Priorities for potato research in developing countries: Results of a survey

Article

Abstract

International institutions such as the International Potato Center (CIP) strive to provide “global public goods” in the form of improved technologies applicable to large regions of the developing world. To identify priorities for potato improvement, CIP conducted a survey of knowledgeable potato scientists in developing countries to elicit their perspectives on the most important constraints facing poor and small-scale potato growers in their countries. Respondents scored productivity or other constraints according to their importance in the region or country where they worked. Mean and weighted mean scores were estimated to provide a group judgment of the most important constraints facing potato farmers in developing countries. The five highest-ranking needs described by the survey respondents are: (1) control of late blight fungal disease (through varietal resistance and crop management); (2) improved genetic material for high and stable yield potential, suitable for consumption (new cultivars and prebreeding); (3) improved supply of quality potato seed (seed systems management and seed production); (4) control of viruses and their vectors (through varietal resistance, seed production and crop management); and (5) control of bacterial wilt (through varietal resistance and crop management). These five needs were ranked high in all or most of the potato-growing regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Exceptions were bacterial wilt control, which was a top-ranked need primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and east and southeast Asia, and virus control, which scored relatively low in Latin America. Priority rankings did not change when survey responses were weighted by potato area and poverty incidence of the country for which respondents reported.

Additional key words

constraints analysis global public goods scoring model 

Resumen

Instituciones internacionales tales como el Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) se esfuerzan en proveer ·bienes públicos globales· en forma de tecnologίas mejoradas aplicables a bastas regiones del mundo en desarrollo. Para identificar las prioridades para el mejoramiento de la papa, el CIP realizó una encuesta entre los cientίficos en papa de los paίses en desarrollo para conocer su opinión sobre los problemas más importantes que tienen que encarar los productores de papa pobres y en pequeña escala en sus respectivos países. Los entrevistados señalaron la productividad y otros inconvenientes de acuerdo a su importancia en la región o país. El promedio y peso de las respuestas fueron estimados para proporcionar un grupo de los problemas más importantes a los que tiene que enfrentarse el productor de papa en los países en desarrollo. Los que obtuvieron mayores puntajes de acuerdo a los que respondieron la encuesta son: (1) control de tizón tardío (por medio de resistencia varietal y mane jo del cultivo); (2) material genético mejorado para el rendimiento potencial estable, apropiado para consumo (cultivares nuevos y pre-mejoramiento); (3) abastecimiento de semilla de papa de calidad (manejo de sistemas de semilla y su producción); (4) control de los virus y sus vectores (por medio de resistencia varietal, producción de semilla y manejo del cultivo); y (5) control de la marchitez bacteriana (a través de resistencia varietal y manejo del cultivo). Estos cinco necesidades fueron consideradas principales en todas o la mayoría de las regiones de cultivo de papa en Asia, África y América Latina. La excepción fue el control de la marchitez bacteriana, la cual alcanzó un alto puntaje principalmente en África subSahara y el este y sudeste asiático y el control de virus que alcanzó puntaje bajo en América Latina. El puntaje de prioridades no cambió cuando las respuestas se sopesaron en función de las respuestas por área de papa e incidencia de la pobreza en el país para el cual fueron las respuestas.

Literature cited

  1. Alston JM, GW Norton and PG Pardey. 1995. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  2. CIP. 1984. Potatoes for the Developing World. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  3. CIP. 2004a. The CIP Vision: Preserving the Core, Stimulating Progress. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  4. CIP. 2004b. CIP Survey for Collaborator and Potato Germplasm Recipients. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  5. Crissman C. 1990. Comparing aspects of seed potato programs in Ecuador, Kenya and the Philippines.In: MM Rashid, MA Siddique and MM Hussain (eds), Seed Potato in Bangladesh. Bangladesh-Netherlands Seed Multiplication Project, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp 63–74.Google Scholar
  6. Crissman C, D Cole and F Carpio. 1994. Pesticide use and farm worker health in Ecuadorian potato production. Am J Agric Econ 76:593–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO. 1995. Potatoes in the 1990s: Situation and prospects of the world potato economy. International Potato Center and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  8. Fuglie K. 2002. Economics of potato storage: Case studies.In: SM Paul, GS Shekhawat, SK Pandy, BP Singh (eds), Potato: Global Research and Development, vol 2. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Potato, New Delhi, December 6–11, 1999. Indian Potato Association, New Delhi, India pp 1038–47.Google Scholar
  9. Fuglie K. 2006. The impact of potato and sweet potato on poverty in Asia.In: R Bourgeois, L Svensson, M Burrows (eds), Farming a Way Out of Poverty: Forgotten Crops and Marginal Populations in Asia and the Pacific. CAPSA Monograph No 48, United Nations ESCAP Center for Alleviation of Poverty through Secondary Crops in Asia (CAPSA), Bogor, Indonesia, pp 201–226.Google Scholar
  10. Fuglie K. 2007. Research Priority Assessment for the CIP 2005-2015 Strategic Plan: Projecting Impacts on Poverty, Employment, Health and the Environment. Impact Enhancement Division, International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  11. Fuglie K, W Adiyoga, R Asmunati, S Mahalaya and R Suherman. 2006. Farm demand for quality potato seed in Indonesia. Agric Econ 35:257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner B and W Lesser. 2003. International agricultural research as a global public good. Am J Agric Econ 85:692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrera J and G Scott. 1992/93. limiting factors for the production and use of potato: Results of a survey to the National Programs to Latin America Revista Latinoamericana de la Papa, Vol. 5/6:122–131.Google Scholar
  14. Hijmans R. 2003. The effects of climate change on global potato production. Amer J Potato Res 80:271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maldonado L, J White and G Scott. 1998. Constraints to production and use of potato in Asia. Amer J Potato Res 75:71–79.Google Scholar
  16. Priou S, M Vargas, A Salas, L Gutarra and P Aley. 2005. Characterization of promising sources of high levels of resistance to bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearurn) in wild species of potato. Phytopathology 95:S85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruttan VW. 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. University of Minnesota Press, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  18. Scott G. 1981. Markets, Myths, and Middlemen: A Study of Potato Marketing in Peru. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  19. Solomon-Blackburn RM and H Barker. 2001. Breeding virus resistant potatoes (Solanum tuberosum): A review of traditional and molecular approaches. Heredity 86:17–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walker T. 1994. Patterns and implications of varietal change in potatoes. Social Science Department Working Paper No. 1994-3. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  21. Walker T and C Crissman (eds). 1996. Case Studies of the Economic Impact of CIP-Related Technology. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  22. Walker T, P Schmiediche and R Hijmans. 1999. World trends and patterns in the potato crop: An economic and geographic survey. Potato Res 42:241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walker T, YP Bi, JH Li, PC Gaur and E Grande. 2003. Potato genetic improvement in developing countries and CIP’s role in varietal change.In: RE Evenson, D Gollin (eds), Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. CABI, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Resources and Rural Economics DivisionEconomic Research ServiceWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations