There are various kinds of hybrids. The most common are the intra-specific (cross within a species) and inter-specific (cross between different species) hybrids. However, the offspring of an inter-specific cross are very often sterile that prevents the movement of genes from one species to another. It happens due to the different chromosome number of parental species resulting into an extra chromosome in the offspring that disrupts meiosis, the process of forming viable sperms or eggs through cell division. The common examples are mules (crosses of female horse and male donkey), hinnies (crosses of male horse and female donkey).
Plants hybridize frequently without much work, so they are often created by humans to produce improved plants in terms of more production or quality improvement or winter or heat hardy, etc. Most of the hybrids produced so far are more disease resistant plants.
The hybrid varieties of crops, and breeds of animals developed in the 1970s and after, along with intensive management (feeds, antibiotics and probiotics, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and heavy farm equipments) practices, have contributed to many fold increase in the production per unit area especially in the developed and developing countries contributing to food security of the rapidly increasing population. This is named Green Revolution. However, over the time with the changed climate, hybrids and the entire green revolution technologies have degraded ecosystems and the environment, eroded crop and animal genetic diversity, made the soil dead (not suitable for farming), failed yields, and in the developing countries contributed to farmers committing suicides.
When green revolution agriculture (hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers, and heavy mechanics) is already proved to be unsustainable, farmers in countries like Nepal are compelled to use and get used to hybrids. It is highly proposed by the development organizations and easily accepted by our policy makers. But, it contradicts with the Agro-biodiversity Policy of Nepal that encourages the strategies to maintain agro-ecosystem balance, thereby enhancing plant and animal genetic diversity, and discourages the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The current discussion about the promotion of hybrid maize to the farmers of high production potential areas has drawn the attention of small farmers, civil society organizations and policy makers in Nepal. At the moment, a rational analysis of promoting hybrids developed by the Multi National Company (MNCs) like Monsanto is must. But, the reality is that it will have more negative implications for the Nepalese agrarian society in a number of ways.
Hybrids perform well only under intensive management in uniform microclimate, application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and appropriate harvesting and post harvest technologies. Intensive management increases the cost of production, and is sometimes unaffordable for our farmers. It also cannot withstand the different microclimatic conditions of Nepal-terai, midhill, and high mountain, which is more unpredictable because of climate change and the associated hazards such as drought, erratic rainfall, etc.
Given the economic situation of Nepalese farmers, with more than 70 per cent of the population living on less than US$ 2 a day, even being able to afford hybrid seeds (forget about management) is a tall task. Moreover, the hybrid seed production are out of the farmers’ contro,l and unlike open pollinated varieties, the seeds from hybrid varieties give off-type plants if grown the next time.
Furthermore, gradual dominance of hybrid varieties will increase the loss of local and open pollinated varieties of crops such as maize. It will increase the vulnerability of farming communities to deal with the impacts of climate change. Hybrids that demand more unnatural inputs that destroy our productive and diversity rich ecosystems. In Nepal, more than 90 per cent of the seeds are supplied through the informal system. It means farmer-to-farmer seed exchange are predominant in Nepal, which is contributing to maintain the crop and animal genetic diversity in Nepal. It is not only restricted to seed exchange, but strengthens other informal relationships that enhance social harmony, exchange and transfer of traditional and indigenous knowledge, knowledge and practices.
In addition, we have several cases of crop yield loss, because of the introduction of hybrid seeds.
The developed nations and their companies, which have realized the negative effects of such crops in their system, are now expanding their business to least-developed countries. They will certainly gain in terms of reputation (as support) as well as returns from the sale, but, we will certainly be the losers of our diversity, culture, informal relationship, our money and our dignity.
There are several cases of farmers being breeders of their varieties through participatory breeding approaches to increase their crops’ productivity and maintain biodiversity.
(Note: This article was published in The Himalayan Times Daily on 16-11-2011)
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Promoting+hybrids&NewsID=309505
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
GOOD LUCK Nepali Delegates: COP 17 and Hopes
International community, especially the vulnerable communities of the most vulnerable countries of the word, has received freak results of the latest meetings of climate negotiation. However, the 17th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), going to be held from 28 November to 07 December 2011 in Durban, South Africa, is of great hope for a manifesto of fast track and easily accessible finance for adaptation and cutting out of green house gas emissions to avoid the rate of temperature rise to the tipping point, i.e. 1.50C.
The predominant role of developed countries' climate negotiators, from the discussion notes, reveals that they are not vivid in setting their nations' contribution to the adaptation finance as well as committing reduction of their emissions. Unless the governance mechanism of green climate fund while ensuring an easy access of vulnerable countries along with the shared vision of the Bali Action Plan are set transparent and a legally binding agreement is done for post Kyoto based on the current achievement, global negotiation, meeting, and investment on climate change will vain.
In the upcoming COP meeting at Durban, the most vulnerable countries are negotiating through a consortium that includes 48 least developed countries (LDCs) including Nepal, 53 African countries and The Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA), an organization for international cooperation among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The countries in the consortium, realizing the legal framework of UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, are relaying their voices to the climate negotiators to produce outcomes in lieu with the Bali Roadmap, for an agreed outcome to implement the Convention and a second and subsequent period of the Kyoto Protocol.
According to their common position paper, they are urging Annex I Parties to reduce their emissions by at least 40% and 95% by 2017 and 2050 respectively that is required to maintain global warming below 1.50C, to operationalize adaptation framework under Cancun Adaptation Framework, to facilitate the support of national adaptation plans as mentioned by Nairobi Work Programme, to ensure adaptation to be funded at full cost through direct and easy access, and to urgently address technology transfer and capacity building of/to developing countries.
Nepal is participating in the climate negotiations and COP meetings since the UNFCCC. It has been promulgating climate change issues of least developed countries especially on climate justice and adaptation support to the vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change.
Climate negotiators of Nepal have been lobbying its adaptation needs and priorities through the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to climate change on basis of polluters pay principle and recognizing the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Though the issues that Nepal raises in the international forum contradict with its climate change policy as well as the adaptation implementation framework recommended by NAPA, it should negotiate for an increased flow of adaptation finance to the national climate change fund of each country as well as draw conference of parties attention on the issues of mountain.
Nepal believes that experience gained in NAPA implementation should be the basis for the formulation of National Adaptation Plans and should be adequately funded to promote medium‐ and long term adaptation planning. This should be either led by the climate change focal point of the parties or the preparation team should preferably work with the multidisciplinary teams of in‐country experts.
In this context, the role of Nepalese delegates is crucial, along with the delegates from other vulnerable countries, to convince their agendas in the meetings with evidences. Their participation in the side events, discussions and formal sessions of the conference should be meaningful rather than just an observer. With hopes, they must communicate to their nationals on the progress of the negotiation and have a lead role on behalf of least developed country in the major discussions and events. And good luck for their meaningful participation and positive take home message.
The predominant role of developed countries' climate negotiators, from the discussion notes, reveals that they are not vivid in setting their nations' contribution to the adaptation finance as well as committing reduction of their emissions. Unless the governance mechanism of green climate fund while ensuring an easy access of vulnerable countries along with the shared vision of the Bali Action Plan are set transparent and a legally binding agreement is done for post Kyoto based on the current achievement, global negotiation, meeting, and investment on climate change will vain.
In the upcoming COP meeting at Durban, the most vulnerable countries are negotiating through a consortium that includes 48 least developed countries (LDCs) including Nepal, 53 African countries and The Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA), an organization for international cooperation among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The countries in the consortium, realizing the legal framework of UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, are relaying their voices to the climate negotiators to produce outcomes in lieu with the Bali Roadmap, for an agreed outcome to implement the Convention and a second and subsequent period of the Kyoto Protocol.
According to their common position paper, they are urging Annex I Parties to reduce their emissions by at least 40% and 95% by 2017 and 2050 respectively that is required to maintain global warming below 1.50C, to operationalize adaptation framework under Cancun Adaptation Framework, to facilitate the support of national adaptation plans as mentioned by Nairobi Work Programme, to ensure adaptation to be funded at full cost through direct and easy access, and to urgently address technology transfer and capacity building of/to developing countries.
Nepal is participating in the climate negotiations and COP meetings since the UNFCCC. It has been promulgating climate change issues of least developed countries especially on climate justice and adaptation support to the vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change.
Climate negotiators of Nepal have been lobbying its adaptation needs and priorities through the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to climate change on basis of polluters pay principle and recognizing the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Though the issues that Nepal raises in the international forum contradict with its climate change policy as well as the adaptation implementation framework recommended by NAPA, it should negotiate for an increased flow of adaptation finance to the national climate change fund of each country as well as draw conference of parties attention on the issues of mountain.
Nepal believes that experience gained in NAPA implementation should be the basis for the formulation of National Adaptation Plans and should be adequately funded to promote medium‐ and long term adaptation planning. This should be either led by the climate change focal point of the parties or the preparation team should preferably work with the multidisciplinary teams of in‐country experts.
In this context, the role of Nepalese delegates is crucial, along with the delegates from other vulnerable countries, to convince their agendas in the meetings with evidences. Their participation in the side events, discussions and formal sessions of the conference should be meaningful rather than just an observer. With hopes, they must communicate to their nationals on the progress of the negotiation and have a lead role on behalf of least developed country in the major discussions and events. And good luck for their meaningful participation and positive take home message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)