Confronting genetic gains with markets: Retrospective lessons from New Rice for Africa (NERICA) in Uganda

Abstract

Breeders have two non-exclusive strategic investment options for increasing smallholder farmers’ and consumers’ livelihoods through genetic improvement of crop varieties: (i) enhancing productivity; and (ii) enhancing value and market access. New Rice for Africa (NERICA) varieties with superior agronomic characteristics were bred and introduced in various African countries in the early 2000s. Two decades later, drought tolerant NERICA4 is among the popular upland rice varieties grown across Africa. We analyze market evidence for NERICA4 from Uganda in 2011, i.e. well before it massively reached urban markets, where it is currently commingled with standard rice. We then compare the breeding priorities that would have ensued from the 2011 market evidence with the reality a decade later. Non-hypothetical auction experiments with consumers were conducted in urban Uganda in 2011 to predict potential market share and value of non-fragrant NERICA4 and fragrant NERICA1, relative to two market standards, i.e. non-fragrant Kaiso, and Supa, the most popular fragrant rice variety in the region. Average consumer bids positioned the two NERICAs between both market standards. Whereas NERICA1 easily outcompeted NERICA4 and Kaiso in the non-fragrant rice category, it failed to compete with Supa in the fragrant category. The 2011 market evidence would have suggested breeders prioritize investment in breeding programs for fragrant NERICAs to help smallholders gain access to high-value markets and expand consumers’ choice with cheaper fragrant rice alternatives. However, the popularity of NERICA4 relative to NERICA1 in farmers’ fields seems to suggest that agronomic genetic gains may have outweighed market traits such as fragrance.

Tailoring rice varieties to consumer preferences induced by cultural and colonial heritage: Lessons from New Rice for Africa (NERICA) in The Gambia

“…The morning variable was statistically significant; those who participated in the auctions in the afternoons were more likely to upgrade to the alternative local rice varieties, which contrasts with previous findings in Benin, Senegal, and Uganda (Britwum et al, 2020; Demont et al, 2012, 2013b, 2013c). While further studies would be helpful in further explaining this phenomenon, time of auctions have on occasions not yielded any significant impacts on preferences and WTP (e.g., Demont et al, 2017; Diagne et al, 2017).…”

“…As Tynan and Drayton (1987) noted, a number of reasons underscore consumer segmentation including geography and demographics. Although our segmentation is largely motivated by these two factors, this (Britwum et al, 2020;Dong et al, 2004;Newman et al, 2003).…”

“…b This dummy captures labeled NERICA relative to unlabeled NERICA and Peking rice. c Household income was not included in Tier 1, which only contains non-economic variables (Britwum et al, 2020; Dong et al, 2004; Newman et al, 2003).…”

“…Variables used in modeling WTP including demographic variables are shown in Table 1. About 78% of participants were reportedly aware of NERICAs, which was in stark contrast with Uganda where only a third of participants knew about them (Britwum et al, 2020). As noted, NER-ICA was widely promoted in The Gambia during its introduction in the early 2000s on both radio and television (Reece et al, 2011).…”

Demand-side challenges to increase sales of new maize hybrids in Kenya

“…Product profiles are defined as a trait package a new variety is expected to have to serve a specific market segment (meaning a group of users who are considered to have a relatively homogenous demand for a product or service). This paradigm shift in breeding strategies towards end-users is a necessary for step value chain development and Britwum et al [ 95 ] provide evidence that replacing a popular variety can only be done if a new product mimics key attributes of competing varieties, in addition to better performance on other attributes. However, our results showed that having the right product alone may not be sufficient to change farmer purchase decisions.…”