Working Paper 165

Anja Christinck, Fred Rattunde, Alpha Kergna, Wellington Mulinge and E6a Weltzien

Identifying Options for the Development of Sustainable

Seed Systems - Insights from Kenya and Mali

ISSN 1864-6638 Bonn, February 2018

ZEF Working Paper Series, ISSN 1864-6638
Center for Development Research, University of Bonn
Editors: Christian Borgemeister, Joachim von Braun, Manfred Denich, Till Stellmacher and Eva Youkhana

Contact addresses:

Anja Christinck (PhD)

Senior Scientist
German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL)
Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
E-mail: a.christinck@ditsl.org

Fred Rattunde (PhD)

Honorary Fellow
Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison
1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
E-mail: f.rattunde@gmail.com

Alpha Oumar Kergna (PhD)

Agroéconomiste
Programme Économie des Filières (Ecofil), Institut d'Économie Rurale (IER)
B.P.258, Bamako, Mali
E-mail : a.kergna@yahoo.fr

Wellington Mulinge (PhD)

Senior Principal Research Officer
Socio-Economics and Policy Development, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation
(KALRO)
KALRO Headquarters, Kaptagat Road, Off Wayaki Way
P.O. Box 57811, 00200 Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: wellington.mulinge@kalro.org

Eva Weltzien (PhD)

Honorary Fellow
Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison
1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
E-mail: eva.weltzien@gmail.com
 Identifying Options for the Development
of Sustainable Seed Systems –

Insights from Kenya and Mali

Anja Christinck, Fred Rattunde, Alpha Kergna, Wellington Mulinge and Eva Weltzien

i
Acknowledgements

First, we are grateful to Prof Joachim von Braun und Dr Heike Baumüller (ZEF/PARI), for their guidance
and encouragement in conducting this study1 in a way that provides a concrete basis for future actions
by interested seed system actors.
The wholehearted support of Dr Lawrence Mose, the National PARI Coordinator for Kenya, including
his provision of documents and contacts for KALRO specialists, is gratefully acknowledged. The interest
a d the ope i g of doo s D Mose, D Feliste Maki i, KAL‘O Deput Di e to ‘esea h, a d D
Jo e Mali g a, Di e to KAL‘O Food C ops ‘esea h I stitute, ga e this stud a highl app e iated
tail i d . Like ise, the o plete suppo t D Daouda Ballo, Mali Natio al PA‘I Coo di ato , as ell
as the interest shown by Dr Niang, IER Scientific Director, was most appreciated.
The contributions and sharing of all interviewees and workshop participants formed the basis for the
study, on which this paper relies, and are greatly appreciated. Furthermore, the study could not have
succeeded without the tireless and full effort of the field team members. Assistance with interviews
and stakeholder workshops provided by the field team in Kenya, Dr Simon Kimenju, Dr Charles
Wasonga, Eric Murithi Kamui and Mugira Agostino and the field team in Mali, Gabriel Coulibaly, Samuel
Guindo, Hamidou Guindo and Joel Tangara is equally appreciated. Particular appreciation is noted for
Gabriel Coulibaly for facilitating the Mali workshop and guiding the heated debates in a positive
direction.
The contributions of Stephan von Borstel in creating figures, and of Thor Lawrence in technical editing
are also gratefully acknowledged. The support provided by the German Institute for Tropical and
Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL), particularly Dr Christian Hülsebusch (CEO), Prof Brigitte Kaufmann
(director research), Esther Mieves (research assistant) and all other scientific and administrative staff
members are also highly appreciated.
Fi all , e a e ost tha kful fo the ho e ases p o ided A e Ma ie ‘a , “ali ata Keita a d
Pierre Gravel for our field work in Kenya and Mali.

1
This Working paper is based on the Final Project Report: Christinck, A., Rattunde, F., Kergna, A., Mulinge, W. &
Weltzien, E. 2017a. You a t g o alo e — Prioritized Sustainable Seed System Development Options for
Staple Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa: Cases of Kenya and Mali. November 2017:
http://research4agrinnovation.org/publication/seed_systems_mali_kenya.
ii
Abstract

This paper results from a study that was commissioned to contribute to the Program of Accompanying
Research for Agricultural Innovation (PARI)2. The overall purpose was to propose an agenda for
supporting sustainable development of seed systems in two Sub-Saharan countries, Kenya and Mali,
based on the experiences and insights of seed system actors who contribute to various functions and
operate at different scales.
The study relied on a mixed methodology, including (1) a desk review of secondary sources; (2)
interviews with individual seed system actors and key informants; and (3) workshops in which diverse
actors jointly discussed and prioritized options for sustainable seed system development. Staple cereal
crops were targeted that are important for the farming and food systems of both countries: maize and
sorghum for Kenya and maize, rice, sorghum and pearl millet for Mali.
In Kenya, most breeding for staple cereal crops is done by public breeding programmes, while some
private breeding companies are also active. Seed production is mostly based on contracts between
seed companies and large-scale farmers, while distribution is organized in the form of multi-level sales
networks. In Mali, all breeding for staple cereal crops is done by public breeding programmes, with
small farmer-managed seed enterprises being engaged in seed production and dissemination in their
geographical areas. Collaboration between breeders and farmer cooperatives is extensive and crucial
for the development and spread of new varieties, since the purchase of certified cereal seed by Malian
farmers is quite a novelty. Limited choice of new varieties exists in both countries, particularly under
conditions where climate variability and low soil fertility prevail. Furthermore, important quality and
use-related traits are not systematically considered in breeding programmes. Slow and costly release
procedures, limited availability of information about new varieties along with cash-flow constraints at
various levels are factors that limit the dynamics of seed system development.
Differences in structure, organization and size of the seed markets in Kenya and Mali, and in various
actors o t i utio s to seed s ste fu tio s, lead to different outcomes in terms of quality,
availability and access to seed. One important hypothesis for further discussion is that business models
that include more decentralized models of seed production and distribution have comparative
advantages for meeting the highly diverse demands of farmers in countries like Kenya or Mali, with a
wide range of agro-ecological conditions and production systems, and could help reduce transaction
costs. Furthermore, regulatory systems that provide space for a diversity of approaches for variety
development, release, seed production and dissemination, are expected to be more supportive in this
particular situation, compared with systems that focus on a narrow range of actors and variety types.
Important conclusions are that sustainable seed system development requires more actor-
orientation, ith a e tral fo us o far ers apa ities a d eeds. Furthermore, strengthening
a tors apa ities to olle t, share a d assess i formation about varieties and their comparative
performances will contribute to dynamic, responsive seed systems. Plant breeding, as the source of
value creation, needs to be regarded as an integral component of functioning seed systems and
requires joint consideration of what demands for innovations actually exist in order for seed systems
to advance. Decentralized seed production and marketing enterprises can serve as nuclei for an
emerging locally-based seed industry where market opportunities are limited and preferences diverse.
Lastly, seed systems in both Kenya and Mali could benefit from more rigorous assessments of how
interventions, new technologies, policies and formal organizations influence seed system innovation
and sustainable development.
Keywords: Seed system; human activity system; seed policy; seed system security; actor-orientation.

2
http://research4agrinnovation.org
iii
List of Abbreviations

ABSF African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum

ARIPO African Intellectual Property Organization
BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
CBD Convention on Biological diversity
CICR Comité International de la Croix Rouge
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
CMDT Compagnie Malienne pour le Développement du Textile
CNSOV Comité National des “e e es d O igi e V g tal
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DUS distinctness, uniformity and stability
EAC East African Community
ECOWAS Economic Community of West Africa States
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GeRRI Genetic Resources Research Institute
GMOs Genetically Modified Organisms
HDI Human Development Index
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
ISTA International Seed Testing Association
ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
KALRO Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation
KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health and Inspectorate Service
MoALF Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
NBA National Biosafety Authority
NGO Non-governmental organization
NPTs National Performance Trials
OAPI Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ON Office du Niger
PARI Program of Accompanying Research for Agricultural Innovation
QDS Quality Declared Seed
SEWOH O e Wo ld, No Hu ge initiative of the German Government
UNCDP United Nations Committee for Development Policy
UNDP United Nations Development Program
VCU Value for cultivation and use
WAAPP Western African Agricultural Productivity Promotion

iv
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT II
ABSTRACT III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES VII
1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Study objectives 2
2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 Basic Concepts and Issues 3
2.1.1 Seed System Functions 3
2.1.2 Actor Categories 5
2.1.3 Seed System Security 6
2.2 Methodology Used 6
2.2.1 Choice of Countries, Crops and Study Areas 6
2.2.2 Choice of Interview Partners and Workshop Participants 7
2.2.3 Methods Used for Interviews and Workshops 7
3 RESULTS OF KENYA CASE STUDY 8
3.1 Basi I for atio o Ke ya s Agri ultural a d Seed Se tor 8
3.1.1 Basic Economic Information (Kenya) 8
3.1.2 Importance of Agriculture and Selected Crops (Kenya) 8
3.1.3 ‘egulato F a e o k fo Ke a s “eed “e to 9
3.1.4 “t u tu e a d Esti ated “ize of Ke a s Maize a d “o ghu “eed Ma ket 9
3.1.5 Seed Aid (Kenya) 11
3.2 Interview Results (Kenya) 11
3.3 Workshop Results (Kenya) 13
4 RESULTS OF MALI CASE STUDY 16
4.1 Basi I for atio o Mali s Agri ultural a d Seed Se tor 16
4.1.1 Basic Economic Information (Mali) 16
4.1.2 Importance of Agriculture and Selected Crops (Mali) 16
4.1.3 ‘egulato F a e o k fo Mali s “eed “e to 17
4.1.4 “t u tu e a d Esti ated “ize of Mali s “eed Market 18
4.1.5 Seed Aid (Mali) 19
4.2 Interview Results (Mali) 20
4.3 Workshop Results (Mali) 21
5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 24
5.1 Seed Quality 24
5.1.1 Varietal Attributes 24
5.1.2 Varietal Diversity 24
5.1.3 Biological and Technical Seed Quality Aspects 25
5.2 Seed Availability at the Right Time and Place 25
5.2.1 Regulatory Context 26
5.2.2 Collaboration Between Seed System Actors to Improve Availability of new Varieties 26
v
 5.2.3 Diverse Models for Seed Dissemination 27
5.3 Seed Access 27
5.3.1 “o ial “eed P i e 28
5.3.2 Seed Prices in Monetary Terms 28
5.3.3 The Cost of Free Seed 29
5.3.4 Financial Management Tools to Facilitate Seed Access 29
5.3.5 Cross-cutting Issues 30
6 CONCLUSIONS AND ENTRY POINTS FOR SUSTAINABLE SEED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 31
7 REFERENCES 33

vi
List of Figures, Tables and Boxes

Figure 1: Five basic seed system functions (centre), embedded in larger socio-cultural and agro-
ecological contexts. .................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Actor categories identified based on their contributions to seed system functions. ............... 5

Table 1: Study areas for studying seed systems of selected cereal crops in Kenya and Mali,
ep ese ti g high a d lo adoptio le els of i p o ed a ieties fo ea h op. ................................. 7
Table 2: Amounts of locally produced and imported certified seed (tonne) available in Kenya for the
period 2006/2007 to 2016/2017 ............................................................................................................10
Table 3: Summary of information provided by seed system actors in Kenya in relation to seed system
functions (differentiated by actor categories if applicable) ...................................................................11
Table 4: Seed system development options suggested by discussion groups formed based on study
areas (Session 1) and actor groups (Session 2) during a workshop with seed system actors in Kenya. 14
Table 5: Priorities set jointly among options for seed system improvement by seed system actors in
Kenya ......................................................................................................................................................15
Table 6: Cultivated area, recommended seed rates, estimated total amounts of seed required for
sowing and amounts of certified seed available for sorghum, pearl millet, maize and rice crops in
Mali .........................................................................................................................................................18
Table 7: Summary of information provided by seed system actors in Mali in relation to seed system
functions (dif-ferentiated by actor categories if applicable). .................................................................20
Table 8: Seed system development options suggested by discussion groups formed based on
crops/agro-ecologies for improved availability and adoption of improved seed. .................................22
Table 9: Priorities among options for seed system improvement set jointly by seed system actors in
Mali. ........................................................................................................................................................23

vii
1 Background and Objectives

Seed is a fundamental resource in agriculture, and of significant interest to farmers, seed and food
industries, civil society and policy-makers worldwide. In many developing countries, government
initiatives, supported by international organizations and donors, aim at transforming seed systems,
mostly based on macro-economic rationales and considerations. This paper aims to complement this
perspective by examining which changes or options for action the people who establish and maintain
seed systems through their professional activities would suggest in order to make these systems more
sustainable.

1.1 Background
This paper results from a study that was commissioned to contribute to the Program of Accompanying
‘esea h fo Ag i ultu al I o atio PA‘I , hi h is a o po e t of the Ge a Go e e t s One
Wo ld, No Hu ge “EWOH i itiati e.
This initiative focuses on two key challenges: (1) To eradicate hunger and malnutrition, with a focus on
those who are most vulnerable and worst affected; and (2) To create a framework to ensure that future
generations will have sufficient, affordable and healthy food in spite of the rapidly expanding world
population (BMZ, 2015).
Mode izatio of ag i ultu e pla s a i po ta t ole fo add essi g these halle ges, ith seed ei g
a critical entry point for enhancing value and productivity in agriculture. This is why it is in the focus of
many agricultural policies and interventions, including in sub-Saharan Africa — mostly with a view
to a ds eati g e a li g e i o e ts fo p i ate se tor investment in breeding and commercial
seed marketing.
However, there is an ongoing debate on the benefits and costs of such seed system interventions. Our
study was meant to contribute to this debate by exploring current and anticipated developments of
seed systems for selected staple cereal crops f o the pe spe ti e of a to s o the g ou d , i.e. those
who manage genetic resources; create varieties; produce, distribute and use seed; and to develop an
agenda for sustainable seed system development based on their insights and priorities.
The study focuses on Kenya and Mali, countries situated in East and West Africa, respectively,
representing highly contrasting contexts for breeding and seed systems. For example, Kenya was the
first country in Africa to join the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
(UPOV) in 1999, and has considerably longer experience with building institutions and procedures
related to formal variety testing, registration and release compared with West African countries, like
Mali, which are currently in the process of adapting their institutions and procedures based on their
obligations deriving from membership of regional organizations.
Moreover, Kenya has a long history in science-based plant breeding, with the first public maize
breeding programme being established in 1955, resulting in the first release of a variety in 1961 and
the first hybrid variety in 1964. A growing seed industry has developed in the country, focusing on a
variety of crops, including cereals, oil crops, horticultural crops and Irish potatoes (Sikinyi, 2010).
The national maize breeding programme in Mali began operating later, with the first variety being
released in 1972 and the first hybrid in 1984 (CIMMYT, 2015). Substantial engagement of researcher-
led sorghum breeding occurred from the 1980s, and included collaboration with international
organizations and initiatives, such as the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics (ICRISAT) (ABSF, 2010).
Furthermore, the number of seed companies in Mali is much lower than in Kenya, and purchasing
seeds is still uncommon in many areas for several or all staple cereals grown. It was thus expected that

1
these country contrasts could lead to differentiated priorities and needs for seed system interventions
responding to the different contexts.

1.2 Study objectives

The overall purpose of this study was to propose an agenda for supporting sustainable development
of seed systems in Kenya and Mali. This agenda is to be based on the experiences and insights of seed
system actors, contributing to various seed system functions and operating at different scales.
The study focused on staple cereal crops, namely maize and sorghum in Kenya, and maize, rice,
sorghum and pearl millet in Mali. The specific study objectives were:
 To compile information about the current context of seed system functioning, including basic
economic information, policies and legal frameworks, for each country and the staple cereal crop
considered;
 To identify constraints and opportunities for enhancing seed system dynamics, based on the
insights and capacities of diverse actors in each country; and
 To propose an agenda for targeted capacity building and strengthening of the collaborative process
of seed system innovation for each country.

2
2 Approach and Methodology

Many studies o seed s ste s disti guish et ee fo al a d i fo al s ste s, ith the fo e

following more or less the model of an industrial supply chain, while the latter entail a range of mostly
farmer-managed activities, e.g. to save, use, exchange and sell seed in local networks and markets
(McGuire and Sperling, 2016).
However, the division of seed system actors and components into fo al a d i fo al atego ies
appears problematic since there is a growing degree of overlap between both systems. For example,
varieties originally developed by the formal sector may enter the informal, and vice versa. In Mali,
farmers increasingly engage in formal seed production and marketing, while local traders may offer
seed from the formal sector alongside seed and/or grain from local sources.
Therefore, we propose a new approach to assessing seed systems — one that looks at a ious a to s
contributions to basic seed system functions, and how their activities, which are based on individual
as well as collective goals, shape the outcomes (Long, 2001). Selected concepts and issues contributing
to this new approach will be introduced in the following sections3, followed by a brief description of
the methodology used.

2.1 Basic Concepts and Issues

2.1.1 Seed System Functions

Ou atte pt to a oid the li itatio s of di idi g seed s ste s i to fo al a d i fo al atego ies
led us to conceptualize them as human activity systems (Checkland, 1981:115). A human activity
system, which is established and maintained by human actors, can be defined at three levels: (1) the
collective purpose it serves; (2) the individual purposes of its members; and (3) the relations with and
contributions to the larger environment, in which it is embedded (Banathy, 1997).
This perspective on seed systems helps us to see them as one system in which diverse actors pursue
their individual goals and respective activities, while at the same time contributing to a collective
purpose. Thus, the focus here goes beyond assessing the flow of seed, money and information, by
emphasizing the role of actors for maintaining and enhancing seed systems, including the quality of
relations among them. Thus, interventions that strengthen or challenge these relationships (e.g.
benefits accruing to all actors or only for some at others expense) or system components (e.g.
iodi e sit a eithe e ha e o th eate the s ste s sta ilit i the lo ge te .
The basic seed systems functions we included in our assessment were: (1) provision of a legal
framework; (2) variety development; (3) seed supply; (4) seed dissemination; and (5) crop production
and use. These functions are seen to be embedded in specific socio-cultural and agro-ecological
contexts (Figure 1).
We are aware that our proposition of seed system functions differs from what others might understand
as core functions of a seed system. The reason is that a narrow focus, e.g. on seed production, quality
control and delivery, bears a risk of overlooking aspects that are important for each actor s decision-
aki g a d thus the seed s ste s o e all fu tio i g.

3
A more comprehensive description of theoretical issues that contributed to the development of this approach
is presented by Christinck et al. (2017a).

3
 Figure 1: Five basic seed system functions (centre), embedded in larger socio-cultural and agro-ecological
contexts.

Source: Christinck et al. (2017a)

Fo e a ple, the seed s ste s legal f a e o k has a la ge i pa t o the t pe of a to s p ese t a d

the products that can emerge from the system. B defi i g hat legal o illegal a to s, a ti ities a d
products are, and clarifying roles, relationships and respective rights, its influence goes far beyond
establishing quality standards or ensuring payments, even though this might be the stated objective.
Va iet de elop e t u tu es the seed s ste p o idi g the asis fo alue eatio at othe
levels. Seed supply and dissemination are of paramount importance to ensure that this potential can
be fully tapped, and suppo ts alue eatio f o fa to plate a d e o d, e.g. i flue i g
nutritional and health status of individuals. This is h op p odu tio a d use a e o eptualized
here as integral functions of seed systems, since the people involved in these activities, e.g. farmers
and their market partners, are the ones who shape the demand for seed of specific varieties, for
specific traits, or for seed of a required quality, by their purchase decisions.
C op p odu tio a d use is lose to hat is alled alue fo ulti atio a d use VCU i offi ial a iet
release procedures, but aims to include the multiple types of value that staple crops may have for
farmers in developing countries, and which are currently not fully covered by VCU test criteria.

4
2.1.2 Actor Categories
We identified different types of actors in the seed systems of the selected crops and study areas (see
Section 2.2.1) based on a methodology for stakeholder identification and analysis suggested by Lelea
et al. . We i itiall ide tified te atego ies of a to s ho ha e thei ha ds o the p odu t , i
this case seed or products derived from seed, fulfilling specific actions that are necessary for a seed
system to function (Figure 2). One further category was created for other actors who are involved in
other capacities, e.g. as representatives of relevant government bodies, service providers or NGOs
focusing on seed and food security issues.

Figure 2: Actor categories identified based on their contributions to seed system functions.

Source: Christinck et al. (2017a)

As different actor types may be involved in the same function, there are more actor categories than
seed system functions. Extension agents are considered to e a to s ho ha e thei ha ds o the
p odu t a d ot just se i e p o ide s, si e the a e iti al fo fa ilitati g fa e s a ess to seed
and may be directly involved in seed dissemination or collaborative testing with farmers and breeders.
Farmer seed-producer cooperatives and associations that operate independently, i.e. without
contracts to produce for a specific entity, and sell seed directly to farmers, were included under the
seed company classification rather than the seed producer category. Furthermore, seed sellers in this

5
study are those who sell seed to farmers without being directly involved in its production, e.g.
agrodealers or local traders.

2.1.3 Seed System Security

A sustainable seed system will ensure that high quality seed of a wide range of varieties and crops are
produced and fully available to farmers and other related actors in a timely and affordable manner
(FAO, 2017). Hence, a seed system functions well when (all) farmers can access seed that corresponds
to their preferences and needs, has the required quality, and is available in sufficient quantity at the
right time.
Seed system security, i.e. the degree to which seed systems can actually fulfil their basic function, is
often assessed based on three aspects, namely (1) availability; (2) access; and (3) quality (Sperling,
2008; Sperling et al., 2008).
Quality includes varietal traits (e.g. relating to environmental adaptation and use characteristics) as
well as biological and technical seed quality (e.g. germination capacity, purity, etc.). Ensuring
availability of seed means that seed has to be physically available in specific locations, where it is
needed, and at the right time. Access e tails the i di idual pe so s possi ilities to obtain seed, which
can differ for different groups of people, depending, for example, on cash requirements or social
relationships that may entitle an individual to obtain seed.
The seed system security framework, which was originally developed for better targeting of seed aid
interventions (Remington et al., 2002; Sperling and Cooper, 2003; Sperling, 2008), is used in this study
to discuss the results and to identify strategic entry points for interventions and capacity building that
support sustainable seed system development (see Chapters 5 and 6).

2.2 Methodology Used

In order to meet its objectives (see Section 1.2) the study employed a mixed methodology, including
(1) a desk review of secondary sources; (2) interviews with individual seed system actors and key
informants; and (3) workshops in which actors across categories discussed, identified and prioritized
options for sustainable seed system development in their countries. Basic information on the
methodology used is provided below, with a more detailed description being provided by Christinck et
al. (2017a).

2.2.1 Choice of Countries, Crops and Study Areas

Kenya and Mali were selected, to study options for seed system development in contrasting contexts,
as described in Section 1.1. In each country, a range of cereal crops were selected, that account for the
majority of staple food consumed: in Kenya, maize and sorghum; and in Mali, maize, sorghum, pearl
millet and rice.
Fo ea h ou t , stud a eas e e sele ted ased o e isti g ad i ist ati e u its ou ties i Ke a
a d e les 4 i Mali . A o g these, a eas ith highe a d lo e adoptio le els of ode a ieties
were identified for each of the crops on which we focused, based on literature review and discussion
with researchers from the cooperating national research institutes. “i e adoptio is a esult of a
complex array of factors, the selected study areas vary in agro-ecological conditions and overall
productivity levels, both being described in more detail by Christinck et al. (2017a). The study areas
that were selected for Kenya and Mali, respectively, are presented in Table 1.

4
The te dist i t is used i this stud as a t a slatio of e le fo i p o ed eada ilit .

6
 Table 1: Study areas for studying seed systems of selected cereal crops in Kenya and Mali, representing high
a d lo adoptio le els of i pro ed arieties for ea h rop.

Kenya Mali
High adoption Low adoption High adoption Low adoption
Maize Trans Nzoia Homabay Sikasso Koutiala
Sorghum Homabay Tharaka Nithi Koutiala Ségou
Pearl millet Ségou Mopti (upland)
Rice Niono Mopti (lowland)
(Christinck et al., 2017a)

2.2.2 Choice of Interview Partners and Workshop Participants

We identified potential interview partners for each country, study region, crop and actor category (see
Section 2.1.2) based on internet research, existing contacts, or contacts established as the fieldwork
developed. Care was taken to include both actors with smaller- and larger-scale operations, and to
include both genders where such factors were assumed to be relevant, particularly for seed producers
and sellers, extension agents, farmers, grain traders and processors.
The workshop participants were selected from among the interviewed seed system actors, based on the
following criteria: (1) coverage of the various actor categories, crops and study areas; (2) actors of both
genders for relevant actor categories; and (3) individual ability to speak up, listen and share ideas, as well
as capacity to understand a major workshop language (English in Kenya, French or Bambara in Mali).

2.2.3 Methods Used for Interviews and Workshops

Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the views and experiences of individual seed system
actors of the above-described categories. Interview guides for each actor group were prepared
beforehand by members of the study team, with a fo us o the i te ie ees a ti ities a d
contributions to seed system functions; and (2) the inte ie ees e pe ie es, i ludi g elatio ships
with other actors, and suggestions for improvement. Basic information on the scale of activity, sex and
location of the interviewees was documented along with each interview.
A total of 119 interviews were conducted in Kenya and 163 Mali. In Kenya, 222 people were
interviewed, of which 97 were women (44 percent). In Mali, 233 people were interviewed, of which 54
were women (23 percent). A complete list of interviews conducted for the purpose of this study is
provided by Christinck et al. (2017a: Annex).
A preliminary evaluation of the interviews was done for the purpose of establishing a project report
and as input into the stakeholder workshops. It entailed (a) clearly assigning each interview to an actor
category and where relevant separating them within groups according to gender and scale of
operation; (b) extracting and summarizing how the statements made by the interviewee relate to
various seed system functions (see Figure 1), what they reveal with regard to relationships with other
actors, and what suggestions for seed system improvement were made.
The workshops in both countries were designed in such a way that the purpose of the study and
workshop were introduced and an overview of suggested options for seed system improvement from
the field interviews was presented to the participants to include the inputs from all interviewees,
establish a common ground, and obtain feedback.
Discussions on possible seed system interventions and improvements were then facilitated in a step-
wise procedure within and across actor groups to jointly identify priority options for seed sector
development5.

5
See Christinck et al. (2017a) for a more detailed description of methodologies used in interviews and workshops.

7
3 Results of Kenya Case Study

Basi i fo atio o Ke a s Ag i ultu al a d seed se to is presented in Section 3.1, followed in

Sections 3.2 and 3.3 by a synthesis of interview and workshop results.

3.1 Basic Information on Kenya’s Agricultural and Seed Sector

3.1.1 Basic Economic Information (Kenya)

Kenya is a multiethnic country having an estimated population of 46 million people, which increases
by approximately one million per year6. Per capita Gross National Income (GNI) was 1,340 US-D in
2015; GNI had increased by about 26 percent between 1990 and 2015.
The Human Development Index (HDI), a summary measure for assessing progress in three basic
dimensions of human development (health, education and standard of living) was 0.555 in 2015,
putting Kenya at rank 146 out of 188 countries for which the HDI was assessed (UNDP, 2016a). Kenya
is thus o side ed a ediu de eloped , iddle i o e ou t , a o di g to these assess e ts.
Around 40 percent of the population lived below the poverty line in 2015, making Kenya one of the
African countries with the largest populations living in extreme poverty, in spite of its economic growth
(Karanja, 2015).

3.1.2 Importance of Agriculture and Selected Crops (Kenya)

Ag i ultu e is ofte said to e the a k o e of Ke a s e o o , ith a out percent of the
population relying on agriculture for livelihood and employment. Furthermore, agriculture contributes
about 26 percent to the ou t s G oss Do esti P odu t (GDP) and agricultural produce exports
account for nearly two-thirds of total domestic export (MoALF, 2016). These exports include oil crops
and derived products, particularly from coconut and macadamia nut, as well as horticultural crops,
especially cut flowers, and so-called industrial crops, e.g. coffee and tea (MoALF, 2016).
At the same time, Kenya is not entirely self-sufficient for staple food crops. Maize imports exceed
exports on a regular basis; the same is true for wheat and other staple food crops. Grain imports to the
country have shown notable annual fluctuations for maize and wheat, whose domestic consumption
is much higher than for rice and sorghum.
Maize is by far the most important staple cereal in Kenya, grown on slightly more than 2 million ha
annually and total annual production about 3.5 million tonne in recent years (average of years
2010─2014, FAOSTAT7 data). Yield levels of maize in Kenya are around 1.7 t/ha (average of years
2010─2014, FAOSTAT data). Sorghum is grown on around 0.2 million ha annually, with a total annual
production of around 170,000 tonne and yield levels of around 0.75 t/ha (average of years 2010─2014,
FAOSTAT data).
Compared with maize, sorghum is less vulnerable to heat and drought (Adhikari et al., 2015) and better
adapted to low soil fertility. The relative yield difference between these crops depends on the
production conditions. The average maize yield in Trans Nzoia County, for example, exceeded that of
sorghum nearly threefold (244─312 percent), whereas in Homabay County they differed only by 6 to
20 percent in the same 2012─2014 period8. Production conditions also vary within counties, such that,
i i di idual fa e s fields ith u fa ourable moisture or fertility conditions, sorghum can yield more
than maize.

6
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kenya/overview (22 April 2017)
7
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/ (15 December 2016)
8
Calculated based on data provided by MoALF (2016)

8
3.1.3 Regulatory Framework for Kenya s Seed Sector
Kenya is a member of the East African Community (EAC) and of the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA), which is in the process of establishing a plant variety catalogue and
harmonizing seed legislations among its members. Kenya is also a member of the African Intellectual
Property Organization (ARIPO), which is in the process of developing an instrument for the protection
of new plant varieties, based on the Arusha Protocol9, which was adopted by member states in 2015,
but has so far not entered into force.
However, Kenya has already been a member of UPOV since 1999 under the 1978 Act of the Convention,
and acceded to the 1991 Act in 2016. Furthermore, it is a state party to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(ITPGRFA), the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization.
The Seeds and Plant Varieties Act 1972 (last amended 2012) establishes the basic rules for variety
egist atio a d pla t eede s ights. It a dates the Kenya Plant Health and Inspectorate Service
(KEPHIS) to register and protect new varieties of plants in accordance with UPOV requirements and
the regulations in the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act (Government of Kenya, 2012a). KEPHIS is thus
responsible for variety evaluation, registration and release, plant protection, national listing, licensing
and royalty collection. It manages the National Performance Trials (NPTs), including data collection and
analysis, publication of approved and released varieties, maintenance and updating of the national
variety list index of all registered plant varieties and maintenance of a register of all applications for
performance trials. To be registered and added to the national list, a variety must undergo a test for
distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) and performance trials for at least two seasons.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are regulated by the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) in
collaboration with KEPHIS under the Biosafety Act of 2009 (Government of Kenya, 2009). NBA is
responsible for testing GMOs for release and for preventing the unauthorized use of genetically
modified crops. Currently, the Kenyan government does not allow the importation and use of GMOs.
This position is however being renegotiated; the NBA has recently authorized the cultivation of
Mo sa to s ge eti all -modified, drought- esista t o D oughtGa d™ fo field t ials.
Seed certification is carried out by KEPHIS a o di g to the I te atio al “eed Testi g Asso iatio s
(ISTA) rules and standards set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). The certification process includes field registration, seed crop inspection, seed laboratory
testing, labelling and sealing, post control, and post certification surveys. Only officially released
a ieties a d eede s li es hi h ha e the pote tial fo ei g eleased a e eligi le fo e tifi atio
according to the Seeds and Plant Varieties (Seeds) Regulations10. Seeds are only certified if they have
been produced, inspected, sampled, tested and are complying with the standards set out in the Crops
Act (Government of Kenya, 2013) and the Plant Protection Act (Government of Kenya, 2012b).
KEPHIS is also the national authority mandated to regulate seed trade. Seed distribution, including
import, is open to registered seed merchants. Seed import requires a phytosanitary certificate and an
import notification letter from the country of origin, a plant import permit, a notice to import and a
seed-testing certificate, as required by the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act (Government of Kenya,
2012a).

3.1.4 Structure and Estimated Size of Kenya s Maize and Sorghum Seed Market
With a total maize production area of 2 million ha (see above), the amount of maize seed required for
sowing would be around 40, ─50,000 tonne, based on sowing rates of 20─25 kg/ha. For sorghum,

9
http://www.aripo.org/resources/laws-protocols/member-states-copyright-legislation-6 (15 January 2018)
10
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ke/ke011en.pdf (22 April 2017)

9
with 0.2 million ha, the seed required annually for sowing would be around 1,000─1,600 tonne (based
on 5-8 kg/ha). The data presented in Table 2 show that there is some variation among years for the
amounts of locally produced and imported certified maize and sorghum seed, but no clear upward
trend for the past decade.
Table 2: Amounts of locally produced and imported certified seed (tonne) available in Kenya for the period
2006/2007 to 2016/2017

Certified maize seed [t] Certified sorghum seed [t]

Locally produced Imported Locally produced Imported
2006/2007 35,414.5 3,177.8 544.7 3.0
2007/2008 26,655.0 2,670.7 451.8 -
2008/2009 25,148.0 1,930.3 1,649.2 -
2009/2010 27,880.2 3,022.9 267.4 -
2010/2011 30,638.7 4,669.5 3,204.6 65.0
2011/2012 36,577.6 4,176.1 221.9 120.0
2012/2013 31,187.8 4,061.5 524.1 9.0
2013/2014 28,363.6 2,757.4 239.1 2.0
2014/2015 28,521.3 4,946.8 164.3 15.8
2015/2016 26,805.9 4,977.1 557.3 0.1
2016/2017 32,006.1 4,530.1 398.2 9.4
(Data kindly provided by KEPHIS for the purpose of this study)

However, these figures provide only an estimate of the amount of certified seed that is actually used
by farmers, since Kenya also exports seed, for example 2,761 tonne of maize seed and 151 tonne of
sorghum and millet seed in 2015/16 (KEPHIS, 2016). Furthermore, re-sampled seed, e.g. after expiry
of the previous certification, is another category of seed that contributes in some years more to the
total quantity of certified seed than imported seed, thus indicating that parts of the certified seed are
not sold in the agricultural season following certification (KEPHIS, 2016).
Based on the amounts of domestic, imported and recertified maize seed sampled (totaling 33,443
tonne), minus exported seed, we estimate that the amount of certified maize seed available in Kenya
totaled 30,682 tonne in 2015/16. This quantity would be sufficient for sowing around 60 percent of
the cultivated area of this crop (based on 25 kg /ha). The estimated amount of certified sorghum seed
available in Kenya (628 tonne domestic, imported, plus recertified seed sampled minus exported seed)
was 477 tonne in 2015/16, sufficient for sowing 30 percent of the area sown to this crop (based on 8
kg/ha)11. These estimates correspond with those given by experts interviewed in the course of our
study, and those reported in the literature (see AgriExperience, 2012; Smale and Olwande, 2014). Thus,
all other seed used by farmers for sowing these crops is uncertified seed from farmer-managed, local
seed systems (= ca. 40 percent for maize and 70 percent for sorghum).
The number of registered seed companies in Kenya, including seed producers, processors and sellers,
increased from 18 in 1996 to 73 in 2010 (Misiko et al., 2011), and again from 98 in 2011/2012 (KEPHIS,
2012) to 135 in 2015/2016 (KEPHIS, 2016). However, a large share of the registered seed companies
seems to be inactive or trade in exports, including seed and planting material of horticultural plants,
e.g. flowers. Only 14 registered seed companies actually sold seed of food crops in Kenya, according to
a survey of Ke a s seed i dust Ag iE pe ie e, ; these o pa ies t aded in seed of cereals,
oil crops, pulses, pastures, fruits and vegetables — mostly crops that also dominate research in relevant
public institutions (Misiko et al., 2011).
A spe ifi featu e of Ke a s seed a ket is that o e pa astatal o pa , K“C, holds a market share of
about 70─80 percent, mainly based on one hybrid variety of maize (H 614) and one wheat variety

11
All figures in this paragraph are calculated based on information provided by KEPHIS (2016).

10
 Ke a K ale . Both a ieties e e de eloped o e tha ea s ago a d a e o e popula a o g
Kenyan farmers than any other single variety of these crops (AgriExperience, 2012).
Hence, although the number of seed companies in Kenya has increased, their presence and market
shares are limited compared with KSC. For the entire seed market, not focusing on maize alone,
AgriExperience (2012) represents Pannar (based in South Africa), SeedCo (based in Zimbabwe),
Mo sa to a d Pio ee oth ulti atio al o pa ies as ke pla e s esides K“C. Fo h id aize,
83 percent of all hybrid maize growers planted seed marketed by KSC, according to a survey conducted
in 2010. The remaining 17 percent of hybrid seed planted was from private companies — including, in
order of greater frequency, Western Seed, Pioneer, Monsanto, Pannar, Agriseed, Lagrotech and Faida
(Smale and Olwande, 2014).

3.1.5 Seed Aid (Kenya)

Direct Seed Distribution (DSD) is the dominant approach to seed relief in Kenya. DSD is a supply-side
approach, where the implementing agency decides what quantities of which crops and varieties to
purchase and to distribute as a package to farmers.
The major share of seed distributed is usually maize seed, sometimes along with seed of beans, other
pulses and vegetables (Sperling, 2001). Seed distributions in the past were usually concentrated on
e tai egio s, he e D“D the e a e pa t of fa e s st ategies for seed procurement (Sperling,
2001). Information on quantities that were distributed is scarce and does not appear fully reliable;
complete datasets for longer periods with clear indication of sources are not available.
Among the counties targeted in this study, in recent years, in Homabay County, seed of maize and
sorghum was distributed by the national government, county government and NGOs. In Tharaka Nithi
County, only the county government (and possibly NGOs) distributed free seed.

3.2 Interview Results (Kenya)

The most important results from interviews with individual seed system actors are summarized here
(Table 3) according to the five basic seed system functions introduced in Section 2.1.1 (Figure 1).

Table 3: Summary of information provided by seed system actors in Kenya in relation to seed system
functions (differentiated by actor categories if applicable)

Actors contributions and perspectives on seed system functions

 Variety release procedures required for legal seed marketing are well
Legal framework established and work in general.
(Variety protection  They add high costs in terms of time delays and funds needed to apply.
and seed legislation)  They conflict with small-scale fa e s interest in accessing seed of specific
local varieties, including on a commercial basis.
• Farmers manage a range of local maize and sorghum varieties, on their own
and with support from NGOs, mainly because of preferred adaptive and use-
related traits.
 Selection in both local and purchased seed of maize and sorghum is a
Variety development
widespread practice.
(Genetic resources,
 KALRO12 s Ge eti Resources Research Institute (GeRRI) manages collections of
breeding and release)
maize and sorghum genetic resources originating from Kenya and cooperates
with international genebanks (e.g. ICRISAT); it is also involved in activities that
address in situ conservation and use of local germplasm, targeting nutritional
quality and marketing activities.

12
Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO; www.kalro.org)

11
  Science-based plant breeding for both crops is mostly done by public breeding
p og a es e.g. KAL‘O s Field C ops I stitute), partly in cooperation with
international research centres (ICRISAT for sorghum, CIMMYT13 and IITA14 for
maize); these activities often depend on short-term project funding.
 Private breeding is done for maize in Kenya by the domestic company Western
Seed Co.; other regional or multinational breeding companies get varieties
developed elsewhere through the release process to market seed in Kenya.
 Results of National Performance Trials (NPTs) are o side ed se siti e a d a e
not publicly available.
 Early generation seed of publicly bred varieties and hybrids is produced by
KAL‘O s o seed u it; it also p odu es seed of new varieties and of crops
private seed companies are not interested in.
 Early generation seed of varieties developed by private companies is produced
by these companies or under their close supervision (based on contracts with
farmers).
 Licensing policies for marketing seed of varieties developed by the public sector
(and related processes) are not fully transparent and cause prolonged
negotiations and delays.
Seed supply  Seed is produced by farmers for their own use, and on a commercial basis by
(early generation KAL‘O s seed u it a d egiste ed p i ate o pa ies.
seed, seed production  Companies usually have their seed produced by contracting individual large-
and seed quality) scale farmers or groups of large-scale farmers.
 The companies usually have one central hub, to which all seed is transported
for processing and packaging.
 Sorghum seed is also sometimes produced and processed by groups or
cooperatives of small-scale framers (e.g. in Homabay County) on a contract
basis.
 All certified seed in Kenya is chemically treated.
 The entire process for the production of certified seed is controlled by KEPHIS.
 Most farmers reported having received supposedly certified seed that had poor
germination capacity.
• Seed dissemination pathways in Kenya are diverse and often involve several
actors, e.g. (large) distributors, agrodealers and seed sellers ( ag o ets o
sto kists ).
 The latter sell seed alongside other farm inputs, such as animal feed and
veterinary products, which tend to have a higher priority since they can be sold
throughout the year.
 Other dissemination pathways include associations and village-based networks,
e.g. facilitated by NGOs, as well as seed distribution through large-scale grain
traders aiming to ensure to ensure their supply with grain of adequate quality
Seed dissemination
and quantity, local grain markets for specific local varieties, and free seed
(distribution
distributions.
channels, information
 Some seed companies offer advantages to agrodealers and stockists who sell
flow, finance)
exclusively seed from this company.
 Farmers reported difficulty in obtaining seed of their preferred varieties.
 Information on varieties and seed is spread through seed sellers and other
farmers, as well as activities such as field days or demonstration plots.
However, small-scale farmers and women in particular reported that they had
never been invited to such activities, or that they were too far away to deliver
relevant information for them.
 There is a widespread desire of farmers to get more relevant varietal
information, e.g. from growing test plots.

13
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT; www.cimmyt.org)
14
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA; www.iita.org)

12
  Various actors, including seed sellers, extension agents, NGO representatives
and farmers stated a lack of comparative results on varietal performance or
profitability.
 Limited cash availability was mentioned as a challenge by farmers and seed
producers.
 For farmers, cash availability and seed prices influenced their choice of
varieties, along with other criteria.
 Varietal adaptation to agro-ecological and low-input production conditions was
a high priority for most farmers and influenced their choice of varieties.
 The turnover of varieties is low, so that breeding progress achieved does not
ea h fa e s fields, o after long delays.
 Grain quality is an important reaso fo fa e s ulti ati g old
varieties/hybrids or local varieties rather than new ones perceived to have
lower grain quality, e.g. lower flour yield, more risk of storage losses and taste
and texture issues that are important for grain that is used in principal dishes.
Crop production and  Women farmers mentioned quality traits more frequently as a reason for
use preferring specific varieties than men and/or described them in more detail.
(adaptation, grain  Although local varieties and modern bred-varieties were cultivated across all
processing quality, sites, often by the same farmers, local varieties gained importance for
market demand) smallholder and especially for women farmers.
 Approximately half of the women interviewed reported growing only local
varieties of maize, whereas all men interviewed grew modern maize varieties.
 Grain mold and aflatoxin contamination as well as storability of grain and post-
harvest losses are also a major concern of grain traders.
 The market for white sorghum grain created by East African Breweries Ltd. is
clearly being responded to by farmers in both Tharaka Nithi and Homabay
Counties; the few commercially available sorghum varieties were mostly white-
grained, while grain prices in local grain markets were often higher for local
varieties which were predominantly red-grained.
(Based on Christinck et al., 2017a)

3.3 Workshop Results (Kenya)

The 18 workshop participants (14 men and four women) represented all main actor groups (farmer*,
breeder, seed company, seed seller, seed regulation/certification*, extension* and others such as the
Seed Trade Association and NGOs). Although only four women participated, they represented diverse
seed s ste oles as i di ated ith * . “i stud tea e e s fa ilitated the o kshop a d
documented the results.
The seed system issues identified for improvement by field interview participants in Trans Nzoia,
Homabay and Tharaka Nithi counties (see Section 3.2 above) were reported at the start of the
o kshop. These issues i luded suggested i p o e e ts fo fa e s a ess to a ietal i fo atio ,
seed supply, quality, marketing, access and regulation, as well as varietal choice and diversity.
During the first session, actors from the same location (county) discussed the suggested improvement
options for relevance in their local contexts, and further amended and specified proposed actions. The
second discussion session was organized in a way that actor groups discussed and further developed
options that were suggested for this group in the previous section.
Important suggestions made in the first and second discussion sessions are summarized in Table 4.

13
 Table 4: Seed system development options suggested by discussion groups formed based on study areas
(Session 1) and actor groups (Session 2) during a workshop with seed system actors in Kenya. 15

Session 1
 Clarify roles of government/parastatal and private sector companies.
 Create more transparency regarding data generated by state agencies, e.g.
NPTs.
Trans Nzoia County
 Explore alternatives to current certification process, e.g. voluntary
certification, QDS system.16
 Increase the number of selling points for seed and other agricultural inputs.
 Facilitate access to seed for experimental purposes and offer small seed
packages.
 Improve the quality of information and feedback among seed system actors.
 Train local groups for seed production and encourage new groups to
Tharaka Nithi County improve availability of seed of preferred varieties close to farmers.
 Improve seed quality by post-certification monitoring, improved packaging
and seed companies recalling unsold seed.
 Mai tai lo al a ieties a d e ha e fa e s skills i sele tio a d seed
production of these varieties.
 Make a joint effort to develop/diversify the market for sorghum and
sorghum-based products.
 Better organize and target free seed distributions in a transparent manner
and channel it through seed sellers.
 Improve communication and trust between seed producers and contracting
companies.
Homabay County
 Organize seed production in a more decentralized manner to reduce costs.
 Improve cooperation between extension agents and farmers to improve
capacities for seed selection and production, integration of varietal choice
and other production measures and information exchange.
 Encourage youth groups to engage in group-based seed and grain
production.
Session 2
 Enhance capacities for sharing information on variety and seed issues.
 I p o e fa e s skills i a iet testi g a d hoosi g a ieties.
Farmers
 Use IT-tools to exchange experiences with others about specific varieties
and agronomic practices.
 Breed varieties with specific traits and attributes.
Plant breeders, seed  Improve public access to information (e.g. from KEPHIS).
companies and KEPHIS  Deliver quality seed to farmers more swiftly (e.g. by exploring options such
as QDS).
 Organize county stakeholder forums on seed system issues.
Extension agents, NGO
 Conduct training of farmer groups and agrodealers on variety and seed
representatives and
issues.
agrodealers
 Improve information exchange among actors.

15
A more comprehensive description of suggestions made by different actor groups is presented by Christinck et
al. (2017a).
16
Quality Declared Seed (QDS) refers to a system that make use of resources seed producing organizations have
in place as an alternative to certification, based on agreed-upon guidelines and standards (FAO, 2006).

14
The final discussion took place in the plenary and included joint priority setting based on the three top
priorities each group had identified in the second session. The result is presented in Table 5.
Issues with more contentious viewpoints included the roles of parastatal and private sector companies,
and how both could take on a complementary role. Smaller sized seed packages were clearly
demanded but seed industry representatives stated that packaging seed into small units added cost,
thus making this option untenable, except with large orders from NGOs. Likewise, the suggestion to
return unsold seeds was contentious regarding the distribution of responsibilities and costs among
actors.
Furthermore, some participants indicated missing a stronger focus on farmer-managed seed system
activities and their recognition in legal frameworks. Diverging views were expressed concerning the
quality of newly bred varieties with regard to adaptation and grain quality traits. Farmers in particular
were interested in getting more involvement in varietal selection and seed production, while other
participants preferred the current status.

Table 5: Priorities set jointly among options for seed system improvement by seed system actors in Kenya

Priority no. Options for seed system improvement

1  Organize county stakeholder forums on seed system issues.
2  Breed varieties with special attributes.
 Enhance farmers' capacities for information sharing on variety and seed
3
issues.
 Conduct trainings on variety and seed issues for farmer groups and
4
agrodealers.
5  Deliver good quality seed more swiftly.
6  Improve information exchange among actors.
7  Improve public access to information.
8  Improve farmers' skills for variety testing (experiential assessment).
 Use ICT17-tools for farmers' exchange of experiences on varieties and
9
agronomic practices.
(Based on Christinck et al., 2017a)

17
Information and Communication Technology/ies

15
4 Results of Mali Case Study

Basi i fo atio o Mali s Ag i ultu al a d seed se to is p ese ted i “e tio .1, followed by a
synthesis of interview and workshop results in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

4.1 Basic Information on Mali’s Agricultural and Seed Sector

4.1.1 Basic Economic Information (Mali)

Mali is the eighth-largest country in Africa with a population of 18 million people belonging to various
sub-Saharan and Saharan ethnic groups. Population growth continues to be high (around 3 percent
p.a.), with increases of approximately one million people every two years18.
Most of Mali s people li e i the southe pa ts of the country; only 10 percent live in the three
northern regions of Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu19. Per capita GNI was USD 760 in 2015 (Atlas method)20;
Mali s GNI pe apita i eased a out . pe e t et ee a d . Mali s HDI alue of
0.442 in 2015 ranks it 175 out of 188 countries and territories for which the HDI is assessed (UNDP,
. Mali is thus o e of the o ld s least de eloped ou t ies a o di g to offi ial UN statisti s
UNCDP, . Mali s atio al statisti s i stitute, IN“AT, esti ates that 47 percent of the population
were poor in 2015, with the majority of this group living in rural areas, where more than half of the
population is considered to be poor (Daou, 2016).

4.1.2 Importance of Agriculture and Selected Crops (Mali)

Agriculture is a o e sto e of Mali s e o o , ith percent of the population being engaged in
agricultural activities, including livestock and fisheries. In 2015, the agricultural sector accounted for
40 percent of the ou t s GDP21, with dryland cereals, rice, livestock and cotton being the most
important agricultural products. Raw cotton accounted for 20 percent of Mali s e po ts o eta
value) in 2015, while oilseeds, tropical fruits, animals and live-stock products together accounted for
another 10 percent, approximately.
Pearl millet and sorghum are the most important staple food crops in Mali, with approximately 1.76
million ha (pearl millet) and 1.26 million ha (sorghum) annually cultivated (average of years 2010─2014,
FAOSTAT data). Annual production of pearl millet varies between 1.2 und 1.7 million tonne per year,
and for sorghum between 0.8 and 1.2 million tonne per year, depending on agroclimatic conditions.
Average yield levels are 0.86 t/ha for pearl millet and 0.93 t/ha for sorghum (averages of years
2010─2014, FAOSTAT data).
Maize and rice are grown on a smaller area (maize: 0.7 million ha; rice: 0.6 million ha, average of years
2010─2014, FAOSTAT data) but, given more favourable production environments, produce higher
yields (2.3 t/ha for maize and 3.4t/ha for rice paddy; averaged over 2010─2014, FAOSTAT data).
Therefore, the total grain production of rice (2.1 million t/year) and maize (1.5 million t/year; averages
2010─2014, FAOSTAT data) exceeds annual pearl millet and sorghum grain production in most years,
particularly for rice. Rice production in Mali has continued to increase in recent years; production in
2014─2016 is estimated to have reached around 2.3─2.7 million tonne.
Mali is not entirely self-sufficient for staple food crops; import quantities of maize and rice exceeded
export quantities on a regular basis between 2009 and 2013; while sorghum was imported only in two
out of five years (2012 and 2013) and exported in one year (2012). Millet was not imported, but

18
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/mali-population (25 April 2017)
19
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mali/overview (25 April 2017)
20
http://data.worldbank.org/country/mali (25 April 2017)
21
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?locations=ML (25 April 2017)

16
exported, though in small quantities (between 71 to 322 tonne annually for the period 2009─2013,
FAOSTAT data). However, wheat is imported on a regular basis, between 89,100 t/year and 227,447
t/year, for ─ (FAOSTAT data).

4.1.3 Regulatory Framework for Mali s Seed Sector

Mali is a member of ECOWAS and of the African Intellectual Property Organization (Organisation
Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle, OAPI). OAPI accessed UPOV as a regional organization in 2014,
under the 1991 Act of the Convention, and has started to operate a plant variety protection system
that covers the territories of its 17 member states22. ECOWAS has established a common seed
legislation framework, which entered into force in 2010, and has since been implemented by its
members; this process is ongoing, including in Mali.
The Seed and Plant Variety Act (Loi 10- elati e au se e es d o igi e g tale23) provides
the legal basis for the seed system in Mali. Varieties thus need to be registered in a national catalogue
prior to starting seed distribution. A national committee has been created to work on the
implementation of new rules, and responsibilities for variety registration as well as seed certification
ha e ee a dated to the atio al seed la o ato LABO“EM. Pla t eede s ights an be granted
upon request, but there is at present no system for collecting royalty fees.
Traditional varieties are protected as a national heritage, but it is not clearly specified in the law how
this is to be implemented in practice. Farmers are allowed to re-sow farm-saved seed on their own
farms, but distribution requires variety registration and certification of seeds, even though this legal
requirement is currently not yet fully implemented.
Seed distribution, including seed import and export, are also regulated under the Seed and Plant
Variety Act. These activities require permission of the Ministry of Agriculture, and seed needs to meet
phytosanitary standards that are, however, not specified further by the law. GMOs are currently not
used in Mali; testing is so far only allowed in closed systems. Issues relating to GMOs are regulated
under the Biosafety Act (Loi n°08-042-AN-RM relative à la Sécurité en Biotechnologie24 (2008)).
Until recently, varieties were registered in the National Variety Catalogue through a simple process,
whereby the breeder prepared and submitted a technical data sheet summarizing details of origin,
pedigree and traits of importance for the crop. Nowadays, to register a variety, the breeder or owner
of the variety is to make a request to the president of the national seed committee (Comité National
des “e e es d O igi e V g tal, CNSOV), who in turn is to refer it to the full CNSOV. The CNSOV should
meet to define the conditions and schedule field visits to evaluate the variety over three years. Each
field visit is to be reported. CNSOV is to test the variety and the breeder to provide the seed. If the
reports are deemed to be conclusive, the results are to be forwarded to the CNSOV president who is
to decide on acceptance of the variety. The head of the National Seed Laboratory is then to revise the
National Catalogue to include the new variety.
In practice however, the CNSOV (established in 2014) does not yet have an office nor resources for
functioning. As such, it is the breeder who covers all costs and conducts the tests that are supposed to
be conducted by CNSOV. Rather than the three reports that CNSOV is supposed to produce, a
temporary commission refers to the last three year reports of the breeder for deciding on the variety,
and the head of the National Seed Laboratory has updated the National Catalogue once in 2016. So
far, no official decree has been issued to regulate procedures for the nomination of members, their

22
According to an UPOV press release, available at:
http://www.upov.int/edocs/pressdocs/en/upov_pr_097.pdf (19 December 2016)
23
https://mali.eregulations.org/media/DNA%20Loi%20n%2010-32.pdf (19 December 2016)
24
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mli152165.pdf (18 December 2016)

17
number, or the composition of the CNSOV. The same applies for the creation of the National Seed
Laboratory.
Seed multiplication can begin once new varieties are registered in the National Catalogue and includes
the following steps: production of eede s seed a d fou datio seed, usuall the eede ;
followed by two generations of certified seed (R1 and R1).
The official procedure for seed certification includes: registration of seed producer; prior notification
of variety; location; area of production; etc.; three field inspections (before, during and after flowering
of the crop); sampling; laboratory analyses; and treatment and labelling of accepted seed lots. In
practice, however, the registration of seed producers and the treatment of accepted seed lots are
currently not demanded. Also, the number of field visits often is less than three.
Only the official seed laboratory is authorized to certify seed in Mali. Currently there is only one
laboratory in Bamako that analyses all samples for Mali. However, specifically trained agents in each
district tend to have authority to conduct field inspections.

4.1.4 Structure and Estimated Size of Mali s Seed Market

The production areas for sorghum, pearl millet, maize and rice in Mali, along with recommended seed
rates, are used here for calculating the estimated size of seed markets for these crops in Mali (Table
6).

Table 6: Cultivated area, recommended seed rates, estimated total amounts of seed required for sowing and
amounts of certified seed available for sorghum, pearl millet, maize and rice crops in Mali

Estimated total
Cultivated Recommended Amount of % of total
amount of seed
area seed rate certified seed seed
required for sowing
[million ha] [kg/ha] available [t] required
[t]
Sorghum 1.26 5-8 6,300 - 10,080 380.7 4-6
Pearl
1.76 3-5 5,280 - 8,800 313.9 4-6
millet
Maize 0.7 20-25 14,000 - 17,500 1,430.6 8-10
Rice 0.6 40-80 24,000 - 48,000 4,436.0 9-18
(Cultivated area: average of years 2010─2014, FAOSTAT data; amount of certified seed available: Ministère de
l Ag i ultu e ))

The seed rate for rice varies more than for other crops according to production conditions and farming
practices, i.e. irrigated versus upland conditions, or transplanting of seedlings versus direct sowing.
Transplanting appears to be more common in irrigated production systems in Mali, compared with
direct seeding, so that within the above-mentioned range, the lower seed requirements can be
assumed for most rice production systems in Mali. To summarize, certified seed currently is estimated
to account for approx. 5 percent of the seed sown for sorghum and pearl millet crops, and for approx.
10─15 percent of the seed so fo aize a d i e ops. Ho e e , the sha e is highe i so e high
pote tial p odu tio a eas, a d lo e i d ie a eas of o the Mali.
The national seed laboratory indicates that the amount of certified seed in the last 5 to 6 years,
following implementation of the 2010 seed legislation, increased by more than 60 percent for rice and
maize, and by more than 600 to 800 percent for sorghum and pearl millet25. Hence, there is
o side a le d a i i Mali s e tified seed a ket fo staple e eals as ell as fo othe ops su h
as sesame and cowpea, albeit at a lower level.

25
No published data available; information was kindly provided by the national seed laboratory.

18
For the entire Malian seed sector, including all crops, it is estimated that around 80 percent of seed
used by farmers in Mali is from traditional farmer-managed or community based systems.
Fu the o e, it is t pi al fo Mali s seed se to that di e se o i atio s of a to s a e i ol ed i
breeding, production and marketing of certified seed in the country (Diallo and de Boef, 2012).
Agrodealers and emerging private seed companies mostly market seed they obtain, after certification,
from farmer cooperatives or groups, generally without prior contracts. NGOs and government
institutions purchase certified seed from cooperatives or seed companies for distribution to their
target groups. Some individual grain traders buy larger seed volumes from a trusted source to provide
to loyal grain producers on credit to ensure supply of grain of superior or specific quality. Furthermore,
individual farmers sometimes produce and offer seed of local varieties to meet local demand, but
without certification (which under the new seed legislation is no longer legal).
Thus, the st u tu e of Mali s seed a ket is diverse, with farmer groups and cooperatives being
important actors that operate in a decentralized manner within their geographical areas, with or
without cooperation between them and public breeding programmes, NGOs, traders or private seed
companies. Furthermore, government agencies, such as the semi-autonomous Office du Niger (ON),
and the now semi-privatized cotton company Compagnie Malienne pour le Développement du Textile
(CMDT), have played important roles for agricultural development and seed dissemination in areas
where they are active.

4.1.5 Seed Aid (Mali)

The Malian Government actively supports agricultural production, with about 15 percent of the total
budget26 (47 billion FCFA, equivalent to approx. USD 84.9 million) being allocated for this purpose.
Agricultural input subsidies, including seed, fertilizer and machinery, are a major share of this state
expenditure. Farmers or farmer cooperatives can apply in advance for subsidized inputs in order to
purchase them at reduced prices. However, seed is only occasionally distributed through this channel,
and, if so, it was mainly hybrid seed of maize in recent years (2012: 10 t; 2013: 17 t). Some years ago,
the Malian government also subsidized seed of NERICA27 rice varieties, as part of their development
st ateg fo the i e se to Mi ist e de l Ag i ultu e, .
“eed aid , i the fo of f ee seed dist i utio , is fu the p o ided the Weste Af i a Ag i ultu al
Productivity Promotion (WAAPP) programme via WASP, both funded by international donors, e.g.
World Bank and USAID. The International Red Cross Committee (Comité International de la Croix
Rouge, CICR) and FAO are also involved in seed distribution, focusing on the regions in northern Mali,
affected by the security crisis since 2012.
WAAPP/WASP distributed between 1,000 and 3,800 tonne of free seed (free) in each of the recent
years; FAO distributed smaller amounts, between 15 tonne (cowpea) and 155 tonne (rice) within the
last five years, and the CICR distributed 13.3 tonne in 2015 and 6.8 tonne in 2016.28 Hence,
WAAPP/WA“P as fa the la gest supplie of f ee seed i Mali i e e t ea s; a i po ta t sha e
of the certified seed that has been produced in recent years was not sold, but distributed by these
organizations.

26
http://www.libreafrique.org/kramo-subventions-mali-010716 (28 July 2017)
27
New Rice for Africa ("NERICA") is a group of high-yielding rice varieties derived from crosses between African
and Asian rice, developed by the Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice).
28
There are no published sou es fo these figu es; i fo atio as o tai ed f o the o ga izatio s offi es i
Mali.

19
4.2 Interview Results (Mali)
The most important results from interviews with individual seed system actors are summarized here
(Table 7) according to the five basic seed system functions introduced in Section 2.1.1 (Figure 1).

Table 7: Summary of information provided by seed system actors in Mali in relation to seed system functions
(dif-ferentiated by actor categories if applicable).

A tors o tri utio s a d perspe ti es o seed syste fu tio s

 The national and regional variety catalogues and the variety release process are
established in general, but with some need for clarification of roles and
responsibilities.
 Some breeders fear that the new procedure requiring DUS and VCU trials will
prove more costly and time consuming.
Legal framework  Local varieties cannot be registered under the new regulations, and thus their
(Variety protection seed cannot be certified for sale even when farmers demand this seed.
and seed legislation)  The seed certification procedure causes additional costs and delays; even
though only a minor share of the seed used in Mali is at present certified,
resources are lacking to implement the certification process as officially
required, or in a timely manner.
 Not all certified seed is labelled, so that farmers cannot know in all cases if the
seed they buy is certified or not.
 Ge eti esou es a e a aged the I stitut d É o o ie ‘u ale IE‘ , i
collaboration with CG-Centers (e.g. CIMMYT and IITA for maize, IRRI29 and
African Rice Center for rice).
 The IER maintains science-based breeding programs for all four crops; a recent
achievement in sorghum and pearl millet breeding is hybrids that are based on
open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) and local germplasm.
 Breeding goals include improved adaptation and yield, nutritional quality,
Variety development resistance against diseases and striga (a parasitic weed) and fodder quality.
(Genetic resources,  All breeding activities are highly dependent on short-term project funding.
breeding and release)  Farmer participation is widespread, e.g. for joint evaluation of breeding
materials and varieties.
 Farmers routinely select in their local varieties, with major importance given to
environmental adaptation and grain quality traits, besides yield.
 Both men and women frequently mentioned the importance for all cereal crops
of adaptation to low soil fertility in Mali.
 The additional costs and delays caused by the new variety release process were
frequently mentioned by breeders.
 Certified seed in Mali is almost entirely produced by farmer seed-producer
g oups. These g oups i lude asso iatio s, oope ati es a d G oupes d I t t
Économique (GIEs), a Malian specific legal business entity.
 Early generation seed is usually supplied to seed producers by the public
Seed supply breeding programmes; however, farmer seed-producer cooperatives have
(early generation recently begun to produce foundation seed for sorghum, maize and millet and
seed, seed have done so for several years for rice.
production and seed  Several farmer seed-cooperatives are producing hybrid seed of sorghum, and
quality) some cooperatives also produce the foundation seed of the parental lines.
 Very few women are involved in cereal seed production, as they have even
greater difficulties than men to assure isolation, especially for cross-pollinating
crops, due to the smaller size of their fields combined with low soil fertility.
Ho e e , the e as also o e su essful o e s seed-cooperative producing

29
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI; www.irri.org)

20
 large seed volumes of many varieties of rainfed (lowland) rice; a crop
t aditio all o side ed to e a o e s op i Mali.
 There are two predominant models for conditioning and packaging seed in
Mali. Either centralized with imported high-capacity equipment (mainly seed
companies); or geographically decentralized with predominantly manual
methods (mainly farmer-managed cooperatives).
 Poor germination capacity and mixed or fake seed were rarely mentioned by
farmers; the only exceptions were complaints regarding varietal purity for rice
seed, and problems with germination capacity in seed received via free seed
distribution activities.
 Farm-saved seed is the most common source of seed for all cereals.
 Commercial dissemination of certified seed is a new and evolving undertaking
for most staple cereals (except for rice).
 If seed is purchased, the most common dissemination pathways is direct from
known farmer-managed seed cooperatives.
 Further distribution pathways include cooperative representatives that sell
seed on commission in several villages; sales through or with assistance of
Seed dissemination
NGOs and the regional department of agriculture; by agrodealers who purchase
(distribution
the oope ati es seed fo sale f o thei shops; a d di e t seed distributions.
channels, information
 Information is spread through radio programmes, participation of farmers in
flow, finance)
variety evaluation trials, seed fairs, demonstration plots etc. However, it
requires large and continuing efforts to spread varietal information and
information on selling points to interested farmers.
 Challenges of cash flow constraints were mentioned, particularly by farmer
seed-producer groups and farmers. Fa e s halle ges were addressed
through price differentiation as well as sale on credit basis, e.g. by unions of
fa e s oope ati es ho p i a il e gage i oope ati e g ai a keti g.
 Adaptation to local agro-ecological conditions and in some cases tolerance of
Crop production and
biotic stresses e e i po ta t ite ia guidi g fa e s a ietal hoi es.
use
 U a epta le g ai o fodde ualit a lead to eje tio of e , i p o ed
(adaptation, grain
varieties, in spite of higher yields.
processing quality,
 Some specific market demand exists, e.g. for grain colour of maize used for
market demand)
poultry feed, or for taste and grain shape of rice. Such preferences are mostly
reflected in prices paid for grain of desired quality.
(Based on Christinck et al., 2017a)

4.3 Workshop Results (Mali)

The workshop in Mali was held with 25 participants, and seven members of the study team acting as
facilitators and supporting the documentation of results. Of the 25 participants, 18 were men and
seven were women, with women participants representing either women farmer, seed producer or
grain trading cooperatives, or (their own) private companies, e.g. seed company, agrodealer and grain
processor.
The workshop started by presenting a synthesis of suggestions for seed system improvement proposed
by seed system actors in the field interviews. These included options for improving infrastructure and
equipment, financial and organizational support, strategic approaches, as well as options relating to
improved information and access to seed.
The first round of discussions were conducted by six groups of participants, with two groups each per
crop or crop group/agro-ecology (rice, sorghum and maize, and pearl millet). The task for one group
per crop (groups 1 to 3) was to identify priority options for improving availability of good quality seeds
in proximity to farmers, whereas the other group (groups 4 to 6) considered options for enabling

21
adoption of these varieties. Important suggestions made in the first discussion session are summarized
in Table 8.

Table 8: Seed system development options suggested by discussion groups formed based on crops/agro-
ecologies for improved availability and adoption of improved seed. 30

Session 1a: Suggestions for improving availability of seed of improved varieties

close to farmers
 Ensure availability of sufficient early generation seed.
Group 1  Initiate stakeholder forums among seed cooperatives and partners for
(focusing on rice) enhancing information diffusion.
 Identify needs to better plan seed production.
Group 2  Produce seeds where they are needed.
(focusing on sorghum  Increase the number of selling points.
and maize)  Build seed storage facilities.
 Create seed shops near the areas of production.
Group 3
 Create networks of seed producers.
(focusing on pearl
 Improve capacities of agrodealers regarding the technical information for
millet)
varieties to be selected for sale.
Session 1b: Suggestions for facilitating adoption of improved variety seed
 Strengthen participatory plant breeding.
Group 4  Strengthen distribution networks.
(focusing on rice)  Offer package sizes that are affordable for farmers.
 Involve the private sector for seed multiplication and selling.
Group 5  Organize demonstration plots and farmer field schools.
(focusing on sorghum  Strengthen participatory plant breeding.
and maize)  O ga ize isits to eede s fields for seed sellers.
 Develop varieties with improved yield.
Group 6
 Develop varieties with food quality (taste, storability, flour yield).
(focusing on pearl
 Develop varieties that are well adapted to the production zones (e.g. early
millet)
maturing varieties).

Additional options identified for improving seed availability included, for example, increasing the
numbers of seed cooperatives and seed producers within and among villages, reducing the cost of seed
certification, establishing demonstration plots for new varieties at publicly accessible sites, sign boards
indicating locations where seeds are sold, and improving the recognition of value and benefits of local
varieties regarding adaptation and productivity. Group 6, focusing on facilitating adoption of improved
varieties of millet, emphasized that the major weakness in the pearl millet seed system was the
absence of improved varieties for diffusion, at least for a sufficient diversity of agro-ecological zones.
The second discussion session focused on options for ensuring or enhancing seed quality, based on the
expressed wish of participants. Women participants insisted on having their own discussion group for
this topic, while men divided into two groups.
The fi st e s g oup fo used o assu ing full control and implementation of established regulations.
This group indicated that state duties and legal provisions for seed inspection, control and certification
should be fulfilled, and seed producer companies and cooperatives need to professionalize their
a ti ities a o di gl . The se o d e s g oup fo used o the sa e topi s a d suggested that
transparent norms should be established for production and certification of good quality seed. They
p oposed a list of good p a ti es fo seed p odu tion and handling that ensure seed quality, based on
their local knowledge and experience, and further suggested that certification should be organized in

30
For a more comprehensive description of suggestions made by different actor groups, please consult the
project report (Christinck et al. 2017a).

22
a de e t alized a e , e.g. esta lishi g i o-la s at lo al o egio al le el. The o e s g oup
proposed a detailed list of practical steps, based on their experiences, for producing high quality seed,
and strongly favoured self-control over certification.
The o e s p ese tatio of thei p opositions incited heated debate. The differences between
supporters of legal, state-controlled seed quality procedures versus those supporting farmer-managed
quality control based on practical experience and self-accountability, were debated with such
emotional intensity that it was decided that further interactions were needed on this topic of obvious
concern and tension.
Hence, in the final session, workshop participants discussed activities that had been proposed in the
first session to identify specific seed system development options that were of highest priority to all
participants (Table 9).

Table 9: Priorities among options for seed system improvement set jointly by seed system actors in Mali.

Priority no. Priority options for seed system improvement

 Initiate stakeholder forums at various levels, e.g. for improved planning
among seed producer cooperatives, among these cooperatives and
1
breeders, as well as among seed producer cooperatives and financial service
providers.
 Enhance capacities of seed producer cooperatives regarding participatory
2 breeding and variety evaluation, seed production and processing as well as
financial and operational management.
 Enhance capacities of agrodealers regarding their knowledge of varieties,
3 regarding communication and marketing of seed, and in building links
between seed producers, farmers and grain processors.

23
5 Discussion of Results

The findings of our study, presented in Chapters 3 and 4 for Kenya and Mali, respectively, are discussed
here in relation to the three aspects of seed system security: seed quality, seed availability and access
to seed, which were introduced in Section 2.1.1. This discussion is presented in Sections 5.1─5.3,
followed by a discussion of cross-cutting issues in Section 5.4. The diverse issues brought out in this
discussion emerge primarily from the experiences and visions of the diverse actors, documented in
interviews and workshops, and are extended based on the study team e e s experience, and
published literature.

5.1 Seed Quality

The aiso d t e of a seed s ste is p o isio of seed of alue to the use , as i di ated by the use
of te s su h as i p o ed seed o ualit seed . We therefore take the seed quality element of seed
system security as the first entry point for discussing the study findings and implications for sustainable
seed system development.

5.1.1 Varietal Attributes

Varietal attributes, such as improved yield or use-related traits, are the main potential source of value
creation through the use of seed of certain varieties. The two types of varietal attributes that appear
ost espo si le fo is at hi g et ee fa e s de a ds a d a iet suppl e e a the ualit
of grain for food use, and (b) adaptatio to fa e s o ditio s, i ludi g lo -input conditions. These
issues arise firstly from the fact that home consumption is a priority goal for smallholder farmers in
Kenya and Mali. For example, of all farmers in Kenya who sowed maize in 2010, only 28 percent sold
maize (Smale and Olwande, 2014).
The quality of maize grain for food was found to be a key varietal attribute farmers consider when
choosing their maize variety in Kenya, with farmers showing reluctance to switch from an old hybrid
to newer hybrids with less desirable grain quality (Smale and Olwande, 2014). Yet, little or no mention
was made of grain quality by breeders or seed company representatives, even though the breeding of
new varieties with good grain quality is certainly feasible, with abundant genetic variation for quality-
related traits. For example, the local varieties that farmers cultivate and appreciate could be a prime
source.
Secondly, for a smallholder farmer, the adaptation of a newly developed variety, as expressed through
its yield and yield sta ilit u de the fa e s o p odu tio o ditio s, ill dete i e hethe it is
a worthwhile option for her or him. Although adaptation is complex and requires long-term research,
progress for improving adaptation to low soil fertility is achievable with appropriate breeding materials
and selection under conditions close to those of the farmers (Bänzinger and Cooper, 2001; Leiser et
al., 2012; Mueller and Vyn, 2016; Gemenet et al., 2016). Furthermore, adapted hybrids, with
advantages of hybrid vigour, could help provide resilience and yield advantages over a range of stress
conditions (Rattunde et al., 2013; Kante et al., 2017), depending on the parental material used.

5.1.2 Varietal Diversity

A fu the i po ta t issue elated to a seed s ste s ability to provide seed of preferred quality is the
level of varietal diversity it offers. In this study, farmers interviewed in Kenya and Mali reported
growing several different varieties of the same cereal species. Farmers also reported cultivating both
bred and local varieties, including millet producers in Mali and maize producers in Kenya. Use of
varietal diversity to meet different production objectives, to minimize risk and maximize productivity
in the context of diverse production conditions, is recognized as an important strategy for smallholder

24
farmers (Rooney, 2004). Ten to 25 or more varieties of sorghum are cultivated as distinct pure stands
in just a single village in Mali (Siart, 2008), and similarly in Burkina Faso (Barro-Kondombo et al., 2008).
Furthermore, varieties with novel or specific traits can offer new options for producing or using crops,
to farmers and their market partners. Examples include earlier maturing varieties enabling relay
cropping (e.g. reported by women maize producers in Kenya), or capturing higher grain prices prior to
the general harvest (e.g. sorghum in Mali); or novel dual- and multi-purpose sorghum varieties for
production of higher quality fodder and/or sorghum syrup as well as grain for food. Varietal diversity
can thus both promote dynamic production systems as well as help farmers respond to changing
conditions, including changes due to climate variability (Haussmann et al., 2012).

5.1.3 Biological and Technical Seed Quality Aspects

Lastly, for a seed system to function, biological and technical seed quality aspects need to be ensured.
Otherwise, trust among actors will be undermined and production risks increase. Government agencies
are rejecting seed lots based on criteria established for seed quality in both Kenya and Mali. It thus
seems that these regulations and controls aim to contribute to reducing the frequency of occurrence
of commercially traded seed with low germination capacity and off-type plants.
The occurrence of poor seed germination was, however, an issue in Kenya, both for certified and
farmer-saved, own seed, whereas it was not an issue of concern for either type of seed in Mali.
Fu the o e, fake seed as a issue in the Kenya seed market, whereas there were no reports of
fake seed i the Malia o e ial seed a ket, although se ious ases e e epo ted for seed that
was received through direct seed distribution.
These results are surprising since Kenya has an elaborate regulatory system and highly professional
control agency, yet the seed control system in Mali is far weaker in comparison. However, the presence
of fake seed, or seed with low germination capacity, was also reported by other researchers for the
Kenyan seed market (Karingu and Ngugi, 2013; Tjernström et al., 2017). This paradox strongly suggests
that factors other than the legal control system need to be examined for their role in affecting good
seed germination and trueness to type.
One important difference is that the delivery chains in Kenya are typically long, with multiple
transactions between seed companies, distributors and retailers, whereas in Mali, there are few
transactions between the farmer cooperative that produced the seed and the farmer obtaining the
seed. Furthermore, certified seed in Mali is usually not chemically treated, allowing seed-producer
cooperatives to sell left-over stocks as grain. These differences, and their potential consequences for
risks of deterioration of seed viability, suggest exploring options for (a) treating seed closer to the time
of sale, and (b) more decentralized seed production and distribution systems with shorter delivery
chains.
Furthermore, besides applying existing control options, an interesting alternative response to seed
quality challenges would be to explore ways of investing in strengthening relationships between seed
sellers and buyers, including personal and socially valued relationships, to tap the power of reputation
that could reduce fraud and yield additional benefits.

5.2 Seed Availability at the Right Time and Place

The availability of seed of desired varieties at the right time and place, and client knowledge of where
this seed is available, are critical for an effectively functioning and sustainable seed system. In contrast,
hindrances to availability of seed in a timely manner of desired, good-performing varieties, cause
economic and productivity losses and discourage reliance on that particular seed channel. These
factors are discussed here in relation to the regulatory context, collaboration between seed system
actors, and diverse models for dissemination.

25
5.2.1 Regulatory Context
The regulatory context is understood here to encompass socio-cultural as well as legal norms, both of
which influence the availability of seed to farmers. Socio-cultural norms regarding seed handling and
acquisition can be important determinants of seed availability for smallholder farmers.
Seed systems of traditional cereal crops, such as pearl millet, sorghum and rice for rainfed and
submerged production systems, are strongly influenced by such norms in Mali (Coulibaly et al., 2014).
Approaches that consider such norms are showing benefits in contributing to availability of new
varieties in Mali (see also Siart, 2008; Deu et al., 2014; Smale et al., 2016). Although in Kenya the social
norms relating to seed have weakened, seed proximity and timeliness of seed availability, coupled with
issues of trust, a e just as ital to fa e s seed a uisitio de isio s as i Mali. He e, o side atio
of cultural norms regarding seed and variety issues is critical for the design and development of
effective seed dissemination initiatives.
The official registration and release procedure controls which varieties can or cannot be made available
in commercial seed systems. Currently, local cultivars la d a es of maize and sorghum are basically
not released in Kenya or Mali, which blocks availability of these varieties through commercial channels
and exposes long-standing farmer practices relating to seed exchange to criminal charges.
Furthermore, the commercial availability of new varieties is slowed down through the official release
procedure. However, in a situation where commercial seed systems cannot provide farmers with the
quality and diversity of seed that is actually required (see Section 5.1), these restrictions appear
counterproductive to sustainable seed system development. Exploring alternative legal seed
regulation and pathways to speed availability of new varieties and to ensure commercial availability of
local varieties was thus an overall primary priority identified in the workshop with seed system actors
in Kenya, and was also hotly debated in Mali.
Actors in both countries suggested that seed certification services could be decentralized, or that seed
commercialization based on standards such as QDS could reduce costs and delays caused by the
certification process. Such a system appea s to at h fa e s e pe ie es a d e pe tatio s fo
traditional staple cereals, with responsibility for seed quality borne by those who produce and provide
seed. Furthermore, it could also encourage local initiatives in the breeding and seed sector; for
e a ple, the de elop e t of I dia s p i ate seed i dust ould ot ha e ee possi le ithout the
provision of a QDS type system (Pray et al., 1991; Pray and Ramaswami, 2001).
To summarize, regulatory systems that provide space for a diversity of approaches for varietal
development, release and seed production are expected to have a better chance of meeting the
enormously diverse needs of smallholder cereal farmers in countries like Kenya or Mali, with a wide
range of agro-ecological conditions and production systems, compared with systems that focus on a
narrow range of actors and variety types.

5.2.2 Collaboration Between Seed System Actors to Improve Availability of new

Varieties
Availability of seed of new varieties to farmers in both Kenya and Mali is highly or entirely dependent
on collaboration between public and private sector actors. Although it is indisputable that such
olla o atio is deli e i g seed to oth ou t ies fa e s, the tu o e of staple e eal a ieties i
both countries is slow. Maize varieties cultivated in Kenya, for example, are currently estimated to
ha e a ea age of . ea s “ ale a d Ol a de, 2014).
Constraints on variety development due to limited funding levels and dependence on short-term
project grants are seen by breeders in both countries as hindering availability of new varieties. At the
same time, private sector investment in variety development is currently limited to just a few crops
and target ecologies, for which sufficient returns on investment can be expected. Therefore,

26
examination of models for effective public-private collaboration and innovative funding models, even
for small and specific markets, should be a priority for seed system development in both countries.
A wide array of options exists, f o pu li se to eede s u tu i g e e gi g seed o pa ies, to
farmers and value-chain actors raising their own funds for demand-driven public research; such
options are described in more detail by Christinck et al. (2017a). Particularly in view of rapidly changing
agro-ecological production conditions, climate change, and socio-economic transformations, such
innovative models of collaboration could enhance the dynamics and innovation capacity of seed
systems, making more and better varieties available to farmers and increasing the level of varietal
diversity. Furthermore, the potential of improved collaboration between actors for reducing
transaction costs could be a matter of shared interest.

5.2.3 Diverse Models for Seed Dissemination

Improving the seed dissemination of improved varieties to the millions of mostly smallholder farmers
in countries like Kenya or Mali, with diverse and changing variety needs, is the defining challenge for
sustainable seed system development. Hence, to be effective, seed delivery channels need to respond
to this challenge.
Different models of seed dissemination that are common in Kenya and Mali were identified by
Christinck et al. (2017a) and compared based on the seed system functions to which they contribute,
or where each is adding value to the system. The fi st odel is the fa e seed-p odu e oope ati e
that is engaged across most functions, from collaboration with breeders, through production, to
marketing and selling seed. The second type of enterprises is companies that are most strongly
e gaged i o ditio i g a d pa kagi g seed the pu hase, a d a e thus ide tified he e as seed
p o essi g a d t adi g o pa ies . These fi st t o odels p edo i a tl ope ate i Mali. “eed
companies that are typically found in Kenya, whether privately owned or parastatal, operate along
fairly similar seed processing and dissemination paths but differ in whether they invest in their own
breeding or depend entirely on licensing publicly bred varieties.
There are two main reasons why farmer-managed seed cooperatives in Mali have comparative
advantages for improving availability of improved seed in rural areas (Smale et al., 2016): one factor is
simply their location in rural areas, where they are usually engaged in agricultural development for
their village, community, or a larger area (Wennink et al., 2012), and proximity to clients with minimal
cost. Another factor is their active collaboration with national research stations and breeders. Farmer-
managed seed cooperatives and breeders often plan seed production together, including early
generation seed, based on interest and demands arising from variety evaluation trials and joint
collection of feedback from other farmers.
Private seed companies, in contrast, conditioning and packaging their seed in a central facility, have
significant costs and challenges to make their seed available to distant and geographically dispersed
farmers, which usually occurs through multi-level distribution networks. Furthermore, their access to
farmer feedback depends o side a l o the o pa s capacity to interact with their clients, which
implies additional costs. Hence, such distribution networks are most effective for large-scale
distribution of a few, well-known varieties to areas where they are widely used, and is less effective
for situations where demand is limited and highly diverse.

5.3 Seed Access

Access to seed is the final determinant of whether improved seed is sown, and can thus provide
benefits to its users. It is defined as farmers having the necessary resources to obtain appropriate seed
that is available near to them (Sperling, 2008), be it cash, grain for barter, credit and/or good relations
with the person providing the seed. Seed access is discussed in the following sections, based on social

27
and monetary dimensions of seed access. Furthermore, free seed distribution and other options to
enhance seed access are briefly presented.

5.3.1 Social Seed Price

The conditions under which seed can be acquired in a range of situations can be a determinant of
access. In Mali, where cultural norms regarding seed of traditional cereal crops are very strong, a
person who is asked to provide seed gains status and is culturally obliged to give the seed, mostly for
free or on an exchange basis, while for the person in need, the transaction my involve a loss of status.
The seed-to-g ai p i e atio i this s ste is e e ore than 1:1. Asking for money in exchange for
seed is culturally unacceptable. Thus, cultural norms assure access to seed, also for the most
disadvantaged persons (CRS/Mali and partners; 2006; Siart, 2008).
As a result, the monetary value of seed in this system is actually lower than that of grain, since if at all,
grain is typically returned after harvest, when grain prices are much lower than at other times of the
year. At the same time, the so ial p i e of seed is high, leadi g to a situatio he e it is a p io it for
farmers to save their own seed, and to share it with others if asked. Establishing commercial seed
supply options for traditional cereal crops in this context obviously needs to take these cultural norms
and existing options for seed access into careful consideration.
The many, and the increasing number of, farmer cooperative seed enterprises in Mali seem to align
ith these ultu al o s a d e pe tatio s i u e ous a s: ‘e og izi g fa e s apa it to
produce high quality seed; observing seed production fields before harvest; paying cash to the
cooperative and not to an individual; or the cooperative offering seed on a barter basis, but reflecting
the monetary value.
In Kenya, where maize is an introduced crop, and sorghum is a largely marginalized crop, such cultural
norms regarding seed seemed to be weak. However, the skills and practices to produce and sto e o e s
own seed, even in areas like Trans Nzoia County, where hybrid adoption is close to 100 percent, are
widespread and applied regularly, especially by smallholder farmers. This local knowledge is practiced
for two reasons: (a) security in case their favourite maize hybrid is not available or the family is unable
to mobilize sufficient cash to buy seed; and (b) to ensure availability of seed of local varieties that
cannot be accessed otherwise.

5.3.2 Seed Prices in Monetary Terms

The price of seed expressed as seed-to-grain price ratios for hybrid maize (ranging from 3:1 to 8:1) and
sorghum OPVs (ranging from of 2:1 to 8:1), estimated based on the prices farmers indicated paying to
seed providers, are quite similar in Kenya and Mali. Although our estimates are rough approximations
due to limited information and the period of conducting interviews, they correspond well with the 5:1
ratio published for maize hybrids in Kenya (Smale and Olwande, 2014).
However, a comparison of the absolute prices of hybrid maize seed in Kenya and Mali, converting
prices to USD, reveals that seed prices in Kenya can be up to twice as high as in Mali. Thus, the relatively
high price of seed in Kenya could explain why farmers there tend to consider the seed price when
choosing a hybrid to purchase (Smale and Olwande, 2014). In Mali, however, seed price was seldom
mentioned as limiting access to seed, given the fact that more possibilities exist to get seed in small
packages, or on a credit or exchange basis.
Important differences also exist with regard to the distribution of costs and benefits among different
seed system actors in Kenya and Mali. Kenyan farmers producing maize seed sign contracts with seed
companies that fix the price for the seed that they produce. This price was reported to be
approximately one-third of the retail seed price. Thus, approximately two-thirds of the seed purchase
price paid by farmers covered the costs to the seed company for certification, conditioning, packaging,
marketing and distribution, as well as any contributions to the breeding of the varieties. In contrast,

28
the price that Malian seed-producing farmers received for their seed was reported to be about 80
percent of the price farmers paid when purchasing seed from the cooperatives; thus, the costs for
certification, conditioning, marketing and distribution were much lower in this case (one-fifth of the
retail price). Hence, the distribution of revenues among seed system actors in both countries is an issue
that deserves further study, particularly in view of the potential of more decentralized seed production
and dissemination models, like those that are common in Mali, for income generation in rural areas.

5.3.3 The Cost of Free Seed

Direct free seed distribution was a hot topic for discussion not only during the individual interviews,
but also during the o kshops i oth ou t ies. The fa e s ho e e e efi ia ies of seed
distributions often expressed discontent due to various shortcomings: seed often arrived late; had a
high chance to be of poor germination capacity (Kenya); or arrived in poorly labelled seed packages
(Mali). Furthermore, there were cases of serious adaptation problems as the cultivars were not suitable
for local growing practices, leading to crop failure; and the seed did not always reach the targeted
farmers.
Agrodealers, as well as other businesses involved in local seed dissemination, were unhappy as they
lost business opportunities due to the free seed distributions. At the same time, some seed companies
rather favoured such contracts, as they allowed them to deliver large consignments without having the
costs for local dissemination. However, they also realized that the free distribution did not contribute
to the development of sustainable seed dissemination networks.

5.3.4 Financial Management Tools to Facilitate Seed Access

Limited cash availability or cash-flow constraints were mentioned as influencing decision-making and
oo fo manoeuvre of a ious seed s ste a to s, i ludi g fa e s, seed p odu e s a d seed
sellers. Seed producers reported problems due to the long time interval between start of the
production cycle and incoming payments, which is longer than a normal agricultural production cycle.
Seed sellers could not always meet demands for specific varieties or tended to limit the range of
varieties offered to certain popular hybrids. In the case of farmers, limited cash availability was
reported by some farmers as restricting access to certified seed of improved varieties, but not access
to seed as such, since they relied on their own farm-saved seed or on local networks to ensure access
to seed.
A general distinction can be made between cash availability for long-term investments, e.g. for seed
processing facilities or other technical equipment, and seasonal credits that allow normal operations
and are usually paid back after sale of the product (ISSD Africa, 2017). A range of financial tools are
available for each of these areas of demand, including own savings, group savings, microfinance, bank
loans (sometimes in association with guarantee funds), or grants (ISSD Africa, 2017).
One particularly interesting option for seasonal cash requirements is value-chain financing, where the
buyer of the final product, be it seed or grain, provides credit to those who produce it, sometimes even
on an in-kind basis. The main advantage of such forms of value-chain financing is that the buyers, e.g.
seed companies or grain traders, are often larger enterprises that suffer less from cash-flow constraints
than the producers, or that can more easily access bank loans.
Certain NGOs in both countries also facilitated access to seed by organizing input credits, as well as
organizing smallholder farmers for improved output market access. An alternative to such credit-based
options for seasonal financing are farmer savings-programmes for input purchase. One innovative
model is based on using a cell phone layaway plan, with which farmers purchase a selected package of
inputs31.

31
More information on www.myagro.org.

29
5.3.5 Cross-cutting Issues
Gender and communication were found to be issues that cut across the three factors of seed quality,
availability, and access. For example, gender issues were identified regarding varietal attributes and
diversity, as well as regarding dissemination pathways and financial management tools.
Developing gender perspectives in agricultural research can be seen as part of a general approach to
improving the scientific understanding of agricultural systems, and to better understand the needs for,
as well as potential benefits of, new technologies for specific groups of users. For example, gender
differences in preferences for specific varietal traits can be expected when women and men farm
under different conditions, if they have different roles and responsibilities in the production process,
grow the crop for different purposes, or if crops are grown only or predominantly by either women or
men (Christinck et al., 2017b).
Hence, a more gender-inclusive approach to seed system development should not just look at women
as a disad a taged usto e g oup, ut athe o side eeds a d pote tial o t i utio s of o e
and men systematically with regard to all seed system functions.
Furthermore, many issues on how information exchange among various seed system actors could be
improved to help actors make more informed decisions, were raised in the interviews and workshop
exchanges. One major communication challenges is how to enable millions of smallholder farmers to
gain access to varietal information of pertinence to them.
Besides classical approaches, such as field days or demonstration plots, some interesting new
approaches to provide information to farmers on a large scale were identified, e.g. based on online
search portals or mobile applications. Yet they are all designed and implemented in a more top-down
manner, while there appears to be some emerging efforts at gathering and sharing information on
varietal performance at the farmer level. Hence, such approaches could uild o the t aditio al
method of farmer-to-farmer exchange networks, while new communication technologies using
applications for use with mobile devices, farmer-to-farmer video messaging, etc. could be used to
accelerate and scale up knowledge sharing.
In general, collaborative learning of actors with diverse and complementary expertise is powerful for
creating collaborative advantages and facilitating innovation, and has also proven to be highly relevant
for seed system development. One example is the collaboration between seed-producer cooperatives
and plant breeders in Mali (Christinck et al., 2014), which evolved from joint learning experiences in
participatory variety evaluation. This activity provided farmers with rapid access to varietal information
pertinent to their conditions and production objectives, while they in turn gave direct feedback to the
researchers on varietal performance and demand for new varieties. This model is achieving some scale
in Mali, with individual breeding programmes collaborating with numerous cooperatives, associations
or unions of cooperatives.

30
6 Conclusions and Entry Points for Sustainable Seed System
Development

The need for stronger actor orientation to enhance seed system functioning at all levels was a major
conclusion of this study. Furthermore, focus on enhancing relationships among actors, e.g. by regular
dialogue and functional feedback loops, is crucial to enable individual actors to contribute to collective
goals a d u de sta d othe a to s eeds. Ad a tages of this app oa h a e that it is feasi le ith
simple explicit efforts to focus on all actor types and their interrelations, and it can serve as a spring-
board to concrete actions with potential for sustainably enhancing seed system functioning.
Sustainable seed system development requires that far ers eeds a d apa ities re ei e e tral
focus since (a) farmers engage and have insights in all seed system functions; and (b) value must accrue
to farmers and those who use the crop produce before other actor groups can obtain benefit. Such a
fa e fo us e ui es that fa e s a e e og ized as ke a to s athe tha just as e efi ia ies , a d
that their voices are actually heard on a continuing basis.
Major potential for seed system development lies in improved collection and sharing of varietal
information and performance data. “t e gthe i g a to s apa ities to olle t, sha e a d assess
information about varieties and their comparative performances will contribute to dynamic,
responsive seed systems in which well-informed decisions can be made. Practical examples include
enabling public access to what national varietal performance data exists, farmer experiential learning
through variety tests, a d gathe i g a ietal pe fo a e data f o de o st atio plots to uild data
a ks o a ietal pe fo a e a d p ofita ilit fo di e se farmer and production conditions.
Enhancing how information is shared, including training and use of multimedia and new ICT tools such
as applications for mobile phones; video; or radio, and efforts to provide user-differentiated
information, particularly for smallholder farmers, including women and men, all represent major
opportunities.
Decentralized seed production and marketing based on farmer-groups and cooperatives can provide
nuclei for an emerging locally-based seed industry, where market opportunities are limited for highly
specialized, large-s ale seed o pa ies, o he e fa e s eeds fo a ieties a e diverse. Such farmer
enterprises integrate elements of traditional farmer-managed seed systems, such as short distribution
pathways and trust among actors, while also speeding up innovation by collaborating with breeding
programmes in variety testing and development. Study of why these farmer enterprises currently play
a strong role in Mali and are rare in Kenya could be informative.
Plant breeding, as the source of value creation, needs to be regarded as an integral component of
functioning seed systems and requires appropriate funding for sustainable seed system development.
The diverse and intense discussions about varietal issues in our interviews and workshops also show
the need for joint consideration of what demands for innovations actually exist, in order for seed
systems to advance. For example, increased attention to desired grain traits for on-farm use and
processing could substantial help raise varietal adoption by small-scale farmers and women for whom
household food security is an important priority. Enhanced linkage of breeders with different seed
system actors will improve information flow and result in variety portfolios that better respond to
a to s p io ities fo p odu tio a d use.
Lastly, seed systems in both Kenya and Mali could benefit from more rigorous assessments of how
interventions, new technologies, policies and formal organizations influence seed system innovation
and sustainable development. Benefit and cost analyses for specific actor groups to guide decisions,
rather than relia e o o eptual o assu ed e efits, ould p o ide lea e ealisti field- ie s .
By shifting funds and resources from regulation and relief towards creative efforts such as capacity
building, breeding and innovative dissemination strategies involving diverse types of actors, costs could
be reduced and value increased where it is most needed — in rural areas, in the hands of small-scale
farmers and their market partners.

31
Practical opportunities for addressing these entry points for sustainable seed system development
through targeted action and capacity building, broken down by country and crop, are presented by
Christinck et al. (2017a: Annex). Ideally, the actors directly concerned would be involved in defining
these actions in detail, thus enabling ownership, completeness, and depth.

32
7 References

ABSF [African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum] 2010. Sorghum Breeding in Sub-Saharan Africa:
The success stories. ABSF, Nairobi.
Adhikari, U., Neyadhashemi, A.P. & Woznicki, S.A. 2015. Climate change and eastern Africa: a review
of impact on major crops. Food and Energy Security, 4(2): 110–132.
AgriExperience 2012. Kenya Seed Industry Study (KSIS). AgriExperience Ltd., Narobi.
Banathy, B.A. 1997. A Taste of Systemics. The Primer Project. First International Electronic Seminar
on Wholeness. International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) and International Institute for
Systemic Inquiry and Integration (IISII), 1 December 1996 to 31 December 1997.
Bänzinger, M. & Cooper, M. 2001. Breeding for low input conditions and consequences for
participatory plant breeding: Examples from tropical maize and wheat. Euphytica, 122: 503–519.
Barro-Kondombo, C.P., vom Brocke, K., Chantereau, J., Sagnard, F. & Zongo, J.D. 2008. Variabilité
phénotypique des sorghos locaux de deux régions du Burkina-Faso: La Boucle du Mouhoun et le
Centre-Ouest. Cahie s d Ag i ultu e, : –113.
BMZ [Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development] 2015. A world without hunger is
possible. Contributions of German development policy. BMZ, Bonn/Berlin.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley, Chichester.
Christinck, A., Diarra, M. & Horneber, G. 2014. Innovations in seed systems: Lessons from the CCRP-
fu ded P oje t “ustai i g Fa e -Managed Seed Initiatives in Mali, Niger, and Bu ki a Faso . The
McKnight Foundation, Minneapolis.
Christinck, A., Rattunde, F., Kergna, A., Mulinge, W. & Weltzien, E. 2017a. You a t g o alo e —
Prioritized Sustainable Seed System Development Options for Staple Food Crops in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Cases of Kenya and Mali. Final Project Report, November 2017. Program of Accompanying
Research for Agricultural Innovation (PARI), Bonn. Available at:
http://research4agrinnovation.org/publication/seed_systems_mali_kenya.
Christinck, A., Weltzien, E., Rattunde, F. & Ashby, J. 2017b. Gender Differentiation of Farmer
Preferences for Varietal Traits in Crop Improvement: Evidence and Issues. CGIAR Gender and
Agriculture Research Network Working Paper No. 2. CGIAR System Management Office and
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali.
CIMMYT [International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center] 2015. Maize in Mali: Successes and
Opportunities. DT Maize No. 4. A Quarterly Bulletin of the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa
Project. (CIMMYT), Nairobi.
Coulibaly, H., Bazile, D. & Sidibé, A. 2014. Modelling Seed System Networks in Mali to Improve
Farmers Seed Supply. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 3(4): 18–32.
CRS [Catholic Relief Services]/Mali and Partners. 2006. Seed System Security Assessment (SSSA)
Douentza, Northern Mali. CRS Mali, Bamako.
Daou, O. 2016. Mali: un taux de pauvreté estimé à 47,2% in 2015. Available at:
http://maliactu.net/mali-mali-un-taux-de-pauvrete-estime-a-472-en-2015/ (25 April 2017).
Deu, M., Weltzien, E., Calatayud, C., Traoré, Y., Bazile, D., Gozé, E., Trouche, G. & vom Brocke, K.
2014. How an improved sorghum variety evolves in a traditional seed system in Mali: Effects of
fa e s p a ti es o the ai te a e of phe ot pe a d ge etic composition. Field Crops
Research, 167: 131–142.
Diallo, M.G. & de Boef, W.S. 2012. Mali Seed Sector Assessment. ISSD Briefing Note, September 2012.
Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations] 2006. Quality Declared Seed System.
Plant Production and Protection Paper, No. 185. FAO, Rome.

33
FAO. . “eed s ste s. FAO e site “eeds a d Pla t Ge eti ‘esou es . A aila le at
http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/seeds-pgr/seed_sys/en/ (20 March
2017).
Gemenet, D.C., Leiser, W.L., Beggi, F., Herrmann, L.H., Vadez, V., Rattunde, H.F.W., Weltzien, E.,
Hash, C.T., Buerkert, A., and Haussmann, B.I.G. 2016. Overcoming Phosphorus Deficiency in West
African Pearl Millet and Sorghum Production Systems: Promising Options for Crop Improvement.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 7: 1398.
Government of Kenya. 2009. Biosafety Act. Available at:
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken89675.pdf (27 July 2017).
—— 2012a. Seeds and Plant Varieties Act. Available at:
http://www.kenyalaw.org/lex/actview.xql?actid=CAP.%20326 (27 July 2017).
—— 2012b. Plant Protection Act. Available at: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken18403.pdf
(22 July 2017).
—— 2013. Crops Act. Available at:
http://www.kenyalaw.org/lex/actview.xql?actid=No.%2016%20of%202013 (22 July 2017).
Haussmann, B.I.G., Rattunde, H.F.W., Weltzien-Rattunde, E., Traoré, P.S.C., vom Brocke, K. & Parzies,
H.K. 2012. Breeding Strategies for Adaptation of Pearl Millet and Sorghum to Climate Variability
and Change in West Africa. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 198: 327–339.
ISSD Africa 2017. Financing Seed Business. Synthesis Paper. Wageningen Centre for Development
Innovation (CDI), Wageningen, and Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Amsterdam.
Kante, M., Rattunde, H.F.W., W.L., Leiser, Nebié, B., Diallo, B., Diallo, A., Touré, A.O., Weltzien, E. &
Haussmann, B.I.G. 2017. Can Tall Guinea-Race Sorghum Hybrids Deliver Yield Advantage to
Smallholder Farmers in West and Central Africa? Crop Science, 57(2): 833–842.
Karanja, S. 2015. Kenya ranked sixth on extreme poverty index. Daily Nation, 18 February 2015.
Karingu, A.W. & Ngugi, P.K. 2013. Determinants of the infiltration of counterfeit agro-based products
in Kenya: A case of suppliers in Nairobi. International Journal of Human Resources and
Procurement, 1(5): 1–14.
KEPHIS [Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service]. 2016. KEPHIS Annual Report & Financial Statement
2016. KEPHIS, Nairobi.
Leiser, W.L., Rattunde, H.F.W., Piepho, H.-P.; Weltzien, E., Diallo, A., Melchinger, A.E., Parzies, H.K.,
and Haussmann, B.I.G. 2012. Selection Strategy for Sorghum Targeting Phosphorus-limited
Environments in West Africa: Analysis of Multienvironment Experiments. Crop Science, 52(6):
2517–2527.
Lelea, M.A., Roba, G.M., Christinck, A. & Kaufmann, B.A. 2014. Methodologies for Stakeholder
Analysis – for application in transdisciplinary research projects focusing on actors in food supply
chains. German institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL), Witzenhausen.
Long, N. 2001. Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. Routledge, London/New York.
McGuire, S. & Sperling L. 2016. Seed systems smallholder farmers use. Food Security 8(1): 179–195.
Mi ist e de l Ag i ultu e. . Natio al Strategy for the Development of Rice Growing. République
du Mali, Bamako.
Mi ist e de l Ag i ultu e, . “tatisti ues des sultats d a al ses ualitati es des lots de
semences de la campagne agricole 2015–2016. Laboratoire LABOSEM, Bamako.
Misiko, M., Almekinders, C., Barker, I., Borus, D., Oggema, J. & Mukalama, J. 2011. Kenya: A
Company, a Cooperative and a Family. pp. 142–155. In: Van Mele et al. (eds.). African Seed
Enterprises: Sowing the Seeds of Food Security. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
MoALF [Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries]. 2016. Economic Review of Agriculture (ERA)
2015. MoALF, Nairobi.

34
Mueller, S.M.& T.J. Vyn, T.J. 2016. Maize Plant Resilience to N Stress and Post-silking N Capacity
Changes over Time: A Review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7: Art.53.
Pray, C.E. & Ramaswami, B. 2001. Liberalization of the Indian Seed Industry: competition, research
and impact on farmers. The International Food and Agribusiness Review, 2: 407–420.
Pray, C.E., Ribeiro, S., Mueller, R.A.E. & Parthasarathy Rao, P. 1991. Private Research and Public
Benefit: The Private Seed Industry for Sorghum and Pearl Millet in India. Research Policy, 20: 315–
324.
Rattunde, H.F.W., Weltzien, E., Diallo, B., Diallo, A.G., Sidibe, M., Touré, A.O., Rathore, A., Das, R.R.,
Leiser, W.L. & Touré, A. 2013. Yield of photoperiod-sensitive sorghum hybrids based on guinea-
a e ge plas u de fa e s field o ditio s i Mali. Crop Science, 53(6): 2454–2456.
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.
Rooney, W. 2004. Sorghum Improvement – Integrating Traditional and New Technology to Produce
Improved Genotypes. Advances in Agronomy, 83: 37–109.
Siart, S. 2008. Strengthening local seed systems: Options for enhancing diffusion of varietal diversity
of sorghum in Southern Mali. Communication and Extension Series, No. 85. Margraf Publishers,
Weikersheim.
Sikinyi, E.O. 2010. Baseline study/Survey report on the seed sector in Kenya. Seed Trade Association
of Kenya (STAK), Nairobi.
Smale, M. & Olwande, J. 2014. Demand for maize hybrids and hybrid change on smallholder farms in
Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 45(4): 409–420.
Smale, M., Kergna, A. & Diakité, L. 2016. An Economic Assessment of Sorghum Improvement in Mali.
Impact Assessment Report No. 2. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT), Patancheru.
Sperling, L. 2001. Emergency Seed Aid in Kenya. A Case Study of Lessons Learnt. Occasional
Publications Series, No. 34. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali.
Sperling, L. 2008. When disaster strikes. A guide for assessing seed security. International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.
Sperling, L. & Cooper, D. 2003. Understanding seed systems and seed security. Improving the
effectiveness and sustainability of seed relief. In: Proceedings of a stakeholde s o kshop, ‘o e,
26-28 May 2003. FAO, Rome.
Sperling, L., Cooper, H.D. & Remington, T. 2008. Moving towards more effective seed aid. Journal of
Development Studies, 44(4): 586–612.
Tjernström, E., Clavijo, J., Bhakta, M., Lybbert, T., Pincuss, L., Singh, J. & Vallejos, C.E. 2017. When
Intentions Matter – Identifying the Prevalence and Source of Poor-Quality Inputs in Western
Kenya. Unpublished Working paper based on results presented at the 11th Conference of the
International Consortium on Applied Bioe o o ‘esea h ICAB‘ Bioeconomy in Transition:
Ne Tools a d Ne A to s , Ma – 2 June 2017, Berkeley, California.
UNCDP [United Nations Committee for Development Policy]. 2016. List of Least Developed Countries
(as of May 2016). UNCDP, New York, USA.
UNDP. [United Nations Development Program]. 2016a. Human Development Report 2016. Briefing
note for countries on the 2016 Human Development Report: Kenya. UNDP, New York, USA.
UNDP. 2016b. Human Development Report 2016. Briefing note for countries on the 2016 Human
Development Report: Mali. UNDP, New York, USA.
Wennink, B., Togola, B. & T. Hilhorst, T. 2012. Bâti l e t ep e a iat pa sa au Mali. Les
enseignements tirés des coopératives agricoles appuyées par le programme de Développement
Economique Rural de la Région de Koulikoro. Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Amsterdam.

35
ZEF Working Paper Series, ISSN 1864-6638
Center for Development Research, University of Bonn
Editors: Christian Borgemeister, Joachim von Braun, Manfred Denich, Till Stellmacher and Eva Youkhana

1. Evers, Hans-Diete a d “ol a Ge ke . Closi g the Digital Di ide: “outheast Asia s Path To a ds a
Knowledge Society.
2. Bhuiyan, Shajahan and Hans-Dieter Evers (2005). Social Capital and Sustainable Development: Theories and
Concepts.
3. Schetter, Conrad (2005). Ethnicity and the Political Reconstruction of Afghanistan.
4. Kassahun, Samson (2005). Social Capital and Community Efficacy. In Poor Localities of Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
5. Fuest, Veronika (2005). Policies, Practices and Outcomes of Demand-oriented Community Water Supply
in Ghana: The National Community Water and Sanitation Programme 1994 – 2004.
6. Menkhoff, Thomas and Hans-Dieter Evers (2005). Strategic Groups in a Knowledge Society: Knowledge
Elites as Drivers of Biotechnology Development in Singapore.
7. Mollinga, Peter P. (2005). The Water Resources Policy Process in India: Centralisation, Polarisation and New
Demands on Governance.
8. Evers, Hans-Dieter (2005). Wissen ist Macht: Experten als Strategische Gruppe.
8.a Evers, Hans-Dieter and Solvay Gerke (2005). Knowledge is Power: Experts as Strategic Group.
9. Fuest, Veronika (2005). Partnerschaft, Patronage oder Paternalismus? Eine empirische Analyse der
Praxis universitärer Forschungskooperation mit Entwicklungsländern.
10. Laube, Wolfram (2005). Promise and Perils of Water Reform: Perspectives from Northern Ghana.
11. Mollinga, Peter P. (2004). Sleeping with the Enemy: Dichotomies and Polarisation in Indian Policy Debates on
the Environmental and Social Effects of Irrigation.
12. Wall, Caleb (2006). Knowledge for Development: Local and External Knowledge in Development Research.
13. Laube, Wolfram and Eva Youkhana (2006). Cultural, Socio-Economic and Political Con-straints for Virtual Water
Trade: Perspectives from the Volta Basin, West Africa.
14. Hornidge, Anna-Katharina (2006). Singapore: The Knowledge-Hub in the Straits of Malacca.
15. Evers, Hans-Dieter and Caleb Wall (2006). Knowledge Loss: Managing Local Knowledge in Rural Uzbekistan.
16. Youkhana, Eva; Lautze, J. and B. Barry (2006). Changing Interfaces in Volta Basin Water Management:
Customary, National and Transboundary.
17. Evers, Hans-Dieter and Solvay Gerke (2006). The Strategic Importance of the Straits of Malacca for
World Trade and Regional Development.
18. Hornidge, Anna-Katharina (2006). Defining Knowledge in Germany and Singapore: Do the Country-Specific
Definitions of Knowledge Converge?
19. Mollinga, Peter M. (2007). Water Policy – Water Politics: Social Engineering and Strategic Action in Water
Sector Reform.
20. Evers, Hans-Dieter and Anna-Katharina Hornidge (2007). Knowledge Hubs Along the Straits of Malacca.
21. Sultana, Nayeem (2007). Trans-National Identities, Modes of Networking and Integration in a Multi-
Cultural Society. A Study of Migrant Bangladeshis in Peninsular Malaysia.
22. Yal i , ‘esul a d Pete M. Molli ga . I stitutio al T a sfo atio i Uz ekista s Ag i ultu al a d
Water Resources Administration: The Creation of a New Bureaucracy.
23. Menkhoff, T.; Loh, P. H. M.; Chua, S. B.; Evers, H.-D. and Chay Yue Wah (2007). Riau Vegetables for
Singapore Consumers: A Collaborative Knowledge-Transfer Project Across the Straits of Malacca.
24. Evers, Hans-Dieter and Solvay Gerke (2007). Social and Cultural Dimensions of Market Expansion.
25. Obeng, G. Y.; Evers, H.-D.; Akuffo, F. O., Braimah, I. and A. Brew-Hammond (2007). Solar PV Rural Electrification
and Energy-Poverty Assessment in Ghana: A Principal Component Analysis.
26. Eguavoen, Irit; E. Youkhana (2008). Small Towns Face Big Challenge. The Management of Piped Systems
after the Water Sector Reform in Ghana.
27. Evers, Hans-Dieter (2008). Knowledge Hubs and Knowledge Clusters: Designing a Knowledge Architecture for
Development
28. Ampomah, Ben Y.; Adjei, B. and E. Youkhana (2008). The Transboundary Water Resources Management
Regime of the Volta Basin.
29. Saravanan.V.S.; McDonald, Geoffrey T. and Peter P. Mollinga (2008). Critical Review of Integrated Water
Resources Management: Moving Beyond Polarised Discourse.
30. Laube, Wolfram; Awo, Martha and Benjamin Schraven (2008). Erratic Rains and Erratic Markets:
Environmental change, economic globalisation and the expansion of shallow groundwater irrigation in West
Africa.
31. Mollinga, Peter P. (2008). For a Political Sociology of Water Resources Management.
32. Hauck, Jennifer; Youkhana, Eva (2008). Histories of water and fisheries management in Northern Ghana.
33. Mollinga, Peter P. (2008). The Rational Organisation of Dissent. Boundary concepts, boundary objects and
boundary settings in the interdisciplinary study of natural resources management.
34. Evers, Hans-Dieter; Gerke, Solvay (2009). Strategic Group Analysis.
35. Evers, Hans-Dieter; Benedikter, Simon (2009). Strategic Group Formation in the Mekong Delta - The
Development of a Modern Hydraulic Society.
36. Obeng, George Yaw; Evers, Hans-Dieter (2009). Solar PV Rural Electrification and Energy-Poverty: A
Review and Conceptual Framework With Reference to Ghana.
37. Scholtes, Fabian (2009). Analysing and explaining power in a capability perspective.
38. Eguavoen, Irit (2009). The Acquisition of Water Storage Facilities in the Abay River Basin, Ethiopia.
39. Hornidge, Anna-Katha i a; Meh ood Ul Hassa ; Molli ga, Pete P. . Follo the I o atio – A
joint experimentation and learning approach to transdisciplinary innovation research.
40. Scholtes, Fabian (2009). How does moral knowledge matter in development practice, and how can it be
researched?
41. Laube, Wolfram (2009). Creative Bureaucracy: Balancing power in irrigation administration in northern Ghana.
42. Laube, Wolfram (2009). Changing the Course of History? Implementing water reforms in Ghana and South
Africa.
43. Scholtes, Fabian (2009). Status quo and prospects of smallholders in the Brazilian sugarcane and ethanol
sector: Lessons for development and poverty reduction.
44. Evers, Hans-Dieter; Genschick, Sven; Schraven, Benjamin (2009). Constructing Epistemic Landscapes: Methods
of GIS-Based Mapping.
45. Saravanan V.S. (2009). Integration of Policies in Framing Water Management Problem: Analysing Policy
Processes using a Bayesian Network.
46. Saravanan V.S. (2009). Dancing to the Tune of Democracy: Agents Negotiating Power to Decentralise Water
Management.
47. Huu, Pham Cong; Rhlers, Eckart; Saravanan, V. Subramanian (2009). Dyke System Planing: Theory and
Practice in Can Tho City, Vietnam.
48. Evers, Hans-Dieter; Bauer, Tatjana (2009). Emerging Epistemic Landscapes: Knowledge Clusters in Ho Chi Minh
City and the Mekong Delta.
49. Reis, Nadine; Mollinga, Peter P. (2009). Microcredit for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in the
Mekong Delta. Poli i ple e tatio et ee the eeds fo lea ate a d eautiful lat i es .
50. Gerke, Solvay; Ehlert, Judith (2009). Local Knowledge as Strategic Resource: Fishery in the Seasonal Floodplains
of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
51. Schraven, Benjamin; Eguavoen, Irit; Manske, Günther (2009). Doctoral degrees for capacity development:
Results from a survey among African BiGS-DR alumni.
52. Nguyen, Loan (2010). Legal Framework of the Water Sector in Vietnam.
53. Nguyen, Loan (2010). Problems of Law Enforcement in Vietnam. The Case of Wastewater Management in Can
Tho City.
54. Oberkircher, Lisa et al. (2010). Rethinking Water Management in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Concepts and
Recommendations.
55. Waibel, Gabi (2010). State Management in Transition: Understanding Water Resources Management in
Vietnam.
56. Saravanan V.S.; Mollinga, Peter P. (2010). Water Pollution and Human Health. Transdisciplinary Research
on Risk Governance in a Complex Society.
57. Vormoor, Klaus (2010). Water Engineering, Agricultural Development and Socio-Economic Trends in the
Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
58. Hornidge, Anna-Katharina; Kurfürst, Sandra (2010). Envisioning the Future, Conceptualising Public Space.
Hanoi and Singapore Negotiating Spaces for Negotiation.
59. Mollinga, Peter P. (2010). Transdisciplinary Method for Water Pollution and Human Health Research.
60. Youkhana, Eva (2010). Gender and the development of handicraft production in rural Yucatán/Mexico.
61. Naz, Farhat; Saravanan V. Subramanian (2010). Water Management across Space and Time in India.
62. Evers, Hans-Dieter; Nordin, Ramli, Nienkemoer, Pamela (2010). Knowledge Cluster Formation in Peninsular
Malaysia: The Emergence of an Epistemic Landscape.
63. Mehmood Ul Hassan; Hornidge, Anna-Katha i a . Follo the I o atio – The second year of a joint
experimentation and learning approach to transdisciplinary research in Uzbekistan.
64. Mollinga, Peter P. (2010). Boundary concepts for interdisciplinary analysis of irrigation water management in
South Asia.
65. Noelle-Karimi, Christine (2006). Village Institutions in the Perception of National and International Actors in
Afghanistan. (Amu Darya Project Working Paper No. 1)
66. Kuzmits, Bernd (2006). Cross-bordering Water Management in Central Asia. (Amu Darya Project Working
Paper No. 2)
67. Schetter, Conrad; Glassner, Rainer; Karokhail, Masood (2006). Understanding Local Violence. Security
Arrangements in Kandahar, Kunduz and Paktia. (Amu Darya Project Working Paper No. 3)
68. Shah, Usman (2007). Livelihoods in the Asqalan and Sufi-Qarayateem Canal Irrigation Systems in the Kunduz
River Basin. (Amu Darya Project Working Paper No. 4)
69. ter Steege, Bernie (2007). Infrastructure and Water Distribution in the Asqalan and Sufi-Qarayateem Canal
Irrigation Systems in the Kunduz River Basin. (Amu Darya Project Working Paper No. 5)
70. Mielke, Katja . O The Co ept of Village i No theaste Afgha ista . E plo atio s f o Ku duz
Province. (Amu Darya Project Working Paper No. 6)
71. Mielke, Katja; Glassner, Rainer; Schetter, Conrad; Yarash, Nasratullah (2007). Local Governance in Warsaj and
Farkhar Districts. (Amu Darya Project Working Paper No. 7)
72. Meininghaus, Esther (2007). Legal Pluralism in Afghanistan. (Amu Darya Project Working Paper No. 8)
73. Yarash, Nasratullah; Smith, Paul; Mielke, Katja (2010). The fuel economy of mountain villages in
Ishkamish and Burka (Northeast Afghanistan). Rural subsistence and urban marketing patterns. (Amu Darya
Project Working Paper No. 9)
74. O e ki he , Lisa . “ta – We Will “e e You Plo ! . Puzzles a d pitfalls of ate esea h i u al
Uzbekistan.
75. Shtaltovna, Anastasiya; Hornidge, Anna-Katharina; Mollinga, Peter P. (2011). The Reinvention of Agricultural
Service Organisations in Uzbekistan – a Machine-Tractor Park in the Khorezm Region.
76. Stellmacher, Till; Grote, Ulrike (2011). Forest Coffee Certification in Ethiopia: Economic Boon or Ecological
Bane?
77. Gatzweiler, Franz W.; Baumüller, Heike; Ladenburger, Christine; von Braun, Joachim (2011). Marginality.
Addressing the roots causes of extreme poverty.
78. Mielke, Katja; Schetter, Conrad; Wilde, Andreas (2011). Dimensions of Social Order: Empirical Fact, Analytical
Framework and Boundary Concept.
79. Yarash, Nasratullah; Mielke, Katja (2011). The Social Order of the Bazaar: Socio-economic embedding of Retail
and Trade in Kunduz and Imam Sahib
80. Baumüller, Heike; Ladenburger, Christine; von Braun, Joachim (2011). Innovative business approaches for the
reduction of extreme poverty and marginality?
81. Ziai, Aram (2011). “o e efle tio s o the o ept of de elop e t .
82. Saravanan V.S., Mollinga, Peter P. (2011). The Environment and Human Health - An Agenda for Research.
83. Eguavoen, Irit; Tesfai, Weyni (2011). Rebuilding livelihoods after dam-induced relocation in Koga, Blue Nile
basin, Ethiopia.
84. Eguavoen, I., Sisay Demeku Derib et al. (2011). Digging, damming or diverting? Small-scale irrigation in the Blue
Nile basin, Ethiopia.
85. Genschick, Sven (2011). Pangasius at risk - Governance in farming and processing, and the role of different
capital.
86. Quy-Hanh Nguyen, Hans-Dieter Evers (2011). Farmers as knowledge brokers: Analysing three cases from
Viet a s Meko g Delta.
87. Poos, Wolf Henrik (2011). The local governance of social security in rural Surkhondarya, Uzbekistan. Post-Soviet
community, state and social order.
88. Graw, Valerie; Ladenburger, Christine (2012). Mapping Marginality Hotspots. Geographical Targeting for
Poverty Reduction.
89. Gerke, Solvay; Evers, Hans-Dieter (2012). Looking East, looking West: Penang as a Knowledge Hub.
90. Turaeva, Rano (2012). Innovation policies in Uzbekistan: Path taken by ZEFa project on innovations in the
sphere of agriculture.
91. Gleisberg-Gerber, Katrin (2012). Livelihoods and land management in the Ioba Province in south-western
Burkina Faso.
92. Hiemenz, Ulrich (2012). The Politics of the Fight Against Food Price Volatility – Where do we stand and where
are we heading?
93. Baumüller, Heike (2012). Facilitating agricultural technology adoption among the poor: The role of service
delivery through mobile phones.
94. Akpabio, Emmanuel M.; Saravanan V.S. (2012). Water Supply and Sanitation Practices in Nigeria: Applying
Local Ecological Knowledge to Understand Complexity.
95. Evers, Hans-Dieter; Nordin, Ramli (2012). The Symbolic Universe of Cyberjaya, Malaysia.
96. Akpabio, Emmanuel M. (2012). Water Supply and Sanitation Services Sector in Nigeria: The Policy Trend and
Practice Constraints.
97. Boboyorov, Hafiz (2012). Masters and Networks of Knowledge Production and Transfer in the Cotton Sector of
Southern Tajikistan.
98. Van Assche, Kristof; Hornidge, Anna-Katharina (2012). Knowledge in rural transitions - formal and informal
underpinnings of land governance in Khorezm.
99. Eguavoen, Irit (2012). Blessing and destruction. Climate change and trajectories of blame in Northern Ghana.
100. Callo-Concha, Daniel; Gaiser, Thomas and Ewert, Frank (2012). Farming and cropping systems in the West
African Sudanian Savanna. WASCAL research area: Northern Ghana, Southwest Burkina Faso and Northern
Benin.
101. Sow, Papa (2012). Uncertainties and conflicting environmental adaptation strategies in the region of the Pink
Lake, Senegal.
102. Ta , “i ei . ‘e o side i g the Viet a ese de elop e t isio of i dust ialisatio a d ode isatio
.
103. Ziai, Aram (2012). Postcolonial perspecti es o de elop e t .
104. Kelboro, Girma; Stellmacher, Till (2012). Contesting the National Park theorem? Governance and land use in
Nech Sar National Park, Ethiopia.
105. Kotsila, Pa agiota . Health is gold : I stitutio al st u tu es a d the ealities of health access in the
Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
106. Mandler, Andreas (2013). Knowledge and Governance Arrangements in Agricultural Production: Negotiating
Access to Arable Land in Zarafshan Valley, Tajikistan.
107. Tsegai, Daniel; McBain, Florence; Tischbein, Bernhard (2013). Water, sanitation and hygiene: the missing link
with agriculture.
108. Pangaribowo, Evita Hanie; Gerber, Nicolas; Torero, Maximo (2013). Food and Nutrition Security Indicators: A
Review.
109. von Braun, Joachim; Gerber, Nicolas; Mirzabaev, Alisher; Nkonya Ephraim (2013). The Economics of Land
Degradation.
110. Stellmacher, Till (2013). Local forest governance in Ethiopia: Between legal pluralism and livelihood realities.
111. Evers, Hans-Dieter; Purwaningrum, Farah (2013). Japanese Automobile Conglomerates in Indonesia:
Knowledge Transfer within an Industrial Cluster in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area.
112. Waibel, Gabi; Benedikter, Simon (2013). The formation water user groups in a nexus of central directives and
local administration in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
113. Ayaribilla Akudugu, Jonas; Laube, Wolfram (2013). Implementing Local Economic Development in Ghana:
Multiple Actors and Rationalities.
114. Malek, Mohammad Abdul; Hossain, Md. Amzad; Saha, Ratnajit; Gatzweiler, Franz W. (2013). Mapping
marginality hotspots and agricultural potentials in Bangladesh.
115. Siriwardane, Rapti; Winands, Sarah (2013). Between hope and hype: Traditional knowledge(s) held by marginal
communities.
116. Nguyen, Thi Phuong Loan (2013). The Legal F a e o k of Viet a s Wate “e to : Update 2013.
117. Shtaltovna, Anastasiya (2013). Knowledge gaps and rural development in Tajikistan. Agricultural advisory
services as a panacea?
118. Van Assche, Kristof; Hornidge, Anna-Katharina; Shtaltovna, Anastasiya; Boboyorov, Hafiz (2013). Epistemic
cultures, knowledge cultures and the transition of agricultural expertise. Rural development in Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan and Georgia.
119. Schädler, Manuel; Gatzweiler, Franz W. (2013). Institutional Environments for Enabling Agricultural Technology
Innovations: The role of Land Rights in Ethiopia, Ghana, India and Bangladesh.
120. Eguavoen, Irit; Schulz, Karsten; de Wit, Sara; Weisser, Florian; Müller-Mahn, Detlef (2013). Political dimensions
of climate change adaptation. Conceptual reflections and African examples.
121. Feuer, Hart Nadav; Hornidge, Anna-Katharina; Schetter, Conrad (2013). Rebuilding Knowledge. Opportunities
and risks for higher education in post-conflict regions.
122. Dörendahl, Esther I. (2013). Boundary work and water resources. Towards improved management and
research practice?
123. Baumüller, Heike (2013). Mobile Technology Trends and their Potential for Agricultural Development
124. “a a a a , V.“. . Bla e it o the o u it , i u ize the state a d the i te atio al age ies. A
assessment of water supply and sanitation programs in India.
125. Ariff, Syamimi; Evers, Hans-Dieter; Ndah, Anthony Banyouko; Purwaningrum, Farah (2014). Governing
Knowledge for Development: Knowledge Clusters in Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia.
126. Bao, Chao; Jia, Lili (2014). Residential fresh water demand in China. A panel data analysis.
127. Siriwardane, Rapti (2014). War, Migration and Modernity: The Micro-politics of the Hijab in Northeastern Sri
Lanka.
128. Kirui, Oliver Kiptoo; Mirzabaev, Alisher (2014). Economics of Land Degradation in Eastern Africa.
129. Evers, Hans-Dieter (2014). Governing Maritime Space: The South China Sea as a Mediterranean Cultural Area.
130. Saravanan, V. S.; Mavalankar, D.; Kulkarni, S.; Nussbaum, S.; Weigelt, M. (2014). Metabolized-water breeding
diseases in urban India: Socio-spatiality of water problems and health burden in Ahmedabad.
131. Zulfiqar, Ali; Mujeri, Mustafa K.; Badrun Nessa, Ahmed (2014). Extreme Poverty and Marginality in Bangladesh:
Review of Extreme Poverty Focused Innovative Programmes.
132. Schwachula, Anna; Vila Seoane, Maximiliano; Hornidge, Anna-Katharina (2014). Science, technology and
innovation in the context of development. An overview of concepts and corresponding policies recommended
by international organizations.
133. Callo-Concha, Daniel (2014). Approaches to managing disturbance and change: Resilience, vulnerability and
adaptability.
134. M Bai , Flo e e . Health i su a e a d health e i o e t: I dia s su sidized health i su a e i a
context of limited water and sanitation services.
135. Mirzabaev, Alisher; Guta, Dawit; Goedecke, Jann; Gaur, Varun; Börner, Jan; Virchow, Detlef; Denich, Manfred;
von Braun, Joachim (2014). Bioenergy, Food Security and Poverty Reduction: Mitigating tradeoffs and
promoting synergies along the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus.
136. Iskandar, Deden Dinar; Gatzweiler, Franz (2014). An optimization model for technology adoption of
marginalized smallholders: Theoretical support for matching technological and institutional innovations.
137. Bühler, Dorothee; Grote, Ulrike; Hartje, Rebecca; Ker, Bopha; Lam, Do Truong; Nguyen, Loc Duc; Nguyen, Trung
Thanh; Tong, Kimsun (2015). Rural Livelihood Strategies in Cambodia: Evidence from a household survey in
Stung Treng.
138. Amankwah, Kwadwo; Shtaltovna, Anastasiya; Kelboro, Girma; Hornidge, Anna-Katharina (2015). A Critical
Review of the Follow-the-Innovation Approach: Stakeholder collaboration and agricultural innovation
development.
139. Wiesmann, Doris; Biesalski, Hans Konrad; von Grebmer, Klaus; Bernstein, Jill (2015). Methodological review
and revision of the Global Hunger Index.
140. Eguavoen, Irit; Wahren, Julia (2015). Climate change adaptation in Burkina Faso: aid dependency and obstacles
to political participation. Adaptation au changement climatique au Burkina Faso: la dépendance à l'aide et les
obstacles à la participation politique.
141. Youkhana, Eva. Postponed to 2016 (147).
142. Von Braun, Joachim; Kalkuhl, Matthias (2015). International Science and Policy Interaction for Improved Food
and Nutrition Security: toward an International Panel on Food and Nutrition (IPFN).
143. Mohr, Anna; Beuchelt, Tina; Schneider, Rafaël; Virchow, Detlef (2015). A rights-based food security principle
for biomass sustainability standards and certification systems.
144. Husmann, Christine; von Braun, Joachim; Badiane, Ousmane; Akinbamijo, Yemi; Fatunbi, Oluwole Abiodun;
Virchow, Detlef (2015). Tapping Potentials of Innovation for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Growth:
An Africa-Wide Perspective.
145. Laube, Wolfram (2015). Changing Aspirations, Cultural Models of Success, and Social Mobility in Northern
Ghana.
146. Narayanan, Sudha; Gerber, Nicolas (2016). Social Safety Nets for Food and Nutritional Security in India.
147. Youkha a, E a . Mig a ts eligious spa es a d the power of Christian Saints – the Latin American Virgin
of Cisne in Spain.
148. Grote, Ulrike; Neubacher, Frank (2016). Rural Crime in Developing Countries: Theoretical Framework, Empirical
Findings, Research Needs.
149. Sharma, Rasadhika; Nguyen, Thanh Tung; Grote, Ulrike; Nguyen, Trung Thanh. Changing Livelihoods in Rural
Cambodia: Evidence from panel household data in Stung Treng.
150. Kavegue, Afi; Eguavoen, Irit (2016). The experience and impact of urban floods and pollution in Ebo Town,
Greater Banjul Area, in The Gambia.
151. Mbaye, Linguère Mously; Zimmermann, Klaus F. (2016). Natural Disasters and Human Mobility.
152. Gulati, Ashok; Manchanda, Stuti; Kacker, Rakesh (2016). Harvesting Solar Power in India.
153. Laube, Wolfram; Awo, Martha; Derbile, Emmanuel (2017). Smallholder Integration into the Global Shea Nut
Commodity Chain in Northern Ghana. Promoting poverty reduction or continuing exploitation?
154. Attemene, Pauline; Eguavoen, Irit (2017). Effects of sustainability communication on environments and rural
livelihoods.
155. Von Braun, Joachim; Kofol, Chiara (2017). Expanding Youth Employment in the Arab Region and Africa.
156. Beuchelt, Tina (2017). Buying green and social from abroad: Are biomass-focused voluntary sustainability
standards useful for European public procurement?
157. Bekchanov, Maksud (2017). Potentials of Waste and Wastewater Resources Recovery and Re-use (RRR)
Options for Improving Water, Energy and Nutrition Security.
158. Leta, Gerba; Kelboro, Girma; Stellmacher, Till; Hornidge, Anna-Katharina (2017). The agricultural extension
system in Ethiopia: operational setup, challenges and opportunities.
159. Ganguly, Kavery; Gulati, Ashok; von Braun, Joachim (2017). Innovations spearheading the next transformations
i I dia s ag i ultu e.
160. Gebreselassie, Samuel; Haile Mekbib G.; Kalkuhl, Matthias (2017). The Wheat Sector in Ethiopia: Current Status
and Key Challenges for Future Value Chain Development.
161. Jemal, Omarsherif Mohammed, Callo-Concha, Daniel (2017). Potential of Agroforestry for Food and Nutrition
Security of Small-scale Farming Households.
162. Berga, Helen; Ringler, Claudia; Bryan, Elizabeth; El Didi, Hagar; Elnasikh Sara (2017). Addressing Transboundary
Cooperation in the Eastern Nile through the Water-Energy-Food Nexus. Insights from an E-survey and Key
Informant Interviews.
163. Bekchanov, Maksud (2018). Enabling Environment for Waste and Wastewater Recycling and Reuse Options in
South Asia: the case of Sri Lanka.
164. Kirui, Oliver Kiptoo; Kozicka, Marta (2018). Vocational Education and Training for Farmers and Other Actors in
the Agri-Food Value Chain in Africa.

http://www.zef.de/workingpapers.html
 ZEF Development Studies
edited by
Solvay Gerke and Hans-Dieter Evers

Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn

Shahjahan H. Bhuiyan
Benefits of Social Capital. Urban Solid Waste Management in Bangladesh
Vol. 1, 2005, 288 p., 19.90 EUR, br. ISBN 3-8258-8382-5

Veronika Fuest
Demand-oriented Community Water Supply in Ghana. Policies, Practices and Outcomes
Vol. 2, 2006, 160 p., 19.90 EUR, br. ISBN 3-8258-9669-2

Anna-Katharina Hornidge
Knowledge Society. Vision and Social Construction of Reality in Germany and Singapore
Vol. 3, 2007, 200 p., 19.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-0701-6

Wolfram Laube
Changing Natural Resource Regimes in Northern Ghana. Actors, Structures and Institutions
Vol. 4, 2007, 392 p., 34.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-0641-5

Lirong Liu
Wirtschaftliche Freiheit und Wachstum. Eine international vergleichende Studie
Vol. 5, 2007, 200 p., 19.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-0701-6

Phuc Xuan To
Forest Property in the Vietnamese Uplands. An Ethnography of Forest Relations in Three Dao Villages
Vol. 6, 2007, 296 p., 29.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-0773-3

Caleb R.L. Wall, Peter P. Mollinga (Eds.)

Fieldwork in Difficult Environments. Methodology as Boundary Work in Development Research
Vol. 7, 2008, 192 p., 19.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-1383-3

Solvay Gerke, Hans-Dieter Evers, Anna-K. Hornidge (Eds.)

The Straits of Malacca. Knowledge and Diversity
Vol. 8, 2008, 240 p., 29.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-1383-3

Caleb Wall
Argorods of Western Uzbekistan. Knowledge Control and Agriculture in Khorezm
Vol. 9, 2008, 384 p., 29.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-1426-7

Irit Eguavoen
The Political Ecology of Household Water in Northern Ghana
Vol. 10, 2008, 328 p., 34.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-1613-1
Charlotte van der Schaaf
Institutional Change and Irrigation Management in Burkina Faso. Flowing Structures and Concrete
Struggles
Vol. 11, 2009, 344 p., 34.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-1624-7

Nayeem Sultana
The Bangladeshi Diaspora in Peninsular Malaysia. Organizational Structure, Survival Strategies and
Networks
Vol. 12, 2009, 368 p., 34.90 EUR, br. ISBN 978-3-8258-1629-2

Peter P. Mollinga, Anjali Bhat, Saravanan V.S. (Eds.)

When Policy Meets Reality. Political Dynamics and the Practice of Integration in Water Resources
Management Reform
Vol. 13, 2010, 216 p., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-10672-8
Irit Eguavoen, Wolfram Laube (Eds.)
Negotiating Local Governance. Natural Resources Management at the Interface of Communities and
the State
Vol. 14, 2010, 248 p., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-10673-5

William Tsuma
Gold Mining in Ghana. Actors, Alliances and Power
Vol. 15, 2010, 256 p., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-10811-1

Thim Ly
Planning the Lower Mekong Basin: Social Intervention in the Se San River
Vol. 16, 2010, 240 p., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-10834-0

Tatjana Bauer
The Challenge of Knowledge Sharing - Practices of the Vietnamese Science Community in Ho Chi Minh
City and the Mekong Delta
Vol. 17, 2011, 304 p., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90121-7

Pham Cong Huu

Floods and Farmers - Politics, Economics and Environmental Impacts of Dyke Construction in the
Mekong Delta / Vietnam
Vol. 18, 2012, 200 p., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90167-5

Judith Ehlert
Beautiful Floods - Environmental Knowledge and Agrarian Change in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
Vol. 19, 2012, 256 S., 29,90 EUR, br, ISBN 978-3-643-90195-8

Nadine Reis
Tracing and Making the State - Policy practices and domestic water supply in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam
Vol. 20, 2012, 272 S., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90196-5

Martha A. Awo
Marketing and Market Queens - A study of tomato farmers in the Upper East region of Ghana
Vol. 21, 2012, 192 S., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90234-4
Asghar Tahmasebi
Pastoral Vulnerability to Socio-political and Climate Stresses - The Shahsevan of North Iran
Vol. 22, 2013, 192 S., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90357-0

Anastasiya Shtaltovna
Servicing Transformation - Agricultural Service Organisations and Agrarian Change in Post-Soviet
Uzbekistan
Vol. 23, 2013, 216 S., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90358-7

Hafiz Boboyorov
Collective Identities and Patronage Networks in Southern Tajikistan
Vol. 24, 2013, 304 S., 34.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90382-2

Simon Benedikter
The Vietnamese Hydrocracy and the Mekong Delta. Water Resources Development from State
Socialism to Bureaucratic Capitalism
Vol. 25, 2014, 330 S., 39.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90437-9

Sven Genschick
Aqua-`culture´. Socio-cultural peculiarities, practical senses, and missing sustainability in Pangasius
aquaculture in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
Vol. 26, 2014, 262 S., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90485-0

Farah Purwaningrum
Knowledge Governance in an Industrial Cluster. The Collaboration between Academia-Industry-
Government in Indonesia.
Vol. 27, 2014, 296 S., 39.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90508-6

Panagiota Kotsila
Socio-political and Cultural Determinants of Diarrheal Disease in the Mekong Delta.
From Discourse to Incidence
Vol. 28, 2014, 376 S., 39.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90562-8

Huynh Thi Phuong Linh

State-Society Interaction in Vietnam.
The Everyday Dialogue of Local Irrigation Management in the Mekong Delta
Vol. 29, 2016, 304 S., 39.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90719-6

Siwei Tan
Space and Environment in the Industrialising Mekong Delta.
A socio-spatial analysis of wastewater management in Vietnam
Vol. 30, 2016, 240 S., 29.90 EUR, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90746-2

http://www.lit-verlag.de/reihe/zef
Working Paper Series
Authors: A ja Christi k, Fred Rattu de, Alpha Kerg a, Welli gto Muli ge,
E a Weltzie
Co ta ts: a. hristi k@ditsl.org; f.rattu de@g ail. o ; a.kerg a@ ahoo.fr;
elli gto . uli ge@kalro.org; e a. eltzie @g ail. o
Photo: World Ba k

Published by:
)e tru für E t i klu gsfors hu g )EF
Ce ter for De elop e t Resear h
Ge s herallee
D– Bo
Germany
Pho e: + - - -
Fa : + - - -
E-Mail: presse.zef@u i- o .de
.zef.de