ICRISAT Archival Report 2006 - The seedlings of success in the ...

These economic research results have been used to argue against the direct distribution of free seed to smallscale
farmers. These programs undermine investments in wholesale and retail seed trade. In fact, there has been
an increase in the number of seed companies in southern Africa with no retail trading networks. Rather, these
new companies aim simply to pursue a shifting array of tenders for relief seed in various countries in the region.
In order to qualify for these tenders, many cut corners, buying grain for sale as seed. Our research has clearly
diagnosed these constraints provided a warning to NGOs and donors to pursue stricter criteria on their tenders.
ICRISAT research is also encouraging the testing of alternative voucher based strategies for seed distribution.
This started with a review of seed fairs, an increasingly common strategy being promoted (in part by ICRISAT)
throughout eastern and southern Africa. The study revealed that contrary to common assumption, seed fairs do
not necessarily strengthen local markets, but may undermine these markets. They contribute to seed price
inflation. While seed fairs are suppose to provide farmers a broader choice of seed varieties to purchase, this
choice is often constrained by how the market is organized. Seed fairs may be justified if commercially
available varieties commonly distributed through free handouts are poorly adapted to the agro-ecology targeted
by the relief program. But they unjustifiably undermine local and commercial markets where adapted varieties
are available.
ICRISAT has responded by encouraging more experimentation with vouchers redeemable for a choice of seed
(and other agricultural inputs) from retail shops. Initial research here has proved promising, though difficult in
the context of Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation.
Economic Analysis of Alternative Seed Delivery Systems for Agricultural Recovery Programs in
Zimbabwe
Background: Recurrent droughts in Zimbabwe have often led to loss of food production and the subsequent
need for recovery. Seed has traditionally been donated to smallholder farmers struggling to recover from
drought as a surest way of ensuring that households immediately start up crop production. However, there is
now growing debate on the rationale for seed aid, because vulnerable communities are unable to withstand even
small disasters and their farming systems have remained less resilient despite the continued supply of free seed.
More attention is now placed on adoption of seed fairs as an alternative to direct free seed distribution under
relief and recovery programs in Zimbabwe
Objectives: The major objective of the study was to methodologically assess whether seed fairs offer broader
positive impacts compared to direct seed distribution. The study carried out a comparative analysis of seed
utilization, crop diversity and the cost effectiveness of direct seed distribution and relief inputs delivered
through seed fairs. Data for the study was obtained from ICRISAT surveys carried out during seed fair
implementation and post planting period for households that participated either in seed fairs or recipients of
direct seed distribution in eight districts of Zimbabwe.
Main Findings and Policy Implications: The results of the study showed that contrary to expectation, crop and
variety diversity was not enhanced, a priori, by the seed fair approach. Farmers obtaining seed through direct
distribution planted more crop types and a smaller portion of their land to maize. Though a lot of diversity was
offered at seed fairs, this did not transfer into production. However, farmers who acquired seed through seed
fairs planted most of the relief seed they acquired, in fact seed fair beneficiaries planted 26 percent more in
terms of the proportion of the relief seed they received compared to farmers who were not given a choice. On
cost effectiveness of alternative relief input delivery systems, the cheapest means to distribute seed to needy
households appears to be the option of using seed fairs. In effect neighbouring farmers were redistributing
stocks of local seed to deficit households. This approach is almost 40 percent cheaper than the next best
alternative of direct distribution of commercially supplied seed. The major constraint of community –sourced
seed is that, it might not be available in large quantities and high quality hybrid seed cannot be provided from
the community. However, the analysis could not conclude that direct distribution is inherently bad because it is
important in delivering commercial seed and ensuring that large quantities of seed are available.
In supporting local livelihoods systems, seed fairs, de facto lay the immediate ground for moving away from
outside or external assistance and link relief and development aims from the early stages of a crisis. Policy
makers should encourage seed fairs as a way of strengthening local seed markets and for distributing community
seed whereas direct seed distribution will complement this effort by providing commercially sourced seed.
Seller organized seed fairs coordinated by extension and local leadership can be created to ensure sustainable
and reliable markets of local seed and this could also save buyers on the search cost of seed.
30