S. McGuire
varieties to address diverse needs varies greatly by crop and will depend on the available diversity, familiarity, and breeding system of the crop. It is important for this discussion to understand how needs change after a crisis. Environmental conditions and resources, especially the availability of labor, may change following a disaster, and the status quo ante may not hold, requiring new types of materials (Richards and 1997). Also, because of accidents, poor seed access, or changing conditions during a season, farmers may end up planting material they had not planned on. Analytical questions around needs include the following:
• For which crops do farmers manage a wide range of types? • Are there user groups that can be easily defined by environmental or socioeconomic conditions (e.g., wealth) that have distinct requirements for certain variety types?
• Do needs change dramatically within a season, or from year to year? • How does a crisis (chronic or acute) affect needs, especially regarding labor? How farmers use naming systems to classify their varieties may shape the way they define and manage their materials, especially in the context of high gene flow due to open pollination or frequent seed exchange (Louette 1994). Knowledge varies among farmers around naming: names may be contested within communities or even households. Naming systems are affected by breeding systems, the degree of visible variation among farmers’ materials, and many other factors. To support seed systems, being able to find and supply the appropriate variety may matter—and highly variable naming systems may complicate this. Also, how variations in naming within a community may affect gene flow is still poorly understood. Analytical questions include the following:
• Who knows variety types the best? Older farmers? Wealthier farmers? Women? “Seed keepers”?
• How much consensus is there on names? For example, if a farmer sought variety X in another district, could s/he find it by name?
• Where do farmers draw a line between a “representative” of a variety, an “off-type” to be rogued, and a “new type” to be tested and exchanged separately?
• How do naming systems relate to formal classification, especially at the genetic level, and does this challenge the definition of a “variety” in some cases, such as millet?
Variety testing The methods farmers use to assess new varieties are important, especially in determining the degree and nature of adaptation to environmental conditions. Some questions around this include the following:
• How variable are farmers’ conditions over space and time? • Under what conditions do they typically evaluate new materials: good, poor, or variable? • What testing design would meaningfully represent farmers’ conditions: replication across sites
representative of different situations, or a single large site where they can see a response to varying conditions and/or management?
Variety loss A common concern in supporting farmers’ seed systems is variety loss. A household may consciously choose to abandon a variety, or it may lose material for involuntary reasons, such as seed pests and diseases, consumption of seed (for food, cash, loans to others), stress after planting (drought, insects), or theft. Here is where considerations of scale over space and time are important. Diversity lost at the farm level may still be present at community or regional levels. Also, loss (both voluntary and otherwise) may 3