Basic HTML Version
review the data. If a candidate
outperforms or is equal to the check
variety, it will be recommended to the
CFIA for registration.
The wheat, rye and triticale committee
basically operates the same as the
oat and barley committee, Fetch said,
adding that yield improvements of wheat
have grown about 1.5 per cent per year.
“Think of that as compound interest,”
he explained. “Compared to a decade
ago, we’ve really improved variety
performance. It’s all about beating
benchmarks.”
Just like Fetch, Rich Joy of Canada
Malting Corporation believes the annual
meeting is vital.
“Everyone gets to discuss what’s
working and what’s not working,” said
Joy, who’s the chair of the oat and barley
committee. “For example, brewers voice
their concerns to maltsters, who are
looking for certain traits from breeders.”
As the Canadian Wheat Board
dismantled, many organizations and
policy-makers have sought change in
the variety registration system. That has
left the PGDC to change its approach on
variety registration in conjunction with
the federal government’s work to alter
the system.
In 2013, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz
requested a renewed focus on research,
innovation, competitiveness and market
development from the recommending
committees. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada (AAFC) engaged stakeholders
through telephone interviews and by
sending them the CFIA’s
Issues and
Options
paper, which outlined four
different approaches on how much
oversight the government should have
on the variety registration process.
Stakeholders had the option to
maintain the current variety registration
system, allowing for some flexibilities;
streamline the system by placing all crops
at the basic level, with the potential to
move to an enhanced level; unify the
system by placing all crops at the lowest
order, eliminating the higher orders
and continuing minimum government
oversight; or have the government
Winter
2015
grainswest.com
37
withdraw entirely from the system.
Thirty-nine per cent of the stakeholder
submissions reflected they would like the
current system to stay the same, allowing
for flexibilitity. Twenty-six per cent said
they would like to see all crops meet the
minimum registration requirements with
some independent merit assessment
from the committees.
Despite most wanting to maintain
the current system, the government
proposed adjustments to the system
based on the second option in the
Issues
and Options
paper last October. One
part of the proposal looks to reduce
the three-tier crop system to a two-tier
structure. Tier two, or the basic level of
the structure, requires the committees to
submit data that includes the description
of the variety, pedigree, reference
sample, declaration of area of adaption
and proof of claims. The enhanced
level, however, includes pre-registration
testing and merit assessment through the
recommending committees.
To the surprise of some, the 47 voting
members of the
pulse and special
crops committee
voted to move
pulses from tier one
(most stringent)
to the basic level,
meaning pulse
crops would no
longer receive merit assessment by the
recommending committee once the
government’s proposal is implemented.
“The decision will only affect pulses,
not specialty crops,” said AAFC Research
Scientist Parthiba Balasubramanian, chair
of the PGDC’s pulse and special crops
committee. “It’ll speed up the release of
varieties by at least one year. Breeders
will continue to do all the trials and
provide data to the CFIA.”
Outlined in the proposal, the
committees’ operating procedures will
be changed, as will their structure, to
include balanced representation from the
value chain, allowing for variety selection
to become increasingly market driven.
The idea is to produce smaller, dynamic
committees.
The proposed measures include:
reducing merit standards; considering
the registration of varieties after two
years of positive test data; and accepting
private and foreign data after the
remaining quality and disease merit
criteria and performance testing is
streamlined. These impacts are expected
to give clarity and predictability to
investors who want to respond more
quickly to market opportunities.
“The aim of those operating
procedures is to provide guidance as
far as they operate and how transparent
they are,” said Giuliano Tolusso, chief
of biotechnology and emerging
technology issues at AAFC. “It’ll promote
innovation in the development of
varieties, improve competitiveness, and
allow for producers to access varieties in
a more timely manner.”
The government’s role in the variety
registration process won’t change once
the proposal takes effect, he added.
Tolusso said the recommending
committees will
likely integrate new
guidelines in spring
2016, followed by
the CFIA finalizing
the proposal in
the fall of that year.
Implementing the
proposed two-
tier system also requires a change in
legislation. However, the proposal may
alter slightly, as Ritz has yet to formally
announce the intended changes.
Even though the number of crops that
require recommending committees and
merit criteria will potentially be reduced
as a result of the proposed variety
registration changes, the PGDC will
continue to operate.
“We will react accordingly, and change
once Minister Gerry Ritz has made those
calls,” Fetch said. “The committees will
continue to advise the CFIA, and we
will maintain our great conversations
about new ideas and make sure the most
promising varieties are presented to the
CFIA.”
“Compared to a decade
ago, we’ve really improved
variety performance.”
–Tom Fetch