Rm

KRa

Nb

c

d

e

f

a

ARRA

KFPARIF

I

i

T

0h

Field Crops Research 158 (2014) 15–23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Field Crops Research

jou rn al hom epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / fc r

egulatory reform of seed systems: Benefits and impacts from aungbean case study in Nepal

.D. Joshia,∗, N.P. Khanalb, D. Harrisc,1, N.N. Khanalb, A. Sapkotab, K. Khadkad, R. Daraie,

.K. Neupanee,2, M. Joshi f,3, J.R. Witcombec

Centre for Advanced Research in International Agricultural Development (CARIAD), c/o CIMMYT South Asia Regional Office, P. O. Box 5186, Kathmandu,epalForum for Rural Welfare and Agriculture Reform for Development (FORWARD), P.O. Box 11, Bharatpur, Chitwan, NepalCARIAD, Bangor University, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UKLocal Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), P.O. Box 324, Pokhara, Kaski, NepalNational Grain Legume Research Programme (NGLRP), Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC), Rampur, Chitwan, NepalSocial Upliftment through Participatory Programmes, Research and Training (SUPPORT) Foundation, P.O. Box 24, Mahendranagar, Kanchanpur, Nepal

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 25 July 2013eceived in revised form 6 December 2013ccepted 6 December 2013

eywords:ast-tracking varietal releasearticipatory trialsdoptioneplacing fallow land

rrigationood security

a b s t r a c t

Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L). Wilczek) is becoming an important grain legume in Nepal. It can be grownas an additional crop after harvesting winter crops such as winter wheat, winter legumes and oilseedsand before planting main season rice from the low-altitude Terai through to the middle hills of Nepal.Replacing short fallows in the spring, it provides additional high quality food, enhances soil fertility andincreases the yield of the following crop.

In spite of continued varietal research by the National Grain Legume Research Programme, no mung-bean varieties were released from 1975 to 2006. The old variety, Pusa Baishakhi, was released in 1975, butbecame susceptible to Mungbean Yellow Mosaic Virus (MYMV) and several other diseases so mungbeanbecame limited to a rarely grown, green manure crop. In 2003, we introduced four mungbean varietiesresistant to MYMV from the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre. These were evaluatedin participatory varietal selection (PVS) mother and baby trials in low fertility and droughted conditionsusing farmers’ levels of inputs and management. Variety spread was promoted by distributing free smallseed samples in a process known as Informal Research and Development (IRD); and community-basedseed production and marketing. Of the four varieties, NM94 and VC6372 consistently produced highergrain yields than the local check varieties, were resistant to MYMV and hence were preferred by farmers.The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives endorsed a new variety release procedure in 2005 that per-mitted the use of data from PVS trials to support the release or registration of new crop varieties. In 2006,

on the basis of data generated from PVS trials alone, the National Seed Board released NM94 as ‘Kalyan’while, on the basis of combined data from the PVS trials and from on-station trials, VC6372 (45-8-1)was released as ‘Prateeksha’. The use of PVS contributed greatly to fast-tracking the release process andthis resulted in farmers getting new MYMV-resistant mungbean varieties more quickly. Varieties spreadrapidly through IRD and farmer-to-farmer seed networks and provided benefits to farming households.Regulatory reforms to speed up and simplify the process of varietal release are discussed.

∗ Corresponding author. Present address: CIMMYT-Pakistan, NARC-Park Road,slamabad 44000, Pakistan.

E-mail address: k.d.joshi@cgair.org (K.D. Joshi).1 Present address: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Trop-

cs, PO Box 39063, Nairobi, Kenya.2 Present address: FORWARD, Chitwan, Nepal.3 Present address: Department of Agriculture Development, Regional Agriculture

raining Centre, Sundarpur, Kanchanpur, Nepal.

378-4290/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.011

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Context of mungbean in Nepal

Although, mungbean (Vigna radiata (L). Wilczek) subgenus Cera-totrips is considered to be an indigenous legume and an ancient cropof East and South Asia, its cultivation in Nepal is not widespread.

Prior to 1970, it was cultivated mainly for green manuring pur-poses in a limited area of the Terai, the low-altitude flat landalong the southern part of Nepal with sub-tropical climatic con-ditions (Bharati, 1977). Its minor place in cropping systems is

1 ps Res

r‘a2

tmtabrsSwiiN

tcrair

tatwTaavdo

loe8iipeRedmci

1r

ewiaNenauiv

6 K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Cro

eflected in the Government statistics that put mungbean underother legumes’ including cowpea, rice bean, field pea, faba bean,nd Phaseolus beans, with a combined area of 30,000 ha (NGLRP,011).

In 1974, the National Grain Legume Research Programme ofhe Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) started evaluating

ungbean varieties from the International Mungbean Nurseries ofhe Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre (AVRDC)nd other sources. In 1975, the Pusa Baishakhi variety of mung-ean, developed by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, wasecommended for cultivation in the central Terai but it is now highlyusceptible to Mungbean Yellow Mosaic Virus and Cercospora Leafpot resulting in very low yields (Joshi et al., 2003a,c). The varietyas also poorly rated for its small grains and poor cooking and eat-

ng qualities associated with its poor aroma on cooking. All thesessues adversely affected its promotion and commercialization inepal.

After the release of Pusa Baishakhi in 1975 after just 1 year ofesting following its introduction research on mungbean was dis-ontinued for 7 years. Giving lower research priority in the nationalesearch system to a minor crop such as mungbean is understand-ble. Mungbean varietal research was resumed in 1983 with thentroduction and testing of many new varieties but none wereeleased, the reasons for which are not known.

Nevertheless, the importance of mungbean in Nepal is poten-ially very great if farmers can irrigate the crop two to three timesnd have access to seeds of high yielding, short duration varietieshat are resistant to MYMV and Cercospora Leaf Spot. Such varietiesill fit at least into 25% of over one million ha of land in the Nepal

erai that is left fallow (uncultivated) even though farmers haveccess to some irrigation. The fallow period is around 3 monthsfter the harvest of wheat or winter legumes, such as lentil, oregetables and before the main season crop. Several factors hin-er the expansion of the mungbean crop, e.g. lack of irrigation, lackf family labour and damage to crops by free-grazing livestock.

Mungbean provides an excellent opportunity to replace fallowand with a crop and contribute to the food and nutritional securityf millions of households in Nepal. Short duration mungbean vari-ties can be attractive options in multiple cropping areas as nearly0% of their pods can be harvested within 70–75 days after sow-

ng and thus do not delay the transplanting of main season rice. Thencorporation of mungbean biomass in the soil improves overall soilroperties by contributing to soil organic matter and to the nitrogenconomy through symbiotic nitrogen fixation (Sharma et al., 2000;ao, 2005). Moreover, it potentially breaks the insect-pest and dis-ase cycle in cereal-based cropping systems. In spite of its greatemand by consumers and processing industries in the domesticarket, Nepal has not been able to promote the cultivation of this

rop so in 2012, for example, $1.4 million worth of mungbean wasmported and imports are on an increasing trend (TEPC, 2012).

.2. Partnership with government line agencies to revise varietyelease procedures

Before 2005, the Nepal Agriculture Research Council was consid-red to be the sole agency for variety release in Nepal as they onceere the only organisation involved in plant breeding, variety test-

ng and release. However, the increasing stake of non-state actors ingricultural research and development prompted a change in theational Seed Policy in 1999. It stated that “the function of vari-ty development and promotion done only by public sector untilow will also be open to non-government organisation (NGOs)

nd the private sector” (MoAC, 1999). Scientists from CAZS Nat-ral Resources (CAZS-NR) now the Centre for Advanced Research

n International Agriculture Development (CARIAD), Bangor Uni-ersity, UK also joined the policy dialogue. They argued for a

earch 158 (2014) 15–23

more flexible system whereby farmers evaluate and then multi-ply promising but unreleased materials to enable a quicker, morewidespread use of modern crop varieties that increases food andincome security (CAZS-NR, 2001).

1.3. Participatory varietal selection (PVS) and its role inaccelerating variety release and uptake

Client-oriented breeding explicitly takes into account the needsof end users (farmers, processors and consumers) in designinga new variety and then tests without delay the new productsfrom the breeding programme with the target clients in the tar-get environments (Witcombe et al., 2005). A major component ofclient-oriented breeding is participatory varietal selection (PVS)where farmers test varieties on their own fields with their ownlevels of inputs and management. PVS identifies new varietiesthat farmers prefer to grow for the traits they consider importantand facilitates their adoption and spread resulting in positive andrapid impacts on food security and income (Joshi and Witcombe,1996; Joshi et al., 1997, 2005; Witcombe et al., 1999). PVS hasbeen used in many crops and countries; however, there were noprior examples of PVS research on mungbean although participa-tory research in legumes has included cropping systems research,seed priming and conservation agriculture (Harris, 2006; Johansenet al., 2008). Examples of successful PVS in cereals include rice(Joshi and Witcombe, 1996, 2002; Joshi et al., 2007, 2012) maize(Witcombe et al., 2003; Tiwari et al., 2009, 2010) and wheat (Ferraraet al., 2007). PVS is a very powerful approach for influencing andaccelerating the varietal testing and release process (Joshi et al.,2012).

Another proven component of client-oriented breeding is Infor-mal Research and Development (IRD) that involves the freedistribution of small seed samples for evaluation by farmers whomay subsequently use and distribute them. The IRD approach wasinitiated at the Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, Nepal in 1990 toimprove the flow of new genetic materials to farmers who had pooraccess to new varieties as they lived in remote, marginal areas in thehills. IRD requires only limited monitoring and technical supportfrom researchers. The approach emphasises on increased varietaladoption through farmer-to-farmer networks in areas that conven-tional breeding and extension had failed to reach rather than datacollection for research (Joshi and Sthapit, 1990; Joshi et al., 1997).It is particularly suitable for areas lacking an effective formal seedsupply system. Both PVS and IRD allow farmers to evaluate the suit-ability of a wide range of new varieties, which may be released orunreleased, in trials conducted in their own fields entirely undertheir own management.

Joshi et al. (2012) examined how the wide adoption of ricevariety BG1442, as a result of PVS and IRD activities, influencedthe national rice research programme, Nepal Agriculture ResearchCouncil decision to release it 17 years after its introduction fromSri Lanka when it had been almost forgotten by the system. How-ever, this paper highlights the policy dialogue between NGOs andpublic- and private sector actors for revising the variety releaseprocedure. The regulatory frameworks in developing countriesoften play a controlling rather than a facilitating role for varietalrelease and ultimately constrain the impact of plant breeding. Thispaper examines how incorporating PVS and IRD into the regulatoryframework can aid a shift from control towards facilitation and helpbring the benefits of plant breeding research much earlier to clients.

In the paper we discuss three elements that were instrumental

in bridging the big gap in mungbean research in Nepal to find along awaited replacement: (a) partnership with government lineagencies to revise variety release procedures; (b) access to newmungbean germplasm from the Asian Vegetable Research and

ps Research 158 (2014) 15–23 17

Dd

2

2

wswNcropp

fumoeinvmsSa

2

9iCvitdtBvtatae2

tuaim

wcCTcta(

Fig. 1. Location for mother and baby trials, seed production and informal researchand development (IRD) activities for mungbean from 2003 to 2005.

Surveyed districts i n RRC pro ject, DFID RiUP

Surveyed districts in rice-legume project, DFID RiUP

Sur veyed distri cts in DFID MI L

Fig. 2. Districts where the impact assessment of mungbean was done in Nepal in2008–2009 (upper) and in 2012 (lower).

K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Cro

evelopment Centre; (c) the use of PVS approaches to generateata rapidly for release and to promote the new varieties.

. Materials and methods

.1. Revising the variety release procedure

Although the National Seed Policy of 1999 was supportive ofider engagement by non-traditional actors, i.e. private organi-

ations and NGOs, the variety release procedures in the policyere still tailored to public-sector needs. In 2002, a seven-memberational Taskforce was formed to initiate a dialogue with all theoncerned government line agencies. Its remit was to review andevise the existing variety release procedures in line with the spiritf the National Seed Policy of extending the actors beyond theublic sector by the incorporation of more client-oriented, partici-atory research approaches.

The first rounds of discussion were met with some resistancerom the members representing the government, which was notnexpected. The Taskforce proved to be not very effective so itsembership was changed to engage the National Seed Board as

ne of the members in the dialogue in September 2003 (Joshit al., 2003b). After revising the variety release format and alsoncorporating a new provision for a variety registration format, aational workshop was convened to explain how changes in theariety release procedure could make the crop breeding systemore responsive and competitive. The workshop came to a con-

ensus and the Taskforce completed and submitted to the Nationaleed Board in 2005 a revised format for releasing crop varieties and

new format for registering crop varieties.

.2. Mother- and baby trials and IRD methodology

In 2003, we evaluated four mungbean varieties (NM 92, VC6371-4 (NM 94), VC 3960-A-88 and VC 6372 (45-8-1)) that we

ntroduced from the Asian Vegetable Research and Developmententre. The National Grain Legume Research Programme had pre-iously introduced these in the late nineties and had already testedn formal trials from 1998 to 2005. However, no action had beenaken to release them because they had not generated sufficientata to do so. These varieties were evaluated in PVS trials usinghe most widely grown farmers’ variety as a control (mostly Pusaaishakhi but also Saptari Local – possibly an anonymous improvedariety introduced from India through informal sources). The PVSrials were in farmers’ fields and involved mother trials (replicatedcross farmers in different villages and districts, where each motherrial was a single replicate of a randomised complete block design)nd baby trials (pair-wise comparison of one of the four new vari-ties included in the mother trials with a local check variety) in003 and 2005 (Table 1).

Free small seed samples of all the four varieties were also dis-ributed between 2003 and 2005 to 284 farmers across 25 districtssing the IRD approach (Table 1, Figs. 1 and 2). Each farmer received

bag that contained 0.5 kg of mungbean seed and a leaflet describ-ng cultivation practices and the characteristics of all the new

ungbean varieties.The mother and baby trials were conducted by farmers who

ere collaborating with the Forum for Rural Welfare and Agri-ulture Reform for Development (FORWARD) in the ‘Rainfed Rabiropping’ project across the three districts of the Nepal Terai.he IRD was conducted through a network of NGOs, mainly

omprising FORWARD, the Social Upliftment through Participa-ory Programmes, Research and Training (SUPPORT) Foundationnd Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and DevelopmentLI-BIRD) together with District Agriculture Development Offices

Fig. 3. Adoption rate of mungbean in a survey of 1787 randomly sampled house-holds from 18 Terai districts of Nepal, 2012.

18 K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Crops Res

Table 1On-station trials, participatory testing, verification and promotion of mungbeanvarieties in Nepal, 2002–2005.

Years Number of:

Locations fortrials and IRD

Trials IRD

2002–2004 Coordinated varietaltrial

3 6

2003–2005 Mother trial 7 632003 and 2005 Baby trial 15 1052003–2005 Informal research

and development17 284

2005 Organolepticassessment

1 1

2005 Disease and insectscreening

3 1

Total 176 284

(e(

twamfrfttqoIhraar

2

lrRdcNb

2

imcatoo

the rate of spread of mungbean varieties in the areas where theproject had not directly reached. Group discussions were held to

DADOs) in several cases. Seed production was by individual farm-rs or community-based seed producer groups facilitated by NGOsFig. 1).

The agronomic management for all the trials and demonstra-ions (mother, baby and IRD) was decided by the farmers concernedith the trial. The plot shape and size varied according to land avail-

bility. In the mother trials, researchers measured yield, time toaturity and incidence of diseases and insects. Preference ranking

or important varietal traits was done at each village near the matu-ity of the crop where participating and interested neighbouringarmers and other stakeholders evaluated the varieties. Two tohree months after harvesting the crop, participating farmers inhe mother and baby trials were interviewed about post-harvestualities, i.e. grain size and shininess, aroma and taste of vari-us cooked local preparations and the likely grain market price.n Saptari, 25 participants representative of all the major stake-olders, i.e. farmers, community-based seed producer groups,esearchers, District Agriculture Development Offices, Agrovetsnd pulse millers, evaluated the physical qualities of the grainnd assessed organoleptic qualities using the most common localecipes for mungbean.

.3. Coordinated varietal trial methodology

The coordinated varietal trial is an advanced-stage, multi-ocation, multi-entry trial designed and implemented byesearchers in the research stations of the Nepal Agricultureesearch Council. The trial is conducted to generate performanceata required to fulfil the release requirements of all the mandaterops. Data from three coordinated varietal trials conducted by theational Grain Legume Research Programme, Nepal (Table 1) haveeen used in this paper.

.4. Benefit cost analysis of growing mungbean

Five farmers each from Kapilvastu, Sapatari and Jhapa werenterviewed in 2005 to determine the costs and benefits of

ungbean production. The interviews determined all the variableosts (land preparation, fertilizers and manure application, seedsnd sowing, weeding, irrigation, pesticides and spraying, picking,hreshing and post-harvest handling) and all the benefits (the value

f grains and by-products). Using these data, the benefit cost ratiof growing mungbean was assessed.

earch 158 (2014) 15–23

2.5. Assessing seed production and distribution and adoption ofmungbean

2.5.1. Seed production and distribution of mungbeanAnnual records for the production and distribution of mungbean

seeds from 2000 to 2011 were collected from various stakehol-ders involved in mungbean research and promotion. Informationon varietal maintenance and source-seed production was alsoobtained from them.

2.5.2. Assessing adoption of mungbean by monitoring, impactand learning of the Department for International Development(DFID), UK Research into Use Programme 2008–2009

The Monitoring Impact and Learning section of the Research intoUse Programme of DFID, UK conducted an adoption and impactstudy of mungbean-related activities of the Rainfed Rabi Croppingproject (see Joshi et al., 2012 for details of the methodology).

From July 2008 to February 2009, six villages per district fromKapilvastu, Siraha, Saptari and Jhapa where the project activ-ities had started in 2004 (Fig. 2) were randomly selected forthe study. In Saptari only four villages were surveyed becauseinsufficient initial users were identified in the other two vil-lages.

Across the 22 villages 1381 farming households were listedin group discussions. These households were then identified bythe groups as either users of at least one of the four mung-bean varieties or as non-users. There were 646 users and 735non-users. From the lists for each of the 22 villages, 12 usersand 5 non-users were randomly selected for interview. In total,287 user households and 96 non-users were interviewed com-pared with an expected 308 and 108 because substitutes werenot used. Questions were asked about new mungbean varieties,their adoption, benefits and their seed distribution. Key infor-mants were interviewed and group discussions were conducted tounderstand farmer-to-farmer spread of new mungbean varietiesin Kapilvastu, Saptari, Morang and Jhapa and its effect on reduc-ing fallow area. A total of 1186 randomly selected farmers fromfour districts were interviewed for this. In addition, group discus-sions were done in 24 villages made up of 6 randomly selectedvillages per district to triangulate the information obtained fromthe surveys.

2.5.3. Assessment by the DFID research into use programme 2012of adoption of mungbean

The adoption and impact of mungbean was assessed a secondtime from January to March 2012 by the Research into Use Pro-gramme in two separate surveys. The first was a re-survey of 1883households surveyed in 2009 for a baseline study. About 25% ofthese households i.e., 469 households, were randomly selectedand interviewed. The second was a sample of the 1757 house-holds in 214 Village Development Committees in 18 districts whoreceived an IRD packet between 2009 and 2011. About 70% ofthese households, i.e. 1318 households, were randomly selectedand interviewed (Fig. 2). Both the resurveyed baseline and IRDsamples were independent and none of the sampled householdsoverlapped.

IRD receivers were surveyed to understand the overall adoptionrate of mungbean when farmers had access to seed, whereas there-assessment of households from the baseline survey looked at

supplement and triangulate the information collected from boththe household surveys.

K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Crops Research 158 (2014) 15–23 19

Table 2Grain yield of VC6372 (45-8-1) compared to farmers’ local variety in coordinatedvarietal trials conducted at two locations from 2002 to 2004.

Parameter Grain yield (t ha−1)

2002 2003 2004 Mean

NM92 0.60 0.47 0.72 0.59VC 3960-A-88 0.55 0.49 0.67 0.57VC 6372 (45-8-1) 0.67 0.60 0.81 0.69Saptari Local 0.53 0.53 0.38 0.45Pusa Baishakhi 0.46 0.48 0.73 0.56Yield advantage % of VC 6372(45-8-1)a 36 20 47 38Number of trials 2 2 2Probability <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05

a Yield advantage of VC6372 over the mean of two check varieties.

Table 3Grain yield of NM94 and VC6372 (45-8-1) compared with farmers’ local variety inmother trials conducted in three Terai districts of Nepal, 2003–2005.

Parameter Grain yield (t/ha)

2003 2004 2005 Overall

NM92 0.33 0.38 1.01 0.57VC 3960-A-88 0.38 0.38 0.95 0.57VC6371-94 (NM94) 0.45 0.46 1.14 0.68VC 6372(45-8-1) 0.55 0.43 1.04 0.67Farmers’ local 0.25 0.36 0.99 0.53Trial mean 0.39 0.40 1.03 0.63S.E.D 0.04 0.04 0.05Yield advantage (%) of NM94a 80 28 15 22Yield advantage (%) of VC 6372(45-8-1)a 55 19 5 20Probability <0.01 <0.05 <0.05

a

3

3r

tfVvvna

rtvyi

Table 5Reaction of mungbean varieties against Mungbean Yellow Mosaic Virus (MYMV) inNepal.

Mungbean variety MYMV score (0–5)§

2000 2001 2004 2005

VC3960-A-88 0 2 1 1VC6371-94 (NM94) 0 2 1 1VC6372 (45-8-1) 0 0 0 1Saptari Local 4 4 3 4Pusa Baishakhi 4 4 4 4

0 = highly resistant, 5 = highly susceptible.

TD2

a Yield advantage of NM94 and VC6372 (45-8-1) over farmers’ local variety sep-rately.

. Results and discussion

.1. Performance of new mungbean varieties in on-stationesearch and in mother trials

Grain yields of all the entries included in the coordinated varietalrial conducted by the National Grain Legume Research Programmerom 2002 to 2004 were very low; less than one tonne per hectare.C6372 (45-8-1) was the most promising of the new mungbeanarieties with an overall yield advantage of 38% over both the checkarieties across 3 years. The yield difference was statistically sig-ificant (Table 2). However, VC6371-94 (NM94) was not tested inny of the on-station trials.

In 2003 and 2004, the grain yields in the mother trials underesidual moisture and fertility (i.e. at subsistence levels of produc-

ion) were low and similar to those reported in the coordinatedarietal trial. In 2005 they were much higher and the trial meanield was above 1 t ha−1 because of favourable growing conditions,ncluding pre-monsoon rains. The yield differences between the

able 4ays to first flush of flowers and first picking, plant height and yield components of NM9005.

Mungbeanvariety

Days to firstflush of flowers

Days to firstpicking

Plant heigh(cm)

NM92 40 68 35

VC3960-A-88 40 69 33

VC6371-94(NM94)

36 64 32

VC6372(45-8-1)

39 68 36

Farmer’s local 45 72 43

Trial mean 40 68 36

S.E.D 0.26 2.5 0.9

Probability <0.05 <0.01 <0.01

§ MYMV data for 2000, 2001 and 2004 were recorded at NGLRP while data for2005 were recorded in mother trials at all the three locations; Kapilvastu, Saptariand Jhapa and scores presented here are averages for all the locations.

varieties were statistically significant (Table 3). The yield advan-tage of both the test entries was highest in 2003 and lowest in2005. This was because farmers’ local varieties performed poorlyunder adverse growing conditions but did better with higher pre-monsoon rainfall (Table 3). New mungbean varieties were alsoevaluated during the summer (in the hills) and post-rainy seasonsin the Terai and performed well (data not shown).

Both NM94 and VC6372 were significantly earlier to produce thefirst flush of flowers and for the time of first picking and matured2 weeks earlier than the checks and a few (2–7) days earlier thanother improved varieties (Table 4).

All the new mungbean varieties were significantly shorter thanfarmers’ local varieties with NM94 being the shortest. Number ofpods per plant and number of grains per pod varied significantlybetween varieties – the local variety had the highest number ofpods per plant and grains per pod but this did not translate into ahigher yield because the seeds of all the new varieties were muchlarger (bolder) than the local varieties (Table 4). The grain weightvaried by a factor of three and NM94 had the highest 1000 grainweight followed by NM92 and VC3960.

3.2. Reaction of new mungbean varieties to MYMV

Both NM94 and VC6372 showed a very acceptable range of resis-tance to this disease. VC6372 was best across all the years it wastested for the disease followed by NM94 (Table 5).

3.3. Assessment by farmers and other stakeholders of newmungbean varieties for pre-harvest farmers’ preference andpost-harvest traits

Ranking of the new mungbean varieties was done in all the three

testing sites. VC6372 was ranked best considering all the criteria,while NM92, NM94 and VC3960 had more or less similar rank order.All the new mungbean varieties were much better than local onesfor grain size, uniformity and shininess of the grains. Among new

4 and VC6372 mungbean varieties in mother trials in three Terai districts of Nepal,

t Number ofpods per plant

Number ofgrains per pod

1000 grainweight (g)

16.6 10.3 51.717.0 10.5 50.517.5 10.4 53.8

18.2 10.5 48.7

34.1 11.5 17.520.3 10.6 44.40.83 0.12 0.04<0.01 <0.01 <0.000

20 K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Crops Research 158 (2014) 15–23

Table 6Farmers’ preference ranking (1–5 scale with 1 best) for new mungbean varieties in mother trials in Nepal (2003 and 2005) and organoleptic assessment of selected localrecipes at Saptari 2005.

Variety Mean rank ofmungbean varieties atstanding conditiona

Overall meanpreferencerank

Mean rank of physicalqualities of mungbeangrains at Saptarib

Mean rank of tastepreference of variousmungbean recipes at Saptarib

Kapilvastu Saptari Jhapa Plump uniform grains Grain size Grain shininess Daal Kohari Bean sprouts

NM92 3 1 4 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.5 1.8 2.8 2.4VC 3960-A-88 3 4 1 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.2 1.8 2.4 2.6VC6371-94 (NM94) 2 3 3 2.7 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.6 2.0 2.2VC6372 (45-8-1) 1 3 2 2 3 2.6 3.3 1.5 1.2 1.8Farmer’s local 5 5 5 5 3.4 4.9 4.5 3.4 4.6 4.2Trial mean 2.8 3.2 3 3 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.6 2.6S.E.D 0.35 0.4 0.3 0.28 0.56 0.51 0.78Probability <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.05 <0.000 ns

a 5 trials in each district, 23 participants in Kapilvastu, 20 in Saptari and 25 in Jhapa.b 25 participants representing various stakeholders independently evaluated grain cha

Table 7Cost benefit analysis (calculated @ $1 = Nepalese Rupees 70.13 at 2005 exchangerate) of growing new MYMV-resistant mungbean relative to existing varieties inKapilvastu, Saptari and Jhapa in 1 ha of land each during the spring season of 2005.

Particulars VC6372 NM94 Saptari Local Pusa Baishakhi

Cultural operationsa 9950 9950 10,950 10,950Inputsb 15,240 15,240 15,790 15,790Return: grain 33,450 34,200 27,000 22,185Return: by-product 3000 3000 7600 3,600BCR 2.4 2.44 1.93 1.65

a This includes all the costs of land preparation, fertilizer/manure application,weeding, spraying any pesticides, picking and carrying, threshing.

vd

rft

amfrkwewtv

3

babrh

w

so

b Cost of seed, fertilizer/manure, insecticides, fungicides, micronutrients.

arieties, NM94 was ranked as best followed by NM92. All theseifferences were statistically highly significant (Table 6).

Farmers’ perceptions collected 2–3 months after crop harvestevealed that new mungbean varieties were rated superior to localor all traits, i.e., pod length, grain size, grain colour, grain yield,aste and flavour of the cooked food (data not shown).

Three local food preparations using mungbean, i.e. daal4, kohari5

nd mungbean sprouts were included for the organoleptic assess-ent. There was no difference between tested mungbean varieties

or preparing sprouts but all the new mungbean varieties wereated much better than farmers’ local variety for preparing daal andohari (Table 6). VC6372 was ranked best for the quality of kohari,hereas for daal both varieties were ranked equally. It was also

vident from the assessment that less grain of NM 94 and VC6372as required to feed the same number of people compared with

he local varieties because they absorb more water than the localarieties and hence make a greater volume of daal.

.4. Economics of integrating mungbean in short follows

Using 2005 prices, the average net return from the new mung-ean varieties was estimated to be $310 ha−1 compared withround $200 ha−1 for the existing varieties (Table 7). The averageenefit cost ratio (BCR) of integrating mungbean in short fallows ofice-based cropping patterns was 2.2; NM94 and VC6372 had the

ighest BCR while Pusa Baishakhi had the lowest (Table 7).

4 Daal is a spicy curry/soup made from grain legumes and is popular in South Asia,here it is eaten with steamed rice or roti (South Asian unleavened flat bread).5 Kohari is a snack food prepared from soaked mungbean grains, which are

teamed for a while before frying with onion and spices and eaten with beatenr puffed rice.

racteristics and taste preferences of new mungbean varieties in Saptari.

3.5. Release of two new mungbean varieties

The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives approved therevised variety release procedure in June 2005 and opened upthe door for the private sector and NGOs to release crop vari-eties using data generated through participatory research (NepalRajpatra, June 2005). This also reduced the requirement for multi-location data from 5 years to 3 years for releasing new varieties andto just one season’s data for registration.

Following this policy change, a combined proposal for releasingtwo new mungbean varieties; NM94 and VC 6372 was jointly sub-mitted by NGLRP, FORWARD and CARIAD to the Variety ApprovalRegistration and Release Committee, Nepal (Khanal et al., 2006c).In the proposal, all the yield data for NM94 were from PVS trialsthere were none from NGLRP, while for VC6372 most of the yielddata were from PVS trials with only 2 years on-station data fromNGLRP trials from 2002 to 2004. Disease reaction data for both vari-eties were from NGLRP, though, disease recording was also done inPVS trials. NM94 was released as ‘Kalyan’ and VC6372 as ‘Prateek-sha’ in 2006 and these two were the first varieties of any crop to bereleased using data from PVS trials under the revised release pro-tocol that was endorsed in 2005. The participatory trials generateddata in only 3 years from the date of introduction, thereby consid-erably reducing the time needed for releasing new varieties overthe traditional two stage approach of on-station trials followed byon-farm trials.

3.6. Assessing seed production, distribution and adoption ofmungbean

3.6.1. Seed production and distributionThe seed produced and distributed by a number of community-

based seed producer groups and private seed companies wasenough to plant over 2700 ha of mungbean (Fig. 4). This figuredoes not include the potential area that could have been coveredfrom the seed that spread across the farmer-to-farmer network. Thelower volume of seed production and distribution by the NGLRPwas because they only produce seed in the first two stages of theseed production chain – breeder and foundation seed – and donot produce any truthfully labelled or certified seed that is soldto farmers for producing grain crops.

Following the release of the two mungbean varieties jointly,it was agreed that their source seeds will be mainly produced byNGLRP but also by the NGO FORWARD.

3.6.2. Findings from the 2008 to 2009 surveyOf the 287 households surveyed, 141 were users of new mung-

bean varieties across all the four districts. The adoption was highest

K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Crops Res

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Se

ed

qu

an

tity

(t)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Seed

qu

an

tity

(kg

)

Public sector Private sector

Fig. 4. Quantity of mungbean seeds produced by public and private organisationsfrom 2000 to 2011. Private organisations involved in the production and distributionof mungbean seeds include a number of community-based seed producer groups,cc

ivPgttsbwaglsapc

atwtaaac

tm(pi

TUft

ooperatives (either facilitated by NGOs or working independently) and private seedompanies.

n Siraha (17%) followed by Saptari (13%), Jhapa (12%) while Kapil-astu had the lowest adoption of only 8%. However, Kalyan andrateeksha were grown in very small areas in all four districts, ran-ing from only 0.03 to 0.14 ha per farm. Adoption was steady aroundhis level over all 4 years in Jhapa and Kapilvastu but increased tohat level from a low base in Saptari. Mean household food grain selfufficiency had increased by 29% since project crop varieties hadeen adopted, although the contribution of mungbean alone to thisould not be great because they were grown on small areas with an

verage productivity of 400 kg ha−1. Households that discontinuedrowing the new mungbean varieties gave the major reasons as aack of irrigation, low soil moisture, lack of family labour and lack ofuitable land. Also, the damage to crops grown in what is normally

fallow period by farm animals is one of the most important socialroblems in the project areas because, after the harvest of winterrops, livestock are let loose for free grazing.

Only a limited number of farmers, as participants of PVS (168)nd IRD (284), had access to seeds of new mungbean varieties fromhe project. However, 27% of 1186 households surveyed in 2008ere growing new mungbean varieties introduced by the project

hat covered 23% of the total area under mungbean (Table 8) mainlys a consequence of farmer-to-farmer seed transactions. The higherdoption of mungbean in Kapilvastu, Saptari and Jhapa can bettributed to a relatively better irrigation facilities in those districtsompared to Siraha.

Participants in the group discussions reported that seeds ofhe new mungbean varieties spread to various villages infor-

ally through farmers’ seed networks, weekly community marketscalled haat), and through a number of formal outlets, e.g. NGOs,

ublic agriculture extension offices and agriculture and veterinary

nput dealers (called Agrovets in Nepal).

able 8ptake and adoption of new mungbean varieties from farmer-to-farmer seed spread

rom a study of 1186 randomly selected households from purposively selected dis-ricts, 2008.

District Total households studied Extent of adoption by:

Households (%) Area (%)

Kapilvastu 292 59.6 55.1Saptari 295 13.4 6.6Morang 379 30.1 37.1Jhapa 220 31.9 10.7

earch 158 (2014) 15–23 21

In earlier studies in Kapilvastu, Saptari and Jhapa in 2005,involving 243 randomly selected households from the purposivelyidentified farmers’ groups who were directly or indirectly (par-tially) involved in the project, 75% of households were growingthe new mungbean varieties (Gauchan, 2005). Much of this earlyuptake of the new varieties was through farmer-to-farmer seednetworks of both the direct and indirect participants of the project.

3.6.3. Findings from the 2012 surveys:The overall adoption of new mungbean varieties was around

28% from across 18 districts compared to only 13% for local vari-eties (Fig. 3). Adoption was 10.9% in re-survey of the baseline dataand 16.7% for those that had received IRD sets. The adoption inthe baseline re-survey was a result of farmer-to farmer spread asthe adoption of new mungbean varieties during baseline surveyof 2009 was negligible (FORWARD, 2010). The average area undernew varieties of mungbean was 0.07 ha per household. About 10%of the growers who got the seeds of these varieties from 2009 to2011 stopped growing them in the subsequent years while 90% con-tinued with them. The main reason for disadoption was reportedto be lack of irrigation, the seasonal problem of stray animals andshortage of labour.

4. Discussion

4.1. Potential benefits of integrating mungbean in short fallows

Most of the one million ha of land in the Nepal Terai remainsfallow for around 3 months after the harvest of wheat and otherwinter crops and before planting the main crop of rice. This is dueto a lack of a short duration crop that could be grown where twoto three irrigations are possible and that could provide attractivereturns to farmers, although spring maize and rice are grown inareas with assured higher volumes of irrigation are available.

New mungbean varieties can be an excellent catch crop acrossdiverse cropping systems, even in partially irrigated conditionswith a high potential for improving food and nutritional securityand income of smallholders in Nepal. For example, the yield advan-tage over Pusa Baishakhi was nearly 39% for NM 94 and >35% forVC6372 (Khanal et al., 2006a,b,c). Attractive bold grains and goodeating quality including good flavour on cooking are their addedadvantages. Mungbean can improve human nutrition as it is richin easily digestible protein that does not cause flatulence and hashigh iron content (Bains et al., 2006).

These erect, semi-determinate, photoperiod insensitive vari-eties can be grown with high returns in spring, summer andpost-rainy seasons in diverse agroecological regions of Nepal. Farm-ers like the new mungbean varieties because fields become readyfor transplanting rice 2 weeks earlier than if the local variety isused. Savings in labour costs come from the clusters of long andplump pods that make picking easier and the ability to harvestan economical yield in three pickings (about 75–80% pods matureby the second picking) rather than the five required for the localvariety. Varietal maintenance and source-seed production for thesevarieties is done by, NARC. These varieties have now entered theseed production chain as community-based seed producer groupsand private seed companies have started producing and marketingtheir commercial seeds, including truthfully labelled (TL) seeds, astheir demand by farmers, seed companies and Agrovets is increas-ing.

The average net return of over $300 ha−1 in about 80 days (in lowinput conditions) with a modest cost for cultivation and averagebenefit cost ratio of 2.2 provides a sound justification for growingthis crop in Nepal and in similar conditions elsewhere.

2 ps Res

4

eiSMt6adham2

4f

iaebcfmTav

N1fitotttiSosaee

1trIwoaltb–c

atoipb

2 K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Cro

.2. Access to new mungbean varieties from AVRDC

Two projects that were funded by DFID, UK at the Asian Veg-table Research and Development Centre were instrumental indentifying and releasing a number of new mungbean varieties inouth Asia: three in Bangladesh (VC 6372 45-8-1 released as BUug 1, VC6370 30-65 as BU Mug 2 and NM-92 as BARI Mug 5);

hree in India (NM-92, NM-94 and VC6368 as Pusa Vishal, SML68 and Pant Mung 5, respectively); and two in Nepal (NM94s Kalyan and VC6372-45-8-1 as Prateeksha). These new shorturation, synchronously maturing, MYMV-resistant, bold seededigh yielding mungbean varieties were then promoted and widelydopted thereby diversifying the rice-wheat cropping system forillions of small farmers in Bangladesh, India and Nepal (AVRDC,

006).

.3. Contribution of participatory research and partnership inast-tracking variety testing and release process

Pandey and Rajatasereekul (1999) analysed the costs of delay-ng the benefits from expensive plant breeding research. Returnsre realised only when farmers grow and use its products and ben-fits realised in the longer term are less valuable than the sameenefits realised in the short term. Hence economic analysis dis-ounts (reduces the value of) benefits the further they are in theuture. Thus cost effectiveness is higher when returns on invest-

ent are delayed as little as possible (Brennan and Morris, 2001;ripp et al., 1997). The use of more rapid and flexible participatorypproaches can reduce the length of breeding cycles by acceleratingariety testing, release and promotion (Joshi et al., 1997).

Contrary to all the evidence for the value of early release,ational Research Systems in many developing countries spend5–16 years in the breeding and release process (from making therst cross through to release of a variety) in establishing the dis-inctness, uniformity and stability and value for cultivation and usef a crop variety. The variety release process itself is completed inwo to three steps. First, the variety release proposal is reviewed byhe members of a Technical Panel, who provide their recommenda-ions for making a case to the full Variety Release Committee andn turn the Committee recommends final approval to the Nationaleed Board – which is often chaired by the Secretary of the Ministryf Agriculture. This is not the end of the story as in the conventionalystem; typically 5–6 years are needed even after the release beforeppreciable adoption is achieved (Morris et al., 1994; Witcombet al., 1998) due to very slow seed multiplication and inefficientxtension systems.

Examples from Bolivia (Rosales, 1995), Philippines (Logrono,996), Tanzania (Due, 1990) and Nepal (Joshi, 1995) showed thathe delay in variety release was mainly due to lengthy field testingequirements and infrequent meetings of the release authorities.n case of mungbean research in Nepal over 100 germplasm lines

ere tested and did not result in releasing any new variety forver three decades. This was mainly because of limited financialnd human resources allocated to mungbean research because ofow priority given to mungbean (as a minor crop). Also none ofhe mungbean varieties evaluated satisfied the stringent criteria ofeing both higher yield and resistance to MYMV and other diseases

no superior mungbean varieties could be identified using theseriteria so no new variety was released (R. Shrestha pers.com).

Conversely, adoption of new varieties using participatorypproaches commences 5–6 years earlier than in conventional sys-ems (Joshi et al., 2001). All the necessary steps from introduction

f new varieties in the country through to their release and creat-ng market demand as evidenced in the 2008 survey for the newroducts was completed in 6 years in RRC project. This was possibleecause of a functional partnership between FORWARD and other

earch 158 (2014) 15–23

stakeholders right from the beginning of the process. This facili-tated the high uptake and adoption of mungbean varieties in thevillages during the early stage of the project (Gauchan, 2005). As aresult, NARC is now increasingly using the PVS approaches for on-farm testing and is regularly introducing new mungbean varietieswith short duration and synchronous maturity from AVRDC.

We have emphasised the importance of regulatory reforms andthe use of PVS approaches in influencing and accelerating the vari-ety release process for mungbean. It has also been effective in rice(Joshi et al., 2012) for the release of variety BG1442 variety of rice.

The variety release and registration procedure for non-stateactors has been simplified following the 2005 reforms (NepalRajpatra, 2005) as a result of constant policy dialogue with gov-ernment line agencies by various stakeholders. The reform alsogave equal recognition to data from on-farm participatory trialsby private organisations and NGOs to those from the on-stationresearch by government agencies. The requirement for time seriesdata needed to release new varieties was also reduced (Joshi et al.,2005).

Over 30 hybrid maize and 17 hybrid rice varieties have alreadybeen registered since then (most of them after 2009) using justtwo seasons’ data generated by the respective crop commodityprogrammes in NARC. Given the much larger areas sown to thesecrops, these processes have even greater potential to contribute toimproving food security and the livelihoods of Nepalese farmers.

Mainstreaming of participatory research and developmentapproaches in government’s regular activities is essential becausethe yield gains from rapid replacement of old and obsolete varietiesby new ones will be much greater and will make a lasting contri-bution to food and nutritional security of the farmers in Nepal andin other developing countries.

Acknowledgements

This document is an output from UK Department for Interna-tional Development (DFID) programmes funded for the benefitof developing countries: the Plant Sciences Research Programmeadministered by CAZS Natural Resources and the Research into UseProgramme. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.The authors would like to thank all the participating farmers inNepal for their cooperation and support in this research. We arethankful to AVRDC, in particular Dr Shanmugasundaram for pro-viding new varieties and other support for mungbean research inNepal. We also thank Dr Peter Hobbs for his encouragement in thisresearch. All the FORWARD, NGLRP and NARC staff that helped inthe implementation of this research are gratefully acknowledged.We appreciate the efforts of other partners and stakeholders; Dis-trict Agricultural Development Offices, SUPPORT Foundation andLI-BIRD in promoting new mungbean varieties described in thisresearch.

References

AVRDC, 2006. Introduction improving income and nutrition by incorporatingmungbean in cereal fallows in the Indo-Gangetic plains of South Asia. In:Shanmugasundaram, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Final Workshop and PlanningMeeting of DFID Mungbean Project for 2002–2004. AVDRC–The World Veg-etable Center, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan, p. 342, AVRDC Publication No. 06-682.

Bains, K., Aggarwal, R., Barakoti, L., 2006. Development and impact of iron-richmungbean recipes. In: Shanmugasundaram, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the FinalWorkshop and Planning Meeting of DFID Mungbean Project for 2002–2004.AVDRC–The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan, p. 342, AVRDCPublication No. 06-682.

Bharati, M.P., 1977. Mungbean in Nepal. In: Paper Presented at the First InternationalSymposium on Mungbean Held from 16-19 August 1977 at the University of thePhilippines, Los Banos, Philippines, pp. 18–20.

Brennan, J.P., Morris, M.L., 2001. Economic issues in assessing the role of physiologyin wheat breeding programs. In: Reynolds, M.P., Ortiz-Monasterio, J.I., McNab,

ps Res

C

D

F

F

G

H

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

K

case study from Gujarat, India. Euphytica 130, 413–422.Witcombe, J.R., Joshi, K.D., Gyawali, S., Musa, A.M., Johansen, C., Virk, D.S., Sthapit,

K.D. Joshi et al. / Field Cro

A. (Eds.), Application of Physiology in Wheat Breeding. International Maize andWheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, D.F., pp. 78–86.

AZS-NR, 2001. Policy Brief Number 1. Institutional Change in Agricultural SupportSector in Nepal. CAZS-Natural Resources, Plant Sciences Research Programme,UK Department for International Development, Bangor, UK.

ue, J., 1990. Tanzania seed release, multiplication and distribution systems. SeedSci. Tech. 18, 187–194.

errara, G.O., Joshi, A.K., Chand, R., Bhatta, M.R., Mudwari, A., Thapa, D.B., Sufian, A.,Saikia, T.P., Chatrath, R., Witcombe, J.R., Virk, D.S., Sharma, R.C., 2007. Partner-ing with farmers to accelerate adoption of new technologies in South Asia toimprove wheat productivity. Euphytica 157, 399–407.

ORWARD, 2010. Report of Baseline Study of the Project Poverty Reduction throughCrop Intensification into Rice Fallows. Forum for Rural Welfare and AgriculturalReform for Development, Chitwan, Nepal, pp. 55.

auchan, D., 2005. Assessment of the outcomes of rice-fallow rainfed rabi cropping(RRC) project in Nepal Terai. In: A Report of the RRC Outcome Assessment inKapilvastu, Saptari and Jhapa Districts Nepal. CAZS-Natural Resources, Univer-sity of Wales, Bangor, UK.

arris, D., 2006. Development and testing of ‘on-farm’ seed priming. Advances inAgronomy, Vol. 90. Elsevier Inc.

ohansen, C., Musa, A.M., Harris, D., Shafiqul Islam, M., Omar Ali, M., 2008. Integra-tion of chickpea and other rabi crops into rainfed rice-based systems of the HighBarind Tract. In: Riches, C., Harris, D., Johnson, D.E., Hardy, B. (Eds.), Improv-ing Agricultural Productivity in Rice Based Systems of the High Barind Tract ofBangladesh. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, Philippines,pp. 135–146.

oshi, K.D., Sthapit, B.R., 1990. Informal Research and Development (IRD): A NewApproach to Research and Extension. LARC Discussion Paper 1990/4. LumleAgricultural Research Centre, Pokhara, Nepal.

oshi, K.D., 1995. Seed Regulatory Frameworks in Nepal: Participatory and OtherAlternative Approaches to Seed Production and Distribution in Nepal. Over-seas Development Institute–Centre for Arid Zone Studies–Lumle AgricultureResearch Centre, London, UK–Bangor, UK–Pokhara, Nepal, pp. 45.

oshi, A., Witcombe, J.R., 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement.Participatory varietal selection, a case study in India. Exp. Agric. 32,469–485.

oshi, K.D., Subedi, M., Rana, R.B., Kadayat, K.B., Sthapit, B.R., 1997. Enhancing on-farm varietal diversity through participatory varietal selection: a case study forChaite rice in Nepal. Exp. Agric. 33, 335–344.

oshi, K.D., Sthapit, B.R., Witcombe, J.R., 2001. How narrowly adapted are the prod-ucts of decentralised breeding? The spread of rice varieties from a participatoryplant breeding programme in Nepal. Euphytica 122, 589–597.

oshi, K.D., Witcombe, J.R., 2002. Participatory varietal selection in rice in Nepal infavourable agricultural environments – a comparison of two methods assessedby varietal adoption. Euphytica 127, 445–458.

oshi, K.D., Khanal, N.N., Khanal, N.P., Sherpa, L.T., Giri, R.K., 2003a. Promotion ofmungbean in rice-wheat system of low hill and Nepal Terai. In: Report ofMonitoring Mungbean in Rice-Fallow Rabi Cropping Project Area, April-May,2003.

oshi, K.D., Biggs, S., Devkota, K.P., Gyawali, S., Witcombe, J.R., 2003b. Institutionalinnovations in the Nepal rice innovation systems. In: Proceedings of a Work-shop Uptake Pathways and Scaling-up of Agricultural Technologies to Enhancethe Livelihoods of Nepalese Farmers, 23-24 September 2003. Hill AgriculturalResearch Project, Kathmandu Nepal.

oshi, S., Shrestha, S.K., Chaudhary, R.N., 2003c. Mungbean yellow mosaic diseaseof mungbean in Nepal. In: Proceedings of 22nd National Summer Crops Work-shop (Grain Legumes and Oilseeds) held at Agricultural Research Station, Lumle,Kaski, NARC, Nepal, pp. 23–27.

oshi, K.D., Biggs, S., Gauchan, D., Devkota, K.P., Devkota, C.K., Shrestha, P.K., Sthapit,B.R., 2005. Institutional innovations in the Nepal rice improvement system.Aspect. Appl. Biol. 75, 93–97.

oshi, K.D., Musa, A.M., Johansen, C., Gyawali, S., Harris, D., Witcombe, J.R., 2007.Highly client-oriented breeding, using local preferences and selection, produceswidely adapted rice varieties. Field Crop. Res. 100, 107–116.

oshi, K.D., Devkota, K.P., Harris, D., Khanal, N.P., Paudyal, B., Sapkota, A., Witcombe,J.R., 2012. Participatory research approaches rapidly improve household food

security in Nepal and identify policy changes required for institutionalisation.Field Crop. Res. 131, 40–48.

hanal, N.N., Harris, D., Sherpa, L.T., Giri, R.K., Joshi, K.D., 2006a. Testing and pro-motion of mungbean in cereal fallows in the low hills and Terai agroecosystemof Nepal. In: Shanmugasundaram, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Final Workshop

earch 158 (2014) 15–23 23

and Planning Meeting of DFID Mungbean Project for 2002-2004. AVDRC–TheWorld Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan, p. 342, AVRDC PublicationNo. 06-682.

Khanal, N.P., Khanal, N.N., Gurung, G.B., Sherpa, L.T., Thapa, S., Gupta, K.P., Joshi,K.D., Harris, D., Kumar Rao, J.V.D.K., Darai, R., 2006b. Mungbean in cereal fallows:experience of farmers’ participatory research and development activities in foothills and Terai of Nepal. Food legumes for nutritional security and sustainableagriculture. In: Khrakawal, M.C. (Ed.), Proceedings of Fourth International FoodLegumes Research Conference (IFLRC-IV). Indian Society of Genetics and PlantBreeding, New Delhi, India.

Khanal, N.P., Yadav, N.K., Khanal, N.N., Darai, R., Joshi, S., Neupane, R.K., Sherpa,L.T., Thapa, S., Gupta, K., Neupane, R., Pokharel, D.N., Sah, R.P., Adhikari, B.N.,Harris, D., Joshi, K.D., 2006c. A Proposal for the Release of Mungbean VarietiesNM94 and VC6372 (45-8-1) Jointly Submitted by Forum for Rural Welfare andAgricultural Reform for Development (FORWARD), Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal,National Grain Legumes Research Programme (NGLRP), Rampur Chitwan, Nepaland CAZS-Natural Resources (CAZS-NR), University of Wales, Bangor, UK.

Logrono, M.L., 1996. Maize Seed Regulatory Frameworks in the Philippines, Unpub-lished paper prepared for ODI/CAZS seed regulatory project.

Morris, M.L., Dubin, H.J., Pokherel, T., 1994. Returns to wheat breeding research inNepal. Agric. Econ. 10, 269–282.

MoAC, 1999. National Seed Policy 1999. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,Kathmandu, Nepal.

NGLRP, 2011. Annual Report 2010/2011. National Grain Legumes Research Program,Nepal Agriculture Research Council, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal.

Nepal Rajpatra (Nepal Gazette), 21 June 2005. Notice No 2-Appendix ka-RevisedApplication Form for the Approval and Release of New Crop Variety and NoticeNo. 2-Appendix kha-Application Form for Registration and National Listing ofCrop Varieties. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, His Majesty’s Govern-ment of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Pandey, S., Rajatasereekul, S., 1999. Economics of plant breeding: the value of shorterbreeding cycles in North east Thailand. Field Crop. Res. 64, 187–197.

Rao, A.V., 2005. Strategies for achieving sustainable production of arid legumes. In:Henry, A., Kumar, D. (Eds.), Arid Legumes for Sustainable Agriculture and Trade:Vol. 1. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India, pp. 127–131.

Rosales, J., 1995. Informe sorbe enfoques participativos y alternativos para la pro-duccion y distribucion de semillas en Santa Cruz, Unpublished paper preparedfor ODI/CAZS seed regulatory project.

Sharma, S.N., Prasad, R., Singh, R.K., 2000. Influence of summer legumes in rice (Oryzasativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system on soil fertility. Ind. J. Agric.Sci. 70, 357–359.

TEPC, Accessed from www.tepc.gov.np (Trade and Export Promotion Centre, Min-istry of Commerce and Supplies, Government of Nepal). Accessed on 9 June2013.

Tiwari, T.P., Virk, D.S., Sinclair, F.L., 2009. Rapid gains in yield and adoption of newmaize varieties for complex hillside environments through farmer participation.Field Crop. Res. 111, 137–143.

Tiwari, T.P., Ferrara, G.O., Gurung, D.B., Dhakal, R., Katwal, R.B., Hamal, B.B., Gadal, N.,Virk, D.S., 2010. Rapid gains in food security from new maize varieties for com-plex hillside environments through farmer participation: do the PVS-identifiedmaize varieties benefit the poor farmers? Food Secur. 2, 317–325.

Tripp, R., Louwaars, N., van der Berg, W.J., Virk, D.S., Witcombe, J.R., 1997.Alternatives for seed regulatory reform: an analysis of variety testing, varietyregulation and seed quality control. In: Network Paper No. 69. ODI Agricul-tural Research and Extension Network. AgREN. Overseas Development Institute,London, pp. 1–25.

Witcombe, J.R., Virk, D.S., Raj, A.G.B., 1998. Resource allocation and efficiency of thevarietal testing system. In: Witcombe, J.R., Virk, D.S., Farrington, J. (Eds.), Seedsof Choice- Making the Most of New Varieties for Small Farmers. Oxford and IBHPublishing Co.–Intermediate Technology Publications, New Delhi–London.

Witcombe, J.R., Petre, R., Jones, S., Joshi, A., 1999. Farmer participatory crop improve-ment. IV. The spread and impact of Kalinga III-A rice variety identified byparticipatory varietal selection. Exp. Agric. 35, 471–487.

Witcombe, J.R., Joshi, A., Goyal, S.N., 2003. Participatory plant breeding in maize: a

B.R., 2005. Participatory plant breeding is better described as highly client-oriented plant breeding. I. Four indicators of client-orientation in plant breeding.Exp. Agric. 41, 299–319.