ArticlePDF Available

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

January 2016
Food Security 8(1)

DOI:10.1007/s12571-015-0528-8

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Shawn Mcguire

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Louise Sperling

SeedSystem

Seed can be an important entry point for promoting productivity, nutrition and resilience among smallholder farmers. While investments have primarily focused on strengthening the formal sector, this paper documents the degree to which the informal sector remains the core for seed acquisition, especially in Africa. Conclusions drawn from a uniquely comprehensive data set, 9660 observations across six countries and covering 40 crops, show that farmers access 90.2% of their seed from informal systems with 50.9% of that deriving from local markets. Further, 55% of seed is paid for by cash, indicating that smallholders are already making important investments in this arena. Targeted interventions are proposed for rendering formal and informal seed sector more smallholder-responsive and for scaling up positive impacts.

The sources supplying seed to 2593 smallholder farmers, across 6 countries, as a % of all the seed planted that season.

…

For smallholder farmers in six countries, the proportion of all the seed they planted which they obtained from local markets, their own harvests, or commercial agro-dealers.

…

Figures - uploaded by Shawn Mcguire

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Louise Sperling

Content may be subject to copyright.

ORIGINAL PAPER

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

Shawn McGuire

&Louise Sperling

Received: 22 September 2015 /Accepted: 16 November 2015

#The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Seed can be an important entry point for pro-

moting productivity, nutrition and resilience among small-

holder farmers. While investments have primarily focused

on strengthening the formal sector, this article documents

the degree to which the informal sector remains the core

for seed acquisition, especially in Africa. Conclusions

drawn from a uniquely comprehensive data set, 9660 ob-

servations across six countries and covering 40 crops,

show that farmers access 90.2 % of their seed from infor-

mal systems with 50.9 % of that deriving from local mar-

kets. Further, 55 % of seed is paid for by cash, indicating

that smallholders are already making important invest-

ments in this arena. Targeted interventions are proposed

for rendering formal and informal seed sector more

smallholder-responsive and for scaling up positive impacts.

Keywords Informal and formal seed sectors .Agricultural

investment .Markets .Smallholder .Delivery .Access to seed

Introduction

Seed sector development specifically geared to smallholder

farmers has attracted substantial investment in recent years.

As examples, from 2007 to 2012, the World Bank funded

87 seed sector projects, worth $ US 513 million, with a

strong focus on the vulnerable (Rajalahti 2013)and,inthe

same period, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in

Africa’s Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (AGRA/PASS)

dispensed 112 grants totaling $35,244,164 and geared

to improving smallholder livelihoods (SourceWatch

2012).

The broad rationale for focusing on seed sector inter-

ventions is that seed is a vehicle for delivering a range of

advances, all of which can benefit smallholders. Seed can

be the conduit for moving new varieties, giving farmers

access to more productive, yield-enhancing traits. New

seed is linked to strategies for raising nutrition, as with

biofortified varieties selected for elevated micro-nutrient

levels (Bouis and Welch 2010). Further, in response to

climate variation, stress-tolerant varieties or clusters of

diverse varieties are promoted as ‘good practice’to en-

hance system resilience: multiple options can allow

farmers to shift crop or variety portfolios in response to

changing conditions (McGuire and Sperling 2013). Hence,

seed is a vehicle linked to promoting productivity, nutri-

tion and resilience: one entry point can potentially move

forward multiple goals.

Varied and often opposing philosophies shape seed

sector development and much depends on what actors

see as the starting point for system entry. Organizations

such as AGRA/PASS invest their resources mainly in

private sector seed business development, that is, in

the promotion of private commercial seed and formal

sector input companies. In contrast, select non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) and donors have

signaled the need to support more locally-driven initia-

tives and particularly those that organize around what

are called informal, farmer-based, local or traditional

The writers share first authorship.

*Shawn McGuire

s.mcguire@uea.ac.uk

Louise Sperling

louise.sperling@crs.org

School of International Development, University of East Anglia,

Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Catholic Relief Services, 228 West Lexington Street,

Baltimore, MD 21201, USA

Food Sec.

DOI 10.1007/s12571-015-0528-8

seed sector operations (e.g., GTZ 2000).

Activities here tend to

be decentralized and might revolve around local entrepreneur-

ship, seed banking, community-based seed production, or seed

villages. While proponents of formal or informal seed sector

development seem divided and even polarized in their respec-

tive zones of influence, farmers, in practice, often engage in

actions to smooth the divides. For instance, on the demand side,

farmers have long drawn from both formal and informal sys-

tems, accessing seed for different crops from distinct channels,

e.g., maize from agro-dealers and groundnuts from local mar-

kets (Sperling and Cooper 2004). On the supply side, an in-

creasing number of farmers are involved in participatory vari-

ety selection, sit on variety release committees, or access im-

proved varieties through local trader networks (Sperling et al.

2014). More recently, initiatives to recognize and explicitly

plan for an ‘integrated seed sector’have started to be sketched

(Almekinders and Hardon 2000; Louwaars and de Boef 2012;

Sperling et al. 2014), but pivotal points for catalyzing formal

and informal integration tend to be ad hoc rather than managed,

and are localized, rather than achieved at scale (Sperling et al.

2014). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), in

particular, is aiming to become a champion in this area labeled

BIntegrated Seed Sector Development^(Louwaars et al. 2013).

Worldwide, recent figures on the seed market valuation esti-

mate the commercial worth of these seed sectors, with the formal

sector being valued at $US 45 billion annually and the informal

sector at between $US 6 and 15 billion annually (Bonny 2014).

However, the figures are somewhat misleading in isolation.

Reflecting on geography, in the South, the commercial and in-

formal sector sizes might be more equitable, even in money

terms. Also, the focus on commercial worth does not necessarily

correlate with the value of each system to end-users: discussion

narrows towards immediate financial gain and away from real

impacts in farmers’fields. Finally, brute figures disguise exactly

who is served by these varied seed system domains.

If seed sector development is to be geared specifically to

smallholder agricultural development (practically, not just

nominally), strategic insights into how farmers actually use

varied seed channels might drive the seed sector development

process more centrally. Empirically, where do farmers get the

planting materials they sow, season after season, for which

crops, where, on what scale? Multiple descriptions of seed

system use do exist in the refereed and particularly grey liter-

ature —especially from anthropologists and agricultural

economists (Badstue 2006; McGuire 2008; Nagarajan et al.

2007). Existing studies tend to be of two types

: those that

focus on intensive single crop analyses and often at a

single site (e.g., Christinck 2002)orrelativelysweeping

regional and national analyses, which look at broad house-

hold socio-economic parameters and give insight on what

might be happening in select seed-related domains (e.g.,

Nordhagen and Pascual 2013).

This article focuses on the empirical. It is rooted in what the

authors believe is the largest specialized seed system dataset in

the world, some 9660 observations and growing. Analyses indi-

cate where smallholder farmers obtain seed for their most impor-

tant crops (some 40 across sites), crop by crop, under what

conditions (e.g., bought, loaned, exchanged) and how varied

trade-offs shape the use of some nine different seed channels.

The work does not claim to be representative of global trends, as

five of the six cases are based in Africa, with the sixth in Haiti.

However, the breadth of data is such that the article raises ques-

tions about support strategies for achieving seed system gains at

scale, on a sustained basis, and that serve the smallholder farmer.

It is this type of aggregated seed-specific research and analysis,

focused on smallholders, that might be used to inform where

catalytic seed sector investments should be made.

Methods

The SSSA: overview

The data presented in this article were collected in the course of

conducting seed system security assessments (SSSAs). Such

SSSAs are a relatively new method of analysis (Byrne et al.

2013;Sperling2008) and examine the functioning of all the seed

systems farmers use. These include the ‘formal channels’that

give farmers access to modern varieties and certified seed (from

the government, commercial seed companies, sometimes relief

providers); and ‘informal channels’(from farmers’own harvests,

social networks, or local markets) that provide farmers with a

range of varieties (modern, new local, local) and seed (or ‘po-

tential seed’) of varying quality.

In addition, the data encompass

more occasional, interstitial conduits, for example, seed from

community-based seed production groups (CBSGs).

SSSAs have a strong focus on smallholder farmers. SSSAs

are most often conducted in zones where seed sector interven-

tions are being considered to bolster smallholder agriculture:

through rural development or agro-enterprise initiatives, safety

net programs or short-term assistance. As such, these

Each of these terms has a particular nuance, and each is problematic.

‘Informal’systems are not purely ‘farmer’systems in that markets are

important. Neither are they purely ‘local’since both markets and ex-

change through social networks connect various localities. Finally, they

are not ‘traditional’in the strict sense, because they are constantly

evolving.

Unfortunately, no figures presently have been put forward for the inte-

grated seed system interface.

We recognize that there are hundreds of seed system cases studies, some

of which cannot be easily characterized within this dichotomy. Here, we

signal what seem to be the main trends.

Not all grain found in informal channels can be used as seed. However,

there is a subset of material that is adapted and carefully managed, which

farmers save or seek specifically for planting. The authors term this ma-

terial as ‘potential seed’or ‘implicit seed’(Sperling and McGuire 2010).

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

assessments review seed security issues for smallholder farmers

engaged in market-oriented farming, for those more subsis-

tence oriented, for those in chronic stress situations, and, occa-

sionally, for populations marked by an acute stress, such as an

earthquake, or prolonged drought. While SSSAs do not explic-

itly highlight commercial farming areas, these zones are some-

times included within national-scale assessments that aim to

cover a broad range of agro-ecological and geographic regions.

Sites

Data from six distinct assessments are presented in this article.

All SSSAs were conducted between 2009 and 2012. Table 1

lists the assessment sites along with salient descriptors of their

contexts. Both South Sudan and Haiti were countrywide as-

sessments and covered a large set of agro-ecological zones and

crops. The others were more region-specific, although even

these focused samples embraced multiple sites and farming

systems.

The Zimbabwean assessment included four distinct

agro-ecological zones: the Kenyan one focused on drought-

prone regions in the east and coastal areas; the Democratic

Republic of Congo (DRC) assessment was centered in north-

ern Katanga, and the Malawi SSSA extended across the south-

ern zone. Mapping and extensive characterization of individual

assessment sites appear in each respective SSSA report

(http://seedsystem.org/field-assessments-action-plans/)

and the reference list provides the individual case study links.

Most assessment sites broadly exhibited features linked

with rural smallholder agriculture: e.g., poor infrastructure

development, erratic access to agriculture development ef-

forts, little value addition in terms of agro-processing.

Further, three SSSAs took place immediately during or after

key events potentially affecting farming systems. The

Zimbabwe SSSA was carried out mid 2009, shortly after a

period of hyperinflation which rendered the local currency

virtually worthless (Hanke and Kwok 2009). The South

Sudan assessment unfolded in the months just prior to the

2011 Referendum as the country transitioned toward an inde-

pendent state, and the Haiti assessment was conducted several

months post-earthquake 2010. However, while the effects of

these immediate stresses were noted, in all cases it was chronic

stress factors that largely shaped the seed security scenarios.

For instance, in the case of Haiti, over 90 % of the assessment

sites fell outside of the areas of direct earthquake impact (i.e.,

including eastern and northern areas which had very little

displaced population overflow); in South Sudan, only c.

50 km of macadam were paved countrywide both immediate-

ly before and after the Referendum Period.

It is notable that the profile of sites broadly evokes the type

of areas in which significant seed system investments and seed

aid interventions are routinely proposed, ranging at varied

points from agro-enterprise, development, recovery and select

relief programs (Table 1).

Partners and sample

Across sites, upwards of 25organizations were involved in the

SSSAs,

including government institutions (agricultural min-

istries and seed services), the United Nations (UN), national

agricultural research systems, national universities, non-

governmental organizations (NGOs), faith-based groups, and

farmers’cooperatives and farmer unions. Each SSSA engaged

at least five different organizations on the ground, helping to

counteract potential single institutional bias.

Site selection within SSSAs was geared towards general

zones where government, UN or NGO interventions were

being implemented. While some collaborating organizations

chose zones where explicit agricultural programs were

unfolding, in other cases, health or literacy campaigns were

the primary programs being unrolled. The site selection sug-

gested populations with relatively good access to develop-

mental, safety net or short-term aid.

In each site, on average 84 households were interviewed.

Systematic random sampling was employed (Levy and

Lemeshow 2008), interviewing every third or fourth house-

hold depending on population density. In total, data were col-

lected for 2592 households.

Field instruments

Standardized instruments were used across sites (see samples

posted at http://seedsystem.org). Beyond the quantitative

household surveys reported herein, instruments were tailored

towards understanding the actions of key actor groups, inter

alia: government personnel, farming communities, private

sector seed companies and agro-dealers, women’s groups,

seed/grain market traders, agricultural product processors, and

humanitarian and development groups. Further, the field instru-

ments aimed for a high level of differentiation in seed security

investigation. As one example, instruments distinguished nine

possible seed sources: farmers’own stores or fields (‘own

stock’); kin, neighbors, or friends (social networks); local mar-

kets

; agro-dealers or agro-vets; community-based seed groups

The South Sudan Assessment took place just pre-referendum, in

October and November 2010. Officially the region was then known as

southern Sudan as this southern region was not yet a country in its own

right.

This number of organizations is an underestimate. In some cases, pro-

fessionals participated in assessments as individuals, usually to learn the

SSSA methodology, rather than officially representing their organiza-

tions. Such individual participation is not tallied in the total.

‘Local markets’generally refer to the open air venue where farmers get

agricultural and other goods. Small kiosks surrounding these open areas

are also included in the term (see Sperling and McGuire 2010 for greater

clarification).

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

(CBSG); some form of assistance : government (‘government’)

or non-government or United Nations (‘NGO/UN’); contract

growers (who are side-selling); or ‘other’.

All instruments were translated to the main national lan-

guages, with key terms further translated into local languages.

For instance, in the South Sudan SSSA, terms such as modern

variety, local variety, certified seed, local seed, and hybrid

were translated into 10 local languages (plus English) to ac-

commodate ethnic variations across the country.

Data set: scope and analysis

Data collection was followed intensively: the authors and oth-

er seed system specialists directly trained enumerators,

reviewed forms while in the field, and monitored coding and

data-entry at each site. Multiple stages of data-cleaning were

effected including via verification algorithms. A programming

tool allowed real-time synthesis by automating data analysis:

following data-entry in Excel, descriptive statistic tables were

immediately generated even for large data sets of 900+ cases.

Such rapid turnaround allowed field teams to garner (and val-

idate) quantitative findings and shape follow-up probing, e.g.,

why farmers were planting more or less than usual. Combined

datasets were analyzed with SPSS (version 22) and STATA

(version 11) for Probit regressions.

Given this range of processes–standardized tools across

sites; cleaning and cross-checking in the field; automated

analysis (eliminating some bias or user error); and follow-up

of outliers on site–the authors sense this dataset not only to be

the largest currently available, but among the more rigorous.

Certainly it is among the larger sets using a suite of standard-

ized, seed system-specific instruments.

Results

Results are organized below along four farmer-centered ques-

tions; which seed channels were used overall, and for select

crops; how seed was acquired;who used specific channels;

and focusing on the varietal aspects of seed, how farmers

accessed new varieties. The questions broadly cover parame-

ters central to understanding seed security: seed availability,

accessibility and quality (McGuire and Sperling 2011;

Remington et al. 2002).

Which seed channels did farmers use?

Across crops

Farmers detailed all the sources used to obtain seed, with their

exact amounts, for their three major crops during the most

recent season tied to the assessment.

Table 2presents the

volumes provided by each source, across all crops. Several

findings are of note: overall, slightly over half of all seed

(50.9 % across crops), was obtained from the local market,

indicating that this source, quantitatively, was the most impor-

tant of the 9+ sources monitored.

The local market was also

the dominant seed source in four out of the six SSSAs: Haiti,

Kenya, Malawi and DRC. For the two exceptions, market

access was constrained during the assessment periods:

Zimbabwe was facing a currency breakdown and localized

bartering of goods often substituted for cash payment. In

SouthSudan,lackofroadinfrastructuremademarketusea

second, rather than primary seed source, albeit still an impor-

tant one. The extreme use of local markets in Haiti, almost ¾

Tabl e 1 Select site descriptors for seed system security assessments (SSSAs), with sample sizes for number of households interviewed (HH) and

number of individual seed access transactions noted (transaction: HH x crop x source)

SSSA Country (Region) Date Stress context N

Transaction

Ongoing (chronic) stresses Immediate events

Malawi (Southern) 2011 Low purchasing power Repeated droughts –180 682

Kenya (East and Coast) 2011 Decline of maize, low purchasing power Repeated droughts –198 745

DR Congo (Katanga) 2012 Low innovation, weak infrastructure Ongoing conflict –209 548

Haiti 2010 Weak state, low innovation Earthquake (corner of country) 983 3056

South Sudan 2010 Weak state & infrastructure Pre-Referendum ‘fear’857 4017

Zimbabwe 2009 Declining purchasing power Hyper currency inflation 165 612

TOTAL 2592 9660

In each site, standard conversion rates from local units of measure to kg

were agreed with collaborating partners to get at the issue of volumes of

seed from each source. Often, these were well-established conversion

rates for local measures in common usage. Units for vegetatively-

propagated crops such as cassava were converted to propagules (cuttings,

pseudostems, etc.); to make these comparable with seed crops, quantities

of propagules were converted to kg equivalent figures by relating the

recommended sowing rate for a vegetative crop with a standard sowing

rate for maize. For instance, common sowing rates for cassava and maize

are 10000 stems and 25 kg, respectively, so 400 cassava cuttings were

converted to 1 kg for comparative purposes.

For this, and other tables, figures for ‘All Sites’represent proportions of

total seed volumes across all six sites.

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

of all seed sown, may be the highest recorded in the seed

system literature anywhere. This means that Haitian farmers

are turning over the majority of seed stocks season after sea-

son, in what can be a variable supply system.

Own stocks were also important, providing 1/3 of seed

sown overall, varying between 28 and 45 % in all sites, with

the exception of Haiti. The secondary rather than primary

importance of use of own stocks challenges several common

stereotypes: first, the notion that smallholder farmers will pri-

oritize seed saving in times of stress (De Waal 1991) and,

second, that own-saved seed provides the bulk of smallholder

sowings (e.g., Bezner Kerr 2013; Cavatassi et al. 2011;Guei

et al. 2011; Marfo et al. 2008). Simply, overall data show that

the locus of seed sources is off-farm, not within farm.

Use of sources beyond markets and own stocks was mod-

est. Seed from social networks supplied under 1/10 of total

seed sown. Agro-dealers, that is, the private input company

networks which put on offer modern varieties and certified

seed, proved to be an insignificant source of seed for small-

holder farmers, across crops and sites, supplying 2.4 % of seed

used. Key to emphasize is that for over 2500 farmers spread

across 31 sites in six countries, seed sources utilized were few

in number and overwhelmingly dominated by two: local mar-

kets and own stocks.

Within crop clusters

Tab le 3draws from the same data set, but from a crop per-

spective. Crops have been grouped into common clusters of

cereals, legumes, and vegetatively-propagated crops (VPCs)

to highlight trends by crop type. Maize was kept as a separate

category given its importance across much of Africa and its

prominence in seed sector development (Shi and Tao 2014).

The category ‘Other’groups 17 mostly horticultural crops,

generally sown in small quantities.

Tab le 3shows that the relative importance of seed sources

varies markedly by crop cluster. Local markets are the driving

seed source for legumes, providing almost 2/3 of the seed

sown. For all major legumes, markets supplied from 49.5 to

81.3 % of all crop-specific seed sown (with the ranges indi-

cating greengram and common bean market use,

respectively).

Own stocks are especially central for the VPCs (e.g., pro-

viding nearly 80 % of sweet potatoes cuttings) as well as for

dryland cereals (sorghum and millets). For these latter crops,

small seeds and dry storage conditions present fewer chal-

lenges to self-storage than for legumes such as beans

(Sperling and McGuire 2010). Use of social networks was

noted in greatest quantity for the VPCs, partly as the market

option here is so limited.

As agro-dealer use overall was very modest, this channel is

better understood through examining use by specific crop.

The source has some importance for maize (see also Fig. 1

below), and for highly commercialized crops in specialized

production contexts such as rice in the Artibonite region of

the Haiti,

or subsidized contract farming of cotton in

Malawi. If cotton were removed from the ‘other’crop catego-

ry, agro-dealer use falls to 2.1 % for this cluster. Of note, is the

near absence of agro-dealer use as a seed source for the full

clusters of legumes and VPC crops, that is <1 % of the total

seed sourced.This is an important gap area for clusters of crop

types key for basic nutrition and calorie provision.

Tabl e 2 The sources supplying seed in most recent season, as a % of total seed supplied in each SSSA site

Seed source SSSA country (%) All sites

Malawi Kenya DRC/Katanga Haiti S Sudan Zimbabwe

Own Stock 28.3 36.2 35.0 17.4 42.2 45.2 31.1

Friend, neighbor, relative 7.8 5.7 16.9 3.3 12.1 21.9 8.6

Local market 32.0 40.1 44.6 73.0 34.3 9.9 50.9

Agro-dealer 17.5 11.6 0.4 1.5 0.2 5.8 2.4

CBSG 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5

Government 8.9 5.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 11.5 1.6

NGO / UN 4.2 0.9 3.1 3.3 10.4 4.8 5.7

Contract growers 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1

Other 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Tot al kg

4529.1 5266.8 7688.9 42842.2 33536.1 4789.2 98652.3

CBSG Community-based seed group; NGO Non-governmental organization; UN United Nations (often the Food and Agriculture Organization)

For vegetatively-propagated crops such as cassava, propagule quantities were converted to kg equivalents. See note 8

The Artibonite is Haiti’s largest department, with the region being the

country’s main rice-growing area. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Artibonite_Department)

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

Maize

Maize seed is given separate focus as this crop is an

engine for public and private seed sector investment, at

least in much of Africa (Langyintuo et al. 2010). To home

in on possible commercial trends in farmers’sourcing of

maize seed, analysis was explicitly narrowed to countries

within the data set where: a) maize is the most important

crop, as measured in hectares sown (Smale et al. 2011)

and where: b) agro-dealer networks are relatively more

developed (Chisinga 2011; Odame and Muange 2011).

Kenya and Malawi clearly stand out here in comparison

to eastern DRC, South Sudan, and Haiti. While Zimbabwe

is both maize-centered and with a formidable commercial

input sector (especially when linked to cross-border South

African private company supply), input trade was near

halted at the time of the SSSA, at least for legal formal

transactions.

Figure 1shows the proportions of maize seed sourced from

local markets and agro-dealers for these two countries. Both

types of markets are important seed sources, each providing

17–31 % of maize seed sown by smallholders. However, local

markets supply relatively more maize seed than agro-dealers,

even for this highly commercialized crop. Further, gender dis-

aggregation shows a more pronounced trend towards local

markets for female-headed households. Female-headed

households seem to steer their seed purchases towards the

markets where they can also buy other household supplies,

e.g., salt and soap, and an array food goods, such as chili

peppers, greens and fish.

Tabl e 3 Source of seed for most recent season, by crop cluster, across all sites

Crop Seed source: ‘most recent/current season’(%) Total –All sources (kg)

Own

stock

Friend,

neighbor,

relative

Local market Agro-dealer CBSG Government NGO / UN Contract

growers

Other

Maize 30.3 9.5 41.9 6.1 0.2 4.8 6.4 0.1 0.0 22893.8

Other cereals 40.0 12.1 37.9 2.2 0.8 0.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 15995.1

Sorghum 51.2 12.1 28.3 0.2 0.1 1.1 7.1 0.1 0.0 9835.7

Millets 44.6 21.1 18.7 0.7 0.0 2.4 12.4 0.0 0.1 1469.6

Rice 15.1 9.3 64.3 6.9 2.5 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.1 4689.8

Legumes

24.2 4.0 64.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 5.5 0.0 0.2 50670.1

Groundnut 34.8 6.4 51.7 0.1 0.3 0.2 6.6 0.0 0.1 23994.3

Common bean 10.4 0.9 81.3 0.8 0.9 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.2 20778.8

Cowpea 26.7 4.4 56.6 2.4 0.5 4.4 5.0 0.0 0.0 1937.6

Pigeonpea 30.1 5.5 61.4 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.3 2010.2

Green gram 37.1 2.2 49.5 2.9 0.0 4.6 1.6 0.0 0.5 1597.5

VPCs 47.3 29.9 18.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 3.2 0.0 0.4 7441.8

Cassava 52.9 32.4 9.5 0.0 0.3 0.5 4.3 0.0 0.1 4951.3

Banana 16.0 26.0 54.7 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.6 1407.9

Sweet potato 79.2 14.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 609.7

Irish potato 38.8 36.7 22.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 432.8

Others

22.9 9.1 33.5 22.3 0.0 1.4 8.7 1.5 0.7 1641.5

More minor legumes and VPCs are not displayed, but are included in totals. For the legumes: chickpea, Bambara nut, velvet bean, lima bean

For the VPCs: yams and taro

‘Others’include 17 crops, mostly horticultural crops sowed in small quantities, with a few in more appreciable amounts:sesame, cotton, okra, pumpkin

Fig. 1 Market seed sources for maize as % of all seed supplied for maize

in Malawi and Kenya, disaggregated by gender;♂=male-headed

households (n=186 for Malawi, 117 for Kenya), ♀=female-headed

households (n= 107 for Malawi, 54 for Kenya), total n=464

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

Crop diversity

In terms of channels, the final issue addressed is the diversity

of crops accessed by farmers from the varied conduits. Some

40 crops were monitored in the data set, with most crops found

across multiple SSSA sites.

Agro-dealer networks supplied appreciable quantities only

for maize and rice (the latter mostly in Haiti), and marked

proportions (i.e., at least 5 %) of only three other crops, all

in Malawi: pumpkin (27 % from agro-dealers); mustard leaves

(15.6 %) and cotton (76.4 %). Cotton is the only crop within

the entire SSSA sample where dealer supply exceeded local

market supply: it is a unique case where specific commercial

enterprises provided seed to outgrowers. Legume seed, in

contrast, was only very occasionally sourced from agro-

dealers: cowpea and greengram reached levels of 2.4 and

2.9%oftotalseedsownrespectivelyforeachcrop.

Common bean, groundnut and pigeonpea fell below 1 % of

supply from agro-dealer networks.

Local markets supplied at least 5 % of seed for 26 out of the

40 crops monitored, and over 10 % of seed for 24 of these

crops. While the total percentages vary considerably by crop,

an important point is that local markets are routinely used for

seed for a wide range of crops.

In sum, from an array of at least nine possible provision

channels, only two presently supply important quantities of

seed to smallholder farmers: local markets and farmers’own

stocks. Markets additionally stand out in terms of their impor-

tance for accessing legume seed. Leveraging such markets

could be key for helping farmers enhance family nutrition

and improve soil fertility, two functions often associated with

enhanced use of legumes (Giller 2001).

Markets might also warrant greater attention due to the

diversity of seed and planting material they put on offer.

Having access to a range of planting options is a central fea-

ture for encouraging current farming system resilience and for

responding to the future climate-change spurred variations

(McGuire and Sperling 2013).

How seed was acquired

The analysis now moves to looking at the ways farmers might

access seed. Farmers might pay: through cash, exchange with

other seed, or render casual labor for seed (which was a com-

mon arrangement in Malawi and Zimbabwe); receive gifts;

take seed loans or money loans; and obtain seed through de-

velopmental or emergency seed programs. In select instances,

food aid also may be planted, especially when maize and

beans are given in grain form rather than ground or powdered.

Note that seed even from the same channel can be accessed in

different ways; for instance neighbors may give seed for free,

or seek cash, among other mechanisms.

Understanding mechanisms is key for several reasons.

Looking through a lens of vulnerability, one might want to

know the degree to which farmers give seed freely to one

another, especially to help poorer members of the community.

Focusing on commercialization, one might ask whether

farmers are willing to pay for seed and planting material, even

when obtained from a neighbor.

Relative importance of accessing mechanisms

Tab le 4summarizes how farmers in the SSSA samples actu-

ally accessed their seed. Almost 55 % of all seed was paid for

in cash, being bought from local markets, agro-dealers and

even from social networks (for instance, cassava stems being

purchased from neighbors while the crop was still in the field).

While some of these purchases were from the formal sector

outlets, a large portion also emerged from informal sector

transactions (also see Table 5).

Tab le 4also tracks other mechanisms for accessing seed. In

term of quantities, only very small portions were obtained

through exchange or seed or money credit, and gifts occupy

less than 7 % of the total seed accessed. All of these seeming

‘neighborly’functions are key to monitor, as it is through such

farmer-to-farmer inter-relationships that new varieties have

often been posited to move (Aw-Hassan et al. 2008; Jones

et al. 2001).

To double-check on such trends, another way of analyzing

access mechanisms was used, the frequency of transactions

(versus amounts, reported above). Transaction frequencies

may give different insights, particularly when only small

amounts are moved, such as a ‘handful’of seed given neigh-

bor to neighbor. The transaction frequency set of measures

gives results comparable to the seed quantity measures: pur-

chase is still overwhelmingly dominant amounting to 45 % of

all transactions, and exchange mechanisms remain very sel-

dom used, only in 1.3 % of cases. The main difference appears

when analyzing gifts. Using frequency as the access tracking

measure, gift transactions rose to 12.4 % of all transactions

involving seed access (Sperling et al. 2014).

All in all, the access mechanism data reveal a series of

insights. First, farmers buy the majority of their seed. They

already are ‘willing to pay’(an issue pursued in the next sec-

tion). Second, a focus only on dedicated markets, that is, on

agro-dealers or open local markets, ignores an important seg-

ment of purchases in the countryside, directly from farmers’

homes and fields. Several observations bear emphasis here.

The seed systems farmers use are already highly market-driv-

en. Also, tied to these cash layouts, there may be a large

informal market that has yet to be exploited in terms of serving

a potential customer base (Sperling et al. 2014).

The social network results also were somewhat surprising.

Seed exchange among smallholder farmers seems not to be a

major process in terms of seed quantities obtained or even

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

frequency of use. These SSSA-derived data on the quantities

and frequency of seed sharing show that actual farmer-to-

farmer seed exchanges may be less widespread than the liter-

ature suggests (viz. Jensen et al. 2013; Labeyrie et al. 2014;

Pautasso et al. 2013).

Absolute cash expenditures

Cash transactions, specifically absolute cash expenditures,

were further explored here for several reasons. The amount

of cash lay out might flag concerns among the more vulnera-

ble —can they afford to buy the seed they need? Also, from a

commercial perspective, cash spent is an important signal for

those aiming to catalyze seed business development. The

phrase ‘willingness to pay’is commonly used as a shorthand

for examining whether or how much farmers are willing to

pay for certified seed (David 2004; Fuglie et al. 2006). As seen

above, the concept is too shallow, as farmers do pay for seed,

and on a routine basis, and in cash. Hence, the concept might

be refined to explore the margins farmers will pay for different

qualities of seed. Also, some of this ‘willingness’has to be

linked to the quantities of seed needed. ‘Willingness’for a

small amount may have very different financial consequences

from willingness for a larger amount.

Tab le 5explores specific cash outlays by tallying the full

amount of cash payments farmers made in a given season,

across the crops, and in the quantities that farmers actually

purchased. This type of analysis unfolded in each SSSA,

and generally was tracked across two seasons as crop portfo-

lios may shift from one season to another.

Tabl e 4 Means of access for all

seed farmerssowed in most recent

season (% of quantity sowed)

How obtained seed SSSA Site (%) All sites

Malawi Kenya DRC Haiti S Sudan Zimbabwe % Kg

Own stock 28.3 36.1 34.7 17.3 42.2 45.2 30.0 29591.8

Exchange 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.8 0.3 4.1 0.8 752.2

Gift 1.8 3.3 10.9 2.1 11.4 16.0 6.7 6580.6

Buy

49.4 53.9 50.1 76.4 34.2 16.6 54.6 53893.4

Vouchers 9.9 0.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 638.1

DSD

0.7 4.0 1.3 3.0 10.7 14.6 6.0 5910.7

Seed loan 3.8 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 443.5

Food aid 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 121.2

Money credit 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 206.5

Other 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 172.9

Casual labor 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.3 307.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98618.6

Lower purchase figures in Zimbabwe and South Sudan, reflect the same patterns described relating to

constrained market functioning: currency breakdown and poorly developed roads allowing access to vending

areas

DSD Direct seed distribution

Tabl e 5 Average money farmers spent on seed for their three most important crops, in Makueni and Tharaka, Kenya, Long rains, 2011

Site Crop Spending (Kenyan Shillings: KES)

N growing this crop Local market Neighbors Ag-input shops all purchases % of total

Makueni maize 44 337.3 0.0 772.7 1110.0 57.8 %

cowpea 43 180.6 8.3 8.1 197.1 10.3 %

green gram 42 476.2 14.3 123.8 614.3 32.0 %

total (of 3) 994.1 22.6 904.7 1921.4 100.0 %

Tharaka millets 44 158.0 9.5 0.0 167.5 17.1 %

cowpea 42 221.3 23.8 0.0 245.1 25.0 %

green gram 54 566.7 0.0 0.0 566.7 57.9 %

total (of 3) 946.0 33.3 0.0 979.3 100.0 %

The approximate exchange rate was 95 KES to 1US$ during time of survey (15 Sept. 2011), (http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=

KES&view=2Y) though the latter half of 2011 was also a spike period for the KES/$ rate. Longer-run trend is between 83 and 88 KES / $

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

The example below draws from the SSSA in Kenya and

compared cash purchases from two quite distinct sites, both in

what was formerly Eastern Province, Kenya. The Makueni

site (Kathonwenzi District) exhibits bimodal rainfall at 800–

1200 mm annually, with maize predominating, along with

crops such as cassava, cowpea, and greengrams. The area

has a good sized town, Wote (about 56,000), easy access to

agro-dealers (generally <30 min) and is only 150 km from

Nairobi and on good macadam roads (i.e., 2 ½h travel time).

Tharaka Nithi, in contrast, is more of a classic drought-prone

zone, bimodal rainfall topping 500–800 mm, with millet and

sorghum predominating along with crops such as cowpea and

greengram. The area is 2 to 3 h from Meru town, over poor,

largely non-paved roads. Agro-dealer access locally is near-

nonexistent although satellite seed sellers sometimes pass on

bicycle or motorcycle.

Although the sites are quite different in terms of agro-

ecology and infrastructural development, Table 5shows that

farmers at both sites spent similar amounts on seed accessed

through local markets and social networks: 1016.6 and 979.3

KES in Makueni and Tharaka, respectively, about 10–11 $US.

These local market investments were mainly in cowpea and

greengram at both sites, as well as maize in Makueni. Such an

investment–equivalent to ½ small goat (SSSA Kenya) –is

striking particularly in drought–prone zones where farmers’

incomes are depressed by low harvests and few agro-

enterprise opportunities.

Additionally, Makeuni farmers made important invest-

ments in certified seed for maize and greengram from agro-

input shops. Farmers’greengram purchases at the time of the

SSSA were for varieties newly put on offer. In contrast, the

maize purchases were linked to well-known hybrid varieties

even though farmers in the 2011 community assessment had

indicated that maize had done poorly for many seasons in a

row (since the 2006 harvest) (SSSA Kenya).

Certainly, these are just examples, which need to be multi-

plied across hundreds of sites and contexts so as to understand

farmers’current investments and potential investments in seed

types per crop. However, these initial findings suggest that

farmers are investing in seed and already at significant levels.

Whether local market seed or agro-dealer seed, the scale of

expense is formidable from the smallholder perspective.

Who uses specific channels, with focus on local markets

Local markets emerge as the important seed source overall.

This raises questions of whether trends noted above, such as

increased market use for legumes or for female-headed house-

holds, hold when all factors are considered. In particular, do

observed inter-country variations (Table 2) reflect national

characteristics, or other factors such as crop composition or

farm size distribution within each SSSA? Probit regressions

explored how country, crop, household characteristics and

farm area affect the likelihood of local market use.

The de-

pendent variable was use of local markets to supply seed for a

given crop and household (n= 7 436 in this dataset), with

independent variables being countries (6), within-country sites

(31), crop clusters (5, as in Table 3), age and gender of house-

hold head, family size, and farm area (4 categories: <0.5, 0.5–

1, >1–2, and >2 ha; formula 1). As farmers provided quantities

obtained from every source used, it was possible to calculate

the proportion of seed for a given crop supplied by local mar-

kets; in this estimation, local markets were coded as ‘used’

when they supplied ≥25 % of a farmer’sseed.

To our knowl-

edge, this is the first large-scale estimation of factors affecting

farmers’use of local markets. Table 6shows the marginal

effects of key variables on farmers’use of local markets.

local market ¼αþβcountry.site þδcrop cluster

þγHH characteristicsþθarea farmed þεð1Þ

Kenya was used as the referent for country dummies, as its

overall local market use was intermediate (Table 2) and agro-

dealers are relatively well developed. Haitian farmers are sig-

nificantly more likely to obtain seed from local markets, ac-

counting for other factors, confirming this not a compositional

effect (e.g., because the Haiti sample had more legumes than

elsewhere), but rather reflects characteristics of Haiti itself.

Infrastructure and currency issues noted above help explain

why farmers in South Sudan and Zimbabwe are significantly

less likely to use local markets. Maize is the referent group for

crop clusters; while there is little difference between maize

and other cereals, legumes are significantly more likely to be

obtained from local markets, vegetative crops less. This sup-

ports arguments made elsewhere (Sperling and McGuire

2010) that local market provision is especially important for

legumes.

Insights into who uses local markets emerged from house-

hold characteristics. Younger farmers used markets more,

though the effect is not strong.

The effect of gender of

household head was not strong, and varied by country (data

not shown). Female-headed households were slightly more

likely to use local markets, though only significantly so in

DRC (p< 0.10), while in South Sudan they were significantly

(p< 0.05) less likely to use markets. Markets were sparse in

This analysis highlights correlations with the factors measured.

Gathering detailed household-level data on consumption or income was

not the purpose of SSSAs; such data would benefit future models in

producing estimations of marginal effects levels.

Other specifications - local market use (any proportion); local market

supplies ≥50% of a household’s seed for that crop; and ≥75% - produced

similar results (coefficient signs, significance levels).

Models also controlled for within-country sites, but these coefficients

are not shown.

A 10 year age difference shifts likelihood of local market use by 2.9 %.

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

2010 in South Sudan, with minimal transport infrastructure, so

it is perhaps unsurprising that women there were less likely to

make long journeys to obtain seed. Finally, cultivated land

was used to differentiate wealth categories among small-

holders.

In all individual country regressions, the tendency

is for greater market use for smaller farms, though this is only

significant (at p < 0.10) in DRC. These data suggest that local

markets may be particularly important for relatively vulnera-

ble farmers (poorer, or female-headed households).

Table 7shows % of seed from the DRC assessment in

relation to farm area as a clear illustration of this wider trend.

Those with smaller farms access over ½ their seed from local

markets (across crops) versus less than 1/5 for those in the

largest land category. Some parallel trends were noted in the

SSSA for Kenya and from a number of other studies that

contained more extensive socio-economic background infor-

mation. In one Rwandan study from the early 1990s, the

poorer segments bought 90 % of their bean seed from local

markets for the main growing season, compared to 6 % for the

relatively rich (CIAT 1991; in Sperling and McGuire 2010).

Other quantitative studies report comparable conclusions: in

Malawi, Uganda, Ethiopia, Burundi, Ethiopia–the very poor

are tied relatively more to local markets for seed of select

crops than their wealthier neighbors (David and Sperling

1999; McGuire 2008; Sperling 1994). Future research will

explore further the relationships between wealth (and farm

area) and seed source use.

How farmers accessed new varieties

As a final theme, the issue of new varieties is addressed.

Within the context of strengthening seed systems and foster-

ing seed security, variety introductions can be a relatively

economical way to increase production quickly.

Overall, across sites, over a third of farmers, 36 % had

accessed some new variety within the previous 5 years (al-

though whether these are ‘modern varieties’or new local va-

rieties could not be determined based on variety name alone;

Table 8). While the figure appears promising, the findings

need to be interpreted in the context of site choice as general

SSSA zones were ones of government or NGO intervention.

This potential assistance bias might be seen particularly in

South Sudan, where about half of sample had received a

new variety but where, at the time of the SSSA, the formal-

sector research system was only just starting to be re-vitalized

after a prolonged civil war, and variety releases were very few.

The relatively low figure of 14.2 % in Haiti is particularly

striking, as that SSSA had the largest (983) and most

geographically-spread sample, spanning the country and

agro-ecological zones, and was hosted by seven organizations,

all with developmental programs. Besides the SSSA country,

the only other factor affecting a household’s likelihood of

accessing a new variety is gender. Male-headed households

areslightly(butsignificantly)morelikelytoaccessnewvari-

eties (Table 9).

New varieties can potentially be accessed through multiple

channels. However, outlets providing the new materials with-

in the SSSA sample were weighted towards government and

NGO/UN channels, which delivered 2/3 of the varieties,

Note that most of the farmers in the SSSA samples would be consid-

ered smallholders, though communities regard the different farm size

categories used as indicative of important differences in household

wellbeing and vulnerability.

Tabl e 7 Use of own stock vs. local market according to farm size in

eastern DRC, as % of total seed used by that group of farms

Seed source Area cultivated (%) All farms

<0.5 ha 0.5–1ha >1–2ha >2ha

Own stock 17.8 24.1 33.3 77.3 35.0

Local market 54.1 51.9 49.1 17.6 44.6

N cases 174 250 93 27 544

Crops were not included as a factor in this analysis, as these were only

specified for households accessing a new variety.

Tab l e 6 The marginal effects of factors affecting a household’s

likelihood to obtain ≥25 % of their seed of a given crop from local

markets (standard errors in parentheses); Kenya is referent group for

country dummies, and maize for crop dummies

Factor Marginal effect

Country

Malawi 0.00525 (0.0343)

DRC 0.0382 (0.0364)

Haiti 0.294 (0.0312)***

SSudan −0.185 (0.0275)***

Zimbabwe −0.363 (0.0662)***

Crop

Other cereals −0.0235 (0.0169)

Vegetative crops −0.399 (0.0188)***

Legumes 0.135 (0.0130)***

Other crops −0.0920 (0.0270)**

Age −0.00286 (0.000403)***

Male-headed 0.0116 (0.0121)

HH size § 0.00185 (0.00215)

Farm area § −0.00633 (0.00921)

Observations 6873

Pseudo R-squared 0.1927

Significance: * p< 0.10; ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01

§: Household and farm size data not available for Haiti or Zimbabwe, so

coefficients here derived from regression models excluding those coun-

tries (3583 observations, pseudo R-squared of 0.12)

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

largely via free distribution. Local markets served as the major

sustainable source, but their performance has been highly var-

iable across countries (with limited presence as a source of

innovation in Haiti or Malawi). In terms of crop profiles,

maize comprised 31 % of all the 1676 new variety cases. A

further 18 % were for sorghum, and 7 % each for groundnut

and common bean.

Across sites, agro-dealers provided 6.8 % of the new varie-

ties (compared with 7.5 % of new acquisitions from social

networks). Agro-dealers as a source of novel material had an

important presence only in Malawi and Kenya, where maize

accounted for 79 and 74 % of the new varieties accessed from

these outlets.

Note that the site choice among SSSAs spanned

very different commercial sector contexts: dealer networks

were comparatively well developed in Kenya and Malawi; in

contrast, South Sudan and eastern DRC had virtually none.

As a seed source, community-based groups have a very mi-

nor importance in providing new varieties (1.7 % of cases). For

supplying volumes of seed, they figure barely at all (0.5 % of

what farmers sow; Table 2). Their relative invisibility comes in

spite of the sites generally being ones of NGO intervention and

of CBSG’s being promoted with regularity, especially by NGOs

and the UN system. The relativelyhigherfigureof6.4%ofnew

accessions in Haiti from CBSGs might be misleading, as it is a

proportion of cases where households did access new varieties,

and represents only 16 instances, countrywide (Haiti SSSA).

In sum, delivery channels for new varieties were poorly

developed across assessment sites. Farmers could only access

new varieties of most crops through one-off aid provision,

usually from NGOs or governments (the latter especially dis-

tributing maize). Local markets provided some innovation but

were linked to new varieties in an ad hoc manner, rather than

via a well-established set of processes. Projecting forward, new

varieties will not move quickly or at scale until more impact-

oriented seed systems receive concerted research and develop-

ment attention. In the public sector at least, there seems to be an

investment lacuna between the science of plant breeding,

which receives substantial funds, and the science of delivery.

Tabl e 8 Farmers who obtained a new variety in the previous 5 years and the sources of provision

Source of new variety SSSA Country (%) All sites

Malawi Kenya DRC Haiti S Sudan % N

Friends, neighbors, relatives 2.2 9.3 9.5 3.2 9.7 7.7 129

Local market 7.6 15.6 9.5 2.4 19.7 14.3 239

Agro-dealer 27.1 17.8 0.0 2.8 0.8 6.9 115

CBSG 0.4 0.4 3.4 6.5 0.8 1.7 29

Government 50.7 39.6 0.0 10.1 5.4 16.4 275

NGO / FAO 11.1 14.2 77.6 73.3 62.9 52.0 871

Contract seed growers 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3

Other 0.9 1.8 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.9 15

ALL Sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1676

TOTAL new varieties 225 225 116 247 863 1676

Households receiving new variety –N 127 138 44 140 438 887

No. Households in sample 180 198 209 983 857 2427

Households receiving new variety –% of sample 70.6 % 70.8 % 22.9 % 14.2 % 51.1 % 36.5 %

§ Dataset on new varieties does not include Zimbabwe sample

Tab l e 9 The marginal effects of factors affecting a household’s

likelihood of obtaining a new variety in the past 5 years (Standard

errors in parentheses; ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01)

Marginal effect

Country

Malawi 0.222 (0.0780)***

DRC −0.479 (0.0586)***

Haiti § −0.570 (0.0576)***

SSudan −0.425 (0.0614)***

Age 0.0000472 (0.00102)

Male-headed 0.0688 (0.0278) **

HH size 0.00249 (0.00348)

Farm area 0.0147 (0.0151)

Observations 1255

Pseudo R-squared 0.1594

§: Household size and farm area data not available for Haiti; this coeffi-

cient derived from specification without those factors. New variety access

data unavailable for Zimbabwe

For all sources in Malawi, 77 % of new varieties were maize, in Kenya

it was 29 %.

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

Discussion: investment policy and practice

The work presented herein results from a large seed system

data set, spanning many crops. Overall, smallholder farmers

accessed 90.2 % of seed they sowed from informal systems,

with 50.9 % from local markets. In contrast, formal sector

sources were modest, even though several decades of invest-

ment have largely focused on either the formal public or for-

mal private sector (e.g., Hoegenmeyer n.d.).

To review select findings tied to current models: a) the

channels routinely supported supply an insignificant propor-

tion of seed sown by smallholder farmers; b) new varieties are

not being accessed sustainably through supported channels;

and c) the array of crops needed for production, nutrition

and resilience goals will not likely be promoted via a commer-

cialized formal sector approach alone. Simply, profit margins

for self-pollinated crops remain modest as once farmers obtain

the novel germplasm, they can re-sow their own seed

(Rubyogo et al. 2010). Also, for the vegetatively-propagated

crops, few viable commercial options have been identified

beyond some initial successes with Irish potato (Sperling

et al. 2014).

At a minimum, our results suggest a need to address the

imbalance in seed channel focus so as to give attention to the

main seed systems smallholders use, including several infor-

mal channels. There is also a case for broadening strategy

within the formal seed sector to enhance its scope for impact.

To spur more gains, it may be opportune to move program-

matically toward more integrated seed system approaches that

leverage the relative strengths of informal and formal sectors.

A range of indicative actions is sketched below for promoting

greater formal and informal seed system integration and effec-

tiveness. Most have had a trial phase in the past 5 years and a

few have had important expansion.

Promoting more smallholder-responsive /integrated seed

systems: entry points from the formal sector

There are multiple entry points being tested to help make

formal seed systems more responsive to smallholder farmer

needs. These efforts go beyond scaling up’more of the same’

and rather move toward re-designing some of the core param-

eters which affect the access of a range of clients to the formal

sector. Several examples are cited below.

Proximity of agro-dealer providers

Even for their designated crops (maize and horticultural

crops), formal sector outlets rarely can cover the full zones

of farmer need: for example, only 23 % of farmers in Nzaui

Kenya were within 1 hour walk of a formal agro-dealer outlet

(Farrow et al. 2010). Seed enterprises may be reluctant to

serve remote areas. Noted by one set of observers "For com-

mercial seed enterprises a key constraint is their so called zone

of mobility and most indicate that their produce can be sold

within a 200 km. radius…^(USAID 2013).

Licensing of non-seed outlets

Experience shows that outlets can be scaled out through build-

ing on existing non-seed networks. Key to scaling is quickly

to leverage conduits that a) require no new infrastructural de-

velopment; and b) have proven durable themselves, prior to

adding the dimension of seed sales and information. Good

experiences have been achieved through several ‘value addi-

tion’strategies. Seed sale has been added to rural ‘Mom and

Pop’stores which sell basic staples in both Zimbabwe

(through the CARE Agent Program; Zimbabwe SSSA and

NRI 2003) and Timor-Leste (through a Mercy Corps initia-

tive; TL SSSA). Seed sale also routinely takes place in super-

markets of Malawi. Colored green or pink maize seed, along

with clear variety labels, signals that seed is being sold.

Horticultural seed is also on sale, and, inadvertently, bean

seed, as the one-kilo packs bagged for consumption are some-

times bought for planting (Malawi SSSA). Within the super-

market model, there should be room to expand at least the

range of legume seed on offer.

Packet size

Formal sector companies generally prefer to sell larger pack

sizes: typically 2-5 kg bags for legumes or 10, 20, 50 kg bag

sizes for the predominant crop, maize. Companies assume

farmers prefer to buy seed to cover their full holdings. In

contrast, research suggests that smallholder farmers often

buy high quality seed mainly to obtain new variety material

(Rohrbach and Malusalila 1999). Recent experimental pro-

grams have facilitated delivery and sale of smaller seed pack

sizes which farmers find more affordable. In 2012 alone, a

single project, Tropical Legumes II, sold 943,170 small seed

packs (100 g, 250 g and upwards) of six legume crops in 13

African countries (Sperling and Boettiger 2013). Some private

sector companies are moving to this model, at scale, e.g.,

Drylands in eastern Kenya packed 50MT of beans in small

packs in 2013 (Sperling et al. 2014) and AGRA now also

trains its private sector grantees to pack seed in smaller units

(Sperling and Boettiger 2013). Smallholders already spend

money for seed (Tables 4and 5); smaller packs can encourage

smallholders to try new varieties, and expand companies’

client-base.

To get 90.2 % for informal, we subtracted from the total any source that

could have been formal: agro-dealers, government and NGO/UN and

contract growers. Table 2totaled these sources at 9.8 %.

National seed laws will affect the scope for expansion.

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

Promoting more smallholder-responsive /integrated seed

systems: entry points from the informal sector

The informal sector handles the wider profile of crops sowed

by smallholder farmers (with some notable exceptions of hy-

brid and modern open pollinated variety (OPV) maize and

hybrid vegetable seed). There are multiple entry points for

strengthening this sector: a) helping farmers to improve the

quality of their own saved seed; b) improving the quality of

seed on offer in local seed/grain markets; and c) strengthening

marketing and information systems.

Seed storage methods

Investing in good seed storage, that is helping farmers save

their seed ‘at the front end’(preventatively), should be seen as

a strategic investment (Walsh et al. 2014). Particularly with

vulnerable farmers and in high stress regions, better seed stor-

age options may mean less need for emergency assistance

when times get tough, for example, when drought or flood

or other stresses require multiple sowings. Advantages for

farmers in storing their own seed include: cash outlays are

reduced, seed is available on time and just nearby, and varie-

ties and management requirements (including modern varie-

ties they have stored) are familiar to them (Walsh et al. 2014).

Unfortunately, farmers often struggle to prevent storage

losses, especially with maize and legumes, with losses rou-

tinely reaching 30 % upwards (e.g., Meikle et al. 2002). Some

new storage technologies proving effective include hermetic

storage bags (Mutungi et al. 2014) and small metal silos (TL

SSSA). Research homing in on the cost-benefits of different

storage materials and sizes might sharpen technologies further

(Jones and Walsh 2014).

Local seed market enhancement (‘potential seed’)

To date, little developmental attention has been focused local

seed markets. This gap is partly due to a reluctance by formal

sector actors to consider goods from such channels as

representing potential seed at all, and their assessing use of

market seed as ‘risky’(Lipper et al. 2010;Sperlingand

McGuire 2010). In contrast, farmers in select parts of the

world explicitly use the market to defer risk: they sell legumes

at harvest and buy back seed at sowing time, so as to transfer

the risk of storage losses over to traders (example, Haiti

SSSA).

Variety quality and markets Seed/grain traders are generally

left out of formal seed sector planning but they could be im-

portant partners in moving new varieties. Distribution of vari-

ety samples (to stimulate demand); sale of small packets of

certified seed in open market venues; and sale of modern

varieties in bulk are options that have had some initial

successes in parts of east and central Africa (McGuire and

Sperling 2008). The volumes moved by traders and their geo-

graphic scope of action make them interesting candidates for

broadening access to new varieties among smallholders, even

in more isolated regions. Conditioning and storage issues

would need to be addressed if stock turnover is slow and

any certified seed sale via trader networks would need to be

aligned with country-specific seed law regulations (Sperling

et al. 2014).

Seed quality and markets Seed/grain traders could also be

partners in improving the seed quality per se. Large traders

(e.g., moving 50–200 MT/season in the SSSAs monitored)

have been known to respond to quality innovations if new

business opportunities arise. For example, in order to partici-

pate in CARE’s seed relief program in eastern Ethiopia in

2002, traders adopted several seed quality enhancing prac-

tices: improving warehouse conditions, maintaining specific

seed stores, separating out specific varieties (McGuire and

Sperling 2008). The same phenomenon of heightening quality

has been observed with food procurement. Traders working

with the World Food Program’s Purchase 4 Progress Program

(P4P) made investments in quality assurance equipment

which purportedly led to better quality of food products found

in local markets http://www.wfp.org/purchase-progress/news/

blog/new-study-reveals-wfp%E2%80%99s-impact-african-

food-markets.

Marketing information systems for informal/integrated sector

Seed-related information systems need to be vastly improved

to capture the potential of an evolving, more integrated seed

sector (see also Audi et al. 2010). Traders might be one im-

portant channel to engage more fully. Examples of types of

information traders might provide farmers could include, inter

alia: a) existence of new varieties and their traits; b) location

of potential supplies; c) information from others who have

tested the materials. Equipping traders with up-to-date seed-

related information would raise awareness quickly among

smallholder clients, but also among other trader suppliers

serving remote communities. As with the case of small packs,

engaging large traders as information conduits could facilitate

important scaling benefits.

Farmers themselves could increasingly access this focused

information directly, were it readily available. Even in Africa,

some 86 % of the population currently has access to mobile

phones (http://uk.kantar.com/tech/mobile/mobile-phone-use-

in-africa/), including many who live in rural areas. Current

information approaches such as field demonstrations,

agricultural shows, posters and technical leaflets tend to

describe variety attributes and provide one-way communica-

tion with farmers. Minimally, those testing any new varieties,

especially in on-farm trials, should be linked systematically to

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

two-way, mobile feedback systems (van Etten 2011). Also,

experimental initiatives might aim to link mobile phone use

with information on seed availability and supplier locations

(e.g., Farrow et al. 2011).

The central message of these select examples is that local

markets are the main source for smallholder farmer seed yet

currently remain outside the scope of explicit and supportive

seed sector interventions. Given that seed/grain markets pro-

vide not just the bulk ofseed in absolute quantities, but are key

for accessing a portfolio of crops, including most legumes,

such an omission seems shortsighted. Certainly, those with a

development vision toward nutrition-sensitive agriculture and

more resilient farming systems might analyze the case of local

seed/grain strengthening as one of unrealized potential.

Conclusion

All seed sectors have to be strengthened to deliver the types of

products needed to catalyze smallholder advances: to encour-

age increased production; nutritional gains; and to foster farm-

ing system resilience. ‘More of the same’seems unwise as the

bulk of varieties and absolute quantities of seed are not now

being presently accessed through the channels routinely sup-

ported by development efforts. As a concomitant message,

continued public-sector breeding efforts may not realize their

investments if varieties cannot be delivered in more sustain-

able ways, but also quickly and at scale. Variety use by

farmers should be a dynamic process, with additions or sub-

stitutions as better options become available.

Overall, the data show that seed sector strategy has to be-

come more smallholder-focused and that sharpened goals

have to drive the types of approaches used (Sperling and

McGuire 2012). For instance, brute production gains require

a distinct strategy from those aiming for system resilience

through offering a portfolio of crops and varieties. The data

also show that impressive results, at scale, are not necessarily

achieved by focusing on the more common metrics used to

measure seed sector success. Examples include Btons of seed

produced^which is often only a function of how much finan-

cial assistance has been allotted or ‘value of seed sector’,

which looks only at the supply side monies earned. To move

towards more impact-oriented seed sector development, our

metrics might also be broadened especiallyto put emphasis on

the catalytic options which show that seed channels –formal,

informal and integrated combinations –are actually working

to reach smallholders with the seed products and information

that such farmers want and need.

Acknowledgments We acknowledge the support of the United States

Agency for International Development/US Office of Foreign Disaster

Assistance, for funding the development of the SSSA and the implemen-

tation of the case studies, and, in particular, thank Drs. Julie March and

Eric Witte. The work of dedicated field teams in Haiti, Zimbabwe, South

Sudan and Kenya, Malawiand the Democratic Republic of Congo isalso

gratefully noted, as is the assistance of Borja Perez-Viana with statistical

analysis. Finally, thanks to the four reviewers who shared detailed and

useful comments.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-

priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the

Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Almekinders, C. J. M., & Hardon, J. (2000). Towards integrated seed supply.

In C. J. M. Almekinders & W. S. de Boef (Eds.), Encouraging diversity:

The conservation and development of plant genetic resources (pp. 249–

252). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Audi, P., Nagarajan, L., Jones, R., & Ibrahim, M. S. (2010). Pigeonpea seed

supply and diversity: A case study of local seed markets in makueni

district, eastern Kenya. In L. Lipper, C. L. Anderson, & T. J. Dalton

(Eds.), Seed trade in rural markets: Implications for crop diversity and

agricultural development (pp. 95–123). London: Earthscan.

Aw-Hassan, A., Mazid, A., & Salahieh, H. (2008). The role of informal

farmer-to-farmer seed distribution in diffusion of new barley varie-

ties in Syria. Experimental Agriculture, 44,413–431.

Badstue, L. B. (2006). Smallholder seed practices: Maize seed manage-

ment in the central valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. Wageningen: (PhD),

Wageningen University.

Bezner Kerr, R. (2013). Seed struggles and food sovereignty in northern

Malawi. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(5), 867–897.

Bonny, S. (2014). Taking stock of the genetically modified seed sector world-

wide: market, stakeholders, and prices. Food Security, 6(4), 525–540.

Bouis, H. E., & Welch, R. M. (2010). Biofortification - a sustainable

agricultural strategy for reducing micronutrient malnutrition in the

global south. Crop Science, 50(S1), S20–S32.

Byrne, K. G., March, J., McGuire, S., Meissner, L., & Sperling, L. (2013).

The role of evidence in humanitarian assessment: the seed system

security assessment and the emergency market mapping and analy-

sis. Disasters, 37,S83–S104.

Cavatassi, R., Lipper, L., & Narloch, U. (2011). Modern variety adoption and

risk management in drought prone areas: insights from the sorghum

farmers of eastern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 42(3), 279–292.

Chisinga, B. (2011). Seeds and subsidies: the poliutical economy of input

programmes in Malawi. IDS Bulletin, 42,59–68.

Christinck, A. (2002). This seed is like ourselves: A case study from

rajasthan, india, on the social aspects of biodiversity and farmers’

management of pearl millet seed. Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag.

CIAT. (1991). Comparisons of seed quality, from bean seed obtained

from range of formal and informal sources annual report bean pro-

gram, 1991 (pp. 310–312). Cali: CIAT.

David, S. (2004). Farmer seed enterprises: a sustainable approach to seed

delivery? Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 387–397.

David, S., & Sperling, L. (1999). Improving technology delivery mech-

anisms: lessons from bean seed systems research in eastern and

central Africa. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(4), 381–388.

De Waal, A. (1991). Emergency food security in western Sudan: What is

it for? In S. Maxwell (Ed.), To cure all hunger: Food policy and food

security in Sudan (pp. 68–84). London: Intermediate Technology.

Farrow,A.,Risinamhodzi,K.,Zingore,S.,&Delve,R.J.(2011).

Spatially targeting the distribution of agricultural input stockists in

Malawi. Agricultural Systems, 104(9), 694–702.

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

Farrow, A., Seward, P., & Ssengooba, P. (2010). Final report and lessons

learned from the project: ‘Nodes of growth: Improving legume seed

networks in Kenya.Kampala:CIAT.

Fuglie, K., Adiyoga, W., Asmunati, R., Mahalaya, S., & Suherman, R.

(2006). Farm demand for quality potato seed in Indonesia.

Agricultural Economics, 35(3), 257–266.

Giller, K. E. (2001). Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems.

Wallingford: CABI.

GTZ, & CGN. (2000). Support for the informal seed sector in develop-

ment cooperation: Conceptual issues (pp. 30): GTZ.

Guei, R. G., Barra, A., & Drissa, S. (2011). Promoting smallholder seed

enterprises: quality seed production of rice, maize, sorghum and

millet in northern Cameroon. International Journal of Agricultural

Sustainability, 9(1), 91–99.

Hanke, S. H., & Kwok, A. K. F. (2009). On the measurement of

Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation. Cato Journal, 29(2), 353–364.

Hoegenmeyer, T. (n.d.). History of the us hybrid corn seed industry, from

http://imbgl.cropsci.illinois.edu/school/2014/11_THOMAS_

HOEGEMEYER.pdf

Jensen, H. R., Belqadi, L., de Santis, P., Sadiki, M., Jarvis, D. I., &

Schoen, D. J. (2013). A case study of seed exchange networks and

gene flow for barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare) in Morocco.

Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 60,1119–1138.

Jones, M., & Walsh, S. (2014). Seed storage brief #3: Economics and pro-

motion: Insights for program design. Nairobi: Catholic Relief Services.

Jones, R. B., Audi, P. A., & Tripp, R. (2001). The role of informal seed

systems in disseminating modern varieties. The example of

pigeonpea from a semi-arid area of Kenya. Experimental

Agriculture, 37(4), 539–548.

Labeyrie, V., Rono, B., & Leclerc, C. (2014). How social organization shapes

crop diversity: an ecological anthropology approach among tharaka

farmers of mount Kenya. Agriculture and Human Values, 31,97–107.

Langyintuo, A., Mwangi, W., Diallo, A. O., MacRobert, J., Dixon, J., &

Bänzinger, M. (2010). Challenges of the maize seed industry in

eastern and southern Africa: a compelling case for private-public

intervention to promote growth. Food Policy, 35(4), 323–331.

Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (2008). Sampling of populations: Methods

and applications. Hoboken: Wiley.

Lipper, L., Anderson, L., & Dalton, T. J. (Eds.). (2010). Seed trade in

rural markets: Implications for crop diversity and agricultural

development. London: Earthscan.

Louwaars, N., & de Boef, W. (2012). Integrated seed sector development in

Africa: a conceptual framework for creating coherence between prac-

tices, programs, and policies. Journal of Crop Improvement, 26,39–59.

Louwaars, N. P., de Boef, W. S., & Edeme, J. (2013). Integrated seed

sector development in Africa: a basis for seed policy and law.

JournalofCropImprovement,27(2), 186–214.

Marfo, K. A., Dorward, P. T., Craufurd, P. Q., Ansere-Bioh, F.,

Haleegoah, J., & Bam, R. (2008). Identifyingseed uptake pathways:

the spread of agya amoah rice cultivar in southwestern Ghana.

Experimental Agriculture, 44(02), 257–269.

McGuire, S. J. (2008). Securing access to seed: social relations and sor-

ghum seed exchange in eastern Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 36(2),

217–229.

McGuire, S. J., & Sperling, L. (2008). Leveraging farmers' strategies for

coping with stress: seed aid in Ethiopia. Global Environmental

Change, 18(4), 679–688.

McGuire, S. J., & Sperling, L. (2011). The links between food security

and seed security: facts and fiction that guide response. Development

in Practice, 21(4–5), 493–508.

McGuire, S. J., & Sperling, L. (2013). Making seed systems more resil-

ient to stress. Global Environmental Change, 23,644–653.

Meikle, W. G., Markham, R. H., Nansen, C., Holst, N., Degbey, P.,

Azoma, K., & Korie, S. (2002). Pest management in traditional

maize stores in west Africa: a farmer’s perspective. Journal of

Economic Entomology, 95(5), 1079–1088.

Mutungi, C. M., Affognon, H., Njoroge, A. W., Baributsa, D., &

Murdock, L. L. (2014). Storage of mung bean (Vigna radiata [L.]

Wilczek) and pigeonpea grains (Cajanus cajan [l.] Millsp) in her-

metic triple-layer bags stops losses caused by Callosobruchus

maculatus (f.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products

Research, 58,39–47.

Nagarajan, L., Smale, M., & Glewwe, P. (2007). Determinants of millet

diversity at the household-farm and village-community levels in the

drylands of India: the role of local seed systems. Agricultural

Economics, 36(2), 157–167.

Nordhagen, S., & Pascual, U. (2013). The impact of climate shocks on

seed purchase decisions in Malawi: implications for climate change

adaptation. World Development, 43,238–251.

NRI. (2003). Agribusiness entrepreneur network and development pro-

gramme (agent), from http://projects.nri.org/nret/SPCDR/Chapter3/

services-3-4-2-2.htm

Odame, H., & Muange, E. (2011). Can agro-dealers deliver the green

revolution in Kenya? IDS Bulletin, 42(4), 78–89.

Pautasso, M., Aistara, G., Barnaud, A., Caillon, S., Clouvel, P.,

Coomes, O. T., Delêtre, M., Demeulenaere, E., De Santis, P.,

Doring, T., Eloy, L., Emperaire, L., Garine, E., Goldringer, I.,

Jarvis, D., Joly, H. I., Leclerc, C., Louafi, S., Martin, P.,

Massol, F., McGuire, S., McKey, D., Padoch, C., Soler, C.,

Thomas, M., & Tramontini, S. (2013). Seed exchange net-

works for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agronomy

for Sustainable Development, 33(1), 151–175.

Rajalahti, R. (2013). The World Bank support to seed sector development,

may 2, 2013. Washington: Paper presented at the Supporting

ComprehensiveSeedSectorDevelopment.

Remington, T., Maroko, J., Walsh, S., Omanga, P., & Charles, E. (2002).

Getting off the seeds-and-tools treadmill with crs seed vouchers and

fairs. Disasters, 26(4), 316–328.

Rohrbach,D. D., & Malusalila, P. (1999). Developing rural retail trade of

seed through small packs. Paper presented at the Conference

‘Linking Seed Producers and Consumers: Diagnosing constraints

in institutional performance - Zimbabwe’, ICRISAT and ODI,

Bulawayo.

Rubyogo, J. C., Sperling, L., Muthoni, R., & Buruchara, R.

(2010). Bean seed delivery for small farmers in sub-saharan

Africa: the power of partnerships. Society and Natural

Resources, 23(4), 285–302.

Shi, W., & Tao, F. (2014). Vulnerability of African maize yield to climate

change and variability during 1961–2010. Food Security, 6(4), 471–

481.

Smale, M., Byerlee, D., & Jayne, T. S. (2011). Maize revolutions in sub-

Saharan Africa (p. 34). Washington: World Bank, Policy Research

Working Paper 5659.

SourceWatch. (2012). Agra's programme for africa's seeds systems

Retrieved 12 March 2015, from http://www.sourcewatch.org/

index.php/AGRA%27s_Programme_for_Africa%27s_Seeds_

Systems

Sperling, L. (1994). Summary report. Analysis of bean seed channels in

the Great Lakes region: South Kivu, Zaire, southern Rwanda, and

select bean-growing zones of Burundi (p. 13). Rwanda: CIAT/

RESAPAC.

Sperling, L. (2008). When disaster strikes: A guide for assessing seed

security. Cali: CIAT.

Sperling, L., & Boettiger, S. (2013). Impacts of selling seed in small

packs: Evidence from legume sales: AgPartnerXChange.

Sperling, L., Boettiger, S., & Barker, I. (2014). Integrating seed systems

Planning for Scale Brief # 3: AgPartnerXChange.

Sperling, L., & Cooper, D. (2004). Understanding seed systems and

strengthening seed security: A background paper. In L. Sperling,

T. Osborn, & D. Cooper (Eds.), Towards effective and sustainable

seed relief activities (pp. 7–33). Rome: FAO. Plant Production and

Protection Paper 181.

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

Sperling, L., & McGuire, S. (2010). Understanding and strengthening

informal seed markets. Experimental Agriculture, 46(2), 119–136.

Sperling, L., & McGuire, S. J. (2012). Fatal gaps in seed security strategy.

Food Security, 4(4), 569–579.

USAID. (2013). Seedclir Tanzania pilor report enabling agricultural

trade. Washington: USAID.

van Etten, J. (2011). Crowdsourcing crop improvement in sub‐saharan

africa: a proposal for a scalable and inclusive approach to food

security. IDS Bulletin, 42(4), 102–110.

Walsh, S., Baributsa, D., Remington, T., & Sperling, L. (2014). Seed stor-

age brief #2: Hermetic seed storage technology: Principles, use, and

economics –a practitioner’s guide. Nairobi: Catholic Relief Services.

Seed System Security Assessments –core data set

Northern Katanga, Democratic Republic of Congo 2012

CIAT, UEA/Dev, CRS, and Caritas, 2012. Seed System Security

Assessment, northern Katanga (Kalemie and Nyunzu Territories)

Democratic Republic of Congo. Sept 2012. Kinshasa: Catholic

Relief Services and International Center for Tropical Agriculture

http://seedsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SSSA-final-

report-northern-Katanga.pdf

Southern Malawi 2011

CIAT, WALA, CRS and Government of Malawi. Seed System Security

Assessment, Southern Malawi. October 2011. Blantyre, Malawi:

CRS and International Center for Tropical Agriculture. http://

seedsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SSSA-Southern-

Malawi-Final-Report-.pdf

Eastern and Coastal Kenya 2011

CIAT, CRS, Caritas, KARI, World Vision and University of East Anglia.

Seed System Security Assessment, Eastern and Coastal Kenya.

September 2011. Nairobi, Kenya: Catholic Relief Services and

International Center for Tropical Agriculture. http://seedsystem.

org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/eastern_coastal_kenya_final_

report.pdf

South Sudan 2010

CIAT, FAO, MAF-GoSS, AAH-I, ACTED, ADRA, AMURT, CRS,

DRC, NPA, 2011. Seed System Security Assessment, Southern

Sudan, November−December 2010. Funded by the European

Commission Humanitarian Aid Department and the Office of

Foreign Disaster Assistance, United States Agency for

International Development. Juba, Southern Sudan: FAO and CIAT.

http://seedsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sssa_southern_

sudan.pdf

Haiti 2010

CIAT, CRS, SNS-MARDNR, UEA, FAO, World Concern, Save the

Children, ACDI/VOCA, Save the Children and World Vision,

2010. Seed System Security Assessment, Haiti. A study funded by

the United States Agency for International Development, Office of

Foreign Disaster Assistance. (USAID/ODFA) August 2010. Arusha,

Tanzania: International Center for Tropical Agriculture. http://

seedsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SSSA-Haiti-Main-

Report.pdf

Zimbabwe 2009

CIAT, CRS, World Vision, Care, AGRITEX and CIMMYT, 2009. Seed

System Security Assessment, Zimbabwe. A study funded by the

United States Agency for International Development. Office of

Foreign Disaster Assistance. in July 2009 Rome: International

Center for Tropical Agriculture. http://seedsystem.org/wp-content/

uploads/2013/07/zimbabwe_2009_final_report.pdf

Also cited

Timor-Leste 2013

CRS, Mercy Corps, MAF/Seeds of Life, CARE, CIAT and UEA/Dev.

Seed System Security Assessment, Timor-Leste October 2013. Dili:

Timor-Leste http://seedsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/

SSSA-Timor-Leste-report-final.pdf

Shawn McGuire is a Senior Lec-

turer in Natural Resources, in the

School of International Develop-

ment, University of East Anglia

(Norwich, UK). His research on

smallholder farmers’use of seed

systems seeks to promote better

policy and practice around technol-

ogy transfer and food security,

across a number of developing

countries. Much of this work, in

collaboration with Sperling, is gath-

ered in the website www.

seedsystem.org. Other research

interests include understanding the

challenges facing innovation systems in developing countries as they build

capacity in agricultural biotechnology (molecular breeding), and the political

debates surrounding genetic resource management. He has authored over 25

articles or book chapters: besides those cited above, recent ones include:

BFarmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four

common misconceptions.^(Coomes et al., Food Policy), and BMeasuring

effectiveness, efficiency and equity in an experimental Payments for

Ecosystem Services trial.^(Martin et al., Global Environmental Change).

S. McGuire, L. Sperling

Louise Sperling is a Senior Tech-

nical Advisor on Seed Systems

for Catholic Relief Services

(CRS), and previously a Principal

Researcher-Consultant at the In-

ternational Center for Tropical

Agriculture (CIAT). She co-

founded www.seedsystem.org as

a resource for practice, research

and policy, and has managed and

technically backstopped projects

and programs in over 25

countries of Africa, Asia and

Latin America. Her focus is on

impact-oriented plant breeding,

seed systems, and delivery approaches—with all programs centering

around gender equity and farmer empowerment. Sperling’swork

embraces, ‘normal’small farmer and pastoral systems as well as high

stress ones: for instance she led research missions linked to: the 1983–

85 seminal drought across East Africa, the 1994 civil war and genocide in

Rwanda, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, and the 2011 Referendum in South

Sudan. Widely consulting for a range of agencies (the UN system, the

World Bank, Rockefeller, northern and southern NGOs), Sperling is the

author of over seventy articles and book chapters, including, recent

pieces: Making seed systems more resilient to stress (Global Environmen-

tal Change, 2013, McGuire and Sperling); Persistent myths about emer-

gency seed aid (Food Policy 2010, Sperling and McGuire); and Bean

seed delivery in sub-Saharan Africa: the power of partnerships Society

and Natural Resources, 2010, Rubyogo, Sperling, Muthoni and

Buruchara).

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

Comparing the contribution of formal and local seed systems to household seed security in eastern Zimbabwe

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

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.

Village Seed Production Groups Supported by Network and Capacity Building in Disseminating Modern Varieties in Indonesia

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2023

Strategic food crops production such as rice, maize and soybean are determined by harvested areas multiplied by productivity, while productivity is affected by availability of highquality seed of modern varieties which is adaptive to both biotic and abiotic stress. This study aims to construct a nationwide network and capacity building in supporting village seed production groups (VSPGs) for disseminating modern varieties to increase productivity. VSPGs constructed based on community seed system in corresponding to the national seed system and supported by breeder seed management unit network between national research institutes and assessment institute of agricultural technology. The seed production was implemented by a VSPGs on farmer field school with field laboratory 3-4 ha to introduce new modern varieties and quality seed production at once. The seeds of the available varieties in-situ 44 adopted 19 of the 133 varieties for rice, while the maize seeds available 8 were adopted 5 out of 86 varieties, and for soybean seeds there were 14 and adopted 7 of the 17 varieties released in the last 12 years. Acceleration in-situ seed provision can be pursued through integrated seed supply network, capacity building and market access to speed up and adoption of modern varieties.

More Interventions, Low Adoption: To What Extent Are the Existing Seed Sources to Blame? The Case of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato in Central and Northern Malawi

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2023

Vitamin A dense Orange fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) has the potential to build resilient livelihoods against Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD), food insecurity, and climate change. However, the adoption of OFSP among smallholder farmers in Malawi remains low. Although many scholars across the globe have reviewed the seed systems of OFSP, no empirical study, in Malawi or elsewhere, has modelled how the use of the various sources of vines affect farmers’ seed security and eventual decisions to adopt biofortified OFSP varieties. The study employed a mixed methods approach and used a Triple Hurdle model to analyze the effect of the existing sources of vines on the adoption of OFSP among 721 randomly sampled households in central and northern Malawi. The study also developed a seed security experience score (SSES) in order to assess the capacity of the existing sources of vines to ensure farmers’ seed security. By defining adoption as a three-stage process, and by shifting the seed systems focus to capacity of the existing sources of vines, the study departs from the conventional approaches that most scholars have used to model adoption of OFSP. The study found that the existing sources of vines influenced all the three stages of adoption. The SSES results indicated that the capacity of the existing sources subjected the majority of the farmers to a highly seed insecurity status. Interventions therefore must be designed to address the seed security challenges associated with the existing sources in order to enhance the capacity of the sources for widespread and sustained adoption of OFSP.

Linking seed networks and crop diversity contributions to people: A case study in small-scale farming systems in Sahelian Senegal

Article

Sep 2023
AGR SYST

CONTEXT Small farms rely on a range of nature's contributions to people (NCPs) provided by crop diversity, covering both material and immaterial dimensions that are crucial for livelihoods and well-being. The maintenance of these NCPs over time, despite perturbations, is a key component of small farms' resilience. However, the processes involved in farmers accessing the different NCPs provided by crops are largely unknown. Such knowledge would be instrumental for evaluating the vulnerability or resilience of farmers to potential disruptions that affect these distribution channels. OBJECTIVE In this study, we analyzed how the seed provisioning networks used by farmers to access crops relate to the different NCPs they receive from these crops, through a case study in Sahelian Senegal. METHODS Field surveys were conducted with 85 farmers, half men and half women, from two villages. The surveys documented which varieties of three important staple crop species (pearl millet, cowpea, peanut) farmers grew. Farmers were asked to cite their motivations for cultivating each variety as a proxy for NCPs, and to explain from where they obtained the seeds of each variety of these three species. We mobilized recent developments in Social-Ecological Network research, representing the relationships between social entities (i.e., farmers and seed sources), ecological entities (i.e., crops), and NCPs (i.e., motivations) as networks. We applied a block model clustering approach to analyze these relationships by testing if particular seed sources were associated with particular motivations, and if differences existed between men and women. We also analyzed households' profiles according to the motivations they cited and the seed sources they were connected to. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS We found that some crops contributions were related to different seed sources, for instance crops associated to food provision were sourced through markets, peers, and legacy, while other contributions were related to one seed source type, for instance crops associated to attachment were sourced exclusively through legacy. Women relied on a more limited pool of seed sources than men, and they preferentially source seeds from peers. Last, two groups of households were differentiated based on the number of crops contributions and of seed sources they mentioned. SIGNIFICANCE Our study brings insights on how the observed social-ecological network patterns affect the access of men and women farmers to NCPs, and the consequences for the maintenance of NCP provision in the face of perturbations. It contributes to unraveling the processes involved in the resilience of small farms that rely on crop diversity for their livelihoods.

A more grounded view of 'farmer entrepreneurship': how Zimbabwean smallholder farmers fundamentally differ in their entrepreneurial behaviours

Article

Nov 2023

This paper aims to investigate the entrepreneurial behaviours exhibited by commercial smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe, focusing on their socioeconomic characteristics, and considers their implication for outcomes of livelihood resilience in a resource-constrained and turbulent rural context. The study used survey data collected from 430 smallholder farmers in Masvingo province, Zimbabwe. Using a two-step cluster analysis, the study constructed a typology of farmers based on their entrepreneurial behaviour and socioeconomic characteristics. The results revealed that commercial smallholder farmers are heterogeneous in terms of their entrepreneurial behaviours. Four clusters were identified: non-entrepreneurial, goal-driven, means-driven and ambidextrous. Beyond their entrepreneurial behaviours, these clusters significantly differ in the socioeconomic characterises (gender, age, education levels, farm size, proximity to the market and social connection) and farm performance (seasonal sales per hectare and farm income per hectare). The typology framework relating farmers' entrepreneurial behaviours to their socioeconomic characteristics and business performance is important to tailor and therefore improve the effectiveness of farmer entrepreneurship programmes and policies. In particular, tailoring farmer entrepreneurship education is crucial to distribute land, finance and market resources in purposive ways to promote a combination of smallholder farmers’ effectual and causal behaviours at an early stage of their farm ventures.

How much of the Mexican agricultural supply is produced by small farms, and how?

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2023
PLOS ONE

The contribution of small farms to the global food supply is in debate due to lack of empirical evidence. In Mexico, small farms have been relatively important for national food supply due to an agrarian reform in the first half of the 20 th century, but their role has been decreasing in the last decades. The aim of this study is to quantify how much small farms produce of the Mexican agricultural supply, and with which farming practices, using the 2019 National Agricultural Survey. The results show that small farms produce 19% of the national agricultural production with similar farming practices to those of medium and large farms. When considering imports and exports, small farms produce 15% of the national agricultural supply. The production of small farms consists mainly of cash crops (e.g. sugar cane, fruits & vegetables, animal products, fodder crops) and, to a lesser extent, staple crops such as maize and beans. The fact that small farms produce one fifth of the national production after decades of governmental support towards large farms suggests that they have resilient production systems. The results of this study support that stronger efforts should be made to enhance the role of small farms in achieving Mexican food sovereignty. This will not only have benefits in terms of food supply but may also have a wide range of social and environmental benefits.

Ethiopia Country Report 2021 The African Seed Access Index

Technical Report

Full-text available

Feb 2022

Informal Commercial Seed Systems: Leave, Suppress or Support Them?

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2023

Smallholder farmers require seed systems that can meet diverse functions: move a range of planting material; spread specialty varieties (climate-resilient or nutrient-dense varieties); reach last-mile areas; and perform in high-stress contexts. Acknowledging that smallholders use both formal and informal systems, this article focuses on the latter and on a component largely unexamined to date: informal commercial seed systems (ICSSs). Four evidence-based cases show how ICCSs contribute to varied seed system functions. In Tanzania, traders have moved multiple modern bean varieties countrywide and within just a few years. In the remote Ugandan north, traders have commercialized the sale of sweetpotato vines (produced off-season) to those lacking their own critical marshlands. In Bolivia, traders routinely sell native and modern varieties of seed tubers to farmers, along with their commerce in ware potatoes. In central Mali, a cluster of villages produces and sells pearl millet seed that is specially adapted to extreme drought conditions. All four cases share key characteristics: they distinguish seed vs. grain, serve local, regional, and international customers, and, perhaps most importantly, are sustained without subsidy or project support. As ICSSs meet farmers’ demands for seed that is not supplied by other actors, a question remains as to whether ICSSs should be left alone, leveraged, or improved further. Recognizing possible legal and operational challenges, this article suggests that ICSSs first be studied in-depth—characterizing their variations, locales, and system functions—so that future debates on possible support can be grounded in concrete evidence of ICSSs’ strengths, weaknesses, and unique benefits.

Bridging the gap? Public-private partnerships and genetically modified crop development for smallholder farmers in Africa

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Societal Impact Statement Genetically modified (GM) crops have the potential to address multiple challenges for African smallholder farmers but are limited by several institutional constraints. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are seen as an organizational fix to one such constraint, bringing privately held intellectual property rights on key crop technologies to African public institutions to develop GM crops for smallholder farmers. Here, a new comprehensive dataset of GM crops in Africa is used to understand the extent and efficacy of PPP‐led GM crop development for smallholder farmers and discuss what might limit their potential in the future. Summary Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted as a key tool to address multiple challenges in Africa, including the impacts of climate change and food insecurity. Observers have noted, however, significant institutional challenges to achieving such goals, most notably, intellectual property rights (IPR) to key GM traits being held by private companies who have limited incentives to develop those technologies for smallholder farmers. To bridge the gap between privately held IPR and pro‐poor crop breeding, advocates have called for increased funding for institutional innovations such as public–private partnerships (PPPs) to facilitate the transfer of crop technologies from private companies to public research institutes. For the past two decades, donors and firms have invested considerable resources toward PPPs. However, to date, few research efforts have empirically examined the extent and effectiveness of PPPs at the continental scale. This study draws from a new comprehensive dataset on GM crop research and development in Africa to examine whether the anticipated advantages of PPPs have resulted in an improved ability to deliver GM crops to smallholder farmers. We find that although PPP research has focused on crops and traits more relevant for smallholder farmers, many of these efforts have been suspended, with only one crop thus far reaching the hands of farmers. PPPs can address some issues related to GM crop development but still appear constrained by other institutional challenges, which may limit their development, reach, and the achievement of targeted benefits for smallholder farmers.

Gender dynamics in seed systems: an integrative review of seed promotion interventions in Africa

Article

Oct 2023

Gender gaps in adoption of high-quality seeds of improved varieties persist in Sub-Saharan Africa, despite the implementation of various seed promotion interventions aimed at increasing adoption among all farmers. This paper reviews existing literature on common seed promotion interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa (including subsidies, financial services, quality certification schemes, and agricultural extension) and asks to what extent these interventions serve women farmers as much as men farmers. In addition, we consider the evidence on the effectiveness of gender-intentional design features that may enable seed promotion interventions to better serve women. We find mixed evidence that common seed promotion interventions reach, benefit, and empower women, with contextual factors and program design features driving differences in effectiveness. In some cases interventions are more effective for women when combined with gender-intentional program features, such as: explicit targeting of and resource provision to women (or joint targeting to couples); a focus on domains where it is more culturally acceptable for women to make decisions; and provision of information by women experts or through other modalities. We conclude that more work is needed to develop and test interventions that can close gender gaps in seed adoption.

"This seed is like ourselves" --- A case study from Rajasthan, India, on the social aspects of biodiversity and farmers‘ management of pearl millet seed

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2002

Anja Christinck

Since the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the Convention on Safeguarding Biological Diversity (CBD) was developed and signed by deputies from many nations, the imminent loss of the world’s plant and animal diversity has become an increasing issue of concern for a large section of the world’s public. For the case of crop species, the heritage of traditional varieties is literally in the hands of the farmers: They decide whether or not they will maintain the seed of a particular variety and invest time in it’s careful selection and storage. In this book, the concerns and observations of farmers and their knowledge of pearl millet seed are documented. To them, the term “biodiversity” probably has no significant meaning, and yet their statements vividly reveal how the availability and quality of seed directly affects all aspects of their lives − including their physical and mental well-being, their social relations and their economic situation. The main methodological approach used in this book includes semi-structured interviews with individuals and groups, alongside observation and simulation exercises and direct observation of farmers' seed management activities. The results and discussion section of the book is organized around four main topics: (1) Farmers' concept of "varieties"; (2) their understanding of food and fodder quality; (3) their seed management practices and how they influence diversity and productivity of pearl millet populations; and (4) the importance of traditional seed markets in Rajasthan. Finally, conclusions are drawn with regard to in situ or on-farm conservation, plant breeding, seed markets and information networks. This book is part of the Communication and Extension Series, edited by Hermann Boland, Volker Hoffmann and Uwe Jens Nagel and published by Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim (Germany). Authorization for sharing the book at researchgate was kindly provided by the publisher. Hard copies of all books of this series are available at: https://www.margraf-publishers.eu/en/bookshop/kommunikation-beratung/, or at various international internet book stores.

Seed Storage Brief #3: Economics and promotion: Insights for program design

Technical Report

Full-text available

Nov 2014

Farmer-managed seed is central to food security. The briefs in this series aim to provide practical guidance to program managers about seed storage. Overview: - Defining Seed Quality and Principles: Seed Storage in a Smallholder Context - Hermetic Seed Storage Technology: Principles, Use, and Economics—A Practitioner’s Guide - Economics and Promotion: Insights for Program Design - The series includes case studies that offer examples from the field.

Improving technology delivery mechanisms: lessons from bean seed systems research in East and Central Africa

Article

Full-text available

Dec 1999
AGR HUM VALUES

This article addresses concerns of technology dissemination for small farmers, specifically focusing on the diffusion of new varieties of a self-pollinating crop. Based on bean seed systems research in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it shows four commonly-held basic assumptions to be false, namely that: first, small-scale farmers do not buy bean seed; they mainly rely on their own stocks or obtain seed from other farmers; second, that small-scale farmers cannot afford to buy seed of newly introduced bean varieties or will not risk it; third, that farmer seed networks function efficiently in varietal diffusion; and lastly, that a good variety will sell itself. Grounded in the reality under which small farmers actually operate, the article offers recommendations for improving the delivery of newly introduced bean cultivars by NARS and seed suppliers. Most of the recommendations are relevant to other self-pollinating crops.

Vulnerability of African maize yield to climate change and variability during 1961–2010

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2014

Because of the necessity of feeding growing populations, there is a critical need to assess the variation and vulnerability of crop yields to potential climate change. Databases of maize yields and climate variables in the maize growing seasons were used to assess the vulnerability of African maize yields to climate change and variability with different levels of management at country scale between 1961 and 2010. The ratios of time-series trends or standard deviations of detrended yield deviation and climate variables including temperature (T-mean), precipitation (P) and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) were used to analyze the vulnerability of maize yields to climate change and variability for each country in Africa. Most countries, where soil fertility had been declining owing to low levels of fertilizer use over many years and limited water resources, had decreasing maize yields. The negative impacts of increasing temperature and decreasing precipitation and SPEI on maize yields progressively increased at the whole continent scale over the time period studied. During the maize growing seasons 1961-2010, each 1 degrees C of T-mean increase resulted in yield losses of over 10% in eight countries and 5-10% in 10 countries, but yields increased by more than 5% in four relatively cool countries. Decreases of 10% average P resulted in more than 5% decreases in yields in 20 countries and each decrease of 0.5 SPEI resulted in over 30% losses of maize yields in 32 countries. Greater T-mean or P or SPEI variability in Africa may also bring about greater fluctuations in yield. In addition, countries with better management, which would be expected to have better yields, may be more vulnerable to yield losses due to adverse physical conditions. Better irrigation and fertilizer application will be important to sustain higher yields in the future, as will the development of maize varieties with greater heat and drought tolerance.

Preface to the Fourth Edition

Article

Sep 2011

Tables. Boxes. Figures. Getting Files from the Wiley ftp and Internet Sites. List of Data Sites Provides on Web Site. Preface to the Fourth Edition. Part 1: Basic Concepts. 1. Use of Sample Surveys. 2. The Population and the Sample. Part 2: Major Sampling Designs and Estimation Procedures. 3. Simple Random Sampling. 4. Systematic Sampling. 5. Stratification and Stratified Random Sampling. 6. Stratified Random Sampling: Further Issues. 7. Ratio Estimation. 8. Cluster Sampling: Introduction and Overview. 9. Simple One-Stage Cluster Sampling. 10. Two-Stage Cluster Sampling: Clusters Sampled with Equal Probability. 11. Cluster Sampling in Which Clusters Are Sampled with Unequal Probability: Probability Proportional to Size Sampling. 12. Variance Estimation in Complex Sample Surveys. Part 3: Selected Topics in Sample Survey Methodology. 13. Nonresponse and Missing Data in Sample Surveys. 14. Selected Topics in Sample Design and Estimation Methodology. 15. Telephone Survey Sampling (Michael W. Link and Mansour Fahimi). 16. Constructing the Survey Weights (Paul P. Biemer and Sharon L. Christ). 17. Strategies for Design-Based Analysis of Sample Survey Data. Appendix. Answers to Selected Exercises. Index.

4. Emergency food security in western Sudan: what is it for?

Chapter

Jan 1991

Alex de Waal

Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications.

Article

Dec 1992

Taking stock of the genetically modified seed sector worldwide: Market, stakeholders, and prices

Article

Aug 2014

Sylvie Bonny

The seed sector has become a subject of attention, debate, and even controversy with the development of genetically modified (GM) crops. However, this sector is generally rather poorly known. This paper aims to take stock of the economy of transgenic seeds in order to better understand the structure of this seed sector, its size, stakeholders, pricing, and major trends. The global market of the various types of seeds (saved, conventional, and transgenic) is first presented, as well as some aspects of their development, such as the significant consolidation in the past few decades. Next, the economic characteristics of the transgenic seed sector are analysed: actors, research and development expenditures, and the value of technology fees. In the final section, the cost of transgenic seeds is studied at the farm level, notably through the case of soybeans in the United States. The rise in transgenic seed prices over time is analysed as well as some repercussions of the growing trend toward the use of stacked traits. The conclusion highlights some issues related to the use of transgenic seeds from the point of view of seed and food security.

Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications

Article

Aug 1992

Sampling of populations: methods and applications. Solutions manual. 4th ed

Article

Seed systems smallholder farmers use

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Agricultural statistics of area, production and productivity of rice of different sectors of U.P., I...

Interactive 3-D graphics workstations in stereotaxy: clinical requirements, algorithms, and solution...

Getting Behind the Walls and Fences: Methodological Considerations of Gaining Access to Middle-class...

Evaluation of different PCR-based DNA fingerprinting techniques for assessing the genetic variabilit...