IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/762.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Plant genetic resources for agriculture, plant breeding, and biotechnology: Experiences from Cameroon, Kenya, the Philippines, and Venezuela

Author

Listed:
  • Falck-Zepeda, José
  • Zambrano, Patricia
  • Cohen, Joel I.
  • Borges, Orangel
  • Guimarães, Elcio P.
  • Hautea, Desiree
  • Kengue, Joseph
  • Songa, Josephine

Abstract

"Local farming communities throughout the world face binding productivity constraints, diverse nutritional needs, environmental concerns, and significant economic and financial pressures. Developing countries address these challenges in different ways, including public and private sector investments in plant breeding and other modern tools for genetic crop improvement. In order to measure the impact of any technology and prioritize investments, we must assess the relevant resources, human capacity, clusters, networks and linkages, as well as the institutions performing technological research and development, and the rate of farmer adoption. However, such measures have not been recently assessed, in part due to the lack of complete standardized information on public plant breeding and biotechnology research in developing countries. To tackle this void, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in consultation with the International Food Policy Institute (IFPRI) and other organizations, designed a plant breeding and biotechnology capacity survey for implementation by FAO consultants in 100 developing countries. IFPRI, in collaboration with FAO and national experts contracted by FAO to complete in-country surveys, identified and analyzed plant breeding and biotechnology programs in four developing countries: Cameroon, Kenya, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Here, we use an innovation systems framework to examine the investments in human and financial resources and the distribution of resources among the different programs, as well as the capacity and policy development for agricultural research in the four selected countries. Based on our findings, we present recommendations to help sustain and increase the efficiency of publicly- and privately-funded plant breeding programs, while maximizing the use of genetic resources and developing opportunities for GM crop production. Policy makers, private sector breeders, and other stakeholders can use this information to prioritize investments, consider product advancement, and assess the relative magnitude of the potential risks and benefits of their investments." from Author's Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Falck-Zepeda, José & Zambrano, Patricia & Cohen, Joel I. & Borges, Orangel & Guimarães, Elcio P. & Hautea, Desiree & Kengue, Joseph & Songa, Josephine, 2008. "Plant genetic resources for agriculture, plant breeding, and biotechnology: Experiences from Cameroon, Kenya, the Philippines, and Venezuela," IFPRI discussion papers 762, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifpri.org/cdmref/p15738coll2/id/9814/filename/9815.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pingali, P. L. & Traxler, G., 2002. "Changing locus of agricultural research: will the poor benefit from biotechnology and privatization trends?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 223-238, June.
    2. José Falck Zepeda, 2006. "Coexistence, Genetically Modified Biotechnologies and Biosafety: Implications for Developing Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1200-1208.
    3. Tripp, Robert, 2001. "Can biotechnology reach the poor? The adequacy of information and seed delivery," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 249-264, June.
    4. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & Adato, Michelle & Haddad, Lawrence James & Hazell, P. B. R., 2003. "Impacts of agricultural research on poverty: findings of an integrated economic and social analysis," EPTD discussion papers 111, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Porter, Michael E. & Stern, Scott, 2002. "The determinants of national innovative capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 899-933, August.
    6. Thirtle, Colin G. & Srinivasan, Chittur S. & Heisey, Paul W., 2001. "Public Sector Plant Breeding In A Privatizing World," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33775, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Unknown, 2005. "Forward," 2005 Conference: Slovenia in the EU - Challenges for Agriculture, Food Science and Rural Affairs, November 10-11, 2005, Moravske Toplice, Slovenia 183804, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    8. Jikun Huang & Carl Pray & Scott Rozelle, 2002. "Enhancing the crops to feed the poor," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 678-684, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anwar Naseem & David J. Spielman & Steven Were Omamo, 2010. "Private-sector investment in R&D: a review of policy options to promote its growth in developing-country agriculture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 143-173.
    2. Johns, Timothy & Eyzaguirre, Pablo B., 2007. "Biofortification, biodiversity and diet: A search for complementary applications against poverty and malnutrition," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Tripp, Robert, 2002. "Can the public sector meet the challenge of private research? Commentary on "Falcon and Fowler" and "Pingali and Traxler"," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 239-246, June.
    4. Spielman, David J., 2007. "Pro-poor agricultural biotechnology: Can the international research system deliver the goods?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 189-204, April.
    5. Blakeney, Michael, 2011. "Recent developments in intellectual property and power in the private sector related to food and agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 109-113.
    6. Klein, Malte & Sauer, Andreas, 2016. "Celebrating 30 years of innovation system research: What you need to know about innovation systems," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 17-2016, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    7. Pilar Lopez-Llompart & G. Mathias Kondolf, 2016. "Encroachments in floodways of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 513-542, March.
    8. Songqing Jin & Scott Rozelle & Julian Alston & Jikun Huang, 2005. "Economies Of Scale And Scope And The Economic Efficiency Of China'S Agricultural Research System," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(3), pages 1033-1057, August.
    9. Michelle Sheran Sylvester, 2007. "The Career and Family Choices of Women: A Dynamic Analysis of Labor Force Participation, Schooling, Marriage and Fertility Decisions," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 10(3), pages 367-399, July.
    10. DAVID M. BLAU & WILBERT van der KLAAUW, 2013. "What Determines Family Structure?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 579-604, January.
    11. Kumar, Sanjesh & Singh, Baljeet, 2019. "Barriers to the international diffusion of technological innovations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 74-86.
    12. Afanasyev, Dmitriy O. & Fedorova, Elena A. & Popov, Viktor U., 2015. "Fine structure of the price–demand relationship in the electricity market: Multi-scale correlation analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 215-226.
    13. Peter Viggo Jakobsen, 2009. "Small States, Big Influence: The Overlooked Nordic Influence on the Civilian ESDP," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 81-102, January.
    14. Billio, Monica & Casarin, Roberto & Osuntuyi, Anthony, 2016. "Efficient Gibbs sampling for Markov switching GARCH models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 37-57.
    15. Jan Babecký & Fabrizio Coricelli & Roman Horváth, 2009. "Assessing Inflation Persistence: Micro Evidence on an Inflation Targeting Economy," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 59(2), pages 102-127, June.
    16. Lloyd, S. P., 2017. "Unconventional Monetary Policy and the Interest Rate Channel: Signalling and Portfolio Rebalancing," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1735, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Ichiro Fukunaga, 2007. "Imperfect Common Knowledge, Staggered Price Setting, and the Effects of Monetary Policy," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(7), pages 1711-1739, October.
    18. Albertazzi, Ugo & Gambacorta, Leonardo, 2009. "Bank profitability and the business cycle," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 393-409, December.
    19. Beck, Thorsten & Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli & Merrouche, Ouarda, 2013. "Islamic vs. conventional banking: Business model, efficiency and stability," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 433-447.
    20. Arie Y Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2020. "Absorptive capacity, socially enabling mechanisms, and the role of learning from trial and error experiments: A tribute to Dan Levinthal’s contribution to international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(9), pages 1568-1579, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    plant breeding; biotechnology; public research; Funding; Innovation systems; Capacity building; Biosafety;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:762. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.