Official Newsletter of the WANA Seed Network
No. 34, January 2008
PDF File (1.25
MB)
----------------------
Subscribe
----------------------
E-mail & Address
----------------------
Back Issues
----------------------
Seed Home
----------------------
ICARDA Home
----------------------
Subscribe
----------------------
E-mail & Address
----------------------
Back Issues
----------------------
Seed Home
----------------------
ICARDA Home
Short communications on practical research or relevant information on agriculture or seed technology are presented in this section.
Seed Relief Intervention and Resilience of Local Seed System under Stress: the case of Humbo Woreda in Southern Ethiopia
Asrat Asfaw, Anbes Tenaye and Endrias Geta*
*) Awassa Agricultural Research Center, South Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 6, Awassa, Ethiopia
Introduction
Ethiopia has received emergency food and seed relief regularly for the last three decades. The Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS) in general and Humbo woreda in particular repeatedly receive emergency seed relief. The chronic seed aid offers opportunities as well as challenges in stabilizing agriculture. To chart the future strategy, it is essential to understand how seed aid affects farming communities and why seed insecurity appears to persist. This paper analyzes the issues and impacts of seed aid practices.
Historical account of emergency seed relief
Seed provision during emergencies dates back many decades. For example, the US government and churches distributed seed to farmers during the Mississippi floods and depression of the 1920s and 1930s (www.redcross.org/museum). The first international seed aid delivery probably started in 1980s with rice seed in Cambodia, when an NGO, Volag World Relief, distributed 2,950 tons across the Thai-Cambodia border (http://www.websitesrcg.com/border/border-history-1.html). Since the 1990s seed relief has become a regular component of emergency efforts in Africa (Sperling and Cooper, 2003). For example, in the mid-1990s nearly USD 10 million was spent on seed procurement for emergency projects in Africa (Sperling, 2002).
In Ethiopia, free seed distribution to farmers probably started in the 1970s with the establishment of the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (Sperling et al., 2007). It became a regular activity with the rehabilitation programs in the aftermath of the 1984/85 famine. In 1985, the Christian Relief and Development Association distributed 5,980 tons of seeds, sufficient to plant 255,646 ha (CRDA, 1990). The assistance mainly focused on supplying seeds and farm tools to rural households affected by stress to enhance farmers' capacity to produce their own food. The process was termed 'developmental' seed aid.
In SNNPRS, seed assistance to vulnerable populations probably dates back to 1984/85 when many areas of the present day regional state were affected by the famine. Since 1984/85, recurrent drought becomes common phenomena in many parts of the region making crop production more fragile and dependent on external assistance. Making available seed and agricultural tools to affected population was among the humanitarian assistance provided by many including governmental (GOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Emergency seed relief in Humbo woreda
Provision of emergency seed relief in Humbo woreda probably started in 1992/93 when it was under the administration of the former North Omo Zone. The North Omo Zone implemented an ETB 2.7 million emergency seed relief project in response to a combination of flooding (due to heavy rain) and drought in different parts of the same region. ETB 400,000 was allocated for purchase and distribution of cuttings of an improved sweet potato variety, Ogan Sagan/Awassa-83. In addition, the aid program distributed seed of improved open pollinated maize varieties (A 511 and Katumani), chickpea and wheat. The project remained active until 1994/95.
In 1997, once again, the North Omo Zone was affected by bad weather caused by 'El Nino'. The Zonal Office of Agriculture obtained ETB 1.5 million for emergency seed aid. The largest share went to Humbo woreda to distribute sweet potato planting material and maize seed to needy farmers. The Zonal Office disbursed about ETB 64,156 to the woreda for seed procurement and distribution. An estimated 8 million cuttings of a local sweet potato variety were distributed to 950 drought-affected households. In addition, 56 households received 350 kg and 50 kg seed of improved and local maize varieties, respectively. Since then, seed aid become an integral part of relief interventions by GOs and NGOs, and a new source of seed for farmers in the area (Asfaw et al., 2007).
Seed system under stress
Farmers may obtain seeds for planting from different sources, and presumably use different channels and exchange mechanisms under normal and stress situations. Under normal situations, farmer-based seed sources, mostly own stock from the previous harvest, plays a crucial role (Longley et al., 2001). However, it is normal to find farming households that are seed secure, semi-secure, and insecure (always short of seed even under normal situations).
The importance of farmer-based seed sources may presumably decrease with increasing drought, insecurity and poverty. For many households, the problem of seed availability and/or access is more profound in stress situations. This is apparently because of the general seed insecurity in stress/disaster situations. Sperling and Cooper (2003) classify seed insecurity as acute and chronic. Acute seed insecurity is a distinct, short-duration event (flood, drought, civil strife, etc) that often affects a broad range of the population causing a total failure to plant, loss of harvest, or one-time loss of seed stocks in storage. Chronic seed insecurity is independent of an acute stress or disaster, and may be found among marginalized populations. It is related to economic/social (poor, little land, labor), ecological (recurrent drought, degraded land) or political (insecure areas, uncertain tenure arrangements) factors.
Many studies on seed systems under stress reveal that farmers' seed sourcing includes several social networks and actors. Farmers access and use seed from different sources and channels with varying degrees of importance depending on the context. The farmer-based seed sources include own saving, friends/relatives, other farmers within and outside the community, and local markets. These sources do not totally collapse under disaster situations (Sperling, 1997; Longley, 1997; Longley et al., 2001; Sperling, 2002; Haugen and Fowler 2003). Farmers can access seed for at least some key crops from local sources during a crisis (Sperling and Cooper, 2003).
Analysis of seed system under stress
In Ethiopia, despite the long history of seed aid, detailed analysis of seed system is not common within an emergency context. Generally, two kinds of crisis-related seed system analysis are practiced in the country: priori or posteriori intervention assessments. A priori intervention assessment is restricted to rapidly calculating the needs to provide an emergency seed relief injection. The calculations are 'best guess' estimates mostly drawn from crop loss assessment. A posteriori intervention assessment is usually a post-single season exercise tallying the outputs achieved from seed delivery, getting information on what happened to seeds distributed to farmers rather than asking the fundamental question of whether the aid enhanced immediate agricultural resilience.
In 2006, a seed system assessment was conducted in Humbo, one of the vulnerable woredas frequently receiving seed aid. The assessment was made using focus group discussion with aid implementing agencies (GOs and NGOs) and through detailed household survey of aid recipients. Focus group discussions involved key informants from government aid practitioners at regional, zonal and woreda levels (B/Z/WoARD) and from NGO aid practitioners based at Humbo (World Vision, Concern Worldwide, International Medical Corps, etc). Aid recipient analysis involved 113 respondents on their experience with seed aid, description of crops and varieties used in recent seed aid events, all other seed sources used in that particular season, and overall reflection of farmers on seed aid practice and its impact on local seed systems. The analysis collected both qualitative and quantitative data using closed and open-ended questionnaires, interviews and discussion with purposively selected aid implementers and individual farmers who repeatedly received seed aid.
Views of seed aid implementers
At present, the emergency seed relief program is based on the results of crop loss assessment supplemented by nutritional surveillance. The Government (BoARD, Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Desk) and NGOs together biennially conduct a joint crop loss assessment using pre-established guidelines that involve farm questionnaires, physical observation and partly a market survey. The NGO (in this case World Vision) alone conducts the nutritional surveillance when there is food shortage or the problem is chronic. The results from the assessments help for identifying or targeting the areas and seed needy households or the beneficiaries. Household targeting is based on established criteria such as access to agricultural land (household has land but no seed), lack of assets (poor and vulnerable), etc. The committee comprising representatives from government (BoARD), development agents, NGOs, church leaders, local leaders, and kebele (local administration) chairperson screens the seed needy households in target locations. Crop and variety targeting is mostly handled by implementers with little consultation of farmers.
Direct seed distribution and seed fair and vouchers were seed delivery methods practiced by different seed aid practitioners. Box 1 shows the views of seed aid providers on the process and prospect of seed aid provision.
Views of seed aid recipients
About 39% of the recipient farmers indicated that recurrent drought leading to harvest shortfall made them prone to seed shortages. Seed shortages for planting because of food deficit, lack of cash to buy seed and unavailability of seed on the local market at the time of crisis are other important factors that force farmers to look for external seed assistance.
The results from the aid recipients survey indicated that even under stress situations, farmers access seed from different sources (Table 1). In Table 2 aid crop refers to specific or group of crops delivered during the most recent relief intervention. The seed from very recent relief aid covered up to 57% of aid crop-1 and 78% of aid crop-2 planted by farmers (Table 1). Farmer-based seed sources, i.e. own saved stocks and local markets for aid crop-1 and local markets for aid crop-2, were important sources for planting following seed relief. Other sources like gifts, exchange in-kind and seed from formal sector through the extension program played very little role.
|
Table
1. Seed sources of all seed planted in the aid season at Humbo woreda
|
|||
| Seed sources |
% of all seed planted
|
||
|
Crop-1†
|
Crop-2†
|
Both
|
|
| Seed relief |
56.5
|
78.0
|
60.9
|
| Own stock |
19.7
|
4.3
|
16.6
|
| Local markets |
18.8
|
10.5
|
17.1
|
| Gifts |
2.1
|
0.0
|
1.7
|
| Exchange in-kind |
0.3
|
2.1
|
0.7
|
| Extension (BoARD) |
2.5
|
5.2
|
3.1
|
| Source: Farmer survey, 2006; † contribution of seed aid of specific crop supplied in specific season to overall household seed supply of recipient farmers | |||
Seed aid covered diverse crops and a particular intervention supplied one or two crops per farmer during a given emergency season (Table 2). About 27% of farmers surveyed received two crops at their most recent seed relief event. Year 2005 was the most recent seed relief event for 52% of the sample farmers whereas only 1% indicated year 1999 (Table 2) showing the most recent seed relief event for farmers in Humbo was between 1999 and 2005.
|
Table
2. Most recent seed aid year and crops for a particular seed recipient
farmer
|
||||
|
Year
|
Cases (n=144)
|
%
|
Crop-1
|
Crop-2
|
|
1999
|
1
|
1
|
Chickpea
|
-
|
|
2000
|
3
|
2
|
Maize, potato
|
Beans
|
|
2001
|
5
|
3
|
Maize, tef
|
Chickpea, tef
|
|
2002
|
6
|
4
|
Maize, beans, teff, cotton
|
Maize
|
|
2003
|
14
|
10
|
Maize, potato, chickpea, beans,
sorghum, tef, cotton
|
Maize, beans, sorghum
|
|
2004
|
40
|
30
|
Maize, potato, chickpea, tef, cotton
|
Maize, beans potato, chickpea, cotton
|
|
2005
|
75
|
52
|
Maize, potato, chickpea, beans,
tef, cotton
|
potato, beans, chickpea, tef,
sorghum, cotton |
| Source: Farmer survey, 2006 | ||||
Maize and chickpea were the most recent seed relief delivery to the majority of farmers surveyed (Table 3) with 43% and 22% of the sample farmers, respectively. Other crops recently provided to farmers were sweet potato, common bean, sorghum, tef and cotton.
The seed aid providers used both modern and local varieties (Table 4). For maize, mostly open pollinated modern varieties were used whereas for sweet potato a local or 'creolized' modern variety was used. For other crops, both modern and local varieties were distributed depending on seed availability.
In the Humbo context, emergency seed delivery made significant contribution to the needs of stress affected farming communities (Table 5). The contribution of aid as seed source varied from 42% (for maize) to 100% (sorghum). Earlier studies indicated seed aid contributes to farmers' seed need but not in a major way (Sperling, 2002; Longley et al., 2001; Haugen and Fowler, 2003). A slightly higher contribution of seed aid (60%) to overall household seed req-uirements in the study area could be attributed to recent changes in the seed aid implementation process. There is a shift from mass targeting to more accurate targeting of both the area and the beneficiary. This has resulted in reaching needy farmers who have little means to access different seed sources in times of crisis.
|
Table
3. Recent seed aid crops and varieties received by sample farmers
|
|||
|
Crop
|
No of cases*
|
%
|
Varieties supplied
|
| Maize |
62
|
43
|
BH-140, BH-660, CG-4141, Katumani (improved)
|
| Sweet potato |
13
|
9
|
Gadissa (Creolized)
|
| Chickpea |
31
|
22
|
Dessi and kabuli (unknown)
|
| Haricot bean |
9
|
6
|
Red Wolaita (local)
|
| Sorghum |
4
|
3
|
Improved (unknown)
|
| Tef |
13
|
9
|
White (local)
|
| Cotton |
12
|
8
|
Akala (improved)
|
| Total |
144
|
100
|
|
| * Sum of aid crop 1 and 2. Source: Farmer survey, 2006 | |||
|
Table
4. Crop varieties (%) used in recent seed relief provision at Humbo
woreda
|
||
| Crops |
% of varieties used
|
|
|
rop-1†
|
Local variety
|
|
| Maize |
100
|
0.0
|
| Chickpea |
39.3
|
60.7
|
| Common bean |
20.0
|
80.0
|
| Tef |
53.8
|
46.2
|
| Sweet potato |
0.0
|
100.0
|
| Cotton |
27.3
|
72.7
|
| Sorghum |
50.0
|
50.0
|
| Source: Farmer survey, 2006 | ||
|
Table
5. Seed relief contribution to needs for different crops at Humbo
woreda
|
|
| Aid crops |
Seed aid as % of total
planted
|
| Maize |
41.4
|
| Chickpea |
84.8
|
| Common bean |
90.1
|
| Tef |
94.5
|
| Sweet potato |
51.2
|
| Sorghum |
100.0
|
| Average |
59.9
|
| Source: Farmer survey, 2006 | |
Effect of seed aid on seed system resilience
Table 6 indicates the views of farmers on the impact of emergency seed relief on agricultural resilience. About 80% of sample farmers indicated that seed relief has positively contributed to their livelihoods. One of the key impacts of seed aid is the introduction of new crops and/or varieties to farmers or affected regions. About 23% of the sample farmers stated seed aid had supplied a new crop and about 74% indicated they accessed a new variety (ies). Many farmers who said they obtained new crops and varieties through seed relief reported still using them.
On the other hand, 24% of sample farmers reported the negative effects of seed aid. These include eroding long-standing tradition of maintaining own seed stock and creation of dependency syndrome. Traditionally farmers save their own stock of seed for the next season. Some farmers (25%) indicated that this tradition has been affected by continuous supply of seed aid in the area. However, the majority of sample farmers stated that seed aid has not significantly affected the local traditions of seed saving, giving to relatives, bartering networks and exchange practices.
|
Table
6. Farmers' perception on the effect of seed aid practice on seed
system
|
||
| Variable |
% response
(n = 113) |
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
| Positive effects of seed aid? |
79.6
|
20.4
|
| Negative effects of seed aid? |
23.9
|
76.1
|
| Grown new crops because of seed aid? |
23.0
|
77.0
|
| Still using new crops? |
22.3
|
77.7
|
| Grown new varieties from seed aid? |
73.5
|
26.5
|
| Still using new varieties |
65.5
|
34.5
|
| Seed aid influenced seed saving |
24.8
|
75.2
|
| Seed aid influenced seed gift practice |
16.8
|
83.2
|
| Seed aid influenced local markets |
22.1
|
77.9
|
| Seed aid influenced barter networks |
8.8
|
91.2
|
Conclusion
The way farmers access seed in normal and stress situations may differ depending on the biophysical and socio-economic contexts. Under normal situations, usually farmer-based seed sources (mostly own savings and local markets) are the major seed sources. Under stress situations, farmers access seed in various ways including seed relief. Emergency seed relief contributes to the seed needs of the farming community but does not totally substitute other seed sources. Seed relief has become a major seed sources in recent years. Local markets also play an important role under stress situations.
From discussion with key informants (GOs and NGOs) and from detailed household surveys, it is clear that different practitioners used several crops, varieties and seed sources during seed relief delivery. During a crisis seed aid providers sourced seed from local markets (local farmers, traders at seed fairs), national bids (bulk purchase for direct seed distribution), research centers, cooperatives, private seed enterprises and public seed companies. The wide range of seed sources is a good indicator for the possible availability of seeds in times of crisis (non-catastrophic) if one has means to access it. Local grain/seed traders play a key role in ensuring or improving seed availability. They can move seeds from different places to wherever the demand exists. This was substantiated during the seed fair and voucher approach at Humbo, when local traders supplied considerable amounts of seed needed for the relief operation.
Seed provision to farmers at Humbo is of two kinds: developmental seed aid and emergency seed aid. Developmental seed aid includes popularization and demonstration of improved crop production technologies taking seed as a core element to improve people's livelihoods in marginal food insecure environments. Chronically food insecure households are mostly the beneficiaries of developmental seed aid initiatives. Emergency seed aid includes mass seed distribution to a large number of farmers affected by a short event (e.g. drought, flood). Drought is the major trigger of emergency seed intervention at Humbo.
Direct seed distribution, and seed fair plus vouchers, were used by different seed aid practitioners. The study revealed that there was no seed need assessment as such and no organized periodic monitoring and evaluation of seed aid distributed to farmers. Instead, pre- and post-harvest crop assessments are used as a means of evaluating field performances. As stated by GO and NGO practitioners, there is a change in trend in the process of seed aid intervention (see Box 1 below).
Seed aid has both positive and negative impacts on agricultural stability. Both farmers and practitioners agree that seed aid improves agricultural stability by providing new varieties and crops. On the other hand, there is a shared concern among all practitioners that seed aid is eroding long-standing traditions of seed selection and conservation, and creating a dependency syndrome among farming communities.
|
Box
1: Reflections of seed aid providers in seed delivery practice
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Opinion of GO practitioners
|
Opinion of NGO practitioners
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Trends of emergency seed aid in the area |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Key elements to improve effectiveness of seed aid |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Constraints to seed aid |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Changes practitioners wish to see |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A significant proportion of farmers (25%) explicitly indicated that their tradition of seed saving has been affected by continuous supply of seed aid in the area.
Seed assistance aims to ensure that communities affected by catastrophes like drought should have basic seed as soon as possible to accelerate the process of agricultural recovery for producing their own food. However, attention should be given to base interventions on actual seed need assessment and rapid, timely seed delivery.
Acknowledgment
This work was part of the national project funded by IDRC and USAID's Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance and led by Dr Louise Sperling. The authors gratefully acknowledge the research funding and overall technical support from national project research team. The authors also thank the South Agricultural Research Institute (Awassa and Areka research centers) for the support provided during fieldwork.
References
Asfaw, A., C. Almekinders,, G. Degu, and F. Alemayehu. 2007. Bean seed flow and exchange networks in Southern Ethiopia. Seed Info. No. 33.
CRDA. 1990. Five year review of the CRDA general rehabilitation program (1985-1989). Unpublished report. CRDA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Haugen, J. and C. Fowler. 2003. Reassessing the need for emergency seed relief post-disaster: the case of Honduras after Hurricane Mitch. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 6 February 2003 posting. (http://www.jha/ac/articles/ a113.htm).
Longley, C. 1997. Effects of war and displacement on local seed systems in northern Sierra Leone. In Sperling, L. (ed). War and Crop Diversity. AGREN Network Paper no.75. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Longley, C., R. Jones, M.H. Ahmed and P Audi. 2001. Supporting local seed systems in southern Somalia: a developmental approach to agricultural rehabilitation in emergency situations, AGREN network paper No 115.
Sperling, L. 1997. The effects of the Rwandan war on crop production and varietal diversity: a comparison of two crops. In Sperling, L. (ed). War and Crop Diversity. AGREN Network Paper no.75. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Sperling, L. 2002. Emergency seed aid in Kenya. Some case study insights from lessons learned during the 1990s. Disasters 26(4). 283-287.
Sperling, L. and D. Cooper. 2003. Understanding seed systems and strengthening seed security. Background paper. In Sperling, L., Osborn, T. and Cooper, D. (eds). Towards Effective and Sustainable Relief
Activities. A stakeholder workshop, Rome, 26-28 May 2003. Rome: FAO Plant Production and Protection paper 181. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5703e/y5703e00.htm. Visited on 8 December, 2007.
Sperling, L., A. Deressa, S. Assefa, T. Assefa, B. Amsalu, G. Negusse, A. Asfaw, W. Mulugeta, B. Dagne, G. Hailemariam, A. Tenaye, B. Teferra, C. Anchala, H. Admasu, H. Tsehaye, E. Geta, D. Dauro and Y. Molla. 2007. Long-term seed aid in Ethiopia: Past, present & future perspectives, Addis Ababa and Rome: EIAR, CIAT, ODG. Project and report funded by IDRC and USAID-OFDA. 141pp.