increasing agricultural productivity in pakistan-use of improved seeds - ahsan - 2014

8/12/2019 Increasing Agricultural Productivity in Pakistan-Use of Improved Seeds - Ahsan - 2014

1/28

This note was written by of Dr Muhammad Ahsan Rana at the Lahore University of Management Sciences to

serve as basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an

administrative situation. This material may not be quoted, photocopied or reproduced in any form without the

prior written consent of the Lahore University of Management Sciences. This research was made possible

through support provided by the United States Agency for International Development. The opinions expressed

herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Agency for International

Development or the US Government.

2014 Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences

INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN PAKISTAN: USE OF

IMPROVED SEEDS

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture is the backbone of Pakistans economy. It contributes 21% to the Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) and employs 45% of the total labour force (Ministry of Finance 2011).

Agricultural commodities account for 13.6% of exports (ibid)1. Approximately 60% of the

population lives in rural areas and is directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture for its

economic sustenance. It has backward and forward linkages with the manufacturing sector,

which thrives on agricultural raw materials and an effective demand for goods and services.

Out of about 5,000 industrial units in Pakistan, about 60% are agro-based (Pakistan Bureau

of Statistics 2011).

Any investment in improving agricultural productivity and distributing its benefits more

widely is likely to contribute positively to the national economy and social wellbeing - more

so for the poorer segments of society, which are disproportionately located in rural areas

(World Bank 2007). Unfortunately, however, agricultural development has not been

accorded the priority it deserves during the last six decades. An indication of this is the

relatively small effort that has gone into understanding the numerous issues and challenges

that constrain progress in this area.

1This does not include agro-based value added commodities (e.g. textiles).


2/28

13-102-2014-2

- 2 -

This paper is part of an effort to fill this gap. It aims to inform policy debate in key areas

based on publicly available secondary data. With agriculture being a very large, diverse and

complex sector, it is neither possible nor desirable to comprehensively examine numerous

aspects of agricultural development in one paper. Instead, this paper focuses on one aspect

i.e. using improved seeds to increase productivity per unit of land. Three components of the

agricultural production system are central to productivity enhancement based on usage of

improved seeds. These are: 1) development of new crop varieties 2) seed provision system

and 3) extension services.

These above mentioned components are internally linked. Continuous supply of new crop

varieties is critical for productivity enhancement, as it not only enables farmers to fully

harness the potential of their labour but also helps them cope with changing biotic and abiotic

stresses in the field. Pakistan has an elaborate agricultural research and development (R&D)system for development of new crop varieties. Once a new crop variety has been developed,

its seed is produced and marketed through a network of seed producers and dealers.

Information on how to cultivate seeds and use various inputs efficiently to harness the full

potential of new seeds is passed on from R&D organisations and seed producers to farmers

through a network of extension service providers in public and private sectors. Harmonious

working of these three components of the agricultural production system is integral to any

meaningful effort to improve agricultural productivity in Pakistan per unit of land and other

inputs.

This paper is divided into six sections. Section 2 provides basic data on land use and

ownership, technology use and crop production in Pakistan. This provides the context for

informed policy discussion in the other sections. Section 3 provides an overview of the

existing agricultural R&D system in Pakistan and examines the organisation of research at

federal as well as provincial levels to understand current research priorities and capacity. An

important aspect here is that of intellectual property rights (IPRs), which are emerging as the

key driver of promoting or inhibiting investment in research. In coming decades, these will

affect how research is carried out and commercialised by public and private sector

agricultural research systems. The seed provision system for various crops, including the

legal and institutional infrastructure for regulating seed quality, is broadly examined in

Section 4. Since genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton seeds are now widely used in Pakistan,

some background information on Bt cotton is also provided to inform the regulatory process

and policy oversight on its cultivation. Section 5 briefly discusses the extension provision

and argues that both public and private extension systems are inadequate and exclusionary, as


3/28

13-102-2014-2

- 3 -

they target a group of elite farmers for providing advice on a small set of agricultural

problems. Section 6 concludes the paper.

OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR

Land Utilisation

Pakistan has a total area of 196.6 million acres, of which 142.7 million acres are potentially

available for cultivation the rest being deserts, mountains and rivers. Only 54.4 million

acres are actually cultivated 17.6 million acres are cultivated more than once in a year

(Ministry of Finance 2012). Land utilisation statistics given below (Table 1) show that

cultivable waste is only 20.5 million acres. Potentially, this area can be brought under

cultivation after land development and appropriate irrigation. Practically, however, there islimited scope for expanding area under cultivation since water is scarce and much of

cultivable waste comprises marginal lands. Hence, any increase in production will have to

come from productivity increase, rather than increase in cultivated area.

Table 1

Land Utilisation Statistics 2012-13 (million acres)

Totalreported

area

Forestarea

Notavailable

for

cultivation

Cultivablewaste

Cultivated area Sownmore than

once

Fallow Sown Total

142.7 10.5 57.2 20.5 16.6 37.8 54.4 17.6

Source: Ministry of Finance. Pakistan Economic Survey. Islamabad: Ministry of

Finance, Government of Pakistan, 2012.

Subsectors and their Contribution to GDP

Agriculture sector comprises four sub-sectors, viz. livestock, major and minor crops, forestry

and fisheries. Their respective contribution to agricultural GDP is given in Figure 1.

Livestock contributes the largest share in agricultural GDP (55.3%), followed by major and


4/28

13-102-2014-2

- 4 -

minor crops (28.8% and 12% respectively). Wheat, cotton, rice and sugarcane are the most

important in the major crops sub-sector and together account for on average 91%

contribution to agricultural GDP in this sub-sector (Ministry of Finance 2011). Forestry and

fisheries contribute only 2% each to agricultural GDP (ibid).

Figure 1

Contribution to agricultural GDP (2010-11)



Land Ownership

Pakistan has skewed land ownership, which shapes and constrains its agricultural potential in

several ways. The land ownership is askew at both ends; on one hand, there are very large

landholdings and on the other, a large number of very small landholdings. Around 4% of

large landowning households (25 acres and above) own 41% of the total farm area, whereas

17% households own less than 1 acre (Table 2)2. If the entire farm area is equitably

distributed among farming households, every household would own 6.5 acres of farmland.

2There is substantial inter-provincial variation in land ownership. Balochistan and Sindh have greater

concentration than Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhaw (KPK). In Balochistan, for example, 17% households own

more than 25 acres (81% of total farmland in the province), whereas in KPK, only 1% farmers own more than

25 acres (accounting for 28% area).

Livesto

ck

55%Major

crops

29%

Minor

crops

12%

Forestr

y

2%

Fisheri

es2%


5/28

13-102-2014-2

- 5 -

Table 2

Land Ownership

Private farms Owners Area Owned

Number Percent Acres Percent

Under 1 acre 1426188 17 593480 1

15 acre 4172525 50 9584844 17

512.5 acre 1917387 23 14176615 25

12.525 acre 510682 6 8545537 15

2550 acre 215240 3 6837696 12

50100 acre 76816 1 4770064 9

Above 100 acre 36934 * 11090040 20

Total 8,355,772 100 55,598,276 100

*Less than 1%

Source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Agri cultur al Census of Pakistan. Government

Report, Islamabad: Bureau of Statistics. Government of Pakistan, 2010.

Two land reforms were carried out in 1959 and 1972 respectively. These reforms set upper

limits on the land that a household could own. However, due to numerous exemptions andpoor implementation, most large landowners were able to keep their landholdings intact in

one form or the other. Since then, there has been substantial fragmentation of land due to

inheritance; yet land ownership remains concentrated in Pakistan. This presents challenges as

well as opportunities for agricultural growth. On one hand, skewed land ownership means

agricultural production and dividends therefrom are disproportionately consumed by a

smaller proportion of landowning households. Moreover, very small farms are inefficient as

they offer poor returns on labour and limited opportunity for use of capital. A more equitable

distribution of land will, therefore, produce a better distribution of wealth in the agriculturesector as well as improve productivity per unit of land by encouraging farmers to intensify

their family labour.

On the other hand, large landowners are more likely to command the resources to improve

farm infrastructure and to use modern farming inputs. Their capacity to intensify use of

capital can improve productivity and overall production. In other words, in terms of


6/28

13-102-2014-2

- 6 -

improved productivity, what a small landholder dominated farming system can achieve

through labour intensification, a large landholder dominated system can achieve through

capital intensification. Thus, while there is a strong social case for land reforms in Pakistan,

the economic argument for the same is less clear.

Farm Mechanisation and Irrigation

Use of agricultural machinery is common across all farm sizes. For example, tractors are

used on 77% of all farms; on another 20%, tractors as well as draught animals are used;

draught animals are used for ploughing only on 4% of the farms. Some variation

notwithstanding, the pattern holds true across farm sizes. However, there are important inter-

provincial differences in tractor usage (Figure 2). These differences arise from the particular

terrain and the landholding size in these provinces. For example, KPKs mountainouslandscape produces terracing in several areas, which is more susceptible to cultivation by

draught animals than by tractors. One method to promote mechanisation in these areas is to

invest in development of smaller tractors that can be efficiently used on smaller plots and can

easily move from one plot to another at a different level. Unfortunately, development of

appropriate technology for small farmers has not received much official or private attention

in Pakistan.

Figure 2Use of Tractors (%age of Farms)

Source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Agricultural Census of Pakistan. Government


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tractor only Draught animalsonly

Tractor anddraught animals

Punjab Sindh

KPK Balochistan

Pakistan


7/28

13-102-2014-2

- 7 -

Figure 3

Modes of Irrigation

Source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Agricultural Census of Pakistan. Government


There is a large rental market for tractors. Rented tractors are used on 91% of farms. Use of

other machinerythresher, tube well, drill machine, spray pump, sheller, and harvester is

also common. Low-ticket items, such as drill and spray machine, are generally owned; others

are available on per hour basis in the rental market.

Pakistan has one of the largest irrigation networks in the world. This comprises canals that

transport water from various rivers to farmers fields mainly in Punjab and Sindh, but also

parts of KPK and Balochistan. 29% farm area is irrigated exclusively with canal water;

another 33% area is irrigated with canal water and tube wells. Distribution of farms across

various modes of irrigation is given in Figure 3.

Production of Major Crops

Pakistan has two major crop seasons kharifand rabi.Kharifcrops are sown in April-May

and harvested in October-November. These include rice, cotton, sugarcane, maize, mung,

mash, bajra and jowar. Rabi crops are sown in November-December and harvested in

March-April. These include wheat, gram, lentil, tobacco, rapeseed, barley and mustard. Data

in Table 3 and Figure 4 show strong scope for productivity increase in major crops, as

Canalonly29%

Canal andtubewell

only

33%

Tubewell

only

14%

Tank/Band

at only

1%

Spring/Rod

kohi only

2%

Karez

only0%

Unspecified source

1%Not

irrigted0%

Sailaba

1%

Barani19%


8/28

13-102-2014-2

- 8 -

Pakistans production of these crops per unit of land is less than the world average. A brief

discussion on major crops follows.

Table 3

Production of major crops (2011-12)

Crop Area (000 acres) Production (000 ton)

Wheat 21,472 23,473

Rice 6,350 6,160

Maize 2,685 4,338

Sugarcane 2,613 58,397

Cotton (000 bales) 7,002 13,595



Figure 4

Yield Gap



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Wheat Rice Cotton Sugarcane

Pakistan IndiaChina World average


9/28

13-102-2014-2

- 9 -

Wheat is Pakistans staple food and ipso facto lies at the centre of several agro-food

policy debates. It contributes 10.1 per cent to the value added in agriculture and about 2.2

per cent to GDP (Ministry of Finance 2012). Pakistan imports/exports small quantities of

wheat to meet shortfalls or to dispose of surpluses from year to year.

Wheat is the only crop for which the government still implements a support price. Until

2001, the government used to set support price for eight crops, viz. wheat, rice,

sugarcane, cotton, non-traditional oilseeds (sunflower, soybean and canola), gram, onions

and potatoes. As part of its market liberalisation policies, the government now sets

support prices for only four crops, viz. wheat, rice, cotton and sugarcane. Of these, the

government actively interferes only in the wheat market to ensure that the support price is

implemented. The support price was increased to Rs. 1200 per maund in 2011-12, which

prompted the farming community to allocate larger acreage to its cultivation and invest ininputs to increase production.

The support price is set every year and is based on recommendations from the

Agricultural Price Commission. Federal and provincial governments have elaborate

organisational infrastructure to procure wheat at harvest time. Since support price is often

set higher than the market price in April-June, effectively federal/provincial governments

pay substantial subsidy when they procure large quantities of wheat at this price. As

official procurement takes place immediately upon harvest, neither farmers nor grainmerchants have developed significant storage capacity. Wheat stocks are released over

the year to flour mills. Since issue price of wheat does not fully account for the

governments cost of wheat procurement and its storage, it represents another substantial

subsidy in the wheat value chain.

Provincial governments also set the flour price from time to time. Wheat support price is

set ostensibly to safeguard small farmers from a potential market crash and flour price is

set to protect poor urban and rural consumers. In both cases, the cost to provincial

governments is substantial. Since this is a general rather than a targeted subsidy, only a

portion of the subsidy is consumed by poor farmers and consumers. An appropriate

targeting mechanism is required to ensure that the subsidy paid by the government as

support to small wheat producers or as social protection to poor households is not

consumed by large farmers or non-poor households.


10/28

13-102-2014-2

- 10 -

Riceis an important cash crop and export item for Pakistan. It accounts for 2.7 per cent

of the value added in agriculture and 0.6 per cent in GDP (Ministry of Finance 2012).

Pakistan grows two types of rice. Fine (Basmati) rice is grown on about 40% area and the

coarse type is grown on 60% area3. Basmati is consumed locally as well as exported to

the Gulf States, Europe and North America. Rice market is deregulated in Pakistan, as the

government neither implements a floor price nor procures large quantities as strategic

reserves. Export is also deregulated and takes place under market vicissitudes. Over the

years, farmers, grain merchants and exporters have developed storage facilities of various

kinds to keep the grain until it is consumed locally or exported. All this is in sharp

contrast to wheat where the government plays an important role in stabilising the market.

Cottonproduction is critical to Pakistans economy. It is grown by more than 1.3 million

farmers on about 7 million acres, mainly in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh4

. Itcontributed 7% to the value added in agriculture and 1.5% to the overall GDP in 2011-12

(Ministry of Finance 2012). Its main consumer is the Pakistani textile industry, for which

cotton lint is a key input in production of yarn, cloth, garments, apparel and other textile

products. On its part, the textile sector in Pakistan accounts for about 8.5% of total GDP,

over 60% of total export income, 46% of total manufacturing and 38% of the industrial

labour (Ministry of Finance 2010).

Pakistan is performing far below its potential in cotton production per unit of land. Slightyear-to-year variations notwithstanding, Pakistans lint yield per acre is only 7 maunds,

which is better than India5but less than the world average and approximately half the

level achieved by China, Turkey and Brazil. It may not be possible for Pakistan to

increase its yield per acre beyond a certain point, because of its hot climate and water

scarcity. The extreme temperatures in which cotton is grown in Pakistan constitute a

serious constraint on production (Forrester 2009), more so as average temperatures rise

further due to global warming. Similarly, cotton is a water-thirsty crop and requires

regular irrigation to realise its full potential, but Pakistan is already a water deficient

country and finds it increasingly difficult to meet its water needs. Still, there is no good

reason for Pakistan to remain so far below the world average.

3Basmati rice fetches higher price in the market, but its production is resource intensive. Hence, resource-

constrained farmers continue to cultivate coarse types. Also, there is a large domestic market for coarse types.4Of the total area under cotton production in 2011, about 79% was in Punjab, 20% was in Sindh and about 1%

was in Balochistan and KPK (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics 2010).5Better performance than India is no cause for complacency, as Indian cotton production is mainly rain-fed,

whereas Pakistan produces cotton in fully irrigated areas.


11/28

13-102-2014-2

- 11 -

Sugarcaneis another important cash crop in Pakistan. It is the raw material for sugar and

sugar- related products. Its share in value added in agriculture and GDP is 3.2 per cent

and 0.7 per cent respectively (Ministry of Finance 2012). During 2011-12, it was

cultivated on about 2.6 million acres producing more than 58 million ton. Sugarcane

cultivation has grown in recent years; so has its production per unit of land during the

past few years (ibid). This is mainly because farmers have received good returns from the

crop and have tended to improve farm management and intensify inputs.

Tobaccogenerates substantial export earnings every year. Initially tobacco production in

Pakistan was restricted to a few low quality indigenous varieties and the countrys

cigarette industry relied almost exclusively on imports for better quality tobacco. But

now Pakistani farmers are cultivating a number of high-quality varieties of tobacco to

meet the needs of the tobacco industry. The establishment of the Pakistan Tobacco Boardin 1968 was a crucial development for Pakistans tobacco production. The Board has

successfully overseen the modernisation of tobacco farming in Pakistan through research,

advocacy and extension services. Pakistans total tobacco production stood at 86,930 tons

in the year 1972 and has since registered an increase of around 21%. Since the area under

tobacco cultivation slightly decreased from 125,000 acres in 1972 to 123,000 acres in

2010-11, the increase in production can be exclusively attributed to increase in

productivity per unit of land, which compares favourably with other leading tobacco

producing countries.

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CROP VARIETIES

Development of new crop varieties is primarily undertaken in Pakistans large network of

agricultural research institutes and universities in the public sector. It is one of the largest

agricultural research systems in a developing country. Flaherty et al. (2012) estimated the

total number of full-time equivalent researchers in 2009 at 3,532. However, total research

investment was only Rs. 3.3 billion, which was the lowest in South Asia as a proportion of

agricultural output (Box 1). Over one third of total research investment was in federal

institutes and the rest was in various agricultural universities (Table 4). As for the private

sector, its role has been very small, though it has grown somewhat in recent years (Beintema

et al. 2006). There are no agricultural universities or institutes in the private sector. Private

sector R&D is limited to developing public sector breeding material into crop varieties for

the Pakistani market.


12/28

13-102-2014-2

- 12 -

Table 4

Public Sector Agricultural Spending and Staffing2009

Type of AgencyTotal Spending Total Staffing

Million Rs. % age Number (FTE) % age

Federal government

PARC* 711 21.6 495 14.0

Other federal 498 15.1 581 16.4

Total federal 1,209 36.7 1,076 30.4

Provincial governments

Punjab 929 28.3 968 27.4Sindh 274 8.3 380 10.8

KPK 256 7.8 402 11.4

Balochistan 165 5.0 218 6.2

Total provincial 1,624 49.4 1,968 55.7

Higher education 454 13.8 487 13.8

Total 3,288 100 3,532 100

Source: Flaherty, Kathleen, Muhammad Sharif, and David J. Spielman. "Pakistan:Recent Developments in Agricultural Research Agricultural Science and TechnologyIndicators." Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators, 2012.

* PARCPakistan Agricultural Research Council

Box 1: Investment in Agricultural R&D

In 2009, total agricultural R&D investment was 0.21% of the agricultural

output. In comparison, India spent 0.4%, Sri Lanka 0.34% and Bangladesh

0.32% of its agricultural output on research.

Source: Flaherty, Kathleen, Muhammad Sharif, and David J. Spielman.

"Pakistan: Recent Developments in Agricultural Research Agricultural

Science and Technology Indicators." Agricultural Science and

Technology Indicators, 2012.


13/28

13-102-2014-2

- 13 -

Agricultural R&D Institutes

Federal and provincial governments operate a number of research institutes that carry out

breeding research for development of new crop varieties. The largest network is maintained

by the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC), which is an autonomous arm of the

Ministry of National Food Security and Research. PARC manages the National Agricultural

Research Centre and nine area/crop-specific research centres and institutes. PARC scientists

and technicians conduct traditional breeding and agronomic research as well as modern

genomic and biotechnology research. PARC also runs an institute for preservation of plant

genetic resources, which holds in its Gene Bank more than 27,000 accessions of different

crop species (PARC 2013). This is a large pool for Pakistani breeders to draw from on a need

basis.

Another important federal research outfit is the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee (PCCC),

which is attached to the Ministry of Textile Industry. PCCC is the federal governments

dedicated institution for cotton research and has to its credit the development of several

popular varieties of cotton. It is funded by federal grants and a small cess on cotton recovered

from the textile industry under the Cotton Cess Act of 1923. In 2012, its management control

was transferred to the All Pakistan Textile Mills Association (APTMA). Since then, PCCC

operations are managed by APTMA nominees, though overall policy and oversight continues

to be provided by the Ministry of Textile Industry.

In addition to PARC and PCCC, the federal government runs another 17 research institutes in

various federal ministries (Stads and Rahija 2012). Examples are the Centre of Excellence in

Molecular Biology (Lahore), Nuclear Institute of Biology and Genetic Engineering

(Faisalabad) and Nuclear Institute of Agricultural Biology (Faisalabad). These institutes use

modern techniques and tools in agricultural biotechnology to support breeding of new plant

varieties. The first two institutes have also developed GM varieties of cotton and are actively

pursuing development of GM varieties of other crops.

In parallel with the federal government, provincial governments have their own set of

research institutes for agricultural R&D. In all, there were 41 institutes in 2009 (ibid). The

largest and the best known is the Punjab Governments Ayub Agricultural Research Institute

(AARI) in Faisalabad. AARI has several crop-specific research institutes and stations spread

throughout the province. These research outfits develop new crop varieties, find novel and

effective ways of countering pests and pathogens, and suggest appropriate farming practices


14/28

13-102-2014-2

- 14 -

to boost production and reduce costs. AARI also has to its credit the development of several

new crop varieties over the past few decades.

There is extensive overlap and duplication among variety development programs of these

federal and provincial institutes. Perhaps the most obvious case is PCCCs Central Cotton

Research Institute and AARIs Cotton Research Station both located across the road to

each other in Multan. Both maintain breeding programs for developing new cotton varieties,

but work independently without any collaboration whatsoever. Consequently, they have often

ended up duplicating each others work, rather than specialising in development of specific

traits in new varieties as required by farmers.

Agricultural Universities

There are five major universities in Pakistan that undertake multi-disciplinary research on a

range of subjects including plant breeding. These are the University of Agriculture

(Faisalabad), University of Arid Agriculture (Rawalpindi), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK)

Agriculture University (Peshawar), Sindh Agriculture University (Tando Jam), and Lasbella

University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences (Lasbella). These universities conduct

research in inter alia plant breeding, plant physiology and agricultural biotechnology. All

these universities offer Bachelors, Masters, MPhil and PhD programs for Pakistani and

foreign students (the number of foreign students is very small). Current total enrolment is

estimated at 27,000 (Flaherty et al. 2012). University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (UAF) is the

largest agricultural university and has a current enrolment of about 12,000 students (UAF

2013).

Trends in Variety Development

As far as contribution to variety development is concerned, Punjab Governments AARI has

been by far the most productive. It has to its credit the development of 39% of all new crop

varieties approved so far for commercial cultivation in Pakistan (Figure 5). Next in line is

KPKs Agriculture Research Institute with the development of 13% of new varieties. PCCC

and PARC occupy the third and fourth positions with development of 9% and 8% varieties to

their credit respectively.


15/28

13-102-2014-2

- 15 -

Figure 5

Share in Variety Release (up to 2013)

Source: Authors calculations based on data from the Federal Seed Certification and

Registration Department

Data on varieties registered with the Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department

(FSC&RD) of the Ministry of National Food Security and Research presented in Table 5

show that 613 new varieties have been released by the Pakistani public and private sectors so

far6. Of these, the public sector has released 96 per cent and the private sector has released

only 4%. Most variety development is concentrated in a few crops. Cotton and wheat, in

particular, account for a disproportionately large share of 40 per cent of all varieties released

so far. As for the private sector, half of all varieties developed are cotton varieties. Almost

half of all varieties were developed by research institutes based in Punjab. Balochistan and

Sindh seem to largely depend upon new varieties developed in agro-ecologically different

regions of Punjab.

6It may be the case that the actual number of varieties released by the public and private sectors is larger than

what is reported here, but these additional varieties have been released in the informal sector and thus are not

included in FSC&RD data sets.

AARI39%

PCCC[PERCENTAGE]

PAEC8%

PARC2%

ARI

13%

Others29%


16/28

13-102-2014-2

- 16 -

Table 5

Number of Varieties Registered with FSC&RD (up to 2013)

Crop Public SectorPrivate

SectorTotal

Punjab Sindh KPK Balochistan Islamabad

Wheat 59 24 40 8 3 134

Barley 3 3 4 10

Maize 11 12 2 25

Rice 16 13 06 35

Cotton 74 21 1 13 109

Sugarcane 14 8 16 1 39

Pulses 43 4 19 1 5 72

Oilseed 20 5 22 8 5 60

Fodder 27 7 1 2 37

Vegetables 36 1 12 8 57

Fruits 2 33 35

Total 305 76 171 22 16 23 613

Source: FSC&RD data.

Emerging IPR Regime

IPRs in plant breeding affect how breeding is carried out and how new varieties are

commercialised. They are created under several instruments, such as copyrights, patents,

geographical indications, trademarks and plant breeders rights (PBRs). Of these, the most

relevant are patents and PBRs. A robust patent/PBR regime promotes investment in breeding,

but constrains farmers rights to freely cultivate new varieties and use them in their farm-level breeding initiatives.

A notable development in recent years is the substantial conditioning of Pakistans IPR

regime as part of on-going globalisation. Of special significance is the agreement on Trade

Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which requires all members of

the World Trade Organisation to harmonise their IPR regimes with TRIPS provisions.


17/28

13-102-2014-2

- 17 -

Pakistan, being a signatory to the TRIPS agreement, took several steps in the past decade to

conform to its international obligations and commitments in this area. These include inter

aliaoverhaul of the patent law in 2000 and efforts to enact PBR legislation. Both of these

have serious implications for breeding research and therefore, merit some discussion.

When the Government of Pakistan repealed the Patent Act of 1911 and promulgated the

Patent Ordinance in 2000, it borrowed several Articles from the TRIPS agreement to become

compliant with the global IPR regime. These borrowed Articles were inserted as Sections 7,

30 and 61 in the Patent Ordinance, 2000. They determine rights of the patentee and how

these rights would be enforced (Government of Pakistan 2000). Rights granted to a patentee

under the Ordinance of 2000 include the exclusive right to make, use, sell, offer to sell or

import the protected item or an item produced using a protected process. This means the

patent holder be it an individual or a company can exclude others from use andcommercial appropriation of a patented product unless they obtain a license from the patent

holder. These rights are legally enforceable during the life of the patent, viz. 20 years.

A more significant addition to the patent regime was to make biological organisms a valid

subject of patents. Hitherto living organisms and biological processes, being products of

nature, were considered outside the purview of patent protection. But the new Ordinance

extended patent protection to microbiological organisms i.e. very small living organisms

such as bacteria and to microbiological processes. Plants were still not patentable; however,

if a patented microbiological product or process was used in development of a new plant

variety, patent protection effectively extended to the plant as well. Since development of GM

varieties involved using microbiological processes and organisms, their cultivation was

subject to conditions imposed by the patent, if any had been granted. For this very reason, Bt

cotton varieties now under large-scale cultivation in Pakistan could not be

commercialised in Pakistan during 2002-10 because of fears that it might infringe upon

Monsantos patent rights (Rana 2010). Bt cotton varieties were approved for commercial

cultivation by the Government of Pakistan only after it became clear that Monsanto did not

have any enforceable rights over them in Pakistan (ibid).

The second important development of the past decade that influences development and

commercialisation of new seed varieties is the PBR Bill prepared by the Intellectual Property

Organisation (IPO) of the Government of Pakistan. The agreement on TRIPS requires WTO

member countries to provide protection to plant varieties either through patents or through a

sui generis system of plant variety protection. Since the Patent Ordinance of 2000


18/28


19/28

13-102-2014-2

- 19 -

Basic Seed7 obtained from government organisations and selling the same to farmers.

Development of new varieties and production of Basic Seed were the exclusive privilege of

the public sector. The Seed Act of 1976 sought to strengthen this arrangement, rather than

encourage private sector participation in various stages of seed business. With this objective,

the Act created several institutions to regulate variety registration and carry out seed business

in Pakistan. These included the National Seed Council and the Provincial Seed Councils as

apex institutions to oversee seed provision in various areas and advise governments on the

seed business.

FSC&RD was created as the Secretariat for the National Seed Council. Its role was to

coordinate varietal trials (regional as well as nation-wide) for generating data on performance

of various varieties to inform decisions by the Seed Council. Punjab Seed Corporation and

Sindh Seed Corporation were also created to multiply seed on their farms and distribute thesame through field outlets.

Until the 1980s, development of new varieties and production of seed were almost exclusive

public sector preserves. Agricultural research institutes and universities developed new crop

varieties, seed councils approved them for commercial release and provincial seed

corporations multiplied and distributed seed. FSC&RD certified seed production to maintain

quality.

Gradually, the private sector also started participating in the seed business. The Government

supported this process. During 1980s, several dozen seed companies were established and

registered with FSC&RD. Their number grew steadily and stood at 759 in 2013 (86% are

Punjab based) (Rana 2014)8. The private sector is now a major player in seed provision in

Pakistan.

Although basic R&D is still strong in the public sector, the private sector now takes the lead

in near-market research most significantly in development of new crop varieties and

hybrids. For example, almost all popular Bt cotton varieties currently in the market were

developed by the private sector (Rana et al. 2013). As for seed multiplication and

distribution, the seed of cash crops (e.g. cotton, maize, rice, sugarcane and vegetables) are

7A category of seeds comprising highly pure variety of a seed. Basic Seed is multiplied to produce large

quantities of seed for commercial distribution to farmers.8As per FSC&RD records, 972 companies were registered until December 2013, but 213 companies were de-

registered for various reasons (Rana 2014).


20/28

13-102-2014-2

- 20 -

now provided mostly by the private sector (Table 6). The public sector is now confined to a

small set of crops, which have as yet not attracted private sector attention.

Table 6

Availability of Certified Seed (20122013) (Metric Tons)

Crop

Total

Estimated

Seed

Requirement

Total Certified Seed Availability

Pakistani Public and

Private SectorsImported

Total certified seed

Public Private TotalMetric

ton

% of

Requirement

Wheat 1,085,400 72,112 187,792 259,904 259,904 24

Rice 42,480 5,068 40,699 45,767 3,725 49,492 116*

Maize 31,914 245 3,460 3,705 10,303 14,008 44

Cotton 40,000 801 3,829 4,630 4,630 12

Potato 372,725 34 29 63 4,558 4,621 1

Pulses 47,496 24 892 916 917 2

Oilseed 10,582 134 448 582 1,284 1,866 18

Vegetables 5,070 4 237 241 5,177 5,418 107*

Fodder 40,138 12 14 26 21,253 21,279 53

Total 1,675,804 78,434 237,400 315,834 46,300 362,137 22

Source: Constructed from FSC&RD Data.

* This means that either total seed requirement for rice and vegetables is more than what FSC&RD estimates,

or some of the certified seed remains unused.

Data presented in Table 6make it clear that the private sector is now the biggest provider of

seed in most crops. It is also clear that there is substantial import of seeds from othercountries and that only a small portion of the total seed requirement is provided by the formal

sector. The rest is either farmer-saved or is provided by the informal sector.

The large footprint of the informal sector is largely due to Pakistans archaic system of

variety approval and registration. The procedures are long, cumbersome and susceptible to

misuse. It is standard practice for a new variety to take 3-4 years to complete the process.

During the evaluation phase, there are opportunities for unscrupulous officials to leak varietal


21/28

13-102-2014-2

- 21 -

seeds into the market. Additionally, the trials are carried out at various research stations

and/or fields of farmers, most of which are competitors in development of seed varieties.

On the other hand, formal registration with FSC&RD does not add any commercial value to

new seeds. Because of these factors, most public and private sector breeders are unwilling to

put their new varieties into the varietal approval system and instead seek to commercialise

these varieties in the informal market. In some cases, breeders first commercialise their

variety informally and later submit it to FSC&RD for evaluation and registration. This makes

regulation and quality control problematic. The situation warrants a rethinking of regulation

in the seed sector. Radical changes will have to be made in the legal and institutional

framework to attract a larger proportion of seed providers to the formal system of variety

approval and registration.

Another related issue is the growing irrelevance of seed certification. FSC&RD field staff is

supposed to monitor the process of seed production in various stages. The staff visits fields of

seed producers registered with the department and issues tags to be displayed prominently on

seed bags. In practice, however, this process suffers from several problems. Firstly,

inspection of growers fields and seed certification are possible only for registered growers

and for seeds of varieties approved by the department. Since the size of the informal sector is

significant in Pakistan, FSC&RD seed certification, even if carried meticulously, covers only

part of the seed production. Secondly, in the absence of an effective performance

management system, the field staff has little incentive to carry out a thorough job in terms of

field inspections. Consequently, seed certification has become irrelevant, at least to the extent

of major cash crops such as cotton (Rana et al. 2013).

Finally, lack of reliable and updated data on the Pakistani seed market undermines any effort

to improve regulation. The data maintained by FSC&RD (presented in Table 6) is only for

certified seed, which is a small part of the total seed market in Pakistan. In the absence of

reliable data, public policy has to rely on anecdotal evidence in important matters, such as

developing an effective legal and institutional framework to regulate the seed sector and

taking measures to support the development of a robust seed industry. Similarly, private

sector activities are hampered by the lack of reliable data and analyses, which could feed into

sound business decisions.


22/28

13-102-2014-2

- 22 -

EXTENSION SERVICES

The final step in the use of improved seeds to enhance productivity is the availability of

timely and appropriate extension services to farmers on cultivation of various major and

minor crops. This is quite a weak area in Pakistan. Extension services are provided by a mix

of public and private sectors, neither of which adequately meets farmers needs, resulting in

continued widespread use of archaic farming practices (Davidson and Ahmad 2003).

The public sector maintains extension wings at the provincial Departments of Agriculture. It

follows a linear model of dissemination of innovation, whereby a product or farming practice

developed at the research centres (discussed above) is transferred to the farming community

through extension agents of Departments of Agriculture (Davidson and Ahmad 2002).

Typically, the extension agents identify a group of contact farmers, visit their fields regularlyand advise them on innovation. It is hoped that the innovation, once successfully adopted by

the contact farmers, would spread to nearby farmers through demonstration effect.

When multinational companies started selling their pesticides in Pakistan in the 1970s, they

also provided advice to farmers on a range of issues related to pest control. This was the

beginning of the private sector extension services. In 1980, the new National Agricultural

Policy formalised their role and urged the private sector to take greater responsibility in the

delivery of agricultural services including extension (ibid). Since then, the private sector has

emerged as a major provider of extension services. All local and foreign companies maintain

a cadre of extension workers who provide advice to farmers, particularly on the use of

chemicals for crop protection.Like their counterparts in the Departments of Agriculture, they

identify a select group of farmers and visit them regularly. Often these are individual

meetings, but sometimes they organise field days where messages are delivered in groups. It

is hoped that the ones not contacted/visited directly will benefit from the ones who are.

In practice, however, both types of extension services i.e. the ones provided by the public and

private sectors are not effective in terms of the appropriateness of information, timing of

provision and the outreach (Davidson and Ahmad 2003). The linkage between research

institutes and extension agents is weak. Continued education and training of extension

workers are not regular features. Furthermore, the public sector has a bias for educated

farmers and the private sector for large ones (ibid). Both approaches are exclusionary in a

country where literacy rate in rural areas is 49 % (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics 2011) and

where 67% farms are less than 5 acres (Table 2). Most private sector extension is limited to


23/28

13-102-2014-2

- 23 -

the use of pesticides and herbicides. Other issues such as farming practices, cropping

patterns, efficient irrigation, seed quality, plant density, integrated pest management, etc. are

not relevant enough to feature in its advice. The public sector extension service is limited to

approved varieties and subject to official priorities.

Inadequacy of public and private sector extension services has been amply documented in

various studies. A recent example is the survey of cotton farmers in Sindh carried out by

Rana et al. (2013) in which 91% of the participating farmers reported that they had never

attended an extension workshop organised by the Sindh Agriculture Department. Only 5%

had attended a workshop during the previous year. Rana et al. (ibid) observed that larger

farmers were more likely to have attended a government workshop than their smaller

neighbours. Only 8% had been visited by a government extension worker in the previous

year. Another 7% had been visited once or more during the preceding 2-3 years. 85% hadnever been visited. Seed company representatives visited farmers far more often. 34%

farmers had been visited at least once during the previous year and another 21% had been

visited in the preceding two years. Private company representatives visited large farmers far

more often than they visited smaller farmers.

An important problem with the public sector extension system is its agnostic attitude towards

the informal sector, which is an important market segment as seen in the previous section.

Large-scale cultivation of Bt cotton varieties in Sindh and Punjab during 2002-10 without

any extension support at all is a case in point. Since Bt cotton varieties were not approved by

the government during this period, they simply did not exist for extension wings in the

Departments of Agriculture. Provision of advice on cultivation of Bt varieties thus fell

outside the mandate of public sector extension workers. This had serious consequences for

farmers. In the absence of appropriate advice on issues of sowing time, water requirements

and the need to protect crops through conventional means after the protection offered by Bt

had tapered off, farmers were unable to harness the full potential of Bt varieties.

The ineffectiveness and inadequacy of extension services is intrinsic to the paradigm in

which these services are provided. Larger seed companies also provide agro-chemicals. For

them, an important indicator is the annual sale of chemical inputs. It is hardly surprising that

the extension agents contact only those farmers who are present or potential buyers, and

deliver only those messages that induce them to use chemicals. Since multiple companies are

out in the field trying to sell their products, it is not necessary that the advice offered by one

is consistent with the advice provided by another.


24/28

13-102-2014-2

- 24 -

Similarly, public sectors extension services are ineffective due to an acute lack of human

resource and disconnect with on-going research in institutes and universities. The USAID-

FIRMS project estimated in its report (2010) on the districts Multan and Bahawalpur that on

average, one government extension agent was supposed to provide advice to around 9,000

farmers on 43 major and minor crops. This is simply a task too herculean to be undertaken.

The problem is confounded by the lack of accountability of extension workers to farming

communities, especially small and medium farmers. The current structure of internal

governance subjects the extension hierarchy to political control at two levels the district

and the province. Both levels are too far removed from the small, resource poor and

uneducated farmers. In both cases, the political control is not exercised by the farmer but it is

exercised in his name by the representatives of his representatives. The layered system of

representation dilutes the effectiveness of his demand.

There is hardly any horizontal political control on the working of the officials who are

discharged with the actual responsibility of providing extension services. It is also well-

known that access to state resources and services, such as extension, are provided or

withdrawn in Pakistan as a matter of patronage. It is considered a legitimate privilege of

power. The extension agents are smart enough to assess the relative political importance of a

farmer and decide to provide him or withhold the extension advice accordingly. It is not

uncommon for the extension agents to start providing services to a different group with a

change of their political fortunes. Relatively unimportant small farmers remain on the fringes

in this distribution of patronage and can only hope to pick the crumbs, if at all.

CONCLUSION

The above high-level overview of the agriculture sector in Pakistan and the discussion on use

of improved seed to enhance agricultural productivity raises several policy questions. Firstly,

it highlights how skewed land ownership comprises a constraint as well as an opportunity for

agricultural development. On one hand, it allows profits and rents to be appropriated by small

landowning elite. On the other, it allows capital investment in land development and various

stages of agricultural production.

Secondly, the above discussion points out that Pakistans budgetary allocations for

agricultural R&D are the lowest in the region. Further, research priorities are lopsided most

variety development research is concentrated on a few crops and there are several overlaps in

research programs of various federal/provincial institutes/universities. This means farmers


25/28


26/28

13-102-2014-2

- 26 -

Acronyms

AARI Ayub Agriculture Research Institute

APTMA All Pakistan Textile Mills Association

Bt Bacillus Thuringiensis

FSC&RD Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GM Genetically Modified

IP Intellectual Property

IPO Intellectual Property Organisation

IPRs Intellectual Property Regime

PARC Pakistan Agricultural Research Council

PCCC Pakistan Central Cotton CommitteeR&D Research and Development

TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

UAF University of Agriculture, Faisalabad

VCU Value in Cultivation and Use


27/28

13-102-2014-2

- 27 -

List of References:

Beintema, Nienke, Waqar Malik , and Muhammad Sharif. Key trends in Pakistans

agricultural R&D investments.Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute

(IFPRI)., 2006.

Davidson, Andrew P., and Munir Ahmad. "Effectiveness of Public and Private Sector

Agricultural Extension: Implications for Privatisation in Pakistan." The Journal of

Agricultural Education and Extension, 2002: 117-126.

Davidson, Andrew P., and Munir Ahmad. Privatization and the Crisis of Agricultural

Extension: The Case of Pakistan.Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

Flaherty, Kathleen, Muhammad Sharif, and David J. Spielman. "Pakistan: Recent

Developments in Agricultural Research Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators."

Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators, 2012.

Forrester, Neil. "Changing the Cotton Landscape in Pakistan." Lahore: Ali Tareen Farms,

2009.

Hussain, Akhlaq. An Overview of Seed Industry. Islamabad: FSC&RD, Government of

Pakistan, 2004.

Hussain, Akhlaq. Seed Industry of Pakistan. Islamabad: Federal Seed Certification and

Registration Department, 2011.

Hussain, Akhlaq, and Tassawar Hussain. Seed Industry of Pakistan.Islamabad: Federal Seed

Certification and Registration Department, 2007, 102.

Ministry of Finance. Pakistan Economic Survey. Islamabad: Ministry of Finance,

Government of Pakistan, 2010.






28/28

13-102-2014-2



Nathan Associates Inc. Pakistan's Food and Agriculture Systems.Washington: United StatesAgency for International Development, 2009.

Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Pakistan Labour Force Survey. Government Report,

Islamabad: Bureau of Statistics. Government of Pakistan, 2011.

Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Agricultural Census of Pakistan. Government Report,

Islamabad: Bureau of Statistics. Government of Pakistan, 2010.

PARC - Pakistan Agricultural Research Council. 2013. http://www.parc.gov.pk.

Patent Ordinance. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan, 2000.

Rana, Muhammad Ahsan.Formalising the Informal: The Commercialisation of Bt Cotton in

Pakistan. PhD Thesis, Melbourne: Melbourne School of Land and Environment, The

University of Melbourne, 2010.

Rana, Muhammad Ahsan. Seed Provision in Pakistan: Regulation, Politics,Entrepreneurship.Pakistan Strategy Support Program Working Paper no. 19 Washington DC

IFPRI, 2014.

Rana, Muhammad Ahsan et al. "Exploring Dynamics of Cotton Seed Provision in Sindh:

Informing Policy and Business Decisions." Lahore: International Growth Centre, 2013: 53.

Stads, G., and Michael Rahija.Public Agricultural R&D in South Asia: Greater Government

Commitment, yet Underinvestment Persists. ASTI Synthesis Report, Washington DC:

International Food Policy Research Institute., 2012.

UAF. University of Agriculture Faisalabad: Profile.2013. http://www.uaf.edu.pk/.

USAID-FIRMS. District Economic Development Strategies Multan and Bahawalpur.

Unpublished Report, USAID-FIRMS, 2010.

increasing agricultural productivity in pakistan-use of improved seeds - ahsan - 2014

Documents