Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 122, Issue 3, pp 439–450 | Cite as

A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results

  • L. Sperling
  • J.A. Ashby
  • M.E. Smith
  • E. Weltzien
  • S. McGuire
Article

Abstract

Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) involves scientists, farmers, and others, such as consumers, extensionists, vendors, industry, and rural cooperatives in plant breeding research. It is termed `participatory' because many actors, and especially the users, can have a research role in all major stages of the breeding and selection process. While some have argued that commercial, private sector plant breeding has long been client-driven, or `participatory' under another name, the application of `PPB' to reach poor client groups, to breed for high-stress, heterogeneous environments and to incorporate diverse traits to meet specific client preferences is resulting in fundamental changes in the way plant genetic resources are being managed. PPB merits analysis as a separate approach. The notion of `PPB' is a relatively recent one: detailed inventories show that most of the 65 `longer-term' cases have begun within the last 10 years, whether they were located in public sector or non-governmental crop improvement programs. With such `newness'comes a wealth of terminology and divergent technical, social and organizational strategies under the general rubric of `PPB'. This article aims to set up a framework for differentiating among PPB approaches. Only by discriminating among cases can one understand how each PPB approach can lead to a different outcome, and so be able to make informed choices about which approach to pursue. The key variables explored for discriminating among PPB approaches include: the institutional context, the bio-social environment, the goals set, and the kind of `participation' achieved, (including the stage and degree of participation and the roles different actors undertake). It is only when these variables are clearly described that current and potential practitioners can start to link the `type of PPB' employed (method and organizational forms) with the type of impacts achieved. An ending illustration of ongoing PPB programs suggests the practical utility of this `PPB framework'.

plant breeding farmer participation client-driven framework research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Courtois B, R.K. Singh, S. Pandey, C. Piggin, T. Paris, S. Sarkarung, V.P. Singh, G. McLaren, S.S. Baghel, R.K. Sahu, V.N. Sahu, S.K. Sharma, S. Singh, H.N. Singh, A. Singh, O.N. Singh, B.V.S. Sisodia, C.H. Mishra, J.K. Roy, D. Choudhary, K. Prasad, R.K. Singh, P.K. Sinha & N.P. Mandal, 2000. Breeding better rainfed rice varieties through farmer participation: some early lessons from eastern India. In: Proc. 2 nd Int. Sem. Of the CGIAR SWP on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Quito, Equator, September 6–9, 1998. CIAT, Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
  2. Hecht, S., 2000. Social issues in participatory plant breeding. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Researchand Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation. Working Document No. 5, Colombia, Cali, 30 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Lilja, N., J.A. Ashby & L. Sperling (Eds.), 2000. Assessing the impact of participatory research and genderanalysis. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation. CIAT, Colombia, Cali. 352 pp.Google Scholar
  4. McGuire, S., G. Manicad & L. Sperling, 1999.Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding: from the perspective of farmer plant breeding. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation. Working Document No. 2, October 1999. Cali, 87 pp.Google Scholar
  5. North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, institutional changeand economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. 287 pp.Google Scholar
  6. PRGA, 1999a. Crossing perspectives:farmers and scientists in participatory plant breeding. Cali, Colombia. Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 40 pp.Google Scholar
  7. PRGA, 1999b. Guidelines for Participatory PlantBreeding. Working Document 1, draft three, April 2000. Cali, Colombia. Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 62 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Schnell, F.W., 1982. A study ofmethods and categories of plant breeding. Zeitschr Pflanzen 89: 1–18.Google Scholar
  9. Soleri, D., S. Smith & D. Cleveland,1999. Evaluating the potential for farmer-breeders collaboration: a case study of farmer maize selection from Oaxaca, Mexico. AgGren Network Paper 96a. London: Overseas Development Institute. pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Sperling, L. & J.A. Ashby, 1999. Moving Participatory Breeding Forward: the next steps. In: M. Collinson (Ed.), History of Farming Systems Research, London, CABI. 15 pages.Google Scholar
  11. Weltzien, E./M. Smith, L.S. Meitzner & L. Sperling, 1999.Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding - from the perspective of formal plant breeding: a global analysis of issues, results and current experience. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation. Working Document No. 3, October 1999. Cali, 118 + IVIII pages.Google Scholar
  12. Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi, K.D. Joshi & B.R. Sthapit, 1996. Farmer Participatory Crop Improvement: I.Varietal Selection and Breeding Methods and their impact on biodiversity. Exp Agric 22: 443–460.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Sperling
    • 1
  • J.A. Ashby
    • 2
  • M.E. Smith
    • 3
  • E. Weltzien
    • 4
  • S. McGuire
    • 5
  1. 1.CGIAR Systemwide Program for Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)RomeItaly
  2. 2.CGIAR Systemwide Program for Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)CaliColombia
  3. 3.Department of Plant BreedingCornell UniversityIthaca
  4. 4.Genetic Resources and Enhancement ProgramInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)BamakoMali
  5. 5.Technology and Agrarian Development groupWageningen UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations