diff --git "a/data/part_4/098c9b740f579a8d8326d517d96558f4.json" "b/data/part_4/098c9b740f579a8d8326d517d96558f4.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/part_4/098c9b740f579a8d8326d517d96558f4.json"
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"metadata":{"id":"098c9b740f579a8d8326d517d96558f4","source":"gardian_index","url":"https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/6637c2c8-6950-4f63-9f0d-03b53d812159/retrieve"},"pageCount":166,"title":"Biotechnology-Assisted Participatory Plant Breeding: Complement or Contradiction?","keywords":[],"chapters":[{"head":"","index":1,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":113,"text":"To achieve an impact that benefits poor peo pIe, lhe participation of farmers (especially women) is criti cal in tcchnology development. The progra m's goal is to improve the ability of lhe CO lAR system and olher colla borating institutions to develop technology that alleviates poverty, improves [ood security, and protects the en viron ment with greater equity. This goal will be accom plis h ed throu gh collaborative rescarch to assess and develop rnethodologies and organizational innovations for gender•sensitive participatory research . The Program 's.overall strategy is lo introd uce a nd strengthen th e a ppropriate use of PRGA approaches and methods in the CGIAR's and partners' eor e researeh areas."},{"index":2,"size":97,"text":"The Program focu ses on participatory approach es to technology development and insti tu tion al innova tion that use action rescarch. The lauer is defin ed as research conducted via ha nd s-on involvement in processes of d eveloping technologies or institulional innovations, in contrast to only studyin g or documen ting this dcvclopment. Priority is given to two m a in thrusts: (1) th e partici pation of farrncrs, particu lary ru ral wornen, in farmer -led research, a nd (2) the participa tion o f •profes iona l scicn tists in farmer-Ied rescarch ."},{"index":3,"size":100,"text":"Over the last 10 years or so, substantial work has bee n done to introduce a u ser perspective into a d aplive rescarch . Recent evide nce s u ggests that u ser participa tion can be critica! In the preadaptive stages of cer lain types of rescarch. This is wh en it brings users inlo the earIy stages of technology d evelopment as researchers and decision This p aper is th e record of an exploration of international thinking on biotechnology and farmer PPB . The au tho rs' goal was to encourage and info rm discussion about:"},{"index":4,"size":44,"text":"Whether and ho w bio technology can benefit small-scale, resource• poor farmers in developing cou ntries; Whethe r far mers can more fully participate, as colleagues or leaders, in shaping and creating the benefits; The potcntial of specific biotechnologies lo strengthen farmer participalOI)' research."},{"index":5,"size":40,"text":"The study included an extensive series of in terviews, d.i scussions , a nd surveys throughout 1999 an d 2000, involving at lcast 500 (anners, participatory researchers, plant breeders, and biotechnologists in developing and developed countries. The au thors conclude:"},{"index":6,"size":37,"text":"There is real potentialfor synergy between plant biotech nology and participa tal)' rescarch to assist resou rce -poor small-scale farmers Farmer participation could strengthen biotechnology research with a 'rcality check' to sharpen its fo cus x on:"},{"index":7,"size":24,"text":"The.opportunities are unrealized. Only a handful'of biotechnologyassisted participatory projects existed. Most of these used tissue culture, an inexpensive biotechnology that can provide benefits quickly."},{"index":8,"size":107,"text":"Successful application of biotechnology-assisted PPB will depend Communication. Mechanisms for sustained communication between biotechnologists, plant breeders, participatory research practitioners, farmers, and the publico Investment. Public irwestrnent requires public support in donor and developing countries. There is liUJe interaction with the public about agricultural research needs of developing countries. An opposing view, that research is harmCul, is actively presented . This imbalance has created a polarized opinion dimate in which public investment was not sufficient even during the unprecedented prosperity oC the late 20th Century. Win-win commercial in vestmeTlt or joint ventures are conceivable-farmers are themselves private investors-and may have a dvan tages in sustainability a nd choices."},{"index":9,"size":33,"text":"Polarization oC opinion constrains private investment also. Short-term benefits for farmers. To compensate farrners for risks and costs of experirncntation. and address th eir rnost pressing needs, without sacrificing opportunities Cor long-term benefits."},{"index":10,"size":29,"text":"A social vision that is explicit ancl clearly arnculated and sharecl among project partners; and, a s hared understanding of what a given project would mean Cor that visiono"},{"index":11,"size":50,"text":"Effective \"problem transfer\". A problem has been \"transCerred\" when researchers identify with Carmcrs' needs as their own . Problem transfer can happen through appropriate pu blic-scctor rewards; private cnterpriscs that depend on mutual benefit; or direct control for farrncrs' groups over research funds and objectives. Accountability mechanisms support problem transfer."},{"index":12,"size":24,"text":"Access to enabling technologies via negotiation with proprietary sources, development of a pu blic biotechnology tool-box, or strategic alliances with key public research institutions."},{"index":13,"size":16,"text":"Effective and efficient regulatory systems. Regulatory systems are designed to ensure responsible use of transgenic biotechnology."},{"index":14,"size":42,"text":"They also create costs, often exceeding research costs, that direcUy affect what technologies are developed Cor and with resource-poor Carmers. Sorne of the illllovations discussed in ihis stu..dy would incur regulatory costs, particularly innovations to enable ¡armers lo manage on-farm biological processes."},{"index":15,"size":27,"text":"xi Inltlative and conUnulty. Arare blend of realism. idealism, and stability will be required. Highly h etcrogeneous partnerships must be formed and kept {ocu sed and motiuated."},{"index":16,"size":77,"text":"OlJer a halJ-century of experience in motivating interdisciplinary research nctworks is available in the cen te rs of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Rescarch (CGIAR). The ccnters pioneered participatory networks working with resource-poor rural people to articula te and achieue local goals. They have created neutral spaces for cooperation among groups that in other situations are rivals, or inaccessible to each other. These achievements make the centers a valuable resource as coordinators of biotechnology-assisted participatory projects."}]},{"head":"Introduction Background","index":2,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":187,"text":"It is less than 20 years since modern biotechnologies and farrncr participatory research techniques were first applied lo agricultural research and crop improvement. Since th en, many questions have arisen regarding the potential social and economic impact of both approaches. Modern biotechnology emerged from the naturaL sciences and participatory research from the social sciences. Their difTerent starting points have led to separate evolution in markedly different directions. Even loday, there is often hUle cornmunication betwecn the biotechnology and farmer participatory research communities. As a result there may be unexplored complementarities bctwccn the tWQ approaches that can be harnessed lo improve farmers' livelihoods. It is vital that institutional and educational strait-jackets do not prevent us from exploiting these complementarities. This working paper examines current thinking on two questions: (il can modem plant biotechnologies offer benefits to small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries? (ii) can a nd should thesc farmers and their organizations more fully participate in creating and shaping those benefits? Specifically, the paper aims to explore and advance understanding of how modern biotechnologies might assist farmer participatory crop improvement by improving the latte r's products and/or processes."},{"index":2,"size":134,"text":"Priva te-sector biotechnology companies cannot answer these qucstions, because their existence depends on responding succcssfully to commercial opportunities in capitalized agricu lture . Jt is therefore up to the public sector, which has a mandate to address the nceds of resource-poor [armers, to do so. Accordingly, the Systemwide Program on Participatory Rcsearch and Gender Analysis (SWP-PRGA) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) invited the authors to engage a broad range of participants in interviews, discussions, and surveys on this subject. Approximately 500 people, including farmers, plant biotechnologists, plant breeclers, and participatory research experts, took parto This working paper is the res ult. The pape r is still prehminary, and the authors would wclcornc readers' comments, whether lo correct e rrors, presc n t a dditional views, or further advance our thinking."},{"index":3,"size":122,"text":"The authors' survey showed that the biotcchnologyjpla nt brecding and participatary rcscarch sectors have no common for a in which to interact, speak different professional lan guages, a nd in most cases are unaware of how each olher's work migh t be relevant or useful lo their own. It is questionable whether it is merely the lack of communication channels that has led to the dearth of collabora tion between the tV/Q groups. It may be that the close links of many public•sector biotechnologists with the commercial sector has led to a schism , in which researchers working with poorer social groups fcel there is n o poin t in trying to work with biotechnologis ts (E. Friís-Hansen, pers. com m .)."},{"index":4,"size":140,"text":"A list of the constraints to colIabo ration was proposed by A. Sutherland (pers. cornm.) . Potential barriers include: nega tive attitudes on both si des (either of on•fa rm resea reh ers towards bioteehnologis ts or of bioteehnologists to sharing knowledge, methods and materials with non•speeialists), organ izational distance (i t is rare to find bo th types of researcher in the same organization), geographical distance, the movement of personnel (many on•farm researehers are on sho rt• term projects and, in the COlAR system , ten d to be pre-or p ost-does with uneertain futures), lack of s upport for coUaboration [rom senior management, no budgets or terms of reference for lin kage a cti vities, and on-farm re searche rs' fears of being stigmatized for being associated with biotechnology , cven if they themselves have no elhical reservations."},{"index":5,"size":44,"text":"In the fa ce o[ such constraints, th e authors believe that much more di scussion a nd communication wil! be needed between the two groups if eollaboration is to ¡nerease and th e complemenlarities between their two approaches are to be rcali zed."}]},{"head":"Focus on Small•Scale and Resource-Poor Farmers","index":3,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":100,"text":"Small-scale and resourceM poor farm ers in developing eountries number sorne 1000• 1400 million, cornpa red to 50 million farmcrs in the developcd world (Fra ncis, 1986;J aza iry et aJ, 1992;Alexand ratos, 1995). While rcsouree-poor farmers produce on ly 15%-200/0 ofthe world's fooel, they are responsible for about 80% of agricultural production in dcveloping coun tries (Francis, 1986 ;Daw, 1989). The agrarian workforce in most developing countries consisls mostly of poor womcn (Quisumbing et al, 1995;Dankelman and Davidson, 1988), in ma ny cases with very high de mands on thcir labor and the labor of lheir children (White, 1996)."},{"index":2,"size":85,"text":"Th roughout this paper, the word 'farmers' will refer to small-sca1e and resource-poor farmers in developing eountries, unless otheIVIi se spccified. Such farmers inc1ude bolh those in re latively isolatccl subsistence farming systems-the arcas where low-external input agriculture (LEISA, as dcfined by Haverkort and Hiemstra , 1993) is practiscd-and those whos e agricu lture is linked to varying degrees to external markets, such as nearby urba n areas or exporters, and who therefore tencl lO use a somewh a t higher leve! of external inputs."},{"index":3,"size":46,"text":"Thc paper asks how plant biotcchnology rescarch might be made more relevant to th e needs of these farmers. In particular, it explores how farmer participatory researeh approaches might be used to impart a 'pro-poDT' bias to existing bioteehnology research, especia lly in the public sector."},{"index":4,"size":183,"text":"Plant Breeding, Partic ipatory Research, and Biotechnology Lcss than 200 ycars ago, aH plant breeclers were far m ers. The division of labor by which plant breedi ng became a se parale speciaJizcd activity conducted by scientists occurred gradual1y during the 19th ce nLUry (Duvick, 1996). Centralized scicntifi c plant b reeding, concluetecl largely on rescarch stations, has been huge ly suecessfuJ. However, mainly because of the co ntext in which it evolved and opera tes, its products have in some cases not been adoptecl by, or a re not acccssible to, r esource-poor farmers in dcveloping eountries (Lipton ancl Longhurst, 1989). Decentra lized farmer participatory plant breeding (PPB) has becn d eveloped and promo tecl as a way of improving the serviee a nd delivery of erop improvem enl resear eh to the poorest, most marginalized peoples and areas. Its aims are lo develop locally adapted technologies and distribute them more effectively (technology transfer) and/or to support local eapacily fo r generating su eh teehno logies. The latter aim eneompasses 'empowering' or 'self-help' approaches to rural development (Ashby and S perling, 1994)."},{"index":5,"size":210,"text":"Farmer participatory agricu ltural research-of which PP8 form s a part--emerged during the 1980s as a mean S of better understanding and meeting the needs of poor or marginalized rural people. [n such res earch, farmcrs a re considered to be active participants who may lea d the process a nd whose ideas and views influence its outcome, rather than passive bystan ders or objects of research . Much participatory res earch s eeks to empower local peopIe to develop th eir own solution s to problems. The iss ues raised by s uch research have been extens ive ly reviewed and diseussed (Chambers and Jiggins, 1986;Biggs, 1989;Fax, 1990;Cornwall et a l, 1993;Gubbe ls, 1993;Mosse, 1993Mosse, , 1995;;Okali et al , 1994;Ashby ancI Sperlin g, 1994;Mayoux, 1995;Carney, 1996;Farrington, 1997). The use of farmer participatory rescareh in pla nt breeding has bee n the subject of a number of recent compilations and reviews (de Boef e t al, 1993; Okali et al, 1994;Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga , 1996 ; S perling a nd Loevinsohn, 1996;UPWARD, 1996 ;CIAT, 1997;Veldhuizen et al, 1997; Witcombe e t al, 1996; Witcombe , 1999aWitcombe , , 1999bWitcombe , , 2000a) ) . For a review of PPB per se , see other pape rs in this series."},{"index":6,"size":113,"text":"A distinction s hould be made between PPB an d partici patory varietal selection (PVS), although th e two a pproaches ofte n overlap and borrow or lear n from each other. PVS is real ly a form of PPB, which is the larger of the t\\Vo concepts. WhiJe PPB tends te involve farmers at a11 stages of the research process, farmer involvement in PVS te nds to be somewhat more limited. In PVS, farmcrs playa role in selecting within stabilized m ateria ls already developed ma in ly by forma l researchers and in feedin g back their reactions to those who decide which varieties should be promoted and distribu ted ."},{"index":7,"size":178,"text":". Modern plant biotechnologies have emerged over th e past 2 decades as powerful tools for crop improvement, espt:cially when integrated with proven conventional plant breeding meth ods . For the purposes of this paper, th ey a re held to inelu de both planl molecula r biology techniques and tiss u e cul ture techniques. The plant molecular biology techniques discussed are genomics, marker-assisted selection (MAS). diagnostics, and transgenesis (al so known as genetic transformation, genetic modification , or genetic engineering). The planl tissue culture techniques covered inelude in vitro sclec tion, embryo reseue, and anther culture, as well as clonal thermotherapy and mieropropagation. While biotechnology i5 now often equated in the popular media (e.g. , in Eu rope) with so-called 'genetically modified' food s, the authors wish to stress that only a sub-set of modern biotechnologies result in transgenie produets. Bio technologies which generate products of both a transgenic and a non -transgen ic nature are eonsidered in this paper, but th e paper does not review the pros and cons of genetic modification per se."},{"index":8,"size":561,"text":"Just as farmer participatory research app roaches are diverse, so also plant biotechnologies va ry greatly in their te ehnical complexity and in the resources needed to app ly them. Among the factors that need to be eon sidered in selecting and defining an approach to biotechnology-assisted PPB are: 4 Cost-benefit analyses of alternative research approaches. Several approaches to an agronomic problem may be possiblc , each with different eosts, time-frames, and chances of success. Should biotechnology be the approach of last resort, on ly when a11 other approaches ha ve failed? Or are there situations in which it should be given priority because it can provide the most cost-eITective solution? Who decides whieh approach es are best? The provision of information about biotechnology to farmers. If farme rs are to decide wh ether or not bioteehnology should be used, do they n eed to understand what it is and how it works? How can relevant information regarding biotechno logical options be supplied to them efficiently and objectively? Thc provision of information about farmers to biotechnologists. Ir biotechnologists are to develop products fOT farmers, lhey n eed to know the different needs of different groups of rarrners and h en ce the circurnstances into which those products rnu st fit . They also need a greater understanding of how to deliver biotechnologies to farmers How to implement biotechnology research for non-cornrnercial rnarkcts. There is an urgent need to enable and persuade biotechnologists to conduct research for poorer clients who offer neither research grants nor substantial opportuni ties fOí academic publicatian. The private sector may be involved in finding sorne of the solutions, but prirnary responsibility for proposing and dcvcloping the necessary incentives rests wilh the public sector Risk assessment and biosafety protocols. Whi le biosafety review systems are necessary to regulate the deploymen t of transgenic products, too stringent a syste. m can delay or prcvent farrners' access to biotechnology innovations. So also can the absence of a functional systern In tellectual property considerations. What are the implications of any existing o r planned intellectuar property rights (IPRs) rOí the availability of biotechnologies to resource-poor farmers? Can or should IPRs be claimed for the products of participatory reseaTch? Biotechnology-Assisted Participatory Plant Br eeding: Putting It All Together Biotechnology-assisted PPB is little more than a conccpt at present. Its realization as a widely used research a pproach requircs, first, the successful integration of biotechnology as a new tool in conventional plant breeding, and second , the successful integration of participatory research mcthods with con ventional plant breeding m ethods. Neither of these conditions has ye t been fully meto To enable that to happen, it is essential to understand how each approach-participatory rcsearch methods and biotechnology--can be valuable to forma l or informal (farmer) plan! breedcrs. Over time, many biotechnologies which facilitate plant breeding are likely to bccome more cost-effective (Spillane, 1999). It is conceivable that sorne of the 'downst.ream' ~iote c hnology tools that formal plant breeders are now adopting rnight now or in the future also prove useful to expert farmer-breeders working either by themselves at fleld level or with the support of researchers in a participatory breeding projecL However, this possibility has not yet been pt:0pcrly explore;d. Nor has there becn any exploration of whether new biotcchnologies might be J developed which are tailored specifica1ly for use in PPB."},{"index":9,"size":99,"text":"The integration of participatory research techniques with convcntional .plant breeding is ernbryonic. Howeyer,.it is ,clear t h a~ thc$c techniques can be ap'plied in :problcm transfer'--.the business of 8T:Oiechnology-Assisted PP8: Complemen l or Conlradiction ? relayin g farmers' needs to formal breeders so that the latter will take them into accou nt when setting research priori ties. The techniques have also proved useful as a 'reality check', a llowing breeders to evaluate what they are a lready doing in tenns of its relevance to farmers' needs. This is especially u seful given the long time-frame o[ much breeding rescarch."},{"index":10,"size":65,"text":"The au thors bclicve that biotechnology techniques may have much to contribute to participatory research, and vice versa. Farmer participatory research has in sorne cases generated over-optimistic expectations (Farrington , 1997) . The authors wish to stress that they do not see either participatory research or biotechnology as a panacea for agricu ltural development , rather as additional me thodologies that help salve certain problems."},{"index":11,"size":10,"text":"The Tes t of this paper is organized as follows:"},{"index":12,"size":109,"text":"Chapter 2 looks briefly at existing plant breeding and participatory agricultural research and how these approach es m erge in PPB . It also looks at the 'why' of involving biotechnology when working with farmers Chapter 3 considers how the researchable needs of fanners h ave been ar might be identified and better represented on research agendas Chapter 4 explores how specific biotechnologies might facilitate the proeesses of plant breeding, making research more efficient for the farmer or formal breeder Ch apter 5 looks at sorne plant biotechnology research products lhat correspond to the needs expressed by farmers Chapter 6 briefiy explores social and economic issues surrounding biotechnology-assisted PPB."}]},{"head":"Farmer Participatory Research and Plant Breeding","index":4,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":8,"text":"An Analytical Framework for Farmer Participatory Plant Breeding"},{"index":2,"size":39,"text":"Over the past decade, a numbe r of analyses and reviews of farmer participatory approachcs to plant breeding have been published (de Boefet al, 1993;Okali et al, 1994;Eyzaguirre and lwanaga, 1996;Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1996;UPWARD, 1996;CIAT, 1997;Veldhuizen et al, 1997)."},{"index":3,"size":14,"text":"Thcsc and other works describe the evolution of concepts and practices in this field."},{"index":4,"size":154,"text":"PPB aways involves scientists and farmers, and orten a wide range of other people, including consumers, extensionists, NGO workers , traders, industrialists, rural busi.nessmen and women, and the leaders of cooperativcs or farmers' organizations. These people become coresearchers in that they: (i) help set research goals, decide on priorities, and defi n e specific breeding objectives; (ii) make crosses, screen germplasm entries, and take responsibili ty for adaptive testing; (iii) organize seed multiplication and diffusion; and (iv) grow the crop and use, process, or market the resulting harvest (Spcrling a nd Ashby, 1999) . Key varia bles for analyzing PPB programs inelude the ins ti tutional context, the bio-social environment, the goals sel, ;¡nd the kind of participat.íon achieved, including the divi s ion oC labor and responsibilities (Sperling et al, 2000). CIear description of these variables is important when a project seeks to determine whether and h ow biotechnology can support its work."},{"index":5,"size":190,"text":"A key institutional factor in PPB is th e point of control or decisionmaking. Who decides the objectives, de termines the approach, and specifies what rcsults and data are needed? This will differ depending on whether farmers are invited by researchers to join breeding rcsearch initiated by formal prograrns ('formal-led PPB\" or whether scientists seek lo support farmers' own systems of breeding, varietal selection, and seed multiplication and dissemination ('farmer-Ied PPB1-Formal-led PPB usually has certain distinguishing characteristics. It tends to be strongly linked to formal variety release and seed disscmination systems. It is usu ally re qu ired to provide feedback to the rest of th e formal sector, implying the use of standard experimental design and ana1ysLs. And it is expected to develop and test variet..ies or methods that will be applicable beyond an individual community. In farmer-Ied PPB, farmers bear the main responsibility, and orton the costs, of conducting experiments and selecting and disseminating preferred materials. The objectives are first and foremost local, any broader applicabiJity being fonuitou s. And there is no obligabon to provide information or germplasm to external or formal systems (Sperling et al, 2000)."},{"index":6,"size":230,"text":"Sorne commentators express skeptici sm that 'indigenous' farmer breeding practices can really be found {e.g., P. Richards, pers. comm.}. However. by saving seed and resowing it the following season, many farmers practice what amounts to mass selection of landraces or improved varieties of grain crops. There is sorne evidence that farrners 'rustica te' both hybrids and improved open-pollinated varieties through such practices (Bellón and Brush, 1994;Wood and Lenné, 1997;Louette et al, 1997). D. Duvick (pers. cornm.) notes that the reproductive biology of a crop (Le., whether it is self-or open-pollinated) has a majar bearing on the ease with which farmcrs can conduct plant breeding (in thc sense of recombination follo\\Vcd by selection of u seful genotypes). For instance, saving the seed of an open-pollinated variety of maize does not co nserve the variety as surely as saving the seed of pure lines of wheat or rice, which are self-pollinating. Open-poJl ina ted varieties lose their characteristics if selection is not rigorously mainta ined. Experience suggests that farmers achieve variable results when they try to maintain the quality of open-pollinated varieties. Research in China on the impact and subsequent history of open-pollinated maize varieties developed by the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) (e.g., Song, 1998) sho\\Vs that farmers need support in clcveloping improved selection systems if they are to regenerate deterioratecl open-pollinated varieties (N. Roling, pers. comm.)."},{"index":7,"size":13,"text":"Plant breeding projects typically ¡n elude the following stages (modified from SchneIl, 1982):"},{"index":8,"size":46,"text":"1. Setting breeding objectives 2. Obtaining genetic variation (from collections or farmers' fields, and/or through crossing) 3. Sclecting among variable matcrials, su eh as segregating popuJations from crosses 4. Testing and characterizing the selections (experimental varietiesJ 5. Multiplying and disseminating seed (following regulatory and release procedures)."},{"index":9,"size":40,"text":"Biotechnolagies may havc implications for all of these stages. They may broaden t.he range af objectives that can be considered, making possible an objective that cannat be pursucd through conventional breeding. They may increase the range of genetic variation available."}]},{"head":"Bioteclmology-Assisted PPB: Complement or ContTadiction?","index":5,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":96,"text":"They can enhan cc th e accura cy an d efficiency of selection and testin g. They m ay bring spedal regu latory and marketing conside rations into play. And they can speed up the multiplication and dissemination of new planting material s (Box 1). Co nsequently, farmer participation in biotechnology-assisted plant breeding can certa inly inerease farmers' options, but it also entail s a necd to educa te farmc rs, n ol only about th e o ption s themsclvc s but a1so abo ut th e implicatio ns of choosing a biotcchnology appraach ."},{"index":2,"size":114,"text":"PPB involvcs farmcr participation at various s tages where it has flol been traditional in con ven tional breedi ng, notably in stages 2 and 3. Farmers can a lso participate more fully in stage 1, th eir input to which in th e past h a s oft en been limited lO su rveys of their farming systems. In ad ditio n , they can playa role flot on ly in the ¡a ter but also the earlier pha ses of stage 4, usually the preserve of farmal research ers in the past. In stage S, fa rmers may participate in both the form al an d the informal seed dehve ry system."},{"index":3,"size":50,"text":"Various framewa rks have becn developed for analyzing and eval u ati ng the pa rti cipa tian of cnd u sers or clients in agricultural research (e.g., Paul, 1986;Biggs 1989 ;Okali et al , 1994 ;Farrington, 1995). In practice, three kinds of parti cipation are faund: consultativc Box 1"}]},{"head":"Use or anther culture in participatory rice breeding","index":6,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":26,"text":"Anther culture is a fonn of micropropagation lhat can be used LO spccd up lhe delivcry of improved gra io e ro p materials lo farmers."},{"index":2,"size":93,"text":"A PPB schcme using anthcr culture has beeo proposcd for the di sscminalion of rainfcd rice in eastero India. The scheme involves the use of doubled haploid (DH )line s, which are uniform yet offer a wide range of phenolypic diversity from which farmers can select under lheir own conditions. lt is essentially a modified version of hulk and pcdigree me thods, UUl delivers a wider range of individually uniform progeny to farmers' fields more rapidly (L e ., al lhe F I -F 2 rather than lhe F 4 -F 6 generations)."},{"index":3,"size":54,"text":"The scheme has rhe following stages: Characterization of parents Hybridization and generatíon of F I progeny (20-30 crosses) Production of OH populatíons from Fl or F 2 gen erations , u sing anther cu ltu re Evaluation of DHs by farmers Overall performance assessment Replicated yield trials of the mos t promising DHs ."},{"index":4,"size":27,"text":"Fanners keen to gel access to the seed oC improved crop vaneties qu ick1y should find such a scheme very a ttractive. , Sarkarung et al (1996)."}]},{"head":"SOURCE","index":7,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":46,"text":"(ínConnalion sharíng), collaboratíve (task sharing). and collegía! (sharing responsibility, decision making, and accountability) (adapted from Biggs, 1989;Sperling el al, 2000), The kind oC particípation al each research slage hasa!so been examíned (Farríngton and Martín, 1988;Bíggs, 1989;Sperling el al, 2000), Rationales for Farmer Participation: Product or Process?"},{"index":2,"size":323,"text":"The participation of end users in research (inc1uding plant breeding) can either (i) be a means towards an end (that of improving research products) or (ii) be an end in itself. In the tatter case, which could be caBed the 'process' approach to participation, the emphasis is not so much 00 achieviog defined outcomes as on facilitating a process of empowerment, with the c1ients considered as agents rather than objects (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995;R. Gerster, pers. comm.). In the former case, known as the 'functional approach', the tendency is to focus on a problem and generate solutions-as quickly as possible. In PPB, the functional approach wou1d lead to the end being de lined as the development of better adapted erop varieties more closely tailored to small-scale farmers' needs, whereas the process a pproach would aim to empower farmers to develop the ir skills as pla nt breeders. The functional approach is more common in th e formal prograrns of government, research institutes, and the pri vate sector, while the process approach tends to be more common among non-government organizations (NGOs) working for community development (Farrington and Nelson, 1997), Process or empowering approaches tend to lead to broadly focussed research on a wide range of themes, since the live lihood conslraints identified as research targets through such approaches are rarely sectoror technology-specific (Farrington et al, 1993) and the choice of themes tends to lie more firrnly in the hands of farmers. This has implications for the mechanisms nceded to enable participatory research to intcract with plant biotechnology research, which typically has highly specific objectives. In theory, biotechnology research could support both the functional and the process approaches, but diife rent biotechnologies might be employed and different products would doubtless result, sinee the functional approach tends to lead to more upstream research whereas the process approach more orten avoids this. In praclice, most current biotechnology research is targeted towards efficiency objectives, using a supply-driven approach."},{"index":3,"size":212,"text":"The distinction betwccn functional and empowerment-oriented participatory research may not always be clear cut. Research that begins with functional objectives can over time lead to empowennent as well. Ideal1y, the information generated through participatory methods, and the process o[ generating that information , builds local capacity in planning and organizing activities. An example of this outcome lS the work oC the Unión de Asociaciones de Trabajadores Agricolas, Productores y Procesadores de Yuca (UATAPPYl, a cassava processing cooperative in Ecuador, which survived without external support through 2 years of natural disaster to contribute its own proposals to the design of a recovery plan (Thro et al, 1999b; see Box lO). Farmers' groups organized around commodities, such as cocoa production or cassava processing groups, are more Iikely to become involved in technology developrnent and hcnce in Cunctional or efficiency-oriented participatory research (Healy, 1987). Such groups may find it easier to in te ract with re search institutions that are aIso commodity-based . As Carmers beco me familiar with tbe potential benefits oC research, their mterests may shiCt Crom a process to a Cunc tional approach, as lhey identiCy n eeds lhat might be met through technology dcvelopment. This is especially th e case Cor more market-oriented Carmers' organizations (Tendler, 1994;Collion, 1995;Collion and Rondot, 1998)."},{"index":4,"size":214,"text":"Since most PPB is stiU experimental, it is nat yet clear whether the two approaches differ inherently in terms oC the scaIe on which they can be applied and hence the impact that can be expected Crom them . It may be that smaller projects can be combined to create a mosaic oC community-based activities covering rnuch oC the countrysidc (C. Iglesias, pers. comm.). The scale issuc also has major implications [or the cost-benefit analysis of participatory rescarch. Such research is a lready costly in tcrms of time and other rcsources (Farrington et al, 1993;Farri ngton , 1997) and may become even more so when biotcchnologies are involved. Functional participatory research may be possible on a large scale, but this is less likely to be the case for empowcring research (Farrington, 1997), in which the frequency and inten sity oC contact between participanls and externa! supporters oC the process may be critical. There is a trade-off between the scale of Carmer participation and its depth or intensity. It has been suggested that sorne kinds oC NGO may have a comparative advantagc over state institutions in promoting greater depth of participation (Farrington and Biggs, 1990;Okali et al, 1994). while state institutions may have both the capaeity and the incentive to promote wider participation (Farrington, 1997)."},{"index":5,"size":92,"text":"Since resource-poor farmers operate under a wide range of environmental , social, and eeonomic conditions (Francis, 1986), it is unlikcly that single technical solutions can be developed to suit a11 of them (Ashby and Sperling, 1994;Chambers, 1983Chambers, , 1987)). Plant breeding has been highly successful in devcloping improved erop varieties suitable Cor large arcas (Smale, 1997;D. Duvick, L. Sani nt, pers. comms.). However, many such varieties have also been rejectcd as unsuitable by sorne groups oC Carmcrs (Clawson and Hoy, 1979;Ziegler, 1986). The costs ofthese cases ofnon-adoption can be high (Carr, 1989)."},{"index":6,"size":198,"text":"Resourccpoor Carmcrs are considered more likely to adopt tcchnology ir they are offered a range of prototype products from which to ch oose according to their n eed ~a 'basket o( option s', in lhe words of Chambers (1987)-and which they can tai tor lo their specific circumstances (A shby and Sperting, 1994). The basket may con sist of different plant ideotypes, for example. or diITe ring combinations and levcls of fertilizer or pcsticide applications. This 'prototype dive rsity' approach, which is a lso called 'decentralized technology development' (Biggs, 1995), is considered by ma ny to be th e most cost-effective for meeting the needs of farme rs in co mplex, ri sk-prone environments (Ashby an d Spe rlin g, 1994;Sperling et a t, 1993;Sperlin g a nd Berkowitz, 1994). To create a useful basket of options, researchers must ha ve a relatively good idea of the broad range o( cl ien ts' needs and constra ints al the outset of th e techn ology develop me nt process. These a ims a re best m et through participa tory research that involves Carme rs in both the diagnostic and the technology development stages of the research process."}]},{"head":"Farmer Participation: Upstream versus Downstream Research?","index":8,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":114,"text":"At what points in the research spectrum can fa rm ers or other e nd u sers interact with biotechnologists to ma ke researc h a nd technology deveJopment more client-driven? Calls for clie nt-dríven research te nd to focu s attention and resources on 'downstrearn' applied or adaptive research (Ash by amt Sperling, 1994). Not a ll research can be clientdri ven: basic research to ¡ncrease knowledge is unl ikely to be. Yet in the long term it too confers economíc a d va n tages on lhe countries that fund it (Wong, 1996), because at teast sorne of the knowledge eventually gives rise to new technological options of one kind or another."},{"index":2,"size":146,"text":"For sorne (e.g., J. Lewis, C. Martincz, K. Tarnrnin ga, pers. cornms.). farmers' parlicipa tion is secn as most u seful a t the inilial priority setting and fin al teslÍng stages of research (1 and 4 , a boye); biotechnology research per se, which is usually co nduc ted a t stages 2 a nd 3, does nol require it. According to this school of thought, farmers can have a meaningful input to definíng n eed s and problems, setting priorities, and evaIuating possible research a pproaches, in coll aboration with scientists. Once the rescarch age nd a has been established, much of the upstream and mid-stream research , including bio tec hnology development, can then be co nduc tcd by scientí sts, who retum to farmers only at the end of the research process, to obtain their reactions to th e research produ ct."},{"index":3,"size":123,"text":"Most comme ntators find it diffi cu lt to foresce any meaningful role for farrocrs in laboratory experimentation . I. Potrykus (pers. comm.). for instance, believes that involvi ng farmers in developing molecular markers would be too complicated, at least at the current stage of rescarch . He advocates that farmers' participation in research in vo lv.ing transgenic varieties or MAS should, after initiaI priority setting, resume only whe n the res ults are transferred throu gh breeding to potentially in teresting new varieties. K. Schmidt and K. Tarnminga (pers. comms.) bot h felt that plant breeding cou ld be made more participatory while stiU inc1uding a laboratory phase in which farmers do not participate directly, except perhaps through educational visits and discussions."},{"index":4,"size":133,"text":"Activities at the downstream end of product development are likely to be more amenable ta farrn cr participation . Farmers' organizations are often involved in adaptive resear ch and tcchnology transfer of loffthe-sh eIr technologies (Co pesta ke , 1990;Mercoiret et al, 1990). while typically bcing exc1uded from most strategic and applied research (Bebbington et a l, 1994;Muchagata et a l, 1994). In public-sector research at least, there is typically little involvement of farmers and other end users (or intermediate llsers s u ch as extension agents) in the process by which technoJogies ge t 'onto the shelf in the first pla ce. Indeed, one of the most difficult functions to institutionalize in pu blicsector on-farm research is feedback from the clients or users to upstream researchers (Merri!1 -Sands ~t a l, 1991)."}]},{"head":"Challenges to the Participation oC Resource-Poor Farmers","index":9,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":91,"text":"Much advocacy of participatory development is based on the assumption that the benefits of participatia n outweigh its costs to farmers (Mayoux, 1995;Mosse, 1995). However, time s pent in participation has an opportunity cost to the poor, whose main economic resource is often their time (Sutherland et al, 1998). A vicious circle of exclusion can set in, wherehy poverty and high -ris k livelihoods are two oC the most significant obstacles to poor peoples' participation in activi ties designed to alleviate their poverty and reduce lhe nsk. they face (Fox, 1990)."},{"index":2,"size":196,"text":"One commentator expressed coneern that, all too orten, researchers adopting a participatory approach merely co-opt a token 'partici patory' farmer assistant, at greater cost to the Carmer than grun (P. Richards, pers. comm.). The costs oCparticipation to farmers must be offset by tangible and immediate benefits, over and aboye those obtained by investing th eir time in other activities. Unlcss they perceive th ese benefits, farmers may be unwilling to participate in voluntary projects (Finsterbusch and van Wieklin, 1987). This is ane of th e main limitations of PPB, which typically has a long time-horizon before farrners reap the rewards (Okali et al, 1994;Thro et a l, 1997) . It \\Vil! certainly also be among the chief challenges to biotechnology-assistcd PPB. The first pioneering projects will be particularly afTected, since few biotechnology too15 adapted to farmer participatory rescarch are yet availablc 'on the shelf. The requirement to develop these tools, such as molecular markers for fa rmer-specified traits, will add furth er lo the time-horizon. In the longer term, once the t0015 have been developed, the capacity of biotechnology research to shorten the time-horizon may come into play, making participation once again mOfe attractive to fanners."},{"index":3,"size":101,"text":"The time constraint is as relevant to farmers' organizations as to individual farmers. The viability of many farmers' organizations depends on their capacity to provide members with goods and services in the short termo Consequently, they may be unwiHing to bccome involved in 'upstream' research, even though it might help to meet lheir long-term strategic needs (Bebbington el al, 1994;Muchagata et al, 1994). Farmcrs' organizations usually focus on 'downstream' adaptive research and technology transfcr (Copestake, 1990;Mercoiret et al, 1990). This focus is Iikcly to stecr the attention of client-driven researchers away from basie or long-term strategic rcseareh (Ashby and Sperling, 1994)."},{"index":4,"size":124,"text":"Thc teehnologics most Iikely to be adopted by resouree-poor farmers are those that can deliver inereases in land and labor produeti\\'ily. Resouree-poor farmers eonstantly faee difficult choiees in allocating their labor, shortages ofwhich are especially severe in houscholds headed by women. For the tandless, labor is particularly precious because it is their main or only productive resource. If it is to appea! to farmers, biotechnology-assisted PPB and associated research needs to focus on the development of products or processes that redu ce la bor requirements, especiaUy for the cornrnunity's worst affected groups. In addition, reducing the labor lime and intensity of key activities in plant breeding could be one way in which biotechnologies could conlribute to PPB and make it more attractive to farmers."},{"index":5,"size":189,"text":"Another challenge facing biotechnology-assisted PPB is the gap between formal and informal research cultures. Farmers are no strangers to experimentalion, but their perceptions of and approaches to their experiments are oflen very different from formal scientific methods as deveIoped in the \\Vest (S. Bickersteth, pers. comm.). Scientific methods arc a requircment of most current plant breeding and biotechnology rescarch. Aligning these methods wilh farmers' knowledge systems and praelices in the fietd may be difficult. For instance, participatory approaches to plant pathotogy have been used to understand farmers' perceptions of the key disease constraints affecting bean production in the Great Lakes region of Africa (Trutmann, 1996). The farmers did not recognize individual diseases as such, but saw them as the rcsult of certain types o[ rain. As a result farmers selected against varieties they considered 'susceptible to rain'-a statement that left pathologists none the wiser as to where their research priorities should lie. However, it is possible that the dichotomy of indigenous versus scientific knowledge systems has been overplayed and that it would be more useful to consider how lhe two systems could more effectively complement each other (Agrawal, 1995)."},{"index":6,"size":174,"text":"Lastly, the question of whether or not research will have a lasting impact in the farming cornmunity needs to be addrcssed for biotechnology-assisted PPB as for any kind of agriculturaJ research. To meet this 'sustainabiJity' challenge, the results of research-usuaJly enhanced germplasm-need to be of such a kind that they can either be multiplied and disseminated from the forma l plant breeding program or seed sector o nce the researehers are no longer involved , or renewable over the longer terrn by the farmers the m selves. Hence, 'exit strategies' are important and should be considered at the earIy stages of project formulation (Sutherland et a l, 1998). Indeed, a11 external incentives and benefi ts provided by resea rehers, including biotechnology tools or products, should be eritically cvaluated for whether or not thcy can be accessed, ge nera ted or renewed by farm ers alone in the longer termo This is a con siderati on th at strengthens the case for including an 'empowerment' element in even the most functional typcs of participatory research."},{"index":7,"size":8,"text":"Why Involve Biotechnology in Farmer Participatory Plant Breeding?"},{"index":8,"size":39,"text":"Ad cting biotechnology m ethods to PPB m eans a dding more players, higher costs , extended time-frames (a t first), an d n ew regulatory issues to what is already a challenging form of research. Why do it?"},{"index":9,"size":106,"text":"From a plant breeder's point of view, th e reason is: because biotecnology lools can ¡nc rease genetic gai n . That ¡s, gain in whatever trait or com binat.ion of traits is of interest to the users of the erop u nder research . Any breeder-formal or informa l--con fron tcd with a possible ncw m ethod will in effect ask, How does it h elp obta in genetic gain? To answer this question, researchers have developed the genetic gain equation (Box 2), an an alytical tool for estimating the ben efits of using biolechnology or any other n cw m ethod in plant breeding."},{"index":10,"size":118,"text":"By separating genetic gain into its com ponents a nd quantifying them, form a l breeders can use th e equation to compare different breeding methods for lh e rate and extent of the progress th a t can be expected and fue costs that will be incurred. They can then select th e optimum method for their circumstances. Although fanners work without quantitative analytic tool s, the same components of genctic gain underlie their breeding decisions: genetic variation, phenotypic variation (resulting from interaction of genetic variation with the environment), selcction intensity, and time required for the gain. Generally, all breeders a im to maximize variation and selection intensity, while minimizing time (Fchr, 1987;Sprague an d Eberhardt, 1977)."},{"index":11,"size":96,"text":"An important difference betwecn formal and informal plant breeders lies in their m a nagement of spatial phenotypic variation . A forma l breeding program developing varieties for a la rge target arca will select those with mínimal variation among locations, whereas a farmer whose targel is one small farm or cven one field will seek the varieties th a t do best in that s ite , regardless of their performa nce elsewhere. All BoJe Z Tbe genetic ,aln equatlon breeders, however , lend lo seek to minimize the temporal component of phe notypic variation."},{"index":12,"size":121,"text":"Heritability is the ratio of two of the components of genetic gain fo r a given Lrait: gen otypic variation and phenotypic variation (Lush, 1945;Feldman, 1992). Low heritability characterizes so rne of lhe traits rnost irnportant to rarmers at al1 times and places. such as yield per se, yield stability, cookin g quality, and processing quality. A s ignifican t proporti on of th e va riation in these traits is cau sed by lhe environmen t, so repeated measurcment of the traits across locations and/or years is required to ide ntify desirable genotypes accurate ly. Conversely, traits with high hentability and littic environmental effect require less errort in selection. Stem and nower color are examples of traits with hjgh heritabi1ity."},{"index":13,"size":45,"text":"Any bíotechnology tool ¡ntended to fad l¡tate plant breeding can be evaluated for ¡ts effect on the cornponents of gen etic gaín and on heritability. Although the vocabulary they use may d iffer, both formal and informal plant breeders will ask whether lhe tool can:"},{"index":14,"size":73,"text":"Increase genetic variation (by introducing new tra its or ex te nding the range of variation) Reduce phenotypic variation (or otherwise reduce: the nurnber of locations or years needed to assess the stabil ity of a trait) Increase selection intensity or accuracy Red u ce the amount of time required to complete a cycle of crossing and selection \\ Deliver the results of research (e.g., a varie ly. a plant popuJation) to farmers."},{"index":15,"size":247,"text":"For example, a breeder, whether formal or informal, might ask if biotechnology can offer ways of enhancing the selection process so as to circumvent an age-old problem that has led to the steady redu ction of varietal diversity in farmers' fields: the requirements of both traditional and industrialized agriculture for key marke t traits that often ha ve low and complex heritability (e.g., bread-mak1ng quaJity in wheats) . These requirements Iimit the amount of diversity that can be retained by breeders, bccause the use of crosses with diverse parents to broaden the genetic base of the crop will break up the favorable genetic linkage blocks th a t create the desired market q u a lity (Spillane and Gepts, 2000). The resulting progeny a re unusable , even if tbey have other desirable traits. For example, the red secd color ofbeans required in sorne Central American countries is a highly complex trait that tends to get lost when crosses are made, with the resu lt that many otherwise desirable progeny are unusa ble (S. Beebe, pers. comm .). The preferred cooking quality that limits farmers on Colombia's north coast to one disease-susceptible variety of cassava ís similarly lost in the progeny of crosses (Thro et al, 1997). If biotechnology can increase the precision with which these traits can be handled, many more breeding populations could be moved off th e research station and on to farmers' fields, promoting in situ variation cons iderably (S. Beebe, pers. cornm.)."}]},{"head":"Costs and Benefits oC Biotechnology-Assisted Participatory Plant Breeding","index":10,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":33,"text":"Because biotechnology-assisted PPB wiU require significant invesUnents of time and other resource s from both farmers and biotechnologists, it becomes both importan t and difficult to weigh its costs against its potentiaJ benefits."},{"index":2,"size":104,"text":"ConventionaJ plant breeding has proved highly cost-eITective for sorne cnvironments and farmers. The costs and benefits of PPB and PVS have not yet been comprehensively evaluated (J. Sumberg, pers. comm.;Okali et al, 1994). although studi es are under way and fi. rm results are expected by 2002 (L. Sperling, pers. cornm,). A similar queslion pertains to tbe costs a nd bene fits of plant biotechnology, because of its relative youth as an a pplied science. Even in the developed countries, where extensive biotechnology rescarch is under way, there are many more products in th e pipeline th a n there are in farmers' fields."},{"index":3,"size":68,"text":"Farrncr participa tion in research may not always be absolu tely necessary or represent best vaJue for money (Magrath e t al, 1997) . Sorne cornrnentators noted that, where upstream research is seeking guidance, quicker and cheaper metbods, such as literature review, consultation with local experts, and focussed workshops, may give as good or better results than extensive dialogue between farmers and researchers (A. Sutherland, pers. comm .)."},{"index":4,"size":230,"text":"Participation h as a high opportunity cost for bo th resea rche rs and fa rmers. For farmers, PPB must be worked in alon gside exi s ting crop produc tion activities. The experimental plots are often pa rt of the fa mily's production plots. Any activity that reduces produ ction in eve n a portion of the farm is keenly fe le Farme rs m ay no t wi sh to participate in a project if its be nefits cann ot be reaped in th e s ho rt term ¡Finste rbusch and van Wi cklin , 1987) . S hould pa rtici pating farme rs be co mpe n sated for their time a nd oth er contri bu tio ns? Th ere is no establish ed 'best practice', hut ma ny pracli tione rs agree that providing fa rmers with too many incentives to pa rti cipa te mask s th e cru cial qu cstion ofwhether or oot th e innovatio ns developed a n d tested will be continue to he u sed after th e project h as cndcd . Mos t researc hers , too , lack institutional s upport or fina n ces for participa tory research . Proj ect s w ill requirc time alJocation an d bu dge t lin es for these activities le. Ives, pers . comm .)."}]},{"head":"Needs Assessment and Priority Setting","index":11,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":10,"text":"Why Involve Resource-Poor Farmers in Priority Setting for Biotechnology Research?"},{"index":2,"size":177,"text":"Involving farrners or their organizations in setting research priorities helps ensu re that formal plant breeding develops material that will be in popular demand (Ashby and Sperling, 1994). A relatively small pro porti an of global agricultural biotechnology research is currentIy targetted specifically at the needs or even to the crops of resource-poor fa rmers in developing countries (Spillane, 1999;Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999) Although many resource-poor farmers in developing countries have h eard of biotechnology through the popular press (L. E. Herazo, pers. cornm.), few have a practica! grasp of what it might mean for them or how to access its products and services. Similarly, relatively few of the world's agricultura! biotechnologists have any direct contact with reso urce-poor farrners or cven with other researchcrs working on fa rmer participatory approaches to agricultura! development. Biotcchnology-assisted PPB could help break down this isola tio n , a llowing farmers access to the potential of biotechnology to provide them with u seful innovations. Needs assessmen t and priority setting with farmers are first steps in bridging the gap."},{"index":3,"size":154,"text":"Thcre are numerous variants of and synonyms for participa tory n eeds asscssment methodologies. These include participatory technology developrncnt (PTD). rapid rural appraisal (RRA). pa rticipatory rural appraisal (PRAl. and so on (Chambers, 1983). Even the farming systems research and extension (FS RE) approaches of the 1970s and 1980s h ad elements of a participatory approach in the baseline and systems surveys from which their subsequent component research was derived. In recent years, more rapid and less costly methodologies have been developed (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). Original1y developed for single locations, they have recen Uy been adapted for more extensive use (1. Ouijt,pers. comm.). The COlAR institutes have a long history of promoting participatory approaches, including on •farm research (u sed by virtually all the centers). local research committees developed by CIAT and the farmer back to farmer approach used by the Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) (e.g. , Rhoades and Booth, 1982)."},{"index":4,"size":103,"text":"These methodologies typically look at the constraints and opportunities of c1ifferent sectors of the cornmunity (Mosse, 1993) by gendcr, age, social s tatus, religlOn , ethnic group, livelihood system , and so on, in an attempt to better understand resource allocation, control, and use. Many of them also inelude the development and implementation of 'e mpowering' aetion plans by the eommunity (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). The emphasis of these plans is on local priorities, knowledge, and perspectives (Chambers, 1983) , which are not merely acknowledged but actually forro the basis for aU subsequent research and development (R&D) activities (Chambers, 1983;Chambers and Jiggins, 1986)."},{"index":5,"size":133,"text":"Many cornmentators feel informadon about these methodologies and competeoce in u sing them remain as 'eraft knowledge' in the hands of a relatively small number of social scientists, who become advocates of these approaches (Jiggins and Roling, 1994). Descriptions of specific methods, the skills needed to use them, and documen tation of the contexts in which they have proved useful are circulated largely through informal networks or in the form of 'grey' literature. When research ror this paper began, few bioteehnologists contacted by Lhe authors were aware of participatory approaches or of why or how they might be linked to thern. In the mean time, the partieipatory approach has become better known, but until very recently opportunities for professional contact and dialogue betwee n biotechnologists and farmer participatory research practitioners were almost non-existent."},{"index":6,"size":185,"text":"The result is lhat few participatory tech niques have been adapted for use by biotechnologists, so that they can feed them into their work (Compton, 1997); and there are few recorded instances in which RRAs or PRAs have becn lised to identify Carmers' prioriues and seleetion criteria for the purposes oC biotechnology research (Joshi and Witcombe , 1995;Weltzien et al, 1996). Bu nders et a l (L 996) caBed for greater commitment to shared learning and the creative process of interactive problem solving between farmers and biotechnologists. deveJopment approaches tend to a ssume that al! proble ms can be solved at the locallevel, without any outside assistance. While sorne n eed s can be mel entirely through local activi ties, there wiU always be others that cannat be (Loevinsahn, pers. comm.). Many agricultural problems canool sirnply be 'participated ' out of existence (Compton, 1997). A better u se of participatory methodologies is to a pply t hem objective ly across th e technology s pectrum, allowin g the more widespread development of demand-drive n research tha t m ay or may nol inelude biotechnol ogies."},{"index":7,"size":167,"text":"A n um ber of organ iza tions promoting and developin g m ethodologies for far mer participatory research do so within concepts of 'sustain able' ar 'arganic' agriculture that may nol be open lo the use of moder n b iotech n ologies such as transgeni c orga nisms. Among these a re the In ternationaJ F'ede ration of Organ ic Agriculture Movements (I FOAM), CARE , th e Soulhea st Asia Region al Institu te for Commun ity Edu cation (SEARIC E) a nd the Intermediate Tech noJogy Developme n t Grou p (ITD G) (M. Altieri, pers. comm.). There is no agreemen t on what conslitutes su staina ble a r orga n ic agriculture (e.g., Ngoc Hai, 1998;J. J ones, pers. cornm.) . Sorne argue th a t biotechnology approaches, so ofte n presented a s the a ntithesis of organic approaches, could in fact allow reduced u se of chemical inputs an d sh ould l herefore be classified as organ ic."},{"index":8,"size":80,"text":"A tech nalogy is considered ncutral when its a doption does not change existing social and econornic relations between differen t groups in a cornrnuni ty. How can we dete rmi ne which biotechnologies (and other technologies) are neutra l and which a re not. And how can \\lie predict the irnpact of those tha t are no t? Participatory needs a nd opportun ities assessment can help examine these issues at an early stage of th e research process."},{"index":9,"size":183,"text":"Whose Needs Are Being Assessed? Small-scale farmers can be classified in rna ny di ffcrent ways. Sorne a re share-croppers, others freeholders; sorne farm mainly fo r s u bsistencc, others are mar ket -orientecl; sorne seH only in to loca l marke ts, oth ers to regional or international rnar kets. Other crite ria ror c1 ifferen liation inelude age, gender, wealth ar farrn sizc, ethn ic or religious group, householcls headed by wornen , by single men or by couples who share decision making (L. Chiwona-Karltun, pers. comm.). Within the hausehold, differcnt members have different roles a nd responsibilities, such as work in the field o r in the hou se, food production or the generation of a eash ¡ncome. They may also have different objectives, su eh as livelihood security, high yields, risk aversion, market a ccess, a nd others. Households and their rnem bers can also be classified accard ing to their di ffere nt acccss lo resources and skills. such as water, land, th e labor of other household members, a nd so on (U. Murray, pers cornm.)."},{"index":10,"size":204,"text":"In many cases these groups will have different needs. For exarnple, a participatory needs assessment conducted with farmers by researchers at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) found that the pearl millet harvest index (HI) preferred by small-scale dryland farmers dependent on livestock differed from the HI preferred by larger farmers, who rud not reIy on livestock as much (A. Gupta, pers. comm.). A subsistence farmer may be wiHing to forego a variety with a high yield potential if another variety is more reliable in bad years. A farmer may want several varieties of the same crop: varieties with yield stability, varieties with the family's preferred flavor, high-yielding varieties, varieties with a high value in local or regional markets. Farmers linked to exporters will \\Vant varieties that meet export demands or criteria. Meo and women in the same household often name different attributes of a crop as ranking higher in importance to them (U. Murray, pers. cornm.). Consequently, a fundamental question in participatory needs assessment ¡s, Whose needs are being assessed? A second question follows this first one; What eriteria should be uscd to select farmers or groups of farmers to participate in the research process? (A. Sutherland, pers. comm.)."},{"index":11,"size":93,"text":"Consulting eaeh group, both separatc1y and in interaction with others, will yield maximum information about the range of nceds and hclp ascertain whether thcy can be met through a single research approach or will require completely separate efforts. It will the n be possible to decide which research a pproaches should be given priority, bearing in mind the objectivcs of the project, whieh may be to maximize impact through the development of technology that wilI benefit everyone, or to try to meet th e needs of a smaller, less privileged group or sub-group."},{"index":12,"size":146,"text":"Restrieting participatíon to farmers and formal plant breeders may exclude other relevant actor s (C. Ives, pers. comm.). Needs assessments and priority setting should therefore involve other stakeholders involved in crop productio n, processing, marketing, and consumption. For example, local processors or traders may wísh to specify important quality criteria that determine whether or not they will purchase a crop. The prefercnces of urban consurncrs are also becoming increasingly important, both within a country and when exporting. Especially in countries with a food surplus, consumer issues may have more impact on the use of sorne technologies, particularly transgenie methods, than any technical or cost factor (J. Jiggins, pers. comm.). The poliey makers (or their representatives) who determine the incentives to produce a crap may also need to be included, particular}y if the 'poliey cnvironment' is currently adverse (B. Stockli, C. Ives, J . Lewis, pers. comms.)."},{"index":13,"size":56,"text":"Needs assessmcnt should probably not be done by individual researchers but rather by groups or tearns, allowing different needs to be cornmunicated to those team members with the greates t abi lity to address them. Assessmcnts of this kind carry relativcly high costs, which wou ld need to be budgeted for (e. Ives, pers. cornm .)."},{"index":14,"size":183,"text":"The ¡ncreasing precision of plant biotechnologies can allow the development of products tailored to specific marke ts or groups (M . Loevinsohn, P. Eyzaguirre, pers . comms.). lndecd , the long-term commercial potential of much molecula r m arke r a nd transgenic technology is con sidered to he in the development of valuc-added outpu t traits that will add ress a \\Vide ran ge of specific n eeds or ma rket niches (S himoda, 1998 ). The produ ct differe nti ation that is possible throu gh biotechn ology researeh is evident, for cxamplc, in th e special ty starches ancl oils being developed in crops s uc h as maize, soybea n , an d ra peseed . Sma ll -scale farmcrs in devcloping countries can also benefi t from varictics tai lored for their content of s pecific nutrients, sueh a s vitamins, cssential fa tly aci d s, s ugars, proteins, an d oils, or ror the absen ce of anti-nutritiona l components, such as e ru cic aeíd or nitra tes. Does Biotechnology Require Special Needs Assessment Methods?"},{"index":15,"size":111,"text":"Setting prior ities for biotechnology-assis ted PPB requires crossboundary in tera ction and the s haring of s pecia lized knowled ge. Does this mean th at s pecial p ri ority settin g met hods are n eeded? Opinion s vary widely and there is as yet I¡ ttle experi ence to go on. We h a ve grouped opinions und er t\\Vo broad viewpoints, for and a gRins t (see vi ew points A and B below). The debate on this subject m ay provide op portu nities to deve Iop belter procedures for participatory needs asscssment a nd priority setting in general (de Ka then, pe rs. comm.)."}]},{"head":"Viewpotnt A: Special methods are not required","index":12,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":90,"text":"The ma in argument aga in st t he need ror special priori ty-setti ng m ethods when biotech nology is one of the research options is that farrocrs ' needs rernain the sarne irrespective of the kind of research or technology that is applied lo meeting them (M. A. Jorge, J. Lcwis, pers. comm s. ). Diffe ren ces among s ub-grou ps wi th in a farming cornmunity require more attention at thi s point than the tool-box of technologies that may or may not be u sed."},{"index":2,"size":198,"text":"One coneern is that including biotechnology as a possible oplion in the early stages of needs assessm en t may e licit calls for biotechnology interventions when less expensive or more fa miliar approach es rnight achievc the same objective. Needs assessment exercises typically iden tify a range of n eeds, whose solutions may require anything from . plant breedi ng to road building. Adjustmen ts to n a lional or inter na ti onal poliey may be as important as technology in providing solutions. Onlya sub-set ofneeds may require a research approach, whether local or external. Far example, a project in eastem Kenya identified 16 diíferent possible research approaches that could be used to address a range of problcms related to hausehold food security (Sutherland el al, 1998;Kang'ara et al, 1997). Only after needs have bec n identified and if plant breeding is found necessary d oes the questian arise as to whether biotechnology m ay afIer advantages as part of the breeding approach. (Sorne commentators a lso feel lhal only at that point is it time to consider whether a partici pa tory approach will be advantageous in the research phase, e.g., L. Sanint, pers. comm.)."}]},{"head":"Viewpoint B : Special methods are required","index":13,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":73,"text":"To parücipate in decisions related to biotet:hnology, farmer s need sorne knowledge about it. Collaborative or farm e r-led d ecisions about whether or nol to u se biotechnology require that farmers and researchers un ders land eac h other's vocabulary and typologies, and have at least a rudimentary grasp of the areas in which the other is cxperl. Consequently, priority settin g wh en biotechnology is a n opLion has unique requirements."},{"index":2,"size":178,"text":"If sorne biotechnologies offer brceders options th a t were previously inconceivablc to them, needs assessmcnts that avoid discussion of research a pproaches may ignore these option s. Con versely, if farmers choose products tha t imply the u se of biotcchnologies but r emain unaware that they are doing so, they m ay also fail to a ppreciate the other implications (hat biotechnology m ay h ave fo r the outcome of the researc h process (biosafety co n siderations, research time and cost implica ti ons , and so on). If these shortcomings a re not recognized and dealt with , it may be because of an implicit assumption that farmers exhibit no preferences for one technologieal approach over anolher, or that they s hould be the passive objects of technological priorilization by other decision makers or interest groups. Farmers familia r with the debate on biosafe ty issues may become concerned if they learn accidenta lly or from sources other than th e PPB program that bioteehnology solutions are an option under consideration by researchers."},{"index":3,"size":117,"text":"The ab ility of biotechnology lo allow the development of enLirely new tra its and plant types implies lhat farmers and researchers m ay need to participa te in brainstorming or sorne othe r activity designed to identify these new options, wh ich may represent opportunities rather than m ere solutions to existing problems. Methods are needed that go beyo nd 'wish lists' to the realm of the entirely new departure or venture (such as adding value to cassava through the syn thesis of plasties precursors in the plants' roots). These methods may be considcred exploitative by purists, but they may also expose res ource-poor farmers to new sources of income and new routes out of poverty."},{"index":4,"size":121,"text":"The cha ll enge is how to inform farmers about biotechnology options withou t influencing th em towa rds the choice of such options and withou t raising false expectations lhat products \\ViII be easy to develop when they may not be. (Sorne forrn s of biotcchnology research are lo nge r term and less certain of technical success than others.) Conversely, when participatory r esearch practitioners do not inform fa rm ers abou t a11 the a va ilable technological optio n s , they may be accused of biasi n g th e outcorne of the needs a ssessrnent process by deli bcrately kee ping cer tai n technological options off th e a genda (Lu k es, 1974)."},{"index":5,"size":159,"text":"How to supply intelligible, rele van t info rmation abou t biotechnology to farmers objective ly is no t irnmedia tely evide n t. The more marginalized or poorer farme rs are, the greater the challenge posed by the information gap. CBN and th e Dutch Ministry for Developmcnt Cooperation (DGIS) have experimen tcd with ways of cl osing it. A possible method for presentin g alterna tivc tcchnology approach es to farmers ha s also been developed through work on the establishment of small-scale micro-cnterprises su pported by the German Bundcsministerium fü r Zusammenarheit (B MZ) and GeseUschaft für Tech nische Zusa mmenarbcit (OTZ). This method wa s origi nally developed lO h el p farmers visu a lize an d com pare potential n ew products from their farms (Ostertag an cl Gracia, 1997; R. Best, J. Ashby, pers. comms.). These efforts are only a begi nnin g, however, a nd much more work is needed ."},{"index":6,"size":56,"text":"The au thors kn ow of li ttlc experience in n eed s a ssessmen t or priority sctting with resourcc-poor farmers specifically fo r the purpose of biotechnology rescarch. Two groups with sorne experience a re CB N an d th e DO IS Specia l Prograrnme fo r Biotechn ology and Developmen t Cooperalion."},{"index":7,"size":74,"text":"Wh en CBN began priority seltin g for far mer-oriented biotechnology research in 1988, it firs t consulted national ru~d international scientists experl in cassava production and processing. This provided global coverage and was rap id and re1a tively inexpensive. Howeve r , it was reaJ ized th at the results were conditioned by th e perceptiveness and imagination of th e scientists and limited by the la ck of in teraction with farmers."},{"index":8,"size":95,"text":"In 1992, in search of direct interac lion with farmers, CBN turned to rapid participatory needs assessment methods, which it appli ed in several cou ntries (Henry and Howe1cr, 1995;Thro et al, 1994Thro et al, , 1997)). In each counlry, farmers were visited in their fields and villages over a 1-to 4-week period and asked about their experiences, opinions, and wishes concerning their eassava erop. Al this stage, no rcferen ces \\Vere made to the technologies that could be u sed to deve10p solutions tú problcms. The priorities that emerged fr om thesc exercises \\Vere:"},{"index":9,"size":26,"text":"In Ta nzania: drought toleranee , cooking qua li ty, inseet resistan ce, nutritionaJ vaJue, and cyanogenesis (safe ty). a ll combin ed with high yield"},{"index":10,"size":82,"text":"In southeast China: high yield , and traits con tribu ting to 10\\V production eosts and high market value [n north em Colom b ia: disease resistan ce coupled wit h lraditional cooking qu a lity, h igh yield , insect resista n ce , an d post -h a rvest k eeping quali ties In Ugan da: resistance to Afri can cassava mosaie disease, combined wi th locaJly desi red pla n t typc and cooking an d market q ualities."},{"index":11,"size":102,"text":"Of th e priori ti es th a t CBN h ad identificd ea rl ie r throu gh its con su lta ti on s wi th researchers, sorne (e .g. , h eallhy p la ntin g mate ri a l and viru s rcsis tan ce) we re corrobora ted by the ra r rner participatory exe rcise. Othe rs (e .g., cyanogenesis) \\Vere see n somewha t d iITere ntly when th e fa rmers were involved. An d in sorn e cases, e n tire ly n ew pri ori lies we re reveated. For exa mple:"},{"index":12,"size":661,"text":"Cyanoge ne sis: new inrorma lion from th e participatory exercise revealed th a t toxic cassava is deliberately used by rarm ers in so rn e areas, despile the risks an d high labor demands for processing noted by research ers. As a resull of the exercise, lhe scope of research was expa n ded lo inelude an e ITort to u nderstand the ecological role of cyan ogen s in cassava, togcth er wilh lh e developrne nt of n ew pla nt types. The la ller con sistcd of plants in whi ch cyanogens a re expressed o nly al ce rtai n ti mes or in certain tissues, an d plan ts with s u bs ti tute com poun ds that a re not toxi c to hurna n s. Toxin-free va rieties, lhe ori gi na l research priority, rem a ined a n o bjective for s pecific a reas. Cassava bacteria! blight (CSS): beca u se resea rch ha ct s hown tha t CSS can be controlled by cultural practi ces, resis tan ce h a d n ot been con s idered a priority for gcn etic irnprovemen t. The pa rtici palory exercise revealed lha t in sorne situa lion s-sh a recroppin g, for example-farmers do not con trol lheir la nd from one cropping cycle to th e n ex t a re therefore un ab le to im plern ent recornme nded cultural practices. Gen etic resistan ce is thei r only h ope of co n trolling yield losses. Resear ch is n ow being condu cled on h ost-pa thogen relationships a n d th e mechanisrns govern in g s u sceptibility and resista nce, on m olecul ar rna rkers for resista nee, a nd on th e development of tra n sgenic resis ta nt varieties. Cooking qu al ity: priority settin g with fa rmers revealed many cases in which fa rme rs wouId like plan ts wi lh n ew traits, but only if th ese can be combined with the desired cookin g qu ality, which is gen erallya complex, quan titative trait. Mee ting this n eed requires the development of molecular marke rs for cooking quality. A proposal for research on this su bjecl is pen d ing, Sometimes, the specd with which farmers can obtain ncw material s lurns out to be more important to them th a n the highpriori ty traits they h ave identified. For cxample, cassava farmers in Colombia requested varieties having locally preferred cooking qualities combined with resista n ce to bacterial blight, their number one disease priority, a nd to stem borers, an inseet pest with lower but n evertheless signficant priority. Because cooking qual ity is a complex trait with low h eritabili ty, this combina tion h ad preved unobtain able using conve n tional breeding. After heari ng the fa rmers' views, research er s presented two options: the fi rst was lo use MAS followed by tra ditional breeding to combine cooking qu a lity with bacterial blight re sistance , wh il e the second was to deve lop a transge nic variety with inseet resistance only. The research er s might havc prefe rred th e MAS option, wh ich wou ld h ave y ielded new infor matio n an d m aterials fro m which to d evclop n ew varieties. However, the fa rm ers unh esitatingly chose the tra n sgen ic optio n , evcn though the r esulting product would not mce t their top priority. They ch ose this op tion becau se, at that time, ir seemed th e faster and the more cer ta m to lea d to the desired outcom e. Their choice overturned mon th s of careful participatory priority settin g following all thc orthodox recommended procedures ('fhro et al, 1997)."},{"index":13,"size":13,"text":"How Much Interaction Is Neces sary to De t erm in e Priorities?"},{"index":14,"size":121,"text":"Despite th eir cost advantages, rapid participatory n eeds assess ment me th ods in evitably provide only a s u perficial 'sn apshot' of a farming system. As such they may reflec t far mer s ' preoccupations at the time of the survey, but [a il to capture ch a ngin g needs over time. The priorities identified by farmcrs often rerIect recen t expe rience. For cxample, cassava farme rs in Tan zan ia, \\Vho had opted fOT re sistance to mcaly bug as th eir p riority, switched to drought tolerance when a new survey was carried out in a dry year ('fh ro et al, 1994). Changing market opportunilies may also alter farmers ' prioriti es."},{"index":15,"size":124,"text":"Thcse methods also fa ll s hort of providing the farmers ' fuIl perspecti ve on potential solutio ns to problems. For example, in the CBN exercise, farm ers in Tanzania identified 'poor soil fertility' as a problem in cassava cultiva ti on (Thro et al, 1994) . Wh at is th e best a pproach lo overcoming th at problem? Applying eommereial fertilizer or a n im al manure? Switching to crops more lole rant of poor s oils? Or tran sge nic a pproaches d esigned lo improve our underslanding of nu trien t use efficiency as a basis for breeding superior varieties? Further d iseu ssions with farmers and experienced nalional program staff are n ced ed to answer these questions."},{"index":16,"size":129,"text":"In another example, a 1987 survey of \\\\lomen farmers in Malawi ra nked the following criteria, in desce nding orde r, as most important for th eir sclection of bean varieties: (i) yield, (ii) taste , (iü) eooking quality, (iv) m a rketability, (v) d ate o[matu rity, (vi) health-rela ted issues, (vii) in sect and disease resistance, and (viii) ability to withstand environmental stresses (Ferguson et al, 1997). But is such information specific enough to guide biotechnology or breeding rcscarch ? This is a key issue that should be addressed when training research ers in farrner participatory techniques. It is also worth noting that farmers' knowledge of the underlyi ng biology of their farming systems may be limi ted, as also may that of outside rcscarchers rrrutmann, 1996)."},{"index":17,"size":245,"text":"AH this m ean s that neec!s assessme n t will neec! to be continuous, or at least periodic, ra th er than a one-stop s hop. To provide opportunities for extended dialogue between researchers, farmers, and the public, DGIS has used the paniclpatory technology developmcnt (PTD) meth od (ETC, 1992;ILEIA, 1989) ancllhe 'bottom-up a pproac h ' (Bunders and Broerse,199 1). 80th a pproaches were tcsted in Kenya, India, Colombia, and Zimbabwe th rough the DGIS Special Prograrnrne on Bioteehnology a nd Developrncnt Cooperation. With ¡ts emphasis on participalOI)' dialogue, this program seeks lo go beyond RRA/PRA methods to define the optimum approach or techn ology that rnight be applied. In each cou ntry, biotechnology options were introdueed and discu ssed with farmcrs, after whieh priorities were set. The process, which took 2-4 years, involved farm visits, reporlS, an d rneetings a l which farmers, researchers, policy makers, and the general public were all widely represented. The crop improvement priori tic s determined to dale are: Kenya: high -quality planting materials of specific crops; inereased legume production via rhizobi al and mycorrhizal inocula; pest and discase resistence in maize; high yicld combined with drought tolerance in a11 erops Zimba bwe: drought tolerance and insect resistanee in s pecifie erops, particu larly maize Colombia: hi gh -qu ality di scase-free plantíng ma terial of s pecific crops; and disease and pest resis tance combined with de si rabie processing and cooking quali ty in cassava."},{"index":18,"size":101,"text":"CBN took a difTerent approach . Instead of initiating an independenl dialogue with farmers, it developed links with existing panicipatory projects whieh already had sueh dialogues. Thesc projects eovered intcgrated pest ma nagement (IPM) in nonh-easte rn Brazil a nd West Afriea, in tegrated erop m anageme n t in five Southeast Asian countries, and huma n health in Mozarnbique. Links were a lso forged with sorne essential participants not represented in thc projects, including biotechnologists, research directors, and poliey makers, who were brough t in through mechanisms s uch as site visits to the projects and CBN's biennial technieal meetings."},{"index":19,"size":115,"text":"The advantages of the CBN approach were (i) the relatively low a ddition a l investment required; (ii) the opportunities to create dialogue between farmers, bioteehnologists , and a pplied researchers in a problem-solving context, and (iii) maximum use of comparative advantages of each spedalization . Dialogue in problem-solving conlexts has proved especial1y fruitfu l, since it can be tightly focussed on what is practical1y achievable. For example, farmers and researchers in Brazil and Colombia are currently devcloping descriptions of cassa va quality preferences (W. F'ukuda, C. Iglesias, pers. comms.) to h elp national and CIAT brecders and biotechnologists retain locally preferred qualities wh en breeding for yiel d, drought tolerance, and other tra its."},{"index":20,"size":96,"text":"After 5 years of work with far mers, CBN in vited eigh t reprcsentatives of resource-poor cassava farmers and processors to attend a meeti n g with biotechnologists, other researchers, and representatives [rom other cassava stakeho lders in La tin America, incl uding industrial processors. A farme rs-only session was arranged the day before the fu ll meeting. Following a half-day briefing on biotech nology method s, the farmer representa tives together discussed the ir needs and prepa red a statement of their views (Box 3) for the su bsequ en t interdisci plinary mee ting."},{"index":21,"size":106,"text":"The priorities subsequently agreed on by the full meeting we re similar, though not identical, to the li st initiaUy presented by th e farmers. Planting material was in first pla ce on both lists. Marked differences between lhe fu ll group a nd th e farme r sub-group were the priority afforded lo drought tolera nce and to how varieties fi t into cropping systems, whi ch carne high on the farmers' list and lower on the plenary list. (A subsequent meeting of Latin American cassava researchers added the conservation and characterization of cassava genetic resources, whi ch they considered fundamental to all other objectives.)"},{"index":22,"size":10,"text":"How Can Resource-Poor Farmers' Needs Be Translated Into Research Activities?"}]},{"head":"Effective problem transfer","index":14,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":125,"text":"Between participatory priority setting a nd research implementation lie the hurdles of prob1cm transfer (Jefferson, 1993a(Jefferson, , 1993b) ) and control over research decisions. The term 'problem transfer' cxpresses the idea that problems identified in participatory prio rity setting must not only be communicated to biotechnology researchers but also taken up by them in their research proposals and fu n ding requests, leading to 'shared oYo'nership' of the problem. Sorne commentators feel that problem transfer may be more of a constraint than technology transfer in the development and delivery of technologics taHorcd to the necds of resource-poor farmcrs (Jcfferson, 1993a(Jcfferson, , 1993b)). Merrill-Sands el al (1991) argue that institutionalizing feedback from clients or users to upstream researchers is especial1y difficu lt in public-sector agricultural rescarch."}]},{"head":"Needs Assessment all.d Priori1y Settíng","index":15,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Box3","index":16,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":29,"text":"LatiD American Carmen' recommeDdationa lo CBN Oiven on 17 March 1998, Pirinopolis, Brazil by representatives oC associations oC small-scaJe producers and pro<:essors oC cassava Crom Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador:"},{"index":2,"size":80,"text":"Group A: Most important recommendations rdentiCy {he most urgent problems (see below C or examples) Work on topies oC highest importance and irnmewate urgency, in 'PP' (practica! and participatory) projects Seek more opportunities Cor collaboration be tween biotechnologists, applied researchers, and Canners: 'together from the gene to the market' Work at the locaIlevel to: ti) sensitize farmers, technicaJ personnel, and all those ¡nvolved in the cassava sector; (ii) identiCy, publicize, and respond to local problems (iü) using locally avaHable materials."},{"index":3,"size":71,"text":"Group B: Also desirable Prioritize technologies and knowledge that can help solve problems now, while rccognizing that better technologies may come in the future Add value in cassava processing systems. Topies to be covered inelude altemative uses of waste products that will add directly to foad security and reduce contamination levels (e.g. fish culture using waste water). Participatory biotechnology-assisted research should take jnto account the whole system oC the local producer."}]},{"head":"Group C: Other useful initiatives -Training in relevant tcchnologics","index":17,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":8,"text":"InIonnation about biotechnology and its advantages and disadvantages."},{"index":2,"size":7,"text":"Examptes of urgent (Group Al probtems ¡nelude:"},{"index":3,"size":7,"text":"(i) Common problems identified by aH participants:"},{"index":4,"size":11,"text":"-Drought, planting material s, credit, markets. (iil Problems oC specific locations:"},{"index":5,"size":24,"text":"Northeast Brazi1: root rots, cassava green mite Northem Colombia: perishability, bacterial blight, frogskin virus, insecls Manabi, Ecuador: water quality ror processing, waste water management."},{"index":6,"size":145,"text":"In many cases, biotechnology research is sull ool considered a realistic oplion in the communication oC mosl needs assessments lo researchers. The results of assessments are typically communicated to agronomists, extensionists, even IPM s pecialists-bu t seldom lo biotechnologists. How can problem transfer to the biotechnology community be improved ? It is not rea listic to condu cl needs assessments and lhen expect sorne scientist, somewhere, to take on a technology developrnent or disseminatio n role spontaneously. There is a real danger lhat needs will constantly be reassessed and never aClually rnel, since no one is prepared lO take responsibility for doing so. Institutional frameworks that separa te needs assessment from extension and extension from technology supply and development are likely to be ineffective (Sutherland et al, 1998). Yet most public-sector plant biotechnology research is separated in just this way from extension and needs assessment."}]},{"head":"Who decides what research is funded?","index":18,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":63,"text":"ProbJems have to be transferred nal just to upstream researchers but also to th e agencie s that fund them (and to the individu als who advise the agencies). Can the participatory process rcach back this far? If partici patory priority settin g is to do more than educate researchers and ra is e farmer expectations, attcnlion must be paid to these links."},{"index":2,"size":116,"text":"The agencies themselves can do much to ensure that the needs and priorities ideotified through farmer parlicipatory priority setting are translated into research. They can a ctively seek biotechnology projects for funding which are firmly based 00 addressing needs 'as iden ti fied by farmers'. Rescarchers find it casier to generate technology-driven project proposa ls than demand-driven ones, so if demand-driven projects a re not a ctively sought it lS highly likely that they will be , or at least seem to be, in the minority. Funding exc1usively technoIogy-driven proposals can only widen the gaps bctwecn biotechnologists, small-scale farmers, and the public, a s the recent public rcla tions problems of seve ra! private-sector companies show."},{"index":3,"size":105,"text":"The originators of participatory needs assessment ¡ntended it to differ from conventional methods, not only in the quality of information provid cd but also in terms of shifting the balance of power in research planning. Questions of power make a r eal diffcrence in determining the outcornc of the planning process (Lukes, 1974;A. Sutherland, pcrs. cornm.). In most cases, research follow-up on priority setting remains an external decision, dependent on actors other than the farme rs. The DGIS has gone further than most agencies in putting dec isions into farmers' hands. But even in these programs, the final 'green light' rests with the funding agency."}]},{"head":"Interdtsctplinartty and the dtviston of labor","index":19,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":140,"text":"Like all skills, participatory research cannot be done well without training and practice (Farrington. 1997;Hagmann et al, 1998). Yet few plant breedcrs and biotechnologists have trained in, or had an opportunity to practise, participatory research methods. If al! specialized biological scientists were to conduct participatory research to identify needs in which their spccialization might make a difTerence, this would be wasteful, because it wouId n egate the comparative advantages due to research specialization (O. Henshaw, pers. comm.). Yet if biotechnologists do not get involved in needs assessment, they lay themselves open to the accusation of being 'remote from the needs of the farmer'. From there it is but a stcp to the widely held opinion that biotechnology has nothing to offer resource-poor farmers. This merely perpetuates the existing failure to cornmunicate fue results of needs assessments lO biotechnologists: why bother?"},{"index":2,"size":57,"text":"Interdisciplinary collaboration between 'upstream'biotechnologists or other specialists and 'downstream' on-farro participatory researchers probably offers the best way fonvard . It may well be more effective to involve upstream researchers through better coromunication than by trying make thern come out of the laboratory to enter directly into the participatory research processes. Other rescarchers may be better at this."},{"index":3,"size":77,"text":"A critical mass of interdisciplinary researchers organized as a tcarn or in a decentralized network may be the most efficient approach (Cornpton, 1997). The capacity for such work exists only in a few research ins titutions, such as the COlAR centers. Sorne cornmentators have suggesled that certain tcams could serve as go-betweens for laboratories and farmers and as fora for interdisciplinary cornrnunication and research planning (O. Henshaw, pers. comm.). Thcse fora or tearos could serve multiple functions:"},{"index":4,"size":97,"text":"Collection, synthesis, debate, and dissemination of expcriences and information re1ating to best participatory praclices and farmers' needs, for and to the broader research cornmunity Continuous opportunities for ¡nteraction between farrn -L evel programs and laboratory scientists to assess necds and weigh altemati ve research approaches A platform from which farmers and researchers can together inform and influence the broader research community, public opinion, and fundi ng sources (this is being done by sorne NOOs working exclusively with traditional technologies) In sorne sítuations, a contact point for farmer representatives in charge of community funds for re search ."},{"index":5,"size":82,"text":"An interdisciplinary teaffi that served as a more or less stable link between downstream and upstream re search would have access to biotechnologists with differcnt speciaJizations, to whom would be circulated th e range of problems identificd through participatory research with fa rmers. These biotechnologists could then involve themselves and their colleagues according to their comparative adva ntage. This approach could providc continuity of attention and in te raction, while alleviating the time-drain on individual farmers, biotechnologis ts, and other resource persons."},{"index":6,"size":156,"text":"In the long ron there may be an opportunity to re-design institutions by creating structures in which participatory priority setting is linked to research planning and financing in ways that change internal accountability. This may be more effectlve than ttying to a chieve responsive resea rch by persuasion (P. Richards, A. Gupta, pers. cornms.) or by the example of a few s pecia l projects. Many commen tators pointed to the isolating efTect of cllrrent institutiona1 arrangements, suggesting a wides pread necd for , an d a growing accepta nce of, a resea rch environment that a ctively promotes farmer con tact an d research re sponsiven ess (M. Altman n , M. A. Jorge, pcrs. comms.). I-Iowever, althou gh in stilutions can change, th ey tend to so only slowly, even in respo n se to crisis . More inter im solutions, s uch a s task-dedicated interdisci plinary teams, ar e therefo re nceded."}]},{"head":"Research agendas","index":20,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":105,"text":"It has becn said th a t a difficul ty with the uptakc of resource-poor farmers' priorities by the bio tech nology rescarch cornmunity is ofte n not that needs cannot bc s uffi ciently generalized to m ake biotechnology m vestment practical but that m ost biotech nologists continue with a prc-determ in ed agend a regardless of needs assess ment exercises (S . Bickersteth, pers. cornm .) . Oflen, however , an agen da th a l may be labelled 'pre-determined ' s imply refie cts institu tional circuffi stances that fa vor other u ses fo r extrem ely lim ited funds."},{"index":2,"size":148,"text":"Th rou ghout the public sector, most needs asses sment wi th resou ree-poor farmers is institu tiona lly separated fro m biotechnology research planni n g a nd , especiaJly, fin ancing (S utherland e l a l, 1998). In the pri vate sector, R&D fund s a re al located whercve r it is thou ght they will gencra te the bes t re turn on investment. The DGIS has made an explicit attem pt to link participatory priori ty setting LO rcseareh plan ning and fi nan ci ng, through an advance budget al location to its country program s for the collaborative developmen t an d implemen tation of projects based on farmers' prio riti es. Simila rly, DG IS provided a budget for com peti tive 'seed money' grants for proj ects to fo llow up CBN's parti cipato ry priority setti ng."},{"index":3,"size":163,"text":"Mo st biotcchnologis ts specialize in one or a few topies a nd are t hu s a highly differentiated group regardi ng resea rch objectives a nd agendas. The more specia lized a research er , !he stronger th e costben efit implications th a t prevent him or h er from takin g on a new ar ea of research . The 'rescarch topic inelasticity' of many re searchers mean s that involvin g a 'toke n ' biotcchnologisl in a team in lending to use a needs assess mcnt to develop a more releva nt resea rch agenda may be less effective than having a cecs s to a 'portfolio' of biotcch nogisls with differe nt spcciaJizations. CBN's expcriences demonstrate lhat linking a broad range of complernenta ry ancl networ ked biotechnology experti se to far m-Ievel necds asscssments can play a u seful part in priority setting and the trans fer of identified problems to lhe most relevant researchers."}]},{"head":"Incentives far scientists","index":21,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":32,"text":"Simply attaching a socio-economist or a biotechnologist to a team does not necessarily make it interdisciplinary (e.g., Ma. 'CWell, 1984;Horton, 1984). Appropriate incentives to work in this way must be in place."},{"index":2,"size":127,"text":"Many scientists whose professional rewards depend on scientific accuraey, acadcmic publications, and access to grants tend to a void involvement in farmer participatory research because the los5 of control over re5earch variables may jeopardize pu blications and other measures of professional suceess (Baker, 1991). Few pu blic-sector agrieultural researeh institutes have incentive systems which reward teamwork or those scientists who meet the needs of clients (Collion and Rondot, 1998). The adoption rates of erop varieties by farmers and olher indicators of client satisfaction with the products of erop improvement research are valid research variables (Farrington, 1994), but data on them only become available long after the research has been done. Innovative ways are nceded oC using such data tO 'construct reward systems for scientists ¡nvolved in PPB."},{"index":3,"size":8,"text":"Can pri.ortties expressed by farmers be sufficiently generalized?"},{"index":4,"size":106,"text":"The authors have argued that biotechnology can provide useful tools to help PPB address site-specific and differentiated target group needs. Sorne commentators (J. Jigge ns, S. Beebe, pers. cornms.) have pointed to thc problems associated with seeking to identify generalized research objectives for PPB. This can be seen as tantamount to prejudging the needs of farmers in locations other than that in which the research is being conducted-precisely the opposite of the undcrlying philosophy of participatory research (J. Jiggens, pers. comm.). Sut if needs are interpreted as purely location-specific, the broad applicability that justifies investment in research to meet them 1S lost (S. Beebe, pers. comm.)."},{"index":5,"size":79,"text":"Few laboratories will be able to devole resources to projects with results that will be only narrowly applicable. If, by working together, farmers, professionals in plant breeding, and experts in participatory research and the social sciences can define valid large-scale objeetives, participation by laboratories becomes much more likcly. The link to a specific loealion need not be 10st; in fact it becomes, for the laboratory, the model system in which the real-world applicability of the innovation can be tested."},{"index":6,"size":86,"text":"One principie for involving upstream laboratories wiU be to link them to projects that extend all the way to the local level, including participatory activities with farmers. Dn-site collaborators in PPB projects, including farmers and professional breeders from nationaL or international programs, will be vital in lhe process of adapting upstream innovations to local germplasm requirements, praetices, and systems, and feeding informaban back to the laboratory on what works. The se collaborators will also playa vital role in analyzing whether the project can scale up successfully."},{"index":7,"size":141,"text":"A generalized list of priorities would, then, be helpful in harnessing limited global biotech nology capacity cost-effectively in the interests of resource-poor farmers. In biotechnology il is often the case that an approach to solving a problem, once d evelo ped. can be transferred to other varieties or species. In these circu msta nces a generalized list mi ght be especially u sefu l. Such lists can be tentatively drawn up o n the basis of corn mon features in the res ults of Ule participatory nceds assessments so far carried out. For exarnp le , the DG IS found common priorities arno ng farm ers in different countries for planting material , yie ld , drought tolerance, disease resistance and quality characteri stics. Similar re sults were obtained from CBN's needs assessmenl with fa rmers over 5 years (Box 4)."},{"index":8,"size":67,"text":"Findings on needs in these biotechnology-specific priority-setting excrcises are similar to the needs and priorities identified through othcr participatory exercises. For example, the priorities identifi ed for phaseolu s beans in Malawi included yield, cooking quality. maturity. and yie ld sta bili ty. Thus, for most crops, a list similar to the follo wmg generaJized list of resource ~poor farme rs' priorities mi ght ulti.mate ly emerge:"},{"index":9,"size":40,"text":"Yie ld stability (generalLy via toleran ce of stresses such as drought, flood, saJi nity, toxic or deficient soil rninerals) Mul ti ple disease andjor pe st resistancc Suitab ility for the cropping system (flexibili ty, roaturity, crop architecture, etc.)"}]},{"head":"Box4","index":22,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Summary of cassava farmers' concerns expressed to CBN","index":23,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":30,"text":"Sub-Saharan Africa (food security) Planting material. viru s resistance, ¡nseet res istanee, drought toleranee, cooking quah ty with high yield, cyanogenesis management (hu man health) Improved products, markets and prices."},{"index":2,"size":7,"text":"Soulheast Asia (cash crop on non-rice soils)"},{"index":3,"size":21,"text":"• Markets, prices (for starch and new prod uctsl, cyanogenesis management • Yield per se. production costs including labor. acid soillolerance."},{"index":4,"size":7,"text":"Tropical Americas (food security and cash erop)"},{"index":5,"size":30,"text":"Planting material (quantity, quality, storage life) Yield per se Processing and marketing qualities and n ew or improved products Nutritional value, taste, appearance Reduced labor requirement [or cultivation or processing."},{"index":6,"size":160,"text":"A biotcchnology laboratory wishing to con tribute to resource-poor farming in developing countries might examine this list [or topics related lO ¡ts expertise. However, although such a list can be produced ror u se as a first step in planning, it is only a first step a nd too general for the purpose of developing colla borative projects. Biotcchnology research [or resource-poor farmers should be linked whenever possible to the n eeds of a targct locatian. Cantacl and interactionparticipatian, in fact-are necessary lo verify that the solution offercd will meet a real need ar apen up a n ew oppartunity. Lc'1boratories can effici ently access farmcrs for participation through relevant n etworks, if these exist, or through contact with a region al or nauonal interdisciplinary rorum, center or programo Research tha t is so far upstream that it cannot yet be linked to specific farmers could still be conducted interactively with s uch fora to ensure relevance and ultimate uptake."}]},{"head":"Doing the Work or Directing It?","index":24,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":167,"text":"It is nol yet certain that farroer participa tion in the time-consumin g day-to-d ay tasks of plant breeding is 'empowering' in the sense that farmers perceive it to improye their lives. Givi n g farrocrs a say in public-seclor researc h directions and deeision making may be much more 'empowe ring' than expecting su eh farmers to aClua lly co nduct the research (Bebbington et al, 1994;Gubbels, 1993;Merrill-Sands and Coll ion, 1994;Tendler, 1994). There is a dangor tha t overadvocacy of the lattcr approach could , if the resulting research were perceived lO be incfTective, lead to reduced fund ing . . Sorne say that R&D would become m ore clemand -driven if institutions and individuals were made more accountable for the relevanee of the technology they develop . But perhaps the best way forward is to give resource-poor farmers a publica11y su bsidized voice in decision making. This could help orient plant breeding and biotechnology towards th eir interests (Haugcrud and Collinson , L 990)."}]},{"head":"Introduction","index":25,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":57,"text":"PPB faces many of the same limitations as conventional formal plant breeders have faced for c1 ecades and farmer breeders ha\\'e fa ced for millennia. Biotechnologies that can assist conventional plant breeding may also be found helpful in researcher•led PPB. A sub•set of biotechnologies may even prove a pplieable by farmers (or farmers' groups) in farmer-led PPB."},{"index":2,"size":174,"text":"As yet there are very few examp1es of the use of bio teehnology in PPB (de Boefet al, 1993;Okali et al, 1994;Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga, 1996;Sperling and Loevinsohn , 1996;UPWARD, 1996;CIAT, 1997;Veldhuizen et al, 1997). This chapter looks at sorne of the biotechnology tools tha t are or could be usecl. Because sorne of the applications discussecl require the use of genetie transformation, biosafcty and other emerging regulatory considerations will affeet their development and deployrnent. These are discussed in Chapter 6. Genctic variation i5 the essential raw material for the generabon of improved erop varieties through plant breeding. Breeders obtain useful gene tic variation in many ways: through aceess lo existing diverse parental lines or populations of erops, their wild relatives, or even unrelated organisms; through increased understanding of patteros of diversity in crop-environment and host-pathogen interactions; by inducing random mutation; or (in a more directed fashion) byaltering the expression of existing genes andj or discovering 'new' genes. Biotechnology provides useful new tools to aid the generation and analysis of variation by all these methods."}]},{"head":"Fanners' control over key biologtcal processes","index":26,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":114,"text":"Farmers attempt to control or manage many physical and biological variables in their erop production systems. The tools for this purpose typically include inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, mechanization, and human labor. Resouree-poor farmers by definition have less aceess to the external inputs that can reduce their labor inputs. For example , for many such farmers, labor-intensive 'hancls• on' weeding is often the only mean5 ofweed control (see Box 14). Severa l recentIy developed a pproaches to crap husbandry, such as IPM , seek to ¡nerease farmers' control ayer thei r systems by adding to lheir knowled ge a nd substituting their labor for external inputs , often co nsisting of gene-based technology."},{"index":2,"size":51,"text":"In th eory, plant biotechnologies could be developed that wauld in crease farmcrs' control or managcrnent of key biological processes. Needs assessrnent would h ave to be an integral p art of such 'controloriented' technology develop rn enl, to identify what processes are rnost important to specific [arme rs (Mosse, 1993)."}]},{"head":"Dependency and empowerment: Product versus process?","index":27,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":63,"text":"A rough disti nction can be rn ade betwee n (i) providing fm ished products ro fa rmers and (ii) facilitating research (whether formal or informal) through th e provision of what are called 'process' or 'enabling' traits or tool s. Thc lalte r ¡nelude traits and tools such as mate sterility, induci ble promoters, MAS, transposon mutagenesis, and in vitro techn iqucs."},{"index":2,"size":96,"text":"Thc ran ge an d case of use of thcse tools is increasi n g. Originally de velopcd for u se by plant breeders or biotechnologists, sorne of thern at lcast cou ld be adapted for u se by fa rmers in a way that increases thcir con trol over biological processes. Although this has been proposed, to the authors' knowledge no examples yet exist of such adapta tion (Je[ferson. 1993a. This may reflec! either biotechnologists' lack of know ledge of or contacts with PPB, or lack of funds for the necessary research, or both ."},{"index":3,"size":136,"text":"Instead of providing fin ished products to farmers, it 15 possible to develop en hanced germpla sm 'prototypes', which are locally replicable and modifia ble using 10calJy available expertise a nd resources. This is a n under-research ed area in plant biotechnology. It proba bly requircs the development of enabling tools that a re s pecia lly designed and packaged to support farme rs' c1ec ision m aki ng, rath er than the tools developed fo r use by fo rm a l breeders (M. Loevinsohn, pers. comm.). This a pproach has been promoted as a potentially empowering for m of biotechnology research for resouree-poor farmers (Jeffe rson, 1993a. The experiences of exisu n g PPB programs co uld be useful in guiding the development and aclap tation of sorne enabling tools for use by farrners."},{"index":4,"size":87,"text":"Sorn e cornmentators felt it was an open question whether such adapted tools a n d traits will ever be developed , since the re is no cornrne rcial market ro r process-oriented end products of farmer-Ied research in systems where most fa rmers still depend on saved seed. Even if a significant a moun t of research towards such objec tives were undcr way, it wou ld be at least a decade befo re farm-level tools could be made widcly available (R. J efferson, pers, comm.)."}]},{"head":"BiotecJlIwlogy-Assisted PPB: Complement or Controdiction?","index":28,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":7,"text":"Can biotechnology tools be made more user-friendly?"},{"index":2,"size":63,"text":"The authors recognize tha t the la boratory stages of plant biotechnology research, in volving com plex and specialized tasks, such as DNA sequencing and analysis or genetic modification, are n ot for the most part conducive to far mer participa tion. Such research is likely to be relatively inaccessible no t only to farmers but also to other (nonbiotec hnology) specia lists."},{"index":3,"size":103,"text":"In formal plant breedmg, biotechn ology no\\V offers certain defin ite advan tages over conve n tion al methods. Examp les in elude vi rus elimination through meristem cu ltu re, breaking tigh t genetic linkages, s peedin g up backcrosses, add ing new traits or enhancing existing ones, micropropagation , the identification of h eterO L.ic groups, the manipulation of breeding systems through m a le sterility or selfincompa tibility , and so on. In theory, simil a r advantages coule! accrue to farmer-led breeding. if th e development and use of the necessary tool s could be rnad e cost-effe ctive."},{"index":4,"size":300,"text":"Certain biotechnology tools are li kely to be used only in labo ratories. These inel ude the tools fo r claning gen es, iden tifying their functions. and developing genetic constructs. Other tools could be used in the fie ld by farmer breede rs. These tools range from locally adapted tissue cultu re technique s for vegeta tively propagated crops, through simple di agn ostic ki ts for detecting vi ruses, to 'intermediate' or 'facilitator ' genotypes engineered to s im plify far mer-m anaged recombination or selection. This cr u de categori zation reflects current. still li mited, experience and imagination . It also implies a broad in terpretation of what could be consid ered a biotechnology tool , as opposed to a biotechnology producto For ins tance, a research product s u ch a s a transgen ic variety h a rborin g a ge ne for inducible m ale sterility could, in lh e hands of a farmer breeder, be a u seful research tool at the field level for the purpose of increasing recombinatio n (Bidi n ger et a l, 1994). Cost co n sidera tions aside, the a uthors contend tha t sorne oC lhe biotechnology tools that can now be u sed di rectly in the fie ld by conventional plant breeders cou ld be equ a lly useful in existin g or adapteJ form to sorne farm er breedcrs. It is difficult lo generalize and there will bg ma ny differcnt outcomes from broadly s imilar attem pts to test thei r u se. A clearer picture will emerge as more th ough t is givc n to th is subject. as more sha red expe rien ces a re gained , and a s more robust field -Ievel tools become available."},{"index":5,"size":116,"text":"The sections that follow explore how so rn e biotechnologies might be use ful at certain stages of either the plant brcedi ng or th e erap produ etion cyele. Most of them would require significant supporl from formal scientisls, al least at lhe outset. Th c opportunities and constraints associated with each are highlighted. u sing real examples to illustrate the releva nce to smalL-scale farmers wherever possible. In cases where no biotec hnology-assisted PPB work has been done, possibilities for the future are outlined. Real and imagined examples are supplemented with observations drawn from OUf consultatlons with experts. These observations renect the range of current opinion, as a basis for further discussion and experimentation."}]},{"head":"Tools for Understanding Diversity","index":29,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":106,"text":"Biotechnology oITers tools for analyzi.ng the genctic variation among plant individuals, accessions, populations, and species {Wu and Tansley, 1993;McCouch et al, 1997;Olufowote et al, 1997) and for monitoring genetic diversity over time and space (Smith and Beavis, 1996;McCouch et a l, 1997). These tools have sometimes bee n u sed to generate greater understanding by outsiders of farmers' managemen t of crop genetic diversity. Sorne commentators felt that this mode of research, typically involving the molecular analysis of genetic variatíon in crop plant populations, is the most, or even the only, appropriate use of biotechnology in support of farmer breeders (8. Visser, J. Jiggins, pers. cornrns.)."},{"index":2,"size":80,"text":"Molecular marker analysis could improve the methodologies u sed by PPB programs. Information on the relationship between phenotypic and genetic diversity and the dynamics of functional and redundant gene tic diversity in different crop reproduction systems is essential if PPS is to move beyond the promotion of mass selection. Molecula r studies may be helpCu l in assessing the recent concept of a 'theatre of evolution' in and around the fields of smal1~scal e farmers in developing countries (Dempsey, 1992)."},{"index":3,"size":236,"text":"There is now a growing body of information on how farmers' selection and seed exchangc processes may afTcct the p henotypic characteristics of crop varieties over time and space (e .g., Louette and Smale, 1998;Longley, 1999;Soleri et al, 1999). Studies on this subject are complex, as geneflow can be conditioned by many biological, physical, and social fac tors. Nonethcless, it is thought that fa rrners' mana gement of crop varieties can be highly dynamic, involving open systems with a large turnover oC local and introduced germplasm over even a few crop generalions (Louette et a l, 1997;Wood and Lenne, 1997) . This has been reported for crops such as rice (Dennis, 1987), rnaize (Sellón and Brush, 1994), beans (Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993), a nd po tato (Brush et al, 1981). lndeed, the 'half-hfe' of landraces in traditional systems may be evcn shorter than that of modern varieties in high-input systems (Wood and Lenne, 1997), a factor which PPB programs would do wcll to take into account since it emphasizes the need to provide a stream of useful materials to meet changing environmental conditions and the changing n eeds of farrn ers (D. Duvick, pers. cornm.). In sorne cases genellow can occur bctwecn introduced modern varieties and locallandraces, leading to the 'rusticatio n' or 'criolloization' ofthe introduced varieties (Smale et a l, 1991 ; Bellón a nd Brush , 1994;Louette et al, 1997 ;Wood and Lenné, 1997)."},{"index":4,"size":245,"text":"However, liule of predictive s cien tific value is currently known abou t how far mers' se lcction p ractices afTect local-Ievel geneflow. Among the handful of stu dies known to the au thors are those on Andean potalo landraces (Zimmere r and Douches, 1991), cassava in Malawi (Box 5). m a ize in Mexico (J . Bcrtha ud, pers. comm.), and pearl mill et in West Africa (Box 6). Studies h ave also been done on poorer farmers' (or consumers') know1edge and perccption s of the use fulness of exo tic cul tivated germplasm or crap wi ld relatives in plant b recding (Lou e tte et al, 1997; Wood and Le nné, 1997;Longley, 1999). A number of studies have been conducted on the exten t and partitioning of genetic diversity between land races (SpiUane and Gepts, 2000) . However, for r easons to do with the ease of sampling, the majority of such studies u se accessions fr om genebanks, which have been separated from the farmers who may (or may n ot) have continued to m anage both the landraces and the cnvironmen ts in which they evolved (e.g., Olufowote et a l, 1997). In tegrated a pproaches involving molecular an alyses to facilitate un dcrstanding an d enhancement of farmers' la nd r aces were also presented at a 1997 Workshop on the Managemen t of the Genetic Resources of the African Savannah, held in Bamako, Mali (Anon , 1993) ."},{"index":5,"size":209,"text":"A cooperative of small-scale fa rmers in coastal Ecuador plans to develop a farmers' collectlon of cassava a s part of a d isaster reli ef projec t funded by the United States Agency for Intern ational Developmen t (USAID) (see Box 10). This project will use molecular m arkers to characterize the collection's Ia n draces, so as to support the iden tificatíon of clones and m atch them correctly to associated traditional knowledge. From the fe w othe r studies of this kind condueted so far, it is evide n t tha t useful insights on farme rs' germpla sm co nservation an d enhancement strategies can be obtai ned (Zirnmere r a nd Douches, 1991; Busso et al, 1998). A local-level s tudy of the partitioning of ge netic diversity in Andean potato la ndraces d ernonstrated high levels of ge neflow between commercial landrace populations as a result of seed tuber exchange among farmers, but lower leve ls for types used solely for s ubsistence (Zimmerer and Douches, 1991). Molecular characterization of farmers' germpla srn cou ld help farmers' groups to monitor their situation and resea rchers lo understand the farmers' methods. the better to target any fu ture support (8. Vis ser, pers. comm.)."},{"index":6,"size":57,"text":"Molecular marker analyses have been used to analyze genetic change an d inform clecision m aki ng in a long-term French program for the dynamic in si tu conservation and enhancement of wheat germplas m (Go ldri nge r et al, 2000). This 'evolu tionary breeding' program establis hed a highly diverse meta-population of whea t with"}]},{"head":"Box5","index":30,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":10,"text":"Molecular anthropology: Markers for understanding the spread of cyanogenic cassava"},{"index":2,"size":68,"text":"Cassava toxicity is a paradox. Few of the 500 million people who daily consume the crop are at risk from its toxicity. Tragic consequences tend to occur only in populations wherc severe depdvation, unvaned diet, social instability, and rood insecurity all occur together. But due to its built~in pest protection and ability to provide Cood under difficult conditions, toxic cassava is crucial for survival in precisely these situations."},{"index":3,"size":80,"text":"The biological bases oC toxidty-precursor compounds of cyanidc called cyanogens-are found in al) cassava. Toxic cyanide is releascd when these cyanogens come into contact with an enzyme released by damaged cell walls when cassava is chewed or chopped. In cassava~dependent cultures, processing to remove cyanogens is typically women's principal activity. Processing is lengiliy and labor-intensive, but if toxic cassava is eaten after rushed or inadequate processing, paralysis or death can result, especially if the consumer already has poor general nutrition."},{"index":4,"size":134,"text":"In sorne oC the world's most disadvantaged areas, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, farmers deliberately grow toxic cassava as their basic staple. They ~xplain their choice by describing this crop as more drought-tolerant, higher-yielding. superior in processing quality C or traditional Coods, and disease-and insectresistant . Moreover , in these areas, the higher the toxicity oC the varieties, the lower th ~ risk of theCt oC plants Crom the fields oC vulnerable female-h eaded households. Processing bulky cassava roots is a difficult operation to hide in a small cornmunity, and the perishability and bulkiness oC th~ roots mak~s it djfficult to carry away stolen roots to process them elsewhere. In a s urvival economy, where trede is n ot an option due to remoteness and civil unrest, these protective advantages may outweigh the accompanying disadvantages."},{"index":5,"size":60,"text":"Appropriate biotechnology interventions may exist thal could benefit wo m ~n coping with s uch sit u a tions. But what they would be is not imrnediately obvious to outsiders. Possible objectives are to alleviate the toxicity risk, reduce !he labor burden on women caused by proc~ssing, and promot~ marketing, while at the same time supporting loca1 food security strategj~s."},{"index":6,"size":162,"text":"With support from the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), researchers from !he Swedish Agricultural University (SLU) oi Uppsala, and the Ministries of Agriculture of Malawi and Tanzania are using sociological and molecular data to elucidate womcn farroers' objectives and processes in !he use of toxic cassava. The practiee of growing toxie cassava has apparently spread into Malawi and Tanzania from \\Vest and Central Africa, although 'sweet' (lowcyanogen) cassava is also grown by all farmcrs. The two countries are now among those most affected by the paradox between cyanogen toxicity and the essentiaJ role oC cyanogens in rood security. Cassava varieties are commonly renamed as they pass from fanner to farmer, so researchers working without molecular markers have been unable to assess and validate oral histories oC the spread and value oC toxic cassava. The better understanding oC fanners' objectives achieved by the study will, it is hoped, form the basis for appropriate support to Carroers' diversity management strategies. probably through farmer~led PPB."},{"index":7,"size":10,"text":"SOURCES: H. Rosling (pers. comm. ); Chiwona-Karltun et al (1997,2000);"},{"index":8,"size":4,"text":"Thm et al (1994)."}]},{"head":"Box6","index":31,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":14,"text":"Molecular markers tbrow light OD Carmers' selectioDs of pear' miUet Jandraces in West Africa"},{"index":2,"size":41,"text":"A molecular marker study of fanners' landraces oC pearl millet in West Africa revealed that the crop management practices oC neighboring fanne rs led to the selection oC different genotypes o( the same named landrace, and similar genotypes of different-named landraces."},{"index":3,"size":54,"text":"Eight samples were colJected of each o( four landraces of pearl millet . The four landraces were identified by name by the local farmers and were visually distinct. Samples were (rom the fields oC (our different fann ers in two villages in Chana; no field was less than 200 meters away from any other."},{"index":4,"size":231,"text":"Molecular analysis showed thal, while lhe phenotypic characteristics which identified a landrace were maintained across farmers, the genetic profiles oC two different landraces grown by the same farmer were more similar than those oC the same landrace gTown by two different farmers. Farme rs' conscious or subconscious selection practices were shaping genetic diversity at the fann leveL While holdmg a few major genes constant, they were selecting for specific phenotypic traits that indicated adaptation to their own field s or micro-sites. This sludy has important implications ror the maintenance of oo -farm genetic diversity and also for oo-farro crop improvement. It suggests that, in addition to the names of landraces, the names oC farmers, farmers' evaluation oí the variety , dates of sampling, and eco-geographic details are equaJly important fo r the purposes of gennplasm identification and genebank records. It also suggests that diversity, at ¡east in these areas of Chana, is better represented by samples from each fanner lhan by samples oC each 'variety'. In the case oC a disaster, if materials had to be re-supplied to an area, researchers would know that the name of the variety a farmer grew before míght not be enough infonnation to get 10caJly ada pted seed back into that farmer 's field, since a variety with a different name could conceivably be claser lo the original genotype. SOURCE: Busso et al (1998) ."},{"index":5,"size":129,"text":"subsequen t managerncnt of the population in many different environments under natura l or weak selectlon pressures (Goldringer et al, 2000) . Molecular marker analyses allowed adaptive changes in pathogen resistance and multilocus diversity to be tracked across populations and over time. In addition, outcrossing rates were determined in order to assess the optimallevels of geneflow that might be promoted between difTerent sub-popula tions. Although no individual farmer seleetion pressures were applied lo the populations, the program's approach and findings are similar to those of the study on local-Ievel geneflow in ma ize condueted by Louette e l al (1997) . Goldringer el al (2000) suggest that their evolutionary breeding model may be su itablc for PPB where uniformity of the material s produced is not requ ired ."},{"index":6,"size":178,"text":"The choice of a cost-effective molecular marker technique depends on program objeetives (Karp et al, 1997). Sorne teehniques (e .g., isozyrnes, RAPDs) are simpler to use, while others are more difficult bU l a lso more accu rate or s en s itive (e.g. , AFLPs, microsatelli tes, SCARs, etc.). Where the re is sufficient polymorphism, isozyme an a ly sis may yield enough information to be the technology of choice. For instan ce, 12 isozyme sys tems allowed the differentiation of 95% of culti valed clones of Hevea (Leeonte et a l, 1994). A 'ponable la boratory' based on these enzymes h as been developed, a Uowing nursery finge rprinting of high -yielding clones u sed in industrial plantations. For other species or objectives, other DNA markers may be required to achieve s ufficient resolving power. Most PPB programs would need the assistance of an advanced biotechnology la boratory to conduct DNA analysis of germplasm. Ma n y su eh laboratories may be interes ted in the analysis of seleetion by farmers (e.g., Busso et al, 1998)."},{"index":7,"size":154,"text":"The advent of DNA chip, micro-array, and nanomachine technology is likely to mcrease the throughput of molecular m a rker and DNA analyses in the coming years, by increasing the speed and lowcring the cost of processing large numbers of samples (e.g., Walter et al, 2002;Gibson, 2000;Chee et al, 1996). This eould open the way to simpler evaluation of gene frequencies in a single mixture of DNA representing a popula tion, greatly facilitating the spatial and temporal monitoring of the m olecular eve nts underlying either dynamic conservation or PPB eITorts (Seeond et al, 1997). It should be possible to bu1k rnany plants in samples [or analysis and so to obtain information on many loei in one or a few high-throughput experiments. However, such teehnologies are s tiU well beyond the reach of most biotechnology researchers, many of whom are competing to conduct the initial experiments on the firstgeneratíon DNA chips currentIy under development."},{"index":8,"size":184,"text":"Understanding the dynamics of farmer-directed genetic change, especially among r esource-poor farmcrs, may not rank high compared to other research objectives. To the authors ' knowledge, no farmers' groups h ave spontaneously chosen the understanding of genetie variatíon and gene-flow processes in their material as a priority research objective. Paradoxically, therefore, such research-although condueted at the field level-m ay be as 'upstream' as many laboratory projects, in the s en se that it is not pereeived as providing short-run benefits by its end users. However, farmers have a keen sense of urgency cegarding varietal improvcment and have in many cases requested outside intervention in support of this. D. Duvick (pers . comm .) notes that studies of population dyna mics of farmers' varieties can become over-academic becau se of the fascinating data they generate for specialists. It is at this point that they run the grcatest danger of losing practical relevance foc farme rs . He suggests that a11 such studies should be guided by the ques tion, Are molecular markerassisted methods the most efficient way of helping farmcrs get the germplasm tbey want?"}]},{"head":"Tools for Selecting Germplasm","index":32,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Relating fanners' criteria to researchers' tools","index":33,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":107,"text":"Farmers may use vcry different selection critena from forma l breeders and biotechnologists to evaluate germplasm. The fact that sorne modern crop varieties are not adopted is a clear indication of the gap. Indeed, the very concept of 'adoption' implies that forma l breeders and biotechnologists need to improve th eir understa nding of what farmers mean by a 'preferred variety' (M . Fregene, pe rs. cornm.). If different social groups of farmers (Le. , disaggregated by sex, incorne, ethnicity. age, etc.) h a ve different preferences, th en breeders need to understan c1 the se as weU (K. Schmidt, P. Eyzagu irre. pe rs. comms.) ."},{"index":2,"size":144,"text":"Sorne say that farmers are biased towards selecting tra its that a re easy to distinguish visually in a parental or progeny plant (Wood a nd Lenné, 1997). Such selection h as, for example, led to extreme phenotypic diversity in the color of bean seeds and maize kernels. These 'peacock' trai ts may be either qualitative or quanti tative. Conversely, it is difficult for farmers to select for traits that are not easy to see, such a s resistance to sheath blight in rice . Farmers are probably' aware of desirable quan titative traits (e.g., high yield) which are diffic ult to control and rctain between generations. However, lhey are unlikely to be interested in subjecting their crops to majo r losses in order to select for phenotypic traits whose evalu a tion requires destruc uve testing, such as pest and disease resistan ce."},{"index":3,"size":243,"text":"The extent to which farmers can visualize or 'perceive' different traits will have a bearing on their success in selecting for individual traits. While it may seem obvious that farmers interpret the look and performa n ce of a plant as desira ble or undesirable for certain traits, it is not obvious how they do this and how they use this information in their selection efforts. Very Httle is known about how lhe phenotypic descri ptors that farmers u se for selection correlate with those u sed by plant breeders or genebank curators. For instance, there is little information on how farrners perceive the phenotypic trait markers used in conventional ge netic linkage rnaps (e.g. , Kinoshita, 1995) or on how they characterize germplasm accessions. Detai1ed farmer participatory research work has, however, been done on the definition of Brazilia n farmers' selection criteria in cassava (e. Iglesias, L.A. Hernández, W. FUkuda, pers. comms.;Iglesias and Hernández-Romero, 1997) . The objectives of identifying farmers' descriptors and definitions were to enable farmers and formal breeders to 's peak the same language' and, when possible, to 'translate' fa rmers' descriptors so that a given descriptor (or a highly correlated trait) can be meas ured and quantified in order to study inheritance a nd design effective breeding strategies. Integrated mul tid isciplinary approaches involving erop geneticists, a nthropologists , agronomis ts, and socio-economists are likely to be valuable in gaining a better understand ing of farmers' seleetion criteria."},{"index":4,"size":11,"text":"Biotechllology as Q Set ofTools lor Formal Qnd Informal Plant 8reeding"},{"index":5,"size":139,"text":"Without new selection tools a nd techniques for farmers, interaction between farmers and researchers to improve the efficiency of lrait selection will, then, tend to be limited to lraits that farmers can easily \\risualize' or 'perceive' through non-destructive evalu atíon , su eh as heading date, plant height, seed weight, and so on . But ir simple diagnostic tools that ¡ncrease throughput can be developed for use by farmers as well as formal-sector breeders, this \\Voutd \\Vide n the variety of traits that could be evaluated. For ínstance, where farmers have to meet exacting fODd safety standard s, diagnostic lools for detecting undesirable compounds, su eh as aflatoxin in groundnu t, could be userul. These and other tools can help re source-poor farmers create a surplus of uniform, hígh-quality produce, enabling them to enter new markets (Box 7) ."},{"index":6,"size":60,"text":"Similarly, the use of MAS is likely to be most powerful when it is integrated with social and agronomic studies of the phenotypic critería used by farmers. The advent of molecular and linkage maps may allow collaborative participatory selection efforts th a t complement or integrate farmers' 'visible' critería with the invisible ones that are also important for many traits."}]},{"head":"Box 7","index":34,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Biotechnologies that help small-scale farmers enter new markets","index":35,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":30,"text":"Many resourcc-poor Canners have inadequate access 10 markets for their produce, cspeciaUy the more lucrative markets. The barriers to entry ioto such markets oCten ¡nelude product quahry and uniformity standards."},{"index":2,"size":122,"text":"Quality standards tend lO be highly specific, requiring measurement (e.g., minimum levels of a given ,,¡tamin, Creedom Crom insect c1amage, a specific dry matter, starch. or protein content) . Sorne biotechnologies can help Carmers meet lhese standards. For instanee, diagnostic kits can allow farmers to test C OI\" levels oC desirable and undesirable compounds, sllch as starch or aflatoxins. Several modern biotechnologies can help Canners or farmers' groups involved in seed multiplication and dissemination improve the quality oC their seed (Cromwcll et al, 1993). The application oC simple diagnostic tests for seed-transmitted diseases can a110w Carmers' groups 10 seU disease-free seed al a premium. Using tissue culture, farroers can generate large amounts of disease-free planting materials, especial ly in vegetatively propagated craps."},{"index":3,"size":64,"text":"As regards unifonnity standards, double haploid Hnes oC landraces could allow phenotypically uniCorm varieties to be devcloped and maintruned by farroers. Transgenic approaches to the reduction oC levels oC undesirable compounds may also be possible. Pioneer Hi Bred has developed the use oC genetic modification to reduce mycotoxin contamination of foods by incorporating Cumonisin-metabolizing transgenes ioto the plant's genomc. SOURCE: J. Duvick (pers. comm.)."},{"index":4,"size":130,"text":"So far there has been hUl e exploration of whether farmers' 'descriptors' can be in tegrated \\Vith germpla sm descriptors or wi th cxisti ng lin ka ge maps as a startin g poin t for enhanci ng far merrcsearcher coll a boration in plant breed ing. Only researchers with a detailed knowledge of farmers' selcction criteria an d practices are likely to be able to relate th ese to cri teria usable by formal breeders or biotechnologists, ancl vice• versa. Ir farmers' seIection criteria change over ti me or vary from place to place, then these relationships, and the process of establishing them, may become complex o Non etheIess, as MAS enters the genomics and phenomics era, it is vital that th is tas k be addre ssed ."}]},{"head":"Marker-assisted selection","index":36,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":117,"text":"Conventional pIant breeding has typicaUy used phenotypic observations, someti mes backed by sophisticated statistical analysis, to sclect fo r improved germplasm in brccding populations. Although th is a pproach is still valid, there are limitations to what can be achieved by phcnotypic sclection alone. Sorne agronomically u scful trBi ts are either very difficu lt to select for (a nd rnaintain) on t he basis of pheno typ c, or can not be selccted for on this basis alone (e.g., yield). These traits show continuous phenotypic variation because they are controlled by several genes, the inclividual effects of which are relatively s mall (Yano a n d Sasaki, 1997). This has made breeding for such traits di.fficult."},{"index":2,"size":179,"text":"The use of molecular markers and genetic maps to select for genes rather th an for phenotype could, in theory, overcome many of the . limi tations of convcntional breeding (Caetano-Anollés and Trigiano, 1997) . These tools are aJready revolution izing breed ing th ro ugh the id entification of th e quantitati ve trait ¡oei (QTLs), the relatively large segments of DNA that underlie many key agronomic trai ts (Sm ith an d Beavis, 1996;Yano and Sasaki, 1997;McCouch et a l, 1997) . A wide ran ge of markers and maps are now available (C a etano -Ano l h~s an d Trigiano, 1997; Xiao e t al , 1998; Ayres et a l, 1997;Blair and McCouch, 1997). rn addition, mo lecular maps are bei ng integrated with li nkage maps based on observable phenotypes (Yoshimu ra et a l, 1997). This will allow phcnotypic selection to be complemented by MAS fOl\" traits of mterest. This approach could prove cost•effective in PPB programs usin g phenotypic selection for traits not casily selectcd for on this basis alone ."},{"index":3,"size":53,"text":"Sorne ficId -level practitioners find that farmers are at a disadvantage when attempting to identify and sdect effectively for useful genes found at low frequency in populations, particularly when the associated traits are hidden (J. Lenné, pers. comm.). By identifying and mapping molecular markers, formal breeders and biotechnologists can help select such genes."},{"index":4,"size":59,"text":"Finding the loei of these traits in one crop provic1es guidance to whcre they might be in olhcr related c rap species (e.g., Kowalski et al, 1994;Lin et al, 1995;Ming et al, 1998). The c10se functional and evolutionary relationships between many resistance genes is making it easier to search for them in germplasm collections (e.g., Leister el al, 1996)."},{"index":5,"size":175,"text":"A crucial question is whether individual molecular markers can be 'translated' into visual markers or other easily selectable markers, allowing MAS to be applied at field lcvel by formal breeders or farmcrs. For instancc, a single gene that provides a visible morphologica1 marker such as red pigment color (¡.e., a more penetrant version of the currently available anthocyanin Le marker) could conceivably be linked as a reporter, via transgenic techniques (T-DNA tagging) and/or molecular marker-assisted backcrossing, to a major allele for a hard-to-see trmt such as drought tolerance or resistance to a cyclic pest. This could be particularly useful in open-pollinated populations. Even in ayear when the stress is absent, the red pigrnent from the marker would help the farmer identify stress-tolerant plants and save enough seed from them to maintain the trait in the population at a level sufficient to stabilize yearto-year performance. However, while reporter genes such as the GUS and GFP are routinely used to great effect in laboratory rescarch, very few such genes are yet available for use at fieId level."},{"index":6,"size":66,"text":"If markers can be linked to major agronornic alIeles, the allele itseIf does necessarily have to be visually selectable. Use of selectable rnarkcrs (such as herbicide resistance genes) could allow farmers to select for the allele. Howevcr, at least at the current level of technology development it is questionabIe whelher the cost of such an approach would be justified by the bcnefits (M. Gale, pers. cornrn.)."},{"index":7,"size":156,"text":"Developing molecular markers for QTLs is important in improving selection for phenotypic traits. QTL analysis looks at the underlying genetic basis of such traits (Ribaut and Hoisington, 1998). Consequent1y, there is likely to be room for considerable interaction between researchers and farmcrs, who will need both to identify desirable traits and to test gcrrnplasm enhanced by this means. Sorne commentators believe that, in breeding for quantitative traits, farrner participatory selection, eithcr among finished varieties or,within segregating populations, could replace MAS, since both end up with the same thing-a product in which you can 'see' or otherwise experience the desired rcsults. However, this seems unlikely, since quantitative traits have traditionally been difficult for breeders to select for on the basis of phenotype, even with the support of complex biometrica1 and genetic analyscs. The reality may tie somewhere in between, with farmer selection criteria proving a useful cornplemen tary source of information for DNA marker-based se1ection. and vice-versa."},{"index":8,"size":68,"text":"The development of suitable populations for mapping. as a prelude to the development of markers, is best done through collaboration between farmers a nd locally basecl plant brccclers (S . Hughes, pers. comm.l. with regional or international inputs where necessary. Fregene (pers . cornm .) suggests that a team of brceders, molecular gen eticists, and farmcrs could handle perh a ps four breeding populations a t a time."},{"index":9,"size":161,"text":"In the n ear tenn. mo lecular mar kers might facilitate PPB through th e gene rat ion of trait-enriched populations a t an early stage of th e selcction process. Molecular markers can be uscd to increase the frequ ency of certain tra its, s uch as QTLs for drou ght tolerance (Ri bau t et al, 1996(Ri bau t et al, , 1997)), or of des irable individuals in an otherwise variable popu lation, creating an 'cnriched' popula tion for furth cr sclcction by farmers (S . Beebe, pers. comm.). MAS can enhance total gene tic gain and th e choices available to farmers for difficu lt-to-select tra its , particularly tolcrance or resistance to biotic or a biotic stresses th at may require s pecial stress environ ments to be fully expresscd, and traits that require slow a nd /or costly sam pling method s, such as cookin g q uality or photosynthe tic rate (M. Lee, 1998)."},{"index":10,"size":205,"text":"'For crops in which molecular mapping is at an advanced stage, where the underlying gene tics of important agrono mic traits are becoming increasi ngly c1ear, it m ay be possible to devclop sets of markers that could act as 'sieves' to enrich germplasm population s for linked agronom ic traits. The use of these molecular sieves would help reduce breedin g popu lations to a manageable level (M. Fregene, pers. comm.) . The chanccs of a [armer crea ting desirable material by crossin g two interesting parents would be increased, since the amount of 'j unk' or apparently useless d iversity (M. Loevinsohn, pers. comm.) would have becn reduced by 10 times or more (S. Beebe, pcrs. cornm.). This could, it is though t, change fanners' perceptions of the costs and benefits of bccoming ¡nvolved in early generation selection efforts in PPB . As Witcombe et al (1996) found in the Chitwan Valley of Nepal, farmers' lack of interest in selecting for early segregating popula tions is a barrier to lheir participation in the early stages of crop improvement. In s uch situations th ey find themselves being asked to dca! with too wide a ran ge of prototypes of too low a quality."},{"index":11,"size":141,"text":"Farmers participating in research want to see results fast (B. Visscr, pers. co mm .) and often express a sense of urgency (e.g., Thro et al, 1997) . The use of MAS requires additional time early in the research process, when the m arkers are first developed (this takes 2 to 4 years, dependi ng on the co mplexity of the trait and previous knowledge). This time • lag is 'anathe ma' to many farmers involved in pa rticipatory research (J.K. Lynam, pers. comm.). Yet one of the main a ttraction s of biotechnology lO conventional breeders is that, once the tool dcvelopment stage i5 over, it can greatly speed up the breeding cycle. As more markers become available over time as a result of genome mapping a nd sequencing efforls , the 'tool development' time-lag is likely to s horten."}]},{"head":"Biotechnology as a Se! of Tools for Fonnal and Informal Plant Breeding","index":37,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":298,"text":"In addition , discoveries made in comparative mapping have shown that markers from closely related (e.g., rice and wheat) or . even distantiy related (e.g., dicot and monocot) species can be successfully used across species (Paterson et al, 1996). This has greatly increased the diversity and genomc coverage oC the markers now available , reducing both their costs and the time required to apply them. Costs will probably continue to decrease as molecular marker assays become cheaper per unit of information gained (Xie and Xu, 1998). In the longer term, technology spillovers from human genetics (notably the human genome project) should further increase the potential of DNA technology for crop improvement, leading to even more favorable cost:benefit ratios. However, this depends on sufficient public-sector funding being made available for technology adaptation and dissemination (Smith and Beavis, 1996). DFID's Plant Sciences Research Programme is establishing a project in the semi-arid regions of India and Nepal that will combine PPB with the use ofmolecular marker techniques in rice (J.R. Witcombe, pers. comm.). The project will evaluate the participatory approach. which will be applied to a range of crosses mostly involving the popular variety Kalinga III as one parent. The end products from the crosses wiU be tested using molecular markers to identify linkage blocks representing genomic regions preferred by farmer~ or producing the best results in specific environments. Progeny from a wide cross between the Asian and African rice species Oryza sativa and O. glaberrima will also be evaluated, so that useful genomic regions of O. glaberrima can be introgressed into the sativa varieties preferred by fanners. QTLs for root growth and drought resistance are being introduced into Kalinga III through MAS. The results of this project should shed more light on the usefulness of molecular markers in PPB projects."}]},{"head":"Optimizing local genotype x environment interactions","index":38,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":152,"text":"Sorne PPB programs promote the use of a decentralized farmer selectionbased approach to the development of germplasm specifically adapted to different micro-environments (Ceccarelli and Granda, 1996;Ceccarelli et al, 1991Ceccarelli et al, , 1994;;Simmonds, 1991). These practitioners believe that selection for specific adaptation to local conditions will result in varieties that require reduced levels of inputs and are more Tobust in the stress-prone environments typicalLy used by resource-poor farmers. This renects a long-standing debate among plant breeders as to whether or not high genotype x environment interactions can be usefully exploited to develop germplasm adaptation to marginal or heterogeneous environments (Gauch and Zobel, 1997). The specific adaptation approach is considered by sorne to stand in opposition to the centralized development of varieties exhibiting brcad adaptation to a wide range of environments (Ceccarelli, 1989;Link et al, 1996). For cost-benefit reasans, most centralized breeding has successfully concentrated on developing varieties adapted to large geographic areas."},{"index":2,"size":166,"text":"Many widely adapted varieties have been bred to exhibit low G x E intcractions for agronornic traits a nd are very successful in homogeneous high-potential cnvironrne nts in whi eh fertilizers and irrigation are used . It has, however, been suggestcd that the suecess of widcly adapted eommercial1y bred varietics is du e less to the inputs they receive than to the amoun t of breeding and testing invested in th eir development (D. Duvick, pers. cornrn.). Sorne widely adapted varieties have becn developed for srnall-scalc farrncrs' conditions, where they perform well despite the absence of buffcring inputs. Experience with rice breeding in South America suggests that rice varicties bred for \\Vide geographic adaptatíon are lised by resource-poor farmcrs becausc th ese varieties adapt as well to the extremes occurring under farmcrs ' managcment regimes as they do to the variability found across geographicallocations. For example, the varieties yield weU even when sown too late because of com peting requiremcnts for labor (L. Sanint, pers. comm.)"},{"index":3,"size":150,"text":"One of the problcms in breeding foc stressful and unpredictable envlronments is me reduced heritability of complex traits su eh as yield in such environments (Cecearelli et al, 1991). MAS has become a factor in the high versus low G x E debate (Kang, 1990). It now allows breedecs to distinguish between low QTL x E a nd high QTL x E loci, QTL x E bcing analogous to G x E inte ractions (Hoisington et al , 1996;Fry et al, 1998;Stratton, 1998;Palerson et al, 1991;Stuber el al, 1992; Melchinger et al, 1998; Van et al, 1998). The majority ofwork with QTLs is likely to concentrate on low QTL x E effects. However, a PPB project seeking to exploit high G x E effects for adaptation to a s pecific environment cou ld assemble germplasm containing QTLs exhibiting high G x E effects from existing MAS efforts and test them."},{"index":4,"size":119,"text":"Sorne form al breeders feel that, as recent advances in MAS methods allow traditional plant breeding objectives to be met more efficiently, resources should become ava ilable for pursuing other goals that were previously considered too costly-inc1uding, perhaps, location-specific breeding (L. Sanint, M. Gale, K. Schmidt, pers. comms.). Stratcgic research to create thc necessary biotechnology applications could improve the cost:bencfit ratio of pla nt brecding targetted to the locationspecific necds of resource-poor farmcrs in dcveloping countries. In addition, geographical information systems (GIS) could be used to search for similar micro-environmcnts that might form part of the 'adaptation dornains' of varieties bred for local adaptation (G. LeC lerg, pers. comm.), enabling the results of location-specific PPB to be scaled up."}]},{"head":"Prouiding 'baskets' o/ easily identified varietal options","index":39,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":88,"text":"As we have a lready secn, where farmers are operating in heterogeneous, risk•prone, marginal environments , a single crop Síotechnology as a Set 01 Tools lor Fonnal and Informal Plant Breeding variety (or technology) is unlikely to meet all their needs (Chambers, 1983). In the past decade there has been a shift in research and extension practices towards providing a 'basket' oC options from which such farmers can choose according to their needs (Witcombe et al, 1996(Witcombe et al, , 1998(Witcombe et al, , 1999;;Ashby and Sperling, 1994)."},{"index":2,"size":84,"text":"The reproductive processes of gennination, vegetative growth, Oowering, and secd maturation are-vital to resource-poor farmers. Many minimize their risks by planting difIerent varieties or crops which mature at different times of the year, ensuring a steady supply of food (Gilbert, 1995). Farmers can be offered varieties with a mix of maturatLon periods and altematLve storage and processing characteristics. Intensive research is currently being conducted on the genetics of flowering time (Laurie, 1997). Biotechnology could be used to expand the range of varietal maturity options."},{"index":3,"size":106,"text":"MAS can help breeders transfer the loei associated with maturity into otherwise desirable gene tic backgrounds with minimal alteratíon in other varietal characteristics (W. Beversdorf, pers. comm.). More genes and loei controlling flowering time will doubtless be identified over the next decade, and lmowledge generated on how they operate and interact. Other possibilities inelude the linkage of Oowering time genes to promoters so that flowering can be induced, shortening generatíon times. This will be especially useful in the early stages of breeding programs, when rapid progress needs to be made and demonstrated, and wherever there is a need to avoid continuing or imminent stresses (Laurie, 1997)."},{"index":4,"size":60,"text":"The relationship between Oowering time (heading date), crop adaptation, and yield is critica!. Clawson (1985) pointed out that tropical farmers orten use different colored varieties, which are associated with difIerent maturation periods. He concluded that fanners' adoption of modem varieties would accelerate if they were offered multiple high-yielding varieties of staple food crops of varying seed color and maturation periods."},{"index":5,"size":100,"text":"At any rate, farmers may be unwilling to adopt any of the new options they are presented with unless they can easily distinguish them visually (S. Morin, K. Longley, pers. cornms.). A considerable arnount oC work on human cognition and the relationships between classificatLon, cultivation, and selection has recently been done. The model of 'selection for perceptual distinctiveness' developed by Boster (1985) suggests that, if farmers cannot distinguish between varieties, they will not be maintained in local fanning systems. At present, the Boster model applies mainly to root crops that reproduce vegetatively and is less relevant to out-breeding grain crops."},{"index":6,"size":94,"text":"Similarly, improved rice varieties developed through conventional crop breeding often have very similar phenotypic characteristics, Biotechnology-Assisted PPB: Complemenl 07 Conlradiction? making it difficult for farmers to distinguish bctween them (S. Morin, K. Longley, pers. comms.) . Many of th ese varielies dis play excelle nt qualities and in th eory offer farmers a much wi der choice . S ut lhis choice may not be exercised in practice if th e varie ties are not phenoty pically d istinct. Work is under way to adapt the Boster model to ri ce (Lon gley, 2000)."},{"index":7,"size":85,"text":"Molecular markers can be u sed tI) maintain or increase genetic diversity at a locus or range of loei that are neutral for agron omic lraits, while selecting for such traits al other non -neutralloci (Ribaut and Betran, 1999). This approach could be used lo maintain allelic series or a range of non -agronomic visual phenotypes (e.g\" flower color, seed color) during the early stages of a breeding program, so a s to increa se the likelihood that the fmal products will be phenotypically distinct."}]},{"head":"Farmer-frlendly specialized collections?","index":40,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":135,"text":"The provision of a range of existing varieties to inte rested farmers is an important func tion for genebanks (FAO , 1996). The practica l difficu lty of screenin g large numbers of germplasm accessions wiU be felt just as acutely by farmers as by formal plant breeders, or even more so. To make screc n ing cheaper and easier , many genebanks h ave established core collections, designed to represent a crop 's ma.x.imum genetic diversity throu gh the mínimum possible number of accessio n s (Hodgkin el al. 1995). At least 63 different core collec tions of 51 crops have been established worldwide (Spillane el al, 1999). Plant breeders and biotechnologists havc, in add ition, developed specialized experimental coll ections, such as near-isogenic hnes and special ge netic stocks, to facilitate their research."},{"index":2,"size":69,"text":"There has becn Httle systematic thinking about how these s pecialized collections migh t be adapted to meet the needs of PPB. Several end-user oriented variations on th e concept of s pecialized collection s have been proposed, but not yet tested (e.g., van Hintum, 1999). Van Hintum et a l (2000) have developed an on-hne selector which allows u sers to define their own collection (see www.cpro.dlo.nl/cgn/coreeoll/usercore.htm) ."},{"index":3,"size":115,"text":"Alternatively, after farmers have de fined their criteria, breeders could search germplasm collections for corresponding genotypes a nd assemble them into source populations for farmer breeders. For example, the collection of caSSRva clones being developed by a coopc rative of small-scale farmers in coastal Ecuador (see Box 10) will, at the farmers' request, inelude material from CIAT breeding populations. These materials are be ing selected by a CIAT breeder according to criteria specified by the farmers, which inc1ude high yield, drought toleran ce, and good processing quality. GIS are an additional tool that can be used to support the assemb ly of sets of a ccessions adapted to specific environmental variables (D. Wood, pers. comm.)."}]},{"head":"Biotechnology as a Set of Tools for Formal and Informal Plant Breeding","index":41,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Tools ror Promoting Recombination","index":42,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":80,"text":"Conunentators vary in their liiews on the optimal amount of recombination, or mutabilily in its larges t sense, that should be included in PPB. Sorne Ceel that m ethods derilicd in th e laboratoT)' may nOl be superior to evolutionary processes in the Cield (J . Jiggins, pers. comm.). Others, however, such as Simmonds (1979), h ave feIt that the limitations to recombination have beeo one of the major con strrunts to selection efTorts by both formal and informal breeders."}]},{"head":"Creating endogenous genetic variation","index":43,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":66,"text":"Farmer-led PPB is likely to face constraints in accessing and¡or managing new genetie variatian from ou tside the farming system. The faet that formal breeders have made considerable progress u sing endogenous genetic variation-variation available in limited or do sed breeding populations-alone may be highly significant far farmer-led eIToTts (Leng, 1974;Wych and Rasmussen, 1983;HallaueT, 1986;Mac Key, 1986;Dudley and Lambert, 1992;Manninen and Nissila, 1997;Rasmussen and Phillips, 1997)."},{"index":2,"size":72,"text":"Chemical treatment or nuclear irradiation have been used to induce mutabons fOT !he purposes of crop impTovement (FAOjIAEA, 1986). Commonly used mutagenic chemicals like EMS introduce point mutations, while X-ray irradiation leads to gross chromosomal changes. Because these techniques do not distinguish between human and plant DNA, highly controlled experimental conditions are required to protect users. For this and several other reasans, these methods could not easily be u sed by farmers."},{"index":3,"size":89,"text":"Another mechanism for inducing rnutage nesis is transposition (Wessler, 1988;Peterson, 1993). This relies on transposons, which are naturally occurring genetic elernents (i.e., pieces of DNA) that move around the genome of most plan t species. Transposons generate new genetic variation as they move . The rate at which different transposons move through particular genomes vanes widely, and with it the rate at which variation occurs (Levy and Walbot, 1990). A recent study of mruze demonstrated the importan ce oC transpasition in generating gene tic variation (Fischer et al, 1995)."},{"index":4,"size":98,"text":"The advent of increasingly sophisticated and controllable transposon mutagenesis techniques h as already revolutionized plant molecular biology research (Sundaresan, 1996;lzawa et al , 1997). In sorne plant species (e.g., Arabidopsis, maize, and rice), these techniques a re now being used as experimen lal tools by biotechnologists, primarily to identify genes and/or phenotypes through insertional mutagenesis (Sundaresan, 1996;Izawa et al, 1997). They are províng more accurate and potentially useful than previous mutagenesis approaches. In theoT)', they could eventually be used to help fa rmers genera te, augment or 'release' u sefuJ variation within local germplasm (R. Jefferson, pcrs. comm.)."},{"index":5,"size":155,"text":"Transposon mutagenesis techniques can generate a lleles associated with a gain or a 1058 of function for many phenotypic traits an d have been primarily used to date in the iden tificatíon of the loci associated with specific traits. At prescnt a research group in Wageningen is using these tcchniques to over-express, mis-express or ectopically express candidate tra nsgenes a t different locations in the genome in order to gen erate n ew phenotypes (A. Perelra, pe rs . comm .J. While most available transposon techn ique s are s uitable only for laboratory-based line selcction a nd screenin g, the tech n iques curren tly under developrnent \\Vil! enable selection and scree ning to be done in experimen tal Cields. Il is likely that field-Ievel techniques such as promoter perturbation, gene knockouts , or activation tagging could be developed or adapted for use to generate ge netic variabon for PPB an d PVS programs."},{"index":6,"size":110,"text":"Sorne co mmenta tors [ee! that 'randoro' mu ta genesis approaches of this kind will nol be useful to farmer-breeders because they wiU generale mo re )unk' variatíon than farmers can han die (D. Duvick, pers. cornm.) . They su ggest that sorne pre-screening for desirable phenotypes would have to be done by fo rma l researchers befare farmers would be inte¡-ested. The poteritial of transposon systems for ge neratin g ge netic gain could probably be empirica Uy tested against conven tionaJ breeding techniques. However , biosafety regulatio n s make it unlikely that farmers will be allowed to experiment at Cield level with transgenic transposon mutage nesis techniques."}]},{"head":"Controlltng recombinatton rates","index":44,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":205,"text":"Another way of increas ing endogenous ge netic varíation is through o pti.mizing the process of recombination . This issue is considered by sorne to h ave been neglected in plant breeding compared to the techniques of selec tion and isolation (Simmonds, 19791_ Recognizing tha t a high degree of genetic variabili ty is required for major evolutio nary adva nces, Stebbins (1 959) a rgu cd that, \\vhcn-endogenous mu ta tion rates a re low, genetic recom bina tio n is the most likely source of such variabi.lity and that recombination-genera ted diversity could be maxirnized by hybridization between populations with d¡fferent a dap tive norms. Reco mbination within the sequ en ce of a single gene and epistastic effec ts-the effecls of one gene on another-have been ident.ified as a potentially important source of new genetic variability in the development of elite germplasm (Schnable e t a l, 1998; Rasmusse n a nd Phill ips, 1997)_ For ¡nstance, the generation of new s pecifi cities through unequal crossing-over within co mplex resistance genes d urin g recombination has been demonstrated , to date rn ain ly in mode l systcms such as the Zea mays-Puccinia s orghi interaction (Pryor and Ell is, 1993)."}]},{"head":"Biotechnology as a Ser 01 TooLs lar Formal and Informal Planl BTeeding","index":45,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":140,"text":"The level of recombination in farmer-Ied PPB is likcly to be far from optimal for the purposes of generating endogenous genetic variation. Increasing it could help.¡Ha nson, 1959a, 1959b;Rieseberg et al, 1996). but n ot always to the same degree. Crop plant genomes difTer in their 'permeability' as regards the introgression of different genes or chromosomal regions, whether by wide-cross recombination with wild relatives or whe n crossed with other dornesticates in the prirnary genepool ¡e.g . • Rieseberg et al, 1996)_ Mating strategies have a significant efTect on recombination rates. They rnay be important for genetic enhancement or pre -breeding, especially where the resources lo conducl marker-assisted introgression a re not a va ila ble (Tanksley el al, 1989). lmproving fa rmers' ma ting strategics could prove cost-effe ctive in PPB programs, ¡Spilla n e and Ge pts. 2000)."},{"index":2,"size":104,"text":"Molecula r mapping efforts are like ly to increase knowledge of the genomics of recombination ra tes, both within and between crop genepools. The existenee of genes that influence c rossability in many species indicates that the presence or absence of these genes in farrners' populations may affeet reeombination ra tes as well as interspecific hybridization (e.g., Luo el al, 1996). For instan ce, the genes la 1, kr2 , kr3 , and kr4 found in wheat cultivars such as Chinese Spring (and in sorne Chinese landraces) are known lo facilitate crossability with species of olher genera (Luo et al, 1996;Jiang el al, 1994)."},{"index":3,"size":97,"text":"Efforls are now unde r way lo isolate the genes that prornote or impede recombination (Moore, 1998). Once this is done, it m ay be possible to develop 'gene cassettes', in which these genes are co n trolled by inducible promoters. These cassettes would be u sed to generate experimentallines for u se by farmers or formal breeders. Crossed into breeding populations, they would e ither enhance recombination or reduce it, to protect favora ble gen e combinations from rearran gement. Such approaches m ay give farmer-led PPB grea ter control over recombination rates within their populations."}]},{"head":"Inducible apomtxts","index":46,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":152,"text":"Apomixis is a natura lly occurring phenomenon whereby sorne plant species produce true seeds without fertilization and recombination. lt has been described in over 400 diffe rent plant species, only a few oC which are crops. The harnessing oC apomixis genetics for plant breeding may make it possible to develop true-breeding hybrids which retBi n their yield advantages Qver generations, making it unnecessary fo r farrners to buy new seed cach year. In contrast to gene-based enhancemen ts, the provision of an apomictic trait could permit new strategies based on the control of recombination in conventional breeding and selection. There have been s ignificant advances in recent years towards the goal of harnessing apomixis in a number of crop plants (Grossniklaus el al, 1998). Howevcr, a considerable amount of fu rther research wiU probably be necessary to develop the technology for wide spread u se in breeding (Jefferson, 1994;D. Wood, pers. comm.)."},{"index":2,"size":22,"text":"The development of apomictic varieties will require the use of inducible promotors that can be switched on and off (Jefferson , 1994)."},{"index":3,"size":52,"text":"Retaining th e ability to switch back to a sexual phase of recombination will be nccessary to permit the incorporation of new genes into the apomictic background. The genetic engineerin g of apomixis should make it possible to develop an inducible apomictic gene cassette, perhaps one that is inclependent of erop species."},{"index":4,"size":119,"text":"Many commentators feel that the development of inducible apomixis could h a ve a profound effect on PPB (Jefferson, 1994; P. Richards, T. Hodgkin, D. Wood, pers. cornms.). Inducible apomixis•bascd plant breeding could be done on a modest scale at regional or locallevel, m ain ly by farmers' groups. Access to inducible apomixis through PPB would allow farmers to screen, select, and enhance germplasm much more efficiently and productively, with minírnal outside intervention. One cornmentator s uggested that, until inducible apomixis is fully dcveloped, PPB projects involving clonally propa gated crops with a sexua l cycle could be used to provide insights into farmers' interest in the technology ancl the likclihood of wiclespread adoption (P. Richards, pers. co mm.J."},{"index":5,"size":312,"text":"The authors of the 1998 Bellagio Apomixis Declaration expect easyto-use apomixis to permit: 58 New breeding procedures and strategies based on individual plants (existing methods are based on the synthesis of observations of en tire plant families). An exceptional individual plant could irnmediately become a variety Immediate genetic fixation of any desired plant individual, including those generated by wide crossing two difTerent species, which are often sterile at present. This could expand the a ccessibili ty and use of a wider diversity of genetic resources Fast and flexible plant breeding. Commentators have emphasiz,ed the advantages of apomixis for responding to changing micro• environments, cropping conditions, pathogen populations, and market opportunities. It is also felt that apomixis could promote more sustainable agro•ecosystem rnanagement (Jefferson, 1994) Development oC hybrid cultivars in almost every crop species. Farmers sowing seed harvested from F) hybrids would experie nce minimal decrease in yield. The a uthors of the Bellagio Dec1aration and other cornmentators (e.g., A. Ebert, pers. cornm.) feel that this will greatly in crease resource-poor farmers' access to the yield benefits of heterosis, without changing traditional seed saving practices. Farmers will stiU be able to select the best seed for the next cycle . As hy brid varieties are adopted by increasing num bers of farmers, la rge gains in erop production eould be achicved Propagation by tru e seed of crops that are currently vegetatively propagated, such as cassava, potato, sweet potato, and yams, with con cornitant reduction of the d iseases transmitted during vegeta tive propagation Reduction of th e microp ropagation costs of horticultural crops, trees, and flowers. In sorne cases, a pomictic seed could replace the n eed for cu ttings a n d oth er forms of vegctative propagation Protection from horizontal transfer of transgen ic charaeters into ne igh boring populations, throu gh th e introduction of apomixis into male-sterile varieties."},{"index":6,"size":201,"text":"Sorne commentators \\' I¡a rn of possible u nwanted side-effects. If farmers usin g landraces turn to apom ic tic h y brids that maintain thcir yield advantage down the ge neration s, they could become dependent on external sourccs to provide im provcd genotypes, jus t as they are when they adopt conventional improved verieties ¡Sma le , 1997; S. S mith, R. Riley, D. Duviek, pers. cornrns.). There is a risk of 10ss of diversity and gene tic stagnation (D. Du vi ck, pers. comm.). However, traditional landraces \\Vould not always be di splaced ; in many traditional fanning systems, modern varieties and landraces are maintained together (e.g. , Bellón, 1991 ;Brush, 1995;Smale an d Heisey, 1995;Wood and Lcnne, 1997). A number of secd indus try cornmentators have expressed eon cern th at the widespread use of apornictic varieties might lead to redueed investment in public: or private-sector formal breeding, including activities to source n ew germplasm and create new diversity. ~ Ifthis were to occur, then genetic progress would pla teau, leading to stagnant yields, declining genetie diversity, and, over time) high er risk of crop failure caused by diseases and insects (S. Smith, R. Riley, pers. cornms.)."},{"index":7,"size":77,"text":"The value of a pomixis tcchnology in the long term would depend greatly on what farmers (and their formal -sector partners) did with it, which in turn would depend on whether they find it easier to create improved apomictic hybrids than to use existing methods to improve pure Enes or ope n-pollinated varieties, and on the extent to which they continu e to access verieti es from outside thei r ferming system s (D. Duvick, pers. comm.)."}]},{"head":"Controllable male-sterllity systems","index":47,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":38,"text":"Male sterility is a u seful trait for promoting cross-pollination and recombination . It is also widely u sed in the production of F 1 hybrid seeds. Ho\\Vever, ma le-sterile lines are not yet available for all crops."},{"index":2,"size":33,"text":"And there may be problems associated with ¡ts u se in sorne crops, such as the lack of suitable restorer lines or the vulnerability lo disease of genetically uniform cytoplasm in the progeny."}]},{"head":"Biotechnology•Assisted PPB: Complernent or Contradiction?","index":48,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":188,"text":"While nuclear male-sterile (NMS) mutants have been observed in many plant species (Kaul, 1988), the lack of homozygous breeding lines has precluded their use in hybrid seed production (Williams, 1995). Regardless of whether th e NMS gene is dominant or recessive, at most 50% of the progeny of any cross \\Vil! be male•sterile (Rao et al, 1998). The problem then arises of how to eliminate th e 50% non-male s terile progeny. Simple and elegant genetic engineering technologics h ave been developed to Qvercome this problem, allowing 100% male-sterile progeny to be produced (Marian i et al, 1991) . These technologies also incorporate the ferti hty restoration necessary for the production of F ¡ hybrids. A number of potentially useful transgenic technologies in which male sterili ty can be induced in any crop species have now been devcloped (e.g\" Yistra et al, 1994 ;Mariani et al, 1990). Early transge nic technologies had the disadvantage of requiring t\\Vo 1ines for fertility restoration. Transgenic one-tine male sterility technologies have now been developed, in which conditional rnale sterility can be induced by applying a non-Ioxic chemical (e.g., Kriele el al, 1996)."},{"index":2,"size":93,"text":"No male -steriHty technologics appropriate for the production of F¡ hybrid seeds solely by farmers have yet been adopted by them, even if they have been developed (M . Gale, pers. comm.). Howevcr, single transgene-conditional male-or female-sterility technologies could be of use in sorne PPB applications, ir directional cross-pollination is desirable but is not easy to achieve with existing germplasm. Bidinger et al (1994) have demonstrated that hetcrosis can be used to improve pearl millet landraces with out any major loss in adaptation , by topcrossing locally adapted landraces with high-yielding male-sterile lines."},{"index":3,"size":128,"text":"Coupled with emerging developments in fletd-level inducible promoters, advances in transgenic maJe• and female•sterility technologies suggest that simpler systems for the generation of hybrid seed could be developed. Current approa ches to F 1 hybrid secd production are bascd on the strip-planti ng oC female and maJe (pollen donor) inbred lines, which are then crossed . The fe male lines are emasculated by hand or chemically by spraying. The use of field-Ievel inducible promoters Jinked to transgenes which promote mate s terility (in the female inbred line) or female sterility (in the male inbred line) could allow breeders to plant a mLxture of fema1e-and male-sterile plants, induce sterility, and harvest the entire plot for hybrid seed. Such approaches could conceivably be used to facilitate heterosis breeding by farmers."}]},{"head":"Tools for Enhancing Germplasm","index":49,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":157,"text":"Many [armers need germplasm containing variation that is unavailable to them in locally available germplasm, whether landraces or modern varieties (Wood and Lenne, 1997). Locally adapted varieties that are othenvise excellent may lack useful traits following genetic erosion caused by events such as war or natural disasters (so-ca1led 'bottlenecking events', see Boxes 10 and 11), as a result of genehc drift or simply because the traits are nol found in that crop. In environmenls subject to extreme fluctuation, such as drylands that are marginal for croppiqg, sorne landraces may ha vc a narrow genetic base due to past bottlenecking events (Spillane and Gepts, 2000). Suitable germplasm may even be lacking in the centres of diversity for a crop. For instance, local landraces of wheat in Ethiopia were shown to lack resistance to stem rust (Puccinia graminis) and leaf rust (P. recondita) and were consequently confined to highland areas where disease pressure was low (BeIay et al, 1995)."},{"index":2,"size":102,"text":"Introducing exotic germplasm can bring substantial benefits to farmers. However, most plant breeders, formal and informal, are reluctant to use exotic or unadapted material due lo its initially de tri mental efTects on their elite or adapted breeding material (Kannenberg and Falk, 1995;Duvick, 1996). Crosses with exotic material can result in the parallel introduction of inferior alleles and the disruption ofuseful co-adapted gene complexes (Duvick, 1984). Adaptation can be negatively affected by such changes. Such disincentives to use exotic germplasm may be felt more slrongly by informal than by formal breeders, who do not have to eat or sell their early-generation progeny."}]},{"head":"What starting materlals to choose?","index":50,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":88,"text":"Choosing the starting genetic material s is the crucial first step for any PPB prograrn (Witcombe et al, 1996;Witcombe and Virk, 2001). The choice will depend on the program's objectives. When the program wishes only to consider existing locally adapted landraces, the choice will be limited to these. But when important agronomic characteristics are lacking in Iocally available germplasm, the inclusion of exogenous material wilI be necessary. The extent to which farmers participate in making such decisions in existing programs, even the participatory ones, is often not clear."},{"index":2,"size":98,"text":"Many PPB programs take as their point of departure an implicit assumption that the participatory approach will increase on-farm genetic diversity. However, this assumption may not be valid, because phenotypic diversity does not necessarily equate with gcnetic diversity (Wood and Lenné, 1997;Spillane and Gepts, 2000) . Additionally, it has been suggested that widesprcad adoption by farmers of varieties [rom participatory projccts could as easily lead to the contiguous planting of genetically similar varieties over Iruge arcas as conventional plant breeding has done, with the concomitant risk of genetic erosion and increased vulnerability to pests and diseases (Witcombe, 1999b)."},{"index":3,"size":119,"text":"The effects of PPB on phenotypic and genetic diversity can be investigated by conducting baseLine surveys before the program is la unched and al periodic intervaJs subsequently. Molecular genetic characterizatio n offarmers ' materia l at different stages ofthe program would h elp monitor the situation over time, enabling researchers and farmers to identify th e breeding activi ties most nceded. For example, in mass selection of self-pollinated crops it may be important to main tain a number of individuallines to ensure adequate genetic diversity in the population. Molecular ma rker analysis of rogued versus selected plants woutd in dicate the effects of selection on the genetic base over lime and the relative importance of different genes to farmers."},{"index":4,"size":195,"text":"For both formal and informal breeders, the surest way of aehieving genetie gain is lo eross genotypes lhat are already known lo perform well under their target conditions. Consequently, a plant breeding program that needs to show early results may use only a modest amount of gcnetic variation in th e initial erossing design lo produce material tha t can be predicted lo perform well (D. Ouvick, pers. comm .). The need lo obtain good rcsults quickly is as common a constraint in PPB as in conventional breeding, particularly when rcsource-poor farmers with an urgent need to improve their livelihoods are involved . However , when a progra m has to meet a need that cannat be met using proven material, a greatcr range of genetie diversity is required, bringing in unadapted or even unrelated genotypcs or genes. In this case, most progeny of erosses will prove unusable in the short termo Better selection tools (and aften additional generations of recombination) are needed to extraet the rare favorable reeombinants of th ese crosses. Biateehnology can provide sueh tools (D. Duviek, pcrs. comm.), making it more feasible for PPB to incorporate new or unrelated genetie variation."}]},{"head":"Introducing exogenous variation","index":51,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":62,"text":"In many cases exotie germplasm must undergo 'pre-breeding' or 'trait enrkhment' before it can be usefut (Simmonds, 1993). Th. is is a strong argu ment for sorne degree of outside support to farmers' breeding efforts (D. Ouvick, pers. comm.). including the use of biotcehnology tools where th ese are the key to either providing new variation or making effieient use of it."},{"index":2,"size":137,"text":"Recent progress using advanced backcross QTL methods has shown that DNA marker technology can be used to extract yie ldenhancing traits from exotic germplasm sueh as wild relatives (Tanksley and McCoueh, 1997). At present the cost:benefit ralios for developing the use of molecular marker teehnology in breeding programs are in the main only favorable for high-value commercial crops. Nonetheless, it is expected that eosts wiU fall and that MAS will eventually become an integral part of modern plant breeding (D . Duvick, pers. comm.). The effeet of the anti-transgenic food lobby on research funding and objectives (e.g.) in the European Union) may steer future research in sorne regions towards the use of molecular rnarkers to Biotechnology as a Set ofTools for Formal aJ\\d Informal Plant Breeding manipulate germplasm within sexually accessible crop genepools, avoiding gene tic modification."},{"index":3,"size":121,"text":"Once the use of markers becomes routine, MAS may provide a powerful tool for promoting geneflow lO locally adapted populations, since it allows the identification of individual QTLs for a specific trait not only in the donor but also in the recipient parent (deVicente and Tanksley, 1993;Tanksley et al, 1996;Tanksley and Nelson, 1996;Tanksleyand McCouch, 1997). Recent advances in the use of molecular markers to identify QTLs may mean that 'trait•enriched' populations can be developed which wiU be easier to combine with locally adapted varieties or landraces. In sum, the innovative use of molecular maps and markers is likely to alter radically the way in which exotic germplasm is used in plant breeding and genetic enhancement in the decades ahead (McCouch, 1998)."},{"index":4,"size":131,"text":"Comparative molecular mapping is opening up hitherto unknown opportunities to capitalize on the similarity between d¡fferent species in the grass family (McCouch, 1998). It may be possible to develop a unified genetic map of higher plants which spans both monocots and dicots (Paterson et al, 1996). These developments will make it possible to study the genetic basis of adaptation across difTerent crop species and to apply the knowledge gained from one crop to the introduction of new genes into another crop (Devos and Gale, 1997;McCouch, 1998;Sasaki, 1998). The relatively small genome of rice has meant that this crop is likely to become the 'anchor genome' for the comparative mapping and isolation of a1l cereal genes. A number of public• and privatc•sector efforts are now under way to sequence the rice genome."},{"index":5,"size":70,"text":"Much plant biotechnology research is currently directed at the improvement of speci.fic 'quaJity' traits in modern varieties (Mazur et al, 1999). It is likely that sorne landraces, both locaily and widely adapted ones, can also be improved in this way. Paradoxically, deciding not to take this course may in the longer term only hasten the displacement of landraces by other crops or improved varieties that can provide such quality traits."}]},{"head":"Increastng fanners' access ta tratts from wtld relatives","index":52,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":97,"text":"As we have seen, farmers' varieties may lack genes for traits useful to fanners or other ehd users. The wild relatives of crops have already contributed many useful traits to crop production (Stalker, 1980;Prescott-Allen, 1988;Lenné and Wood, 1991). While the use of genes from wild species has so far been confined mainly to major cereaJ and cash crops. it is likely that almost aH crops can benefit from the addition of agronomically desirable traits from this source, although these traits may not necessarily be easily accessible (e.g., Muehlbauer et al, 1994;Grimanelli et al, 1995;Singh and Ocampo, 1997)."}]},{"head":"Biotechnology-Assisted PPB: Comp(ement or Contrad iction?","index":53,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":92,"text":"There are examples of geneflow from wild relatives to domcsticates (e .g., Oka and Chang, 1961;de Wet and Harlan, 1975;Longley, 1999), but farmers on their own seldom systematically access useful genes from wild relatives a nd related species. There are major barriers to such access, such as reproduc tive isolation , embryo breakdown, hybrid sterility, and limited genetic recombination (Spillane and Gepts, 2000). The disincentives faced by formal plant breeders in using wild relatives are felt even more acutely by farmers, who typically must seU or cat what they breed or select."},{"index":2,"size":98,"text":"Nevertheless, access to useful genes from wild relatives can benefit resource-poor farmers. Baudoin e t al (1997) demonstrated the usefulness of embryo reseue in tissue c ulture to achieve the wide-cross transfer of uscful traits from wild s trruns of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) into the Andean cultivatcd genepool. Through on-farm trials and farmer participation, the best enhanced germplasm was then rapidly selected by farmers for incorporation into their existing beanmaize multiple cropping systems. Without the use of wide-cross embryo techniques it is highly unlikely that these Andean highland farmers would have had access to wild bean germplasm."},{"index":3,"size":122,"text":"Conventional plant breeding has had major successes in transferring useful genes into cultivated varieties using either bridging crosses or wide crosses. For example, bridging crosses have often been used to access alien genetic variation in potato breeding (Iwanaga et al, 1991;Ortiz, 1998), while wide crosses have made significant contributions to wheat improvement (Jiang et al, L 994) . Biotcchnologies such as embryo reseue have also increased the opportunities for transfer (Sharma, 1995). One of the few examples of the farmer participatory dissemination of biotechnology products has occurred through the work of the West Africa Riee Development Association (WARDA), where progeny from an in vitro-facilitated inter-species cross between the indigenous African and Asian rice species have been entered into PVS trials (WARDA, 1999)."},{"index":4,"size":147,"text":"Wide crossing. especially of the less commercial crops, is considered by sorne to be a n egleeted area for research (Duvick, 1989). Yet advances in wide-crossing teehniques su eh as hybrid embryo culture (Sharma et al, 1996) and the use of crossing strategies such as bridge erosses are making the wild relatives of many crops ever more aecessiblc (Stalker, 1980;Muehlbauer et al, 1994). The sueeess rate of gene transfer in wide crosses can be increased by knowledge of chromosome pruring mechanisms and their genetic control. This knowledge is essentiaJ to promote recombination between heterologous or homologous chromosomes if the size of the introgrcsscd chromosome segment(s) needs to be either minimized or maximized (e.g . • Luo et al, 1996). Continuing advanees in structural genomies (e.g., comparative mapping) and genetic engineering (e .g., crossability transgenes) are likely to facilitate wide crossing s till further in the coming years."},{"index":5,"size":129,"text":"Althaugh erop wild relatives are valued as a unique souree af genetic variatian, they have rarely beeo used to improve quantitative traits. It is aclmowledged that exotic germplasm of this kind is infrequently used by breeders (Duvick, 1996;Spillane and Gepts, 2000). Achieving a wide cross is, oC course. only the first> step in successful gene transfer from wild to domesticated species. The problem oí 1inkage drag' of undesirable genes with the desirable gene can only be solved by long cycles of repetitive backcrossing to break the linkage. Studies have shown that, even after 20 or more years of conventional breeding, a single gene transferred from a wild species can still be linked with enough chromosomal DNA to contain more than 100 other potentially undesrrable genes (Young and Tanksley, 1989)."},{"index":6,"size":98,"text":"One example of how undesirable linkages limit aecess to useful traits is the low protein quality oC cultivated maize kernels (Or et al, 1993). Storage proteins (zeins) eontaining high levels of the essenlÍal amino acids methionine and lysine have been identified in unseleeted wild germplasm, but not in domesticated germplasm. It is thought that undesirable genetie linkages betwecn the zein loei and other loei have, since domestication, prevented both farmers and formal plant breeders from selecting for this trait using conventional breeding techniques (Swarup et al, 1995). MAS or genetic engineering may yet help to break this linkage."},{"index":7,"size":123,"text":"New opportunities have been opened up by the recent development of a molecular marker-based technique that enables the transfer of QTLs conferring complex traits su eh as yield and organ size (Paterson, 1995;Tanksley and McCouch, 1997). This technique has now been demonstrated for rice (Xiao et al, 1998) and tornata (deVicente and Tanksley, 1993). Once its applicability to other crop/wild relative combinations is demonstrated, the technique may prove useful in developing trait-enriched germplasrn populations for both conventional and PPB projeets. One way forward may be the deliberate choice of diverse genotypes from erop eore colleetions (collections of lmes known to contain maxirnum levels of gene tic diversity and to be adapted lo difTerent agro-environments) for inclusion in QTL analysis studies (van Hintum, 1999)."}]},{"head":"Prouldtng useft\" traits through transgenesis","index":54,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":106,"text":"Transgenie approaches to providing the genetic variation needed to solve a plant breeding problem are usually tried only ir suitable conventional approaehes are laeking or do not work-for example, if germplasm conferring resistance to an important pest or rosease has not becn found or is very diffieult to aeeess in the genepool of a major eornmercial crop. Many erop genepools are poor in agronomically useful traits, sueh as protein quality or abiotic stress tolerance. that are available in the genepools of other crops or species. In sorne cases transgenic approaches may be the only way of obtaining resistant or improved varieties (J. Tohme, pers. comm.) ."},{"index":2,"size":83,"text":"A number of serious pest5 and diseases are already being tackled in this way. One example is 50ft rot or blackleg (Enuinia carotovora) in potato, which causes crop losses estimated at US$1 00 million per year worldwide (Perombelon and Kelman, 1980). Resistance is lacking in the potato genepool but has been identified in the wild species Solanum breuidens, which cannot be easily crossed with S. tuberosum (Austin et al , 1988;Wi11iams et al, 1993). A transgenic route is thus the only possible one."},{"index":3,"size":15,"text":"Sorne other examples of pests or diseases for which conventional resistance options are lacking include;"},{"index":4,"size":77,"text":"Insects in cowpea (lITA, 1992) Leaf ro11 virus (PLRV) in potato (Corsini et al, 1994) Rice hoja blanca virus (Madriz et al, 1998) Rice grassy stunt virus (Swaminathan, 1982) Black sigatoka disease in banana (Swennen and Vuylsteke, 1991) CoITee seed weevil (CENICAFE, 1997) Sean golden mosalc virus (Hidalgo and Seebe, 1997) African cassava mosaic virus (Cours et al, 1997;Obm-Nape et al, 1997) Viruses in papaya (Gonsalves, 1998;Prasartsee et al, 1998) Insects in cotton (Estruch et al, 1997)."},{"index":5,"size":73,"text":"Similarly, crops contaln no known genes for resistance against viroids (the smallest infectious agents of plants) . At present, the only practical way of protecting crops from viroid epidemics is to diagnose infected plants and then to eliminate them from cultivation. Two genetic engineering strategies using antisense genes (Yang et al, 1997) or a yeast ribonuclease (Sano et al, 1997) have been developed to provide new sourees of genetic resistance against specific viroids."},{"index":6,"size":58,"text":"Although there are stin problems in developing efficient transformation systems in many erops, a crop's accessible germplasm already extends in principie to many other organisffis and could even inc1ude synthetic genes (e.g., Rotino et al, 1997). In particular, pest and disease resistance provides a multitude of examples in which transgenes have been obtained from diverse species and organisms."},{"index":7,"size":72,"text":"A range of other agronomically useful genes have now been isolated and suceessfully transfcrred to crops. Many single plant genes are also now being transferred between sexually incompatible crop plant species (e.g., Whitham et al, 1996;Molvig et al, 1997;Wilkinson et al, 1997) . For ¡nstanee, pathogen resistance genes can be transferred from one plant species to another (e.g., tobacco to tomato, and vice -versa) and rernain functional (Rommens et al, 1995) ."},{"index":8,"size":142,"text":"While the majority of agronomic traits are quantitative and hence difficult to improve using existing transgenic technology, many monogenes are also known to con(er majar agronomic benefits (Table 1) . In addition, monogene mutations are ofmajor importan ce in breeding programs. Examples inelude 'opaque -2', which improves the nutritional value of maize kernels, 'nor', which increases the shelf life of toma toes, and 'Rht1' and 'Rht2', which reduce the height ofwheat plants (e.g., Lohmer et al, 1991). lndeed, the Rht-BljRht-DI and dwarf-8 (d8) genes that were largely responsible for the Green Revolution have recently been shown to be mutant genes that are insensitive to certain growth hormones (Peng et al, 1999) . The identification, isolation, and transfer of such monogenes between crop species or varieties may offer new opportunities to bring about genetic gain rapidly, in landraces as well as modero varieties."},{"index":9,"size":131,"text":"Transferring desirable monogenic traits from exotic to adapted cultivated germplasm through conventional plant breeding can be highly time-consuming (Ronald, 1997). Transgenic technology is often equated with transferring genes between species, but it can equally well be used to transfer genes within a crop. For instance, if a desirable resistance gene homolog is available in a particular accession but not in the variety of choice, transgenic techniques can be uscd to move it. In sorne crops, once a resistance (or other) gene has been eloned (e.g., Kilian et al, 1997), transgenic cultivars can be generated within 2 years, compared with 5 -7 or 10 years using a c1assical backcross approach (Ronald, 1997;C. Qualset, pers. comm.). Where PPB programs require access to specific monogenic traits, transgenic approaches can definitely help deliver them quickly."},{"index":10,"size":83,"text":"Transgenic technology can be used to enhance landraces. For example, cassava farmers in Tanzania like both MulundijS, which is a selection from an on-station variety trial, and their local variety. Rushura. But they feel that Rushura cannot be recornmended for more widespread cultivation because it is susceptible to cassava mosaic disease ( de Piter et al, 1997). Gene transfer would be an effective way of adding resistance to Rushura, greatly enhancing an already useful variety known to be in demand by small-scale farmcrs."},{"index":11,"size":306,"text":"Two routes are open to [armcrs and formal breeders wishing to enhance existing varieties using transgenes: (i) genetic transformation of the variety or (ii) backcrossing the transgene from a transgenic variety into a non-transgenic one. While route (i) may be faster, it requires either that protocols for efficient transformation of the particular variety have been developed, which is unlikely to be the case for most landraces, or the use of a suitable gcnotype-independent transfer method. Route (ii) is more time-consuming, and is unlikely to be an endeavor that farmers would wish to undertake, because of the yield and other problems in early-generation progeny. The costs and benefits of each route would have to be worked out on a case by case basis. One option lhal m ight prove widely app licable would be to lra nsform a basic set of genotypes (perhaps those lhat can be grown with at least sorn e success in the broadest ran gc of environments) with th e most useful tran sgen es. After biosafety testing, the sel could be made a vailable as donar parcnts for crossi ng or backcrossing according to s peciJic nccds (M.J. Sampaio, D. Duvick, pcrs. comms.). This would be a 10w-lcc h ' method [ar delive rin g transgcnic innovations in a form rea dily usablc by national programs or even directly by fa rmers. If farmc r s \\Vere also provided with trait-linked selcction markers for use in iden tifying transgenic progeny at the field level, they could in lheory shorten the amount of time spent on backcrossing, which might make them more willing to undertake it. In practlce, however, farmers are unlikely to wish to take this route without the assistance of formal researchers, who are more able to sus tain the risks of yield decline and quality deterioration associated with early•generation progeny."},{"index":12,"size":135,"text":"As the lechnology progresses and more robust and efficient protocols become available, genetic transfer is likely to become applicable to a wider range of genotypes, as weU as faster and more reliable (e.g., Clough and Senl, 1998;Komari el al, 1998;Mazur el al, 1999). It may become the preferred approach for adding single-gene desired traits to otherwise popular varieties, since unlike sexual crossing it does not disrupt the complex genetic balance of other traits, especially quantitative traits. It may prove particularly useful in clonally propagated crops, in which conventiona! breeding is difficult. Meeting biosafety requirements for containment in such crops is easier, because of the absence of natural seed dispersal. Efficient transformation systems may eventually become a service industry, in which varieties of a particular species can be transformed al core transformation facilities for that species."},{"index":13,"size":104,"text":"MAS and transgenic techniques both have considerable potential for speeding up the 'upstream' germplasm enhancement or prebreeding stages of crop improvement. They can also allow the development of enhanced germplasm populations more precisely tailored lo !he needs of end users (Tanksley and McCouch, 1997). For a while at least, non-transgenic germplasm enhanced by MAS may prove more popular with formal breeders and farrocrs who do nol want or cannot afford the regulatory burdens and biosafety restrictions of working with transgenic material. But in the longer term it is clear tbat, used in corobination, these advanced biotechnologics could yield tangible benefits for farmers and consumers."}]},{"head":"Fteld-level 4gene switch' technologies to increase farmers' control","index":55,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":80,"text":"DNA elements called promoter scquences can be used to control thc expression oí a transgene by directing it to certain tissues (e.g., to poUen ceUs) or to specific developmental stages (e.g., at dehiscence) or to respond to specific inducing or repressing agents (e.g., virus infection, herbicide treatment) . Inducible promoter systems allow researchers to switch genes on or off at particular times in their laboratory work. In theory, farmers or formal breeders couId do the same thing at field level."},{"index":2,"size":83,"text":"Combined with the use of transgenics, promoters are powerful lools for broadening farrocrs' choices and increasing their control over key biological processes. The challenge posed by cyanogen toxicity provides a good example (Box 8l. The ability to control the exprcssion BiotecluiOlogy-Assisted PPB: Complement or Conl radiclÍon? of selected genes in fi eld-grown plan ts by a pplying inducer compounds to them could co nfer substantial agronomíc benefits . Field-level intervention may be especially desira ble for controlling the expression of tran sge nes."}]},{"head":"Box8","index":56,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Seeking solutions to tbe paradolE oC cassava toxicity","index":57,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":74,"text":"Convenlional plant breeding has been unable to produce cassava varieties lhal combine reduced labor requirements and reduced risk of toxicity with the a clvantagcs farroers require from toxicity. An altemative approach is to seek bctter processing methods, involving the dis tribution of improved (faste r) fe rmentation starter cultures. But this approach faces daunting logística! and educational challenges. A genetic solution would be easier to implemento Can biotechnology tools help achieve a genetic solution?"},{"index":2,"size":198,"text":"Vanous biotechnology approaches have been suggested. If beneficial trruts are linked to, but distinct Crom , the toxicity factors, then the Iinkage can be broken using precise new selection tools such as antibodies and m olecular markers. However, it must be borne in mind that sorne benefits are conferred by the toxicity itself. These circumstances s uggest a transgenic approach designed to increase the oplions available, together with fanners' control over them . PossibJe stratcgics inc1ude: Tissue -specific or deveJopmentally controlled promoters inserted in front of the gene Cor cytochrome (P450), so as to limit synthesis of the toxin's precursor to certrun tissues or specific periods of plant growth A promoter ror the gene responsible Cor the brea kdown oC linamario lo toxic cyanide, lO increase lhe speed of cyanide release during processing. Released cyanide would volatize rapidly and harmlessly in open-air processing arcas, before the cassava is consumed For situations where toxicity is not needed and 100% s afety is required, an antisense ar gene-silenced consttuct of cytochrome P450 under the control of a strong constitutive promoter could be in troduced. This would produce completely acyanogenic plants that lack the potentia! to become toxic under any circumstances."},{"index":3,"size":159,"text":"Genetic tools are now available for pursuing these strategies. A cassava papulation on which to conduct the research to develop molecu lar markers for cyanogenic patential has been assembled at CIAT. Genes for cytochrome P450 and linamarase synthesis have been doncd. Constitutive and tissue-specific promote\"s and the technology for the genetic transfonnation of cassava are available. The promoters a re patented , but free licensing is available to developing countries in the service of small -scale Carmcrs. SOU RCES: Cassa va Safety Group (1994); Hughes el a! (1994Hughes el a! ( ,1997)); Hughes and Hughes (1994); Whi te and Sayre (1 997); Lidd. A number of'first-generation' inducible promoter systems have been developed (Table 2). Very few of these can be used on farmers' fields al presento Among Ihem are Ihe ethanol inducible promoter (Caddick et al, 1998) and Ihe sarener inducible promoter (de Veylder et al, 1997). More field-level systems wiU doubtless be developed ayer the next 5 years."},{"index":4,"size":66,"text":"The ideal requirements for a farm-Ievel inducible promoter were outlined by Jefferson (1993aJefferson ( , 1993b)). For example, in a subsistence cropping system, where commercial inputs are not practica!, the inducer would have to be an inexpensive, 10caUy available substance. Jefferson et al (1999) suggests that no current systems meet aU the necessary criteria for farmer use, but that systems could easily be developed Ihat do."},{"index":5,"size":251,"text":"Controversy has becn aroused by the development of inducible promotor-based systems to restrict transgenic phenotypes to a single  1998Vazquez-Tello et al, 1998Thomburg et al, 1990;Duan et al, 1996Kohler et al, 1996Schena et al, 1991;McNellis et al, 1998 ge neration (e.g., Moore et a l, 1998). These systcrns, devcloped by Delta a nd Pine and th e United S tates Department of Agricultu re (USDA), were pa tented on the basis of their u sefulness in protecting proprietary technology. They use a combinatío n of inducible a nd growth stagespecific promoters in conjunction with orber transgenes to limit aceess to proprietary 'embcclcled technology' to the firsl eommercialized gencration only (Jefferson et a l, 1999). If seeond-gen eration seed is sown it does no t germinate, leading to crop failu re. This is the teeh nology that was du bbed the 'termin a tor ' by the Rural Advaneemen t Found a tion Intcrnational (RA FI, 1998). During the Biosafety Protocol negotiations of 1999-2000, severa! developing eountries expressed concern that secondgeneration transgenic seed carrying th e technology could aecidentally be sown, especially by resource-poor farmers, who often divert some of th eir food sup ply LO this purpose a t the start of the growing season. However, su eh seed could be a high-value product for speeialized uses (J . Blalock, pers. comm.) , in which case it would be too valuab le to handle as a bulk commodity and would therefore be u nlikely to become avail a ble fo r sowing."},{"index":6,"size":131,"text":"A reeently posited variant of th ese systems is the one in which farmers would be a ble to apply a specific compound to 'switch on ' an agronomic transge ne if h e ar s he wished to do so. One corn mentator noted that this technology could give rise to foo d security concerns, since it could m ake farmers su sceptible to gene warfare (J. J iggins, pers. cornm.). The authors feel that this concern is u n likely to materia lize, partiy for logistical reasons (replacing a major part of the seed of a wh ole region is a high ly visible activity) and partIy because sowings that \\Vere not exposed to the compound \\Vould still produce the basie erop. Only the value-added trait would be lacking."},{"index":7,"size":134,"text":"Compounds and inducible promoter systems produced by the private sector are proprie tary and a vaila ble to farmers and researchers only on a commercial basis. However, such systems could in th eory also be developed by the public sector foc n on-or less commercial a pplications, such as those in basie research or those directed lo meetin g the needs of resource-poor farmers (Jefferson , 1993a(Jefferson , , 1993b)). Publicly funded systcm s would u se n on-proprietary indu ce r compounds which, ideal ly would be relatively abundant and inexpensive in ru ral areas. If made widcly available , su eh systems could be useful in transgenic approaches to facili tating the process of farrner PPB. However, it remains a n open question whether or not th ey will actually be developed."},{"index":8,"size":30,"text":"Needs assessments with farmers wiU help identify the priority traits over which farmers mi ght wi s h to h ave grea ter control. The following is a possible lisr:"},{"index":9,"size":27,"text":"The ability to switch apomixis gen e{s) on and off could have major empowering implications for resouree poor breeding situations (see Tools fo/\" Selecting Germplasm, p. 47)"},{"index":10,"size":201,"text":"The ability to control the timing oC grain-filling could allow farmers greater control over the timing of their harvest (M . Gale, pers. cornm.) The ability to induce flowering could be u sed to shorten generation times, especially in th e early stages of breeding programs, and to avoid continuing or imminent stresses (Laude, 1997) The ability to control the induction of biocontrol agents such as 8t toxin could allow farmers practising IPM to manage the use of these agents on their fields (Lewis el al, 1997) The ability to control or delay ripening or senescence could help farmers avoid post-harvest losses and get their produce to markets at the right time (C.S. Prakash, pers. comm.) The ability to control photosensitivity, which affects time to flowering and harvesting (T. Hodgkin, pers. comm.), could also help manipulate crop cycles in response to weather conditions and other factors The ability to switch male sterility on and off could a llow PPB projects greater flexibility and facilitate their increased use of h eterosis The ability to induce tolerance genes Cor sudden or continuing abiotic stresses such as drought, cold or h eat could allow farmers to save more of their harvest in bad years."},{"index":11,"size":71,"text":"There may be cases in which the additionallabor implied by increased farmer control over biological processes and products may prove a disincentive. For example, in IPM, rather lhan continually monitoring a field of erops for the emergence of inseet pests before manually inducing Bt expression in infested plants, sorne farrners may wish to rely on promoters induced by feeding insects, which would enable them to devote their labor to other activities."}]},{"head":"Tools for Dellverlng Planting Materials","index":58,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":54,"text":"The shorlage of high-quality, healthy seeds and other planti ng material s is among the most widely expressed concems of resource-poor farmers . Shortages are both chronic, caused by a variety of factors including poorly developed systems for multiplication and dissemination, and acute, caused by natural and man-made disasters, such as droughts and war."},{"index":2,"size":153,"text":"Farmers everywhere are almast invariably keen to try out new crap varieties. Their planting material wishes are nearly always expressed in tenns of a specific variety or varieties of interest. This may be a variety seen in a fonnal breeder's demonstration plot, or a local selectian , or a sample carried home from a trip to distant relatives. Farmers often find their opportunities to grow desirable new varieties limited by a cce ss to planting material, whether from formal or informal breeding programs. An example is cassava in Tanzania (Thro et aJ, 1994). In other cases, the performance of an already widely adopted variety may have Biorechnology-Assisted PPB: Complernent or Contradiction? deteriorated due to th e infestation of planting material with system ic pathogens. Other quality-related problems in planting material s include poor ge rmination, slow maturation, and low yie ld potential. It is nol uncommon to find all th ese constraints together."},{"index":3,"size":410,"text":"The rapid propagation of desirable genotypes using in vitro cultu re of shoot tips or meristems (often referrcd to as tissue culture) is a relatively low-cost and h ence 'appropriate' biotcchnology which is already delivering tangible benefits to many fa rmers in both developed a nd developing countries (Bryan, 1988;Van Uyen and vander Zaag, 1993;Govil and Gupta, 1997;Sasson, 1998) . Tissue culture can allow rapid response to demand for ¡arge quan tities of high-quality planting material in vegetatively propagated crops. Th rough in vitro c10n al thermotherapy, it can also be used to generate discasc-fr ee plantin g materials. Large yield gain s have been reported from the use of tiss ue culture to eliminate di seases from existing farmers ' cultivars, many of which have low yields due to the high d isease load that has built up over t he generalions (Delgado and Rojas, 1993;Garcia e t al, 1993;Zok, 1993;Maban za et al, 1995). There are nu merou s examples oftissue culture projects th at are p roving highly successful in dehvering ruseasefree planti ng materials to rcsourcc-poor far mers (Sasson , 1998). Tissue culture tcchniques have now been develo ped for a wide range of crops . In many Latin Am erican and Car ibbean cou n tries, Iarge-scaIe ti ssue culture is used for crops such as cofTee, banana, planta in , taro, cOCQa, cocoyam, sweet potato, apple, blueberry, raspbeny, pineapple, citrus, grapes, pa paya, mango, guaYa, potato, ki.wi, cherry, pcar, ornamen ta ls, a nd yams (Sasson, 1998). In Asia, China h as now developed tissue culture for more than 100 crop s pecies. In the country's Guan gdong Province, 3-4 mi.llion micropropagated banana plantlets are produced annually, 1 m iUio n of which are exportcd. In 1994 it was estimated tha t farmers in Guangxi had carned an extra US$723,000 by adopting a pproximately 600,000 disease-free plantlets. Similarly, 100/0 of China's potato area was plantcd with virus-free tissu e cultu re materials in the early 1990s, with yi elds that are reported to have increased by up to 2000/0 (Sasson, 1998). Tissue cu lture capacity is less weU developed in most African countrics, where it has the potenti al to benefit farmers greatly if integra ted with other efforts to boost the production and delivery of planting ma terials. A few s u ccessful projects h a ve been launch ed in the 1990s, inc1uding one on ba nanas in Kcnya (Box 9 )."},{"index":4,"size":67,"text":"Although biotechnology is often not considered in cases of disaster relief (FAO, 1996). tissue culture has becn uscd for the rapid sup ply of cassava varietics in post-war AngoIa a nd in post-flooding disaster aid in Ecuador (Boxes 10 and 11 ). Sorne of the world's poorest farmers a nd most ma rginal cropping arcas coulcl make use of ti ssue culture to propagate much-nceded planting materials."}]},{"head":"Box 9","index":59,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":31,"text":"Tisaue culture ud small-scale banana producers in Kenya Tissue•cultured banana plants are Cree oC the damaging weevils and nematodes that ¡nCest most bananas grown by resource•pooT Carmers throughout the world ."},{"index":2,"size":81,"text":"In 1996, the Intemational Service for the Acquisition of Agrobiotechnology Applications (ISAAAj brokered a project involving a wide range of Kenyan institutions, including the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), in the development oC tissue culture to rejuvenate banana orchards in Kenya and Uganda. The project tapped the considera ble experience in banana tissue culture and mass propagation obtained in South Africa, where the public and povate sector had worked together to lay the basis fo r a profitable plantlet export industry."},{"index":3,"size":127,"text":"Project scientists worked with 12 representative farmers (including women) in Kenya's main banana growing regions. These fanners grew demonstration plots oC 120 in vitro plants of each oC three varieties. They were trained in plot management by KARI officers and a visiting technieal advisor (rom the Insutute of Tropical and Subtropical Crops (ITSC), South ACriea. Each C arme r had a group of 50 other Carmers using his or her plot as their focal poiot fo r leaming. These 50 farmers each purchased between 10 and 500 in vitro plants Cor their own plots. They then disseminated information and clean planting material to other farroers in their areas. The original supply of plantlets is being met by a Kenyan private• sector bioteehoology company. Genetic Technologies Umited (GTL)."},{"index":4,"size":116,"text":"The shorter time to maturity and the superior quality and quantity of bananas produced by the tissue•cultured trees have made this biotechnology popular everywhere it has been demonstrated. The I ~year-old trees produce bunches weighing about 40-60 kilograms, compared to 10•20 kilograms (rom traditional trees after 2 years. By mid-1999 it was clear that mosl farmers were prepared to pay C OI' the pLantlets because they were confident that they would be able to inerease th eir incomes from them. Farmers do, however, need to nurture the plantlets carefully, providing them with adequate nutrients and water. Micro• credit achernes are being introduced to enable farmers to invest in the plantlets and the improved management they require."},{"index":5,"size":83,"text":"The demonstration and difCusion strategy adopted by the project is cnsuring that orchards in most banana growing regions of Kenya are now being, or will soon be, rejuvenated. The ultimate aim ia to spread the technology to other ACrican countries, s tarting with Uganda and Tanzania. A banana growers' association is being established to help provide marketing ¡nformation. Socioeconomic studies are in progress to heJp fanners identify and tailor their product to reliable market outlets. SOURCES: F. Wambugu, S . Sharrock (pers. cornms.)."},{"index":6,"size":57,"text":"The application of tissue culture to local varieties and landraces of root and tuber crops could not only in crease yields also lirnit the genetic erosion caused by the 10ss of clona! varieties to systemic pathogens and other problems (F. Engelmann, pers. comm.J. Links need to be developed between genetic resources conservation and tissue culture initiatives, so "}]},{"head":"Market-linked restoration and conservation of cassava in Ecuador","index":60,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":27,"text":"Ecu a do r is one of five tropical American eountrics where per capita food supplies are dangerously low. Cassava and plantain are the maJn staplc foods."},{"index":2,"size":155,"text":"Coastal Ecuador was inuodated with torrential El Niño rai os for almost 12 mon ths during 1997-98, when rrunfall was 400%-450% more than normal. The rains wiped out all crops and left deep ravines and landslides where fields aod roads had beeo. By early 1998, savings had beeo exhausted. Meo and young people migl'ated from the countryside to nearby cilies in scarch of \\York. caN supported the participatory dcvelopment of a relief proposaJ by thc Unión de Asociaciones de Trabajadores Aglicolas, Productores y Procesadores de Yuca (UATAPPV), lhe Universidad Tecoiea de Manabi (UTM), the Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIAP). and C IAT. ¡ndependent proposals from all the partners were synthesized by a representative group ioto an integrated project to restore smaJI -scale cassava production and processing capacity and re-cstablish markets lost as a res ult of crop failure and the destruction of infrastructure. The proposal was funded by USAlO's Office of Disaster Assistance."},{"index":3,"size":246,"text":"The project is unique because it combines cassava germplasm testing, tissue culture, and new management skills to (i) reconstruct local food security and economic opponunity and (¡jI establish a locally managed in situ genetic resources conservation effort. Restored and rescued local cassava germplasm and elite cassava clones are being used in combination with new concepts in microenlcrprise development to jump start a disaster-struck rural ecooomy. Tissue culture i8 an essential lool for lhe project. It is bcing used to conserve cassava gennplasm collected by the farmen and characterized using oral history and DNA fingerprintin g. It IS also being uscd to repatriale the Ecuadorian nationa! cassava collection. which was destroyed by the noods, from the duplicate collection held at ClAT. SO URCE : Thro et al (1999bJ. as to bring about a rapid increase in the supply of planting materiaJs of a wide range of genotypes, including those of endangered species. There is considerable potentiaJ for integrating the periodic supply of disease-free gcrmplasm from genebanks with deceotralized farm cr-Ied tissue cultu re and dissemination efforts. Tissuc culture is well suited to practice by 'meticulous nooscientists' (D. Duvick, pers. comm.) and ca n therefore be condu cted by farmcrs or villagc groups. Allhough the tcchnology is a laborious one for working [armcrs, the low cost of labor in many areas, together with the potcntial [or developing low-cost locally adapted in vitro propagation methods, could create significant commerciaJ opportunities (0.0. Henshaw, pers. comm.). In most countries, several important "}]},{"head":"Rehabllitation of cassava production in post-war Angola","index":61,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":33,"text":"A jOlnt proje ct between the Inte mational Ins titute of Tropical Agric ulture (liTA) and World Vision (an NGO) used tissue-cultured cassava germplasm to rehabilitate cassava production in pos t -war Angola."},{"index":2,"size":91,"text":"In 1996, over 14,000 in vitro cassa va planUets were produced at JITA, airlifted to Angola, transplanted and acclimatized before delivery to rapid multiplication centers. Of the 216 genotypes shipped , 16 had been selected by liTA for immediate distribution to farmers, while the rest were to be evaluated by Angolan cassava researchers. An liTA researcher based in Angola was n~sponsible for transplanting the initially delicate plantlets from g1ass tu bes to starter pots and training World Vision stafr to care for and multiply them. High s urvival rates were achieved."},{"index":3,"size":44,"text":"None of these cassava genotypes would have been as rapid1y accessible to Angolan farmers or researchers ir they had not arrived as in vitre plantle ts, enabling tbem to be certified as cüsease-free. SOURCES: lITA (1997); P. Ilona, S .Y.C . Ng (pers. comms.)."},{"index":4,"size":104,"text":"vege tatively propa gated crops could benefit from the development of 'barefoot' tissue culture operations. Tissue culture need not be expensive or require very sophisticated technologies . Kitchen-based micropropaga tion kits are sold to amateur horticulturalists in the USA (e. StifT, pers. comm.). Basic designs for very simple aseptic culture hoods (involving plastic sheeting, bulldog clips, and file folder supports) that can be constructed and folded away in minutes have been developed (T.M. Horn, pers. comm.) . There a re many formula tions for cheap growth mediums using table sugar, coconut milk, and so on. Recycled glass jars can be used as sterile containers."},{"index":5,"size":339,"text":"To date, few technology development or transfer organizations have become involved in the promotion of 'low-tech' methodologie s and rnaterials for use by farmers or farmers' groups in developing countries. Sorne taro farmers in Samoa have becorne a dept at bas ic tissue culture (M. Taylor, pers. cornrn.) as also h a ve pota to farmers in the Dalat province of Vietnam, cassava farmers in Colombia, and stra wberry growers in the Dominican Republic. In sorne recent cases th ere have been efIorts to involve farmers' organizations in the design and running of tiss ue culture schemes. ClAT's small-scale cassava micropropaga tion work with NGOs and farrncrs' organizations in Colombia is an example (Box 12). Much experience in adapting tissue culture to the village or district level has been gained in the ongoing wor k on pa tato initia ted by the CIP and national program stafT and now conducted independantly by farmers in Dalat province ofVietnam (Box 13). The farmer participatory FLASH system successfully developed for po tato In 1999 an NOO, the Fundación para la Investigación y Desarrollo Agrícola (FIDAR) and local fanners ' organizations in Cauea, including the Asociación de Agricultores de ?ítal, the Asocia ción de Productores Agropecuarios de Pescador, and the Orupo Comunitario Mi Lucha, began working with CrAT under a project funded by the SWp•PROA. Ca u ca's cassava fanners had alrt:ady worked with CIAT and FrDAR for about a decade in participatory cassava varietal selection, But in the late 1990s it became c1ear tha t the limited supply of planting materiaIs was preventing this work from having an impacto ¡nterest in other local root crops, such as achira (Cana s pp.), aracacha (Aracacha spp.) , and local varieties of batata Of camote (q,omoea spp.), is increasing, but for these crops too a shortage of planting materials is e~cted to constrain development. Remaining stocks are in very small plots , often diseased, and gene rally inadequate in quantity and quality to allow propagation te be scaled up adequately to deve lop new markets."},{"index":6,"size":199,"text":"To meet the need for high• quality planting material, FIDAR, through CBN, invited C IAT researchers to JOLn with Cauca farmers' associations to explore affordable tissue culture methods. 'Ole idea is to organize tissue culture as household micro•enterprises or as prajects for fanners' associations. Fanners will provide k-nowledge of local materials and information 00 the social and economic contC>..1:, in addition to their skills and labor. ClAT biotechoologists will provide technical informa tion on cassava in vitro c u lture, and collaborate with the farmers in proposing and tes ting med ia and methods. FIDAR is to coordinate farrncrs ' partici pation in technology and enterprise development, to monitor and evaluate (he projecl, and to as sess its impact. Cassava plantlets will be used for the production vegetative planting materials (stakes) . These will be distributed at a price yet lO be dete nnined, but which may be subsidized in the ¡¡rst year, when the vaJue of the technology is not yet es tablished. Production will be moni tored to assess (i) the agronomic and socio• economic vallle of the techn ology and (ii) how frequently on•fann plan ting malerial ShOllld be replaced to maintain yield and quality levels."},{"index":7,"size":44,"text":"Timely access to high-quality planting material wiIl enable local fanners to use their own varieties more fu lly, to get access to new varieties from other sources, and to respon d rapidly and flexibly to market signaIs and changes in the agro• economic environment."},{"index":8,"size":83,"text":"If su ccessfu l, this project will greatly enhance local control over planting material, increase the supply of improved materiaIs, ¡ncrease diversity and flexibility in !he local fanning system , stimulate ¡nterest in cassava R&D and enh ance their impac t, and serve as a model for other region s. The project will also c reate one of the ¡¡rst teams of biotechnologists trained to conduct participatory research with rt:source-poor fanners. SO URCES: Thro e t al (1999b); J . Restrcpo (pers. comm.)."},{"index":9,"size":56,"text":"Biotechnology as a Ser of Tools lar Formal CU'ld Informal Plant Breeding BoJe 13 Farmer-led mlcropropagatloD oC potato In DaJat, Vietnam One well documented and orten cited example of successru l biotechnology• assisted participatory research la that or rarroers in Vietnam's Dalat province, who have used in vitro tissue culture methods ror commercial potato production ."},{"index":10,"size":180,"text":"In the early 198Os, clean potato planting materials were virtuaJly unobtainable in the major potato•producing region of the Dalat h ighlands. Researchers responded by in troducing a system whereby farmen could maintain three newly selected cultivars as test tube potato plantlets and multiply them in vitro as well as by using cuttings. The in vitro propagation method u sed • relatively simple materials. including a small steam autoclave, a home•made inocu lum box, and a culture shetf with a fluorescent Iight and glass tubes. TIte cultivars were established in culture as molher planta, rrom which apical ahoots werc harvested continuously ror u p to 6 months. Aiter cutting the apical s hoots wt!re rooled in pollets. Two weeks ¡atee they were sold to other interested farmen or u sed for transplanting by (he rarmer, who produced cuttings. In 1982, over 2.8 million cuttings were sold to commerciaJ potato growers. Mter 4 years, all patatoes in the Dalat area were grown with this material. Growers keep lhe small tubers rrom the harvest for use as seed over two or three generations."},{"index":11,"size":67,"text":"The advantages of this system are considerable. Farmers can produce highqulity planting materials themselves. and no longer need to import tuber seed from elsewhere . The system is cheaper than conventional multiplication, with rooted cuttings selling for U5$O.005 each. In addition, healthy stocks can be maintained indefmitely. 1( is thought that this system could be adapted to other locations around the world with similar environmental condition s."},{"index":12,"size":139,"text":"A follow• up survey S years later suggested that fanners ' ¡nterest in this project had waned and that there were difficulties in initiating similar projects in Olher arcas of Vietnam. In 1993 it was noted th at only 3 out of 10 farrner micropropagation units were still functioning. Nevertheless, the system continued to supply an adequate amount or c1ean planting material to commercial growers in the DaJat area. It has now been mnnín g for nearly 20 years. A 1998 update confinned that most villagers found the tissue culture process too time•consuming, hut lhat one 'expert' fanner h ad continued and was selling plants to neighbors. In other words, a rural micro-enterpris e had developed. SOURCES: Van Uyen andvander Zaag (1983, 1987); van Uyen (1984) ; 8roerse and v isser (l996); G. ?rain, L.T. Bin h (pers. comms.)."},{"index":13,"size":19,"text":"micropropagation h as been extended to other countries an d crops (Sasson , 1998;Bryan, 1988;vander Zaag et al, 1990)."},{"index":14,"size":99,"text":"Because of their relative simplicity, tiss ue culture services launched by formal researchers can probably be trans ferred s u ccessfully to innovative farmers QVe r tirJLe , perha ps as a fo rm or micro•e nterprise development. Sorne fanners' organization s, especiaJly those organized around commodities, may be able to establish and sustain tissue culture micro-enterprises which provide pla nting rnaterials not only to their members but also to a \\Vider cirele in the local farming cornmunity. lo any event, increased farmer involvement in sorne or all of the tissue culture process scerns likely in the future ."},{"index":15,"size":64,"text":"There will, oC cou rse, also be constraints to [anner participation in tissue culture. These ¡nelude the need to provide training in tech nical and business skills, together with small amounts of capital to finance start-ups. However, the amouot of external support oeeded is sma ll compared to other biotechnologies. The FIDAR project in Colombia is experirnenting with the effectiveness of such s upport."},{"index":16,"size":133,"text":"Many [actors, both cnvironmental and socio-economic, affect th e success of tissue culture operations in different arcas. For instance, low-technology operations have temperature needs that can be met less expeosively in a place like Dalat, in Vi etnam, where the clima te is mild , without extremes of heat or cold. Farmers in highland arcas with cooler clima tes may have a comparative ad vantage in providing virusfree planting materials of vegetatively-p ropagated crops to farmers in other arcas. 00 the socio-economic side, labor requirements, and especially the seasonal availability of labor, cou ld prove critical. No comprehensive studies to define the conditions that favor the establishment oC farmer-Ied tissue culture e nterpnses have yet been carried out. GIS could be used to identify possible areas where low-cost tissue culture may be possible."},{"index":17,"size":59,"text":"Given its evident popularity, low ~te c hoology tissue cultu re could probably be integrated with PPB relatively easily in many developing countries. It could prove a valuable too! in speeding the delive ry of the products of PPB to farmers, thereby overcoming one of the severest and most universal constraints to the increased productivity oC resourcepoor Carming systems."}]},{"head":"Relevant Products from Biotechnology Research","index":62,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":33,"text":"Biotechnology is nQW developing a wide range of products which, ir they can be incorporated into appropriate craps and varieties, are likely to be useful lo resource-poor farmers. TabIe 3 givcs sorne examples."},{"index":2,"size":44,"text":"Access lo these technologies depends on the stage of the rescarch, the terms under which they might be made available, whether resources are provided for technology transfer. whethe r the tcchnology is durable enough for Cield use, and whether IPR or biosafcty restrictions apply."}]},{"head":"Reaiatance to Peats and Diseases","index":63,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":57,"text":"Farmers expend considerable financial and labor resources in trying la counter the crap losses associated with diseases, inseet pests, and weeds. The management practices and chernical control of insects alone are estimatcd to cost around US$lO billion annually, yet the losses caused by insects still account for 20%-30% of glo bal crop production (Oerke and Dehne. 1997)."},{"index":2,"size":100,"text":"Much research effort has gone into developing crops with increased tolerance or resistance to pests and diseases. New resistance options emerging from biotechnology research may be able to supplernent the products developed through conventional breeding and the practices developed through IPM, leading to reduced pesticide and agrochemical use. For example, a recent survey of the adoption of insect resistantcotton in four states of the USA found that insecticide use h ad decreased significantly while yields and profits had increased (Srnith and Heimlich, 1999, www.ers.usda.gov/whatsnewfissuesfgmo/). The potential of 'integrated transgenic crop management' to further reduce insecticide use has scarcely been explored."},{"index":3,"size":143,"text":"Two biotechnology routes are generaIly used to enhance gennplasm with increased resistan ce to biotic stresses: marker-assisted QTL selection, and transgenesis. Marker-assisted QTL selection generates resistance using loci within the accessible prirnary to tertiary genepools. Over the past decade, increasing numbers of resistance genes have be en isolated and analyzed (Michelrnore, 1996). Different genes are often c1ustered on particular regioos of chromosomes Biotechnology-Assisted PPB: Complement or-Contmdict7:on? (Ka nazin e t a l, 1996; Ghesquiere et al, 1997). It is becomi ng increasi..ngly feasible to use markers to select for these regions. Alternatively, the u se of markers can be co mbined with th a t of transgenesis lo ¡sola te and tra n sfer th e functional genes from the clustcrs between species (Mich elmore, 1995;Paterson, 1995;Hamilton, 1997). Sorne transgenic a pproaches are generating useful traits that were previously not available or accessible."},{"index":4,"size":112,"text":"Recent progress in understanding the genetics of plant disease resistancc has opened up a number of n ew avenues towards ge netically en gineered solutions. Genes co ntroUing race-specific and broad-spectrum resistance responses h ave been doned (van der Biezen and Jones, 1998) , allowing new induced resistance pat hways to be identificd (Hunt et al, 1996). Advances co n tin u e to be made in the identification of antifungal proteins, which inhibit either pathogen developmen t or thc accumula tion of mycotoxins. PPB programs facing continu ing problems with specific p ests or diseases m ay be able to make good u se of these new biotechnology approaches to control."},{"index":5,"size":72,"text":"Breeding for insect resistance and the use of biocontrol mcasures are attractive altern a tives to insecticides, and both can be enhanced by genetic engineering. A wide range of transgenie a pproaches to combatting insect pests are now under development (Estruch et al, 1997). These inelude the transgenic use of insecticida! proteins such as Bacillus thuringiensis toxi ns, polyphcnol oxidases, proteinase inhibitors, chitinases, lectins, vcgetative insecticida! proteins (VIPs) , and alpha-amyJase inhibitors."},{"index":6,"size":138,"text":"Nematodes, especialIy root knot n ematodes (Meloidogyne spp.), cause annual losses of US$l 00 billion to \\Vorld agriculture. In devcloping countries, root knot nematodes account for losses of 11%-25%, with peaks of 70% (Bridge et al, 1990). Current chemical control using nematicides (e.g., Aldi carb) is considered environmenta lIy hazardou s, as well as costly. e rop rotatioos ean be used to limit nem atode infestation, but a re ineffectlve on th eir own. In a few crops, nematode-resistant varieties have bec n developed throu gh conventiooal breeding, but many crops lack sources of nematode resistance (Roberts, 1992). Severa l transge nic approac hes to the development of nem a tode -resistant crops are now emerging. These eomplement the use of transgenes fr om the erop genepool with those from oth er sources (Atkinso n et al, 1995)."},{"index":7,"size":133,"text":"Most erop genepools lack sources of durable resistance to serious viruses. Potato leaf roIl , cassava mosaic, and rice tun gro viruses are examples. A ra nge of pathogen -derived rcsistance (PO R) strategics eme rged in the 1980s (Kavanagh ancl SpilIane, 1995), u sing tra n sgenes derived from the pathogen itself lO trigger resistance against it. The mechanisms underlying different PDR stra tegies, s uch Relevant Products from Biotechnotogy Research as coat protein genes, movement proteins, RdRp, antisense, gene silencing, co-suppression, VIGs, 015, and sateUite RNAs, are highly diverse, as also are their e!Teels (Dempsey el al, 1998;Bauleombe, 1999;Beachy, 1999). As a resul! they have beeo used lO generate a far wider range of transgenic options for controlling viral diseases than was available a deeade ago (e.g., Pang el al, 1997)."}]},{"head":"Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses","index":64,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":75,"text":"Arable land, which comprises about 3% of the earth's surface, is deteriorating and decreasing as a result of soil erosion, salinization, over-cultivation, and acidification. As demand for food grows, many of tbese abiotic stresses are increasing in efTect and magnitude. It is estimated tbat these factors, combined with rising population, will reduce the global per capita availability of arable land from the current level ofO.28 lo 0.17 heetare by the year 20 17 (Dyson, 1996)."},{"index":2,"size":131,"text":"Unlike biotic stresses, abiotic stresses do not evolve. Hence, qualitative or single genes may prove effective solutions. A considerable arnount of biotechnology research is now devoted to the development of transgenes to improve crop tolerance to abiotic stresses such as drought, salt, and aluminium. As many resource-poor farmers use marginalland where these stresses are high, the incorporation of these transgenes into their crops may provide significant benefits (Herrera-Estrella, 1999). Besides proleetion againsl the stress ilself, the benefils might extend to earlier sowing, longer growing seasons or minimizing soil erosiono None of the prototype technologies developed so far have yet been subject to large-scale field testing for their durability and sustainability under actual farming conditions. Much therefore remains to be done before tbe benefits of this research are reaJized on farmers' fields."}]},{"head":"Yield Per Se","index":65,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":123,"text":"Yield is at once the most widely desired and the most complex of all crop traits. Private companies are investing in the identification of QTLs that will enable thero to breed for yield advances using MAS. The work of companies such as Pioneer Hi Bred and Novartis shows that it is now possible to manipulate severaJ QTLs simultaneously, allowing performance to be fLne-tuned in closely defined environments (M. Gaje, W. Beversdorf, pers. comms.). Combinations of specific quality or resistance traits with high yield, elusive in the past, are expected to become possible. Molecular and tissue culture technologies will ruso make it feasible to handle larger populations for selection, permitting increases in selection intensity and thus in genetic gain roc quantitative traits, including yield."},{"index":2,"size":111,"text":"These new opúons could be extremeIy importan t to resou rce-poor farmers, who often require high yields with specific environmenta l adaptation and quaJity trai ts. The initial development of markers for a set of genetic materials and environments requires from 2 to 4 years, with results that may or may not transfer across sites. Adding this time-frame to PPB will require a dedicated and understanding funding agency and great care llot to raise fartners' expectations too high. However, the ultimate benefits to resource-poor farmers from research to increase yields m ay be among the highest obtainable from agricultural r csearch (Lipton, 1999) (see Employrnent and Enterprise Development, p . 95)."}]},{"head":"Post-Harvest Losses","index":66,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":62,"text":"Reducin g post-harvest crop losses among resource-poor fanners h as remain ed a major challenge despite progress through conventional breeding. Significant proportions of the harvest are 10st in developing countries as a result of crop physiological processes such as rapid ripening, senescence of the produce, or defeetive wound heaJing (as in rapid cassava spoilageJ, in addition to damage by s torage pests."},{"index":2,"size":97,"text":"Prolongation or, or delay in, the ripening or sensescence pf the fruits or flowers of sorne crops could benefi t resource-poor farmers, especially those farthe s t from markets. Transgenic manipula tion of hormones (ethylene) and enzymes (e .g., polygalaeurona se) h as resulted in the development of a range•of transgenic plants with delayed ripening and seneseence (Newbigin et al, 1995). In addition, the use of inducible promoters and repressors is bein g explored. Work on d elayed d eterioration of eassava is under way at th e University of Bath, UK (Li et al, 1998) ."}]},{"head":"Nutritional Quality and Processing Characteristics","index":67,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":74,"text":"Much ge netie engineering research is under way on the manipula tion of biosynthetic pa thways so t ha t plan ts produce higher levels of compounds or n ew phenoty pes useful to humans. Genes from the biosynthetic pathways of one species (a bacterium or a plan t) can often be successfully used as transgenes in another lo increase the le veis of desirable compounds such as lipids (Gibson et al, 1994) ."},{"index":2,"size":154,"text":"It can be argued that resource-poor farmers have as much interest in the functional properties of crops as industria l food proeessors do. 80th groups are interes ted in manipulating lhe proteins and carbohydrates in foods, which affeet traits su eh as cooking time, texture, dough elasticity, digestibility, gelling, foaming, and emulsification (Altpeter et al, 1996;Barro et al, 1997) . For instance, it might be possible to d evelop varieties that req uire less fuel for eooking or that provide dough with greater elasticity. Farmer preferences for the functional characteristics of landraces are often considered a major reason for non-adoption of high-yielding varieties (FAO, 1996). While k.nowledge of how to modify functional properties lS rapidly growing in the food processing sector (e.g., Barro et al, 1997;Mazur et al, 1999), little or none of this knowledge has been transferred to those who could use it to broaden lhe range of options available to resource-poor farmers."},{"index":3,"size":113,"text":"The nutritional value oí plant protein is often limited by the laek of essenlial amino aeids, especialIy lysine, threonine, and methionine (Bright and Shewry, 1983). Most plants are deficient in one or more oí these critica! protein components, whereas milk, meat, and eggs tend to eontain them in adequate amounts. In sorne crops this nutritional deficiency applies ¡rrespective oí whether the variety is a landrace or a modern variety. Among lhe eereals, maize is low in lhe amino aeid Iysine. Grain legumes such as soybean and peanut, which serve as valuable SOUTces of protein in the diets of human beings and livestock, are especially deficient in the sulfur-containing antino acids methionine and cysteine."},{"index":4,"size":159,"text":"Conventional plant breeding has had little success in altering the essential amino acid composition of plants. Major eITorts have been devoted to increasing the quantity and quality of maize protein through the breeding of high-Iysine varieties, but this has led to a trade-off between yield and protein quality/quantity (Gilbert, 1995). Transgenic approaches may offer routes round such trade-offs, and a range of such approaches has now been developed. These improve the amino acid profile of crop protein either by transferring genes encoding more nutritious proteins from other species le.g., Molvig et al, 1997) or by manipulating crop biosynthetic pathways to increase the nutritional profile of endogenous proteins (Karchi et al, 1993). The use oC artificial genes has also been attempted (J. Jaynes, pers. comm.). Where transformation protocols have been developed, important legumes such as peanut and phaseolus beans can now be improved nutritional1y through the transfer of methionine-rich protein genes from species such as sunflower (Molvig et al, 1997)."},{"index":5,"size":225,"text":"Micronutrient deficiency is a major problem amongst the poor worldwide and is often reCerred to as 'hidden hunger'. Lack of micronutrients such as vitamin A and iron not only causes suffering and death but also has adverse afIects on labor productivity. Poor nutrition, especially during peak labor periods, can lead to low output, triggering a spiral of decline in which poverty, ill health, and hunger reinforce one another. The knock-on eITects oC micronutrient deficiency are immense. For instance, the correct levels of zinc in diets can reduce the incidence of malaria in children by 40% (Graham et al, 1999). implementing a project to select germp lasm which is high in mieronutrients from geneban ks (see h ttp://www.idre.caf) . Tms ger mplasm could be fed directly in to PPB or PVS p r ojects in areas where mi cr onutrient deficiency is a problem. lt may also be possible to unravel the genetics oC high-and low• m.icronutri en t phenotypes using molecular m a rkers and QTL analysis (DellaPenna, 1999) and henee to d evelop populations of germplasm 'enriched'w ilh m icronutrien ts. Transge nic approaches to increasing nu tritio nal value co uld have a vcry great impaet by add ing micronu trients 5u ch as vitamin A to incxpensive staple roods sueh as rice (Ye et al, 2000) and eassaya (Iglesias et al, 1997)."},{"index":6,"size":189,"text":"Many erop specics contain high levels of anti-nutritional factors. These inelude co mpound s such as tannins, erucie aeid, allergen s, cyanogen s, and mtrates. Increased processing and cooking are typically necessary to redu ce the active levels of these compounds so that the resultin g food is safe for con sumption. The r eduction of anti-nutritional factors has long been an objective of con vention a l breeding, with variab le success. Often selections having low levels of the antinutri tional factor are unproductive, suggesting an ecologicaJ role C or the eompound or eompounds involved. MAS can reduce the levels of antinutrients more efTiciently than the m ethod s used previously. Rapeseed lo\\V in erucie aeíd is one produet oC research using MAS. Transgenic a pproach es are now being used to develop plants in which the antinutrient is not synthesized at all. Besides improving human nu trition, this r esearch will allow the roles of these compounds to be studied-an avenue oC r esearch tha t eould lead to the iden tification oC alternative plant proteetion s trategies that are less damagin g to human nu trition."}]},{"head":"Labor-Saving Biotechnologies","index":68,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":116,"text":"Many resource-poor farmers are interested in saving labor, partieularly d urin g peak periods, rather than solely in increasing r eturn s to land (Gilbert. 1995)_ Henee, yield pcr heetare m ay nOl be the m ost app rop ria te criterion for assessing the impaet of researeh on farmers {Chambers, 1983J. Resource-poor farmers assess tcehnologies in terms of the extent to which they may enable them te rcalloeate exis ting land and labor to other productive aetivities, while maintaining current levels of prod u ction. The other aetivity may be agricultural (e.g., s hifting good-quality land out of maize ioto a more valuable crop) or off-rarm (e. g., sendin g ehildren to school) (Gilbert, 1995)."},{"index":2,"size":82,"text":"Afforda ble biotechnologies that reduce the labor and other r esources dcvoted to crop man agem e n t are likely to benefit m any resource-poo r farmers. Examples include h erbieide-and pes t-or disease-resista n t eultivars, early-m a turing cultivars, and eultiva rs th a t require less post-harvest proeessing. Converscly, technologies that increase the la bo r burden may not prove popular, even if they raise yie lds. Som e farm -level inducible promoters may Call into this category."},{"index":3,"size":76,"text":"Participatory research often reveals that women or children bear the brunt of labor-intensive activities such as weeding and post-harvest processing. It may also reveal the periods when labor intensity is at its highest and lowest. Such information could be factored into the setting of biotechnology and breeding research priorities. The subsequent research could have a major impact if it led to products that reduced the drudgery ofunderprivileged household members or cornmunity groups al peak labor periods."},{"index":4,"size":76,"text":"Post-harvest processing is an area in which labor-saving technologies might prove especially beneficial. Many plant-derived foods require a great deal of processing, such as shelling, pealing, cooking, and fermentation, before consumption. The biological basis of many traditional food processing practices is well known (e.g., NAS, 1992). Genetic engineering to improve the functional properties of crops for specific industrial or domestic processing purposes could help reduce gender-specific labor constraints in many environments (e.g., Barro et al, 1997)."},{"index":5,"size":115,"text":"Labor-saving technolQgies may not always be beneficial. While positive impacts may be felt in one social context it is possible that the same technology could have negative impacts in another. For instance, herbicide-tolerant plants (especially if the secd is treated) can be expected to be very valuable to maize farmers threatened by striga in western Kenya, but could displace labor if deployed in the Kenyan maize belt in Trans Nzoia (J. Lynam, pers. conun.). Herbicide-tolerant crops in general tcnd to displace labor, especially where they also allow no-till farming (Naylor, 1994). However, this technology also has highly positive implications, especially foc women and children, who often provide the bulk of labor for weeding (Box 14)."},{"index":6,"size":89,"text":"Participatory needs assessments with farmers may be necessary to darify the full impact oC changes in labor use. The situation can be extremely complex and difficult for 'outsiders' to understand. In the case of cassava, [or example, women farmers in unsta.ble parts of Africa feel that eliminating toxic compounds from the plant-to reduce the heavy demands on their labor for removing the toxin after harvest-could put food security at risk by making the growing oc stored crop more liable to theft (Chiwona-Karltun et al, 1997) (see Box S) ."}]},{"head":"Conservation","index":69,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":125,"text":"Many of the biotechnologies that can be used to enhance plant production and productivity can also be used to meet conservation objectives. One example is tissue culture, whose use in rapidly propagating materials threatened by genetic erasion has already been discussed. Another is the use of the techniques oC molecular analysis to understand the diversity of plant populations. These techniques can Herblclde-reslstant crop varletles ror weed control Weed control is a major problem fo c nearly a1l resource -poor fanners . The introduction of herbicide-resistant crop varieties would release much of the labor spent on weeding for othec, more produetive and profitable activities. Fanners in Brazil and Thailand have actually requested the development and intcodu ction of such varieties because they re cognize their advantages."},{"index":2,"size":69,"text":"Sorne cornmen tators express concem that the use of h erbicide-resistant erops in developing eountries will unwisely add to the 'chemical armoury' of agriculture. The technology makes the use of herbicides more a ttractive wh ere, up to now, no herbicides at all have been used. AJthough overall herbicide use is low in developing countries, sorne ehemicals have been over-used or used without proper safety preeautions in sorne regions."},{"index":3,"size":144,"text":"Few data exist to assess the validity of this concem. Howe ver. a recent survey found that th e adoptíon of herbicide-resistant soybean in 19 states of the USA ha d led to significant decreases in lOtal he rbicide use, while the cu ltivatíon of he rbicide-resistant cotton was associated with no change in total herbicide u se. As cates of USe are higher i.n the developed than in the developing world, these resulta suggest that trends in developing countries a dopting herbicide-resis tant crops might a t fLrSt continue upward , then level off at a lower usage level than would ha ve occurred if they had gone on using non-herbicide resistant crops. A more ruverse range of herbicides available to farmers could , in conj unction with the development of herbicide-resistant crops. form the basis of an integrated approach to weed control."},{"index":4,"size":147,"text":"Among the barriers to the use of transgenic herbicide-resistant varieties in developing cou ntries is aecesa to the genes for herbicide tolerance. As patenta on wide ly uscd h erbicides such as glyphosate (Round-up) expire. reducing the cost of the he rbicide, so the value of the ge nes confening herbicide resistance increases. Discussion on this ¡ssue is under way between pubLic-sector researchers and sorne of the companies concemed. The chemical industry is interested in developing herbicides for major world crops such as maize, s oybean, wheat, rice, and cotton. But the re are many minor crops and non-eommercial market situations in which it has Hule interest. Sorne companies might be willing to faci litate access lo herbicide resistance transgenes for introduction into crops or varieties in which they h ave no comme rciaJ stake, particularly in situations where they are the manufacturer of the h erbicide."},{"index":5,"size":76,"text":"Two further problems deserve a mention . Given the current difficulties with regard to biosafety regulations, it is unlikely that clearance would be given to use herbicide-resistant transgenic varíeties in sorne developing countries. And the use of this technology would also require measures to ensure that resistance to the herbicide would not evolve in weeds. This is less likely to happen when the ge n es foc resistance are derived fro m bacteria rather lhan plants."},{"index":6,"size":36,"text":"Fanners in developing countries face many weed problems for which no effec tive control measures have yet been developed. These ¡nelude the parasitic broomrapes and witchweeds ($triga spp.). The areas infested with such weeds are (Continued)"},{"index":7,"size":59,"text":"Relevant Products from Biotechnology Research So=< 14. (Continued.) vast and expanding. For example. a survey in Nigeria found that 70% oC fields were infested with witchweed sccds. Witchweeds infest the graio crops of more thanrl00 million people in sub-Saharan Arrica and Asia, reducing yields by 50% and more in drought years. Labor-intensive weeding is largely ineCCective against such weeds."},{"index":8,"size":47,"text":"Recent research has shown that it is possible to control Striga spp. using imadizoline-resistant maize. Herbicide-resistant seed is treated with a systemic irnadizoline, resulting in excellent control. Because oC the small amounts of herbicide required, this weed control technology ia Iikely lo be accessible to resource-poor Cannen."},{"index":9,"size":102,"text":"Under a RockefelLer Foundation projecl, the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) is colLaborating with Pioneer Hi-Bred lo provide a non-transgenic herbicide-resislant straio of yellow maize lo serve as fue source of the herbicide resistance trait. This has beeo crossed ioto the preferred African white maize varieties. Tests 00 the new materials obtained are currently being conducted in fanners' fields. SOURCES: M.J . Sampaio (pers. comm.); Ooldburg el al (1989); Hindmarsh (1991); Rissler and Mellan (1996); Oressel el al (1996); Oressel (pers. cornm.); J. Jiggins (pers. comm.); Smith and HeimHch (1999); Hartman and Tanimooure (19911;Abayo et al (1996);Coghlan (1996)."},{"index":10,"size":17,"text":"be particularly useful as a basis for making decisions about where to collect accessions of threatened species."},{"index":11,"size":41,"text":"The lntemationaJ Centre for Research in Agroforestry (lCRAF) is combining molecular analysis with the use of participatory plant collection missions and on-farm research to domesticate and hence save valuable tree species that are threatened with extinction in the wild (Bo\" 15)."}]},{"head":"Biotechnology Products and New Management Knowledge","index":70,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":90,"text":"Sorne commentators believe that biotechnology for r esource-poor [armers should not demand the absorption of too much new information and too many new skilLs by farmcrs. They argue that the rnain reason why many resource-poor farmers do not adopt new technologies, or adopt them late, is the dearth of information about them, rather than risk aversion or mere conservatism (R. Gerster, B. Stocldi, pers. cornms.). The lack of information is considered to be generaUy related to weak extcnsioo sernces-a shor tcomin g which sorne participatory research approaches aim ro rectify."},{"index":2,"size":36,"text":"It is often stated that one advantage of biotechnology is that ¡ts innovations are contained in secd and can therefore be delivered in a form that is already familiar to [armers and readily adapted to cxisting "}]},{"head":"Saving Prunus africanus","index":71,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":48,"text":"Prunus africanus is a slow-growing h ardwood tree species found in the cool moist forests of highland Africa. Its bark is a valuable remedy against prostate disorders. To ¡ocrease their profits, collectors ofte n han'est the bark unustainably, killing the tree, which is now threatcned with extinc tion."},{"index":2,"size":100,"text":"ICRAF and its partners are \\Vorking to save the tree by domes ticating it. In collaboration with the Kenya Forestry Researeh Institu te (KEFRI) and Cameroon's In stitut de reeherehe agronomique pour le développeme nt (IRAD), they have participa ted in co llection missions in Kenya aod Camerooo. The accession s a re beiog grown io a range of rescarch sites in the two countries. Once the bcst accessions have beco idenLified, the stands wilL serve as s election gardcns and seed orchards , from which small-scale fanners ;.viII be invited to choose materials for growing on their farm s."},{"index":3,"size":92,"text":"Studying all the populaLions of prunus by collecting seed and growing it under observation in the field would talce up far too much space and time, especially as the species is slow growing. To malee the process of conservation more effi cient, the scientists are usiog RAPD to analyze the diversity of populations from Ethiopia, Kenya. Cameroon , Uganda. and Madagascar. The techniques do not cut out the need to collect and grow ma terial, but they grea tly redu ce it by pinpointing the sources of genetic diversity in advance ."},{"index":4,"size":77,"text":"The results obtained so far show that Ethiopian and Kenyan materirus are closely related, while those from Cameroon and Uganda fonn aoother disttnct group. Populations from Madagascar are quite unHke any other group. suggesting they may be particularly worth conserving and evaluating. Overall. the level of variation between countnes is greater than between populations wilhin the same country, implying that evaJuation should be carried out aeross the whole range oi the species, nOI just within local populations."},{"index":5,"size":224,"text":"The molecular s tudies are being combined with research to improve vegetative propagation . so as to ¡ncrease the supply of high-quality plantin g materials. These matenals are being tested through on-farm research designed to fiod out whether farm ers are wil1ing to grow the tree as a•long-tetm investment. SOURCE, ICRAF (1999) . di ssemination system s (e. lves, pers. comm .). However, so rne u sefu! biotechnologies, although low-cost. a re highly knowledge-inten sive. This poses aclditiona l questions about wh ether th ey are practical for resource-poor farmers and can be adopted by them (E. Friis-Ha nsen, pers. cornm.). Transgenic, inscct-resistant crop varieties are one example of a biotechnology product that would requ ire rela tively hi gh levels of farmer m a nagement. A farmer growing transgen ic insect-resistant maize must und erstand how to ma nage the crop in a new way ir the ben efits of the resistance trait are to be preserved (M cGaughey el al, 1998). The sarnc will apply to the Colombian farmers who requested insect-resistant ~ cassava as a result of the DGIS priority-setting exercise. Other products that can be developed using biotechnology, such as varieties with gene expression 'switches' to turn traits on or off in s pecific situations or new products for managing recombination and selection on-farm, would similarly require special management practices."},{"index":6,"size":51,"text":"PPB projects may be highly compatible with the development 01 such products, since farmers would be involved from the start in developing the new management techniques and evaluating their practicality. The Colombian farmers, for example, are looking forward to being involved in developing their management package (L.E. Herazo, pcrs. cornm .)."}]},{"head":"Implementation Issues","index":72,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":41,"text":"In this ch a pter we take a brief look at sorne of the factors that may affect th e implementatíon of biotechnology-asssisted PPB: society's vision of its future, enterprise dcveIopment. in tellectua l property. biosafety, and planning and providing resources."}]},{"head":"Biotechnology and Society","index":73,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":134,"text":"By 2025, world food demand is predicted to rise by about 60% (McCalla, 1994). Expectations of higher living standards , including better health care and edu cation as well as better diets and greater consurnption of consumer goods, are wide spread. Local mcreases in the yieIds of food staples will be vital in the struggle to eradicate poverty and hunger in the rural arcas of developing countries (Lipton. 1999). People hold diverse and often conflicting views on the role of small-scale agriculture in a world that must meet these de rnands. on the suitability of biotechnology or ofparticipatory research as tools for bringing a bout the required changes in an effective and socially desirable way. and on the n eed to retain traditional cultural values and practices while meeting the rising expectations of individuals."},{"index":2,"size":112,"text":"One cornmentator said that it is 'disingcnous to divorce consideration s of a tcchnology's potcntíal frorn the context (i.e., human and social factors) in which it might be u sed ' (J. Jiggins, pers. cornm .). The authors point out that the context includes n ot only thc local farming system and the natural resource base but a lso the market, th e poliey environmcnt, and ather influences fram the outside \\VorId to which even the most remote rural arcas are increasing connected. And. most important, the contcxt also ineludes the aspirations of both those who will use a tc chnology a nd those who will feel its impact in other ways."},{"index":3,"size":74,"text":"Obtaining a shared \\tision of a community's future is an important part of project planning for biotechnology-assisted PPB, increasing th e chances of designing a successfu l projec t. This is particula rly the case given the long time-frame of biotechnology research . It \\Vould be unrea listic to expect all th e protagonists in a PPB project ta share an identical vision , so taking minority viewpoints into account is also im portant."},{"index":4,"size":230,"text":"In the deveJoped countries, lobby groups that are both pro-and anti-'biotechnology in agriculture' have formed in recent years. These groups often represent quite srnall sections of society, yet have acquired a disproportionate influence over public opinion and, in sorne cases, a disproportionate amount of control over the direction of public-sector research . Giving a voice in the technology and agriculture debate to resource-poor farmers and other poor social groups in food-deficit cou ntries is essential if the current imbalance is to be righted (Spillane, 2000). This could even attract more laboratories in developed countries to work on problerns relevant to such farrners, since they would realize that by doing SO they could improve their public image at horneo Stakeholder analyses, which outline the main threats and opportunities perceived by each group potentially affected by a new project or techno logy, can provide useful inputs to biotechnology research planning. They rnay be especially useful in helping the biotechnology cornrnunity reatize who its clients are and where shared interests lie. This would help anchor discussion of the possibilities for collaboration and participation and of the obstacles and incentives facing different stakeholder groups (A. Sutherland, pers. comm.). Given the diversity of stakeholdcr groups, it may be necessary to move beyond the farmer participatory research framework to use a broader client-oriented framework such as that developed by Merrill-Sands et al (1991) in the 1980s."},{"index":5,"size":42,"text":"There is a tremendous need to shift the biotechnology debate from unproductive confrontation between devotees and critics to the development of the necessary policies, mechanisms, and institutions that will ensure that resource-poor farmers in developing countries share in the benefits of biotechnology."}]},{"head":"Employment and Enterprise Development","index":74,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":117,"text":"Agriculture remains the principal source of employrnent for over 75% of the developing world's rural people and over 8% of its urban people. Over half the world's poor depend on farming for their Iivelihoods. In the debate about incTeasing crop yields, it is orten forgotten that the production, pTocessing, and marketing of food staples wiU continue to be the most prolific SOUTce of work and income in developing countries for the forseeable futurc. Job creation and income generation for rural people should be key objectives of agricultura! research for developing countries (Lipton, 1999). WhethcT this \\Viii require technology that increases yields per se OT other yield-increasing innovations, plant biotechnologies are likely to be part of the answer."},{"index":2,"size":77,"text":"Increases in the incornes of poor rural people can slÍ mulate the establishment of non-farm enterprises, further contributing to poverty eradication. Sorne commentators fee l that the prospects for technology adoption may be poor where there is no link to rural enterprise development (C. Juma, pers. comm.) . The development of rural enterprises is one way of en surin g that research continues to have an impact once a publically funded project ends (see Box 12) ."},{"index":3,"size":60,"text":"Arguably, a marriage between contract farming and fanner cooperatives could increase farmers' aceess to new technologies and market opportunities. Farmer cooperatives have a stronger negotiating position than individual farmers in their interaction with agribusiness, which is rapidly developing new models of contraet farming. Coultee et al (1999) review a eange ofinitiatives that could ernpower farmers going in for contraet farrning."},{"index":4,"size":138,"text":"Just as tissue culture can serve as an 'cntry-level biotechnology' (O. Hens haw, pers. comm.), so tissue culture micro-enterprises may provide a madel that \\ViII stimulate the formation of other smalI-scale, local businesses, appropriate for disseminating other bioteehnology tools and products. Cooperatives or family-level secd enterprises could disseminate biotechnologies develaped through PPB, as they already do in the case of at least sorne of the technology developed th rough conventiona! plant breeding. Loca l enterprises could also serve as the interrnediary between farmer customers and professional breeders and biotechnology laboratories, interpreting the needs of farrners and making the necessary connections to obtain what is needed (D. Duvick, pers. comm.). Perhaps such businesses eould, in the longer term, also serve as economicalIy sustainable successors to the multidisciplinary pubhc fora proposed to meet today's immediate needs (see Background,p. 1,p. 31)."},{"index":5,"size":101,"text":"Certain conditions must be met if local biotechnology s uppLiers are to emerge as a functioning part of the rural econorny in developing countries. These conditions inelude not only a supply of useful technologies, but a1so political stability, fair traders, honest agri cultural institutian s (inc1uding banks and courts), affordable technology licensing arrangements, reliable markets and prices, a nd a reasonable transport and communications infrastructure (D. Duvick, pers. cornm.). In sorne developing eountries, for example in Latin America. many of these requirements can already be found or are developing; in others. su eh as many African countries, they remain elu sive."}]},{"head":"Intellectual Property Issues","index":75,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":65,"text":"The issues associated with IPR relevant to biotechnology-assisted PPB will vary according to the jurisdiction obtaining in different countries, as well as the biotechnology being developed and disserninated. They will require transparent discussion and understanding among participating farmers, researchers, national program scientists and Implementation IS$ues tl1eir intemational partners, the relevant regulatory authorities, and the suppliers of any proprietary gennplasm or other technology used (Spillane, 1999)."},{"index":2,"size":41,"text":"Farmcrs ¡nvolved in projects that may use proprietary biotechnologies have a right as well as a respons~bility to understand the issues and participate in discussions and negotiations. Another paper in ili,is senes wiU examine IPR issues in PPB in more detail."}]},{"head":"Blosafety and Risk Assessment","index":76,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":30,"text":"Not all biotechnologies raise the issue of biosafety. MAS and tissue culture, for example, do noL At present this issue refers mainly to the development and use of transgenic organisms."},{"index":2,"size":65,"text":"The involvement of fanners in biosafety risk assessment may help identify and balance the risks and opportunities inherent in transgenic products. The opportunity costs of participation in such assessments by individual farmers may be high-especially ir attempts are made to involve women, who typically have many other tasks to pcrfonn. This is an area where farmcrs' organizations may have a role to play (Spillane, 1999)."},{"index":3,"size":148,"text":"The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, finalized in Montreal in Januruy 2000, ¡neludes provisioris for public participation in decision making regarding the use of transgenic craps (Artiele 23) and ror review of their socio-economic implications (Artide 26). The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biologica1 Diversity, in its draft decision to adopt the protoco1 (UNEP/CBD/ExCOP/ 1/L.6, 28 Jan 2000), proposes a Toster of experts' in fields relcvant to risk assessment and management as one review mechanism. Implementation of these artieles and decisions should provide opportunities for the participation of farmers' organizations. lt would seem axiomatic that biosafety and risk assessment standards in developing countries should not be lower than standards in the developed world. 8ut the reality is that a very stringent biosafety review system, or the absence of a functioning system, can delay or prevent farroers' access to biotechnology innovations (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999;Spillane, 2000)."},{"index":4,"size":108,"text":"The costs and time required for regu latory c1earance are likely to limit the amount of reseArch invested in transgenic tools or products ror resource-peor farmers in developing countries. Fundin-g for biotechnology-assisted PPB research on transgenics targetted at the needs of resource-poor farmers, already difficult to obtain, will become even more so. Wealthier research institutions and projects in developed countries are more likely to be able to ride out the costs imposed by the present regulatory stnJcture than are the under-resourced public-sector institutions of developing eountries. In the long tcnn, as more experienee is gained and regulations beco me more streamlined, it may beeomc possible to move raster."},{"index":5,"size":81,"text":"Older projeets to develop transgenic erops for small-scale farmers in developing countries-those that started in the 1980s-had no budget for the regulatory process. Thanks to dedicated researcher-s andjor understanding donors, several of these projects h ave survived through several funding eycles and have recently achieved technical success (e .g., Thro et al, 1999a). The res ulting transgenic prototypes remain in containment greenhouses until mean s are found of entering them into the regulatory process (C. Fauquet, pers. comrn.) (Box 16) ."},{"index":6,"size":204,"text":"The aption of providing a 'basic set of transgenic donar parents', suggested by sorne cornmentators (M.J. Sampaio, D. Duvick, pers. comms.) (see Chapter 4), would be one way of addressing tbcse problems, at least partially. The disadvantage of having to work tbrough such a set would be the slowness of the process, which would involve identifying an important new transgenic trait, creating the donors, submitting them to regulatory testing in each country, and clearing the regulatory procedure--all of which would have to be done before backcrossing to a locally preferred variety so that research on farmers' fields could begin. The speed and flexibility with which transgenic tcchnology can respond to [armers' needs is lost in such a process. Moreover, only a very limited number of transgenic traits could be handled, owing to the costs involved . The advantage lies in the fact that at least sorne transgenic innovations would eventually reach resource-poor [armers, rather than none at all. Resources would be focussed on a smaller, more manageable task-that of establishing the environmental and food safety effects of a small set of genotypesrather than on the myriad regulatory protocols that would be required if prima.ry transgenics were crossed with local varieties before the regulatory process."},{"index":7,"size":96,"text":"A broader regulatory ¡ssue is that current risk assessment models from developed countries (e.g., the EU and the USA) are costly in human, fmancial, and other resources. In sorne developing countries, regulations are even more stringent and thus still more costly. Recent biosafety cost estimates from Brazil, for example, are as high as US$4-S miUion for a single transgenic event (Sampaio, pers. comm.). It is orten not clear how biosafety regulatory processes can be paid fOL Their high costs may continue to bias transgenic research towards larger markets or fanners (Spillane, 1999;Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999)."},{"index":8,"size":47,"text":"Anyone proposing work with transgenic plants in a PPB project will have to factor in from the outset the uncertainty Qver whelher the plants will reach farmers' fields in a given country, and whether the farmers will be able to seU the produce in their target markets."}]},{"head":"Box16","index":77,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":32,"text":"BiosaCety and the introduction oC transgenic materials Three examples mustrate [he conflict lhat can arise between the need for effective biosafety regulatory process and the need lO deliver technology to resource-poor fanners:"},{"index":2,"size":220,"text":"Transgenic cassava Unes are being developed in severa! public-sector ¡abaratarles. Sorne lines will contalO genes la protect the erap against cassava masaie disease, while olhers wiIl carry genes to ¡ncrease vitamin A content Oí to proloog leaí retention duriog drought. AH these traits are critical lo small-scale farmers in Africa and South America. When the projects were initiated in the early 19905. it was planned to field -test the transgenic plants in these regio os, choosing countries where cassava Ig a staple erap and a oatianal priority. National breeding programs in those countries would be able lo take up promising experimental materials rapidly and put them to good use in local PPB. Bul delays occurred in the implementation oC biosafety regulations in these countries. It now appears possible that the first field tests oC transgenic cassava will takc place in collaboration with research institutes in Southcast China, where the target traits are not high priority. At best, the field tests will enablc the researchers lo get a first impression oC the probable suitabiliry oC the new materials. The absence oC biosafety regulations in the target countries-or their high cost, in countries where they do exist-will create a delay, possibly oC many years, in testing the research products and getting thcm ioto the hands oC che resource-poor fanners who need them."},{"index":3,"size":124,"text":"Biotechnology lools Cor aJteriog the cyanogen metabolism in cassava have beco under development for over a decade. Transgeoic plants with a range of variation in the cyanogen mctabolic pathway can now be produced. Participatory research has shown that the role of cyanogens in cassava is eomplex and that farmers' selection eriteria are nol fully undcrstood, so a broad range of variants needs to be explored with farmcrs. Bul can this be done? In transgenic research, the number of gene insertion events, the ehromosomallocation oC an insertion, and several olher Cactors influence the phenotype and perfonpanec oC transformed plants. Biosafety regulations require precise molecular information about the transformant and a scparate review process for eaeh transformation evento Rcquesting pcrrnits Cor multiple variants is ext.remely costly."},{"index":4,"size":107,"text":"In collaboration with WARDA, scicntists at the John Innes Institute and the Gatsby Foundation havc dcveloped a transgcnic rice variety resistant to rice yellow moltle virus (RYMV). Occurring in devastating epidemics, RYMV can cause a yield gap as high as 330,000 tons oC rice in a single )'ear in West Arrica. PVS may be the ideal way to evaluate the new vaneties with fanners. However, in the currenl biosafety regulatory climate it is unlikely thal a PVS project involving resource-poor farmer evaluation oC transgenic varieties will meet with a pproval. SOURCES: C. Iglesias, J. Pounti Ka erJas, L Ekanayake (pers. comms.); Pinto et al (1999); Witcombe (2000b)."},{"index":5,"size":5,"text":"Biotecll1lology-Assisted PPS: Complement or Conlradiction?"}]},{"head":"Planning and Providing Resources","index":78,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":47,"text":"Ir biotechnologies are to be added to the PPB tool-box, who will initiate a nd plan lhe projects? How will the projects be funded? How will the partners access trained human resources and facilities for biotechnology research? And how can they ensure effective cornmunication with each other?"},{"index":2,"size":98,"text":"1'0 date, lhe biotechnology projects in which resou rce-poor farmers have becn involved have usually beco initiated by researchers or donors, and only rarely by NGOs (J. Restrepo, pers. comm.). NGOs and participatory researchers who consider biotechnology as an aptico in PPB often run the risk of being more or less ostracized by the rest of lhe NGO cornmunity, where for th e most part an anti-biotechnology dogma reigns. Farmer-initiated bioteehnology-assisted projects are extremely rare, but may increase as farmers gain experienee and see what has happened elsewhere, particularly with low-technology too ls 5uch as tissu e culture."},{"index":3,"size":101,"text":"Funding h as come mainly from international donors but also from na tional sourees, and in a very few cases from the private sector, which, for example under the auspices of ISAAA , has made oceasional charitable donations to seetors that do not threalen tts eornmercial interests. The costs of biotechnology-assisted research may decrease in the future, but upstream' research of this kind is always likely to cost more than the resources of s mall-scale farrners can support on lheir own. What, ir any, dernand puB will sma1l-scale farmers exert on the research community in the coming years (S pillane, 1999)?"},{"index":4,"size":147,"text":"Early experience suggests that farmers' participation in project planning for biotechnology-assisted PPB will lead to projects that integrate biological and economic activities and criteria more closely than research er-developed project models (Thro et al, 1999b). Such projects are already in progress with 'on-the-shelf biotechnologies such as tissue culture. However, when a project requires the development of new biotechnology tools, su ch as specific molecular markers or inducible promoters, farmer participation breaks down because projects become too long-term to interest them. If upstream research were develop a repertoire of ready-made tools relevant to farrners' priorities. this would permit the design of participatory biotechnology-assisted projects ttt move beyond tissue culture yet stay within farmers' time-horizons. This will become more likely if farmerparticipatory research practitioners develop strategic alliances with leading public-sector research institutions with the capacity to develop such tools. and if public funding agencies consider such research a priority."},{"index":5,"size":59,"text":"Access lo facilities, human resources, and interdisciplinary trainmg for both biotechnology and farmer participatory research may be created through links between nalional organizations, farrners' groups, leading research institutes in developed countries, and iotemational centers such as those of the CGIAR. Project proposals . should specify the rcsources nceded to maintain links. Cacilitate communications, and develop research agendas coll aboratively."},{"index":6,"size":133,"text":"The level of investment and its conÜnuity will both be critical. However, dependence 00 donors in the past has more often led to discontinuity: 10ss of support for long-term projects and networks a nd reliance on short-tenn 'impact-oriented' projects, with few or no sustaining mechanisms in place, are problems that are all too familiar to most researchers. Consequently, broad dialogue between local and national representa ti ves, agricultural researchers, and donor-country constituencies is urgently needed, to secure long-term support. And, more than that, it will be vital to infarro public apio¡on in the developed world, as well as the developing countries, abou t the importance of biotechnology options for resource-poor farmers. Infonned, pro-developing country public opinion could do much to right the imbalances in the biotechnology research agenda that so many perceive today."},{"index":7,"size":83,"text":"Dialogue and collaborative research between biotechnologists and farrner participatory researchers is unlikely te happen unless it is actively prometed. Incentive mechanisms such as new funding criteria, n ew fora of cornrnunication, and peer recognition of the value of participatory research are needed. The COlAR centers and other interdisciplinary research institutions could playa major role in promoting such dialogue. Unless the dialogue is initiated, both biotechnology and farmer participatory research will continue on divergent trajectories and the potential of biotechnology-assisted PPB wiJl be lost."}]},{"head":"Conclusions","index":79,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":57,"text":"There is a real but as yet unreaJized potential íor synergy between the plant biotechnology and farmer participatory research cornmunities. Little biotechnology research is explicitIy targetted lo the needs oí resource-poor farmers (Spillane, 1999). Biotechnoiogy-assisted PPB does not yet exist in any real sense or on any meaningful scale, anywhere. Yet, with vision and support, it could."},{"index":2,"size":59,"text":"Biotechnology can strengthen the process of PPB with resourcepoor fanners, [or example, by generating 'enabling tools' that would greatly increase the efficiency of their breeding efforts at field leve!. Similarly, farmer participatory needs assessments could strengthen biotechnology research, providing it with an essential 'reality ch eck' with which to sharpen its focus on the needs of resource-poor farmers ."},{"index":3,"size":52,"text":"In spite of this potential, biotechnologists and the practitioners of farmer participatory research currently have no fora for exchanging information or interacting with one another. They speak different professionallanguages and in most cases are unaware oC how each other's work could be relevant to their own or to society as a whole."},{"index":4,"size":66,"text":"Although the auth o rs contacted hundreds of researchers, in both biotechnology and farmer participatory research, only a handful 01' biotechnology-assisted PPB projects were identified. Almost aH involved tissue culture-a mature,low-cost biotechnology that can give good results quickly. This situation stands in marked contrast to that of 3-5 years ago, when it seemed that more projects covering a broader range of technologies would soon be implemented."},{"index":5,"size":83,"text":"Many of the traits currenUy being developed through biotechnology research correspond to farmers' expressed needs. PPB olTers opportunities lO incorporate these traits into varieties in demand by Carmers. For example, biotechnology cou ld be used to reduce the labor requirement of key on-farm processes, as well as to in crease yields and protect against pests and diseascs. Whetber small-scale farmers wil! h ave access to these traits will vary accordi.ng to the technology that embodies lhem and to a range of other factors."},{"index":6,"size":23,"text":"The (uture of biotechnology-assisted PPB will depend on whethcr or not a number of conditions can be met. Among others, these conditions ¡nelude:"},{"index":7,"size":131,"text":"Mechanisms for contact and sustained communication between biotechnologists, plant breeders, participatory research practitioners, and farmers Shorl-term benefits to farmers, to compensate (or the risks and cosls of experimentation, and lo address their most pressing needs-wilhout sacrificing opportunities for long-term benefits Translation of farmers' needs ioto research action through efIective 'problem transfer', incentives and accountability; or greater control for farmers' groups over research funds and objectives Transparent discussion and understanding among participating farmers, nalional programs, international centers, regulatory aulhorities, and suppliers of proprietary germplasm and other technology, concerning the regulatory, biosafety, and relevant social issues associated with each project Modes oC access to biotechnologies from proprietary sources, a public biotechnology tool-box, and strategic alliances with leading research institubons Public support for sustain'ed public-sector Cunding: successful biotechnology-assisted PPB cannot be achievecl without investment."},{"index":8,"size":35,"text":"Because oC its capacity for multidisciplinary research, its focus on poverty eractication, and its experience in animating and sustaining long-term partnerships, the CGIAR is in a unique position to integrate biotechnology and farmer participatory research. "}]}],"figures":[{"text":" li se ru l ror resource-poor fanncrs Use oC anther culture in participnto[y rlce breed.l.Og The genetic gaio equation Latin Am erican fanners' rccommendatlOns to C BN Summary oC cassava Carmcrs' concerns expressed to CaN Molecu lar antbropology: Markers for understand.ing the sprcad of cyanogenic cassava Molecula r markers thro\\V ligh t on Carroers' selections of pearl millct ¡and faces in West Arríen Biotcchnologies that help small-scaJe farm ers cnler new markets Seeking soluuons lo the paradox of cassava toxicity Tissue culture and small-scale ban ~Ula producers in Kenya 10 Market-linked resloration and conservation o C cassava in Ecuador 11 Rehabilitation o r cassava prod uc tion in post-war Angola v "},{"text":"Biotechnology~Assisted PPB: Complement or Con lradlCtlon? "},{"text":" Much biotechnology research is considered to be teehnology• c1riven, with the emphasis 00 what reseatch can do rather than on what should be done. On the other hand, sorne farmer participatory Biotechnology-Assis ted PPB: ComplemenZ or Conlrodiction? "},{"text":" Biotechnology-Assisted PPB: Complement or Corllradiction? "},{"text":" Biotec1mology•Assisted PPB: Complemellt or Conlradiction? "},{"text":" 1e et a! (1997); Verdaguer et a! (1996); Sarria et al (1995); Schopke et al (1996); 70 Li el al (1996); Raemakers et al (1996); González et al (1 998); Arias and Sayre (1 998); R. Sayre, C. Iglesias, M. Frege ne (pers. comms.). "},{"text":"Box12 Low-cost rustlc tlssue culture ror cassava and other Indigenous root crops in Colombia Cassava in Colombia'g Cauca region is grown by resource • poor fanners for home consumplion and sale to sma ll•scale local starch extraction plants. The crap is a good source of future income and rural employment, provided local producers can compete with those of Brazil and Thailand. "},{"text":" The Intemational Food Policy Research Institute (lFPRI) and the Intemational Development Research Centre (lORC) ofCanada are Biolechnology•Assisted PPB: Complement or Co lltradiction? "},{"text":" Biotechnology-Assisled PPB: Complement or Corttradiction ?BOJe 14 "},{"text":" Biotechnology-Assisted PPB: Complement or Conlradicrton?Box 15     "},{"text":" Biotechllology-Assisted PPB: Complement or ConlradicNon? "},{"text":" In poor countries, women 's access lo technology appropiate for lhcir needs vitally affects hou sehold Coad security, and especially lhe well being oC children. Far this Teasan, lhe Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (COlAR) system decided lo strengthen , consolidate, and m ainstream its participatory research a n d gender anaIys is. Thus it Cormed the Syste mwidc Program on Participatory Research and Gcnder Analysis for Technology  "},{"text":"Table l . Sorne examples of agronomically im portanl single genes. Major erTect Ph enotype Crop References Major erTectPh enotypeCropReferences genes    genes HMW-GS lA.xI Breadmaking quality Wheat Altpete r el al. 1996 HMW-GS lA.xIBreadmaking qualityWheatAltpete r el al. 1996 Hardness gene Grsin hardness Wheal Girou.'C and Morris, Hardness geneGrsin hardnessWhealGirou.'C and Morris,    1998 1998 Rht¡, Rht 2 Dwarfing genes which Wheal Hoogendoom el al , Rht¡, Rht 2Dwarfing genes whichWhealHoogendoom el al ,  contribute to increased  1988 contribute to increased1988  harvest index  Waddington et al, harvest indexWaddington et al,    1986 1986 Ppd \" Ppd, Pholopenod Wheat  Ppd \" Ppd,PholopenodWheat  insensitivity genes   insensitivity genes Rye IB/ IR Yie ld ¡ncrease and Wheat Villareal el al, Rye IB/ IRYie ld ¡ncrease andWheatVillareal el al, translocatio n o lher effects (disease  1991, 1995 translocatio no lher effects (disease1991, 1995 (chromosome and insect resis tan ce)   (chromosomeand insect resis tan ce) segment)    segment) ph 1 mutant Con trols homologous Wheal GiIJ, 1993 ph 1 mutantCon trols homologousWhealGiIJ, 1993 gene (a painng, promotes   gene (apainng, promotes deletion) chromosome painng   deletion)chromosome painng Vml Vemalizalion response Wheal Galiba el al, 1995 VmlVemalizalion responseWhealGaliba el al, 1995 Sh2 Vernalization response Barley Galiba et al, 199 5; Sh2Vernalization responseBarleyGaliba et al, 199 5;    Laune et al . 1995 Laune et al . 1995 Sp l Vernalization response Rye Galiba el al , 1995; Sp lVernalization responseRyeGaliba el al , 1995;    Laune el al, 1995 Laune el al, 1995 Ppd-H 1 Photoperiod response Barley Lau ne el al, 1994 Ppd-H 1Photoperiod responseBarleyLau ne el al, 1994 Ppdl Photoperiod response, Mosl Worland and PpdlPhotoperiod response,MoslWorland and  day length European Sayers, 1996 day lengthEuropeanSayers, 1996  insensitivity wheat varieties  insensitivitywheat varieties Rpgl Stem rust (Puccinia Barley Slecrenson, 1992; RpglStem rust (PucciniaBarleySlecrenson, 1992;  graminis f. sp. trincr}  Ki lian et al, 1997 graminis f. sp. trincr}Ki lian et al, 1997  "},{"text":"Table 2 . Sorne inducible promoters . Promoter Type Reference PromoterTypeReference Gmhspl7.3 promoter Heat-shock promoter  Gmhspl7.3 promoterHeat-shock promoter (soybean)   (soybean) myb 1 promoter Virus-inducible promoter Hong et al, 1996; Yang myb 1 promoterVirus-inducible promoterHong et al, 1996; Yang (tobacco)  and K1essig, 1996 (tobacco)and K1essig, 1996 tet promoter? Tetracycline inducible Masgrau et al, 1997 tet promoter?Tetracycline inducibleMasgrau et al, 1997  promoter  promoter In2 -2 promoter Benzene sulfonamide De Veylder et al, 1997 In2 -2 promoterBenzene sulfonamideDe Veylder et al, 1997 (maize) herbicide safener  (maize)herbicide safener  inducible  inducible EAS4 promoter Pathogen-/elicitor- Yan et al , 1998 EAS4 promoterPathogen-/elicitor-Yan et al , 1998  inducible promoter  inducible promoter leA promoter Ethanol inducible Caddick et al, 1998 leA promoterEthanol inducibleCaddick et al, 1998  promoter  promoter Cu promoter Copper inducible McKenzie el al, 1998 Cu promoterCopper inducibleMcKenzie el al, 1998  promoter  promoter UP promoter Methyl-jasmonate Ruiz-Rivero and Prat, UP promoterMethyl-jasmonateRuiz-Rivero and Prat, (tomato) inducible  (tomato)inducible wcs 120 promoter Cold•inducible  wcs 120 promoterCold•inducible (wheat)   (wheat) pin-2 promoter Insect feeding or  pin-2 promoterInsect feeding or  wound inducible  wound inducible GapC4 (maize) Anaerobic condilions  GapC4 (maize)Anaerobic condilions promoter inducible  promoterinducible Steroid-responsive Glucocorticoid inducible  Steroid-responsiveGlucocorticoid inducible promoter   promoter  "}],"sieverID":"2d921c55-acb5-44a0-86a0-8e1c29b9a54e","abstract":"Bioteclmology-Ass isted PPB: Complement or Colltradiction? makers who help set priorities, define criteria for success, and determine when an innovation is \"ready\" for release. This new role changes the division of labor between farmers a nd scie ntists, a nd ffiay dramatically reduce the cost of applied rescarch. We have evidence that this n ovel approach can s ignificantly improve th e impact of rcsearch for poor farmers, especially wom en . Howevcr, evidence is patchy and how to replicate success o n a la rge scale is not well und erstood. A key contribution of the Prograrn is to develo p clear guidelines on how to ach ieve this cnd, ruld to build the capacity to pul novel approaches into practice.viii The authors a re grateful ror lhe time and thought of several hundred colleagues who con tributed ideas and observations lo this paper and lo the panel oC readers \\Vho co mmentcd on th e first dra ft. Contributors included farm crs , panicipa tory research expe rts, plant breeders, biotechnologists, resea rch managers, a nd donar rcpresenta tives. They were drawn (rom public n atianal a nd internation al resear ch an d development programs, lhe private sector , and non-governmcntal organization. Without their conlributions, the paper would nal exist. The authors have made cvery attempt lo be accurate. However, omissions or crrc rs in representalion of views may have occurred. Responsibility ror such crrcrs, and [or lhe text in its entirety , rests with the a uthors."}
\ No newline at end of file