(The following post is adapted from one sent to the FAO's "Millets" Dgroup on 10 July 2023. It did not generate any public discussion apart from one reaction and my response to it. I'm reposting it to Collab, with edits, for your information and consideration.)

As we arrive at the conclusion of the International Year of Millets (IYM), and begin to review what has been accomplished, and the road ahead, it is helpful to consider possible lessons from previous International Years, and their respective "after the Year" experiences. In this post I mention two - International Year of Quinoa (IYQ)/1 in 2013, and International Year of Pulses (IYP)/2 in 2016 - and then focus on the latter.

In preparations for the IYM it was not uncommon to hear mention of the IYQ, and how that observance had a real effect on knowledge of and demand for quinoa in some markets (such as in the US). The thinking was, how might the success of IYQ in boosting interest in quinoa be replicated with the IYM's promotion of millets. The only analysis along these lines that I'm aware of, however, was done by Nicholas Musisi for the Sorghum United group, in 2022. Perhaps we will see other comparisons after the IYM is over.

At the same time, it would be instructive to look at a different example that I haven't heard mentioned previously - the IYP. What is particularly interesting with the latter for comparison with IYM, is that it dealt also with not one, but a rather number of related crops. In addition, the name of the subject of IYP - "pulses" - required some explanation, even more than the plural "millets" does in the case of IYM. "Pulses" are grain legumes -  various kinds of beans, peas, and lentils, with the distinction that these are harvested for their dried seeds (not green as vegetables). Soybeans and peanuts/groundnuts are not considered pulses because of their high oil/fat content.

So how did IYP convey this diversity?

In publicity about IYP from 2016 one finds mention of "a group of 12 crops that includes dry beans, dry peas, chickpeas, and lentils."/3 However, it was hard to find any place where these 12 were listed let alone explained./4 One had to go elsewhere to find discussions of what crops (& foods) count as pulses, and the number varied - often not a tidy dozen, perhaps unsurprisingly.

Then in comprehensive treatments, I found that several of the pulse "crops" in the list turn out to be groups of closely related species and varieties that bear some resemblance to each other (and perhaps may be substitutable). For example, an FAO list from 1994 (which is still getting cited) had 11 categories of pulses grouping 24 species across 14 genera, with varieties of some species also being mentioned./5 Compare with cultivated millets, which by my count (including sorghum) are 19 species across 12 genera, 5 botanical "tribes," and 2 subfamilies of Poaceae. And all of that without counting edible wild species of millets in at least three of those genera that do not appear to be grown as crops today.

In both cases (pulses and millets), the variety and individual identities of species are a key part of their importance as crops and as foods, and indeed a potential interest factor for everyone from farmers to food product makers to consumers.

On the latter point, it's worth noting that the forward to final report on the IYP/6 begins with mention of four species of pulses and factors that make them interesting. That kind of approach works for public education. However I'm not finding it in other IYP materials online - i.e., no profiling of each of the pulses.

My impression is that our current discussion of millets may be stronger on the specifics (literally, the species) than IYP was with the diversity of pulses. Is that accurate? Did that matter? (I think it did/does, but the question needs to be asked.) Can we do more & better as we move past IYM? And how will such "clarity through specificity" lead to successful outcomes for millets in the future?

In any event, the final report on the IYP/6 claims success on awareness-raising and offers selected percentage figures on increases in consumption of pulses after the 2016. I won't try to summarize the various accomplishments listed in the report, but you may find it of interest to review and compare with the efforts of IYM.

I was particularly interested to note the final section of the IYP report on "The way forward."/6 A list of 3 goals for the future seem like they could easily have analogs for IYM (my comments in parentheses):
1) Pulses action network (which may be the origin of the current Global Pulse Confederation, which currently maintains the IYP2016.org website? Is there any analogous international network or global "confederation" in the works for millets?);
2) Publication on underutilized pulse species (something similar could be done for less-produced millets, which could use more attention from research funders and scientists); and
3) Revision of international statistical classifications on pulses (something similar would really help with millets, which are generally lumped together in national and international statistics, and even generically labeled in many consumer products).

One also finds on the current  IYP2016.org website a link to a 10-year research plan for pulses./7 (We are 7 years into that by now.) Such a long-term research plan - or plans - would also be very helpful for millets. (The 10-year timespan also reminds of the Decade of Millets proposed by the India Millets Initiative, with which NAMA, along with Sorghum United and the Daugherty Water for Food Initiative are partnering for the Indo-U.S. Millets Initiative.)