Skip to main content

A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results

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'.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sperling, L., Ashby, J., Smith, M. et al. A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results. Euphytica 122, 439–450 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017505323730

Download citation

  • plant breeding
  • farmer participation
  • client-driven
  • framework research