Persistent myths about emergency seed aid
Abstract
Seed interventions are the major agricultural response during emergency and recovery phases of humanitarian relief. They are implemented by diverse agencies, and widely promoted: for instance the FAO alone managed 400 such projects between 2003 and 2005. However, seed aid suffers from a lack of critical attention, perpetuating widespread myths among practitioners, policymakers, and the larger humanitarian community. This paper challenges five predominant myths about seed aid: (1) seed aid is needed whenever food aid is; (2) seed aid can do no harm; (3) disasters wipe out seed systems; (4) effective implementation is a straightforward logistical exercise, and; (5) improved seed is the best form of aid. These myths are juxtaposed with recent empirical work across a range of countries, particularly in Eastern and Southern Africa. The perpetuation of such myths highlights a serious absence of scrutiny of emergency seed aid, and helps explain why such aid is repeated year after year in many sites, with little apparent positive effect. The paper argues that the invisibility of seed aid is a major cause for the lack of oversight and concludes that donors and farmer beneficiaries must become centrally involved in seed aid governance.
... The first guiding insight is that extensive FSS utilization benefits seed accessibility, affordability, versatile procurement via varied networks (including markets), and wide-ranging sourcing of diverse seed at individual, network, community, and multicommunity scales (Sperling and McGuire, 2010;Smale et al., 2012;Gill et al., 2013;Coomes et al., 2015;McGuire and Sperling, 2016;Sperling, 2020;Sperling et al., 2020a;Labeyrie et al., 2021). This study is critically cognizant through the perspectives of seed, food, and social justice that FSS utilization is usually sharply differentiated spatially, socioeconomically, and culturally (e.g., wealth and gender differentiation; Zimmerer, 2003;Helicke, 2015;Violon et al., 2016;Wencélius et al., 2016;Tadesse et al., 2017;Delaquis et al., 2018;Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019;Sperling et al., 2020a;Labeyrie et al., 2021;Mulesa et al., 2021;Otieno et al., 2021). ...
... FSS benefits for vulnerable smallholders specifically can address global political-ecological crises. These include: (1) FSS benefits to address the gendered povertyand policy-induced crises of the COVID-19 pandemic and postpandemic that include disrupted seed and foodgrowing supplies (Sperling and McGuire, 2010;Adhikari et al., 2020;Jumba et al., 2020;Sperling et al., 2020b;de Boef et al., 2021), (2) increased distribution and spatial connectivity of adaptive agrobiodiversity to respond to climate change (Halewood et al., 2016;Kansiime and Mastenbroek, 2016;Ravera et al., 2019;Westengen et al., 2019;Zimmerer et al., 2019;Acevedo et al., 2020), and (3) FSS-utilization for sustainable development including gender, food, and nutrition goals (Croft et al., 2018;Shayanowako et al., 2021). FSS benefits are also shown for conflict/postconflict societies with displaced communities (Tamariz and Baumann, 2022) and social movements recognizing FSS as an international human right (Food First Information and Action Network International, 2021;Kuhlmann and Dey, 2021;Lokhandwala, 2022). ...
... The fourth insight is centered on extensive FSS cooccurrence and interaction with formal seed. The latter is tested, evaluated, certified, and sold by commercial seed companies and agribusiness (Almekinders et al., 1994;Almekinders and Louwaars, 2002;Sperling and McGuire, 2010;Louwaars and De Boef, 2012;McGuire and Sperling, 2013). It includes hybrid seed in major crops such as maize and sorghum. ...
Accessible, high-quality seed is vital to the agricultural, food, and nutrition sovereignty needed for justice-based sustainable development. Multiregion, interdisciplinary research on farmers' seed systems (FSS) can complement case-based and thematic approaches.This study's goals are to (1) provide a synthetic overview of current major FSS concepts; (2) design and evaluate a novel social-and political-ecological model of FSS using globally representative data from mountain agricultural areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America; (3) model and evaluate FSS relations to socioeconomic, political, and environmental factors including main food crops (rice, wheat, maize, potato, and common bean); (4) generate new spatial, geographic, and demographic estimates; and (5) strengthen FSS for justice-based sustainable development of agriculture, land use, and food systems. The conceptual framework of FSS-related factors guided the global modeling of data from 11 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A multiple regression model explained FSS utilization (R 2 ¼ 0.53, P < 0.0001), specifying the significant inverse relations to mean farm area (strong), per-capita Gross Domestic Product at the district level (strong), and urban distance (moderate). FSS showed strong positive relations to aridity and topographic ruggedness. FSS were positively related to elevation in a 5-country Andean subsample. Results estimated FSS utilization by 136 million farmers within the 11 countries. Novel insights to strengthen FSS policies and programs are the importance of FSS to extremely small farm-area subgroups and other distinct FSS stakeholders, global-region geopolitical distinctness of FSS-farm area relations, multidistrict FSS concentrations that enable extralocal FSS spatial connectivity, FSS capacities in climate-change hot spots, and high FSS encompassing periurban areas. Policy-relevant results on global geographic and demographic extensiveness of FSS and key spatial, socioeconomic, political, and environment relations demonstrate that globally FSS are key to supporting agrobiodiversity, agroecology, nutrition, and the sustainability of food systems. These advise strengthening FSS through pro-poor and linked urban-rural policies at regional scales in addition to expanding local initiatives.
... This type of aid can mitigate the long distance spread of seedborne diseases, provide food security for these growers, and help with crop and community resilience. National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) are often left to deal with unmanaged pest risk during an emergency due to phytosanitary breakdown, and seed aid may directly introduce plant pests and pathogens (Secretariat 2021) or indirectly alter plant health by, for example, introducing long-maturing varieties to beneficiaries when fast-maturing varieties are better suited and farmer preferred, introducing serious weeds, and distributing material that is not adapted to the crisis area or otherwise unacceptable to farmers (Sperling and McGuire 2010). There have been significant developments in low cost and practical field-based quality assurance protocols (Sulle et al. 2022), an increasing recognition that the overwhelming majority of seed planted by smallholder farmers is sourced from local markets and farmers' own fields (Sperling and McGuire 2010) and thus largely beyond the scope of seed regulatory efforts. ...
... National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) are often left to deal with unmanaged pest risk during an emergency due to phytosanitary breakdown, and seed aid may directly introduce plant pests and pathogens (Secretariat 2021) or indirectly alter plant health by, for example, introducing long-maturing varieties to beneficiaries when fast-maturing varieties are better suited and farmer preferred, introducing serious weeds, and distributing material that is not adapted to the crisis area or otherwise unacceptable to farmers (Sperling and McGuire 2010). There have been significant developments in low cost and practical field-based quality assurance protocols (Sulle et al. 2022), an increasing recognition that the overwhelming majority of seed planted by smallholder farmers is sourced from local markets and farmers' own fields (Sperling and McGuire 2010) and thus largely beyond the scope of seed regulatory efforts. To that end, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures has adopted International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures and introduced guidance on risk management associated with commonly provided seed, food, and other humanitarian aid (Secretariat 2021). ...
Disaster plant pathology addresses how natural and human-driven disasters impact plant diseases and the requirements for smart management solutions. Local to global drivers of plant disease change in response to disasters, often creating environments more conducive to plant disease. Most disasters have indirect effects on plant health through factors such as disrupted supply chains and damaged infrastructure. There is also the potential for direct effects from disasters, such as pathogen or vector dispersal due to floods, hurricanes, and human migration driven by war. Pulse stressors such as hurricanes and war require rapid responses, whereas press stressors such as climate change leave more time for management adaptation but may ultimately cause broader challenges. Smart solutions for the effects of disasters can be deployed through digital agriculture and decision support systems supporting disaster preparedness and optimized humanitarian aid across scales. Here, we use the disaster plant pathology framework to synthesize the effects of disasters in plant pathology and outline solutions to maintain food security and plant health in catastrophic scenarios. We recommend actions for improving food security before and following disasters, including (i) strengthening regional and global cooperation, (ii) capacity building for rapid implementation of new technologies, (iii) effective clean seed systems that can act quickly to replace seed lost in disasters, (iv) resilient biosecurity infrastructure and risk assessment ready for rapid implementation, and (v) decision support systems that can adapt rapidly to unexpected scenarios.
[Formula: see text] Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY 4.0 International license .
... For decades, governments and donors have sought to increase farmers' access to improved seed through seed aidthat is, the direct distribution of seed products to farmers by government agencies and NGOs. Seed aid has generally been discussed in terms of emergency and relief conditions that follow droughts, floods and civil wars (e.g., McGuire & Sperling, 2013;Sperling et al., 2008;Sperling & McGuire, 2010). However, government and donors have invested in seed aid during non-relief conditions as part of their strategies aimed at boosting agricultural production and productivity (e.g., Bramel and Remington, 2004;Spielman et al., 2012). ...
... Direct seed aid and input subsidy programmes have been criticized for disrupting commercial seed sector operations with free and below-cost distributions (Mutonodzo-Davies and Magunda, 2011;Sperling and Remington, 2006;Sperling et al., 2008;Sperling and McGuire, 2010) and distribution of low quality seed that ultimately weakens product demand (Tripp and Rohrbach, 2001). However, seed aid programmes can also support formal seed systems development. ...
In the name of food security, governments and NGOs purchase large volumes of maize seed in non-relief situations to provide at reduced or no cost to producers. At the same time, efforts to build formal maize seed systems have been frustrated by slow turnover rates – the dominance of older seed products in the market over newer, higher performing ones. Under certain conditions, governments and NGO seed aid purchases can support formal seed systems development in three ways: i) support increased producer awareness of new products, ii) support local private seed industry development, and iii) advance equity goals by targeting aid to the most vulnerable of producers who lack the capacity to purchase seeds. This study explores the objectives and activities of seed aid programmes in Uganda and their interactions with the maize seed sector. We draw insights from interviews with representatives of seed companies, NGOs and government agencies, as well as focus group discussions with producers. The findings indicated that seed aid programme objectives are largely disconnected from broader seed systems development goals. There is little evidence of public-private collaboration in design of these programmes. Better designed programs have the potential to align with varietal turnover objectives, commercial sector development and targeting of underserved markets could promote equity and ‘crowd in’ demand.
... Additionally, our findings showed that most farmers used their own stems about 74 %. Previous studies also showed that farmers were satisfied with the quality of seeds from their self-supply system (Sperling and McGuire, 2010). This farmer-to-farmer seed system provided 80-90% of seedlings through sales or own savings (Sperling et al.,2013;Delaquis et al.,2018). ...
Results showed that extension intervention enhanced farmers' perception of certified seedlings. However, educational extension treatment such as the distribution of posters and training with posters found to be limited evidence of a causal effect on WTP. The study found that the most common reasons for not adopting clean seeds before and after the intervention were lack of concern, inability to pay, need for information, preference for own stem, and intention to stop planting. Difference-indifference model indicated that training with posters had interaction before and after the implementation of the intervention which decreased the price of WTP by about 500 riels. This study also noted that farmers who increased their knowledge of SLCMD decreased their WTP statistically by about 400 riels. It is suggested that facing severe diseases did not affect the acceptance of cleaned seeds. Additionally, it observed that farmers became more cautious of purchasing seeds after the training as they could use their seedlings for multiplication.
... Access to adequate quality seed can be an important entry point for promoting productivity, food and nutrition security and resilience among smallholder farmers (Almekinders et al., 2019;Ruane et al., 2022). Many agricultural projects address seed insecurity through increasing the supply of certified seed of improved crop varieties (Sperling and McGuire, 2010;AGRA, 2014). Such interventions also include community seed production, emergency seed aid, and crop input subsidies, which comprise important agricultural responses used in the Global South to address seed insecurity and the high prevalence of food insecurity (Remington et al., 2002;Bengtsson, 2007). ...
Introduction: Interventions aimed at improving the seed security of smallholder farmers do not always yield positive results. Governments, donors, and other actors have neglected local seed systems as they are assumed to be incapable of addressing farmers' seed challenges. Instead, external actors use seed aid and formal seed provisioning outlets, such as agro-input dealers, to channel seed to farmers. This paper compares the "formal" seed systems, mainly comprising certified seed obtained from government and non-governmental organisations and agro-input dealers, with local seed systems that include farm-saved seed, local informal markets, and social networks. Methods: A seed security assessment was used to determine the contributions of seed systems to household-level seed security. A stratified sample was conducted of 227 randomly selected smallholder farming households from the Chimanimani district, eastern Zimbabwe, complemented by group discussions and individual life histories. Results: We show the superiority of local seed systems in ensuring greater access to affordable and timely seed at household level, in comparison to formal sources. Cluster analysis enabled determination of the seed security status of farming households, providing a more granular analysis beyond the standard seed security assessments that are applied to wider geographical locations. Farmers assessed the quality of locally sourced seed favourably when compared to seed obtained from formal sources. Discussion: We show that local seed systems play a critical role in contributing to household seed security for resource-constrained households, and in supporting the use of diverse crop species. However, such systems have not been fully drawn upon by government and development agencies in seed security endeavours. More efforts are needed to understand how different seed systems interact in contributing to the seed security of smallholder farming households.
... Seed dissemination by community-based groups, NGOs, and humanitarian organizations generally play a smaller role than the other sources described above. Since the 1970s, seed relief programs run by governments or NGOs have become increasingly common, typically distributing free-often certified-seeds during humanitarian crises (109,110). In the last two decades, analyses of farmers' seed security in emergency contexts have revealed a number of weaknesses in seed relief efforts (8) leading to calls for better assessment of seed security needs to design more targeted responses (11,111,112). ...
Food systems face new climatic and socioecological challenges and farmers need a diversity of new plant varieties to respond to these. While plant breeding is important, institutional innovations in seed systems are critical to ensure that new traits and varieties make their way into farmers' fields. This Perspective reviews the state of knowledge on seed system development, outlining insights emerging from the literature that can help navigate the way forward. We synthesize evidence on the contributions and limitations of the different actors, activities, and institutions pertaining to all seed systems smallholder farmers use, formal and informal. To do so, we structure our analysis on three functions-variety development and management, seed production, and seed dissemination-and two contextual factors-seed governance and food system drivers-that can be used to describe any seed system. Our review reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the activities of different actors along the entire chain of functions and demonstrates the multifaceted efforts to strengthen seed systems. We document that a new agenda for seed system development is taking root, based on the view that formal and farmers' seed systems are complementary. Because needs differ from crop to crop, farmer to farmer, and between agroecological and food system contexts, a variety of pathways are needed to ensure farmers' seed security. While the complexity of seed systems eludes a simple roadmap, we conclude by planting a "signpost" with principles to guide efforts to develop resilient and inclusive seed systems.
... Emergency assistance organisations may bring in seed. The organisations commonly, by choice or necessity, bring in seeds from far away, adapted to very different cropping conditions [10]. The risk can be illustrated by the distribution of sorghum seeds of a variety maturing in six months in a region where the growing season is at the most three months (first author's observations in Southern Sudan). ...
Seed is an essential start of any crop production. Seed, as both botanical seed and vegetive planting materials, is thus a very important component of agricultural livelihoods in food, ornamental, and industrial value chains, of local and global food security, and a determinant of sustainability. All farmers need good seed, irrespective of the farming system and markets that they supply. Seed qualities, in terms of germination/vigour, health, and genetic content, are a concern of all farmers. Farmers have various ways to access seeds. With time, the diversity of farmers’ and formal seed systems have become increasingly refined and complex. Given the importance of seed, not just for farmers but for society at large, seeds have become subject to an increasing number of regulations that pursue different policy objectives. Some have been intentionally developed to regulate seed systems themselves, while others impact them as a side effect. Various components of different policies, regulations and outcomes, their interactions and apparent dilemmas and inconsistencies are discussed to highlight the significance of seeds and to illustrate the importance for policymakers and regulators to carefully phrase rules and be sensitive toward the possible unintended effects of their actions. This particularly relates to seed marketing regulations, intellectual property and farmers’ rights, and biodiversity and biosafety rules. A general conclusion is that rules and regulations need to respond to evolving technical and socio-economic developments. Since seed systems differ widely and operate side by side, regulating a particular system may negatively impact others. The challenge for policymakers is to create policies and regulations that support both formal and farmers’ seed systems where they are most effective while minimalising negative consequences for breeding, selection, and seed production in either system. Several suggestions and recommendations for how to do so are provided in this special issue.
... Seed aid is often given in times of crises with aim of improving short term crop production and reducing future agricultural stress. Failure to evaluate the suitability of cropping soils and the risk of introducing pests and pathogens bring doubt to seed aid (Sperling and McGuire, 2010). This is largely because seed production companies in dryland countries are poorly managed, often providing only a narrow range of seeds. ...
Agriculture is one of the most important sectors in the world. It provides food for the growing world populations while also creating employment opportunities. This sector, however, is greatly threatened by climate change, increased water scarcity, droughts, land degradation and poor management of resources. The state of drylands in the world raises great concern given that it largely affects third world countries particularly subsistence farmers. This raises questions with regards to the extent of drylands and the progression of land degradation and water availability. This article presents current efforts to track development of land degradation and developing systems that improve agricultural productivity in drylands. Our review finds that given the climatic and environmental threats to agricultural productivity suitable solutions such as improved research and resource management can lead to increased production for food security and even commercialization. Therefore, it is imperative to allow access to advanced technology to subsistence farmers.
... Seed availability is adequate when farmers can source enough seed at the right time to meet their needs from available sources [19]. In post-disaster contexts, seed security studies typically find that even when farmers' own seed saving is reduced, seed continues to be available from other sources, especially local markets [52,106,107]. Exceptions to this are often linked to disease outbreaks, especially for vegetative crops, or disruptions in the functioning of social networks, markets/road networks, or the formal seed system (for certified seeds) [30,108,109]. Understanding seed availability thus starts with gauging the relative importance of different seed sources. ...
Seed security is central to crop production for smallholder farmers in developing countries, but it remains understudied in relation to long-term seed sector development. Here, we compare seed systems in two districts of Central Ethiopia characterized by subsistence-oriented teff cultivation and commercially oriented wheat production and relate this to the country’s pluralistic seed system development strategy (PSSDS). Our analysis is based on quantitative and qualitative information from a household survey and focus group discussions with farmers, as well as document review and key informant interviews with actors that make up the seed sector in the study sites. Farmers in both districts used a range of seed sources but primarily obtained their seeds from informal sources. Evidence of seed insecurity was found in both districts, as apparent from discrepancies between what the seed farmers say they prefer and those they actually use, limited availability of improved varieties and especially certified seeds of these, challenges with seed quality from some sources, and differentiated access to preferred seed and information according to sex, age and wealth. We find that the interventions prioritized in the PSSDS address most of the seed security challenges and seed system dysfunctions identified, but implementation lags, particularly for the informal seed system, which is largely neglected by government programs. The intermediate system shows promise, but while some improvements have been made in the formal system, vested political, organizational, and economic interests within key institutions represent major obstacles that must be overcome to achieve truly integrative and inclusive seed sector development
Property regimes are based on fundamental values of the society or group that designs and reproduces them. This paper analyses the ethical underpinnings of Progressive Commons in comparison to the values underlying private property and traditional Commons. Against this backdrop, we discuss the potential of Progressive Commons to address major challenges in context of the twenty-first century economy. Seed Commons serve as an example. Our analysis shows that Progressive Commons respond to contemporary societal and environmental challenges by re-interpreting the classical values underlying traditional private and common property regimes, turning them to sovereignty, re-democratization, and social-ecological sustainability in the global context.
This article reviews the effectiveness of seed aid distributions in Kenya during the 1990s. It analyses the internal process and effects, i.e. the performance of the aid itself as well as the external process and effects, i.e. how seed-aid intervention affected farmers' broader agricultural management strategies. During the drought emergency of 1997, Kenyan farmers favorably judged many of the immediate seed aid features such as crop/variety appropriateness and seed quality-even through the overarching goals of the seed assistance were muddled, ranging from assistance to the poor, to generalized gift-giving to stimulating progressive farming practice. However, the longer-term analyses, drawn from recollections of a decade of relief activity , showed no concrete evidence that seed aid, per se, had strengthened their farmer systems, nor that those who have received it once were less likely to receive it again. Thus, while seed aid has been promoted to lessen the effects of an 'acute' stress , drought, Kenyan farmers, in practice, have been experiencing much wider, 'chronic' seed system problems. This article ends by exploring this distinction between acute and chronic seed system stress and suggests a range of interventions appropriate to each.
Drought and flood relief programs distributing free seed and fertilizer are common in southern Africa, but little is known about their efficacy. This study summarizes the impacts of input relief programs in Zimbabwe, based on data from surveys conducted in 2004, following two consecutive drought years. The analysis reveals substantial opportunities for improving these programs. First, targeting of beneficiary households must be improved. There was little difference between recipients and non-recipients in terms of household characteristics, composition, poverty level etc. Many households received inputs from more than one NGO. Targeting can be improved through better sharing of information, and by using simpler selection criteria (eg, ownership of livestock) to identify beneficiaries. Contrary to common perceptions, farm communities tend to be reasonably successful at maintaining seed stocks even after multiple years of drought. Correspondingly, the delivery of free seed did not contribute to an increase in planted area. If seed is provided, more emphasis is needed on quality control and proper labeling. Also contrary to common perceptions, distribution of small quantities of fertilizer offered substantially higher returns than distribution of seed. The application of as little as 10 kg of nitrogen per hectare contributed substantially to food security in drought-prone regions.
WAR AND CROP DIVERSITY
EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
For there to be productive and stable agricultural livelihoods, there must be crop diversity, on-farm. Growing a number of crops and different varieties of each crop helps farmers to fine-tune their cropping systems to local ecological conditions, to enhance the food security of their households and to exploit a range of crop-related products or benefits (for example forage or medicine production and enhanced soil fertility).
Despite these well-known observations, crop diversity is generally narrowing in farmers’ fields. A number of factors lie behind this trend, including, among others: the spread of commercial agriculture, acute natural phenomena (such as drought and floods), and war and civil strife. The frequency of the latter, in particular, is on the rise. For instance, each of the ten countries in the Greater Horn of Africa has experienced either drought or civil strife and war – or both – since 1980 alone (ASARECA, 1996).
Though crop diversity is declining, international understanding of the differ ential nature of the stresses it faces, and how to deal with them, remains underdeveloped. This argument was elaborated at the 1996 International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources: ‘No formal mechanisms exist to monitor such [stress] situations, assemble information or initiate appropriate action’ (FAO, 1996:45). In order to protect and enhance crop diversity, it is necessary at least to understand the particular nature of the problem; useful aid and development interventions in the area of crop diversity can only derive from more targeted knowledge.
The four papers presented in this volume focus on one potential stress to crop diversity, namely war and its accompanying civil strife. Taking a farmer-centred perspective, the case studies examine the effects of war on crop diversity through the same set of guiding questions: ‘what were the biological, social, and political factors which shaped crop diversity prior to the war?’; ‘which defining characteristics of the war itself seem to have influenced the way in which crop diversity evolved and was managed?’; ‘how do pre- and post-war crop production systems compare?’; and ‘what key lessons
can we draw from these studies, for both development practitioners working at the grassroots level and policymakers involved in shaping research, development and relief interventions in agriculture?’ By presenting comparative cases, this volume aims to stimulate analytical thinking about the links between war and changes in cropping systems. The studies themselves can but suggest the complexity of the term ‘war’ and how the set of events that go to make up war can be linked to crop and varietal changes. They are preliminary (as is study of the subject as a whole) rather than definitive. They are also rather different in scope. The Cambodian and Nicaraguan studies provide overviews of the effects of war and civil disruption (which lasted a decade or more in both countries) on broad cropping systems and the rice crop, respectively. The Rwanda and Sierra Leone cases, in contrast, focus
This Network Paper is a precursor to work on the policy and practice of supporting crop diversity, which ODI’s Seed and Biodiversity Programme intends to carry out over the next three years or so. The work will include detailed case studies which examine crop diversity in farmers’ fields from various perspectives, and will synthesise lessons learned. The aim is to contribute to better and more targeted policy, research, development and emergency aid interventions concerning crop diversity.
As well as the impact of war and other stresses on crop diversity, the work will cover issues such as:
• plant breeding approaches and their impact on crop diversity;
• seed supply policies and their effect on crop diversity;
• women’s perspectives on and management of crop diversity; and
• approaches to measuring and evaluating crop diversity.
If you are interested in publications arising from this work, or in contributing to the work as an author, please write to or fax the Seeds and Biodiversity Programme at the ODI address given on the back cover of this Network Paper, or email us at:
seeds@odi.org.uk
The Agricultural Research and Extension Network is sponsored by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) (formerly the Overseas Development Administration). The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of DFID. We are happy for this material to be reproduced on a not-for-profit basis. The Network Coordinator would appreciate receiving details of any use of this material in training, research or programme design, implementation or evaluation. Network Coordinator: Diana Carney Assistant Coordinators: John Farrington, Michael Warner Secretary: Alison Saxby
ISSN 0952-2468 Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 75
on the effects of fairly short-lived wars and pursue more micro-level analyses of varietal diversity issues in one or two crops.
Nicaragua
The Nicaragua study draws on a brief period of research in two war-affected regions and presents farmers’ own descriptions of changes in cropping patterns. The period of the Nicaraguan civil war (which spanned the 1980s) saw profound economic and social changes in this country. Not able to separate out the effects of the war per se from massive changes in government policy, the author presents an overview of the way in which measures such as land redistribution, the establishment of cooperative production, the provision of credit to small farmers as well as the uncertainty of guerilla attacks, resulted in a dramatic changes in agriculture during the war. The most intense period of civil disruption was marked by increased production of basic staples as the revolutionary government geared its economy towards survival, food sufficiency and defence. The production of export and luxury items such as coffee, tobacco, and cattle declined, giving way to a focus on maize and beans (among other crops). Modern, high-yielding varieties of these crops were promoted in place of local cultivars.
The author traces changes through to the post-war period. Farmers now suggest that the individual varieties ‘lost’ were not key and, in any case, can probably be reaccessed across the broader in Honduras. However, farmers are facing a more serious dilemma in the post war period: a change in government in 1990 and further shifts in policy have meant that farmers are now provided with relatively little direct agricultural support, except for in those areas in which NGOs are operating. At the same time they have lost some of the skills and knowledge which enabled them to endure the lowerinput farming situation pre-war.
The Nicaragua example does not show guerrilla ‘war’ immutably changing a local production system. Rather, it illustrates the consequences of war-time strategies which aim to promote one type of production system over another. Issues of biodiversity and sustainable production were not considered important during the early years of the war in Nicaragua; they were only brought to the fore through NGO efforts in the late 1980s. The authors point to the need for more concerted attention to be paid to the effects of wars on farming systems at the time when the wars themselves are underway. Only then can policy responses be adequately informed.
Cambodia
As in Nicaragua, the Cambodian genocide and civil disruptions throughout the 1970s ushered in profound agricultural change. Once more, the particular impact of the victor’s policy edicts is difficult to separate from that of the combat itself and accompanying disruption.
ii
Large-scale population movement – of farmers from one part of the country to another and of urban dwellers to the countryside – during the war meant that many were new to the areas in which they were now farming. This dramatically increased the incidence of crop failure.
Cambodia lies on the edge of the region of origin of rice and it is on this crop that the author concentrates. Rice diversity in this country is very high: for every 400 ha there exists a distinct cultivar and some 3,000 Cambodian rice varieties have already been preserved in genebanks. The author describes how the wartime government promoted irrigated rice, officially forbidding the cultivation of both upland and deepwater rice. As Cambodia was closed to outsiders for long periods, it is hard to ascertain the micro-level effects of such policy pronouncements. However, a very focused case study suggests possible trends. In a deepwater rice area of Takeo district, farmers indicated, by name, their 15 most important local rice varieties. All had been lost during the war; none had yet been recovered.
Unless more precise assessments of loss are conducted in Cambodia, it will be difficult to design appropriate interventions. However, as a general principle, the author suggests screening and releasing some of the farmer varieties already held in genebanks (a process already underway) and re-evaluating breeding strategies so as to promote the use of diverse germplasm on farm. Recent farmer interest in a narrow set of modern rice cultivars otherwise threatens to do what the civil disruptions may not in the end have done: to decrease sharply rice varietal diversity in farmers’ fields.
Rwanda
The Rwanda case study examines the effects of a civil war which killed a million people within several months in the mid-1990s. Somewhat surprisingly, countrywide analyses have shown the effects of the war on agriculture to be fewer than anticipated: fighting was staggered, harvests were relatively good, at least a third of the population was not displaced at all and ‘seed aid’ helped farmers keep their own adapted stocks.
In assessing varietal diversity, the author draws several lessons from Rwanda. First, equal attention should be paid to understanding and, if possible, safeguarding the seed channels which can re-supply germplasm as to the germplasm itself. The key issue in Rwanda was not whether a farmer possessed a particular variety at any point in time, but rather whether she/he could re-access that variety on demand. A comparison between two crops illustrates the point. Bean production in Rwanda remained relatively stable during the war as local bean varieties (some 1,300 phenotypes) could be restocked through the remarkably resilient, local farmer markets. By contrast, potato production tumbled. Pre-war, it had been dominated by three improved varieties. Production was the victim of reliance on formal sector supplies of clean seed, fungicide and fertiliser, all of which dried up in the early days of the war. War and Crop Diversity
Second, the Rwanda case shows the importance of distinguishing between farmers’ absolute versus relative lack of varieties or seed. Absolute lack implies a true scarcity of varieties or seed in a region. Remedial action in such circumstances should focus on re-introduction or interventions to build seed production capacity. However, relative lack of varieties/seed – by far the more common scenario in Rwanda – implies problems with accessing seed (e.g. farmers may not have adequate funds available) rather than absence of seed per se. In such circumstances, interventions should not be germplasm-based. Rather, innovative poverty-focused projects and, perhaps, selective distribution of seed vouchers (to buy local seed) should be considered.
Finally, pre- and post-war comparisons clearly suggest the dynamism of varietal use in Rwanda and demonstrate how important baseline data can be. For example, war did not appear to have an impact upon bean varietal profiles but important bean varietal changes had been documented over the previous decade. Climbing bean varieties had been heavily adopted and a partial shift in bush bean types had taken place in response to increased root rot. The current trend for promoting biodiversity has led many to suggest, as a near-panacea, the restoration of farmer germplasm from genebanks to their original sites of use. Documentary evidence of rapidly changing bean use in Rwanda shows that such an approach may not always be to farmers’ benefit, even in low input situations.
Sierra Leone
The insights from northwest Sierra Leone, based on intensive interviews with about 250 farmers, focus on two distinct episodes of rebel attack: one in 1995, one in 1996. As in the Rwandan case, the period of actual fighting was relatively short-lived and there was significant family and varietal stability (in this case of rice). Rice seed could still be obtained through the usual channels (among others, informal social networks of exchange, gifts and loans) which appear not to have been severely ruptured by the attacks.
This case is unique in the perspective it gives on household management strategies during a crisis period. Families in the study area actually increased their rice production (rice being the preferred food crop) during the time of the ‘war’ at the expense of groundnut (cash crop) production. Rice diversity seems also to have increased, although this may have been for the negative reason that farmers were obliged to supplement the seeds they already had by importing non-local types.
Drawing on between-site comparisons, the author suggests the need to be more cognisant of the relatively localised effects of war on seed systems. There is a growing awareness among relief and rehabilitation agencies of the need to supply locally-adapted cultivars to displaced farmers. Yet it is often difficult for such agencies to acquire local seed types in the quantities required. One approach to this problem might be for such agencies to support the multiplication of seed by
farmers in areas in which agricultural production is still functioning. The case study area – due to its border location and the particular nature of the rebel activities which it witnessed – is an example of one such area.
o
Drawn together in this way, the four case studies show quite vividly that wars can have dramatically different impacts on crop diversity. The duration of war, extent of dislocation, and extent of physical damage may be just the first pointers for understanding the effects of the war on specific crops and varieties. Perhaps more importantly, the cases show how critical it is to place crop and varietal diversity within broader analyses of the systems which shape farmer decision-making. The Nicaragua and Cambodia studies suggest how powerful the larger policy context was in determining the shape of war and post-war agriculture in these countries. By contrast, the Rwanda and Sierra Leone cases show how important local, community systems of maintenance (of knowledge, seed and the social relationships which move seed) are. Ultimately, crop diversity and varietal diversity is about a lot more than the physical things which are planted. It is about the political, socioeconomic, and bio-technical processes which allow people to manage their cropping systems in dynamic ways.
Thus, when thinking about appropriate crop diversity interventions post-war, questions about how to replenish germplasm or crops are but the first line of inquiry. It must equally be asked whether the systems are in place to sustain and allow crops and varieties to evolve. Is local technical expertise still relevant? Are appropriate seed systems functioning (whether based around markets or social exchange) to multiply and move the crops and varieties? Are the varieties and crops of the pre-war period still biologically adapted and socio-economically suitable for the inevitably changed post-war agricultural system?
The case studies also begin to give us some pointers as to what type of support for crop diversity might be appropriate in the immediate aftermath of war. First, the studies show us the resilience of some local systems even in times of war. (Note that this contrasts with the widespread vulnerability of formal seed systems). This suggests that large-scale interventions (for example, massive distribution of free seed), which pose the threat of swamping local systems, may not always be necessary nor appropriate. The need may rather be for very targeted support, what some authors call ‘smart’ relief (Richards et al., forthcoming). Second, the studies show us that the reasons for apparent seed shortages after war need to be investigated very carefully: relative rather than absolute lack of access to seed may be the problem. In this case, support that helps to overcome the reasons for this (for example, food aid to stop people eating their seed stocks) may be more appropriate than seed relief itself. Third, the studies show us that some wars
iii Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 75
can have a surprisingly localised impact on crop diversity, with many communities and farming systems being relatively unaffected. This suggests that, if required, there may be considerable scope for sourcing relief seed and planting materials locally and even for building up local production capacity relatively quickly. Certainly the state of local seed sources should be assessed at the same time as ‘seed import’ possibilities are being considered.
The ODI Seeds and Biodiversity Programme welcomes comments on the papers in this volume. We are particularly eager to hear from others trying to explore some of the practical consequences of the effect of war on crop and varietal diversity. If the quality of war-related seed and variety interventions is to be improved, policy-makers, researchers, development workers and grassroots support systems must have access to further insights on the micro-level effects of war on cropping systems and the various options farmers have for rebuilding sustainable and diversified, agricultural production.
REFERENCES
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). (1996) Crop variety adap tation map s for the gr eater H or n of Africa. Proposal presented to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), September 1996. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (1996) Report o n : I n te r n a ti o n a l T e c h n i c a l C o n f e r e n c e o n P l a n t Genetic Resour ces. Leipzig, Germany, 17-23 June, 1996. Rome: FAO. Richards, P. and Ruivenkamp, G., with contributions from van der Drift, R., Gonowolo, M., Jusu, M.S. and Longley, C. (forthcoming) Seeds and survival: Crop genetic resources in war and reconstruction in Africa. Rome; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI).
Many interventions try to address farmers’ seed insecurity, though few assess the causes of farmers’ vulnerability or understand
their coping strategies. This paper analyzes farmers’ practices for maintaining sorghum seed security in a specific season
(1998–99) in Ethiopia, which provides a richer picture of coping strategies than accounts of “general” practices, as it shows
how responses reflect events unfolding over time and household-specific situations. High seeding rates ensure against environmental
uncertainty, but not everyone has sufficient seed for repeated sowing should stands fail to establish. Off-farm seed fills
this gap, though payment is usually required for substantial quantities; only 20% of seed from other farmers came for free
in 1998. Differences between seed suppliers and recipients suggest indicators for chronic seed insecurity. The discussion
explores implications for supporting farmers’ coping strategies. Helping the poorest farmers access off-farm seed, from other
farmers or from merchants, can reduce their vulnerability.
Access to seed is crucial for farming, though few studies investigate household-level access in the informal ‘farmer seed
systems’ which still supply most seed in poor countries. This paper uses empirical data of seed exchange practices for sorghum
in eastern Ethiopia to analyze how social relationships influence access to off-farm seed for a major crop. Seed shortfalls
are common, and farmer–farmer exchange is important for providing locally-adapted seed to fill this gap, but access varies
considerably among households, also affecting quantities supplied and terms of exchange. Preferred sources for off-farm seed
(neighbors, government, market) also vary among farmers, reflecting agroecology and asset-ownership, but also differing access
to these sources. Social network theories highlight the importance of reciprocal ties, and the cultural norms underpinning
them, in accessing seed. These cultural norms are contested, with some claiming that commercial transactions are increasingly
common. Implications for interventions supporting farmer seed systems, particularly emergency seed aid, are discussed in relation
to the socially-mediated nature of seed access.
Breeding has been very successful in generating cultivars that in favorable environments, and together with large use of fertilizer and chemical control of weeds, pest and diseases, have increased agricultural production several fold. Today the environmental impact of high input agriculture in more favorable environments causes growing concern. By contrast, the impact of breeding in marginal environments has been elusive. The paper discusses evidence showing that the use of breeding principles developed for, and successfully applied, in favorable environments may be the main reason for the lack of breeding progress in marginal environments. Very little breeding work has actually been done in marginal environments, although the theory of correlated responses to selection indicates that selection conducted in good environments or in well-managed experiment stations is not expected to be very efficient when genotype by environment interactions of a cross-over type exist. The assumptions that heritability is higher under good conditions and that there is a carry-over effect of high yield potential are not supported by experimental evidence. If the target environment is below the cross-over point, selection has to be conducted for specific adaptation to that environment. The concept of wide adaptation has more a geographical than an environmental meaning, and it reduces genetic diversity and increases genetic vulnerability. Eventually the issue of genetic heterogeneity versus genetic uniformity is discussed in relation to specific adaptation to marginal environments.
The Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) approach to technology generation and promotion is creating interest in onfarm research. Described is a form of research design and analysis that explicitly incorporates variation in farmer management as well as in soils and climate, to help agronomists evaluate responses to treatments and partition farmers into recommendation domains. Mean treatment yields at each location are used as an “environmental index.” Individual treatment results are regressed on environmental index. A graphic distribution of confidence intervals within partitioned groups helps in selecting superior treatments. Data from unreplicated trials on 14 farms in two villages in Malawi were analyzed. The design was a 2 ✕ 2 factorial with two maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars and two fertilizer treatments (0 and 30 kg N/ha). Results show that in poorer maize environments, local flint cultivars were superior to an improved semi-flint composite, with or without fertilizer. The composite yielded more than local material with or without fertilizer in better environments. In all cases there was a marked and significant response to fertilizer.
Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left. Copyright © . .
Local seed systems, which supply about 99% of bean seeds in the east and central Africa regions, are progressively being supported as an alternative to facilitate the accessibility of improved bean varieties to farmers. However, these systems have been rightly or wrongly criticized for supplying substandard quality seeds. This study was carried out to assess the seed health of different seed grades from different sources of two popular Ethiopian bean varieties. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) were used to detect fungal and bacterial pathogens of the major bean seed-borne diseases. The ELISA test was used to assess the status of the bean common mosaic virus (BCMV). No fungal or bacterial pathogens were detected in the seeds. However, BCMV was detected in almost all sources except seed from one untrained farmer and one grain merchant. The study findings provide evidence about the capacity of the local seed system to produce and supply seed of an acceptable quality.
The good governance agenda is unrealistically long and growing longer over time. Among the multitude of governance reforms that “must be done” to encourage development and reduce poverty, there is little guidance about what's essential and what's not, what should come first and what should follow, what can be achieved in the short term and what can only be achieved over the longer term, what is feasible and what is not. If more attention is given to sorting out these questions, “good enough governance” may become a more realistic goal for many countries faced with the goal of reducing poverty. Working toward good enough governance means accepting a more nuanced understanding of the evolution of institutions and government capabilities; being explicit about trade-offs and priorities in a world in which all good things cannot be pursued at once; learning about what's working rather than focusing solely on governance gaps; taking the role of government in poverty alleviation seriously; and grounding action in the contextual realities of each country.