership issues?)  If the authors are just collapsing all the variation under the rubric 'farmer variety', this blanket combining might be stated explicitly (and the terminology in the paper simplified).   Also, how do 'traditional', 'local', 'amateur' varieties relate to 'farmer'.

Authors’ response:

Good point. We have clarified terminology at the end of Section 1. Please see our additions in the attached revised manuscript. 

Reviewer’s comment:

Lines 334/335 seem to be at odds with 286/287. Once varieties are registered, seed companies will establish MoUs with owners (334/335). But 286/287 suggests that customary African society has different concepts of ownership.

Authors’ response:

This is why we have identified ownership issues to be among key issues that need further reflection by all parties concerned (please see Section 4). Once farmers’ varieties move from landraces towards varieties to be commercialized by external parties, conceptions and organizations of ownership will change unavoidably.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 490. The figure of 52% of total varieties as hybrids (total being 740 varieties of 75 crops) seems high.  It would be useful to specify for which crops hybrids have been developed and introduced.

Authors’ response:

This information in the reference Thapa, 2019 (Thapa, M.; Sapkota, D.; Joshi, B.K. Crop Groups based on National List: Released, Registered, Denotified, Formal and Informal. In Proceedings of the National Workshop on Working Crop Groups, Kathmandu, 2019). For the reviewer’s information, the biggest number of registered hybrids is in vegetables (255), followed by maize (51) and rice (44). Since this information is merely to provide some context about the situation in Nepal we prefer not to go into these details in the text.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 496. varieties not in the Gazette cannot be traded legally. Does this mean that trading farmer varieties is illegal?

Authors’ response:

That is indeed the case, as we have clarified in the following line 497: “Varieties that are not notified in the Gazette cannot be multiplied for commercial purposes, nor traded legally”.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 643. QDS is not comparable quality to certified.

Authors’ response: The article of Mastenbroek et al., in this same special issue, shows that QDS quality standards are comparable to, and sometimes the same as those for certified seed. The authors of this other article write: “The main differences between QDS and certified seed are the marketing channels and the field inspection procedures. Certified seed is sold countrywide and through agro-dealer networks, while QDS is sold in the vicinity of the producers. The quality standards for certified seed and QDS classes are the same. However, the number of field inspections is different.” We have included a reference to this article in the text.

Reviewer’s comment:

References that site internal reports, for example CTDT. To write 'available upon request' seems insufficient. Such work, if cited, might best be placed in public domain.

Authors’ response:

These reports are internal documents. CTDT does not feel comfortable making them public without further editing, formatting and design, which costs time and money. For this reason, we would prefer to stick to the current reference “available upon request”.

Reviewer’s comment:

Terminology issue: maize and corn both used. Best to use one-- or explain why corn is more appropriate term for Bolivian context.

Authors’ response:

We have replaced corn with maize.

Reviewer’s comment:

Terminology issue: modern and improved variety are both used.  Are they both the same?  if so, may be best to use just one.

Authors’ response:

We have replaced modern with improved.

Reviewer’s comment:

A good number of small grammatical mistakes. (Several authors might make a careful last read). a few examples:  line 373  at F6, (add comma); line 569 NARC (add end parenthesis), line 620 falls not fall.

Authors’ response:

Thank you, we have made these corrections.

We attach a revised version of the manuscript that takes into consideration both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2's comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx