New seeds for old?
What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. In agriculture
there are many examples of research results, which appear to offer significant
benefits to farmers, not being adopted. This may be because the advantages
of adoption are not clear (or have not been made clear) to the potential
beneficiaries. 
Or,
there may be a barrier to the adoption of a new technology, which is apparent
to the potential beneficiary but is not apparent to the proponent of the
new practice. As a result, considerable funds have been committed to research
over decades without the results of the research bearing any fruit. New
seed varieties that are not adopted are but one example of such 'wasted'
research. However, a new approach, Participatory Crop Improvement (PCI)
may help to break through this barrier.
Farmers are usually well aware of the need for good seed, and so are scientists and commercial seed houses. So, it is not surprising that much research effort and expense has been invested in developing new varieties of all major crops, new varieties which either have a direct greater yield potential or deliver greater yield with greater certainty because of the variety's resistance to pest, disease, drought or adverse soil condition. Why then do so many farmers fail to adopt new varieties, particularly poor farmers who have much to gain by growing new varieties? It appears that the main reason is the very practical one that the farmers offered new varieties cannot see any advantages in giving up their old and trusted varieties, believing that the new varieties are no better than what they are growing already.
A system that allows farmers to identify new varieties that they feel are suited to their conditions has been developed and tested by the DFID Plant Sciences Programme (PSP) in Nepal, India and Ghana in a series of PCI projects. The essence of this approach is to first ask farmers what are their needs in terms of varietal improvement, and then to identify suitable cultivars that most closely match these needs from within or outside the region. The farmers can then be offered seeds of a range of varieties to trial on their own land. This permits them to evaluate and choose for themselves what they recognise as being most appropriate to their individual needs and farming practices. The PSP has demonstrated that this participatory approach results in the rapid identification and dissemination of better cultivars to both male and female farmers, of all wealth categories, and in both marginal and high potential production systems.
While the benefits of PCI may seem clear for marginal areas, are there benefits for high potential areas that produce the bulk of the world's food, where centralised seed breeding and marketing may seem more appropriate? PSP surveys have shown that even these areas, where the 'green revolution' made such a clear impact, many farmers are still growing green revolution varieties, which are now out-performed by new varieties.
In the higher potential areas two methods of PCI have been compared by the Plant Sciences Programme: semi-formal FArmer Managed PARticipatory trials (FAMPAR), in which farmers, researchers and extensionists work closely together to evaluate crops in farmers fields. The other method is known as Informal Research Development (IRD), which involves supplying small quantities of seeds of a wide range of cultivars to farmers without intensive monitoring or surveys by researchers. Both these methods have worked well: in Gujarat, in 1997, 90% of 5000 households were growing a single wheat cultivar released in 1981 but within two years of either FAMPAR or IRD the sowing of this cultivar had been significantly reduced and replaced with a new cultivar. Moreover, using these participatory approaches, the resource-poor farmers adopted seven new varieties at least as enthusiastically as the better off farmers. And yields and biodiversity increased without any change of management.
