V Ramprasad and Shibu M P Figure 1. Participatory varietal selection of finger roillet Table 1. Collections ofIndigenous Varieties and On-Farro Conservation between 1995 and 1999 No. of varieties al conservation center No. of varieties with farmers CROPS 1995 1999 1995 1999 Finger mille! 21 68 6 34 Upland paddy 20 36 5 22 We!land paddy 12 46 5 16 Pearl mille! 3 13 3 5 Sorghum 4 15 3 5 Maize 3 8 3 Ultle mille! 4 11 2 5 Fox!ail mille! 4 12 2 6 Kodo mille! 1 1 O 1 Proso mille! 2 1 2 Vege!ables 24 68 23 53 Oil seeds 7 14 4 13 Pulses 12 38 8 26 The concept o/ PPB To ensure household food security and optimize productivity under available conditions, which are highly resource-constrained farming environments, the farming cornmunity continuously relies on diversity of crops and crop species. The efficiency of formal breeding lines or improved cultivars has remained largely confined to favorable environments and high-input conditions. Decentralized breeding approaches have been started in Western Asia and the Near East (Ceccarelli et al. 1994), 99 Empowering Farmers through Participatory Plant Breeding Central Africa (Sperling, Loevinsohn, and Ntabomurra 1993; Voss 1992), and West Africa (Jusu 1995). Farmer-based breeding is an important strategy for maintaining and using genetic diversity in agriculture as part of a multilateral system for conserving plant genetic resources (PGR) by mak- ing a wider range of genetic material available to farmers, directly as well as through fue use of a broader genetic base in formal breeding (Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga 1995), by developing plant vari- eties suitable for resource-poor farrners in marginal areas, and by creating incentives for in situ con- servation ofPGR (Cooper, Engels, and Frison 1994). Although agricultural universities and private-sector organizations are releasing a number of vari- eties, the farming community has continued to maintain their own varieties. Although advances are being made to decentralize the varietal evaluation process for incorporated traits, breeders have not risked making selections under fue non-uniform conditions typical of a small and marginal farmer. Even today a number of farmers prefer their varieties and reject modem varieties because of the probability oflow yields and crop failures in unfavorable environments. Besides it is also realized that fue use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and chemicals for weed control is uneconomical and risky for resource-poor farmers. As a process of decentralizing the formal and conventional breeding system, PPB approaches were developed with the involvement offarmers. PPB is more likely to produce farrner-acceptable prod- ucts or varieties, particularly for marginal environments, as in our context. It also has a greater ef- fect on increasing biodiversity, though its impact may be limited to smaller areas as acknowledged by authors'like Witcombe et al. (1966). . The approach There are many improvement programs that involve farmer participation, with different degrees of participation for breeding, identifying improved cultivars, or upgrading landraces. One participa- tory approach is being varietal selection, which broadly aims at purifying the seed material-a pre- cursor to the plant-breeding programo In the initiatives of our program, fue concept of PPB has been employed in three broad areas: (1) crop improvement, (2) conservation ofbiodiversity, and (3) empowerment of farrners. Rere, crop improvement involves informal varietal breeding under variable environments using traditional va- rieties. As described by Witcombe et al. (1996), fue first phase ofPPB starts with the identification offarmer-preferred traits in a particular variety. Identification of farmer-preferred traits and cultivars Altemative approaches for identifying cultivars that are acceptab1e to resource-poor farmers have been suggested and tried by a number of researchers. Maurya, Bottrall, and Farrington (1998) tested advanced lines ofrice cultivars in villages in Uttar Pradesh, India, and successfully identified superior material that was preferred by farmers. The first step in a successful participatory varietal-selection program involves identifying farmers' needs in a variety of crops. The farrners' requirements can be identified using several methods (Joshi and Witcombe 1996), such as partici- patory rural appraisals, examination of farrners' crops around harvest time by providing a pool of genetic material s in a demonstration plot, and comparative evaluation on the farm. A similar set of methodologies was adopted to identify farmers' needs over a variety. W ifu an on-farm conservation program around, farmers had a number of choices to select sorne varieties 100 V. Ramprasad and Shibu M P suited to their requirements. Rural appraisals were made to assess both qualitative and quantitative characteristics (figure 2). Afier identifYing farmer's requirements, three indigenous varieties offinger millet and rice were selected for the participatory crop-improvement programo Selections from segregating populations Farmer ParticipatolY Crop Improvemenl Participatory varietal selectioo Through farmers meetíngs Farmer's ｣ｨｯｾ＠ for a crop Women's group discusskm .. Medium heígh1 and duration Through Greeo ín 1998 Víllage level PR.A:s .. Bigger germínatíon. earheads with tow husk • Hígh yields Ior Iow input • Resistant lo peS! dí.ease. and shattering • Good taste, colour & straw qualíty Partícípatory varielal breediog Breedíng goals .. To ¡ncrease the yield potential • To stabilize plant height and maturity .. To induce disease resistance crops • To increase lhe lmíng capací!y .. For non lodging & non shattering .. To avoid precoccous germination • Far multiple branchíng Figure 2. Assessment of farmers' criteria and setting the breeding objectives oC these varieties (table 2) were made from five different Carmers across the watershed. The main emphasis in the selections was to improve genetic characteristics, such as plant height, disease and pest resistance, drought tolerance, number oC leaves, and flag leaf size. A sufficient quantity of seeds (Selection 1), which can be handled by a single researcher and Carmer, were collected, based on the set enteria. The [¡rst selection of seeds from five different Carmers was bulked into a single lot and divided ínto two halves. One halCwas sown in the [¡eld oC a farmer who was trained to take observations along with the researcher. Another set was sown at the conservation center, where close monitoring and optimal agronomíc conditions could be rnaintaíned. Adjacent to the selected seed, a control check was carried out usíng nonselected seed of the same variety. Close monítoring and clear data for IOl Table 2. Selection ofVarieties Finger millet Rice Major Varietal characters (for all) Selections made for Doddathene Mandya orissa Pichchakaddi Mottaikar Marudi Dodda baira nellu Drought tolerant Nonshattering High fodder value High cooking quality Higher yields Uniform height Disease resislance High tillering Nonlodging. etc, these two sets were kept during the course of plant growth. 8elections were made from these popu- lations involving more farmers for the set criteria, A sízable quantity of seeds was taken to dissemi- nate in order to test the variety under varied agroclimatic condítions and to involve more farmers, The second year's selection was tested at five different localities involving tbree new farmers and two of the old locations. Under each set of conditions, a check ofthe unselected population is main- tained for comparison and analysis, Selections involving researcher and farmers will be made from these crops, Various strategies in PPB depend on the selections from 82 generations of already improved variet- ies, where the objective of conservation ofbiodiversity in farmers' fields has not been taken into ac- count. Therefore, in this approach, selections were made from traditional varietíes, and in each generation the number of farmers and vilIages rnaintaining the variety will be doubled, This pro- vides a base for on-farm conservatí?n of plant genetic resources. From the S3 populalÍon, a bulked composite set will be developed in order to have genetic variabil- ity intact, and from each individual farmer, two different sets of selections will be made for perfor- mance evaluation and to disseminate the selected indigenous variety across the farming cornmunity (figure 3). Ibis will be continued until the variety is stable with respect to the desired traits of selection (figure 4), The evaluation assessment will be carried out tbrough the following: 1, Field assessment or crop assessment 2, Pedigree record analysis 3, Evaluatíon and appraisal by the farming cornmunity Therefore, a participatory plant-breeding program in our context aims at the following: 1. Improving local cultivars in a participatory mode under open conditions 102 2, Selecting a variety for farmer-preferred traits under marginal, uncontrolled environmental conditions 3. Improving the skill base of farmers with scientific inputs, in order to empower them as an independent seed producers 4, Conserving genetic resources among many farmers under varied agroclimatic conditions 5, Maintaining a bulked composite mixture to conserve genetic variability, which will be ex- pressed under different (genetíc x environment) interactions 6. Breaking the low-yield barrier and inducing morphometric uniformity 7. Increasing the participation offarmers in post-development testing of improved varielÍes in order to develop an acceptable variety V. Ramprasad and Shibu M P _ Selection 1 _ Selectlon 2 /\ _ Sele.tion 3 00 00 00 00 00 DO DO 00 DO DO •••••••••••••••••••• Continuation of process for wider dissemlnation Figure 3. Diagrammatíc representation indicatiug the model oC approach 60 I_Sen8s1 : 50 '" 40 e o :¡:¡ 30 E .. e .. 20 (!) 10 O 82 83 84 85 S6 Generations Figure 4. Dissemination of conservation-PVS program • SeIoct s_. O Control (non se!eded) O composite mixture • Trials at Conservation Centre S7 --- ........ ｟ｾ＠ .... ｾＮ｟Ｍ ........ ｟ｾ＠ 103 Empowering Farmers through Participatory Plan! Breeding The success of a new variety depends on the number offarmers' crítería being incorporated into the breeding lines and its value with respect to ¡ts environrnental interactíons. References Ceeearelli, S., W. Erskine, J. Hamblin, and S. Grando. 1994. Genotype by environment inter.etion and intemotiúnal breed progtams. Experimental Agriculture 30: 177-187. Coopero D., 1. Engel., .nd E. Frison. 1994. A multilateral system for plant genetic resourees, imperatives, achicve- menls .nd challenges. Issues in Gene/ie Resources 2. Femandez, G. P. 1994. Indigenous knowledge and development. MonÍ/or 2(2). Joshi, A. and l.R. Witeombe 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvcmcnt n. Participatory varietal ,elecHon: A case study in India. Experimental Agriculture 32:469-485. Jusu, M.S. 1995. Seeds and survival. In Crop genetic resources in warand reconslruction in Africa, edited by P. Rich- ards and G. Ruiven Kamp. Report commissioned bythe Intemational Planl Genetic Resources Institute (Rome). Maurya, D.M., A. Baltra)), andJ. Farringlon. 1998.lmproved Iívelihoods, genetic diversity and farmers' participation: A stralegy for rice breedíng in rainfed areas ofIndia. Experimental Agrictllture 24:311-320. Eyzaguirre, P. and M. Iwanaga. 1995. Farmer,' contribulion to maintainíng genetic diversily in crops and ils role within !he total genetic resouree system. In Participatory plant breeding: Proceedings 01 a workshop, 26--29 July 1995. Wageningen, Netherlands, edited by P. Eyzaguirre and M. Iwanaga. Rome: Intematianal Plant Ge- nelie Resourees Institut •. Sperling, L., M.E. Loevinsohn, and B. Ntabomuura. 1993. Rethinking af farmer,' role in plant breeding: Local bean experts and on-station seleetion in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture 29:509--519. VOS" J. 1992. Conservíng and increasing on-farm genetic diversity: Farmer management ofvarietal bean mixtures in central Afriea. In Diversity, farmers' lmowledge and sustainability, edited by J.L. Moock and R.E. Rboades. lthaca, NY: ComelI Uní versity Press. Witcombe, J.R., A. loshi, K.D. Josbi, aud B.R. Sthapit. 1996. Farmer participatory erop improvement l. Varietal selee- tíon aud breeding methods and their impaet on biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture 32:445-460, 104 Rethínking the Participatory Paradigm in Plant Breeding: A Nonbreeder's Perspective Bishnu Raj Upreti Abstract This paper attempts ro highlight Ihe ract that ít is time to criticalIy rethink the use of lhe partieipatory paradígm in research and development. The notion of participalíon is not only highly deba!ed but a1so heavily misused and abused in research aud development discourscs. Rhetoric.lIy, almost alI documen!s of government, rcseareh organizations, !NGOs, .nd NGOs impressively use sueh terms as beneficiaries' partícipation, participatory approach, use of indígenous knowledge, bottom-up plaMíng, etc. Bu! in real- i!y, they themselves control Ihe partícipatory process by ímposing their eriteria, condítions, and regula- tions. The global as well as Nepalese experiences in participatory approaches in both research .nd development show Ihat lhe commitment and confidence oflocal people is nol gained at Ihe desired leveL The participatíon ofhenefidaries in lhe research and developmenl process is not only a means bul also an end thar empowers people. Participation has to focus on contributíng, ínfluencing, sharing, and redistrib- utíng power, resourees, henefils, and knowledge. Therefore, the essence oflhe participatory process lies in helpíng people to mak. their own decisions and to take responsibilí!y for lheir own welfare. Thís per- spective has profound implications for choosíng approaches and methodologies for participatory plant breeding. New challenges in plant breeding are posed by genetic engineenng, bíotechnology, globaliza- tion, patenting, .nd a profit-oriented focus. Th.re is increasing evidence thal scientists have a strong ego- centric involvement ín their innovations, which is often in conflict wilh lhe tremendous knowledge and experience oflncal people. Henoe, it is lime to retbink the participatory paradigm in research and devel- apmen! .nd develop • new professianalism lO address the newly emergíng .hallenges. Introduction The term participation in rescarch and dcvelopment (R&D) i8 becoming devalued (Farrington 1998) and evcn abused, partiy in response to donor pressure (much ofwhich is rhetoric) and partly as a fashion wíthout substance. Particípatíon is also a notion that has been hotly debated arnong ít5 practitíoners and used as a means to achieve the objectives of projects and prograrns (Narayan 1995). But in thís paper, 1 am conceptualizing partidpation and participatory approaches in the broader context as both a means and an end. In thí8 conceptualization, participation i8 a 'multi-di- mensional, dynamic process of contributing, influencing, sharing, or redistributing power and of control, resources, benefits, knowledge, and skills to be gained through beneficiaries' involvement in decision making.' Therefore, participation i5 a voluntary process by which people, especially the dísadvantaged (in income, gender, ethnícity, education, etc,) influence or control decisions regard- ing plant breeding that affect thero. As a non-plant-breeder, 1 arn visualizing participatory plant breeding (PPB) from thís frarnework. There are dífferent levels of participation, ranging from passive participation (farmers participate in activities decided unilateralIy by PPB professionals), participation in information giving (farmers answer questions posed by PPB professionals), partid- patíon by consultation (PPB professionals consult farmers and listen their víews), participation for material incentives (farmers particípate to obtain miní-kits given by PPB professionals, to be in- volved in farmers' field trials, etc,), functíonal participatíon (farmers participate in the predeter- mined functional requireroents ofPPB professíonals), interactive participation (joint analysís with farmers lo make action plans and mobilize local institutions, using ínterdisciplinary methodologies Bishnu Raj Upreti is a PhD candidate in the Department af Social Sciences. Wageningen Agricultural University. Wageningen. Netherlands. 105 Rethinking the Parlicipalory Paradigm in Plant Breeding that seek multiple perspectives) and self-mobilization (fanners take initiatives themselves in plan! breeding) (Prerty et al. 1995). Participatory processes have certain characteristics: they integrate community mobilization for PPB planning and action based on equal an partnership between farmers and researchers; theyairn at strengthening fanners' problem-solving, planning, and management abilities; they promote fanners' capacity to develop appropriate new technologies; they encourage resource-poor farmers to learn tbrough experimentation, building on their knowledge and practices (action and reflec- tion); they recognize that aH farmers are not the same-with conflicts and differences in ínterest, power, and capabilities. Farmers participate when they realíze tha! the benefíts of participation out- weigh the costs. So the pertinent question is, Do such PPB practices pro vide benefits to fanners? In the context of PPB, different rnodes of participation can be discussed, ranging from contractual (PPB professionals contraet farmers to provide physical resources such as land, germplasm, or in- digenous knowledge) to consultative (PPB professionals consult farmers about theirproblems and then develop solutions) to collaborative (PPB professíonals and farmers collaborate as partners in the breeding process) to collegial (PPB professionals work to strengthen farmers' breeding sys- terns) (Prerty el al. 1995). When we talk about participatory processes, we have to be clear abaut which mode and leve! ofparticipation are relevant at a particular stage ofPPB. The essence ofPPB needs to be looked at from two levels: • First, within the PPB process, Who initiates research? Whose research agendas are used? Whose needs are being met? Who directs and controls the PPB process? What is the bottom line ofPPB? Does PPB specifically focus on poor and rural women as key players in manag- ing plant genetic resources (PGR), post-harvest processing, and the nutritíon of children. • Second, on broader global challenges: Does PPB work on equity and poverty issues? Does PPB focus on the empowerment of marginal, resource-poor fanners to írnprove their position in society? Does PPB have the capacity to deal with the threats posed by globalization and the abuse of advancements made in the field ofbiotechnology in exploíting the poor fanners of developing countries? How does PPB deal with increasing bio-piracy? How does PPB deal wíth growing starvation and famine? In my opinion, these are some of the pertinent questions that need to be critically considered in promoting PPB. In this paper, 1 attempt to examine the essence, opportunities, mínimum conditions, and threats to PPB frorn the non-plant-breeder's perspective and pose sorne critical questions to promote discus- sion and debate to irnprove the performance ofPPB. This paper is divided into tbree sections.The first sectíon introduced paper and its outline. The second section raises issues related to PPB, i.e., How particípatory is PPB? What are its approaches and methodologies? Who defines participation and who initiates it? What seale and level ofparticipation is involved in PPB? What is the poliey context and institutional framework for PPB? What are the threats to PPB from genetic engineering bioteehnology, and globalization. It argues that PPB has increasingly shifted to the control of com- mercial interests. A discussion is presented on the need to integrate the social and technical sciences to promote PPB. And finally, the third section concludes tbat there is not only great scope for pro- rnoting real PPB but there are also big challenges. 106 B. R. Upreti Issues raised The eommon categorization of plant breeding into fanner-led and formal-Ied PPB is problematic because in either case fanners, especíally poor fanners, are involved in the initiatives ofbreeders. Furthermore, the formal-led PPB is limited by organizational conditions, criteria, and obligations. It develops separate regimes and widens the gap between them. The dichotomy is vague and con- fusing if real poor and marginalízed fanners are to be targeted. In the philosophy of participation, no one leads but both collaborate to achieve common objectives. Therefore, the chaIlenges for pro- fessionals working in PPB are how to achieve collaborative participation to meet the needs of poor and marginal farmers, how to negotiate or cope with the commercial exploitation of PPB, how to sacrifice the personal benefits ofbreeders that are ensured through patenting and the Intemational Convention for the Protection ofNew Varieties ofPlants (UPOV), l and how to share these benefits with poor fanners. In the following section 1 will briefly discuss these issues. Essence 01 PPB Genetic diversity in agriculture enables fanners to select varieties of plants that are best adapted to a changing environment and economic and social pressures. Access to such diversity is vital for se- curing current and future agricultura! production and food security. In this context, the need for PPB is enhanced by a growing realization that conventional plant breeding has been unable to ad- dress .the erop requirements for the 1.5 billíon food-deficit people ofthe world (PRGA 1999). The socioeconomie and agroecologieal conditions offarmers are complex, diverse, and risk-prone, and the conventional breeding approach based on unidirectional breeder- and lab-centered work is un- likely to address the complex problems of resource-poor fanners. PPB is an alternate approach that closely engages fanners through diagnosis, experimentation, and dissemination and systematicaIly incIudes fanners' knowledge, skills, and preferences in the process (PRGA 1999). PPB helps to in- crease understanding of the conditions, the opportunities, and the constraints fanners face and to build on that. Therefore, PPB will be adaptable, locaIly owned, and sustainable. 1 believe that PPB, in ita current changing context, needs to be seen from a broader perspective, which encompasses relationships among plants, anima!s, microorganisms, soil, and water within particular social, cultural, and ecological systems, as well as fue contribution ofPPB to local food security and the empowerment of marginal farmers. Therefore, tradition, culture, indigenous knowledge should be importanl elements ofPPB. PPB should not only aim lo increase productivity but it should also be targeted to bridge fue gap between farmcrs and the formal RD sector, empow- ering fanning communities, contributing to moditying agricultural policies in general (and seed and breeding policies in particular), and documenting indigenous knowledge and skills. PPB should not be limited lo enhancing genetic diversity alone, but it should also be expandcd lo con- serve the diversity of the ecologica! system, of the .furming system, of species, and of output (Shiva et al. 1995) as well as ofthe sociocultural syslem. In reality, are these aims fulfilled by PPB? Unot, why not? What are the bottlenecks? It is time to rethink these issues. In this paper 1 am discussing these issues from the perspective of food seeurity, globalization, the abuse of genetic engineering and bioteehnology, and the empowerment ofpaor and marginal fanners. We have a bitterexample ofGreen-Revolution-type development where the gap between rich and poor was widened (Shiva et al. 1995). Breeders have developed varieties of crops that are suitable to mid-income and rieh 1. The purpose ofUPOV is to ensure that the breeder of a new plant variety is recognized and prútected for a given period oftime under inteUectua! property rights. The member states ofUPOV grant such rights under their nationallegislarion, in accordance wHh the provisions of the UPOV convention. 107 Rethinking the Participatory Paradigm in Plant Breeding fanners, not to resource-poor fanners. PPB needs to be able to provide benefits to poor fanners in order to secure their meaningful participation. The extinction of seed varieties, the erosion of genetic diversity, and the abuse ofthe rapid advance- ment of genetic engineering and biotechnology to create genetic unifonnity and vulnerability are the major threats to food security and the survival ofresource-poor fanners. Increasingly, the native varieties upon which the survival of many poor farmers is based, are becoming inaccessible or be- ing replaced. This poses severe challenges for PPB, exemplified by the following statement ofMr. Tuleshwor Rajbansi, fanner from Jhodahat, Morang District: Befare 15 years, we used lo grow more Ihan 8 differenl varielies of rice as: Doshara, Dumsi, Panidhan, Agahani, Basmali, Mola, Birimphu1, Rajbhog, ele. Al leasl Ihere were differenl 7-8 small heaps in our field while harvesting. Bul now we grow only two varieties of rice as Mansuli and Kanehhi Mansuli. We have lo buy seedfrom markel. We losl all our local varieties. We buy mosl of Ihe vegelables' seeds Ihal we grow in our field from Ihe market. 1 prefer lO grow local varieties whieh are eheap and delicious lo eal. Bul il is very diffieult lo find seed. LI-BIRD research findings also show that several varieties ofvegetables are on the verge of extinc- tion in Nepal (Rana, Joshi, and Lohar 1998). How participatory is PPB? In the existing PPB, the role of fanners is no more than that of contractual participation, as they pro- vide gennplasm to breeders and seed companies to keep in gene banks. But such gene banks fail to conserve genetic diversity because of scientific flaws and technical and polítical inadequacies (Shiva et al. 1995). In conventional plant breeding, fanners are merely the suppliers of genetic ma- . terials, based on the hope of future use. F anners are cornmonly kept at a distance from the breeding process and only considered as consumers ofthe product, i.e., the seed. The fanner-breeder link is stilllinear and top-down. In recent years, plant breeding has radically shified from the conventional domain to genetic engi- neering and biotechnology and has been unexpectedly manipulated for cornmercial interests. Therefore, it is time to critically assess which groups offanners are involved in PPB and which are benefitting from PPB. Generally, the fanners who are consulted by breeders are from the middle and higher economic strata; they are not the backward and marginalized resource-poor fanners. F anners from middle and higher economic classes are more articulate, better able to invest in the breeding process, have a greater risk-bearing capacity, and are more capable of dealing with breed- ers (by expressing their ideas and responding to requests for infonnation). They are therefore involved in PPB and getting benefits from it. The argument 1 have ofien heard is the inability of poor fanners to carry out PPB activities. However, the major unexpressed reasons for limiting the participation of these fanners--or excluding them altogether-are their inability to offer good facilities for lodging and food for R&D professionals, poor environmental hygiene, language dif- ferences, cultural biases, geographical biases (their concentration in accessible areas), etc. Many R&D professionals rhetorically use the participatory paradigm as a ready-made solution to improve the livelihood of extremely poor fanners without considering underlying principies of par- ticipation and local dynamics and conditions. Such interventions not only create social tensions and conflicts, but they also abuse the essence of participatory discourses in R&D. Participation engen- ders financial, social, physical, and psychological costs as well as benefits. Furthennore, PPB pro- fessionals also exploit the financial resources obtained from donors in the name ofPPB for personal 108 B. R. Upreti benefits (e.g., higber studies, training abroad, higher salaries, etc.). Many professionals working in R&D still lack lhe appropriate knowledge and skills to facilitate participatory processes. Con- sidering this, how does PPB contribute to improving the livelihood of poor farmers, enhancing food security, and empowering marginal farmers? 1 realized that the existing PPB approach limits itself to a functional type of participation where farmers are merely involved in a breeding agenda set by the PPB professionals, not to lhe extent of lheir empowerment. Opportunities. There are several global and local opportunities to promote PPB. Among them the fol!owing two are importan!. Convention on biodiversity as a broader framework for PPB. A decision reached at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 by signatories to lhe Convention on Bio-Diversity (CBD) establíshed lhat genetic resources (seeds) are no longer "the cornmon heritage of mankind" but fal! under lhe sovereignty of individual countries. The CBD legally binds member countries to conserve genetic resources and farmers' rights (Chaudhary 1999). The threats posed to biodiversity, lhe environment at large, and human health by globalization and the new genetic engineering and biotechnology are major con- cems under the CBD (TWN 1998). The preamble oflhe CBD, Indent 9, regarding precautionary principies states that "where lhere is a threat of significant reduction or loss ofbiological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimise such threats." Article 8(g) ofthe CBD, dealing with in situ conservation, obliges contract- ing parties to "establish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control lhe risks associated wilh the use and release ofliving modified organisms resulting from bio-technology which are líkely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and sustainable use ofbio- logical diversity, taking also finto 1 account lhe risk to human heallh." Artiele 8(h) requires parties to "prevent lhe introduction of, control or eradicate lhose alíen species which threaten ecosystems, habitats and species." Artiele 8 G) oflhe CBD addresses lhe knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local cornmunities embodying traditionallifestyles relevant to lhe conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity (Ho 1998). Therefore, CBD is supportive and provides a promotional regulatory framework to enhance PPB. Civil society awareness and NGO initiatives. Civil-society movements to promote PPB, to con- serve biodiversity, and to minimize the negative impact of globalization emerging and gaining mo- mentum. The protests at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and lhe meeting ofthe United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCT AD) in Bangkok, and lhe Navdhnya and Beej Banchao movements in India are examples of civil awareness. Likewise, several nongov- ernmental organizations, farmers groups, and activists are increasingly working towards PGR con- servation and lhe protection of farmers' rights througb lobbying and advocacy. Sorne NGOs are even strongly emerging to promote PPB. LI-BIRD in Nepal is an example of such an initiative. Conditions In order to promote PPB at the nationallevel, sorne minimum favorable conditions need to exis!. Sorne oflhese are brief1y discussed as follows: Conducive policy context and supportive institutional and regulatory frameworks. Is the national polícy context conducive to the promotion of PPB and are institutional and regulatory frameworks supportive enough? This is the major question to be debated and discussed in the 109 Rethinking the Participatory Paradigm in Plant Breeding present context. The conducíve policy context and supportive institutíonal and regulatory frame- works are essential to materialízing, promoting, and sealing up PPB to merease people's liveli- hoods and have a broader impact on resource-poor farrners. The regulatory measures have great bearing on PPB-how supportive they are to promotíng PPB and how strong they are to protect farmers' rights and to prevent bio-piracy, genetic erosion, monopoly oftransnational seed compa- mes, etc. It is essential to deve10p the institutional capacity, relationship with farrners, and research-ínstitutions to create an environment favorable to promotíng PPB. Decentralized manage- ment structures and effective mechanisms for sharmg and disseminating informatíon, as well as systems for regular monitoring, evaluation, feedback, and feed-forward are important charaeteris- ties of institutions that can and will support and promote PPB. However, policymakers, plarmers, and semor managers of agricultural research have yet 10 realize the importance ofPPB, at least in Nepal. For example, in Nepal there is neither cIear policy on PPB nor any interest or concem from policymakers and politicians. Similarly, neither there is regulation on the import Oí informal entry into the country of genetically modified or terminator seeds that can have a negative impact on the local seed-management system and which can contribute to genetic erosiono Nepalese laws and regulations are either silent or uncIear about genetically modified crops, patenting, bio-piracy, CBD, or farrners' rights (Timsina 2000). New professionalism to improve PPB performance. Since PPB itself is an integration of social and technical scíences, it is essential to develop a new professionalism with an adequate under- standing ofthe importance ofboth sciences. Shared cognition and mtention, along with appropriate institutions are essential ingredients to an interactive design thatviews people as participants, no! as object that can be instrumentally and strategically manipulated (Roling 2000). So far, the egocen- tric attitudes of natural and social scientists, and their lack ofknowledge and skills in participatory processes, have restricted collaboration not on1y m particípatory R&D activities but also in devel- oping thís new, integrated professionalism. PPB not only deals with technical issues of genetics, plant breeding, entomology, and plant pathology but it also combines the perspective of economics, socíology, anthropology, farm management, etc., to social íssues Iike the attitude and behavior of farrners; their economic, social, and cultural conditions for adaptaríon of PPB outcomes; local knowledge and information about the characteristics of particular plants and varieties, etc. One can not assume that the goals ofPPB are the goals of farrners. At this juncture, there is a gap bctween social and natural scientists that could be bridged by developing a new, integrated professionalism through appropriate training, sharing, and experimentation. It is increasingly realized that the "delivery" of science-based innovations like planl varieties to farmers does not work (Roling 2000). This approach was attempted by the Green-Revolution model but failed to reduce the gap between rich and poor, which increased instead. Therefore, a newapproach is essential in order to develop effective action according to the objectives, expecta- tions, priorities, and knowledge of farrners. It is time to integrate hard, positivist-objectivist, bio- physical science with 50ft, participatory, constructivist social science to deal with PPB, which imparts knowledge, skills, and a change m the attitude of scientists (both social and biophysical), and 10 work in a collaborative and complementary way to improve the performance of PPB. One important characteristic of a successful professional, whether breeder or social scientist who works with communities, ís the learnÍng attitude and communication skills. One of the major constraints observed in PPB is the lack of intemalizing the role and importance of íntegrated professionalism. Changing from an ethnocentric, own-discipline bias to accommodation of multidisciplinarity- shifting perspectives and feeling from "we are the master and, therefore, part of the solution and 110 B. R. Vpreti theyare the lay person and therefore part of the problem" to "we both are leamers and collabora- tors"-is another challenge to be intemalízed by PPB professíonals. Attítudinal differences be- tween two groups of scientists are due lo differenl kinds and levels of knowledge, orientation, background, professional bias, and experience. Therefore, balancíng recognition and exploring latent conflict is essential to increasing commitmenl, collaboration, and interdisciplinarity. Potential threats lo PPB In Ihis section, the effeet of globalization, intellectual property rights, UPOV, genetic engíneering and biotechnology, and bio-piracy is presented from the PPB perspectíve. The dominant reduction- isl scientific world view of fue West and its inventions like genetic engineering and bíolechnology ís causíng suffering, widening poverty, and destroying earth (Ho 1998). Intemational agricultural trade does no! benefit fue poor because it is based on the monitory interests of transnational and multinational companies. Ralher, it is severely threateníng farmers' rights to seed and plant genetic resources (Action Aid 1999). It ís increasingly accepted that genetic engineering, in general, and patenting of genetic resources, in partícular, have a potentially negative impact on resource-poor farmers. Studies have shown thal the Iiberalization of global trade is not only exerting enormous pressure on resource-poor agriculture and marginalizíng poor and small farmers, but it is also pro- moting starvation and the eros ion of agricultural biodiversity and indigenous knowledge (Action Aid 1999). Transnational and multinational agribusiness corporations are benefitting from global- ization and the Iíberalizatíon oftrade at the cost of inequality, hunger, and the threatened survíval of resource-poor farmers of developing countries like Nepal. Threats to PPB by genetic engiÍteering and biotechnology. In lhe field ofbreeding, genetic engi- neering and biotechnology is a departure from lhe conventional breeding índuced by industrialized countries. The sole motive of these innovations i5 to monopolize global agriculture and maximize profit (Ghale and Upreti 2000). Genetic engineering is widely touted by lhe giant biotech industries of lhe developed countries as the cure for world hunger. Their argument is lhat genetic engineering and biotechnology will help to restore a healthy environment, prevent further degradation of plant genetic re80urces, and globally pro vide more choices and opportunitie8.lt i8 assumed lhat hunger is due to lack of foOO. But lhat i8 a simple and incorrect analysis of world hunger. The fundamental cause ofhunger is not Iack of food but a whole range of things from unjust and inequitable political and economíc structures lo ecological degradation for maximization profit lo lhe marginalization of poor people (Ghale and Upreti 2000). Even some ecological economists argue that hunger ís lhe in- evitable result of globalizatíon and lhe free-market economy. Genetic engineering and biotechnology have been directed solely al meeting lhe conimercial inter- ests of a few giant food producers and processors in industrialízed countries. Genetic engineering and biotechnology bypass the natural reproduction process because they horizontally transfer genes from one individual to anolher, as compared to vertical transfer from parents to offspring. These horizontal gene transfers not only spoil genetic diversity but also raise ethical questions (for eXJunple, human gene transfer to pígs, sheep, or bacteria). Transgeruc plants are generally resistant to broad-spectrum herbicídes, which cause acute and chromic loxicity and have a negative impact on biodiversity (ESRE 1999). Similarly, intervention in agriculture through genetíc engineering and biotechnology reinforce existing social structures, maximíze monopolistic profits, and inten- sifY agricultural practices, which willlead to widespread environmental destructíon and ecological imbalance. 111 Rethinking the Participatory Paradigm in Plant Breeding Intellectual property rights, the Union for the Protection ofPlant Varieties, and PPB. Intellec- tual property rights (IPR), plant breeders' right, and patents2 as a regulatory arrangement intro- duced in the field ofbreeding to universalize the command and control of most developed countries has not provided protection to public interests in developing countries (Ghale 1999). How do breeders and other professionals working in the field ofPPB perceive plant breeders' rights as em- bodied in the UPOV convention, which strongly centralizes the plant breeding (TWN 1996)? Which options do breeders involved in PPB prefer in IPR protection-protection through patents of protection sui generisJ or open? Due to the UPOV convention, the trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs), and genetic en- gineering and biotechnology, the control over plant breeding and seed is shifting from farmers to giant multinational seed companies. In this context, do participatory plant breeders advocate farm- ers' rights to use, produce, multiply, share, exchange, sell, modif'y seed, and plant genetic materials freely? The restrictions imposed by IPR infringe on farmers' rights. UPOV claims that the imple- mentation ofthe new plant variety protection (PVP) arrangement stimulates protection ofthe envi- ronment and conservation ofbiodiversity and stability offood availability. That is only a nightmare and misleading (GRAIN 1999) because the uniformity criterion specified for PVP by UPOV tends to destroy diversity and enhance genetic erosiono IfPPB practitioners realize this, then the funda- mental shift from conventional PPB to PPB led by advocacy and lobbying is essential. This is prob- ably too hard for the breeders. Another ethical question related to PPB is the IPR issue. PPB builds directly on farmers' knowledge and germplasm to select and develop crop varieties. Therefore, the ownership rights, access, benefits, and control of such varieties needs to be held by farmers instead ofbreeders. But does this happen in reality? Threats to PPB from globalization. Technological advancement and the international expansion of trade and cornmerce have fundamentally shifted the focus on plant breeding. Global competi- tiveness is emerging as a determinant ofplant breeding. The World Trade Organization (WTO), through its TRIPs arrangement and patenting of life forms, is posing new challenges and eroding the scope of self-supporting PPB. In the developed world, local seed saving is increasingly consid- ered as a barrier to trade and cornmerce, and provisions are being imposed on farmers to pay royal- ties to plant breeders and companies. Globalization, through WTO and other similar arrangements, is forcing a radical change, not only on the setting of agricultural research but also by pressurizing member countries to change their legal, regulatory, and fiscal policies. In the case of plant breeding, the development of genetically modified foods and terrninator technology by giant multinational agro-biotech companies like Monsanto, Novartis, and DuPont are examples ofthreats to PPB. As the global market becomes more liberal, there is a countervailing trend to privatize knowledge and agricultural innovations for cornmercial profit (Action Aid 1999). Under TRIPs, iffarmers use patented seed, they will be forced to pay royalties to the patentee ifthey keep seed to re-sow in the following years. Giant bio-tech companies are using local knowledge on the properties of plants to identif'y "useful" genes. They then patent the gene and its use. As a consequence, farmers in the country of origin have to buy it back and pay royalties. For example, neem trees from India and Nepal, basmati rice from India, and jasmine rice from Thailand are patented by Monsanto-like 2. A patent is a fonn ofintellectual property protection that gives a rnonopoly right to exploit an invention for a period of 17 to 20 years. Artic1e 27.3b of TRIPS requires developing countries to allow companies to take out patents on the products and pro- cesses ofbiotechnology. This artic1e also demands that countries supply either patent protection or an effective sui generis (a wIique intellectual property system for a specific good or process). 3. Sui generis is a Latin phrase cornmonly used in the IPR debate, which means "ofits own kind." 112 B. R. Upretl companies. By placing the control of gennplasm in the hands ofthe most powerful corporate bodies in global agriculture, the social, political, and economic structures that underpin poverty and hun- ger will continue to flourish (Action Aid 1999). The open-market economy, free trade, and economic liberalization are the basic premises ofWTO, in which patenting and IPR are the most controversia! issues related to agricu!ture. Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPs agreement does not recognize Ihe right of local corrununities to their indigenous know1edge and agricultural practices. This article forces members to protect Iheir rights to genetic resources for food and agriculture (GRAIN 1999). The corrunercialization of terminator techno!- ogy, a genetically engineered trait Ihat causes crop seeds to become sterile at harvest time, is posing another threat around the world (GRAIN 1999). The majority of Ihe intemational and transnational life science companies are no! only ignoring basic ethics and values but are also destroying indige- nous knowledge, technologies, and practices for the so!e aim ofprofit (UvA 1999). Therefore, ex- cluding agricultural biodiversity and plant genetic resources from the patent protection within TRIPs 27.3 (b) and the protection of farmers' rights is essential 10 minirnizing Ihe negative effect of the TRIPs agreement on Ihe livelihood of rcsource-poor fanners. In reality, the relationship be- tween intellectual rights on Jife fonns and Ihe conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity is highly conlentious (GRAIN 1999). Bio-piracy as an emerging threat. Bio-piracy is anolher threat emerging from patent arrange- ments and TRIP' Bio-piracy from developing countrÍes lo paten! innovation and earn money is on the inerease. Recent seed-related research in Nepal has shown that bio-piraey is rapidly increasing in Ihat eountry (Timsina 2000). The research report states that Ihe germplasm of buek-wheat (Fagopyrum spp), barley (Hordeu'm spp.), chuehe karela (Momordica spp.), wild rice varieties containing nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Oryza spp.), several herbal medicinal plants, and colocacia were taken from Nepal wilhout permission by Japanese, Gennan, and American researchers work- ing in and or visiting Ihe country. Nepalese breeders and NGO workers supported Ihem in Ihis bio-piracy. Conclusion It is time to relhink Ihe approaches, methodologies, and focus ofPPB to address changing global challenges and to raise Ihe livelihood of resource-poor farmers. As a people-centered approach, PPB has to work in Ihe spirit of conventional plant breeding, wruch seeks to promote Ihe establish- ment of a sovereign community and indigenous rights to plant genetic resources. TRIPsIWTO, UPOVI plant-variety protection, genetic engineering and biotechnology, and bio-piraey are be- eomíng increasingly serious threats to PPB, food security, indigenous knowledge, and conserva- tion ofbiodiversity. Corporate control of seed and plant genetie resources is creating inequalities. To minimize Ihese adverse effeets, it is essential for PPB to take Ihe initiative in developing a gennplasm-sharing network among fanners, PPB practitioners, and civil society, by establishing in situ seed banks as a cornmon property resource, promoting the exchange of indigenous knowledge, registering seed and plant genetic resources at Ihe community level, strenglhening the management capacity of farmers for plant genetic resourees, recognizing fanners' innovations, etc. Sínce Ihe last decade, PPB has been widely advocated by donor-supported researeh centers rather than poor farmers. Much of Ihe discussion on PPB has been rhetone, ventunng into professional debate among the believers ofPPB. Sorne practical efforts have been made to promote PPB, but they have been limited to a small-scale, disorganized, and mechanistic use of a few participatory 113 Re/hinldng /he Participa/ory Paradigm in Planl Breeding tools such as PRA, on-fann trials, and fanner groups in a superficiallevel. Not much attention has been given to empowering fanners and increasing their livelihood. Therefore, a substantial reform in existing PPB-through the development of new professionalism and ideas, frameworks, and methodologíes, particularly by engaging in collaborative action-is essential ifPPB is to address the globalIy emergíng challenges in plant breeding. Experiences over the last decade suggest that plant breeding approaches are donor driven, operating under the broad conceptual framework and financial condítíons imposed by donors, which are, therefore, more rhetoríc than "real participa- tíon" to empower a weaker sectíon of society. The lack of cornmunication and facilitation skills, conducive policy measures, and supportive institutional and regulatory frameworks in national ag- ricultura! research systems, combined with the egocentricity ofbreeders and social scientists and a sectoral approach, are sorne of the major bottlenecks to prornoting a PPB tbat airns to use participa- tion both as an end and a means. The scaling-up, institutionalizing, simplifying (dernystífication of prevailing jargon and rhelorie), ernpowering of fanners, rnanaging ehange, reorienting training, eoping with globalization and TRIPs/patenting, and developing a new professionalisrn are sorne of the major areas to be improved in order to reform the existing PPB. The on!y way to cope with the threat of genetic engineering and biolechnology at the globallevel is lo work in line with the Convention on Bio-Diversity, an intemational treaty Ihat has been sígned by more than 160 member states ofthe United Natíons. This convention provídes an international legal framework for the conservatíon ofbiologícal diversíty, including access to and exchange of genetic materials and biodíversity prospecting. References Aetion Aid. 1999. Pa/enl.s and load securily: Options lor research and aClion. Action Aid Policy Briefing Paper No 5. London: Action Aid. Chaudhary, R. P. 1999. Intellectual propet1y rights and fanners rights. In Proceedings al/he Na/ional Conlerence on Wild Relatives olCultivated Plants in Nepal, June 2-4, 1999. Kathmandu: GEM-Nepal. ESRE. 1999. TIre politics olGMlood: Risks, science and puhlic trns/. Global Environmental Change Programo Special Briefing No. 5, Oct. 1999. Sussex, UK: ESRE, University of Sussex. Farrington, J. 1998. Organisational role in fanners participatory research and extension: Lessons from the lasr decade. Natural Resource Perspective 27, Jan 1998. London: ODI. Ghale, Y. 1999. Intellecrual propet1y rlghts, bio-diversity and foodsecurity. InProceedings al/he National Catiference on Wild Rela/ives al Cullivated Planl.s in Nepal, June 2-4, ¡ 999. Katlunandu: GEM-Nepal. Ghale, Y. and B.R. Upreti. 1999. Indigenous knowledge and food security in developing eounmes: Opportuniries and eh.Uenge •. Paper submitted lo the 16th Symposium ofthe Intemational Fanning Systems Association, 27-29 Nov. 2000, to be held in Santiago, Chile. GRAIN. 1999. Seedling 16(4), December 1999. Ha, M-W. 1998. Genetic engineering, dream or nightmare? The brave new world 01 bad sclenee and big business. Parang, Malaysia: Third World Network. Narayan, D. 1995. TIre contribution of participa/ion. Environmentally Sustainable Development Oeeasional Paper Se- ries No. l. Washington, OC: World Banl<. Pretty, J.N., 1. Guyt, J. Thompson, and 1. Seoones. 1995. Participa/ory leaming and action: A trainer's guide. lIED Participatory Methodology Series. London: lnternationallnstitute for Environment and Development. PRGA. 1999. Crossing perspectives: Fanners and scientists i" participatory plan/ breedíng. CaU, Colombia: CGIAR Systemwide Program on Partieipatory Research and Gender Analysís, lntemarional Center for Tropical Agri- culture. 114