Protecting agricultural biodiversity to ensure sustainable food systems

While the Green Revolution significantly enhanced food production to meet rising consumption demand, it led to a loss of biodiversity by promoting cultivation of a small set of high-yielding varieties of crops. Highlighting the importance of preserving agricultural biodiversity, Reddy and Lingareddy outline global and national efforts in this regard, some limitations of the current approaches, and possible directions going forward.

India is bestowed with rich plant biodiversity, and has been recognised as one of the Vavilov Centres of Origin, where the domestication of certain crops first started. According to Nikolai Vavilov, India is the definite origin for a wide range of cultivated crops, including rice, sugarcane, red gram, green gram, black gram, chickpea, cowpea, mango, tamarind, tree cotton, bamboo, etc. (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 1999) India is considered as one of the mega-gene centres, being home to over 49,000 species of plants (including nearly 18,000 species of ‘higher plants’¹ according to the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (ICAR-NBPGR). Further, two out of the 25 global hotspots of biodiversity, Indo-Burma and Western Ghats, are situated in the country.

However, the shift to extensive monocrop cultivation of selected crops and varieties to meet the rising consumption demand from a growing population during the past six decades is inadvertently leading to significant loss of biodiversity. According to ICAR-NBPGR, India once had over 100,000 rice varieties with a large diversity in taste, nutrition, pest resistance, and adaptability to a variety of climatic conditions. But, with the advent of Green Revolution technology, a majority of the rice cultivation is confined to a handful of high-yielding varieties (HYVs). Apart from the growing pressure for mass food production, the increasing natural disasters and abnormal weather events are also adding to the biodiversity losses.

Loss of agricultural biodiversity

Cultivation of locally produced seeds, either from own land or from other farmers, has been a practice in India as well as in other developing countries. Traditionally, farmers have been exchanging seed and producing local cultivars from various farms with diverse traits including better qualities, tolerance to drought, flooding, diseases and insects, etc.

During the post-Green Revolution period, HYVs gradually replaced traditional crop varieties. Before the Green Revolution, farmers grew a diverse range of traditional crops like coarse cereals, millets, pulses, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, and fodder. But with the introduction of HYVs of wheat and paddy, these became more profitable, leading to a decline in traditional crop cultivation and the rise of monocropping of wheat and paddy. The twin challenges of modern agriculture are monocropping and farmers' reliance on a limited range of high-yielding or hybrid crop varieties, which undermine agricultural biodiversity by reducing the diversity of crops and traditional varieties grown in the field. For instance, around 41 varieties of wheat and 37 varieties of rice were known to be cultivated in Punjab prior to Green Revolution. But in recent years, only three varieties of wheat and nine varieties of rice are most widely cultivated in Punjab (The Energy and Resources Institute, 2015). Changing farmers’ preferences and convincing them to adopt diversification of varieties and crops is a challenging task.

The decline in biodiversity is further accelerated by extensive chemical application, mainly driven by market signals, input subsidies for a few crops like paddy and wheat at the expense of other crops, supply of subsidised HVY seeds, and government procurement support. Hence, traditional practices of using local farmers’ seed and community seed sources are being replaced by hybrid seeds from seed companies. Since traditional varieties do not yield high market returns, simply distributing traditional seeds without market support, extension, or economic incentives is unlikely to succeed.

Efforts to protect agricultural biodiversity

Agricultural biodiversity, including plant genetic resources, is vital for constant varietal improvement to achieve sustained crop productivity, better quality, resilience to climatic change, resistance to pests and diseases, and so on. Hence, it is crucial to preserve and protect agricultural biodiversity, both on-farm (in-situ) and off-farm (ex-situ) with requisite policy measures and actions.

Globally, the loss of biodiversity due to monocropping of selected crop varieties for mass production became more prominent in the 20^th century. As a result, about 60% of crop production in the world now involves nine crops (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2025). Recognising the need for global coordinated efforts to conserve agricultural biodiversity, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was established in 1983, as a permanent intergovernmental forum to discuss and monitor matters relevant to genetic resources for food and agriculture. Subsequently, the ‘Global System’ was created to promote the sustainable and equitable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, which is an integral part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that provides a global framework for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Further, to promote result-oriented actions by the government and local authorities, the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) in December 2022.²

While conserving and protecting biodiversity has been part of Indian agricultural practices for centuries, the establishment of ICAR-NBPGR in 1976 marked the beginning of organised institutional efforts, especially for ex-situ conservation. Subsequently, the first gene-bank in the country was set up by the ICAR-NBPGR in New Delhi in 1996. By January 2025, the gene bank had preserved a vast variety of crop seeds, about 170,00 cereals, more than 60,600 millets, 69,200 legumes, 63,500 oilseeds, and 30,000 vegetable varieties (Press Information Bureau (PIB), 2025).

How effective are different conservation methods?

Ex-situ conservation through seed banks like those at NBPGR, ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) and CGIAR centres have played a crucial role in conserving genetic diversity. However, ex-situ conservation has inherent limitations. Even under ideal cold storage, seeds lose viability over time. For example, orthodox seeds (which can be dried and stored) still need periodic regeneration, that is, growing them out in the field to produce fresh seeds. This regeneration can lead to genetic drift or selection pressure if not carefully managed, potentially altering the original traits (Bramel 2021). Further, in seed banks, varieties are frozen in time – they do not evolve with pests, diseases, climate change, or farming practices. In contrast, in-situ conservation allows traditional landraces to continue co-evolving with local biotic and abiotic pressures (Mathew and Mathew 2023). Overall, in-situ diversification goes beyond just ex-situ practices, reviving the adaptive functions of traditional agro-biodiversity. Hence, although ex-situ conservation is essential, it can be complemented and synergised with in-situ conservation. However, the in-situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity was significantly reduced in the post-Green Revolution period with the practice of intensive cultivation of HYVs.

**Policy instruments for in-situ conservation of biodiversity**

Some policy instruments, outlined in the table below, may be implemented by the government to promote in-situ conservation practices in biodiversity hotspots.

Table 1. Policy instruments and their mechanism

Policy Instrument	Example/Mechanism
Agro-biodiversity payments	Farmers are paid for maintaining genetic diversity (like Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes).
Market incentives	Public procurement of traditional crops (for example, millets as part of the Public Distribution System (PDS) or Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS).
Community seed banks	Locally managed seed systems that preserve and share diverse germplasm.
Geographical indications	Labelling and premium pricing for unique varieties (such as "Kalanamak rice").
Climate-resilient seed kits	Bundling traditional seeds with extension support and input subsidies.
Crop insurance reforms	Including traditional varieties under coverage for crop failures.

Challenges and constraints posed by food security

One of the major challenges has been the pressure from the growing population for food and shelter, leading to intensive crop production from shrinking cultivable land. This has been the main cause for the loss of on-farm biodiversity, particularly during the past six decades. Another major issue arising from intensive monocropping is the fast decline in soil fertility and groundwater, leading to a reduction in the natural environment needed to sustain agricultural biodiversity. In addition, driven by subsidies, the excessive use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides is also resulting in soil and water pollution, leading to the loss of beneficial micro-organisms, insects, and pollinators.

An additional major concern is climate change, with its unpredictable impacts on agriculture and biodiversity. While many farmers do recognise the importance of biodiversity, they often face market pressures and policy incentives that favour HYVs, leading to a reduced diversity of crops and varieties on farms. This shift can undermine long-term resilience, as diverse cropping systems, especially those using traditional or locally adapted seeds are often better equipped to withstand climate extremes like droughts, floods, and pest outbreaks. Unlike standardised seeds from commercial companies, which may be bred for specific traits, traditional varieties often possess a broader range of adaptive features suited to local agro-ecological conditions.

Apart from the pressure on agricultural land, expansion of real estate, mining, and urbanisation are leading to loss of habitat for plant genetic resources and biodiversity. The loss of grasslands, wetlands, and village commons, along with increasing land fragmentation into smallholding, where farmers tend to grow fewer crops and varieties for commercial reasons and ease of synchronised operations is further accelerating the decline of agricultural biodiversity. In addition, efforts to conserve agricultural biodiversity are hampered by limited institutional capacity, weak extension systems, inadequate funding, and insufficient monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Way ahead

There has been a significant effort in recent decades to protect and conserve agricultural biodiversity, especially through off-farm or ex-situ conservation measures. The latest announcement in the 2025-26 Union Budget regarding the establishment of a second National Gen Bank, with a capacity to house 10 lakh germplasm lines, is one of such significant measures (PIB, 2025), but it should supplement rather than replace the policies related to in-situ biodiversity, with suitable measures and reorienting agricultural subsidies.

To promote the adoption of these HYVs when they were first introduced, farmers were provided with incentives like subsidies on fertilisers and electricity for irrigation, procurement of output, etc (Reddy et al. 2024). Under the present scenario, in order to promote on-farm biodiversity by reorienting farmers to cultivate traditional varieties with relatively less commercial benefits, there is a need to provide market incentives and awareness. To start with, cultivation of traditional varieties in at least 5-10% of total farm area may be encouraged with free seed distribution and procurement at premium prices in biodiversity hotspots. Subsequently, the creation of marketing channels for such traditional varieties and certification can help farmers to get remunerative prices.

Reorienting fertiliser subsidies to promote a judicious mix of organic, chemical, and bio-fertilisers is another important measure to reduce degradation and pollution of scarce soil and water resources. Further, efforts need to be scaled up to promote integrated pest management with natural insecticides and bio-pesticides to preserve beneficial insects, animals, and other micro-organisms in the crop ecosystem.

Apart from organic and natural farming, mixed and multi-crop cultivation can be promoted as a way to diversify income. For instance, mixed cultivation of different-duration crops and varieties will provide staggered income. Moreover, in case market prices fall for one crop, farmers may receive better income from another crop.

Building capacity to create awareness is one of the most important measures, and requires immediate policy attention. There is an urgent need to create awareness, not only among farmers to move towards on-farm conservation, but also among the general population to diversify consumption habits from selected rice and wheat varieties to other nutritious varieties and crops – to ensure that both consumption and production are carried out responsibly.

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the I4I Editorial Board.

Notes:

Higher plants (also called tracheophytes) are distinguished from lower plants like algae, mosses, and liverworts by their complex structures, that is roots, stems, leaves, vascular tissues, and, in most cases, flowers or cones.
India is one of the 196 member countries that ratified KM-GBF and committed to achieving the CBD’s vision of ‘Living in Harmony with Nature by 2050’ (CBD, 2019). Consequently, India is committed to adopting ‘12 National Biodiversity Targets and 20 Aichi Global Biodiversity Targets’. While all the Aichi biodiversity targets have significant implications for agriculture, the most significant are Target 3 (eliminate or reform harmful incentives and subsidies), Target 4 (sustainable consumption and production using natural resources well within safe ecological limits), Target 7 (sustainable agriculture conserving biodiversity), Target 9 (control and eradication of invasive alien species), Target 13 (safeguarding genetic diversity) Target 15 (conservation and restoration of degraded ecosystems) and Target 16 (Nagoya Protocol in force and operational).