Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) has emerged as an alternative approach, mostly in response to the failures of traditional plant breeding research and its Transfer of Technology (TOT) model. In the TOT model, scientists develop the technologies, and farmers are supposed to adopt them. Modern varieties (MVs) exemplify the scientific excellence of centralized plant breeding, whereby they have resulted in overwhelming statistics of increased yields. However, the disparity of many marginalized farmers also signifies the weakness in social relevance of the traditional research paradigm. Despite its dominance, traditional plant breeding has often failed to produce cultivars that are relevant to the agroecological environments and socioeconomic conditions of many farmers. Moreover, the dominance of scientists has shifted the role of farmers from original crop breeders to mere adopters of MVs.

Largely influenced by participatory approaches in research, PPB tries to bring back the farmers to their central role in crop breeding. However, is PPB more equitable than traditional plant breeding? In terms of context, this question is relevant because PPB is often introduced in societies that are unjust and exploitative. Depending on how it is used, PPB may either reinforce or help address social differentiation. In terms of actors, PPB is a process whereby different stakeholders work together: farmers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), public research institutes, consumers and donors, and even the private sector may not be far behind. These interactions have their own complexities. The various actors bring in their own perspectives and objectives based on their different knowledge systems. Can they really work together towards a new research paradigm whereby farmers are empowered to direct research, take control over their production resources and produce better seeds?

But is empowerment a necessary element of a successful PPB? There seem to be two dominant approaches to PPB. On one hand, a technocratic approach would view PPB as another tool to efficiently develop and distribute new plant varieties to a wider range of farmers. Do we invalidate such an achievement because of its lack of ‘political correctness’? No, not if more farmers are given better access to better seed. On the other hand, an activist approach would view PPB as another tool to assist farmer communities in local capacity building. Here selection and/or development of new plant varieties are implemented within the context of organizing communities to secure more control over production resources, such as plant genetic resources and land. Local capacity building also tries to address power relations at micro and macro levels. This involves relations and processes within households, communities and institutions. An activist approach is more complex, and hence, often more difficult to monitor and achieve.

Can PPB lead us towards a new research paradigm? It depends on two questions. First, do PPB projects address power relations, enabling communities to increase their independence and capacity to address their own situations? Second, do PPB projects democratize research among farmers, scientists and other stakeholders, and within research institutions themselves? The success of PPB should be judged based on its objective. If PPB is used to help address poverty then empowerment is crucial because poverty and powerlessness are inseparable. This is a bottleneck for much well-intended plant breeding research: it cannot help in addressing poverty unless research is democratized to include the actors involved in empowerment struggles. However, it must also be said that social relevance requires good science. Achieving a new research paradigm requires the combined efforts of all stakeholders.

The theme of this Monitor issue is the involvement of farmers in seed production and development. While Joshi examines the weakness of formal seed systems, he also highlights how formal systems can complement breeding efforts of farmers. However, PPB is still relatively new and many things remain to be explored. For instance, Louwaars analyses some of the regulatory implications of seed developed through PPB. From another perspective, Vellema examines farmers’ involvement in the contract growing of hybrid maize seed for private sector. This is a case study on problem solving and division of labour. However, it shows parallel technical and socioeconomic parameters to participatory approaches whereby farmers decide which seed to use and/or to develop based on their environmental and social contexts.

Biotechnology is increasingly used as the latest tool in plant breeding, and as the article of Manicad & McGuire states, unless we understand and address breeding by farmers, biotechnology, like its other modern predecessors, will tend to be irrelevant or detrimental to many farmers in diverse farming systems. Modern biotechnology as it is being developed today remains largely within the old research paradigm, only this time it is more market driven in a more gobalized setting. Biotechnology developments can proceed with or without farmers’ participation, but how can we best organize technology development?