3
1 ...
:«cr!
{.519

. .

than .

. E
.JO‘O

"n.5,;
,

2‘:

.mnmmur ..
£3:
29.33
. .... tawnsunla
5. .

b ‘
fl 7'
.55

Int!)

5
. 15......
3:3:
.r.ur............. “(a
431.03,. '7. a. a
.

 

 

9.51.“ 0.3,!

 

 

TT

minWminimum

1 12 7211

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
Constraints and Opportunities to Expanding Legume

Production: An Institutional and Economic Analysis
Of the Legume Seed Sector in Malawi.

presented by

Pa trick Sawasawa Kamb ewa

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Agricultural Economics

 

“QM M. Emu

Major professor

Date " 16m

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN REI'URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

W301? 07-907-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/90 WM.“

CON

PRODEC

 

CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPANDING LEGUME
PRODUCTION: AN INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE
LEGUME SEED SECTOR IN MALAWI
By

Patrick Sawasawa Kambewa

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment Of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department Of Agricultural Economics

1999

ABSTRACT

CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPANDING LEGUME
PRODUCTION: AN INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE
LEGUME SEED SECTOR IN MALAWI

By

Patrick Sawasawa Kambewa

Agricultural scientists in Malawi have identified a decline in soil fertility as a leading cause
of decreasing smallholder productivity. Since most farmers can not afi‘ord to buy
inorganic fertilizers, farmers are being encouraged to plant legumes in order to sustain
agricultural productivity. Recent studies showed a lack Of seed as a major constraint to
increasing legume production. In order to redress the seed shortage, in the early 1990s
several NGOS established smallholder seed multiplication schemes in Malawi. This study

was conducted to analyze the smallholder seed multiplication schemes in Malawi.

An institutional analysis was conducted among seven smallholder seed schemes to
determine their efi‘ectiveness in meeting farmers’ seed needs. An economic analysis also
was conducted to determine the profitability of producing both seed and grain from
modern varieties, using the profitability Of growing a traditional variety as a basis Of .

comparison.

Two types of seed schemes were studied. Some schemes provided seed to farmers with

an objective of alleviating seed insecurity. Others aimed at training farmers to become

seed producers and sellers. The former group involved many farmers (>2,000 farmers per
scheme), who each received a small amount of seed (2 to 5 kg), the focus was on
producing ordinary farmers’ seed. The later group was composed Of fewer farmers (<lOO
per scheme), who each receiving about 40 kg Of seed and produced certified or quality-

declared seed mainly for sale.

Most schemes were able to produce seed, few schemes assisted farmers in marketing their
seed crop. Most participants, particularly farmers participating in the commercial
schemes, regarded this as a major weakness Of the schemes-especially the farmers who
used more inputs to produce seed than they would have used to produce grain. All of the
seed multiplication schemes were subsidized, which makes their long-term sustainability
uncertain. Furthermore, most schemes worked in isolation. Competition among the
schemes as well as duplication of efi‘orts were noted. In some cases, NGOS worked
independently of the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, therefore did not benefit from

the Ministry’s expertise in seed production.

The economic analysis Showed that it was profitable for farmers to produce both seed and
grain fi'om modern varieties, when planting in a monoculture and applying fertilizer. The
break-even yield for modern varieties was higher than the Observed yield of the traditional
variety and the break-even price of seed and grain for modern variety was lower than the
grain price for selling a traditional variety. These results suggest that it is more profitable
for farmers to grow modern varieties than to grow traditional varieties. However, storing

seed to sell three months later was not an economically attractive Option.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my father, brothers and sisters

iv

 

halt like 5

 

trim dcs.

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like sincerely to thank my major adviser, Professor Richard Bernsten for his
guidance designing this study and analyzing the data. I benefitted greatly fi'om his
experience in conducting research and fiom his insistence on carrying out quality work at
every stage Of the process. Also, I acknowledge the ideas and guidance Of the other
members Of my committee-Professors Anne Ferguson, Eric Crawford, and Russell Freed-
- who patiently but diligently guided me through this work in their respective areas Of
expertise. While writing this thesis, I benefitted fi'om the assistance provided by my fellow
students in the Department Of Agricultural Economics, freely shared their computer and
analytical skills, helped me with data analysis, and helped me tO focus my research on the
key issues. . Specifically, I would like to thank Dr. Mywish Maredia, Dr. Georges
Dimithe, and Dr. Bernard Kupfirrna (all former students in the Department of Agricultural
Economics), Mr. Gerald Nyambane (currently a student in Agricultural Economics), and

Dr. Peter Jeranyama (Department of Crops and Soil Science).

I would like to thank the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (a
USAID-funded project) firlly supporting me with a scholarship during the time I was
taking course work and for partially funding this research. Furthermore, I would like to
thank Dr. Barnes-McConnell, Mrs. Suzanne Bengry, Mrs. M. Moryc fi'om the
Bean/Cowpea CRSP’s Management Oflice for all the support they gave me during the
period I was studying at Michigan State University. Their support especially logistic

support was crucial to my finishing this program. I would like to thank the Rockefeller

“I"

 

Ii

Formation :

 

l
|

tenths:

kisses:

would like I:

ll: Barry C r.
f0! their tssis:
ital; Anne 1

or try m:

 

Foundation for funding the field work for this dissertation through the Rockefeller Afiican
Pre-dissertation Internship Fellowship. Conducting my fieldwork in Malawi was an
extremely worthwhile experience and crucial to my intellectual development. Also, I
would like to thank Mrs. Melba Lacey, fiom the Institute Of International Agriculture and
Mr. Barry Crassweller fi'om the Ofiice of Women in International Development Program
for their assistance during the six years I was at Michigan State University. TO my host-
farnily, Anne and Merritt, I thank them for the many evenings and a few parties the hosted

on my account. Watching football with the two was always fun with all its challenges.

In Malawi, I would like tO acknowledge the assistance provided by the Bean/Cowpca
CRSP at Bunda College in Malawi for logistical support and for providing some of the
data I used for the economic analysis. Specifically, I would like to thank Dr. A. B. C.
Mkandawire, the Director Of the project, for facilitating much of my field support and
advising me through his expertise in smallholder bean production in Malawi. In addition, I
thank Miss Angela Nyirenda and Mr. Jonathan Chautsi for the help they gave me,
especially in facilitating communication with my family via E—mail. Finally, I thank Dr.
Richard Mkandawire, my mentor, for ‘persuading’ me to leave my previous job with
Lever Brothers (Malawi) Limited to pursue a Ph.D. at Michigan State University. That

two year break that I was supposed to take grew out of proportion to my delight.

I would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Mr. Chimwaza, Of the Famine

and Early Warning Systems (FEWS) Malawi office and the Ministry of Agriculture and

limos i

j 3d;

 

«r
f

;)

‘
LC‘

,0!

 

Irrigation (Malawi Government), both Of whom gave me data that I used in this study..

During the period I was carrying out this research, I benefitted much from the experience
of several Oficials fiom the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, including Dr. Jem'ey
Luhanga, fonner Director of Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Mr. Francis Maideni
of Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, and Mr. Dan Karnputa from the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation Headquarters, who all contributed significantly toward my
understanding Of the history Of smallholder seed multiplication schemes in Malawi. Also, I
benefitted fi'0m the experience of Omcials from the NGOS included in the study. These
included Messrs. Banda and Mapulanga fiom the Christian Service Committee, Dr.
Elizabeth Sibale fi'om the European Delegation Office in Lilongwe, Messrs Banda and of
Concern Universal, Messrs. Musopole, Ntonda and Mikana Of ActionAid Seed
Multiplication and Environmental Project, and Messrs. Mughogho, Chabwera and
Mphyiphyira Of ActionAid RDP at Dowa, Mr Mwage and Mr Malunga Of Naming’azi
Farm in Zomba. Their assistance and guidance made my work easier and more enjoyable
in spite of the other challenges I faced. The National Bean Improvement Program at
Chitedze allowed me to study their bean seed multiplication scheme and also gave me
access to their data on smallholder seed farmers’ survey. Therefore, I am grateful to Dr.

Vas Aggarwal, Dr. Roland Chirwa and Mrs. Martha Maideni for their support.

I am indebted to the smallholder farmers I whom interviewed for this study. They were

the ultimate producers Of seed and therefore contributed greatly to my understanding.

 

Primer:
brim; ‘ r...

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, I would like to thank various research assistants who worked with me under
hardship conditions, especially Mr. Jailosi who on several occasions went to remote places

to interview farmers using a marola.

I would like to thank the University Of Malawi for hosting me during the time I was
conducting y field research and for allowing me to use the University facilities, especially
E-mail. I appreciate the assistance that the Library Ofi'rcials at Bunda College of
Agriculture gave me in this regard, as this enabled me constantly to keep in touch with my
dissertation advisor, Dr. Bemstcn. My host—country supervisor, Dr. Mataya
accommodated me in his otherwise full schedule and was always helpful when I ran into

logistical problems—I am most grateful for his efforts.

When I went to Malawi to carry out this Study in march 1996, my family and I were in a
serious auto-accident on April 14. I am thankful for the support we received fiom our
family and fiiends, Oficials fiom the Lilongwe Central Hospital and the Garden City Clinic
in South Afiica during that period. I am especially thankfirl to my ‘good Samaritan’, Mr.
Ngayaye who graciously gave us transport to the hospital when everybody at the Site of
accident refused to help. I acknowledge the assistance I received fiom the Rockefeller
Foundation in meeting the medical evacuation costs to South Afiica and Drs. Ferguson
and Bernsten with the CRSP Management Oflice for deligently working hard towards my
getting the best treatment. Without their hard work, I could not be able to hide my

limping which is sometimes barely discernible.

H

 

so

 

 

 

 

Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Beauty, who has had the sole burden of raising our
four children in Malawi while I was pursuing studies at Michigan State University. I am
thankfirl for her patience. To my children Eggrey Nabiyeni, Mpambira Baba, Patricia
Phikinini, and Beauty ‘Juniorate’, I am grateful for the sacrifice they were forced to
undergo while I was pursuing my studies. Lastly, I salute all fiiends who helped us during
the past eight years when I left my family in pursuant of this dream. Specifically, I would
like to mention the Kambewas of Lilongwe, Ambalis of Zomba and Blantyre, and the

Kapitos of Blantyre. Their efi‘orts contributed a lot towards my achieving this goal.

ix

 

“JIW‘E-fl-‘leaw'IHEHB 7' ‘1’ 1

LIST OF it

 

LIST 0? EC:

ENTER 0

1.0
1.1

 

2.5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
........................................................... xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
........................................................... xviii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ......................................... l
1.0 Problem Statement ......................................... l
1.1 Background .............................................. 2

1.1.1 Malawi's Fertilizer-Based Agricultural Intensification Strategy . . 4
1.1.2 The Role of Legumes and Cultural Practices in Maintaining Soil

Fertility ............................................ 5

1.1.3 The Role of Legumes in Household Food Security ........... 7

1.1.4 Constraints to Expanding Legume Production ............... 7

1.2 Research Questions and Objectives ............................. 8
1.3 Summary and Thesis Organization ............................ 12

CHAPTER TWO

MALAWI: AN OVERVIEW ..................................... 14
2.0 Topography and Climate ...................................... 14
2.1 Demographic Characteristics ................................... 15
2.2 The Macro-Economy ........................................ 16
2.3 Contribution of Agriculture to the Economy ....................... 19
2.4 Agriculture: Structure and Scope ............................... 19
2.4.1 The Estate Subsector ................................ 20

2.4.2 The Smallholder Subsector ............................ 23

2.4.2.1 Farm Size Classes ....................... 23

2.4.2.2 Food Crop Production .................... 26

2.4.2.3 Smallholder Input Use and Credit ............ 27

2.5 Malawi’s Seed Sector ...................................... 28
2.5.1 The Formal Seed Sector in Malawi ...................... 28

2.5.2 The National Seed Company Of Malawi ................. 29

2.5.3 Lever Brothers (Malawi) Limited ....................... 32

2.6 Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes ................. 33

2.7 Current Seed Policy Environment .......................... 36
2.8 Summary ............................................... 38

 

 

CPAPTER T
UTE.
30

Lo) ‘0‘
.9

13

33
3,4
3.5

 

 

42

P." f 3‘

ix) A.) L a

(“f-AgnA

4.3

7"
g..- .

CHAPTERTHREE

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH METHODS ................ 40
3.0 Introduction ............................................. 40
3.1 The Evolution of a Seed Industry ............................. 40
3.2 Recent Experience in Seed Development in sub-Saharan Afiica ...... 42
3 .3 Induced Innovation Theory .................................. 44

3.3.1 Transaction Cost Theory ............................. 45

3.3.1.1 The Nature ofLegume Seed ............... 46

3.3.1.2 Information Costs in a Seed Sector .......... 48

3.3.1.3 Asset Specificity Problem in Seed Production . . 50

3.3.1.4 Uncertainty in Seed Production ............. 54

3.3.2 The Efl'ect of Transaction Costs on Seed Production ......... 55

3.3 Factors Affecting the Demand of Legume Seed .................. 57
3.4 Factors Afl'ecting the Supply Of Legume Seed .................... 62
3.5 Equilibrium Conditions for the Legume Seed Market .............. 63
3.6 Research Methods, Data Collection and Data Analysis ....... 67

3.6.1 Background Research ................................ 67

3.6.2 Rapid Appraisal .................................... 69

3.6.3 Questionnaire Design and Formal Interviews with Oficials
from Seed Multiplication Schemes and Smallholder Farmers

........................................... 7 1

3.6.4 Data Analysis of Primary and Secondary Data .............. 72
CHAPTER FOUR

THE LEGUME SUB SECTOR IN MALAWI ......................... 74

4.0 Introduction ............................................. 74

4.1 Production Systems . ...................................... 74

4.1.1 Bean Production Systems ....................... 75

4.1.2 Groundnuts Production System ......................... 76

4.1.3 Soybeans Production System .......................... 77

4.2 Area, Yield and Production ................................. 77

4.2.1 Bean, Area, Yield and Production ....................... 78

4.2.2 Groundnuts Area, Yield and Production .................. 82

4.2.3 Soybeans Area, Yield and Production .................... 83

4.3 Utilization .............................................. 84

 

CW,

 

\JQON

R FL
N'DI
LIT

 

4.4 Marketing ............................................... 85

4.5 Prices .................................................. 87

4.5.1 Relative Price Analysis ............................... 87

4.5.2 Producer Price versus Consumer Price Analysis Of Beans ..... 89

4.5.3 Seasonal Price Variation .............................. 91

4.6 Trade .................................................. 92

4.7 Government Policies ....................................... 93

4.7 Summary ............................................... 94

CHAPTER FIVE
AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE SMALLHOLDER SEED

MULTIPLICATION SCHEMES IN MALAWI ........................ 97

5.0 Introduction ............................................. 97
5.1 A Model for Analyzing the Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes-The

Environment-Behavior-Performance Model ..................... 97

5.1.1. Environment ....................................... 98

5.1.2 Behavior ......................................... 101

5.1.3 Performance ...................................... 102

5.2 Major Legumes Grown Under Seed Multiplication Schemes in Malawi

................................................ 103
5.2.1 Beans ........................................... 103
5.2.2 Groundnuts ................. , ...................... 106
5.2.3 ‘ Soybeans ........................................ 106
5.3 Description Of the Seed Multiplication Schemes ................. 107
5.3.1 The Maize Productivity Task F orce-Action Group Two’s Seed
Multiplication Scheme (MPTF) ........................ 107
5.3.2 The ActionAid Seed Multiplication Programs ............. 111
5.3.2.1 ActionAid-Seed Multiplication Scheme-ActionAid-
SM ................................. 1 12
5.3.2.2 ActionAid- Seed Development Project-ActionAid-
SD ....................................... l 15
5.3.3 The Christian Service Committee ...................... 119
5.3.3.1 The CSC-Smallholder Seed Exchange Program-
CSC-SSEP ........................... 121
5.3.3.2 Christian Service Committee-Church Farrn’s Seed
Multiplication Scheme ................... 123
5.3.4 The Concern Universal Seed Multiplication Scheme ........ 127

5.3.5 The National Bean Improvement Program’s Community-

xii

 

“ii

. yeti” ,Ffliff'; I a

.1

I ‘I

‘-

I 1“ 5“ l‘u a‘v

.
S

 

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

Based Basic Seed Multiplication SchemeuNBIP ..... 129

Comparative Analysis Of the Environment Of Seed Scheme ......... 132
5.4.1 The Respondents in the Survey ........................ 132
5.4.1.1 Gender of Respondents .................. 135
5.4.1.2 Reasons for Respondents Joining a Seed
Multiplication Scheme ................... 136
5.4.1.4 Legume Crops that Respondents Multiplied
.............................. 139
5.4.1.4 Extension Support that Respondents Received in
Smallholder Seed Schemes ............... 141
5.4.1.5 Year When Respondents Joined Seed Scheme . 144
5.4.1.6 Approaches to Seed Multiplication .......... 144
5.4.1.7 Amount of Seed Farmers Receive fiom the Scheme
.......................................... 147
A Comparative Environment-Behavior Analysis of the Seed Multiplication
Schemes ............................................... 149
5.5.1 Location and Size Of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes
................................................ 151
5.5.2 The Nature of Contracts Among the Seed Multiplication Schemes
................................................ l 52
5.5.2.1 Parties to Contract in a Seed Scheme ........ 154
5.5.2.2 Seed Loan Terms ....................... 155
5.5.2.3 A Comparison Of Seed Production and Post-Harvest
Requirements Among Seed Multiplication Schemes
.................................... 157
Performance Of Seed Multiplication Schemes ................... 163
5.6.1 The Performance of CSC-Smallholder Seed Exchange Scheme
................................................ 164
5.6.2 Performance Of CSC-Church Farm Program .............. 165
5.6.3 Performance of Concern Universal Program .............. 167
5.6.4 Performance Of ActionAid-SM Program ................. 168
5.6.5 Performance Of ActionAid-SD Program ................. 168
5.6.6 The Performance of National Bean Improvement Program . . . 169
5.6.7 Performance OfMPTF Program ....................... 170
Factors Afl‘ecting Performance of Smallholder Seed Multiplication
Schemes ............................................... 171
5.7.1 Timing of Seed Delivery and Seed Quality ............... 171
5.7.2 Farmer Training, Crop Supervision and Inspection ......... 173
5.7.3 Sale ofModern Seed ............................... 173

xiii

 

 

 

5.8

 

("rim 5.
ECU).
USE C'
6.0

 

6.3
64

5.7.4 Sustainability Of the Seed Multiplication Schemes . . . . 175

5.7.5 Cost of Certified Seed ............................... 178
5.7.6 Transportation Of Seed to F arm-gate .................... 179
5.7.7 Training, Extension Service and Demonstration Plots ....... 179
5.7.8 Packaging/Storage and Marketing ...................... 180
5.7.9 Implications of Seed Production Requirements for Seed Cost . 180
5.8 Summary .............................................. 184
CHAPTER SDI
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SMALLHOLDER SEED PRODUCTION AND
USE OF SEED OF MODERN VARIETIES ......................... 188
6.0 Introduction ............................................ 188
6.1 The Legume Seed Demand Model-Profitability of Producing Grain
from MVS versus Producing Grain from TVS ............. 189
6.1.1 ThePricePremium forMVs .......................... 189
6.1.2 The Yield Advantage Of MVS Over TV ............ 190
6.1.3. The Grain Production Budget ......................... 199
6.1.4 Analytical Framework ............................... 202
6.2 The Legume Seed Supply Model-Profitability of Producing Seed fiom a
MV versus Producing Grain from a TV ....................... 204
6.3 The Framework of Analysis ................................ 207
6.4 Results: The Profitability of Producing Seed/Grain from MV versus
Producing Grain fi'om TV .................................. 208
6.4.1 The Profitability Of Selling Grain/Seed at Harvest .......... 209
6.4.2 The Profitability of Selling Grain/Seed Three Months after
Harvesting ....................................... 21 1
6.5 Sensitivity Analysis to the Profitability Of Producing Seed fi'om MV versus
Producing Grain fi'om TV .................................. 214
6.6 Break-even Analysis ...................................... 216
6.7 Summary and Conclusion .................................. 220
CHAPTER SEVEN
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 222
7.1 Summary .............................................. 222
7.1.1 Legumes in Malawi ................................. 224
7.1.3 Economic and Institutional Analysis .................... 226
7.1.4 Strengths and Weaknesses Of the Seed Schemes ........... 227
7.1.5 The Role of the Private Sector in Seed Distribution ......... 229

7.1.6 Profitability of Growing Improved Bean Varieties . . . . 230

xiv

 

 

 

 

imdix 6 4
Bean M:

”W 65
Ban Mt

mites

7.2 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations ..................... 232

Appendix 3.1

Seed Development & Multiplication Schemes Survey Key Informant Survey . 244
Appendix 3.2

Seed Development and Miltiplication Schemes Survey Smallholder Survey . . 270
Appendix 5.1

Steps in Carrying out the Participatory Rural Appraisal for Rural Resource

Management ................................................. 302
Appendix 5.2

On-farm Seed Multiplication Project Chididi African Evangelical Mission . . . 304
Appendix 6.1

Mean Yields, Multi-location Bean Advanced Trials at Bunda College

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Research Field, Malawi, 1993/94-1996/97. .......... 308
Appendix 6.2

Mean Yields, Multi-location Bean Advanced Trials at Dedza Bean/Cowpea CRSP

Research Field, Malawi, 1993/94-1996/97 ............................ 310
Appendix 6.3

Mean Yields, Multi-location Bean Advanced Trials at Charnphira Bean/Cowpea

CRSP Research Field, Malawi, 1993/94-1996/97. ..................... 312
Appendix 6.4

Bean Monthly Price Variation for Chimbiya Market, Malawi, 1989 to 1995
........................................................... 315

Appendix 6.5
Bean Monthly Price Variation for Chimbiya Market, Malawi, 1989 to 1995 . . 316

REFERENCES ..................................................... 3 17

 

 

1151:311'

115-ch:

lbkil;
lfikSli

rats;

73ka.}
TibicSI

r/r r11

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Estate Crop Production, Malawi, 1982/83 through 1991/92. ........... 22
Table 2.2: Smallholder Production of Cash Crops, Malawi, 1983/84 through 1991/92
............................................................ 25
Table 3.1: Seed Production Response to Type Of Demand for Seed ............ 61
Table 4.1: Production, Area and Yield of Bean, Groundnut and Soybean, Malawi,
1986 to 1996 ............................................ 79
Table 4.2: Real Bean Producer and Consumer Prices, Malawi, 1983 to 1992 ..... 90
Table 5.1: Characteristics of the Bean Varieties Grown in Seed Multiplication
Schemes, Malawi, 1996/97. ................................ 104
Table 5.2: Number of Farmers Participating in Seed Multiplication and Hectares Of
Legume Seed Crops Grown under the MPTF Seed Multiplication Scheme
by ADD, 1996/97, Malawi .................................. 109
Table 5.3: NBIP Certified Bean Seed Multipliers in 1995/96. ..... ‘ .......... 130
Table 5.4: Proportion of Respondents by Smallholder Scheme and Area, Malawi,
1996/97. ............................................... 134
Table 5.5: Reason for Respondents Joining the Seed Multiplication Scheme, Malawi,
1996/97. ............................................... 137
Table 5.6: The Proportion Of Respondents Multiplying Legumes by Scheme, Malawi,
1996/97. ............................................... 140
Table 5.7: The Type of Extension Support Respondents Received by Seed
Multiplication Schemes, Malawi, 1996/97. .................... 142
Table 5.8: Respondents, Preference to Multiply Seed Individually or in a Group,
Malawi, 1996/97. ....................................... 146
Table 5.9: Respondents’ Mean Seed and Mean Harvest by Scheme, Malawi, 1996/97.
..................................................... 148
Table 5.10 Characteristics of Seed Schemes, Malawi, 1996/97 ............... 150
Table 5.11 Contractual Arrangements on Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes
........................................................... 153
Table 5.12 Smallholder Seed Production and Post-Harvest Requirement Among the
Schemes, Malawi, 1996/97. ................................ 159
Table 5.13: Percent of Respondents Using Additional Resources in Seed Production,
Compared to Grain Production, Malawi, 1996/97. ............... 161
Table 5.14: Sources of Cost in Seed Production Among Smallholder Seed
Multiplication Schemes .................................... 177
Table 5.15: Respondents’ Preferred Changes to Seed Multiplication Schemes, Malawi,
1996/97. .............................................. 182
Table 6.1: Results of a Homogeneity Test on Yield Data from Variety Trials at
Bunda, Champhira and Dedza Sites. .......................... 191
Table 6.2: Three Year Mean Yields and Yield Index for Advanced Yield Trials at
Bunda, Champhira and Dedza Sites, Malawi, (1993/94-1996/97) . . . . 194
Table 6.3: Yield Comparison of Three Highest Yielding Modern Varieties and the

 

 

 

ibkii
TDk6S

ltkéi
lakii

Ték69

 

Table 6.4:

Table 6.5:

Table 6.7
Table 6.8

Table 6.9:

Traditional Variety at Bunda and Champhira Sites, Malawi, 1994 tO 1997
..................................................... 198
Seed Multiplication and Grain Production Budget, Bunda Bean Research
Data and Champhira Research Site Data, Malawi, 1996/97. ........ 201
Absolute Benefits of Producing Seed/Grain from MV versus Producing
Grain fi'om TV. ......................................... 209
Break-even Yield ofMV at Bunda and Champhira Sites, Malawi . . . . 216
Break-even Yield Of MV at Bunda and Champhira Sites, Malawi

..................................................... 21 8
Break-even Prices at Ten Percent Yield Reduction Where MV NPV Equals
TV NPV. .............................................. 220

xvii

.44.,
“I;
_ .
__

 

F313! 4.1:
5mm

first 43’-

E

Him-’2 4.4j

HEW/:45;

Figure 6. 1:

FM”:

EST: 63.

 

Figure 3.1:

Figure 3.2:

Figure 3.3:

Figure 3.4:

Figure 4.1:

Figure 4.2:

Figure 4.3:

Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:
Figure 6.1:

Figure 6.2:

Figure 6.3:

LIST OF FIGURES
Contractual Scheme Involving asset Specificity Problem. ........... 52

The Market for Modern Variety Seeds Among Smallholder Farmers in
Developing Countries. ..................................... 56

Seed Users’ Willingness to Pay Price (Seed Demand) and Seed System’s
Supply Cost for Improved Seed in Relation tO the Quality Of Seed

Supplied ............................................... 64.
Farmers Willingness to Pay for Seed by Economic Status. .......... 66
Historical Production of Beans, Groundnuts and Soybeans in Malawi, 1986
to 1996. ................................................ 80
Historical Hectarage of Beans, Groundnuts and Soybeans in Malawi, 1986
to 1996. ................................................ 81
Oficial Groundnut and Soybean Prices Relative to Bean Price, Malawi,
1986 to 1991. ............................................ 88
Monthly Price Variation for Soybeans, 1997, Malawi. ............. 91
Monthly Price Variation for Beans, 1997, Malawi. ............... 206
Theoretical Seasonal Variation of Seed Price and Grain Price. ...... 212

The Relative Profitability Of Storing MV Seed versus Selling Seed at
Harvest. ............................................... 214

Relative Profitability of Seed/Grain Enterprise with Grain Sold at Harvest
as Base.

xviii

 

 

m: r,

 

 

 

 

1.0 Prof
Faced with 'v‘
Mitzi: unc
fr'rref r.
Emma: lift:

Mubased s

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Problem Statement

Faced with widespread malnutrition, a rapidly growing population, and little or no
available uncultivated land, Malawi needs to increase crop yields in order to supply the
future food needs of its population. The declining soil fertility is widely recognized as an
important limitation to increasing yields, and a major threat to the sustainability of the

maize-based systems of Southern and Eastern Afiica (Kumwenda er al., 1995).

Many experts believe that expanded legume production can make a major contribution to
Malawi's efi'orts to reduce malnutrition and achieve sustainable agricultural development.
Not only. do legumes contribute to soil fertility, but in addition they are a potentially
lucrative cash crop for smallholder farmers, a relatively inexpensive source of protein, and

a potential foreign exchange earner (as an export crop) for the nation.

However, many experts argue that a shortage of supply of legume seed and inadequate
farmer access to available seed are significant constraints to expanding production and
improving food security (Ferguson et al., 1991; Cromwell, er al., 1994). First, due to the
seed shortage, srnallholders' crop diversification Options are reduced, which restricts the
expansion of legume production. Second, lower production reduces the availability and

increases price of legumes, an important source of dietary protein for low income

 

 

of Primes.

 

5:53:36 leg.

 

YEP-Witt

of legumes, an important source Of dietary protein for low income consumers. Third,

because legumes contribute to maintaining soil fertility by fixing nitrogen.

Since the late 19803, Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation and various Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGO) have attempted to establish legume seed
multiplication programs to increase the supply of legume seed. However, these schemes
have experienced many problems and may not be economically sustainable in the long run.
The purpose of this study is to identify technical, institutional, and economic factors that
impact on the performance Of small- and medium-size enterprises producing basic,
certified, and artisanal-quality legume seed. More specifically, the study analyzes factors
influencing the supply of and demand for legume seed, examines the economic
sustainability of existing seed multiplication schemes run by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Irrigation and various NGOS, and identifies institutional factors which currently
constrain (or promote) the development of private sector seed enterprises in Malawi.
Finally, the study recommends policies needed to insure an adequate supply of legume

seed in the future.

1.1 Background

As Malawi moves into the 21" century, the country faces an uncertain fixture. With over
85 percent of Malawians living in rural areas and 90 percent of these households engaged
in farming, most of the population is dependent on agriculture (World Bank, 1994).

Despite progress in increasing maize production, the rate of population growth has

 

needed 1:"
reps: is: ;
193788 R:
533.11: star
mind I:

1
Haiti than

Iiiirld 8m

 

 

 

   

 

exceeded the rate of increase in agricultural production. For example, Sahn et a1. (1990)
report that per capita food production declined fi'om 245 kg in 1976/77 to 193 kg in
1987/88. Recent studies indicate that malnutrition in Malawi is high, even by sub—
Saharan standards. Stunting in children two to five years old is estimated at 61 percent,
compared to an average of 39 percent for Sub-Saharan Africa; and stunting is higher in
Malawi than in any country in Africa for which data are available, except Burkina Faso

(World Bank, 1994).

Malawi has a limited capacity to increase agricultural production by expanding its
cultivated area With one Of the highest population growth rates in sub-Saharan Afiica

(3 .3 percent per year), the country's population density is increasing rapidly‘. Average
farm size has been declining at an average annual rate of 2 percent over the past decade
(UNDP, 1991). Today, over one-half of the households (55 percent) have landholding of
1 hectare or less. Due to declining maize yields, smallholder households who cultivate
between 0.50 to less than one hectare of traditional maize 2 are not able to produce

enough grain to meet their food needs (World Bank, 1993).

 

‘ While Malawi's population density averages 85 persons per square km of arable land
(1995), about 50 percent of the population lives in southern Malawi.

2A staple food, maize mainly is produced by smallholder farmers (90%) on roughly 1.3
million hectares, 80 percent of the cultivated land in Malawi. The maize varieties planted
are of local varieties (86%), composites (2%) and hybrids (12%).

3

 

m mi." ill-.3

333.2: llel

d3

While Heisey et al. (1995) reported that improved maize technology has increased maize
yield by 0.4 percent per annum over the past year, this rate of growth is insuficient to
meet the expanding demand due to rapid population growth. Agriculture experts are
increasingly concerned that the sustainability of Malawi's food production system is being
threatened by intensive land use, with insuficient attention being paid to maintaining soil

fertility (Kumwenda et aI. , 1996)

1.1.1 Malawi's Fertilizer-Based Agricultural Intensification Strategy

Many countries, especially in Asia, have successfully increased food production by
expanding their irrigated area, developing high-yielding varieties, and encouraging farmers
to apply high rates of inorganic fertilizer. Historically, Malawi has also sought to increase

maize yields by encouraging smallholder farmers to apply inorganic fertilizers.

Since most small farmers cannot afl‘ord to purchase fertilizer’, the Government established
the Smallholder Agricultural Credit Administration (SACA) in 1987/88 with firnds
provided by IDA and IFAD in an effort to expand access to credit. While loan repayment
averaged 80 percent in the 1980s, SACA collapsed in the early 19903 for at least four
reasons. First, transport costs increased following the closure of traditionally less
expensive routes through Mozambique during the civil war. Second, following the

1991/92 drought, which reduced crop yields, the recovery rates fell to 13 percent. Third,

 

3Since late 19703, about 75 percent of fertilizer and hybrid seed sales to smallholder
farmers were financed by credit (Malawi Government, 1992).

4

in 1992/93, some political activists told credit recipients that they need not repay their
loans since the Government had not paid for the loan capital. Finally, following the
implementation of structural adjustment program, the price of fertilizer increased
substantially, first after banks increased interest rates to 40 percent after the floating of the
Malawi currency and then again in 1994/95 when the Government removed fertilizer

subsidies.

Thus, both the collapse of the Govemment’s credit scheme and the increase in fertilizer
prices lave made it increasingly unprofitable for farmers to apply inorganic fertilizer. For
instance, Conroy et a1. (1995) estimated that the value-cost ratio averaged 1.8 for hybrid
maize and 1.3 for local varieties‘. Recognizing that most farmers, especially poor and
female-headed households, could not afford to apply fertilizer, in the mid-1990s, policy
makers began exploring alternative strategies for increasing, or at least sustaining staple

food production in order to insure household food security.

1.1.2 The Role of Legumes and Cultural Practices in Maintaining Soil Fertility
Traditionally, Malawian farmers have maintained soil fertility through long fallows and
crop rotations. However, with increased population pressure, farmers have gradually

abandoned these methods, due to the need to continuously crop their land to supply

 

‘Prices alone may not fully capture important factors influencing the profitability of
fertilizer use. For example, HIID (1994) reported that improvements in fertilizer use
eficiency could make fertilizer more economically attractive to farmers than changes in
fertilizer or maize prices per se.

 

 

 

 

 

.. ‘J .-
boschort.
“snail ,.
unwise. 5
first}; pro;

czera' mp.

 

household food needs. Because inorganic fertilizer is too expensive for most Malawi
smallholders, greater attention must be paid to utilizing biological processes to maintain
fertility, processes that optimize nutrient recycling and thereby minimize the need for

external inputs (Sachez (1995).

Legumes represent a promising route for increasing soil organic matter (Kumwenda et
01., 1995) and sustaining tropical agriculture at moderate levels of output, Often at double
the rate those currently achieved (Giller, 1994). Kumwenda (1995) reported that a maize-
pigeon peas intercrop yielded 42 kg N/ha and 1,181 kg/ha of dry matter. Mkandawire et
al. (1989) report that intercropping legumes with cereals improved soil fertility, especially
in soils with low nitrogen availability. Thus, legume-based agricultural systems ofi‘er an
alternative for maintaining and possibly improving soil fertility. Farmers are typically
encouraged to plant maize alter legumes (in rotation), as experiments have shown a yield
advantage to growing maize after legumes such as groundnuts and pigeon peas, although
they have different nitrogen fixing potentials (Brown, 1962, MacCOll, 1989). In many
countries, smallholder farmers are increasingly being encouraged to practice agro-forestry
in order to reduced soil erosion and soil fertility degradation. However, given that most
farmers in Malawi have less than one hectare of land, the use of crop rotation and agro-
forestry to maintain soil fertility are not feasible. Thus, intercropping systems (i.e.,
maize/pigeon peas, maize/beans, maize/soybeans) represent a potentially attractive

alternative for improving soil fertility.

1.1.3 The Role of Legumes in Household Food Security

Legumes widely grown in Malawi include groundnuts, beans, cowpeas, pigeon peas, and,
in recent years, soybeans. These crops contn'bute to Malawi household food security in
three ways. First, they are a relatively inexpensive source of protein, compared to animal
and fish protein. Second, in some areas Of Malawi, legumes, (especially beans, soybeans
and groundnuts) are major cash crops, «which households sell to generate income needed
to purchase food and non-food items (Ferguson et 01., 1991). Finally, legumes enable
farmers to diversify their cropping system and thereby better utilize their available labor

resources and spread risk.

1.1.4 Constraints to Expanding Legume Production

For smallholders, access to high potential and high quality seed is especially important
since most make very little use Of other inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides. Recent
studies have documented the existence of a legume ”seed shortage"s which in recent years
has been aggravated by drought. For example, Ferguson (1995) reported that when
ActionAid, an NGO, first entered Malawi as a drought relief organization, it imported
seed because it could not buy locally enough groundnut, pigeon pea, cowpea, or been seed
to supply farmers participating in its seed multiplication programs‘. The Ministry of

Agriculture and Irrigation estimates that only 16 percent of the potential demand for

 

’For beans, see Duku, 1986; Ferguson et al., 1991. For other legumes, see Cromwell,
1992; Wright et al., 1991; Mphande er al., 1994.

‘Personal communication.

 

 

 

titrated it

 

lifted m

|
mission I
been yell:
infielder f
Delegation a
353513;)“ a:

West

 

improved bean seed is being met (ActionAid, 1994). Cromwell er al. (1992) argued that
limited availability of improved seed is the main constraint to increasing smallholder bean
production in Malawi. Similarly, Wright et al. (1991) reported a "shortage” of sorghum,
beans, groundnuts and vegetable seed. Recognizing seed availability as a problem for
smallholder farmers, an increasing number of international donors, including the European
Delegation and the Overseas Development Administration, have provided technical

assistance and financial support to Malawi’s efforts to strengthen its seed production

system.

1.2 Research Questions and Objectives
While scientists and policy-makers often refer to a "seed Shortage" as a constraint to
increased legume production, the nature of and reasons for the problem are unclear. The

problem may be due to interrelated supply and demand factors, as reflected in the

following research questions.

The Supply Side: Constraints to Seed Availability
0 Why do farmers lack sufiicient seed to supply their firture planting requirements?
To what extent is this due to inadequate storage facilities, insumcient production

to both meet food and seed needs, and/or the need to sell legume grain at harvest .

due to cash constraints?

 

‘1’-

 

o Are
D1."

0 Is se
Clem;
pros;

0 is the
"id Q
SUcll
folln.

0 Are I
milk
ital-

.,

i - I"

’k ”‘9an

0

Are

o Are farmers unable to purchase seed in the market because it is not physically

available or because they perceive it to be too expensive?

0 Is seed not physically available because potential suppliers perceive a lack of
demand and, as a result, have no incentive to supply it (i. e. , no profitable market

prospects)?

o Is the price of seed ”high" due to high costs of production, storage, distribution

and/or risk?

0 Do barriers exist that limit private participation in seed production and marketing,
such as regulations, a Shortage of market information, or inadequate access to

foundation seed?

0 Are economies of scale in production and distribution of smallholder seed
multiplication not being achieved because of low and uncertain demand and/or

institutional factors?

The Demand Side: Constrainb' to Farmer Access

0 Arefarmersunable tobuyseedbecause they lackcashor access to credit?

 

 

 

the:

inch.

”nil
silk

tolcr.

fl 1}” 5.011

0 DOWN

0 1
Desert
amcli

0 Do farmers feel that the seasonally high, pre-planting seed price is too high, given

their expected return on their investment?

O Do the available seed varieties have the characteristics desired by farmers;
including preferred grain quality characteristics such as seed color, size, cooking
attributes as well as agronomic traits such as disease, insect, and drought

tolerances, days to maturity, grain and dry matter yield?

The genes] Objectives of this study are to investigate the constraints tO increasing legume
seed production and to expanding farmers' access to (and use of) legume seed. Based on
insights gained, possible interventions to relax the identified constraint are proposed,
including institutional innovations which would serve to expand legume seed production

and insure greater farmer access to legume seed.

The specific objectives of this study are to:
At the National Level:

0 Document the national and regional trends in legume area, production, and yields.

0 Describe the spatial distribution of the major legume crops, with respect to the

agrO-climatic environments where they are grown.

10

 

 

 

0 Doc
ma'i
£W&d.

dism‘

0
Idea:
CDCQL

and”

0 Document agricultural policies that have an impact on legume production and

marketing; and the availability of and access to legume seed.

At the Seed Multiplication Scheme Level:
0 Document the historical evolution (including institutional arrangements) of past

and current legume seed production schemes.

0 Identify the key factors that have afl‘ected the performance of formal legume seed

multiplication schemes’.

0 Analyze the economic and institutional performance of the existing legume seed
distribution channels.

0 Identify new policies, procedures, and institutional arrangements which would
encourage the development of small- and medium-scale legume seed production

and marketing enterprises.

At the Farm Level:
0 Identify srnallholders' goals and Objectives in cultivating legumes (i.e., food

security, diversification, cash, soil fertility maintenance).

 

’Formal seed multiplication schemes include schemes run by the Government, NGOS, and
private seed firms.

ll

 

‘l

0 Determine what factors influence farmers' willingness and ability to store legume

seed.

0 Assess farmers' perception of the seed "shortage” problem, with respect to it being

a problem of physical availability or access.

1.3 Summary and Thesis Organization

The dissertation is organized in the following manner. Alter introducing the research
problem in the first Chapter, Chapter Two presents background information about Malawi
and the role of agriculture in the economy. Chapter Three presents the literature review
and conceptual fiamework related to smallholder seed multiplication schemes. Further,

the research methodology and data collection approach are presented.

Chapter Four describes Malawi’s legume sub-sector. It analyzes the performance of the
legume sub-sector at the national level, concentrating on spatial and historical production
analysis, seasonally and historical price analysis of beans, groundnuts and soybeans.

Finally, Government policies afi‘ecting the subsector, especially the seed law is discussed.

Chapter Five presents the institutional fi'amework used in analyzing the smallholder

schemes. This is followed by an institutional analysis of the seven schemes that were

12

 

 

suited Tl

Lie li'ious

ChfieSm

n . ...
. Afi’q‘.
‘¥l 1 vs".
I
‘ LMAM‘
O

r'

l—

r
o

(J

Ital v.

arms

Cali-Ci Sex-t

Minions, al

studied. The analysis examines the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of

the various schemes in multiplying seed among smallholder farmers.

Chapter Six presents an economic analysis of seed multiplication. Specifically, the
profitability of seed multiplication of new varieties is compared with grain growing of the
traditional varieties. Also, the profitability of grain growing between the new varieties and

that of the traditional varieties is compared.

Chapter Seven provides a summary of the study and ofi‘ers policy recommendations,

limitations, and research issues for further investigation.

13

 

 

* .
‘ . Elfin .
- Us};

 

1.0 Topogr
Willi, 3 3f
miter {E
if Equator.
11‘ he. it
but. and so.
”WIS 10}
N) to 3,00

“iii are l

 

CHAPTERTWO

MALAWI: AN OVERVIEW

2.0 Topography and Climate

Malawi, a small country with an area of 119,140 square kilometers, occupies the
southern part of the Rift Valley in East Africa. Located between 9° and 17° south of
the Equator, the country is the size of Pennsylvania, with 20 percent of its area covered
by water. Malawi is a land-locked country, bordered by Mozambique in the southeast,
south and southwest, Zambia in the northwest and Tanzania in the northeast. The
country' s topography ranges from the rift valley floor (50 to 200 meters above sea
level) to 3,000 meter high mountains. Its climate, vegetation and associated economic

activities are therefore widely variable (Malawi Government, 1994).

Malawi consists of four agrO-ecological zones (World Bank, 1993):

O The Shire Valley, hot and semi-arid, lies at 30-40 m above sea level and has a
mean annual rainfall Of 500—700 mm.

o The lakeshore plains, at 450-600 m, are warm-to-hot and have a mean annual
rainfall of 750-1,000 mm.

o The medium-altitude plateau, covering 75 percent of the country, has an
elevation of 800-1,350 m, mild-to—warm temperatures, and a mean annual

rainfall of 750-1,000 mm.

14

 

 

 

 

0 Til-'3

 

Elli?

Sin-Cc 111d

. x‘
“51‘ ‘ I“
%“\“\u

o The high altitude plateaus ranging from 1,350 m to 3,000 m, are characterized
by rolling hills as well as steep terrain, mild-to-cool temperatures, and a mean

annual rainfall of 1,000- 2,000 mm.

2.1 Demographic Characteristics

Malawi's population is estimated at 11 million people, with an annual growth rate of
3.3 percent. About 85 percent of the population is rural-based. Over 80 percent of the
total work force is employed in the smallholder agricultural subsector and 11 percent in

the estate subsector (World Bank, 1993).

Since independence in 1964 until recently, the performance of the smallholder
agricultural sector has been weak. During the 1980/91 period, the annual GDP growth
rate averaged about 1.5 percent in the smallholder sector, compared to 9.4 percent in
the estate sector. However, in 1996 GDP grew at a rate Of 9.5 percent, small-scale
agriculture grew at 39.8 percent, compared to only 1.1 percent in the estate sector.
This rapid growth in the smallholder sector was mainly due to the liberalization of
burlcy tobacco production which enabled many smallholder farmers to grow this crop

(Malawi Government, 1997).

Thus, during most of the 19803 and 19903, the agricultural growth rate has been
substantially below the population growth rate (World Bank, 1993), which has
contributed to rural stagnation and declining incomes for many households.

15

2.2 The Macro-Economy

After an impressive economic growth in the 1960 and 1970s, Malawi's economy began
a steady decline in the mid-19703. Falling world prices for the country's exports (i.e.,
tobacco, tea, coffee and cotton), rising oil prices, and the civil war in Mozambique'
simultaneously contributed to this decline. Between 1978 and 1981, Malawi's terms of
trade fell by 28 percent. The situation was exacerbated by the 1980/81 drought,
maturation of external debt, and rising interest rates. Consequently, Malawi

experienced negative GDP growth rates during 1980 and 1981 (World Bank, 1993).

In 1981, to restore macroeconomic stability and growth, the Malawi Government
launched a structural adjustment program with assistance from the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). The program sought to establish policies which
would enhance economic efficiency, including market liberalization, import
liberalization, currency devaluation, changing from a fixed to a floating exchange rate
system, downsizing the public subsector, liberalizing pricing policies, and removing
agricultural inputs and output subsidies (Sahn et al. , 1990). By adopting these policies,
it was envisaged that resource alloeation would improve, thereby increasing economic
efficiencyua prerequisite for economic growth. Between 1982 and 1985, the economy
showed signs of recovery. The GDP grew at a rate of 4.1 percent, the trade balance

beeame positive, and both the current account and budget deficits declined.

 

”The civil war disrupted access to transport routes to the coast through Mozambique.

16

 

 

 

Harem. 1

 

Mamba;

However, in 1986 Malawi faced a large influx of refugees fleeing the civil war in
Mozambique. Reaching a record high of 1 million, Malawi’s refugee population
became equal to about 10 percent of its indigenous population (Sahn e: at. , 1990).
Also, since the war led to closure of the traditional transport routes to the sea,
transportation costs for Malawi's exports and imports increased, leading to a
deterioration in the terms of trade. As an exporter, higher transportation costs made
the country's agricultural commodities less competitive on the world market. As an
importer, Malawi had to pay higher transport costs than before. These events
necessitated further macroeconomic policy changes, primarily successive currency

devaluation.

During the 1990s, additional structural adjustment phases were implemented, including
the removal of subsidies for agricultural input, fi. e, seed and fertilizer), deregulation of
foreign currencies, and further market liberalization. Despite these measures, Malawi's
economy did not substantially improve. While per capita GDP averaged USS 240
(World Bank, 1993) in 1991, it has declined in recent years for two reasons. First, the
droughts of 1992 and 1994 reduced agricultural output. Maize production fell from 1.6
million metric tones in 1990/91 to 0.7 million metric tones in 1991/92 (a 58 percent
drop), leading to a decline in the GDP. Second, in 1992/93, foreign donors withheld
non-humanitarian aid to Malawi, pending political changes. In the early 1990s about
80 percent of the smallholder households had incomes lower than MK 500 per adult
equivalent per year (less than US$ 100 at 1993 exchange rates).

17

 

define v

‘L‘.I'3f
field“:

36511: l
indium

“due of
Using 1S
n

us at:

Me: I

In 1992 and 1993, although the value of imports still exceeded that of exports, the trade
deficit improved from K7869 million in 1992 to K539 million in 1993. However, this
decline was not due to an increase in exports, but rather due to the scarcity of foreign

exchange which reduced Malawi's capacity to import.

Despite devaluing its currency several times in the 1980s and 1990s, trade statistics
indicate that the terms of trade have not improved. For example, in 1993, the unit
value of imports rose by 15.3 percent while that of exports rose by 2.4 percent”.
Using 1990 as the base year, the income terms of trade for 1993 was 78.8 percent.
Thus, all things being equal, Malawi would have had to export more goods in 1993 to

finance the same level of imports as in 1990.

Furthermore, Malawi’s successive devaluations have contributed to high inflation.
Using 1990 as the base year, the consumer price index rose to 520 percent in 1992,
largely due to devaluation in 1992. In 1994 the exchange rate was changed from a
fixed to a floating system. As a result, the currency value fell by 400 percent against

the US dollar (i.e., before devaluation, US$ 1 z MK 3.5; after devaluation, USS 1 -

 

’Kwacha, Malawian currency.

”Tobacco, the country's main export commodity, accounted for 69.1 percent of export *
earnings in 1993. Other main exports were tea (11.5 percent), sugar (5.1 percent), coffee
(2.6 percent), and other exports (10.6 percent) (Malawi Government, 1994). Because of
the structure of exports, the economy is vulnerable mainly to shocks in the tobacco
market.

18

 

 

Afijz‘u} In re

WOmV ‘

MK 15). Then, in 1995, the Malawi Government removed the subsidy on fertilizer
(that averaged 15 percent of the selling price) and eliminated the consumer subsidy for
maize. Although not yet documented, the removal of the maize subsidy will have a
significant and negative impact on urban consumers and food deficit households.
Similarly, the removal of the fertilizer subsidy will likely reduce input use, resulting in

lower maize yields.

2.3 Contribution of Agriculture to the Economy

In 1996, agriculture accounted for 43 percent of Malawi’s GDP and 86 percent of its
export earnings (Malawi Government, 1997). Other major contributors were
government services (13 percent), manufacturing (12 percent), and distribution (11
percent). Clearly, the general performance of the economy strongly depends on the
performance of the agricultural sector. For example, whereas the 1992 drought caused
the GDP growth rate to decline by 7.9 percent and good rains in 1993 caused the GDP
to grow by 10.3 percent (Malawi Government, 1994). Overall, the agricultural sector
has declined in recent years. For example, while the sector grew by 2 percent per

annum in the 1980/90 period, it declined by 0.6 percent in the 1990/94 period.

2.4 Agriculture: Structure and Scope

Agriculture in Malawi is composed of an estate subsector and a smallholder subsector.
While both subsectors are important, each makes a different contribution to the
economy. The smallholder agriculture accounted for 79 percent of the agricultural

19

 

 

GDP in 1993. In recent years, the estate subsector has accounted for 90 percent of

agricultural exports (Malawi Government, 1994).

2.4.1 The Estate Subcctor

The estate subsector, composed of 14,700 estates occupying 850,000 hectares, mainly
grows export crops such as tobacco, tea, sugar, and coffee (Table 2.1)". The estates
are the primary producers of many cash crops and generate most of the country’s
foreign exchange. Unlike smallholders, estates sell their crops directly to international
buyers at loeal auction markets. Until recently, smallholders were not allowed to grow
certain estate crops, such as burley tobacco. Although smallholder farmers now can
grow burley tobacco, in order to sell tobacco at the Auction Market, one needs to buy a
quota in advance. This increases costs for most smallholder farmers. Therefore, most

farmers prefer to sell their tobacco to intermediate buyers.

Estates acquire land through leasehold and freehold land tenure arrangements. Most
are operated by local private companies such as the Press Farming and General
Farming Companies, both subsidiaries of Press Corporation Limited. Press Farming
Company grows burley tobacco while General Farming Company mainly grows flue-
cured tobacco. Multinational companies also are involved in estate farming. The

major ones are Dwangwa Sugar Corporation (sugar), the Sugar Corporation of Malawi

 

uOnly one-third of land in this sector is under cultivation (Malawi Government/United
Nations, 1992).

20

 

 

LI.

 

 

(saga). Bf

limited 1' I:

 

mfactgr

MCI'S ma

 

(sugar), British Central African Limited (tea and coffee), and Lever Brothers Malawi
Limited (tea). The sugar companies are owned by LONRHO Company which also
manufactures sugar for loeal consumption and for export. In contrast, local estate

owners mainly grow burley tobacco.

21

 

‘aflci ‘.°. ”‘0‘

 

 

l 1 II .I «.2 AXE.MIIC:_-..-..e.3-HHE1~lm:m.n.~l(' l I I III III II: II. II I '1. II III I «hub-iv

'

-NG\—g~ 2.22:- HN\NM~Q~ Jae-2...: .CAVuuuuunvO-haa QEHV Ougslmu ..~ .N n-‘tifi

 

 

.on .nn .3 Bush ..§am 333‘ 33 doth—Bah 3.3.-3.3. .53.»: .88: 2.055300 Eva—«2 "02:8
oufio>< 58>-e c “03528 3: Sun - 8935mm .

 

 

.8 . “.8 33 new 2:. a: an 23 2a an as
e: 3a .§ .2: he a: a: a: a: on n: :95
83m 58...: 2.3. «8.3 2.6 33* «when 818 «5.8 Rea 53.. 3am
83a 68.8 5.3 «8.3 898 3.8 as...” «85 83“ 2.3a «8.3 3E
8039—.
0
u§<
RS
.2 «a: 8.: 82 32 32 $2 3.: 32 32 2a
IIIIIIII:IIIIIJ.a§.Ws§.Ise|fla2||IIIIIIIIIIII- a8

.8292 .325 852 .5234 58895 85 seem a .N 2%...

22

 

sparasia ., r

2.4.2 The Smallholder Subsector

The smallholder subsector is characterized by small farmers cultivating food crops
under customary land tenure (Sahn et al. , 1990). Many smallholder farmers market
part of their produce to meet their cash needs. They primarily grow maize, tobacco",
mssava, and sweet potatoes (Table 2.2). Whereas there exist smallholder schemes for
eash crops like flue-cured tobacco, sugar, tea and coffee”, participation is highly
location-specific. One major constraint facing smallholders is the size of their
landholdings, which, according to a National Sample Survey of Agriculture, averaged
1.17 hectares per smallholder household in 1980/ 81 (Malawi Government, 1984) and is
steadily declining. Also, land under permanent pasture declined from 35 percent of
total area in 1980 to 20 percent of total area in 1993. This indicates that land pressure
among smallholder farmers has caused some farmers to encroach on land previously

reserved for pasture.

2.4.2.1 Farm Size Classes
The Malawi Government (1994) classifies smallholder farmers into three categories: the
35 percent with less than 0.7 hectares, who cannot satisfy their subsistence food

requirements with existing technologies; the 40 percent with landholdings between 0.7

 

12This includes three types of tobacco previously grown by smallholders; dark-fired
tobacco, sun-air-cured tobacco and Turkish tobacco.

13Parastatal organizations organize these farmers in order to produce and market these
export crops.

23

 

 

 

regime?
and the re
Rims 0r

 

and 1.5 hectares who, using modern technology, can normally satisfy their subsistence
requirements as well as have a potential for modest crop sales in good rainfall years;
and the remaining 25 percent who are relatively land-rich, with landholdings of 1.5

hectares or greater. This last group typically plants their fields to both food and cash

crops.

24

 

 

 

Iab><
u'au>
AV. CNS. Ign fig- at°h ‘to- “:3. ca‘v‘ '.:°~ V‘OH
I. I II II t . I: III I II t Alimz AVAVAuWV n...n.-.- vial-«illuush -.ta~¢e--..IV I II 1.. 1|! I I I .III .1 1|! 1 | In ara§nvh i
..I.\-Ivlu- concealing. D.I§.n|‘s.u o'ls.~o.llh ‘ a1 0 as s I h as all n. a usual \\ ....... . tttttt \

 

 

 

 

H11

.3 a... an .8 s 3 8a... .553: 325. 8.53% Essex? .25.: .38: 888.80 5...: 828m
0.33. >- .0: 8.5 _. “8.353 . 388» Sam— 05 5 Ease—o 05 me 8:83 :8» £5 32 83 83268.— .. “no—3 v2.50 .

 

 

: .3 .3 3 2 2 : 2 2 a fl
m S m a a a m a a a :95
.3
«a an: .m: as .SN .3: .8 .5 an. .33 as:
330
A...
83 13c.“ .83 ea; .NR .8m :8 .43 .23 .68.— -3..
N 30.39
2.: Law."— mnbé :8...— .m:... has .83: Ron: .893 .812 it
cool-Oh.
8 . . . an s. «n on an on .838
on
£92
.8»
2 .82 32 8a 33 82 $2 82 32 32
I I I I: llllllllll A Wig Maytag! flaw-d lllllllllllllll 820

 

8:22 e :85 3:me 5%: . Eu 5.5 E 8:88... 622:35 "Na 25.

25

 

 

2.4.2.2
1122:, the
317012170 ,1

Approxirra

 

m: by
m in 5.
Entries, 2
{World 8.2;,
m the m
1993). Tra

million <

2.4.2.2 Food Crop Production

Maize, the staple food for more than 80 percent of Malawi’s population, accounts for
about 70 percent of the cultivated customary lands under smallholder agriculture.
Approximately 90 percent of the country's maize is produced by smallholders and 10
percent by the estate subsector (World Bank, 1993). While hybrid maize has been
grown in Malawi for many years, 86 percent of the maize crop is still planted to local
varieties, 2 percent to composite varieties, and only 12 percent to improved hybrids
(World Bank, 1993). To date, low adoption rates for improved hybrids are attributed
to the poor storage and processing characteristics of the earlier dent hybrids (Conroy,
1993). Traditionally-grown flint varieties have endorsperms which contain a high
proportion of ‘hard starch’, while dent varieties have mainly soft starch (Kydd, 1989).
These characteristics give flint varieties better storage and pounding properties than
dent varieties. However, the new semi-flint hybrids (MH 17 and MH 18), released in

1992, are expected to better match farmer preferences.

Cassava and sweet potatoes are the second and third most important food crops (by
area) produced in Malawi. In some locations, specific crops are grown especially
intensively. For example, farmers bordering Lake Malawi grow cassava and rice as
their main food crops. Similarly, groundnuts are grown in the mid-to-upper altitude
areas, although in recent years groundnut production has declined. Since food crops
are grown entirely under rain-fed conditions, they are extremely vulnerable to the
weather.

26

 

 

2.4.2.1

The ore."
an am;
in Kenya
film: use

more fer:

.—4
38
(no)
‘-

2.4.2.3 Smallholder Input Use and Credit

The overwhelming majority of smallholders use little or no purchased inputs (i. e. ,
fertilizer, insecticide, herbicide, or improved seed). In 1989/90, smallholders applied
an average of 23 kg of plant nutrients per hectare of arable land, compared to 48 kg/ha
in Kenya and 60 kg/ha in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, within the smallholder sector,
input use is highly skewed. Typically, larger farmers on customary land apply far
more fertilizer than the smallholders who cultivate the smallest holdings (Conroy,

1993).

Finally, most smallholders either do not have access to credit or choose not to use it.

In the late 19805 only about 25 percent-30 percent of the smallholder farmers
participated in the Govemment’s formal credit program that provided participants in-
kind credit consisting of fertilizer, seeds and chemicals (Conroy, 1993). However,
beeause the farmers did not repay their loan, the Smallholder Agricultural Credit
Administration (SACA) collapsed in 1992. Although it has since been replaced by the
Malawi Rural Finance Company, this company charges commercial interest rates for its
loans and in some cases, it has not been willing to offer loans to farmers growing maize
as it is regarded as a high risk activity. Since the majority of the farmers eannot afford
to buy fertilizer, some scientists argue that greater use of legumes to help maintain soil
fertility is an attractive option. The next section presents a history of the seed sector in

Malawi with special emphasis on smallholder seed multiplication schemes.

27

 

 

. J
3).
_‘

Own?
1: Male
ta'ly 1E
mmme
smite

pollinaj

3:" govt
f , _
”L“

2.5 Malawi’s Seed Sector"

Overview

In Malawi, the seed sector development has undergone three phases. First, from the
early 19603 to the mid-1970s, the Government emphasized the development of the
commercial seed production, second, in 1986, the Government introduced a
smallholder seed multiplication scheme with the goal of providing seeds for self-
pollinated crops such as groundnuts and beans which the commercial sector did not
produce. Third, in the early 1990, recognizing that smallholders did not have
sufficient access to seed, non-governmental organizations started playing an active role

in seed multiplication and distribution among smallholder farmers.

2.5.1 The Formal Seed Sector in Malawi

Government production and distribution of seed started in 1959 with the release of the
first local maize hybrid, LH7". Subsequently, seeds of other crops such as
groundnuts, rice, and cotton were multiplied and distributed by the extension service.
Under these programs, seed was either given free of charge or in exchange for the
farmers’ seed. In 1968, a formal seed program for maize and groundnuts was initiated
by government in Lilongwe and at Bvumbwe with plant breeders given responsibility

for multiplying seed. Beginning in 1971, seed was sold at economic prices and in

 

“This section is based on Cromwell et al., (1993) unless otherwise indicated.

”LH is an abbreviation for local hybrid

28

1973, a proposal was drawn up to create a national seeds program which would
integrate all activities related to seed multiplication and distribution. A parastatal,
ADMARC“ was given the responsibility for producing both certified maize and
groundnuts seed, while smallholder farmers were recruited to multiply groundnuts to

"approved” status".

2.5.2 The National Seed Company of Malawi

In 1978, in addition to maize and groundnuts seed multiplication, ADMARC began
multiplying certified seed for several crops, including beans, sunflower, grasses,
pasture legumes, and tobacco. In the same year, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation launched the National Rural Development Program (an integrated rural
development program) which increased the demand for seed. To meet the increased
demand, in 1979 the National Seed Company of Malawi (NSCM) was established as a
seed production unit of ADMARC, responsible for producing maize and horticultural
seed. While the Commonwealth Development Corporation had a controlling share in
the company, other key players included the Department of Agricultural Research,

supplying the breeder seed; the Variety Release Committee, responsible for releasing

 

“ADMARC is an abbreviation for Agricultural Development and Marketing
Corporation, a Government parastatal responsible for marketing agricultural produce and
inputs.

"Approved seed also is known as “quality declared seed” or “artisan seed.” While this
seed is produced following all recommendations for seed growing it does not pass through
the strict standards required for ofiicial seed certification.

29

new varieties; the Seed Technology Unit (now called the Seed Services Unit), charged
with the responsibility of inspecting seed crop and testing of seed; the NSCM,
responsible for producing the seed and packaging; and ADMARC, responsible for

seed distribution.

Maize Seed
The NSCM produced the foundation seed, which they later distributed for further
multiplication to 60 contract growers under the supervision of the company’s staff and

government inspectors. The company cleaned, graded and treated the seed at its

processing plant in Lilongwe.

In 1978, the Department of Agricultural Research developed a dent hybrid MHlZ"
using inbred lines from SR52" from Zimbabwe. However, this hybrid had poor
storage and pounding characteristics. In 1985, the Department of Agricultural
Research released MHlS (dent variety) and MH16 (semi-dent variety), using inbred
lines from South Afriea and local materials. Also in the same year, two flint varieties
Chitedze Composite C (CCC) and Chitedze Composite D (CCD) were released, using

local materials and materials from CIMMYT, IITA and South Africa.

 

"MB is an abbreviation for Malawi hybrid.

"SR is an abbreviation for Southern Rhodesia.

30

 

 

1‘.“

Swing :i

 

hybrids to
|
m in 1

hybrids in

Homer,

Starting in 1986, the Government changed its brading strategy from developing dent
hybrids to developing flints. As a result, the Government released MRI? and MHlB
maize in 1990. As flints were more acceptable to farmers than dents, the area under
hybrids increased from 7 percent in 1988 to 24 percent in 1992 (Smile, 1995).
However, the N SCM failed to meet the demand for maize seed as it could not recruit
enough contract farmers to grow maize seed. In most cases, beeause the maize seed
crop competed with tobacco crop, most farmers tended to neglect their maize crop in

favor of tobacco, leading to the disqualification of much of the crop.

Bean Seed

In 1981, the NSCM expanded its seed production activities to producing certified seed
of released bean varieties (Nasaka and Kamzama) and Canadian Wonder for the export
market. However, as new bean seed varieties became available the N SCM chose not to
multiply them, arguing that the bean researchers at Bunda College of Agriculture did

not provide enough parental material and there was no domestic demand for bean seed.

In 1988, Cargill bought a controlling share of the NSCM”. As a subsidiary of Cargill,
N SCM was transformed from a seed producing unit of ADMARC to a profit-driven

company and focused on producing maize, tobacco and vegetable seeds. Currently,

 

”The name of the company changed from National Seed Company of Malawi (N SCM) to
National Seed, Cotton and Milling (N SCM).

31

Cargill’s central maize breeding program is based in Zimbabwe and carries out

adaptive research in Malawi.

2.5.3 Lever Brothers (Malawi) Limited

In 1991, Lever Brothers (Malawi) Limited started producing hybrid sunflower seed in
order to encourage farmers to grow sunflowers which they could use as an alternative
raw material for producing vegetable cooking oil. In 1992, Lever Brothers started
producing hybrid maize seed to make their seed business more commercially viable.
They produced hybrid maize seed (MH 17 and MH18 varieties) under the brand name
Chokonoka, which means poundable. Being an established multinational, Lever
Brothers used its nationwide distribution network to sell its seed. Also, it linked with
Plant Breeding Institute (PBI) Cambridge to acquire plant and equipment, gerrnplasm
and finance to establish a seed business in Malawi, and also established production and
marketing agreements with Pannar-Saffola of South Africa to multiply and distribute
the latter’s proprietary brands in Malawi. Subsequently, Pannar Seed Company
bought Lever Brothers’ seed enterprise (hybrid maize seed and hybrid sunflower seed).
Like the NSCM, Pannar uses contract farmers to multiply their seed and sells it
through ADMARC, super stores, and other retail shops. However, unlike N SCM,

Pannar has access to Lever Brothers national distribution network.

32

 

 

2.6

Sh. 03
us he

2.6 Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes

Since the formal seed sector has largely ignored self-pollinated cereals and legumes,
smallholders continue to obtain legume seed through informal channels i.e., own
stocks, relatives, neighbors and local market (Ferguson et al., 1991.) Being informal,
the organization of traditional seed distribution varies between locations and changes
over time, causing uncertainty in the system (Cromwell et a1. , 1993). Sperling et. al.,
(1994) noted that traditional methods of seed diffusion are slow. Since farmers tend to
plant new varieties on small pieces of land, widespread distribution is delayed. In addition,

the circle of distribution is socially narrow, being restricted to fiiends, relatives and

neighbors.

In 1986, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation launched a Smallholder Seed
Development Scheme (SSMS). The objective was to produce a low cost, high quality
improved seed of self-pollinated crops for smallholder farmers, especially for crops
which the commercial sector did not produce. The scheme was designed to
decentralize seed production, and encourage each Agricultural Development Division
(ADDZ‘) to be self-sufficient in producing improved seeds of acceptable quality for

farmers in the am. Under the SSMS, farmers have multiplied seeds for groundnuts,

 

21Malawi is divided into eight Agricultural Development Divisions which are units of
administration of Agricultural Extension and Training Services to smallholder farmers. In
turn the ADDs are divided into Rural Development Projects (RDP) which are subdivided
into Extension Planning Areas (EPA), the smallest unit of administration.

33

 

 

Ems. s:

an: Smr

Pkfifi
cfikred f
thermal
name

kafi

In 1937,
fiwhm
331113;)le
‘0 Km:

501610;

beans, soybeans, wheat and rice in five ADDs: Mzuzu, Kasungu, Lilongwe, Blantyre

and Shire Valley.

The SSMS’s groundnuts seed scheme was unsuccessful because the price Government
offered farmers for their seed was low, compared to the grain price. For example,
after market liberalization in the 1988/89 agricultural season, farmers in Mzuzu ADD
sold their seed as grain to private traders who offered a higher price than the prices the

schemes could pay. In addition, the schemes were late in buying the produce.

In 1987, as part of the SSMS, the National Bean Program at Bunda College started
distributing bean seed to smallholder farmers for multiplication. Initially, seed
multiplication was earried out in Mzuzu ADD, but in 1990/91, the effort was extended
to Kasungu, Lilongwe, Shire Valley and Blantyre ADDs. All beans produced were

sold to ADMARC to be distributed in the following year’s seed multiplication program.

As noted previously, the SSMS’s pricing policies encouraged farmers to sell their
produce as grain rather than seed. Another weakness was farmers’ low awareness of
the scheme and of the varieties it multiplied. In addition, even where there was
awareness, it was not financially attractive for farmers to buy the improved seed as

their yield advantage over the traditional varieties was not obvious.

34

 

 

 

Given 2hr
trams
for m
irked fu
Tnmfor:

maid it

The most
We as :
Mina
”miner:

lid Am:

V

Given these weaknesses, the SSMS model could not survive changes in the economic
environment including market liberalization, price liberalization, and reduced funding
for research and extension. As a result of reduced Government funding, SSMS’s
lacked funding to provide logistical support and purchase md from farmers.
Therefore, although SSMS has continued its activities in some ADDs, it has failed to

expand its activities.

The most recent development in smallholder seed multiplication schemes in Malawi
came as a result of the 1990/91 drought. Since the drought, the Government has
permitted NGOs to participate in smallholder seed multiplication projects the
commercial seed production. Initially, a few NGOs (i.e. , Christian Service Committee
and ActionAid) provided seed as part of relief to the drought-stricken farming
households. Another NGO, Concern Universal was initially providing relief to
Mozambican refugees. After the return of the refugees, these NGO started relief
operations to Malawians. Although these were supposed to be short-term programs,
some NGOs have turned these relief operations into full-fledged seed multiplication
programs. For example, in 1992, ActionAid bought maize from the local market and
distributed it as seed to drought affected areas. After the 1994 drought, ActionAid
again distributed seed to smallholder farmers. Criticized for distributing grain as seed,
ActionAid launched a seed multiplication program under the Malawi Smallholder Seed
Development Program, with funding from the Department of International
Development (UK). More recently (1995/96), the European Delegation imported seed

35

 

 

{maul
neighbor
amber

imnt(

Taayh
ewmlu
Develop,
Cnidren
”KSdf

IONGQ

(maize, beans, soybeans, sorghum, pigeon peas, cowpeas, and sunflower) from
neighboring countries including Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The seed was
distributed to smallholder farmers through NGOs including ActionAid, Christian

Service Committee and Concern Universal.

Today, large smallholder seed multiplication schemes in Malawi are organized by
several international N GOs, including ActionAid (Malawi Smallholder Seed
Development Project), Christian Service Committee, Concern Universal, Save the
Children Federation (USA), World Vision International, International Eye Foundation
and Self-Help Development International. Luhanga (1997) reported that in 1996, over

10 NGOs invested over US $5 million in seed programs in Malawi.

In an effort to establish smallholder seed production on a more commercial footing, in
the 1996/97 growing season, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, in
collaboration with the European Delegation started a program to train smallholder

farmers as seed entrepreneurs.

2.7 Current Seed Policy Environment

In 1993, the Government formally introduced policy reforms to allow the licensing of
new seed companies, removed seed subsidies, and provided tax credits for private
sector investment in the seed sector. These reforms were intended to increase
competition among the seed producers which would be to the advantage of the farmers.

36

 

 

.tlso. m
be colic
research

Opsonal

“151 M
1996 ti
the Gov

Quarry

Also, the Government introduced plant breeders’ rights and provision for royalties to
be collected for Govemment-bred varieties and hybrids to help defray the costs of
research. While seed certification is required for hybrid maize and tobacco, it is
optional for the other crops. In 1995, the Ministry changed its variety release
procedures to allow for the release of privately-tested hybrids and varieties, as required
when Malawi applied for membership in UPOV22 and OECD” (Rusike, 1995). In
1996, the Government amended the Seed Act, which among other things, stipulates that
the Government will privatize md-related services, (e. g. , crop seed inspection and

quality control) and has already deregulated seed imports and exports.

In this policy environment, the current seed multiplication schemes are run by the
Department of Agricultural Research which is the source of foundation seed for new
varieties to schemes, and the Seed Services Unit, which oversees quality control and
seed certification services (where they are needed). In addition, the Department of
Agricultural Extension and Training trains seed producers. The NGOs collaborate with

these departments in implementing their md multiplication programs.

 

22UPOV is an abbreviation for International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties
which provides intellectual protection for plant varieties.

2i’OECD is an abbreviation for Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.

37

 

 

.I
Fa

we

2.8 Summary

Malawi's economy is based primarily on agriculture, which accounts for 43 percent of
the country's GDP and 86 percent of its export earnings. While the agricultural sector
is composed of the smallholder and estate subsectors, the estate subsector is the main
foreign exchange earner and the smallholder subsector provides the bulk of the

country's food needs.

The smallholder sector is characterized by farmers who cultivate small landholdings,
mainly growing food crops for their own consumption and selling their surpluses.
Only a small proportion of smallholders use purchased inputs. Before the collapse of
the Govemment’s credit scheme, no more than 30 percent of smallholders participated
in it. Smallholders grow mainly maize, cassava, potatoes and legumes. Beans are the

most widely grown legume among smallholder farmers.

Most farmers plant their own seed, or obtain seed though the informal system.
Malawi’s formal seed sector has undergone major changes since the Government first
became actively involved in seed multiplication in 1986. From initially having a
sharehold in a monopoly seed company (NSCM), since 1978 it has opened the sector to
competition, removed seed subsidies, expressed interest to privatize some quality

control functions, and is now allowing the import of varieties from outside the country.

38

The remainder of this study focuses on the legume seed subsector (beans, groundnuts
and soybeans) in an attempt to identify ways to improve the performance of this
subsector, and thereby increase the availability of protein to the population, especially
the poor. However, primary focus will be given to beans because beans have been the
major legume grown in Malawi since 1990. Also, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP” supported
this study by cry-sponsoring the field work and providing the author’s scholarship for

the Ph.D. Program.

 

2‘CRSP, Collaborative Research Support Program is a USAID-funded research project
between a USA institution and developing country institution with the aim of conducting
research to improve agricultural productivity among smallholder farmers.

39

 

CHAPTER THREE

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH METHODS

3.0 Introduction

This chapter reviews literature relevant to analyzing the performance of smallholder seed
multiplication schemes. The first section describes a stylized model of how a country’s
seed industry evolves as its agriculture develops. The second section reviews the
experience of establishing seed in developing countries. The third section introduces the
theory of induced innovation to illustrate how a country’s state of development, including
its seed industry, is a function of its resource endowment, cultural endowment, technology
and institutions. The fourth section presents concepts which explain farmers’ behavior,
focusing on how transactions costs create both incentives and disincentives that afi‘ect the
performance of the smallholder seed multiplication schemes. The final section discusses

the factors affecting supply and demand of legume seed.

3.1 The Evolution of a Seed Industry

Douglas (1980) identifies four stages through which a country’s seed industry evolves as
its agriculture develops: the traditional stage, the emergence stage, the grth stage, and
the maturity stage. In the early stage of agriculture development, farmers produce and
save their own seed for the next season, and/or exchange seed with other farmers to gain
access to desired varieties. As farmers become more market-oriented, the public research

systems develop a capacity to generate foundation seed, and governments establish seed

40

 

 

mzipii.
rows 1'.
with
prim
ra'tet
FPO“

meat

IR m:
506d 53
{men
L'l‘éac

"3 &5:):

While I
53151175

A

multiplication schemes to produce improved varieties, the demand for improved varieties
grows (emergence stage) and a few farmers begin to specialize in producing and
marketing improved seed. As the demand for improved seed expands (growth stage),
private seed companies, who recognize the profit potential, invest in producing and
marketing improved seed to supply the expanding demand. Finally, as demand for
improved seed increases further (mature stage), seed production and marketing evolves

into a highly organized commercial system.

In analyzing the implications of this evolution, Douglas (1980) notes that as a countris
seed system evolves from the traditional to the mature stage, transaction costs increase as
farmers become increasingly dependent on modern transportation, information and storage
systems in order to obtain seed. Therefore, as a country’s seed system evolves, reducing
transaction costs becomes increasingly important, if farmers are to have access to the seed
at afi‘ordable prices. However, Douglas does not take into account the fact that with
international trade, it is possible to obtain improved varieties by importing seed fi'om
another country, rather than establishing its own breeding program. Nonetheless, in such
cases transaction costs will still arise, as farmers become increasingly dependent on

transportation, information and storage systems.

While Douglas’ model provides a usefirl description of the historical evolution of seed
systems, he fails to note that farmers are far more dependent on the market to obtain seed

for improved varieties of cross-pollinated crops (e.g., hybrid maize) than for self-

41

 

pollinated crops. While farmers must purchase hybrid seed annually, they can reuse
improved seed of self-pollinating crops for several seasons before its quality deteriorates

regarding contamination or seed-home diseases.

3.2 Recent Experience in Seed Development in sub-Saharan Africa

To supply local demand for improved seed, the donor community has assisted many
countries to establish large-scale parastatal seed corporations, technical laboratories,
modern seed processing plants, and seed certification departments. FAO (1994) reports
that about one-third of the countries in sub-Saharan Afiica have established formal seed
production and distribution facilities for major food crops. Despite these efforts,
Almeikinders et al., (1994) report that the formal seed sources account for no more than
10 percent of seed in developing countries. In most cases, these parastatal-run seed
systems have proven to be inflexible, inefficient, and have neglected important crops
(Srivastave and Jafi‘ee, 1993). For example, in Rwanda (Sperling et al., 1996), the seed
programs produced varieties that did not reflect farmers’ preferences. In addition, the
seed programs typically failed to reach the majority of farmers who lived outside the high

potential areas.

Faced with stagnating crop yields and mounting food deficits, Cromwell (1993) reports
that many Afiican countries have sought to restructure their seed sector, including The
Gambia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zambia. Groosman et al. (1988)

report that in the period between 1972 and 1984, FAO supported Seed Improvement and

42

 

 

 

'
é. lw ‘.HII"I"".V
V V“
!~.(‘

 

Kiwi St.
prices :7
comm:

Marlo in

ash-Culture

Pioneer b0

 

WM C0“

“5 Me

2991.

Development Programs in 60 countries. In the 19805, the World Bank firnded 13 national
seed projects and 100 seed-related projects. Similarly, during the past 30 years, the
United States Agency for International Development (U SAID) has supported seed
projects in 57 countries. Typically, as a condition for receiving foreign aid, the donor
community has required these countries to privatize their agricultural markets and national
agricultural parastatals. In many countries, state-owned seed companies have been sold in
order to increase efliciency and flexibility. For example, Rusike (1995) reports that in
Malawi, Cargill bought a controlling share of the National Seed Company and similarly,
Pioneer bought Zamseed in Zambia and Zimseed in Zimbabwe. While Malawi’s state-
owned company had previously been a monopoly, following privatization, the seed sector
was opened to competition and, as a result, Lever Brothers started producing seed in

1991.

In addition, as the role of the state in providing agricultural services has declined,
governments have allowed NGOs to assist in delivering agricultural services, including
informal seed production and distribution. For the NGOs to succeed in exploiting the
innovations in agricultural research, there was need for institutional innovation. The next
section presents some theories and concepts which are important in explaining how
institutional innovations can influence the transfer of technology, such as how seed

multiplication schemes provide seed to smallholder farmers.

43

 

 

 

33
H1317
prcnd

affine .

tenor

4

mfltip'

,—

In the g
b? 113m

an 4.

re -
w ac.

a

mu?

13.13 ‘

3.3 Induced Innovation Theory

Hayami's and Ruttan's ”induced technical and institutional innovation" model (1985)
provides a theoretical framework for identifying key variables that affect the performance
of the legume seed sector in Malawi. Their “induced innovation” model hypothesizes that
at a given point in time, a country's state of development is determined by its resource
endowment, cultural endowment, technology, and institutions. Because these four
elements are interdependent, not only do changes in one element induce changes in the
other, but also stagnation in one element can retard development in the other elements.
Thus, not only do expanding economic opportunities such as rising grain prices, create
demand for (induce) new technologies (e. g. , improved seed varieties), but expanded
economic opportunities create demand for (induce) new institutions (e. g., seed

multiplication schemes).

In the case of Malawi’s legume seed sector, increasing demand for legumes, as evidenced
by rising real prices, can be expected to induce farmers to adopt new higher yielding
varieties or expand their area in legume production. However, sufficient incentives must
exist to encourage new or existing institutions (in this case seed multiplication schemes) to
produce seed of these improved varieties and distribute it to farmers. Noting that
institutions evolve in response to a country’s unique characteristics, technological change
may induce multiple paths of institutional change (Stevens , 1988). Thus, the challenge is
to identify the type of seed multiplication schemes that are most sustainable, given

Malawi’s resource endowment, cultural endowment, technology and institutions.

44

Facing increasing population pressure on its agricultural land resources, rising legume
prices and a rapidly evolving macroeconomic policy environment due to structural
adjustment, Malawi is ripe for institutional change. Previous efi‘orts to increase seed of
new legume varieties may have failed because the schemes were designed with little
understanding of factors that afi‘ect the supply of and demand for legume seed. Thus,
designing a viable and sustainable legume seed system will require a better understanding

of both supply and demand factors, of which transaction costs are a key component.

The next section utilizes transaction costs theory to demonstrate why smallholder seed

multiplication schemes, as presently organized, are unlikely to be sustainable.

3.3.1 Transaction Cost Theory

Seed multiplication requires the performance of numerous activities ranging fiom
providing new basic seed to growers, regulating and certifying the quality of seed, to the
marketing of seed. At each of these stages, transaction costs arise fiom the
technologically separable phases in seed production process. North (1990) defined
transaction costs as costs of measuring the valuable attributes of what is being exchanged
as well as the costs of protecting rights, policing and enforcing agreements. Transaction
costs analysis examines the comparative cost of planning, adapting, and monitoring task
completion under alternative governance structures, focusing on how transactions difi‘er in
their nature and how different governance structures dissipate the transaction costs.

Governance structures refer to a set of rules and regulations organizing a given activity

45

 

AI

 

stilt .;

 

iitttrs.

33.1.]
Tami

My

 

fitment
forked z'r.
is more pr
15635.. 9.1
such as h:
Rimes 1
1 mm,
tbeseech
roam)
it“! this ca;

white hi;

with an objective of producing a good or service. Thus, different institutions will have

difi‘erent sets of rules and regulations.

3.3.1.1 The Nature of Legume Seed

Transaction costs in a seed sector arise from several sources. The legume seed sector,
especially in cases where farmers use their own seed, exhibits a failure on some
fundamental features of a competitive market, i.e., farmers tend not to rely on the market
for seed therefore, it is not a “many sellers and many buyers’ market.” The market failure
is more pronounced in self-pollinated crops such as legumes since genetic performance of
a seed, e.g. yield potential does not deteriorate fast, compared to cross-pollinated crops
such as hybrid maize, whose seed has to be replaced every year. Therefore, legume crop
varieties exhibit some public good characteristics. This is the case because, after breeding
a variety, farmers who did not pay for the firll cost of breeding the variety can purchase
the seed below cost price or use grain as seed without loss of genetic value (yield
potential). Consequently, there is a tendency for farmers to free-ride. The major problem
in this case will be that some farmers will not be willing to be first movers and pay the

relative high cost of the initial seed.

Another source of transaction costs arises from the fact that when farmers buy seed, it is
dificult for them to determine the quality of the seed, since the genetic quality of a seed is

exhibited after the seed is planted. This is even more critical in cases where farmers are

46

 

 

 

0f scale.
176171505!

serially

The sou
“il- and.
3131 min
For ins:
flange}.

:3.sz ‘

In 50The .
in “Pier:
gimme:
Emma;

err‘aU O r

planting a new variety. Thus, unless farmers are convinced the seed is fi'om a genetically

high quality variety, they are reluctant to pay a premium price.

The total cost of a seed is the sum of production and transaction costs. Production costs
depend on the type of technologies used, quantities and prices of inputs used, economies
of scale, the level of capacity utilization, and the nature of the learning curve. The
transactions costs as discussed above contribute to the actual cost of a seed and therefore

partially determine whether or not farmers will buy new seed.

The sources and the levels of transaction costs determine whether or not economic agents
will undertake an activity. In the case of seed multiplication, failure to have mechanisms
that mitigate transaction costs will lead to less seed production than is socially beneficial.
For instance, although farmers would be better off if they had access to new varieties with
desirable market characteristics, the availability of seed will determine the extent to which

farmers actually benefit.

In some cases, high transaction costs contribute to market failure and thus are a key factor
in explaining the high costs of government and NGO-sponsored seed multiplication
schemes. However, Arrow (1969) warns that market failure is seldom absolute. More
frequently, high transaction costs impede or, in extreme cases, completely block the

formation of markets.

47

 

 

mm;

maids.

 

 

govern
|
schemes)

IS produc

Produced

harms:
the mark.

50518 af‘fe

Institutions have the potential to reduce the transaction costs. Unlike competitive
markets, seed multiplication schemes can be created to incorporate a variety of
governance structures (exhibited by a variety of models of difi‘erent seed multiplication
schemes) uniquely designed to modify transactions costs so that more of a good or service
is produced. In some cases, high transaction costs are needed for a good or service to be

produced, while in other cases low transaction costs are required.

Transaction costs may arise due to information costs, asset specificity, and uncertainty of
the market. The following section discusses how these difi‘erent sources of transaction

costs afl‘ect the sustainability of seed multiplication schemes.

3.3.1.2 Information Costs in a Seed Sector

When farmers plant their own saved seed, no cost is incurred to obtain information about
the performance of the variety, since they have observed its performance in the field.
However, when farmers obtain varieties from ofilfarm sources, the cost of obtaining
information about the variety increases. In such cases, the farmers may not be aware of
the performance of the seed, and moreover the seed sellers may misinforrn buyers about
the attributes of the seed. Where buyers suspect that the seller is providing misleading
information regarding the attributes of a variety, he may end up offering a lower price than

the price demanded.

48

 

 

 

 

.Jsl

 

 

at}: i:
5mm 3

Irihisca.»

terrorize.J
breach the:

fitment:

stilling)

 

 

Due to the resulting information asymmetry between the sellers and the buyers (i.e., lack
of perfect information between buyers and sellers), sellers may engage in opportunistic
behavior. Seed producers and sellers can exhibit opportunistic behavior in the following
ways. First, in cases where contracts exist between an organization and participating
farmers, such as in a seed multiplication schemes, a principal-agency problem may arise.
In this case, the md producer (i.e., agency) may produce substandard seed through
shirking, as it is difficult for the manager of the seed multiplication scheme (i.e., principal)
to monitor all seed producers throughout the growing season. In some cases, farmers may
breach their contract and sell seed to competitors or use the seed as grain contrary to the
agreement”. In such cases, it is profitable for farmers to sell their produce as grain than
sell it as seed. The relatively low seed price ofi‘ered to farmers by ADMARC was largely
responsible for failure of earlier seed multiplication schemes in Malawi. Second, one
economic agent (i. e. seed sellers) may provide misleading information to seed users if they
think they can get away with it, since seed users can not observe all attributes of a seed
variety at the time of purchase. Third, where it is possible to enforce contracts, some
economic agents (e. g. seed schemes) may negotiate long-term contracts, thereby limiting
the opportunity for the other party (farmers) to exploit more lucrative markets. For

instance, in cases where grain traders offer a higher price than the seed scheme, farmers

 

2’For instance, in some seed multiplication schemes in Malawi where farmers were
required to sell the seed to a specific marketing agency, ADMARC, they sold their seed to
private traders as grain (Cromwell et. al., 1993). Also, Rusike and Kelly (1997) report
that smallholder farmers contracted to multiply seed for AGRITEX ofien sell the seed to
other buyers, contrary to the condition of their contract. In this case, there are no
mechanisms to enforce the contracts.

49

 

 

 

tr: hem

 

more h:

it he s:

are better-ofi‘ selling their produce as grain. Yet, by the time farmers have discovered the
more lucrative markets, they are limited by contracts requiring them to sell their produce

to the seed multiplication program.

3.3.1.3 Asset Specificity Problem in Seed Production

Compared to grain production, commercial seed production requires the use of specialized
assets. Theseassetscanbephysicalassetsorhumanassets. Aslongasanassetcannotbe
redeployed and yield equal return in an alternative enterprise, there is an asset specificity
problem. For example if a seed producer buys bagging equipment for packing seed or
buys processing equipment, he will earn more revenue producing seed (versus grain)
which he can sell at a relatively higher price than price of grain. Thus, switching to grain
production will result in loss in revenue as his equipment has no alternative use, ceteris
paribus. Additionally, farmers participating in seed multiplication schemes that produce
certified seed, incur high costs arising from extra labor and skills needed for roguing (i. e.,
removal of ofiltypes to the variety of interest in the field) , processing, inspection and
other seed-specific operations. Although most smallholder seed producers do not use
specialized physical assets, an asset specificity problem still arises both because these
farmers typically will use more resources (labor, management, monocropping etc.) to
produce seed than they would if they were producing grain, and the seed they produce is a

specialized product (Weleschuk and Kerr, 1994).

50

 

 

 

As a seed industry evolves, from the traditional through the emergence and growth to the
mature stage (Douglas’ model), seed producers find it necessary to invest in increasingly
specific assets associated with growing, packaging and distributing the seed. The specific
assets can not easily be sold or converted into other use. This creates a strong
dependency between the seed producers and seed users, since if the return to the
specialized assets does not cover costs, the seed system will fail. To protect their
investments, seed companies typically impose safeguards on their seed growers- these are
devices that protect investments in transactions in which specific assets are placed at a
risk. Safeguards can take several forms. For example, seed companies/schemes can
introduce severance payments to discourage premature termination of contracts,
encourage combined ownership of inputs and outputs to assure continuity seed

multiplication schemes, and/or ensure a good seed price.

Williamson (1985) proposed the following contractual schema to illustrate how safeguards

mitigate transaction costs arising from asset specificity (Figure 3.1).

51

 

Figure 3.1: Contractual Scheme Involving Asset Specificity Problem

First, in cases where growers produce seed using general purpose assets (k=0), there is no
need for a specialized governance structure, since a discrete market is suficient and the

consumers (i.e., seed buyers) will pay price Pl at node A In cases where growers employ
specialized assets (k>0), there is an increased dependency between growers and buyers, if

production is to take place.

52

 

This it;-
again

rapier:

 

 

This dependency insures the seed growers of a market and offers certainty to the seed
buyers by insuring the availability of seed. In the course of transacting, safeguards can

employed (s>0) or they can not be employed (s=0).

When seed farmers employ specialized assets without safeguards (s=0), the price, P2 will
prevail at node B. However, this is an unstable situation. Since seed producers have no
protection on their assets, they must rely on the market to offer them a high price to cover
the risk they face due to using specific assets. Therefore, transactions (sales) may occur at
node A, where no specialized assets will be committed or transaction will occur at C

where specialized assets are used but safeguards are provided.

Node C represents the ideal case, where seed is produced using specialized assets. These
safeguards assure seed growers of a relatively higher price and assure seed buyers that
seed will be available the following season at price, P3 . In contrast, for farmers to use
specialized assets to produce seed, without safeguards, they would require price P2, to be

greater than the price with safeguards, P3.

In general, the prevailing seed prices, the level of asset specialization, and the safeguards
required are interactive in nature. Seed schemes succeed only if producers have sufiicient
safeguards to ensure a profit, such as a ready market and attractive seed prices. If seed
producers are unable to establish safeguards, then the price of the sad must be

significantly higher than the price of grain in order to compensate the seed producers for

53

 

 

 

 

 

the iddlii

percent
seed proq
price of 3
rim to s
f
producers
Thus. fa?

lndsafeg

 

the additional risk. For example, before 1990, the Government of Malawi guaranteed
farmers contracted to grow seed in its seed multiplication schemes at a price that was 20
percent higher than the oficial producer price of grain. However, although the oficial
seed producer price was higher than the ofiicial grain producer price, the actual market
price of grain was generally higher than the official seed producer price. Thus, the in its
efi‘ort to set price at a significantly high level, the Government failed to encourage seed
producers to sell their harvest to ADMARC, rather than sell as grain to private traders.
Thus, failure to strike a good balance among the seed price, level of asset specialization,
and safeguards can encourage farmers to engage in non-cooperative behavior, such as

selling seed to traders in violation of their contracts.

3.3.1.4 Uncertainty in Seed Production

Koopmans (1975) describes two types of uncertainties, primary and secondary. Primary
uncertainty comes fiom random acts of nature and unpredictable changes in consumer
preferences. Secondary uncertainty arises fiom a lack of communication between one
decision-maker who has no way of finding out the concurrent decisions and plans made by
others. However, these two types of uncertainties do not adequately describe uncertainty
caused by a deliberate human behavior. Williamson (1985) defines behavioral uncertainty
as any uncertainty which arises when incomplete contracting and asset specificity are
simultaneously present. In this case, institutions are required to regulate social behavior
by specifying behavior in specific recurrent situations so that uncertainty is reduced. In

such a situation, contracting decreases the principal-agency problem by reducing non-

54

 

 

331
Ger
rude
tea:
.L.‘

.115 L

and:

3511

cooperative behavior in a system. Thus, in the case of seed multiplication schemes,

contracting assures seed growers of a market and assures seed buyers of a source of seed.

3.3.2 The Effect of Transaction Costs on Seed Production

Clearly, cfi‘orts to design a sustainable legume seed system must be guided by an
understanding of what induces farmers to participate in a seed multiplication activity and
what are the key institutional deficiencies of existing seed multiplication schemes. With
this information, it will be possible to design ‘new’ institutions needed to induce farmers to
undertake the legume seed production and/or marketing activities. These questions will be
explored from the perspective of the theory of transaction costs. In this study, institutions,

as rules of the game, are taken as facilitating factors to an exchange.

Cromwell (1993, Figure 3.2) argues that smallholder seed multiplication schemes have
failed due to transaction costs. As a result of this failure, the effective supply and demand
curves shift to the lefi (i.e., D to D-TC, S to S+TC). For seed suppliers, due to additional
costs which they must incur fiom undertaking seed specialized activities, they will be
willing to produce less seed for a given price. Similarly, for seed users, they will demand
less seed as a result of the increase in the price of seed. This implies that for the same
price of seed, less is demanded and less is produced. Also, the demand curve for seed is
kinked (area above the price of grain is more elastic) because of limited number of seed

users willing to pay more than a small premium for improved seed.

55

 

 

q‘im

 

 

 

 

 

Q Q.

Figure 3.2: The Market for Modern Variety Seeds Among Smallholder
Farmers in Developing Countries

Source: Wiggins, 8.. And E. Cromwell, (1995).

Because of high transactions costs, as discussed above, the actual price, P, and actual .
quantity of seed traded, Q, is less than the socially optimal price, Po, and socially optimal
quantity, Q0. This leads to loss in consumer surplus and producer surplus“ and, in some
cases, may lead to no production of new seed varieties. The price, P“, is the opportunity
cost of using own seed, which is equal to the price of grain. For this reason, new
institutional arrangements are required to reduce some of the transaction costs
(information costs, asset specificity and uncertainty) and therefore facilitate the production

of seeds.

 

”Producer surplus is the measure of the net gain to producers from operating in a given
market which measures difference between what producers are willing to accept to
produce a given quantity of goods and what they actually get. Similarly, consumer surplus
if the net gain for consumers which measures the difi‘erence between what consumers are

willing to pay and what they actually pay.
56

 

 

 

 

As farm.
SIREN?
nearer
trarsa:
about t

maker

Howe
accour

m 1...
S‘VP‘:

F"
J
I ?

P.’

As farmers become increasingly dependent on the formal seed industry, the governance
structure of the seed industry will dictate the amount and types of transaction costs
incurred and, therefore, the availability of seed to farmers. Institutions that lower
transactions costs are essential as they contribute to the eficient provision of information
about the attributes of the varieties, enforcement of regulations (seed production and

marketing laws) and the specification of property rights of growers and buyers.

However, the design of institutions that effectively reduce transaction costs must take into
account factors that afi‘ect farmers’ demand for seed and seed growers willingness to
supply seed. The next section presents some factors that afi‘ect supply and demand of

legume seed.

3.3 Factors Affecting the Demand of Legume Seed
The amount of seed a farmer requires for planting is a firnction of area planted times the
seed rate (Equation 3.1).
MAL Q. = A*S,

Q,l is quantity required to plant an area

A is area to be planted

S, is seed rate
Farmers who do not have enough retained seed must either purchase seed in the market ’
or obtain it fi‘om an off-farm source. Thus, the quantity demanded from off-farm sources
equals ;

57

Ferrari-m
uh..- I‘

s.

 

4., adept:

Source
not pr
dune
dam;
bait 1
cm.

flame

 

 

 

W Q.n=(A"S.)-Q..
Where:
Q... is quantity of seed demanded fi'om off-farm sources

Q... is quantity of seed from retained seed

As shown in Equation 3.2, farmers’ demand for seed from ofi‘-farm sources is a function
of both the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of new varieties, relative to the
quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the traditional varieties, plus the cost of
adopting the new seed technology package, relative to the cost of planting the traditional
varieties. Tripp (1997) notes four factors that lead farmers to demand seed fi'om ofi‘-farm
sources. First, farmers demand seed fi'om ofi‘-farm sources because of poverty (i.e., do
not produce enough grain to save seed from the pervious harvest). Second, seed is
demanded because of seed loss due to disaster such as drought. Third, farmers may
demand seed because of farm level seed management (e. g., hybrid seed, whereby farmers
have to replace seed every year because of loss of hybrid vigor or in some crops because
quality of seed goes down under high temperature and high humidity). Lastly, farmers will
demand seed ofi‘-farm in order to gain access to new varieties. To obtain seed ofilfarm,
farmers incur both monetary (i. e. purchasing seed and additional inputs) and transaction

costs associated with adopting the new varieties (Equation 3.3).

W Q...=F{(Y'-Y‘).(C'-C‘)}
Where Q... is quantity of seed demanded fiom ofi‘-farm/market sources

58

 

 

 

h Show
50341365 51
Which the
mi” prefe

me

 

Y' are the qualitative factors associated with new varieties

Y‘ are the qualitative factors associated with traditional
varieties

C' is the total cost associated with planting new varieties

C‘ is the total cost associated with planting traditional varieties

As shown in equation 3.3, the total quantity of seed farmers demand from ofi‘—farm
sources such as the market, Q“, will equal the demand for traditional varieties, Q... ,
which the farmer is already familiar with plus the demand for new varieties, Q... Farmers
may prefer to plant a traditional variety because they know its qualities. On the other
hand, they might wish to experiment with new varieties. Therefore, total quantity of seed
for planting is represented in Equation 3 .4.
M Q = (NS) = 0.. + Q...

Where Q... = Q“ + Q-

Where Q. is total quantity required for the field
_ Q... is quantity of seed of traditional varieties fiom off-farm
sources.
Q, is quantity of seed from retained seed

Q- is quantity demanded of new varieties

The level of farmer demand for seed from each source (retained seed, from the market

both traditional varieties and new varieties) tends to vary by type of crop (r'.e., self-

59

 

.I: ,r-rr

 

 

primate
counties

l

countries
cha'crl
drvciope
rtpor. It.
the wheat
in Europe;

a”11 saw

 

pollinated versus hybrids) and the stage of agricultural development. In developed
countries, most farmers tend to rely on off-farm sources. In contrast, in developing
countries, most farmers rely on their own seed or obtain seed fiom neighboring farmers.
However, Tripp (1997) notes that especially for self-pollinated crops, farmers in
developed countries also commonly rely on their own swd. Similarly, Pray et a1. (1991)
report that 50 percent of the cotton and barley, 60 percent of the oats, and 70 percent of
the wheat planted in the US is planted with farm-saved seed. Ghijsen (1996) reports that
in Europe, 50 percent of all seed in France and Germany, and 30 percent in the UK, is

farm saved.

Farmers’ income level also afi‘ects the price they are willing to pay for seed. For the same
quality of seed, more afiluent farmers are willing to pay more for seed than are poor
farmers. The farmers’ reasons for desiring seed fi'om an off-farm source will determine
whether the demand is effective and continuous. This has implications for the design of a

country’s seed multiplication program (Table 3.1).

60

 

 

 

Table 3
Sourc

Chant

Emerge

Seed r
in:

New v.

Sourc

Table 3.1: Seed Production Response to Tao of Demand for Seed
Wand Tau—Leaf D man Sunbeam

Eflective Continuous

 

 

Chronic poverty No Yes Not clear

Emergency No No Government or
voluntary
programs

Seed management or Yes Yes Commercial seed

hybrid use provision

New variety Yes No Not clear

Source: Adapted fi'om Tripp, Robert (1997). The Institutional

Conditions for Seed Enterprise Development. Overseas
Development Institute, April, 1997.

 

For poor smallholder farmers, their demand for seed is mainly due to chronic poverty.
While continuous, the seed demand is not backed up by efi‘ective purchasing power. .
Hence, the formal seed sector cannot solve their seed shortage problem. While voluntary
organizations often attempt to supply the seed needs of this group, NGOs may not be able
to permanently solve the problem due to the short time frame for most NGO projects.
Similarly, the demand for seed resulting from emergencies such as fi'om flooding or
drought is neither efi‘ective nor continuous. In such cases, government and NGO-firnded
programs are best able to supply relief seed because of the short span of time involved. In

contrast, in instances where farmers plant hybrids, the demand is both efi‘ective and

61

mi:
rigor
aha}
firm
dear

tun

3.4
A far,
SOUIC

heir

Each .
53%

We;

continuous as farmers have to replace their seed each year because of quick loss in hybrid
vigor in hybrids. Meeting the seed demand of these farmers is commercially attractive
which explains why commercial seed companies have targeted this market. Lastly,
farmers will buy seed fi'om off-farm sources in order to get new varieties. While this
demand may be efl‘ective, the demand is continuous for open-pollinated crops (hybrids)

but not for self-pollinated crops.

3.4 Factors Affecting the Supply of Legume Seed
A farmer can obtain seed from several sources, as represented by equation 3.4. These
sources include, seed retained from the previous harvest and seeds of new varieties fi'om

the formal seed system. Therefore a seed supply function is as follows:

WA.
Q’ = 0’... + Q'...
Where Q‘ is quantity supplied

Q'” is seed retained from the previous harvest

Q“...I is quantity supplied of seed from new varieties

Each one of the independent variables is a firnction of several variables. For example, the
farmer’s ability to save seed is a firnction of the farmer’s economic status and the biology

of the seed (i.e., self-pollinated versus open-pollinated). In some cases, relatively rich

62

 

 

farmers
mint:
set for

depends

 

Po

51whid) r!

 

farmers have relied on own seed more than poor farmers. Whereas farmers can
continuously use their seed for self-pollinated crops such as legumes, they ofien replace
seed for cross-pollinated maize hybrids. The supply of seed fiom other ofi'-farm sources is
dependent on other farmers’ willingness to share seed, sell seed as grain, or store it to sell
as seed. The supply of new seed varieties depends on the formal seed systems’ ability to
multiply and distribute seed to farmers, and also the farmers’ willingness to adopt the new

varieties.

3.5 Equilibrium Conditions for the Legume Seed Market
Given the factors affecting legume seed demand and factors afi‘ecting legume seed supply,
at equilibrium the quantity demanded of seed should be equal to the quantity supplied of
seed.
mm; Q..+Q.... =Q’..+Q‘...

For new seeds, the seed users’ willingness to pay for the seed should equal the cost

at which the seed system is able to grow the seed (Figure 3.3).

63

 

 

 

are it
SlOrag
inpro
Ihe far
P110: (

11an 0r

Seedin.
Mm.

Seed cost/price Seed users’ willing pay price

C" ..........................

 

 

 

 

 

C’ . Seed system’s simply cost of
i 5 improved seed
0’‘1 . ----- ’
C' .................. E
Q’ Q: Q, Seed Qtnlity

Figure 3.3: Seed Users’ Willingness to Pay Price (Seed Demand) and

Seed System’s Supply Cost for Improved Seed in Relation
to the Quality of Seed Supplied.

Seed is produced at a higher cost than the cost of producing grain. The sources of cost

are research and development, seed multiplication, quality control, transportation and

storage. Maredia et al. (199 7) argue that the cost of supplying seed decreases with

improvements in seed quality. At lower quality, the cost of supplying seed is higher than

the farmers’ willingness to pay for the seed. In this case, a market may not exist, as the

price ofi‘ered and the price demanded are not in equilibrium. As the quality of seed

improves, seed users are willing to pay more for the seed.

Quality, Q' and price, C' denote the quality and price of using retained seed. As quality of
seed increases from quality, Q' to Q”, the seed users’ willingness to pay price, C"l is lower

than the cost of a seed system to produce seed C'l therefore no transaction takes place

64

since the seed users are willing to pay more as seed quality increases. As seed quality
increases to Q“, the seed users’ willingness to pay and seed systems cost of producing

seed converge at price C‘.

The seed users’ willingness to pay for seed varies with their socioeconomic status.
Cromwell (1993) identifies three categories of seed users. First, seed secure households
are better resource endowed households who save the majority of the seed needed on-
farrn but may use ofi‘-farm sources in order to experiment with new varieties. Second,
crisis-prone households are normally seed secure, but are less well resource-endowed.
Third, chronically insecure households who are poor and in most seasons are unable to
harvest sumcient crops to meet food and seed needs. The chronically seed insecure
households rely heavily on the seed sources outside their farm. The paradox in this setting
is that in general, farmers who are relatively better-off have a higher willingness to pay for
seeds than poor farmers, but the rich are the ones who are more seed secure than the poor

farmers (Figure 3.4).

65

 

Pm'yinmf
ropeypnoe

 

 

Pa

 

 

1’.

 

 

 

Figure 3 .4: Farmers Willingness to Pay for Seed by
Economic Status.

Synthesis

From the discussion above, it is evident that two factors are important in determining the
success of a seed system. First, cross-pollinated varieties have a higher chance of
succeeding than self-pollinated ones. Second, the socioeconomic characteristics of
farmers have an effect their effective seed demand. Thus, a seed multiplication scheme

should target a particular group of farmers and have specific governance structures to

address the needs of these farmers.

66

\.

 

 

3.6

Edd n

 

hut i
(Setter
apprus.
theme
major a.

With fie;

 

intuit

b

harem}
[Nation
for the :1

511838 0

“'13 Obj:
S“ids o:
in

MWe:
*6 Sma}
Mam.
mph.

Can-3.;

dd:

3.6 Research Methods, Data Collection and Data Analysis

Field work for this study was carried out between September, 1996 and June, 1997.
Initial fieldwork focused on identifying the key players in the smallholder seed sector
(September to October, 1996). Second, after establishing the major schemes, a rapid
appraisal was conducted, including interviews with the smallholder seed multiplication
scheme’s managers (October). The main objective of these interviews was to identify the
major activities in seed multiplication schemes. Subsequently, interviews were conducted
with field omcers of the schemes, as well as Government officials fi'om the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation’s Departments of Research, Extension and Training
(November-December, 1996). Based on insights gained fi'om these meetings, two
questionnaires were developed and administereduone for smallholder farmers and another
for the managers/field staff of the schemes (January-May, 1997). Details of the various

stages of the research follow.

3.6.1 Background Research

The objective of the background research was to gain a general understanding of the
status of smallholder seed multiplication schemes and to collect secondary data needed to
document the role of beans, groundnuts and soybeans in the Malawi economy. To place
the smallholder swd multiplication schemes within the larger context of seed sources in
Malawi, research reports describing smallholder seed sources and smallholder seed
multiplication schemes were collected from various organizations including ActionAid,

Christian Service Committee, Concern Universal, the National Bean Program, Overseas

67

 

Development Institute, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, the European Union/Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation’s Action Group Two and the World Bank. Some of these
documents describe smallholder farmer’s seed husbandry practices, while others
documented efi‘orts and failures of the past Government seed multiplication schemes. The
documents collected from the various NGOs mainly reported on their current seed
multiplication schemes. Also, secondary data were collected from the Famine Early
Warning System" and analyzed to provide an overview of the legume subsector (i.e.,
beans, groundnuts, and soybeans), including historical trends in legumes production the

national and local level as well as producer price and consumer price trends.

Data generated by the two recent surveys conducted by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP and one
survey carried out by the National Bean Program from 1995 to 1997 were collected and
reviewed. The two CRSP surveys focused on seed handling, one related to sad-borne
diseases at the farm-level, and the other on the bean market. The National Bean
Program’s baseline survey (1996) collected data from 355 respondents in Bembeke EPA
(126), Kalira EPA (111) and South Vipya EPA (118). This study sought to identify the
farmers’ sources of seeds and seed handling practices. Insights gained from reviewing
these helped to identify issues that needed to be addressed in this study. Finally, other

studies documenting the experiences with smallholder seed multiplication schemes outside

 

2’Famine Early Warning System is a United States Agency for International
Development’s project within the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. The project
collects and interprets agricultural data for the country in order to provide advance
warning of food.

68

 

 

M

m

312

Malawi were reviewed to determine how smallholder schemes operated in other countries.
After studying the various documents on smallholder seed multiplication schemes,

managers of the various seed multiplication schemes were interviewed.

3.6.2 Rapid Appraisal

The rapid appraisal was conducted in two phases. During the first phase, visits were made
to the head ofices of six seed multiplication schemes: ActionAid, Christian Services
Committee, Concern Universal, the European Union/Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation’s Smallholder Farmers’ Development of Seed Multiplication as an Enterprise,
Self-Help Development International and the National Bean Improvement Program’s
Community- Based Seed Multiplication Scheme (NBIP). The main objective of these
visits was to learn about each schemes’ crop priorities, regional focus, organization

structure, size of operation (i.e., number of farmers involved), and problems encountered.

Seven most important schemes were selected for timber in-depth study: ActionAid’s Seed
Development Program in Dowa in Traditional Authority Msakambewa’s area, 2)
ActionAid’s Smallholder Seed Multiplication Program, 3) Concern Universal’s Seed
Multiplication Program at Lobi Rural Growth Center, 4) Christian Services Committee’s
Smallholder Seed Multiplication Program in Mponela Development Area, 5) Christian
Service Committee’s Seed Multiplication at a Church Farm at Naming’azi C.C.AP
Church Farm near Zomba, 6) NBIP’s community-based bean seed multiplication program

at Zidyana EPA, and 7) the European Union/Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s

69

 

 

Mm

 

“HE C

coord;

Maize Productivity Task Force seed multiplication scheme. For each of the schemes, data
were collected on the specific activities each scheme undertook and how they vertically
coordinated seed acquisition, planting, farm management activities, extension, other
support services, and seed marketing. The main objective was to identify problems
encountered and how the schemes integrated the separate transformation activities fi'om

seed acquisition, packaging and selling.

A second round of visits was made during Dr. Richard Bemsten’s visit to Malawi fi'om
November 10" to November 23", 1996 . The objective of the second visit was to verify
information collected during earlier visits, including historical development of seed
multiplication in Malawi, and the status of the current seed multiplication schemes and
their modus operandi and the roles the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation plays in
supporting the seed multiplication schemes. Persons contacted included officials fiom
ActionAid and Concern Universal, and oflicials in the Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation’s Department of Research, Department of Agricultural Extension and Training,
members of the Maize Productivity Task Force (especially those fiom the Action Group II
responsible for seed production), the Seed Services Unit, the NBIP and the Malawi

Director of Bean/Cowpea CRSP.

70

 

3.6.3 Questionnaire Design and Formal Interviews with Officials from Seed
Multiplication Schemes and Smallholder Farmers

Insights gained from the rapid appraisals were used to develop two questionnaires , one

for the manager and one for the smallholder farmers participating in the seven selected

seed multiplication schemes (Appendix 3.1 and Appendix 3.2). The aim of the formal

interviews with managers was to systematically record data needed to compare the

functioning of seven schemes.

After completing the interviews with the managers, the smallholder farmers’ questionnaire
was pre-tested on ten farmers fi'om ActionAid’s Seed Development Program before
administering it to farmers from other schemes. The questionnaire was designed to
collect information needed to better understand farmers: objectives in cultivating legumes
(i.e., food, cash, soil fertility management), 2) the criteria they used to determine the area
planted to legumes, 3) their perceptions of preferred attributes of their legume crops and
legume seed, 4) their seed sources, storage methods, and seed storage problems, and 5)
their assessment of the nature of the "seed shortage" problem. The target sample size was
30 respondents fi'om each scheme, with one-third of the farmers multiplying beans, one
third multiplying groundnuts and the one third multiplying soybeans. However, for some
schemes a proportionately higher number of farmers growing a particular crop were
interviewed because farmers were not growing the other crops. Also, in some cases,
farmers grew seed in groups, rather than as individuals. In such cases, five members per

group were selected to spread the coverage across sites. Only the farmers participating in

71

 

 

the A;

west-“s

3.6.4

PM

 

a: a“:
schem-

multp.

Second
390%;
made b“

00mm:

{)0
n)
__

 

the Action Group II’s program and the National Bean Programs seed multiplication

program grew seed as individuals, while in the other schemes, farmers grew seed in groups

3.6.4 Data Analysis of Primary and Secondary Data

First, Government reports and documents were reviewed to identify the national policies
that afi‘ected the legume subsector in general and the smallholder seed multiplication
schemes in particular. This established the policy framework for the smallholder seed

multiplication schemes.

Second, data on historical production and hectarage were analyzed to document the
geographical distribution of the legumes in the country. Historical comparisons were
made between the three legumes, in terms of their production, hectarage, prices,
consumption patterns to identify changes in economic opportunities, as well as changes in
the Government policies over time. QuatroPro was used to graphically analyze the bean

and groundnut production, price and hectarage data although no such data were available
for similar analysis of soybeans.

Third, data collected from the interviews with the field officers were tabulated to assess
how the schemes differed in terms of the role of the various NGOs versus the farmers in
carrying out the various activities, including seed acquisition, production, harvesting,
selling, and repayment of credit. The working hypothesis was that differences among the

schemes would affect the performance of each scheme.

72

Fourth, SPSS was used to analyze the survey data collected fiom smallholder farmers’ to
better understand their goals, preferences and constraints with respect to the cultivation of

legumes and to document farmers' seed management practices.

Fifih, a model was developed to estimate both profitability of growing improved seed and
the expected return to farmers who planted improved seed in order to simulate smallholder
farmers’ likely behavior, given various assumptions regarding the costs of seed,
production and yields of improved seed. Comparisons were made among various
scenarios. First, the profitability of seed multiplication of a modern variety is compared
with the profitability of grain growing of the traditional varieties. Second, the profitability
of growing grain between a modern variety is compared with the profitability of growing

grain of a traditional variety.

By providing insights as to the farm-level constraints to increasing legume production, this
analysis helps determine the extent to which a "seed shortage" is a limiting factor in
increasing legume production and suggest policies needed to strengthen the performance

of these smallholder seed production schemes.

The next chapter discusses the subsector of the legume sector in Malawi with emphasis on

beans, groundnuts and soybeans.

73

CHAPTER FOUR

THE LEGUME SUBSECT OR IN MALAWI

4.0 Introduction

Beans and groundnuts are the mostly widely grown legumes in Malawi, although in recent
years soybeans have gained popularity. This chapter analyzes recent trends in legume
production, consumption, prices, trade, and Government policies afl‘ecting the legume

SOCtOI'.

4.1 Production Systems

In Malawi, agricultural production is maize-based. Apart from traditional cash crops such
as tobacco and cotton, other crops such as legumes usually are grown in association with
maize. However, the production systems under which these crops are grown vary,
depending on the season in which the crop is grown and the landholding characteristics of
the household. The following sections describe the production systems under which

smallholder farmers grow beans, groundnuts, and soybeans in Malawi.

74

4.1.1 Bean Production Systems

There are three bean production systems in Malawi.

m“ .kason flea): Crag
Most farmers throughout the country plant beans during the rainy season (November to

April). In this season, beans are most commonly planted as an intercrop with maize,
although some farmers monocrop. Beans of climbing growth habit are grown in
association with maize to take advantage of the structural support of maize stalks. Beans
of bush growth habit may or may not be grown in association with maize. While some
farmers plant beans as a monocrop, this is most common among households who have

large landholding.

W

In some areas, beans are planted as a relay crop towards the end of the main rain season
(March to June). Under this system, beans are planted just before harvesting the maize.
This system is common in regions with prolonged rainfall, such as in the highlands of
southern Malawi where a maritime wind called Chiperom‘ brings showers after the main

rainy season.

imba e ro

7S

In the third system, beans are grown in lowlying areas called dambos” (June-August)
where the bean crop grows on residual moisture. This production system is common in

areas where dimba cultivation is common, such as in Dedza/Ntcheu.

In most parts of the country, farmers plant two bean crops either during the rainy season,

followed by a relay crop, or in the rainy season followed by a dimba crop.

While some farmers plant beans in all three seasons, the rainy season and the relay bean
production systems represent the major growing systems. This is because relatively large
areas are available for planting beans in the rainy season and the relay crop. In contrast,
the dimba is in a specialized land which is available in lowlying areas and is therefore
scarce. Where farmers plant more than one crop, part of one season’s harvest is usually
used as the seed source for the next season. For example, part of the harvest from the
dimba crop is used as seed for the rainy season or the rainy season harvest is used as a
seed for the relay crop. Farmers make limited use of inputs such as fertilizer or pesticides
in bean production. However, when intercropped with maize, beans take advantage of

fertilizer applied to maize.

4.1.2 Groundnuts Production System

 

2'Dambas are lowlying areas which retain moisture and the gardens in this area are called
dimbas.

76

 

Unlike beans, 5
orintcrcropper
Sim both are
groundnuts ar

do not apply f

(13 Soybc
Soybeans m
Cither as a mo
UOps Compex
“Wop, as l
beans and gm
“wrongly “1‘
503M is im
solbm- Alt]
Use an inCCU]:

farmers Seldo

Unlike beans, groundnuts are mainly grown during the rainy season as either a monocrop
or intercropped with maize. As an intercrop, groundnuts compete with beans for land
since both are intercropped with maize, the principal crop. Apart from the cases where
groundnuts are intercropped with maize and are indirectly fertilized, smallholder farmers

do not apply fertilizer to groundnuts directly.

4.1.3 Soybeans Production System

Soybeans are also grown in the rainy season. As beans and groundnuts, they are grown
either as a monocrop or are intercropped with maize. Therefore, in most areas the three
crops compete for land regardless of whether they are grown in monocrop or as an
intercrop, as long as the environment is favorable to all these crops. However, unlike
beans and groundnuts, because soybeans are more vegetative, they compete more
vigorously with maize for resources such as light and water. Except in cases where
soybean is intercropped with maize, smallholder farmers do not apply fertilizer directly to
soybean. Although the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation recommends that farmers
use an inoculant in order to promote soybeans to fix atmospheric nitrogen in their nodules,

farmers seldom use this technology.

4.2 Area, Yield and Production

Until 1989, groundnut was the primary legume grown in Malawi. In 1990, beans became

the most important legume in terms of production as well as area planted (Table 4.1 and

Figures 4.1 and 4.2).

77

41.1 Bern.
Dwing the pa
198538610 1
llgll altitude
Ml (Kantil
Do'elopmen'
However, al
515 analysis
Mb”; 1

Km“!!! N1.

4.2.1 Bean, Area, Yield and Production
During the past ten years, the area in beans almost doubled from 71,329 hectares in
1985/86 to 145,000 hectares (1995/96) (Table 4.1). Beans are mainly grown in mid-to-
high altitude areas where temperatures are relatively cool (750 m to 1,500 m above sea
level) (Kantiki, 1989). Initially, the National Bean Program identified ten Rural
Development Projects (RDPs) of the country’s 28 RDPs as the main bean growing areas”.
However, analysis of data on bean production using geographical information systems,
GIS analysis identified an additional important bean producing area, Thiwi-Lifidzi RDP
(Kambewa, 1997). The RDPs with the largest areas planted to beans are Chitipa,

Kasungu, Ntchisi, Dedza Hills, Ntcheu, Zomba, Salima and Blantyre/Shire

 

2’These are Thyolo/Mulanje RDP, Namwera RDP, Dedza RDP, Ntcheu RDP, Dowa West
RDP, Ntchisi RDP, Salima RDP, Rumphi RDP, South Mzimba RDP, and Chitipa RDP

(Tinsley, 1990).
78

 

 

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssss

 

 

0°0— Ou cake n Tran-02 .5300 on avail «3:3:3Avho Cflomko U~om> “use“ 99L< IAN-unvsuvaUhHN ..~ .V Uta-NF

 

 

 

 

 

63— 8 XS 82.— 53
8.. noon 80> Can.— 3: 8.6 32 8 32 Bu 37m cowl—v 5325 322! m2: .833“. Egaé 38:: .32 E8 58:2 ”858
car new 34 go new c3 bar. 8n 3.. :2 32 5.33
new «we ham «an S- 3% «mm 3N hnv :9 8n 550
Nun man nnn com 2N man can an Sn «mm 2n 58m
3
mm mm a. 2 «N m: o N he :2 e2 53%
Nb ac mm 5 3 on av c3 02 SN 02 350
mi h: 0: mm_ 52 o: S 3 3 B I. 38m
glared
«v m _ w E Z n _ m «.9 md :2 :2 gm
ov an an mm 3 Z” 2 mm R. an an SEO
on Na 3 3 an an «N «N «N on ma annum
3

08— 32 32 nag «$3 33 83 32 «we 52 3o—

.8> 980

 

baa Bewa— . «12

cm can 35.590

 

“—6 03¢.

79

 

lighlands. l

 

rlfimde Salim
l
l
r,

Highlands. All of these ADDs are in the mid-to-high altitude areas, except for lower

altitude Salima, where beans are grown during the dry season in the dimbas.

 

33883

Production (000' Metric Tons)

O
-5

 

Year

 

E... Beans --as-- Grandmas —- Soybeans ]

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1: Historical Production of Beans, Groundnuts
and Soybeans in Malawi, 1986 -1996.

80

 

 

“11116313 in i2
douhfing Ofthe

1985"“, by 19

 

250

Area(000'Hectares)
8 § § '9’

D

 

 

 

 

[+ Beans «I» Gromdnuts + Soybeans J

 

 

Figure 4.2: Historical Hectarage of Beans, Groundnuts,
and Soybeans in Malawi, 1986 to 1996.

While area in beans doubled, total production almost quadrupled, from 22,545 mt
(1985/86) to 80,000 mt (1995/96). This increase in production is a result of both a
doubling of the bean area and increases in yieldawhile yield averaged 316 kg/ha in

1985/86, by 1995/96 yield had increased to 552 kg/ha.

Shifi/share analysis was conducted on area, yield, and production data to determine the
contribution of increase in area and yield to increase in the production. Over a period of
10 years (1985/86 to 1995/96), production increased at an average rate of 12 percent per
year. Of this production increase, an annual increase in area (seven percent per year)
contributed 56 percent of the increase in production while an annual increase in yield (five
percent) contributed 44 percent to increase in production. These results show that

increasing both area and yield can increase production of beans. Increase in yield likely

81

 

resulted in fan

musinghishr

flown, yiel.
lllllfall. In ad
yields. As a r:

Some of their

421 Groun
IUSI as for be:
Central Regiof

than the other .'

resulted in farmers increasingly improving their agronomic practices and also an increase

in using high yielding varieties.

However, yields are quite variable. In most cases, this is as a result of variability in
rainfall. In addition to reducing bean yields, the variation in rainfall also reduces maize
yields. As a result, in order to meet their immediate food needs, farmers end up eating

Some of their seed and retain insumcient seed for planting in the following season.

4.2.2 Groundnuts Area, Yield and Production

Just as for beans, central Malawi is the main producing region for groundnuts. The
Central Region, especially Lilongwe ADD and Kasungu ADD, produces more groundnuts
than the other areas, in terms of the area planted to groundnuts as a percent of national
average. In contrast to beans, groundnuts production declined fiom 88,297 mt in 1986 to
40,000 mt in 1996 (Table 4.1). While yield increased fi'om 501 kg/ha to 563 kg/ha, area
planted to groundnuts decreased from 175,607 hectares (1986) to 72,000 hectares (1996).
Therefore, the decrease in production has largely been due to reduced area planted to

groundnuts.

The results above concur with results from shifil/share analysis, which showed that over a
10 year period (1985/86 to 1995/96) production decreased at an annual rate of seven

percent. Similarly, area declined at eight percent per year, while yield increased at an

82

 

 

annual

of go

One fa
EMU:
compa

raw m;

annual rate of one percent. Thus, a decrease in area overwhelmingly reduced production

of groundnuts.

One factor that contributed to the decline of groundnuts production was a lack of seed.
Because Malawi faced a shortage of foreign exchange in the 19803, manufacturing
companies were allocated a fixed amount of foreign exchange with which to import their
raw materials. As a result, in late 1980s, Lever Brothers and other groundnuts users
aggressively bought groundnuts throughout the country for manufacturing cooking oil.
Consequently, ADMARC was not able to buy enough groundnuts to resell to farmers as
seed. Although eventually Lever Brothers sold the groundnuts to ADMARC, the scarcity

of groundnuts seed among farmers continued.

4.2.3 Soybeans Area, Yield and Production

Soybeans are a relatively new crop in Malawi. Although farmers have been growing them
since the early 19003, it was only in the early 19908 that the Government started
promoting soybeans as a substitute for beans in supplying protein, as well as a cash crop
with export potential. In recent years, farmers have grown more soybean because they
have commanded a higher price than either beans or groundnuts. However, compared to
bean and groundnut, historically soybean is a smaller crop in terms of hectarage and
tonnage although in 1996, soybean production was greater than groundnut production

(Table 4.1).

83

 

 

 

The pr:
The inc

tndals

The production of soybean increased from 311 mt in 1986/87 to 42,000 mt in 1995/96”.
The increase was both due to increase in area fi'om 760 hectares to about 53,000 hectares
and also increase in yield from 409 kg/ha to 790 kg/ha in the same period. The shift/share
analysis showed that over a period of six years (i. e, 1990 to 1996), production increased
by 55 percent per year. On the one hand, area increased at a rate of 44 percent per year
contributing 82 percent of the increase in production and yield increased at a rate of 6
percent per year, contributing 12 percent of the increase in production increase. The
annual increase in area suggests that in the early 19903, there was at least doubling of area

and production each year.

4.3 Utilization

Beans

Beans are mainly consumed as a relish. In addition, the green leaves are cooked as a
vegetable, as are the green pods. Generally, the dry pods are boiled and mixed with
tomato and onion to make a stew. Beans, being high in protein, are an important part of a
diet in institutions such as boarding schools, hospitals and prisons. In the past, beans were
promoted as a source of protein for Likum’ phala, a baby food. However, in recent years,

soybeans have replaced beans in this use.

 

3"Prior to 1990, the production of soybeans was below 1 ton. For shiftshare analysis, that
period is not used.

84

 

 

Grounc
Traditic
the prq
Malawi

replace

Soybea
Despite
wpplen
”lbeah
hfinlsuy

to edUCat

Groundnuts

Traditionally, people use groundnuts as a snack, as a vegetable, and as a flour additive in
the preparation of other food items such as cooked vegetables. Until the late 19803,
Malawi’s cooking oil industry used groundnuts as a raw material. Thereafter, sunflower

replaced groundnuts as the primary raw material for oil manufacturing.

Soybean

Despite recommendations that households use soybeans as a weaning food and to
supplement their protein needs, most farmers grow soybeans for sale. Most of the
soybean produced in Malawi is used for manufacturing food products, such as baby
weaning foods. In addition, soybean is an export crop. However, in the early 19903 the
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation and some NGOs embarked on extension programs

to educate the people on the various ways and technologies of soybean utilization.

4.4 Marketing

Beans

Prior to market liberalization, ADMARC was the primary buyer of beans. With market
liberalization, beans are mainly marketed through private traders, who purchase beans
from the producers and transport them to urban areas. Traders range from small scale
itinerant traders to medium scale private traders. While some retailers act as their own
middlemen, other retailers buy fi'om middlemen, r’. e. private traders buy beans which they

sell to retailers in produce markets. Other private traders buy beans and sell directly to

85

institr
for be

We”

COUHU

are sol

Grown
JUST like
Hos-eve
flour adt

1“ addlllc

institutions, processing companies and export companies. The main form of processing
for beans is packaging them in 500 grams or 1 kilogram bags which are sold in urban
supermarkets. The major bean processor is Tambala Food Products, which packages
beans in two brands, Kabula Beans and Tambala Beans. These brands are marketed by the
country’s two retail chain stores, Kandodo and PTC shops”. However, the bulk of beans

are sold loose to consumers mostly by female market sellers.

Groundnuts

Just like beans, groundnuts are mainly sold loose to consumers in produce markets.
However, Tambala Food Products is the major processor of groundnuts as a snack and
flour additive and it uses the supermarkets which have a nationwide distribution network.

In addition, there is a growing number of small processors serving their local markets.

Soybeans

Unlike beans and groundnuts, soybeans are not widely consumed in the country.
Therefore, other than private traders buying soybeans from the producers, very little is
directly sold for local consumption. Thus, almost all the soybean crop is either sold to

food processors or exported.

 

2"All these companies (Tambala Food Products, PTC and Kandodo) are subsidiaries of
Press Corporation Limited, a parastatal.

86

 

4.5 Price

 

Prior to the imp
producer and c
crops reflected
follouing my
producer and c

Variations.

(5.1 Rdrtiv
(MT the yws‘
the crOPS the G
mundnms inc-
prOdUcey price
(figure 43). .

4.5 Prices

Prior to the implementation of economic liberalization, the Government controlled the
producer and consumer prices for all major crops. Therefore the relative prices among the
crops reflected Government-deliberate policy rather than the market signals. The
following sections present an analysis of relative prices, historical prices, and trends in the
producer and consumer prices for beans, groundnuts, and soybeans, and seasonal price

variations.

4.5.1 Relative Price Analysis

Over the years, changes in prices in groundnuts and soybeans relative to beans indicated
the crops the Government favored. For instance, in 1983/84, the official producer price of
groundnuts increased relative to the producer price of beans. Furthermore, the omcial
producer price of soybeans increased relative to the official producer price of beans
(Figure 4.3). As a result, under ceteris paribus conditions, these results suggest that
growing soybeans was increasingly becoming more profitable than beans. However,
during the period considered (1986-1991), there was little change in the relative prices of

beans versus groundnuts.

87

 

 

31.4 ..... ..../.'.'. .". —"' “‘3
I. //
o - ,I
.9 I
E 1.2 - ------------------------------------- 1‘s..." ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
g . l. """"""" ” -‘\‘ ..
...“.r
1 - ° 7/

,8 .I'
r

03.. ”.../....
é ,/

I
05” ....’.,'.'....
I/
0.4 w ar’ I i : = :
1986 1989 1991
Yeas

 

 

[—0- GroundrurtsPrice + Soybean Pn‘ce

 

 

 

Figure 4.3: Oficial Groundnut and Soybean Prices
Relative to Bean Price, Malawi, 1986 to
1991.

As part of the structural adjustment programs beginning in 1989, the Government no
longer acted as a residual buyer of smallholder farmers’ produce. Consequently,
overproduction in one year depresses prices in the subsequent year. For instance, as an
indicator of general trend in soybean price increase in the country, at Chimbiya market in
1994/95, the soybean price was twice (K10.41 per kg) over the previous year’s price
(K331 per kg). Consequently, farmers increased the area planted to soybeans fi'om
23,000 hectares in 1995 to 53,000 hectares in 1996. The increased production in the
following year (1995/96) led to the price decrease to K890 per kg and in 1997 the price
declined to K530 per kg (FEWS, 1997). Thus, in the era of market liberalization, farmers

will require access to marketing information and most importantly, price forecasting in

order to guide their planting decisions.

88

 

(T able 4,2]
producer p
increase in
However, 1
Mining i
that has h
Moreover,
marred {ha

stowed set-

4.5.2 Producer Price versus Consumer Price Analysis of Beans

Although nominal producer and consumer prices of beans have increased, in real terms,
producers have received almost the same price in the 19903 as they did in the 19803.
Similarly, consumers have paid almost same prices in the 1990s as they did in the 19803
(Table 4.2). Since the marketing margins (i. e., difference between consumer price and
producer price) have remained constant, these results suggest that there has not been any
increase in marketing services in the bean sector such as storage and transportation.
However, given that the Government was setting the producer and consumer price, the
marketing margins represent a distortion from a deliberate Government policy. However,
there has been no apparent increase in other services, like processing and packaging.
Moreover, ADMARC’s monopoly in marketing smallholder produce prior to 1987
ensured that Government policy was efi‘ected. In the early 1990s, the Government

stopped setting the producer and consumer prices.

89

NS- .60— SO— ORO— CIQ— FEO~ CIO~ MIO— ”Kain anm~

 

53> flag» 00an

Noon Ava ammo n ...)Duznuz roomy-LL hontnulnaavb 3:: LOUuuthwLah =33: ~=n0m ..N.‘ nv~a~n~rh

 

a 32.8 32.5.. .853.» 3.581 ... 3%.: 82 3856260 5%: ”8:3
ages .2. as sz

.Nv 8 on

 

 

 

«z 2.3 2.3 9.3 :2 3.3 8.3 :2 ends 3.3 8.5650

. 3.: v.3 2 3.2 3.2 «.2 8.3 e2 «2: 8.: 833$
$3 8e— 82 $2 «”2 $2 32 32 33 nae—

5.» 9.382

     

 

S: s as . as: 38$ 553:8 e5 .8385 son a; a... as:

90

 

4.5.3 Season
lhe price of 1:

production cy

The No Wm
bang at e Ere
isanmher ha
Within that p‘
memo“: the

ordinarily Uh

for Sale rail]:

4.5.3 Seasonal Price Variation

The price of legumes show some seasonal variation. These variations represent a

production cycle as well product use (Figures 4.6)

 

 

"Jan Apr Jul Oct
Month

 

 

-- Soybean Price ...... Bean Price I

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.6: Monthly Price Variation of Beans and
Soybeans, Malawi, 1997.

The two commodities are planted under different regimes. For instance, in Chimbiya area
beans are grown twice in a year. Alter harvesting the first crop within three months, there
is another harvest. Thus, the price of beans is not likely to increase as there is no scarcity
within that period—February to August. In contrast, soybeans are grown once per year
therefore, the price is driven by the single harvest. Furthermore, beans are consumed
ordinarily unlike soybeans which are principally grown as a commodity crop (i.e. grown

for sale rather than for home consumption). Therefore, the price of beans increases with

91

 

 

time afier h
soybeans, t
August) an
decline the
groundnuts

ifiertheha

4-5 Inn
The extent I
the tliree leg
enWith to b

H

Foundnuts

”ll’Cans pr.

“lule tilde]
horde, trade
Produce, mt
“0W, 1n
n the marke
bill ofth e b

allply l0 gym

time after harvest as demand remains generally constant but supply declines. For
soybeans, the private traders buy soybeans during the traditional marketing season (June-
August) and thereafter, they are not likely to buy it. Therefore, demand for soybeans
decline after the traditional marketing season leading to a price decline. The price of
groundnuts will vary in a manner similar to bean price in the sense that the price increases

alter the harvest time, since groundnut is also a locally-consumed commodity.

4.6 Trade

The extent of trade between Malawi and other countries is poorly documented. Among
the three legumes, groundnuts is the least exported crop, as Malawi does not produce
enough to be self-sumcient. At the same time there is no evidence that Malawi imports
groundnuts. The same applies to beans. On the other hand, a larger proportion of

soybeans produced in the country are exported South Afiica and Asia.

While evidence of formal trade is scarce, there is evidence of increasing informal cross
border trade in beans, especially between Malawi and Mozambique. The area which
produces much of the beans sold in the two major cities in Malawi, Blantyre and
Lilongwe, lies on the border between the two countries. Interviews with sellers of beans
at the market indicated that the majority of the sellers were fi'om Mozambique and that the
bulk of the beans at the market were from Mozambique (Kambewa, 1997). This may also

apply to groundnuts and soybeans, as the markets on the Malawi side of the border offer

92

better male

toad networl

ll Govr
In Malawi, 3
PTOEJamS wl
oldgricultun
rlidress the 5
other Crops.
lime cm

19805 effort,

W11h liberalj.
‘5 8 policy u
influefice is 1
Govemmem

Milan '1]

However, in

inane“ a!

better marketing opportunities because of relatively well-developed infrastructure such as

road network.

4.7 Government Policies

In Malawi, apart fi'om cash crops such as tobacco and tea which have separate research
programs which are firnded directly by respective commodity organizations, the Ministry
of Agriculture and Irrigation concentrated its research efi‘orts on maize. In order to
redress the situation, in 1983 commodity teams were set up to promote research for the
other crops. Thus, a legume commodity team was set up to coordinate research among
legume crops. While these operated as separate biological research programs, in the late

19803 efforts were initiated to coordinate on-farm research jointly.

With liberalization of the economy and the market, the Government no longer uses price
as a policy tool to guide the legume sector. Thus, today the Government’s main area of
influence is through its support of biological and social research. Since 1986, the
Government has used seed multiplication as a policy tool to increase seed availability
among smallholder farmers. Beginning 1990, the Government allowed NGOs to

participate in smallholder seed multiplication activities.

However, in addition, the Government is currently conducting training in soybean

utilization among smallholder farmers. Since the use of soybean by Malawians either as a

93

 

food for a:

use of sosl

4.7 So
Beans, gm
topically in
hid and la
ml Seasor

therainw

food for adults or children is low, the Government is trying to encourage more widespread

use of soybeans to help reduce malnutrition.

4.7 Summary

Beans, groundnuts and soybeans compete for available land and labor resources. Farmers
typically intercrop legumes with maize, in an efi‘ort to meet their food needs and use their
land and labor most emciently. Groundnuts and soybeans are mostly grown during the
rain season. On the other hand, beans are grown in the rainy season, as a relay crop after

the rain season, and are also grown in dimbas in the dry season.

In Malawi, the legume sector is dominated by beans and groundnuts, but soybeans are

becoming an increasingly important crop. Since animal protein is scarce and legumes are
an important inexpensive source of high quality protein, and they are an important source
of protein in the people’s diet. While grown throughout the country, the central region is

the main producer of beans, groundnuts, and soybeans.

Apart fi'om groundnuts, beans and soybeans have increased in production in recent years.
Currently, beans are the largest legume grown in Malawi, in terms of production and area.
In 1996, groundnut production fell to the 1986 production level. In all crops, the increase
in production is mainly attributable to an increase in area planted to the crop, although

yield contributed a significant amount.

94

 

 

Whereas th
consumer p
Government
dominate b<
Govemmen

decide wha:

Whereas the Government used to intervene into the market by setting producer and
consumer prices for the crops, with economic and marketing liberalization, the
Government no longer undertakes this firnction. As a result, private traders now
dominate bean, groundnut and soybean marketing. Unlike in the past when the
Government set the prices and ADMARC was a guaranteed buyer, now farmers must

decide what crops to plant based on demand forces.

The seasonal price variations among the crops were difi‘erent. These pattern differ
between crops that are locally consumed by farmers such as groundnuts and beans versus
the crops grown mainly for sale such as soybeans. The consumer and producer prices
have remained stable over the years although this was mainly because the Government was
setting up prices other than that being a reflection of market forces. Although there is no
well documented trade between Malawi and other countries in legumes, except for
soybeans, there is increasing evidence of cross-border trade, especially with Mozambique.
With the Government no longer setting the consumer and producer prices, the future
performance of this sector heavily depends on the ability of the sector to provide

information to the farmers.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, in conjunction with outside organizations,
carries out research in all three crops in order to increase the crops’ productivity among
smallholder farmers. In addition to funding crop research, in recent years, the main

Government policy affecting the legume subsector its support to seed multiplication

95

 

 

schemes. ii
encouraged
NGOS sill I
As NGOs s:
be “ill in tl

institutional

schemes. While initially run by the Government (1986), since 1990, NGOs have been
encouraged to participate. As the Government rationalized its budget, it is most likely that
NGOs will play an increasing role in providing agricultural services to smallholder farmers.
A3 NGOs set up seed multiplication system, the lessons learned from these schemes will
be vital in the provision of agricultural service in firture. The next chapter presents an

institutional analysis of the seven schemes that were a focus of this study.

96

 

AM

50 Intrc
This chapter
schemes in h
Characteristi.
”8 Woman
Compared u:
are drawn re

Smiliholder

5.1 AN

Em

CHAPTER FIVE
AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE SMALLHOLDER SEED

MULTIPLICATION SCHENIES IN MALAWI

5.0 Introduction

This chapter presents an institutional analysis of the smallholder seed multiplication
schemes in Malawi. First, the model used for the analysis is presented. Second, key
characteristics of the three legumes in this study (i.e., beans, groundnuts, and soybeans)
are summarized. After describing the seven seed multiplication schemes, they are
compared using the environment-behavior-performance model (E-B-P). Finally, insights
are drawn regarding how environment and behavior afl‘ect the performance of the

smallholder seed multiplication schemes.

5.1 A Model for Analyzing the Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes—The

Environment-Behavior-Performance Model

The rules stipulated in seed multiplication schemes define the responsibilities and
determine cost-sharing among the various key players in a scheme. These players typically
include the sponsors of the schemes, the organizations that provide seed, seed producers,
and seed users. The justification for carrying out an institutional analysis rests on the
premise that since institutions are required to mediate the difl‘erent sources of transaction

costs, a set of institutions which minimize the sum of the production cost and the

97

 

 

The l
sithi
a scl.

perfc

Em-

Part
lhe
mle
hon
dist

Sch

To

Ihi

transaction cost will increase profitability or performance of a scheme. Therefore, to
design a more efficient seed multiplication scheme, aspects of schemes which create high

transactions cost must be identified and mitigated wherever possible.

The E-B-P model focuses on identifying the basic relationships among 1) the environment
within which a seed multiplication scheme exists, 2) the behavior of the key participants in
a scheme (especially farmers and managers of the scheme), and 3) the resulting

performance.

5.1.1. Environment

Environment encompasses the rules which govern, or at least influence, the behavior of
participants in a seed multiplication scheme. The environment includes the target farmers,
the cropping system, physical inputs, and repayment and marketing arrangements. The
rules stipulated in a seed multiplication scheme’s contracts define who does what, and
how the benefits and costs in seed multiplication are shared in the production and
distribution of the seed. Since the terms of each scheme differ, it is expected that each

scheme’s performance will also differ.

Two factors that may affect the environment in which a smallholder seed multiplication
scheme operates are asset specificity and information. If a scheme requires farmers to
employ resources with no alternative use and they are uncertain if they will be able to sell

their seed, farmers will be unwilling to invest in seed production. Also, in some cases

98

 

 

hnfiicient ir
reduce the de

following sec

lnaseedmul

0) Asset
Seed scheme
scheme, m
from uncertz
Pllce uncem
e“her sell in

Planting it.

insufficient information regarding the performance of the varieties being multiplied will
reduce the demand for seed and thereby afi‘ect the performance of the scheme. The
following sections discuss how asset specificity and limited information create uncertainty

in a seed multiplication scheme.

0) Asset Specificity and Uncertainty

Seed scheme participants typically enter into contract with the organization sponsoring the
scheme. The nature of the contract will determine the types of transaction costs arising
from uncertainty. Uncertainty can arise fi'om market uncertainty (1'. e. reliable market) or
price uncertainty (1'. e. price of seed higher than price of grain), which motivates farmers to
eitherselltheirseedasgrainratherthanasseed, orto consumetheseedinsteadof

planting it.

For schemes that require farmers to employ specific assets, the extent to which the
schemes provide safeguards to the growers will be examined. Safeguards may include a
guaranteed market or a guaranteed price. Given the magnitude of asset specificity and the
existence or non-existence of safeguards, it is possible to predict the performance of a
scheme, i.e., whether farmers will be more likely to grow seed and sell their crop as seed,

or engage in non-cooperative behavior which may be in breach of a contract.

99

 

b) [life
Since seed

and chant:

ind hrwde
55'5le mat

mluated p

InfCillttatio:
there is a 12

Q“ CXploit

b) Information Cost

Since seed schemes in Malawi multiply new varieties, information about the performance
and characteristics of these varieties must be readily available to induce farmer demand for
these new varieties. Hence, by facilitating the flow of information between the growers
and breeders, and between growers and seed users, (i. e. , communication within the seed
system matrix), the performance of a scheme can be enhanced. Each scheme will be

evaluated to assess the existence or non-existence of an information problem.

Information problems can take several forms. First, information asymmetry results when
there is a lack of information about the attributes of a seed variety. A3 a result one agent
can exploit another agent by failing to disclose accurate information. For example, if the
seed user does not have access to objective information about the quality of the available
seed (the market of lemons phenomenon), she may have little confidence in the producer-
declared seed quality and thus be unwilling to pay a premium price for the seed. When an
information asymmetry problem exists, rent extraction is common. In such cases, growers
may exploit seed buyers by failing to firlly disclose information about the quality of their
seed. On the other hand, lacking such information, seed users may undervalue the new
seed and not be willing to pay a premium for it. This causes a divergence between the
price that the buyer is willing to pay and the price the seller is willing to receive. Second,
in certified seed schemes, a principal-agency problem may arise, if farmers producing
certified seed and some principal (N GO or Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation) inspects

their crop for certification. In this case, the agency (seed producer) may not undertake

100

 

 

SOli

0f

:1-

some activities required to ensure the quality standard set for certified seed. Yet, it is
dificult for the principal (NGO or the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation) to observe

or monitor non-performance.

Thus, information costs associated with a market of lemons or a principal-agency
problem can lead to opportunistic behavior. Therefore, if an information problem is
observed , it is likely that either farmers will not be willing to produce seed or seed users
will not be willing to buy the seed because of high transaction costs. However, seed
certification tends to reduce information problems by enforcing strict seed multiplication
procedures and quality control tests. Nevertheless, in some cases, these procedures are
poorly enforced, which results in the production of low quality seed. For example,

farmers may mix seed with grain, a practice which may be difficult to detect.

5.1.2 Behavior

In discussing the efl‘ect of behavior on economic performance, Shafl‘er (1992) notes that
institutions, as rules or regulations, have a strong influence on participant behavior and
that the resulting behavior has a strong influence on economic performance. While
institutions define opportunity sets for individuals, participation varies with available
opportunity sets. Moreover, participants are dynamic and tend to learn by taking into
account the consequences of previous responses (i. e. institutions afi‘ect the shape of the
learning curve). Thus, given the nature of a contract in a seed multiplication scheme,

individual farmers will behave difl'erently, either by cooperating or by exhibiting non-

101

 

of!

pnt

obi

5.1

Per

cooperative behavior such as selling seed as grain, or producing sub-standard seed- both

of which constitute an explicit or implicit breach of contract.

Economic theory suggests that seed growers will behave so as to maximize some objective
firnction. In the case of a seed scheme, growers’ objectives can range fi'om satisfying their
seed security needs, sharing seed with fiiends/relatives, selling seed at a slightly higher
price than the price of grain to gaining access to a new variety. Unless seed producers’
objectives are similar to those of the scheme, producers are likely to engage in non-

cooperative behavior.

5.1.3 Performance

Performance denotes outcomes, well-being, or consequences-given the existing economic
environment, objectives, and the behavior of the participants in a given economic setting.
Performance will be tested by comparing the objectives of a scheme against its
performance. For instance, if a scheme is designed to produce certified seed, the extent to
which a scheme does this is a measure of its performance. Similarly, if the objective is to
increase seed security among smallholder farmers, the degree to which the scheme insures

seeds security is an indicator of its performance.

102

 

51
Malawi
sound

tuber

5.2.]

Two p:
Collegi
Nation
Statior
1990s
CoHeg

fr0m tl

Thetk

l980.
The N.

Sapats

Chara:

5.2 Major Legumes Grown Under Seed Multiplication Schemes in Malawi
Malawi’s seed multiplication schemes primarily produce maize, beans, soybeans,
groundnuts, and pigeon pea seed. This study focused on schemes that produced bean,

soybeans, and groundnut because they are the major legumes grown in the country.

5.2.1 Beans

Two parallel programs conduct research on beans--the bean research program at Bunda
College of Agriculture is supported in large part by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP and the
National Bean Improvement Program (NBIP) based at Chitedze Agricultural Research
Station, is supported in part by CIAT. Seed multiplication schemes established in the early
19903 tended to multiply bean varieties obtained from the Bean Program at Bunda
College, while those established in the mid-19903 tend to grow bean varieties obtained

fiom the NBIP.

The bean program at Bunda College released two varieties which have been multiplied in
seed schemes. These are Nasaka, a variety which was selected from a local landrace in
1980; and Kalima, a cross which was obtained fiom CIAT and released in Malawi in 1993.
The NBIP released six varieties in l995-namely Napilira, Kambidzi, Maluwa, Nagaga,
Sapatsika and Mkhalira—all crosses fi'om CIAT headquarters in Colombia. The

characteristics of these varieties are summarized in Table 5.1.

103

- . 1. )tiriit}. file-3.: 173.»? 9. {xi S—DHV wen Unn-£?.\UN-.ru 3.8%.; asng &3 3*- K~nv~§8>

.F0\mvoo- train-.32 .BOEOSO” comuSUm-Qma—fi-E 38m C.- 3380 00mu0t§> phenom 0:. KO IUmuhtnvunthuwCU ..u .W o‘eflrh.

 

 

4.3—m annum: .355 382 8m Beacons/Sum 8&8— sagumg 5583 3833... 8. "88880 e888. 33.. 2% 363a.

 

 

 

 

395% 8988
as .88 £53.
323 €388 :88
d: .2 3 38:3 82 B 3:. 833 :25 ii a: 53.3.
398% 8980
as .88 £35..
32 a =93 as. 88
.m: .3333 82 3 a; 835.13 5.5 a: 5.3::
you»? 6.608 2:va
33.88892 88" 8 3. =58: cam 32 £333
338 85$
>28 3 .833 88“ 8 35. :28: in 22 88.2
338 .
.538. .885 88 2 3389.3: 858 83:3: 33m a: 52.2
m: 368
an 2.. 3 58m 88 8 8288.38 853 page: :35 32 £82
3:38 .52
>28 33383 883
8. 3< 3 .833 82 a a: 9333.3 38: 85 33m 82 333
>28 woman»
33 WE 3 .833— 82 R :5. can 83 33m 82 3.3.2
381m Snag
33 333m
383856 base: .35 883
3955383 33: 333 335 .2883 0983238 525 a 30> 83>

|
88% .582 383:8 88888.2 Bow 3 .365 38.5, can 2.. do 3883320 a.“ as;

104

 

 

Mwm
by the 8m
NBIP we:
mwwt
While all ‘
me
WWW
kWh
miflies r

“V0 you;

Generally

days), Cm

MOd inc

All seven varieties being multiplied exhibit bush growth habit. The two varieties released
by the Bunda Bean Program are large-seeded beans, while the varieties released from the
NBIP were small to medium in size. Socioeconomic surveys conducted in the past
revealed that overall, consumers prefer large-seeded beans (Ferguson et. al. 1991).
While all varieties are resistant to common bean diseases such as Angular Leafspot and
BCMV, two varieties from the NBIP, Mkhalira and Kambidzi have an I-gene which
causes necrosis in presence of bean common mosaic virus . Under favorable conditions,
the yield potential of varieties released by the NBIP was generally higher than of the
varieties released by Bunda Program. However, these data cannot be used to compare the

two groups because the varieties in the two groups were tested under difl‘erent conditions.

Generally, beans from the Bunda Program had a shorter period to maturity (7S and 81
days), compared to the varieties released by the NBIP (85 to 90 days). A shorter growing
period increases ability of a variety to escape drought or to produce acceptable yield under
moisture-stress conditions. While most Malawian farmers intercrop beans with maize
during the rainy season, over 50 percent of the bean crop is grown under a relay-cropping
system or in the dimbas as a monocrop at the end of the rainy season during the winter
months. Yields in dimbas can range from 1,000 kg to 1,500 kg per hectare as disease
pressure is low and sowing rates are high. Under the rain-fed conditions, farmers can get
yields of about 500 kg per hectare. Under dimba crop and the relay crop, early maturity is

important because it reduces the crop’s exposure to moisture stress.

105

 

 

512 Grc
The Depart
seven grou:
RG1, Maw
attempt by
major seed
obtained fr

groundnut

5.2.3 80
Unlike the
earlier ye;
Dan's, BC

released;

5.2.2 Groundnuts

The Department of Research of the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation has released
seven groundnut varieties over the years: These varieties are Chalirnbana, Manipintar,
RGl, Mawanga, Malimba, Chitembana and CG7. The release of CG? marked a new
attempt by the Ministry and ICRISAT to revitalize groundnuts production. Currently, all
major seed multiplication schemes in Malawi multiplying groundnuts use CG7, which was
obtained from ICRISAT. CG7, a semi-bunch groundnut type, produces a confectionery

groundnut and has a potential yield of 2,500 kg/ha.

5.2.3 Soybeans

Unlike the bean and groundnut research programs which released varieties to farmers in
earlier years, the soybean research team oflicially first released five varieties in 1987:
Davis, Bossier, Kudu, Impala, and Hardee. In 1993, seven additional varieties were

released; Geduld, Duocrop, Santarosa, Ocepara-4, 427/5/7, 501.6.7 and 491/6/ 12.

Three seed multiplication schemes (MPTF, ActionAid-SD Scheme and Concern
Universal) multiplied soybean varieties obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation. In contrast, the CSC schemes multiplied Magoye, a promiscuous soybean
variety originally fi'om Zambia. Unlike other varieties, Magoye does not require
inoculation in order to fix atmospheric nitrogen. However, the Department of Research
has not released this variety, arguing that it does not perform any better than the

recommended varieties.

106

Ma

Fc

Pr

a.

firs-Mrs

 

Malawi’s seed schemes tend to focus on multiplying new varieties rather than indigenous
varieties. The only exception is Nasaka which is a recommended variety selected from
farmers’ gerrnplasm. In contrast, in Zimbabwe the smallholder seed multiplication

schemes multiply both local varieties and new varieties (Rusike er al., 1997).

5.3 Description of the Seed Multiplication Schemes

This section describes the seven smallholder seed multiplication schemes studied, including
their nation-wide distribution, the key players in each scheme (i. e. in terms of donors and
seed producers), and the nature of the contract between the seed producers and the

schemes. Together, these features describe the environment under which these schemes

operate.

5.3.1 The Maize Productivity Task Force-Action Group Two’s Seed Multiplication
Scheme (MPTF)”

Following recurrent drought in the early 1990s, which forced the Government to import

maize in some years, in 1995 the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation formed a Maize

Productivity Task Force in conjunction with the donor community. Composed of officials

from the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation and the major donor community (e.g. the

European Delegation, Department for International Development, and the Rockefeller

 

32Information from this section came from interviews with ofi'rcials from the MPTF, MOAI
and farmers. Formal sources included the following documents: 1) Maize Productivity
Task Force; Action Group Two-EC Food Security Programme (1996), 2) Task Force on
Maize Productivity Activities of Action Group 2 (1996), 3) Luhanga, J. H. (1997) Local
Seed Systems. SADC and GT2 .

107

Foundation), the Task Force was charged with the responsibility to develop and
implement strategies to encourage farmers to use available agricultural technologies,

which they had not yet adopted in order to increase food security.

The Task Force is composed of four action groups. Action Group I is responsible for
examining problems of soil fertility, especially fertilizer application rates; Action Group II
is responsible for promoting crop diversification through increased seed availability;
Action Group III is responsible for addressing problems relating to the extension needs of
resource poor farmers; and Action Group IV is responsible for identifying technologies to

improve soil fertility through incorporation of organic matter and crop management.

Action Group II

In order to increase crop diversity through increasing seed availability, Action Group II-
with fimding from the European Delegation— established a seed multiplication scheme
designed to teach farmers how to multiply seed as a business. Also, in the 1995/96
growing season, the program provided funds to the various commodity programs which
they used to produce basic and certified seed. In the 1996/97 agriculture season, 73
farmers nation-wide participated in the seed multiplication scheme. Under the scheme,
farmers multiplied groundnuts, beans, maize, soybeans, pigeon peas, and cowpeas. Of this

total, 49 farmers multiplied groundnut, bean and soybean seed (Table 5.2).

108

 

Table 5

it

Table 5.2:

Number of Farmers Participating in Seed Multiplication and Hectares of
Legume Seed Crops Grown under the MPTF Seed Multiplication Scheme

by ADD, 1996/97, Malawi.

 

 

 

ADD Groundnuts Beans Soybeans Total per ADD
No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area
(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)
Shire Valley 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 l
Blantyre 1 2 1 o o 4 2
Machinga 1 0.5 1 ’ 1 ’ 3 0.52
Lilongwe S 2.5 7 3.5 l 1 l3 7
Salima 5 2.5 o o 3 1.5 8 4
Kasungu 6 3 5 ' o o 11 32
Mzuzu 6 3 3 1.5 1 ' 10 4.52
Karonga 3 1.5 1 ' o o 4 1.52
Total 24 15 19 152 6 2.52 49 23.52

 

lNo hectarage was reported; 2The actual hectarage is more than the area reported
since in some instances farm size was not recorded; Note: Forty-nine out of the 73
farmers participating in the scheme multiplied legumes.

Source: Karnputa D, (1996) “1996/97 Seed Inspection Report.” Maize Productivity

Task Force.

In past Government seed programs, farmers were guaranteed a market for their seed. In

contrast, in this scheme, farmers were expected to market the seed by themselves. The

project, which offered training in seed production, seed management, and business skills

also paid the Seed Services Unit to inspect and certify the farmers’ seed crop. At the end

of the 1996/97 growing season, the scheme projected that the farmers would produce the

following quantities of seed: groundnuts, 16 tons (shelled); beans, 5 tons; and soybeans 13

109

 

tons. H01
project bc

seasona.c

In additio
seed proc'
mansion
lhIOUgho
among 3:
actin'ties

OfPanici

For the 1
Would re
506d 8m
for inpur

Seed.

Page,

tons. However, rather than requiring the farmers to sell their seed, as initially planned, the
project bought all the seed in order to distribute it to other farmers in the 1997/98 growing

season, as will be discussed below.

In addition to training farmers, this program provided training to other stakeholders in
seed production, including seeds oficers fi'om the ADDs, seed inspectors, and field
extension personnel. Also, in 1996/97 the program set up about 700 demonstrations
throughout the country in order to increase awareness of and demand for the new varieties
among smallholder farmers (Karnputa, 1996)”. Furthermore, the scheme promoted its
activities through radio announcements and by holding field days conducted on the farms

of participating seed growers.

For the 1997/98 season, the program expected to enroll additional seed growers who
would receive seed from the 1996/97 group of farmers. In 1997, the pioneer group of
seed growers formed an association to firrther their interests such as lobbying the banks

for input credit and identifying ways to increase their bargaining power in selling their

seed.

3zlPersonal communication

110

 

 

lhnure
Each pa
their co
clghle.
monoer
official:
Seed 51
were in
male

Prograr

532

Action
d0n0r5
dinner

dehgn

Nature of the Contract

Each participating farmer was asked to choose two crops to multiply. Farmers signed
their contracts as individuals and were expected to repay the cost of the seed. To be
eligible, a farmer had to agree to set aside land for seed multiplication and plant in
monocrop. Each farmer received about 30 - 40 kg of seed and worked hand-in-hand with
officials fi'om the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s Department of Research and the
Seed Services Unit. Furthermore, as farmers were producing certified seed, their fields
were inspected to insure that the crop was diseases-free and not contaminated by other

varieties. After harvest, the seed was certified before farmers sold it back to the seed

program.

5.3.2 The ActionAid Seed Multiplication Programs

ActionAid, with headquarters in the United Kingdom, receives its firnding fi'om private
donors in the United Kingdom and Spain. In 1990, it started working in Malawi in two
districts, Dowa and Mwanza, where it established integrated rural development projects

designed to promote food security, health, and education.

In recent years, ActionAid established a Seed and Environment Ofice. The objective of
this project was to first assist smallholder farmers to implement activities designed to
address environment problems, such as carrying out afforestation projects. Second, the
project assisted smallholder farmers to meet their seed needs through a seed multiplication

scheme. While seed schemes under integrated rural development projects were aimed at

111

addressing seed security needs, under the Seed and Environment Project, farmers were
encouraged to produce seed for themselves as well as for sale to other farmers. More
recently, ActionAid’s Seed and Environmental Ofiice established a Seed Development
Scheme which encouraged participating farmers to distribute the seed to other farmers in

their area.

5.3.2.1 ActionAid-Seed Multiplication Scheme—ActionAid-SM"

Established in Dowa District, the goal of the food security project was to reduce the food
shortage fiom five months in 1990 to one month by the year 2001 through the provision
of seed of new varieties, farm input credit (to groups), and by helping farmers to develop
income-generating activities such as seed enterprises. Specifically, ActionAid targets its

activities towards the poorest farmers.

This study focused on a scheme in Traditional Authority CIA)” Msakarnbewa in the
1996/97 growing season where average landholding per household in the target area was
0.7 hectares. The most important food crops were maize and beans. Important cash
crops included tobacco (burley and dark-fired tobacco), and during the 1994 to 1996

period, soybeans were gaining prominence.

 

34Sources for this section were mainly fi'om interviews with officials from ActionAid,
Dowa Ofice and trip reports from Bunda Bean Program.

3’A Traditional Authority is an area within a district which has one chief. Usually, a
district has more than one TA.

112

The ;
tho 1
Wing
Worl
Deve

as the

Alth
Agni

OUII

Attit

anin

Part1

Inith

0pm

i1tor

The project area was divided into four ecological zones, and each zone had a supervisor
who oversaw all development projects. At the grassroots level, extension workers, called
Village Development Workers, helped to coordinate the activities, with one Development
Worker being responsible for five to seven villages. Each village has a Village
Development Committee which identifies activities the village wanted to undertake as well

as the beneficiaries for each program.

At the onset, the seed project worked with existing village groups such as the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation’s Farmers’ Clubs. However, since these groups tended to leave
out the poor farmers, in 1991 ActionAid started requiring the villages to set up Village
Development Committees which would solely work in support of ActionAid’s projects.
ActionAid used participatory rural appraisal methods to ensure that the local people had
an input in identifying and prioritizing the community needs and in identifying the
beneficiaries (see Appendix 5.1 for a brief description of steps followed in undertaking a

participatory rural appraisal).

Initially, the seed multiplication program only multiplied beans, but farmers were given the

option of growing soybeans in 1992/93 and groundnuts in 1993/94. In 1995/96, farmers

in one village group multiplied soybean, but all villages multiplied beans.

113

 

 

Nan

Amie

more
rep:
folio

deve

fi'Om

Nature of Contract

ActionAid’s seed multiplication schemes are community based. Each farmer in the
program received 10 kg of seed and was expected to repay 12 kg of seed at the end of the
season (i. e., 20 percent more seed than was received). Farmers could request seed for
more than one season, as long as they repaid the previous year’s loan. Initially farmers
repaid their loans to ActionAid, which in turn distributed the seed to other farmers in the
following season. In recent years, repayments fi'om farmers had been kept by the village

development committees, which decided the recipient of seed the following season.

Because the objective of this program was to produce farmer seed rather than certified
seed, ActionAid’s requirements for producing seed were not as rigorous as those in other
schemes such as the MPTF. Nevertheless, the field supervisors and the village
development workers inspected farmers’ fields to insure that the seed crop was adequately
isolated fiom other fields growing the same crop, especially for open-pollinated crops.
Although farmers were not required to plant legumes as a monocrop, they were
encouraged to plant one variety per field and isolate the crop from fields in which other

varieties of the same crop were grown.
The project head office was responsible for delivering seed to the participating farmers’

households just before planting (October/November). Initially, bean seed was obtained

fi'om Bvumbwe Research Station and from local farmers in Mzimba District. In addition

114

to training in agronomic skills in seed production, the farmers were trained in leadership

skills and management of income-generating activities.

According to ActionAid field oficers, the key problems that threaten the success of the
project were drought, market unavailability, and the farrners’ lack of appreciation of seed
as seed (i.e. rather than being willing to pay more for seed most farmers preferred to plant
grain). Field oficers contended that in order to strengthen the program, there was a need
to increase individual farmers’ responsibility and improve their training. Failure by one
individual to repay a loan could result in the whole group being penalized. Also, by
increasing training, farmers would have less of a need to rely on external services such as
the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s Seed Services Unit for seed crop management
advice in subsequent years. As the project was drawing to a close, as part of ActionAid’s
strategy to phase out the project, the farmers assumed more responsibilities after a mid-
term review of 1995. For instance, after the review farmers were responsible for both

identifying the needy farmers and were managing the returned seed.

5.3.2.2 ActionAid- Seed Development Project—ActionAid-SD"

The Malawi Smallholder Seed Development Project was managed by ActionAid’s Seed
and Environment Ofiice in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation,
with funding from the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development. The

project aimed at increasing the availability, accessibility, and afl‘ordability of seed of new

 

3“Sources include 1) Luhanga, J. H. (1997); Mloza-Banda (1994).
l 15

open- and self-pollinated crops and planting materials to resource-poor farmers in order to
improve food insecurity. It followed a community-based approach in managing seed
multiplication and distribution. To strengthen these efforts, ActionAid provided training
for extension workers, project staff, and the farmers in seed production and group
dynamics. Also, the project helped strengthen the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s

Seed Service Unit by providing equipment and vehicles for its laboratories. I

ActionAid launched this scheme in 1995, and in the year 2000 the Ministry of Agriculture
and Irrigation will take it over. The scheme supports community group nurseries for
multiplying cassava and sweet potato in all ADDs in the country. For other crops (maize,
beans, groundnuts and soybeans) the scheme operated in four ADDs: Blantyre”,
Machinga”, Kasungu” and Mzuzu‘0 (see map in Appendix 5.2). The Program Managers
fi'om the four ADDs identified the projects (RDPs) with a seed shortage problem. In turn,
the Project Oficers in the RDPs identified the EPAs in their areas which were food
deficient and had a high number of resource-poor households. Farmers were selected

using participatory rural appraisal methods.

 

’7 The RDPs with seed multiplication programs were Mulanje West, Blantyre/Shire
Highlands, Phalombe, and Mwanza.

3'The RDPs with seed multiplication schemes were Mangochi, Zomba, Namwera,
Kawinga, and Balaka

3"The RDPs with seed multiplication schemes were Dowa East, Dowa West, Mchinji,
Ntchisi, and Kasungu.

”The RDPs with seed multiplication schemes were Rumphi North and Mzimba Central.

116

ActionAid obtained its certified seed for distributing to farmers fi'om the MOAI’s
Department of Agricultural Research and fiom the Bean Program at Bunda College of
Agriculture. To ensure that it had an adequate supply of seed ActionAid sometimes

contracted organizations to produce certified seed.

Nature of Contract

In each village, the project provided certified seed to community groups. These could
multiply seed as a group or each farmer could multiply it individually. The initial seed is
recycled for three years and thereafter it is replaced with new seed obtained fi'om the
research stations. Eligible farmers had to grow the seed under monoculture. ActionAid’s
field supervisors were responsible for crop and post-harvest inspection. Where farmers
multiplied seed in a group, they shared part of the harvest and sold the rest at a grain
price. The group repaid the credit with the cash fi'om seed sales. The repayment was
deposited into the group’s bank account which was to be used as a revolving fund to
purchase certified seed or other inputs on the next season crop. Where farmers grew the
seed individually, they contributed a share of their seed to meet their loan requirements or
contributed money to open a group account as a requirement of the scheme. ActionAid’s

supervisor was responsible for checking the progress of each group’s bank account.

In 1995/96, ActionAid supplied 2.2 tones of basic and certified seed on. credit to 45

groups. Of these, 21 were female groups and 24 were mixed groups. In all, 823 farmers

117

participated in the scheme, the majority (653) of whom were female members and the rest

(170) male (ActionAid, 1994).

During the first year (1995) the scheme faced several problems (ActionAid, 1997). First,
since the supporting stafl‘ was not yet hired, there was little supervision of the farmers’
activities. Second, some extension workers gave seed to individual farmers, rather than to
groups. By September 1996 (two to three months before the next planting), only 10
percent of the farmers had repaid their credit. Of the 45 groups who received seed, only
13 had repaid their loan in full. Overall, farmers reported that credit rules and regulations
were unclear. Third, as seed crop management was poor, the fields were weedy and some
crops sufl‘ered fi'om bird and aphid damage. While ActionAid stated that the scheme

produced 9.6 tones of seed, some groups did not report their harvest.

ActionAid (1997) reported that in the second year (1996/97), 140 community groups
participated in the program. Of these, 72 were female groups and 68 were of mixed
gender. One-hundred and eight groups received two types of seed and the rest multiplied
one crop. Participants totaled 2, 416 women and 706 men. By end of the 1996/97
growing season, 142 extension workers (30 female and 112 male) fi'om 44 EPAs were
expected to have received training in seed crop husbandry. Thus, although the majority of
the participants were women, the majority of the extension workers trained in seed
production were men because extension staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

predominantly were men.

118

From the experiences of the first two years, Musopole (1997) noted three problems that
the project faced. Overall, farmers tended to choose high cash value crops such as
groundnuts, beans, soybeans, and sorghum while they had little interest in producing a
crop like pearl millet. In fact, in 1996/97 over 69 percent of the farmers requested
groundnuts. Thus, the project had insufficient seed to meet the demand of potential seed
multipliers. Second, for the first year, the cash repayment rate was low as some farmers
thought the seed was given free. Third, since farmers did not appreciate the genetic
superiority of new varieties, they were unwilling to pay a premium for the seed produced

by the scheme.

5.3.3 The Christian Service Committee

The Christian Service Committee (CSC)- a local NGO sponsored by the Episcopal
Conference of Malawi (Roman Catholic) and the Protestant Churches in Malawi-
managed health, education, and agricultural training and water supply projects. Most of
the funding came fi'om organizations based outside Malawi such as Christian Aid of the
United Kingdom, Inter-Church Fund for International Development of Canada, ICCO of

the Netherlands, and the United States Agency for International Development (U SAID).

Formed in 1968, initially CSC only responded to specific requests to initiate projects in the
agricultural sector. However, in 1990 CSC started to implement its own agricultural
projects and in 1991/92 established seed exchange programs in 12 development areas

(N sanje, Mulanje, Namadzi, Narnadidi, Chilema, Balaka, Monkey Bay, Ntcheu, Dedza,

119

Mponela, Embangweni, and Ekwendeni). In each area, the project posted a development
worker who coordinated the program with the local people. The development worker had
a target of working with 50 church groups within a 20 to 25 kilometer-radius. To
facilitate extension work, volunteers were recnrited among the target group and first
trained or provided new technologies to test before extending them to other farmers in the

area In 1994, 125 volunteer extension agents acted as demonstrators in their areas

(Banda, 1994).

The objectives of the seed multiplication scheme were to: l) to increase smallholder access
to seeds of improved open-pollinated varieties of sorghum and pearl millet, and self-
pollinated crops such as bean, pigeon pea, and other pulses; 2) create income-generating
activities for the church organizations and interested individuals; 3) create sustainable
linkages between church organizations and the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation,
especially as they related to seed production; 4) educate farmers in simple seed selection
and storage practices, along with the agronomic practices recommended by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation, 5) and train the Ministry’s extension workers in simple and
appropriate techniques for the production of “approved” seed on church farms. Seed was
either multiplied on church farms or directly by the smallholder farmers in the development
areas (Christian Service Committee, 1996). In addition to seed multiplication, CSC also
carried out on-farm testing of new varieties, especially bean varieties provided by the

NBIP. The next two sections present an overview of CSC’s two seed schemes.

120

5.3.3.1 The CSC-Smallholder Seed Exchange Program—CSC-SSEP“
Nature of the Contract

This study focused on the seed scheme in Mponela, one of the development areas.
Mponela is in Dowa District, about 60 km north of Lilongwe City, and is situated on the
main road connecting Lilongwe and Kasungu. Under this scheme, most farmers were
given three kg of seed to multiply, but the amount of seed ranged fi'om two kilograms to
eight kilograms per farmer, depended on the availability of seed and the demand fi'om
farmers. The farmers were expected to repay twice this amount after harvest. While the
program started as a seed exchanged program (i. e. , farmers were required to repay the

loan in seed), beginning in 1994/95 the farmers were allowed to repay their loans in cash.

The local volunteer extensionist, also known as an extension multiplier, identified farmers
who were interested in seed multiplication, and the selected farmers chose which crops
they wanted to multiply. Although farmers formed groups, each farmer grew the seed

crop individually, with no restrictions on who could participate in the program.

Christian Service Committee obtained the soybean seed from Zambia and bean seed fi'om
Chitedze Agricultural Research Station and Bunda College of Agriculture. The CSC has

been multiplying Magoye soybean variety from Zambia since the beginning of the program

in 1991. By 1996/97 season, over 4,000 farmers were multiplying Magoye under the CSC

 

“Main source of information was through personal communication with the Agricultural
Office fi'om CSC and field oficer at Mponela Development Area.

121

programs (Banda, 1996)". Regarding logistics, the CSC head ofiice transported seed to
the development worker, who in turn delivered it to the extension multiplier who

distributed it to the farmers.

Although CSC trains farmers in basic seed production techniques, under this scheme
farmers were not required to follow any stringent seed production procedures. Usually,
CSC obtained seed in July for planting in November/December. The development
workers dressed the seed with actellic and stored it for five months. They encouraged
farmers to plant a small amount of seed on sandy soil before the onset of rains in order to
ascertain the viability of the seed (germination test). Farmers grew the seed crop during

the rainy season.

Failure of a community group to repay its loan would lead to the group being excluded
fi'om participating in future CSC programs. In the past, repayment ranged from over 80
percent in good production years to 30-50 percent in bad years. The participating farmers
were only supposed to multiply seed of a particular crop only once. However, most
farmers multiplied seed for more than one season, as they believed seed from CSC was of
a higher quality than the seed the farmers produced. Apart fi'om seed, farmers
participating in this program did not receive any other input. Most farmers sold their

produce as grain to private traders.

 

”Personal communication.

122

One key problem facing the program was its reliance on working with oficials fi'om the
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation for seed, extension, and research. Changes in the
Government regulations and bureaucracy affected the performance of the seed programs.
Sometimes collaborating civil servants were transferred in the midst of the growing season

and thereby disrupted the on-going program (Banda, 1997“).

5.3.3.2 Christian Service Committee-Church Farm’s Seed Multiplication
Scheme“

Seed multiplication at church farms started in the 1994/95 agriculture season. By the

1995/96 growing season, five church farms participated in this program, specifically

Chididi Afiican Evangelical Church, Naming’azi C.C.AP" Church farm, Ntonda Zambezi

Evangelical Church, Ngwira Prayer House (C.C.AP), and Muruma Mission. However, in

1996/97 as funding was not available for seed multiplication, some church farms did not

multiply seed.

Nature of Contract
For churches to participate, they had to have access to land on which to multiply seed.
Each church signed a contract with CSC in which they promised to multiply seed to sell

to surrounding churches and farmers (Appendix 5.3). Unlike its Smallholder Seed

 

"Personal communication.
“Main sources are 1) Banda, 1997 and Luhanga, J. H. (1997).

"C.C.A.P., an abbreviation for Church for Central Afiican Presbyterian.

123

Exchange Program (SSE Program), CSC provided the churches with basic seed on loan,

as well as other inputs such as fertilizer and money for hiring labor.

Afier selling the seed, church firms were required to repay their loan, plus 35 percent of
the amount borrowed. During the second year, the firms received a loan less the 35
percent they paid during the repayment of the loan. This allowed firms to repay their loan
gradually over a period of three years. In 1994/95, the loan was worth K1, 400 per firm

(approximately US$90).

Each scheme was closely supervised to ensure that the firm met the minimum
requirements for seed production. The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s Seed
Services Unit were required to visit the farms before planting to verify that the seed fields
were isolated by the minimum distance required. Unlike the CSC-S SE Prograrrr, the
church firms were expected to practice monocropping. While some supervision was
carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s Seed Services Unit, the local
extension workers were also trained to carry out inspection (i.e., on roguing and post-
harvest processing) and to advise the farm managers on appropriate seed crop production
cultural practices. In addition to training in seed production, the farm managers were
trained in book keeping and general business management. After the crop was
established, Seed Services Unit stafi‘ made a second visit to confirm that the seed crop was
disease-flee and fiee of oE-type varieties. After harvesting, the Seed Services Unit took

samples to test the variety for purity.

124

The church firms were expected to produce “approved” (i.e.,quality declared) seed which
they sold to the surrounding churches and farmers. However, in the past, CSC bought
some seed from church farms in order to redistribute it to smallholder firmers
participating in its SSE Program. Apart from multiplying the seed, the church firms also

set up demonstration plots to promote the newly released varieties.

After three years, the church firms were expected to be independent. First, the links with
the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s Department of Research, Department of
Extension and Training and the Seed Services Unit were expected to be suficiently strong
so that the firms would not need further mediation fiom CSC. Second, since the firm
should be financially independent after three years, they could no longer rely on a loan
from CSC. Third, through learning by doing, the firm managers should have acquired
enough skill to be able to undertake seed multiplication with minimum supervision and

advice.

Narning’azi Farrn Training Center

The study focused on the Naming’azi Farm Training Center which is based in Zomba
District. This firm belonged to the Church for Central Afiican Presbyterian (C.C.A.P.).
Located about 12 kilometers north of Zomba town on the Zomba-Lilongwe Road, the
firm had 112 hectares, of which 20 hectares were developed. About five hectares of the
land was a field used for bean production. The firm multiplied bean seed in 1994/95 and

1995/96. After the 1995/96 season, the farm manager recommended that the firm

125

discontinue seed multiplication since the firm made a loss on seed production. Moreover,
the Christian Service Committee did not have suficient resources to find the church farm

scheme in the following year.

During the years CSC multiplied seed at Naming’azi Church Farm, the major problems
that the firm ficed included a lack of labor that led to late fertilizer application and poor
weed control. Some cultural recommendations were not applicable, as they were
perceived to be too labor intensive. For instance, ridge spacing was reduced from 90 cm
to 50-60 cm (Naming’azi Farm Records, 1996). Also, the firms planted one row per
ridge, rather than two rows per ridge, as recommended. Finally, the local extension

worker did not make fi'equent visits, as expected, because he had other commitments“.

Naming’azi Farm sold the seed it produced to farmers in the surrounding areas, just before
planting time the following season. Most farmers learned about the availability of seed
through field days and training sessions that the church farm conducted. However, since
the seed was produced at a high cost (i. e., the cost of labor was higher than budgeted for

in the loan fi'om CSC) but sold at the price of grain, the farm incurred a loss.

 

“Personal communication

126

5.3.4 The Concern Universal Seed Multiplication Scheme"

Introduction

Concern Universal is an international NGO working in two districts in Malawi— Mwanza
in southern Malawi and Dedza in central Malawi. Initially, it started as a relief
organization to assist Mozambican refugees. After the refirgees returned home, Concern
Universal began to ofi‘er its services to Malawians who lived in areas surrounding the
abandoned refugee camps. This study was conducted in Lobi in Dedza District where
Concern Universal was working in three EPAs (Linthipe, Lobi and Kabwazi). The
program had three main foci; first, its food security program supported seed multiplication
and vegetable growing, and operated a grain/seed bank. Second, its water and sanitation
program drilled bore holes in the villages. Third, its agro-forestry program supplied

farmers with nitrogen-fixing trees such as tealephrosr'a, Ieacaema, and phr'plebia.

Nature of the Contract

Although Concern Universal started operating in the area in 1991, it did not establish its
seed multiplication for crops other than vegetables until 1995/96. Therefore, at the time
of the research, the project was in its second year for the non-vegetable crops. Funding

for this program was provided by Caritus Neerandica, UNICEF (for vegetable growing),
and the European Delegation (for seed multiplication). Participating firmers were

selected using participatory rural appraisal methods (see Appendix 5.1). After multiplying

 

"Personal communication and Concern Universal (1997).

127

seed, firmers were expected to repay twice the amount they received at the beginning of

the planting season.

Raearclt Site

In Lobi, the main food crops grown were maize, cassava and beans. In the first year
(1995) most of the seed given to the farmers for multiplication was locally-purchased
grain and groundnuts which were bought fiom ADMARC. Farmers multiplied beans,
soybeans, groundnuts, maize, finger millet, and cowpeas. Groundnuts were multiplied by
the largest number of farmers (2,118), with soybeans being second (1,863) and beans third
(1,724). For firmers growing crops in 1995/96, the average loan repayment rate was 74
percent, and those who defaulted were expected to repay following the 1996/97 harvest.
However, since the seed that farmers repaid was of poor quality, the project had to hire
labor to sort the seed. Groundnuts, millet and maize fiom the 1995/96 harvest were
redistributed to other firmers in the 1996/97 season. The other crops were kept in a seed
bank where there was physical and chemical pest control, but no temperature or humidity
controls . This has implications for the quality of seed, especially soybeans which loses its

viability when stored under high humidity and temperature conditions.

128

5.3.5 The National Bean Improvement ngram’s Community-Based Basic Seed
Multiplication Scheme—NBIP“

Introduction

After releasing six bean varieties in 1995, the National Bean Improvement Program

(NBIP) carried out several activities designed to multiply and disseminate the released

varieties. First, in 1995/96, the NBIP produced breeder seed on Government and

smallholder farms, planting approximately 19 hectare of land. Second, in conjunction

with the Department of Agricultural Extension and Training and various NGOs, the

program conducted 165 on-farm trials which also produced breeder seed‘9 . Third, the

program sold breeder seed to private firms, which in turn produced bean certified seed

(Table 5.3).

 

“Sources: Personal communication, EC Food Security Program (1996), and Luhanga, J.
H. (1997)

‘9 Including Livingstonia Primary Health Care in Rumphi District, ActionAid and Village
Enterprise Zone Association (VEZA), Concern Universal and the Christian Service
Committee.

129

Table 5.3: NBIP Certified Bean Seed Multipliers in 1995/96.

 

 

 

Farm/Farmer Location Variety Quantity Estimated Area
Planted (ha)
(ks)
Mr Pyman Changalume Nasaka 300 5 .0
(Zomba)
“ Nagaga 80 1.0
Mr Shumba Chimbiya Nasaka 30 0.5
(Dedza)
Njewa Farm Njewa Kambidzi 45 1.5
(Lilongwe)
“ Mkhalira 30 1.0
Mr Kazeze Chigviere Nasaka 50 0.8
(Mzuzu)
“ Napilira 20 0.3
“ Sapatsika 20 0.3
CSC Various Nasaka 200 3.3
Church Farms
“ Napilira . 0.8
Total All All
' Data not available

Source: Chirwa, R. in “Task Force on Maize Productivity Activities of Action
Group 2" (April-June 1996).

130

Smallholder Seed Multiplication at Zidyana EPA

The study focused on the NBIP-sponsored scheme which contracted 45 smallholder
firmers in Zidyana EPA (Nkhotakota District) to produce basic seed in the dimbas during
the 1996 dry season. This is an area near Lake Malawi where firmers usually grow crops

in dimba: during the dry season.

Nature of the Contract

The program provided the farmers with seed of five newly-released varieties: Nagaga (3 80
kg), Kambidzi (140 kg), Mklralira (140 kg), Maluwa (80 kg), and Napilira (60 kg).
Farmers multiplied the seed during the dry season because beans grown during this period
are relatively disease-free, compared to when grown during the rain season. The
participating firmers agreed to sell all of their produce to the NBIP at a price 10 percent
higher than the prevailing market price for grain. The project bought about 9 tons of
beans (Nagaga, 2,300 kg; Kambidzi, 2,890 kg; Napilira, 564 kg; Maluwa, 716 kg; and

Mkhalira, 2,553 kg) at K20 per kg. .

The project used the seed in three ways. First, the NBIP sold some seed to NGOs which
distributed it to firmers participating in their respective smallholder seed multiplication
schemes for the 1996/97 growing season. Second, in conjunction with the MPTF and the
ADDs, the NBIP mounted countrywide demonstrations to promote the new bean

varieties. Third, the NBIP packed the seed in 500 g bags for sale in grocery shops in

131

Blantyre/Shire Highlands RDP, Dedza Hills RDP, Ntchisi RDP and Mpompha Hills RDP.

From the description of the schemes above, it is apparent that there exist a wide range of
schemes in terms of the crops of emphasis, nature of the contracts, and geographic
distribution. The next section presents a comparative analysis of the environment of the

schemes.

5.4 Comparative Analysis of the Environment of Seed Scheme

This section presents a comparison or the seed schemes studied-«in terms of their sizes,
nature of contracts, objectives, and type of seed produced. The main purpose is to assess
how the differences in characteristics among the schemes contribute to the performance.
First, a brief comparison of the results of a survey of firrners in the various schemes is

presented.

5.4.1 The Respondents in the Survey

To collect data required to analyze these seed schemes, 163 respondents representing six
seed multiplication schemes, were interviewed (Table 5.4). The respondents were fi'om
five ADDs: Mzuzu (7 %), Kasungu (52%), Lilongwe (13%), Salima (18%) and Blantyre

(2%). A high proportion of respondents resided in Kasungu ADD because three of the six

132

schemes’o operated in this ADD (CSC-SSEP, ActionAid-SD and ActionAid-SM). The
NBIP seed scheme was in Salima ADD while Concern Universal was in Lilongwe ADD.

Respondents participating in the MPTF scheme farmed in all six of the ADDs.

 

”Smallholder survey was conducted on only six schemes as the seventh scheme involved a
church farm.

133

Table 5.4: Proportion of Respondents by Smallholder Scheme and Area, Malawi,

1996/97. SE=163I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scheme Total Kasungu Lilongwe Salrrna' Blantyre Mzuzu

Number ADD ADD ADD ADD ADD
(Percent)

Commercial

Schemes

NBIP 28 0 0 100 0 0

MPTF 30 17 30 7 10 37

Seed

Security

Schemes

CSC-SE 30 100 0 0 0 0

ActionAid- 28 100 0 0 0 0

SM

ActionAid- 21 100 O O O 0

SD

Concern 26 0 100 0 0 0

Universal

Total 163 84 35 40 3 1 1

Number

Percent 100 51.6 21.5 18.4 1.8 6.7

Source: Data from Survey, Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes’ Survey,

Malawi, 1996/97

The spacial distribution of the schemes reflects the objectives of each scheme. For
instance, the MPTF’s seed scheme aims at training firmers throughout the country to
produce and sell seed. Thus, seed production activities were implemented in all ADDs to
enable farmers in each ADD have access to local suppliers of seed. ActionAid-SD, which

134

targets the poorest farmers, started its seed programs in the four ADDs that it believed
had the highest proportion of seed insecure households. Similarly, ActionAid-SM
Schemes operated in areas which they initially believed needed integrated projects and
planned to move the project to other areas after completing the project in the two initial

areas.

Concern Universal’s goal was to offer relief to Malawians formerly neighboring
Mozambican refugee camps, so it targeted areas with the highest number of refugees.
Finally, the NBIP Scheme, which was established to produce high quality basic seed, was

sited at Zidyana EPA where availability of dimbas permitted dry season seed production.

5.4.1.1 Gender of Respondents

Overall, while the majority of the sampled respondents were women (62 percent), the
gender mix varied across schemes. Schemes managed by the CSC-SSEP (90%),
ActionAid-SM Scheme (67%), and Concern Universal (100%) primarily targeted women
farmers. In contrast, ActionAid-SD Scheme (50%) and NBIP Scheme (57%) had almost
equal representation of men and women. On the other hand, the MPTF Scheme had a

higher representation of men (86%) than women.

The above scenario can be explained in part by examining the firming systems of the
firmers in the areas. The majority of the respondents were from the central Malawi where

tobacco is the main smallholder farmers’ main cash crop. Hence, women are in most cases

135

left with the responsibility to grow food crops as men grow the cash crop. That is why the
proportion of men in seed multiplication increases where schemes were more commercial,
for instance under NBIP (57%) and ActionAid-SD (50%). On the other extreme, the

MPTF scheme was predominantly male dominated (86%).

From the scheme’s gender composition, it appears that women are more likely to
participate in seed security schemes that are targeted at the poor households. In contrast,
schemes that have a more commercial focus, such as the MPTF Scheme, targeted men.
For the MPTF Scheme, participation was based on the firmer’s ability to demonstrate a
willingness and a potential to participate in certified seed production. On the other hand,
entry into some schemes depended on one’s degree of poverty (ActionAid schemes, and
Concern Universal) and entry into the CSC-S SE Program was self-selecting because of

the small amount of seed involved.

5.4.1.2 Reasons for Respondents Joining a Seed Multiplication Scheme
Analysis of the respondent’s objectives in joining a seed multiplication scheme indicates
that some were motivated by a desire to ensure their seed security while others joined for

broader financial reasons (Table 5.5)

136

Table 5.5: Reason for Respondents Joining the Seed Multiplication Scheme, Malawi,

1996/97. i§=163i

Scheme (Number of Reason for Joining Scheme
Respondents)

Seed Security Make Money Learn Soya Get New
Utilization Variety

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Percent-
Commercial
Schemes
NBIP (28) 0 100 0 , 0
MPTF (30) 20 80 0 0
Seed Security
Schemes
CSC-SE (30) 57 3 I7 23
ActionAid— (28) 96 8 0 0
SM
ActionAid- (21) 68 16 0 24
SD
Concern (26) 81 10 7 14
Universal
Total 163 85 61 7 16
Number
Percent 100 52 38 4 10

 

Note: Some firmers reported more than one reason for joining a particular scheme.
Source: Data fiom Survey, Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes’ Survey, Malawi,
1996/97.

The majority of the respondents fiom ActionAid-SM (96%) and Concern Universal (81%)
indicated that their main objective was to secure seed. However, in addition 17 percent of

the CSC firmers joined the scheme in order to learn how to utilize soybeans and 14
137

percent of ActionAid-SM hoped to make money selling their seed. In sharp contrast, 100
percent of the respondents fiom the NBIP Scheme and 80 percent fiom the MPTF

Scheme joined with the expectation of making money by selling their seed.

The above responses are consistent with the stated objectives of the respective schemes.
Whereas one group of schemes was aimed at providing seed to seed insecure households,
the other group was aimed at developing seed entrepreneurs and seed producers who
would sell the seed to the NBIP or to other farmers (MPTF Scheme).

With the exception of Nasaka, all seed schemes multiplied new varieties. However, only
about nine percent of the respondents specifically indicated that they joined the schemes to
gain access to a new variety. While none of the respondents who participated in the NBIP
Scheme and the MPTF Scheme mentioned receiving new varieties as a reason for joining,
this might be because these farmers were recruited under the expectation that they would
sell their seed. However, these results highlight the importance of difi‘erentiating the
demand for new seeds as sources of new germplasm versus demand for seeds of any kind
of germplasm. The low percentage of respondents mentioning obtaining a new variety as
a reason for joining seed schemes suggests that farmers did not appreciate that the new

varieties performed better than their traditional varieties.

138

5.4.1.4 Legume Crops that Respondents Multiplied

The emphasis on the type of crops being multiplied varied across the schemes. Programs
managed by ActionAid (both programs), the MPTF, Concern Universal, and Christian
Services Committee-SSEP all allowed farmers to select what crop they wanted to grow
(i. e., groundnuts, beans and soybeans). In contrast, the NBIP Scheme only multiplied

beans. All others multiplied at least two crops (Table 5.6).

139

Table 5.6: The Proportion of Respondents Multiplying Legumes by Scheme, Malawi,

1996/97. :1:=163:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scheme (Number of Crops
Respondents)
Beans Groundnuts Soybeans
-Percent-
Commercial
Schemes
NBIP (28) 100 0 0
MPTF (30) 40 37 23
Seed Security
Schemes
CSC-SSEP (30) 27 0 77
ActionAid-SM (28) 75 0 32
ActionAid-SD (21) 62 24 36
Concern (26) 42 46 31
Universal
Total Number (163) 93 28 54
Percent 100 57 17 33
Source: Data from Survey, Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes’ Survey,
Malawi, 1996/97

Interestingly, the bean varieties ActionAid distributed had become known locally as

ActionAid.

140

5.4.1.4 Extension Support that Respondents Received in Smallholder Seed
Schemes

The use and need for seed expertise varied by schemes, since some schemes produced

certified seed while others produced good quality, but not necessarily certified seed.

Thus, respondents in the MPTF Scheme had more contact with the seed experts fi'om the

Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s Department of Research who trained the

participating firmers in seed crop management, and carried out seed crop inspection and

certification. However, most farmers in all schemes, except Concern Universal, had

access to extension support which was either provided by an extensionist employed by the

scheme itself or employed by the Government (Table 5.7).

141

Table 5.7: The Type of Extension Support Respondents Received by Seed

Multiplication Schemesi Malawii 1996/97. SE=163Z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scheme (Number of Type of Support
Respondents)
NGO Civil Servant None
Employee
-Percent-
Commercial
Schemes
NBIP (28) 4 96 0
MPTF (30) 0 97 3
Seed Security
Schemes
CSC-SSEP (30) 67 13 20
ActionAid-SM (28) 68 0 32
ActionAid-SD (21) 5 86 9
Concern (26) 12 0 88
Universal
Total Number 163 27 48 25
Percent 100 27 48 25
Source: Data fiom Survey, Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes’ Survey,

Malawi, 1996/97

—
Overall, the majority of the respondents indicated that they received support fiom the
extension workers fiom the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (48%). However, seed
security schemes (i. e., CSC-SSEP and ActionAid-SM Scheme) tended to rely more on

their own extension workers (67% and 68% respectively) while the relatively more

commercial schemes (i. e., NBIP Scheme and the MPTF Scheme) and ActionAid-SD

142

Scheme relied more on extension workers from the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation.
This is the case because the seed security focused schemes had resident extension workers
living in the areas, whereas NBIP and the MPTF Schemes did not have similar personnel
on the ground. However, ActionAid-SD extension personnel worked hand-in-hand with
the extension stafl‘ fiom the MOAI because after the project phases out in the year 2000, it

will be handed over to the Ministry would take over running the project".

Similarly, field inspection by seed experts varied by scheme. The inspection for CSC-
Church Farms”, ActionAid-SM and ActionAid-SD was carried out by NGO personnel. In
contrast, the NBIP scheme’s seed was inspected by the personnel managing the program
while the MPTF scheme’s seed production was inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Irrigation’s Seed Services Unit. Among Concern Universal” firmers, none of the
respondents reported having their field inspected while only 18 percent of ActionAid-SM

reported field inspection.

 

”For ActionAid-SD, the seed experts from the MOAI’s Seed Services Unit train
ActionAid’s extension personnel and firmers in seed crop husbandry.

”The CSC-Church Farms relied on the MOAI’s seed experts to train farm managers in
seed crop husbandry, seed crop inspection and seed certification. For CSC-SSEP, the
contact with the seed experts is through the Agricultural Supervisor, an agriculturalist by
training and trained the extension staff.

”Concern Universal began involving seed experts to train extension personnel in 1997/98
season. Thus, during its first two years operation, neither the farmers nor the extension
personnel were trained in seed multiplication.

143

Thus, these data suggest that schemes that had a more commercial orientation made an
efl'ort to insure seed quality, whereas the seed security-focused schemes did relatively little

to monitor seed quality.

5.4.1.5 Year When Respondents Joined Seed Scheme

ActionAid-SM Scheme was established in 1991. About 15 percent of the respondents
interviewed indicated that they had participated in seed multiplication since 1991 and over
one-half (54%) reported participating since 1994. The remaining one-third of the
respondents joined seed multiplication between 1991 and 1994, implying that most of the

initial firmers had left the scheme and were replaced by new participants.

Similarly, the CSC started its smallholder seed multiplication scheme in 1991. A majority
of the respondents started seed multiplication in 1993 (46%) and 1994 (3 5%). Although
Concern Universal started working in Lobi in 1991, seed multiplication for legumes and
other large-seeded grains did not begin until 1995. Thus, none of the farmers had
participated for more than two years. ActionAid-SD Scheme started its operations in
1995 on a pilot basis. Finally, the NBIP and the MPTF schemes had operated for one

year, so all farmers were recent farmers.

5.4.1.6 Approaches to Seed Multiplication
In most of the schemes, farmers multiplied seeds individually. Among the respondents, 88

percent indicated that they multiplied seed individually while 12 percent multiplied seed in

144

a common field. While all respondents who multiplied in a group were associated with
ActionAid-SD, within this scheme some firmers multiplied seed in individual gardens

while maintaining group responsibility to repay their loan.

The information presented above indicates that seed production programs may be
classified into three types of schemes. First, there are schemes such as the MPTF and the
NBIP, under which firmers multiply seed individually and contract with the schemes on an
individual basis. Second, schemes such as ActionAid-SM, CSC-SSE and Concern
Universal have community groups which serve a coordinating role, while farmers still
multiply seed individually. Lastly, under ActionAid-SDS, firmers multiply seed jointly as

members of community group.

When asked about their preference, 80 percent said they preferred to multiply seed

individually (Table 5.8).

145

Table 5.8: Respondents, Preference to Multiply Seed Individually or in a Group,

Malawi, 1996/97. i§=163i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scheme Type (Number of Respondent Preference
Respondents)
Individual Group
Production Production
-Percent-
Commercial
Schemes
NBIP Individual (28) 86 14
MPTF Individual (30) 60 40
Seed Security
Schemes
CSC-SSEP Group (30) 80 20
ActionAid-SM Group (28) 82 18
ActionAid-SD Group (21) 95 5
Concern Group (26) 81 19
Universal
Total Number 163 130 33
Percent 100 80 20
Source: Data fi'om Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes’ Survey, Malawi,
1996/97

While firmers in all groups strongly preferred to multiply seed individually, it is
noteworthy that 40 percent of the farmers in the MPTF Scheme (in which firmers were
multiplying seed individually) preferred group production. However, the main reason for
this choice was that it would enabled them to cooperate in activities other than growing

the seed crop, such as obtaining a loan for inputs and marketing the produce (as is the case

146

with the MPTF Scheme). In these instances, belonging to a group increases firmers

bargaining power.

However, it is clear that individual responsibility is required to ensure the success of the
scheme. For example, in repaying a seed loan, insuring seed quality was important in
cases where seed is the form of repayment (ActionAid-SM, Concern Universal and CSC-
SSEP) or where seed was bought by the scheme (NBIP and MPTF schemes). In this case,
the quality of the seed produced by the scheme was the sum of all firmers’ seed quality.
Where firmers return seed individually, the cost of enforcing the seed quality (1. e.
inspecting and rejecting substandard seed supplied by individual firmers) takes more time
and labor than under the group production approaches, where the group is responsible for

repaying in-kind loans.

5.4.1.7 Amount of Seed Farmers Receive from the Scheme

The amount of seed farmers received varied greatly by scheme, which has implication for
the cost of operating the scheme and the total amount of seed produced. The MPTF,
NBIP and ActionAid-SD Schemes provided farmers 10 to 18 times more seed than the

other three schemes (Table 5.9)

147

Table 5.9: Resendents’ Mean Seed and Mean Harvest by Schemei Malawi, 1996/97.
Commercial Scheme-r Seed Security-r

 

 

 

 

 

MPTF NBIP AetionAid- ActionAid- CSC- Concern
SD SM SSEP Universal
(Average Seed Received Kg)
Beans ' rs ' 6 2 '
S/beans ' ' ' 5 2 '
Gmut . . . . . 5
(Average Harvest, Kg)
Bean ' 182 ' 75 30 '
S/bcan ' ' ' 77 46 78
Ohm . . . . . .
Harvest/Seed Ratio

Bean ' 10 a 13 18 '
S/bean ' ' ' 14 23 16
Glam . . . . . .

 

' Data not available
Source: Data fi'om Srrrallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes’ Survey, Malawi, 1996/97

 

Although the MPTF Scheme and ActionAid-SD Schemes (group) provided farmers
almost the same amount of seed on a per capita basis, ActionAid-SD farmers received a
similar amount of seed as Concern Universal, ActionAid-SM, CSC-SSEP Schemes’
firmers. Also, while ActionAid-SM Scheme reported giving farmers 10 kg of seed, the
respondents said they received only 5 kg of seed on average. This difi‘erence can be

explained in terms of changes in the management of the seed multiplication scheme. As

148

ActionAid let groups assume more responsibilities, it appears the groups attempted to
reach a larger number of firmers (i.e., maximize equity concerns of a community) by
providing each recipient with a smaller quantity of seed than ActionAid used to supply.
The implication of these findings is that participants would not produce enough to provide

for food and seed for the following season.

5.5 A Comparative Environment-Behavior Analysis of the Seed Multiplication
Schemes

The seed multiplication schemes varied greatly in terms of their size (i. e., number of

firmers participating) and location where they work. While some of them operate

nationwide, others focused on a few locations. Data in Table 5.10 summarize the key

characteristics of the schemes, including the number of participating firmers, where they

operated, crops targeted, and the amount of seed participants were supposed to receive.

149

 

.6282 438:5 .gm Fun-Hum 83.532 noon hogan £95.... 88.. «in ”358

 

 

 

5.88m
.3335ragigagfiéaeguzofiigarfigtam gasserzeafiomrmgiun?
.35? 88.323
15.82 ~38»!— 358.89

51568 83980 37.588 8g
8%... 3.2a zoo zoo no.8: «on Ron Bonaeasem
9: 9:3 3: 38.8 $2: 9.8.8 Bore... seamed—.3
2o: 20: :52 20: 2o: :62 .26: 8:8 Bow

.5 .3 an .3 .mm
.mm .0 .m a: .mm .0 .m a: .5 .mm .0 .m a: .3 .mm 6 .m a: .mm .0 .m a: m .e .m a: .889: 820
no: a: 32 32 a: 82 e9: 8553 .8»
3:83am
89.? 83A 8555 m 8a.? a. 2. ..e 252

.358 05
150.3 g 333— 3.58
288853 3803.555 use 89.. 33.558 Em

55: .33 2 a 8.3.8 sea awe as so use as «use: anew 1822 38a :83

Base: 855 Sodom 828

5980 88.80 and €25.08 93283 23283. .52 Ba:
noggin—U
Tigereomesm engage . . Sodom

 

338— $332 Boson voom mo ”flotsam—0850 S .m 03:.

150

5.5.1 Location and Size of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes

Apart from the MPTF Scheme’s nationwide program, the rest of the schemes were
localized. Participants in the former scheme firmed in each ADD, although some ADDS
had a higher number of participants than others. The scheme with second widest national
distribution was ActionAid-SD which served firmers in four of the country’s eight ADDs.
Third was the CSC-SSEP, which covered 13 development areas (each about 50 square
kilometers), followed by the CSC-Church Farm (five church firms). The ActionAid-SM

and Concern Universal each served only two areas and the NBIP operated in one EPA

The schemes also varied greatly in terms of the number of participants. Christian Services
Committee’s SSEP and ActionAid-SD Schemes involved the largest (3,000-4,000)
numbers of farmers, followed by Concern Universal (2,000) and MPTF (73) and NBIP
(45) and five CSC-church farms". Since no records were available that documented the
number of firmers involved in schemes, the extension workers’ estimates were used for

ActionAid-SM, Concern Universal, and CSC-SSEP.

Reviewing the relationship between the goals of the scheme and the number of participants
suggests that schemes which were aimed at alleviating seed insecurity tended to involve a
higher number of participants. On the other hand, schemes which were designed to

produce seed for sale (MPTF and NBIP) had a smaller number of participants.

 

“Personal interviews with oflicials from the schemes.

151

5.5.2 The Nature of Contracts Among the Seed Multiplication Schemes

Most seed multiplication schemes had contracts that defined the respective obligations of
the firmers and the seed scheme. While in some cases firmers signed a contract and in
other schemes the contract was implied. For instance, the ActionAid-SD Scheme, the
NBIP Scheme and the CSC-Church Farms Scheme had explicit contracts. However, for
the rest of the schemes, firmers were not required to sign a contract. Rather, through
meetings between the farmers and the ofiicials fiom the schemes, each party’s obligations
were stipulated. Concern Universal required each group to write a constitution before it
was given a seed loan. The constitution had to indicate how the group would recover the
seed loan. Data in Table 5.11 summarize the contractual agreements associated with each

seed multiplication scheme.

152

833. .3812 .gm .5 3.5.3.5.: voom £33m Sufism 58.. Sun .853.
§.§§§§.8E§E05§§.255§83885§o85
5833180537.. giEé§uflS§h¢a§§§§§3§3§ofi§8§

 

 

p.85...
9.
e358
.23 .8989...
.32.... ”3...... 8.8
8.88 58:88:... ”358...... 83...... .... 88
88.. 8.88 :83... ...... .32.... 333.395.... 8......8
8.855.. 8538.. 383538.. 553853 wag.» 8.2.8.. .88
8.. 8583...... 35358.. 853.555.... 9888.83 .5238... 33:8 .e8......o8..8o
88 88 88 88 8 88 888...
.85... 88 3...... 858.. 5.30 88 8...... 8581.85 ......er 8598...... 88... £56
86......— 83. . :33
.3.... .855... 85.3... 3.5.8.2 ......852 88.8... 8.88885. .33:
89. 8.8.8.. .3 88 ......o 88 88 .8582... a...
8.58..
«.08 33.5... 9...... .635... 8.1... .59....
... :8. 88... 88. 88 .e :8. 88 .e 8.... 88 .e 8.... 8.8 5.8385. 5.85%..
8:95....
as... as... as... as... .2638. 18:6... 86...... 358.35....
.88....5 885.... a...
5.80 88.80 9.3.88... 23888... 85.980 .....2 ......z

 

«I gem. 3138.... 18% «I. 8.3.5..” ~§§U

as.
852.8 .58.... .....2 88 8.35.2. .... 38.8 5E... .3858 .... 2......

 

153

5.5.2.1 Parties to Contract in a Seed Scheme

In four schemes (ActionAid-SM, ActionAid-SD, CSC-SSEP and Concern Universal),
contracts were negotiated between the organization and a group of farmers, and seed
loans were both given and recovered through community groups. In contrast, the MPTF
Scheme, NBIP Scheme and CSC-Church Farms contracted with individual farmers and

farms.

Clearly, it is less costly for a scheme to deal with community groups rather than
individuals-especially if the program targets a large number of farmers. These results may
explain why schemes with a small number of participants tend to give individual contracts,
whereas schemes involving a large number of participants use group contracts which
reduce transaction costs (i.e., transaction costs include the cost of negotiating a contract,
monitoring for non-performance, and enforcing terms of a contract such as recovering a

loan).

Whether farmers grew seed in a group or individually has transaction cost implications.
While ActionAid encouraged farmers to produce seed as a group, some groups opted to
produce seed individually because they feared that some farmers in the group would shirk
in their responsibilities. In addition, seed quality may decline in groups as some farmers
seek to free-ride on good quality seed that others produce. Thus, in schemes where

farmers produce seed individually, but market it as a group, it could be diflicult to

154

maintain quality standards. In such cases, the final product, which is the sum of each

farmer’s quality, may not meet the required minimum standard.

In seed schemes where the goal was to produce high quality seed, the schemes tended to
work with farmers individually. For instance, the MPTF Scheme, the NBIP Scheme and
the CSC-Church Farms, which produced certified seed or quality-declared seed, required

farmers to sign contracts as individuals which made success or failure an individual

responsibility.

5.5.2.2 Seed Loan Terms

The seed schemes used different loan repayment options. The schemes’ method of
repayment reflect their objectives. First, ActionAid-SD” and CSC-Church Farms
required farmers to repay using cash. In contrast, the rest of the schemes (i.e., MPTF
Scheme, NBIP Scheme, CSC-SSEP, Concern Universal Scheme and ActionAid-SM
Scheme) required farmers to repay their loan in seed. These schemes planned to distribute
seed to other farmers the following year. By requiring repayment in seed, they maximized

the amount they had available for distribution the following year.

Community-based schemes (CSC-SSEP, Concern Universal Scheme and ActionAid-SM

Scheme) that require repayment in seed followed two approaches. In ActionAid-SM and

 

”For example, ActionAid-SD required farmers to repay their loan using cash as a way of
encouraging them to distribute the seed to other farmers through selling.

155

CSC-SSEP, the farmers repay the seed to a committee which stored it and then distributed
the seed to farmers the following year. In contrast, Concern Universal farmers repay the
seed to the scheme, which stored it in bulk before distributing it to farmers the following

8688011.

Whether the seed is stored by the scheme or the farmers has implications for the quality of
seed available for distribution to farmers the following season. Especially for crops such
as soybean whose viability tends to deteriorate under poor storage conditions (high
temperature and high humidity), proper storage is critical to maintaining seed viability.
Clearly, it is easier to ensure storage quality standards if the scheme stores seed, rather
than where farmers or farmer groups store the seed themselves. However, schemes
attempt to reduce their transaction costs including storage costs, by requiring farmers to

assume storage firnctions.

In all schemes, if farmers failed to repay their loan, they were required to repay it the
following year. The terms of repayment for the loans varied across schemes. The CSC-
SSEP and Concern Universal required the farmers to repay 200 percent of the amount of
seed they received. Under ActionAid-SM, repayment was 120 percent of the initial
amount the farmers received. ActionAid (SD) required the farmers to repay 120 percent

of the value of seed they received.

156

5.5.2.3 A Comparison of Seed Production and Post-Harvest Requirements
Among Seed Multiplication Schemes

The practice that seed farmers were required to follow reflected the quality of seed that

the scheme sought to produce. Concern Universal, CSC-SSEP and ActionAid-SM did

not intend to produce certified seed. Therefore, these schemes placed few restrictions on

the farmers. While they were required to plant one variety per field, they were not

required to isolate their field (e.g., since legumes are self-pollinated, observing isolation

distance is not critical) and were allowed to grow the seed as an intercrop.

In contrast, schemes which sought to produce basic or certified seed imposed several
restrictions. For example, the MPTF Scheme farmers had to observe isolation distance,
plant one crop per field, and one variety per crop. Additionally, the Seed Services Unit
inspected the fields before the crop was planted and during the time it was in the field.
Following the harvest, the seed inspectors carried out seed certification tests. Similarly,
CSC-church farms followed similar procedures, and NBIP farmers planted their crop with
close supervision fi'om the NBIP personnel and the extension personnel fi'om the Ministry
of Agriculture and Irrigation. While ActionAid-SD Scheme did not monitor their farmers’
seed crop with the same level of scrutiny, the farmers were expected to plant one crop and

one variety per field.

Both the MPTF and the NBIP required farmers to carry out several post-harvest activities

(i.e., cleaning, sorting and grading). This was the case because, first, the seed had to be

157

certified before the farmers were permitted to sell it. Second, whereas the NBIP Scheme
did not certify the seed its farmers produced, farmers knew that the seed had to be clean
or the NBIP would not buy it. For other schemes, while farmers were encouraged to
clean and sort their seed, there was no mechanisms to enforce compliance. Finally, none
of the schemes had requirements for packaging, since they all sold in bulk to the schemes
or sold loose to other smallholder farmers. While the NBIP packed seed in 500 g packs
for direct sale to smallholder farmers, the packaging was done by the NBIP rather than the
scheme farmers. Data in Table 5. 12 show a list of seed production and post-harvest

activities by schemes.

158

|
582 5.2 69m .8823 83:33: 88 8.338 55m 68 55 ”8:8 6358 .8 a Age as as:

 

 

 

 

 

33:.
3.3.
a o a o a a o .3352 3.:
02 oz oz 02 oz oz 02 33.3
«515
oz 02 02 oz 3 8> a» 2.5.3.
has
oz oz oz oz 8» 8> .3 ea 3.36
02 oz oz .2 oz 02 _ 8> 8:83
55895
oz 02 8» oz 8» 8> a; :95. ea
sue
«a a a 95 2..
oz oz a; oz 9; a» 3 38809.5 2a...
2:3; sex
8» oz .3 as 8» Buses so:
oz oz 8> .2 as a; s» 335838.
Soc

02 oz 02 oz 8> mo> 8> bu bot—S 30
‘23,!
02 e2 8> oz 3» no.» 8> 9.8982

38%: an:
.588 mmmdmo ages. 23288< $5580 .52 En:

Taifiaereuag Tagaaego §8§§=§m

 

83$ . 2.: 52% 2c 2.2 “5523 a fiEméé us 8:885 88 33:5 2 .m 2%...

159

These results suggest that while all of the seven schemes produced seed, the production
was under several difi‘erent levels of supervision. Assigning a value of l for each required
activity and summing these values for each scheme generates scores that range from 9
(MPTF) to O (CSC-SSEP and Concern Universal). Farmers in schemes with high scores

were expected to carry out more activities than they would if they were producing grain.

In addition to increasing transaction costs (i.e., negotiating, monitoring, inspection), these

requirements increase the cost of production. Table 5.13 shows the additional resources

that respondents indicated they used compared to grain production.

160

Table 5.13: Percent of Respondents Using Additional Resources in Seed Production,

Compared to Grain Production, Malawi, 1996/97. l§=163i

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scheme (Number of Additional Resources Used
Respondents)
Cash/Capital Land Labor None
-Percent-
Commercial
Schemes
NBIP (28) 0 10 30 68
MPTF (30) 53 10 30 10
Seed Security
Schemes
CSC-SE (30) 30 0 15 62
ActionAid- (28) 1 18 0 75
SM
ActionAid-SD (26) 43 0 17 43
Concern (21) 7 0 6 92
Universal
Total Number 163 36 9 23 95
Percent 100 22 6 14 58

 

Note: There were multiple responses
Source: Data from Survey, Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes’ Survey, Malawi, 1996/97

 

Among all schemes, respondents participating in the MPTF scheme most frequently (90
percent) reported using more resources in seed production than for grain production. Of
these farmers, 53 percent reported using more cash, and 30 percent said they used more
labor. As farmers in this scheme were required to produce certified seed, ofiicials from
the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Research, Seed Services Unit

and Department of Extension and Training) fi'equently visited these farmers to give advice,

161

inspect and evaluate the crop. Therefore, farmers took activities such as roguing and
sorting more seriously than farmers in the other schemes who were not required to do

these activities or where enforcement was lacking.

The only other scheme reporting using more resources for seed production were farmers
in the ActionAid-SD Scheme. Among these respondents, 43 percent indicated using more
cash tlmn they would for grain production. In most cases, respondents mentioned the
membership fee which was required by some groups. The amount, which was determined

by the group, varied from K20 to K30 per farmer per season.

With the exception of farmers from ActionAid-SM, farmers from the other seed security
schemes did not indicate using more land for seed production than they would if they were
producing grain. This is the case because, in many cases, farmers grew their seed crop

intercropped with maize.

Implications of the Production System on Farmer-5’ Expected Seed Price

In general, farmers who produced certified seed (NBIP, MPTF and CSC-Church Farms)
used more resources than farmers fi'om seed security schemes (CSC-SSEP, ActionAid-
SM, ActionAid-SD and Concern Universal). Since ActionAid-SM and CSC-SSEP
farmers did not use more resources, they did not require a higher price for their seed. On
the other hand, farmers in the MPTF Scheme needed a premium price, if they were

expected to continue to produce seed in the future.

162

Farmers’ price expectations had implications for the sustainability of the seed
multiplication schemes. Ifthe scheme’s requirements increased farmers costs, they will be
reluctant to participate, unless they are confident of receiving a premium price for their
seed. Furthermore, seed users’ willingness to pay that expected price was critical in
meeting the farmers’ expected price. Therefore, a divergence between seed producers’
willingness to receive price and the seed users’ willingness to pay price can dampen efi'orts

of producing and distributing new seeds.

5.6 Performance of Seed Multiplication Schemes

As noted previously, the intended end-use of the md varied across the schemes. For
some schemes (e.g., CSC-SSEP, Concern Universal and ActionAid-SM), the objective
was to simply multiply seed in order to ensure seed security for participating farmers. On
the other hand, ActionAid-SD’s objective was to both satisfy farmers’ seed security
requirements, and provide these farmers with a new income generating activity. For the
NBIP, the farmers produced seed to supply for the organization, which would in turn
distribute it to other seed multiplication schemes. Finally, MPTF Scheme farmers
produced seed for sale to other farmersuunder the assumption that farmers were willing to

pay a premium for high quality seed of new varieties.

Although the underlying objective of all schemes was to multiply seed, one group of

schemes was more commercially-oriented than the other which focused on alleviating

163

smallholder farmers’ seed security needs. Therefore, in assessing performance, the extent
to which a scheme achieved its objectives was used as the performance criteria. Finally,
the constraints that contributed to poor performance of a given scheme are presented,

focusing on how each schemes’ design contributed to its performance.

5.6.1 The Performance of CSC-Smallholder Seed Exchange Scheme
Approximately 4,000 farmers in 13 development areas participated in this program in
1996/97. From the results of the smallholder farmers’ survey, women represented the

largest proportion of participants.

Although there were no restrictions on who participated in the program, the small amount
of seed farmers received (averaging 3 kg per farmer) self-targeted the scheme towards
poorer farmers. While the seed supplied provided farmers with part of their seed needs
for one year (i.e. enough seed to plant 0.06 hectares if intercropped with maize), this
amount is insufficient to solve the farmers’ long term seed needs. This is especially true,
given that the legume crops have a high sowing rate“ and a low multiplication rate”.
Therefore, under optimal growing conditions, 3 kg of groundnuts would produce 30 kg of

seed and 3 kg of beans would produce 150 kg of seed. From this harvest, farmers would

 

“Under monocropping, beans have a sowing rate of 100 kg/ha and groundnuts have a
sowing rate of 125 kg/ha. Both are ranked as crops with high sowing rates compared to
others such as maize, sorghum and millet. Sowing rate is the amount of seed required to
plant one hectare of land.

”Beans have a medium multiplication rate of 50 and groundnuts have low multiplication
rate of less than 10 compared to maize which has a multiplication rate of 100.

164

likely eat, sell and save some seed for the following season, and probably share it with
otherfarrners.1norderto addressseed securityinthelongterm, farmers neededalarger
amount of seed than they received. The amount they received was good only for the short
term. In most cases, the NGOs did not have enough seed to meet for the seed demand.
There were conflicting interests between achieving eficiency levels (i.e. the amount of
seed that would make an individual farmer achieve long-term seed security) and achieving

equity (i.e. providing seed to as many farmers as possible).

5.6.2 Performance of CSC-Church Farm Program

The Church Program was conducted for two years as there was no funding for the third
year. From the perspective of producing quality-declared seed, the scheme operated
successfully in the 1995/96 season. While the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s
Seed Services Unit did not visit some church farms before the farms planted, when visits
were made the Seed Services Unit noted a few problems at some farms. Seed grown in
fields that failed to observe the isolation distance, where the md was planted with other
crops and where poor crop husbandry was practiced (i. e. weedy fields, no roguing and
shading from nearby trees) was rejected because of these violations (Naming’azi Farm

records, 1996).

As for Naming’azi Farm, the production of the seed was satisfactory, i.e. no seed crop
was rejected. In 1995/96, the farm produced 89 kg of beans and 180 kg of pigeon peas.

However, this amount of seed was suficient to supply only a small number of farmers.

165

For example, assuming farmers were allowed to buy 3 kg of seed each, only 30 farmers
would be able to buy bean seed and 60 farmers would be able to buy pigeon pea seed.
Thus, for the farm to have a significant impact on meeting farmers’ seed needs, it would
have to produce far more seed than it did in 1996. In terms of profitability, production
costswere higherthan the revenuesthefarmrealized aftersellingthe seed asgrain. The
farm manager reported that the cost of labor exceeded expectations, and records showed
that instead of engaging labor for four months as the CSC contract stipulated, the farm
employed labor for eight months (July to February). Therefore, the objective of producing

seed at a profit was not achieved (Naming’azi Farm Records, 1995/96).

Because of poor documentation, there were no records to indicate how many farmers
bought the seed or if they used it as seed. Nevertheless, being a well-established farm,
those who bought seed might have used it as seed believing the quality to be higher than
the farmers’ own seed. Although the scheme was designed to sell seed to smaller
churches that have fields, the scheme never established these links. However, in terms of
creating awareness, the Church Farm hosted training sessions for surrounding farmers, so

farmers attending these courses were exposed to the seed crop.

Christian Service Committee sought to increase the links between the MOAI and the
Church Farms. However, since the Department of Training and Extension and the Seed
Services Unit are service departments, (i.e. they charges for their services), without

funding fiom the Christian Service Committee, the Church Farm was not willing or able to

166

contract for these services. Therefore, the objective of strengthening links with other

stakeholders such the MOAI was not achieved.

5.6.3 Performance of Concern Universal Program

The Concern Universal scheme produced seed and established a seed bank fiom storing
the repaid 1995/96 crop. However, because the stored seed varied greatly in quality,
Concern Universal had to re-grade the seed before it could be distributed to farmers.
Cost-benefit analysis of storing seed in a seed bank indicated that the seed bank was
operating at a profit, rte. selling the seed would recover the cost of storage (Concern

Universal, 1997) .

In terms of achieving its seed security objective, the scheme was relatively successful. In
1996, Concern Universal distributed seed to a large number of farmers: 1,724 received

beans, 1,863 received soybeans, 2,118 received groundnuts (Concern Universal, 1997).

Similar to the CSC-SSEP, however, the amount of seed each farmer received was too
small to solve the farmers’ long term seed security needs (1.5 kg beans, 4.5 kg soybean,
and 2 kg groundnuts). This was evident fi'om the proportion of farmers who indicated
having participated in seed multiplication in both years. This suggests that farmers were
not saving seeds, but relied on returning to Concern Universal for seed every year. From
the repayment of seed in 1996 which was stored in the seed bank, the following number of

farmers would benefit from the seed assuming they received the same amount of seed as in

167

the previous year: beans, 5,217 households; soybeans, 4,000 households and groundnuts
1,663 households (Concern Universal, 1997) . Instead of solving the farmers’ seed

security problem, the NGO acted as a seed reserve for farmers every year.

5.6.4 Performance of ActionAid-SM Program

Under this program which had been operating since 1990/91, farmers assumed some of
the seed distribution firnctions such as seed loan recovery, seed storage, and seed
distribution. Participating farmers received an average of 5-10 kg of seed from
ActionAid—enough seed for a farmer to produce no more than 250 kg of beans under
optimum conditions. In this way the size of the seed multiplying operation was similar to
that of Concern Universal and CSC-SSEP. However, most farmers said that in previous
years they sold most of their produce as grain to private traders. Moreover, in the
1996/97 season, some farmers indicated that they were expecting a poor bean harvest
because of disease problems. Thus, because the bean harvest was likely to be less than
normal, it is unlikely that participating farmers met their seed security needs in 1996/97.
The future success of the scheme rests on the ability of farmers to maintain good quality
seed in storage, the ability to recover the seed fi'om farmers and having disease resistant

varieties.

5.6.5 Performance of ActionAid-SD Program
This program was in its second year. In the first year, since most farmers neglected their

crops and some thought the seed was given free of charge, credit repayment was low.

168

This was a result of inadequate supervision, as most of the NGO’s extension personnel

were not yet employed.

In the year the survey was conducted, there was adequate supervision by the NGO’s
extension personnel. Thus, the objective of producing seed was likely achieved.

However, the condition that farmers repay their loan in cash” had mixed implications.
While this stipulation was intended to force farmers to distribute seed through selling their
produce, the timing of loan recovery is critical to achieving the objective of the scheme. If
for instance farmers were expected to repay their seed loan before the end of October,
then most would be forced to sell their produce as grain, since generally the majority of
the farmers start obtaining their seed only in November (Scott et. al. 1998). Selling seed
before this period would force farmers to sell swd at a lower price than if they sold it
later. Most would also sell the seed as grain since demand for seed in September/October
was low”. Farmers would prefer to repay the loan later when price was higher since there

was no extra charge for paying the loan later.

5.6.6 The Performance of National Bean Improvement Program
Under this program, about 9 tons of seed was produced and sold to the NBIP in 1996.

The scheme had the single objective of producing seed for the NBI Program. Since the

 

”Bank account

”Since ActionAid reported quarterly on the progress of the seed multiplication scheme,
the NGO’s interest in reporting early repayment of the seed loan conflicted with farmers’
interest in selling their produce when the price was higher.

169

farmers produced and sold the seed to the NBIP, that objective was achieved. However,
farmers surveyed complained that they were forced to sell all their produce to the NBIP,
and were not allowed to keep any seed for themselves to use as they wished. However, it
was likely that farmers kept some produce for themselves as it is dificult to check non-
compliance. Since farmers were producing certified seed which the NBIP distributed to
other NGOs for use in their respective seed multiplication programs, the NBIP sought to

recover all of the seed produced under the scheme.

In an efl‘ort to increase awareness of the new varieties, the NBIP cooperated with the
MPTF in setting up demonstrations throughout the country for the new varieties. Also,
NBIP worked with respective NGOs to set up on—farm trials in locations where the NGOs

were carrying out seed multiplication.

To further increase distribution of the varieties, some of the produce fiom the farmers was
packed in 500 grams and sold to smallholder farmers through shops in four ADDs.
Furthermore, the program also advertised the availability of these varieties on the national

radio.

5.6.7 Performance of MPTF Program
The main objective of this scheme was to train farmers to undertake seed multiplication as
a business. The participating farmers successfirlly produced certified seed with the

supervision from the scientists from the Department of Agricultural Research. As

170

originally envisaged, farmers were expected to take full responsibility for marketing their
seed crop. However, as the harvest approached, the farmers pressured the scheme to
purchase their crap fearing farmers were not likely to pay a higher price for the seed.
Therefore, despite the business training that farmers received, the scheme failed to achieve

its objective that the farmers market or test-market their produce.

5.7 Factors Affecting Performance of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Schemes
The failure of a scheme to achieve an objective was in most cases related to some aspects
in the design of the scheme. This ranged from the scheme not being able to carry out
certain functions or farmers not being cooperative in carrying out some functions. This

section summarizes reasons why some schemes failed to achieve their objectives.

5.7.1 Timing of Seed Delivery and Seed Quality

All respondents reported that they received the seed in good time before their planting
date. However, seed quality was a problem in two schemes. In the scheme run by
Concern Universal, the managers mentioned seed quality as a major problem. ActionAid-
SM in Dowa reported similar experiences. In the 1995/96 season, both schemes used
imported seed, obtained fi'om the MPTF Program, some of which did not germinate. In
the 1996/97 season, soybean seed did not germinate. Apparently, when the MPTF
Program imported seed, it distributed it to various NGOs without contracting with the
MOAI’s Seed Services Unit to verify its viability. As a result, farmers in some parts of the

country were supplied seed which would not germinate.

171

In principle, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation’s Seed Service Unit was supposed
to check the quality of seed before it was distributed to farmers. In practice, most
schemes did not do this since they used seed supplied by researchers—most of whom were
professionals, compared to seed specialists who were technicians. Among the NGOs, only

ActionAid-SD formally contracted seed producers who would supply certified seed.

Alter harvesting the crop, seed quality was a fimction of storage conditions. Storage
conditions are critical, especially for soybeans as viability deteriorates under humid and hot
temperature sometimes reducing germination by as much as 50 percent. Schemes such as
ActionAid-SM, CSC-SSEP, and Concern Universal recycled seed for three years before
getting fiesh stocks fi'om the researchers. On the one hand, under the ActionAid-SM
scheme and CSC-SSEP, farmers stored the seed. Therefore quality of seed was a function
of how well they maintained the seed storage structures and conditions. On the other
hand, Concern Universal stored the seed in a seed bank (i.e. group storage managed by
Concern Universal). Other than chemicals applied to control pest damage and storing the

seed in hessian bags, there were no temperature or humidity control facilities.

Before planting, scientists recommend that soybean seed be inoculated with a Rhizobium
bacteria to enhance the capacity of the plant to fix atmospheric nitrogen in the roots. In
Malawi, the Rhizobia ‘ SOY’ is recommended. The MOAI recommended that the
inoculant be kept below 28 ° C to maintain its effectiveness (Soko, 1996). None of the

respondents who planted soybean inoculated their seed, nor had they ever heard of the

172

 

 

-; l

technology. Thus, farmers’ soybean yields were likely to be lower than their potential. In
contrast, the promiscuous soybean variety Magoye is able to fix nitrogen without an
inoculant. However, the MOAI had not omcially released it. Thus, to enable farmers
benefit from the nitrogen-fixing capacity of soybean, the schemes needed to educate and
train farmers about this technology and set up the logistics required to make making the

Rhizobium available to them just before planting.

5.7.2 Farmer Training, Crop Supervision and Inspection

In some schemes, farmers received more training in seed multiplication than in other
schemes. Schemes that provided extensive training included MPTF, ActionAid-SD and
NBIP. The training went hand in hand with the supervision of the seed fields. In the year
of the survey, the Seed Services Unit inspected on time the seed cr0p produced under the
MPTF scheme. In contrasts, in the CSC-Church Farms in 1995/96, some fields were
rejected because when the inspectors went to visit them, the farmers had already planted
the crop without following required regulations. Therefore, timeliness in inspection was
crucial in the certification process. One probable reason for the delay in visiting the field

was because of CSC’s late release of funds to the Seed Services Unit.

5.7.3 Sale of Modern Seed
While MPTF bought seed to increase its seed stock for the following season, farmers’
unwillingness to sell seed on their own raised doubts about the existence of an efl'ective

demand among the farmers for modern seed. Informal interviews with seed producers

173

revealed that they pressured the scheme to buy their first year’s seed crop, and then they
planned to sell seed on their own in the second year. As noted in earlier sections, farmers
in the MPTF used more resources than if they had produced grain. Therefore, their
expected price was likely to be higher than the price of grain. Furthermore, they might

have expected that the prospective buyers would not be willing to pay such a price.

The analysis above contrasts with the situation under the NBIP whereby farmers were
promised a market and price. For the other schemes, farmers generally did not use more
resources producing seed than they would if they were producing grain. Therefore, across
the schemes there was a spectrum of production systems similar to Williamson’s

contractual schema as follows:

Scenario One
Schemes in which farmers produced a specialized commodity, seed, without using
fixed assets (K=O) would sell their product at competitive prices, e. g. sell at grain

prices, P. (CSC-SSEP, Concern Universal, ActionAid-SD, ActionAid-SM)

Scenario Two
Schemes in which farmers produced a specialized product using more specialized
assets-human assets and additional inputs such as labor and cash (K>0)-and

where safeguards are provided (S>O). Safeguards could be in the form of a

174

guaranteed market or a guaranteed price or both. Under the NBIP, the farmers

were offered a safeguard-price (P,>P.) and market.

Scenario Three
Schemes in which farmers produced a specialized product using more specialized
assets—human assets and additional inputs such as labor and cash (K>O)—but were
never ofi‘ered any safeguards (S=0). In this case the price of seed needed to be
higher than the price of grain (P,»P.) in order to offer farmers an incentive to
produce seed in the firture. Under MPTF scheme, the fact that farmers resisted
selling to sell the seed themselves, suggests that they were uncertain of efi'ective

demand.

These scenarios highlight the importance of designing a scheme so that the inputs and
procedures adopted match with the expected end-use of a product. Otherwise, a scheme
might succeed in producing high quality seed as planned, but then the seed producers
might find that farmers were not willing to pay the higher cost of producing the modern

seed.

5.7.4 Sustainability of the Seed Multiplication Schemes

175

In most cases, the schemes subsidized seed production by paying for administrative costs
required to support the schemes. Data in Table 5.14 show the administrative costs

covered by each and the implications for the real cost of the seed produced.

176

838. 8...: .828 .8588 8:888: 88 8.88m .88 sec 58 .028

 

 

 

8882
8.2 882 8:2 .82 8.8.88 8.88. 8.88 8.28
888
8885800
0.82 8oz 0.32 0.52 0808 082.8 080:8 858%.:
082 0.82 082 082 0.82 082 080:8 858.80g
8228
080:8 080:8 080:8 080:8 080:8 080:8 . 080:8 8%
88» 88.» 0.80.» .88
88m 88 .026 88 .850 .88 80.6 803 88 E E 28% 0.88.5 05
093 .0828 83 .0838 88. .0838 .0828 .0828 .0888 .0888 8 ten—88h
88» 025 88.» 085
88» 025 8.. c8 0.0.62 .8 8&8.—
0_§§8u 28:08 80.30808
08 he 80888 8 808.8... 8.. .8886 En 88.3..— gum .8888 38 35:00
in 8.8". 080:8
.8898: 8880 $88.80 $25.83. .3883. 58.5.08 080:8 Emz FEE
380:8. .r .0368. $08. .r 320:8. ~820§§D .30 .«e 0858

   

83.8 88.. 2:2 88 8.288 858888: Bow 5 a8 .3 858 f .m 2.3

177

Taking seed multiplication as a value adding activity, the amount of value increased from
the seed security scheme such as CSC-SSEP and Concern Universal to the more
commercial-oriented schemes such as NBIP and MPTF. For the schemes to be
sustainable, there was need to analyze the costs that schemes cover and determine whether
in their absence farmers would be willing and able to pay. These are discussed fi'om the

seed-acquisition stage to the marketing point.

5.7.5 Cost of Certified Seed

All schemes obtained their seed from the researchers or some farms contracted to produce
certified seed. While commercial schemes used new stock of seed every year—MPTF,
NBIP and CSC-Church Farms-the seed security schemes recycled the seed for at least
three years-CSC-SSEP, Concern Universal, ActionAid-SD and ActionAid-SM. This
implies that seed from the former group of schemes was bound to be more expensive than
fi'om the later group of schemes. Thus, in the long run, the seed security schemes had a
lower cost of seed than the other group as they bought certified seed once every four
years. However, there is a trade-off between the cost of seed and the quality of seed.
When farmers recycled the seed, the quality of the seed is bound to decline than when they

get seed every year fi'om researchers, especially if it is certified.

178

5.7.6 Transportation of Seed to Farm-gate
In all schemes, the schemes provided transportation of seed to the farmers’ homes. Thus,
the schemes that distributed seed every year incurred this cost every year contrasted with

schemes that received seed once every three years.

5.7.7 Training, Extension Service and Demonstration Plots

While all schemes had training and extension services, the intensity of these varied. The
MPTF had more training components in its scheme than the other schemes. In most cases,
they involved meeting all farmers at one location. Since farmers were fi'om all over the
country, a central location for meetings or training was a less expensive option. The NBIP
dealt with farmers from one EPA; therefore meeting with farmers was not as expensive.
Also, ActionAid-SD had meetings at one location with farmers in the four ADDs.

Concern Universal, CSC-SSEP and ActionAid-SM all met with the extension workers in
their respective areas. For CSC-Church Farms, the meeting involved both their respective

farms and training at one location.

Although the providers of extension services varied, i. e, in some cases it was the MOAI
and in other cases it was the scheme, in all cases, the scheme paid for the cost. Schemes
producing certified seed, such as MPTF and CSC-Church Farm, also the Seed Services

Unit added to the cost its service. This was an additional cost to the seed.

179

The MPTF set out about 700 demonstration plots throughout the country while the other

schemes did not sponsor separate plots. The demonstration plots were operated by the

MOAI.

5.7.8 Packaging/Storage and Marketing

Apart from Concern Universal, none of the seed security schemes assumed any storage
function. Concern Universal stored seed returned to them. The other schemes let the
farmers assume the storage function. In the commercial schemes, the NBIP assumed the
packaging and storage functions. The MPTF was not supposed to assume the storage,
and marketing functions but ended up performing them. The CSC-Church Farms sold the
seed apart fi'om cases where the CSC bought seed fiom the Church Farms to distribute

among the smallholder farmers under CSC-SSEP.

5.7.9 Implications of Seed Production Requirements for Seed Cost

Assuming the requirements above as real costs of the seed, it is evident that seed from the
commercial schemes was produced at a higher cost than seed from the seed security
schemes. Dividing the total cost of producing seed into fixed costs and variable costs,
revealed that some costs such as training have a high initial cost (i.e. in the succeeding
years, the cost of training goes down assuming the same farmers continue multiplying
seed). The same is applicable for extension services, advertising and the cost of

conducting demonstration plots--there is a learning curve. Costs of certified seed, of

180

inspection, storage and marketing costs are variable as they were performed every year

seed was produced and they increased with the scale of production.

Where the goal was to produce seed of high quality, the investment was higher than in
cases where the aim was to produce farmer seed, for example in the seed security
schemes. By recycling md, the schemes were cutting the cost of getting new seed every
year-transport, cost of seed, storage and handling. Furthermore, it was not necessary to
get a new stock of seed for self-pollinated crops. However, for the commercial schemes,

getting new seed each year ensured that farmers receive good quality seed.

From the farmers’ perspective, the performance of the schemes was assessed difl‘erently.

Respondents were asked what changes they would suggest for the schemes (Table 5.15).

181

533— £812 $088 .0058 Steam—832 38 USE—188 £088 88.. 8.5 8958
.8:ro 0.88.8 0.8» 553890.. 088 "082

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 2 2 n 2 v a a 8. e88
882
z 2 2 m R a. an 8. 8: Ba.
.898
2 v c v a m on 2 :3 6880
on
2 a: a o c n 2 on 83 6288....
2m
8 a. o c e v a 8 88 62.88.
2 z e 2 c a c 3 83 8.8.80
£3.
area.
sea.
... 2 a. o o a R t 88 at:
o a. a. v a o c o as .82
one}...
3
c888
.888 5 use 88. 88 88.55
885 £8 3 do .88... 8.8 83. 9.80; 820
88. 888. BE... 888. gang 888:2.— 838 082
888.88

.886 852.. .o SSE 83am

 

. 82 8523 :88: 8.: Bow 3 s 56 858 .388 .8 a; 2.3.

182

About one-half of the respondents in CSC-SSEP (48%), ActionAid-SM (46%) and
ActionAid-SD (50%) said they were satisfied with the schemes, and suggested no changes
to the schemes. Only 12 percent of farmers from Concern Universal were satisfied. In
general, respondents from the commercial seed schemes tended to be less satisfied with
their schemes than respondents fiom the seed security schemes. All respondents fi'om
NBIP suggested something which they thought would improve the scheme compared to

only ten percent fi'om the MPTF.

The improvements many respondents suggested ranged fiom availability of credit,
increases in training and letting the farmers keep some seed. On the issue of credit,
respondents from Concern Universal (5 0%), ActionAid-SM (3 9%) and MPTF (27%)
suggested that their schemes could be improved if the farmers were ofi‘ered credit on
inputs other than just seed. Specifically, these farmers were interested in getting fertilizer
on credit. Interviews with the management of these scheme revealed that the schemes did
not intend to provide the other inputs. However, the MPTF encouraged the participants
to form an association through which the scheme could provide a loan guarantee to the

commercial banks in the following season.

The majority of respondents fi'om the NBIP (82%) said they would like the scheme to let
the farmers to keep some of the seed rather than the current arrangement whereby farmers
were expected to sell all their seed to NBIP. Thus, although the farmers got a premium

price on their seed (10% over the price of grain), they wanted flexibility on how much

183

they could sell. Moreover, farmers had no choice regarding what month to sell the seed,
which was a problem in cases where some of them wanted to store seed for sale later in
the year when price was high. However, this practice conflicted with the interest of the
scheme which was to provide seed to NGOs in good time so that they could, in turn,

distribute it to their seed multiplication schemes.

Finally, 43 percent of the respondents fi'om the MPTF mentioned that they would like to
have a greater say in how the scheme operated. Ironically, farmers in this scheme met
with the scheme’s managers for training and to discuss its progress and logistics more
often than was the case in other schemes. These results suggest that probably the scheme
managers were not accommodating the farmers’ suggestions. At the time interviews were
conducted, the farmers had just harvested and were asking the scheme to buy the seed,
rather than selling the Md on their own as originally planned. As the scheme was initially

reluctant to buy seed, the farmers may have felt that their concerns were not being

considered.

5.8 Summary

This chapter presented an institutional analysis of smallholder seed multiplication schemes
in Malawi focusing on how the rules and regulations in a seed scheme afi‘ected its
performance, 1'. e. what rules enable the schemes achieve their stated objectives. Thus, the
goal was to identify which aspects of schemes needed to be changed in order to achieve

their desired goal.

184

These swd schemes maybe classified in two categories: schemes that were designed to
increase fanners’ seed security needs and schemes aiming to make seed multiplication an
income-generating activity. The four seed security-oriented schemes were managed by the
CSC-SSEP, ActionAid-SM, ActionAid-SD, and Concern Universal. The three
commercially-oriented seed schemes were managed by NBIP, MPTF and CSC-Church

Farms.

The seed security schemes involved a larger number of farmers, with each farmer receiving
a smaller amount of seed (3-5 kg each), compared to the more commercial schemes which
reached relatively fewer farmers with each receiving a larger amount of seed (3 0-40 kg
each). Also, the commercial seed schemes produced a higher quality certified seed, which
was inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture and Inigation. In contrast, the seed security

schemes produced farmer seed which was not inspected for quality.

As performance of the schemes must be evaluated against their goals, the primary goal of
the seed security schemes was to make small quantities of seed available to a larger
number of farmers. Clearly, the fanners’ harvest fi'om their initial planting was not
suficient for them to retain seed for themselves, sell or share it with other farmers, and
provide beans for family consumption. However, these schemes provided a large number
of farmers with initial access to new varieties, some of which they retained for planting in

the next year.

185

On the other hand, the more commercial schemes (NBIP and MPTF schemes) produced a
large amount of seed (e.g. 200 kg). However, the MPTF scheme was less successfitl in
achieving its marketing objective. While it was supposed to train seed entrepreneurs, it
failed to get the farmers to sell their produce on their own. Therefore, although the NBIP
was successful in marketing improved seed in 500 g packs, farmer demand for improved

seed remains uncertain.

Finally, all of these schemes were subsidized. While most required farmers to repay the
cost of seed, schemes provided numerous support services (transport, storage, extension).
“fithout these subsidized services, it is unlikely that the seed security schemes would
continue to operate. Similarly, although commercial schemes were designed to make
farmers smallholder seed multipliers, it is unclear how the support costs (include transport
of seed fiom the primary seed producers such research programs or farms, inspection
services fi'om the Seed Services Unit, and marketing) which the schemes were paying
would be paid for in future. These are real costs which eventually will determine whether
or not the schemes survive. Furthermore, the seed security schemes tended to make
farmers dependent on them for seed every year, rather than encouraging them become
self-suficiency after the first year of participation. Hence, the success of the seed security
schemes is intertwined with the development of seed entrepreneurs. Farmers are unlikely
to buy seed fi'om local seed producers if they can continually obtain new seed from the
seed security schemes. Finally, in one district four of the seven schemes operated

simultaneously. Since there was little coordination among them, most likely there was

186

duplication and conflict of interest among the schemes. For instance, a farmer
participating in the commercial MPTF scheme would likely find it diflicult to sell seed in
an area where the ActionAid scheme was operating i.e., farmers would prefer to get seed

from ActionAid rather than buy from a seed producer.

187

CHAPTER SIX
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SMALLHOLDER SEED PRODUCTION AND USE

OF SEED OF MODERN VARIETIES

6.0 Introduction

This chapter analyzes the profitability of seed production and farmer adoption of modern
bean varieties (MVs). The purpose of the analysis is to assess the relative profitability of
growing MV s versus traditional bean varieties (TVs) both as seed and as grain. First,
yield comparisons were made between a widely-grown traditional variety, Nasaka, and
advanced lines of MVs in order to estimate the yield advantage of MV s. Second, to
assess the financial attractiveness of growing improved bean varieties, the profitability of
producing grain using MVs was compared to the profitability of producing grain using a
TV (control). Third, to assess the attractiveness of establishing a seed-growing enterprise,
the profitability of producing seed of MVs was compared to the profitability of producing
grain when planting a TV. Finally, several scenarios were considered to assess the
sensitivity of the results by varying assumptions regarding factors that afl‘ect costs and
benefits. In all cases, the profitability of producing seed or grain was compared using the

Net Present Value (NPV).

188

6.1 The Legume Seed Demand Model-Profitability of Producing Grain from
MVs versus Producing Grain from TVs
Seed Costs and Revenue
Bean farmers may either plant retained seed of their TVs, or purchase a MV. Assuming
the TVs and MVs are similar in terms of growing and quality characteristics and MVs are
available, farmers will only grow MVs if they are more profitable than a TV. A budget
was developed to estimate the net benefit of producing grain from MVs, compared to
producing grain fiom traditional varieties. Given that the opportunity cost of using
retained seed ofa TV is the grain price, P, per kg, and the cost ofpurchased (MVs) seed
is P, per kg, (assume equal sowing rate, S, kg per hectare) the total cost of planting a TV
is P, S, per hectare and the total cost of planting a MV is P,S, per hectare. The yield
obtained fi'om planting a TV is Y and the yield fi'om planting a MV is Y‘ per hectare.

Hence, revenue fiom the two enterprises are P,Y for the TV and P,Y" for the MV.

6.1.1 The Price Premium for MVs
In the 1997/98 rainy season, the Bean Program at Bunda College charged NGOs K35 per
kilogram for improved seed. In contrast, TV sold for K25 per kilogram. Thus, as an

incentive, a premium of K10 per kilogram was assumed for farmers growing MVs as seed,

over the price of grain (K25 per kilogram).

189

6.1.2 The Yield Advantage of MVs Over TV

The underlying justification of seed multiplication projects is that the MVs produced by
seed programs are higher yielding than the fanners’ traditional varieties. To determine the
yield advantage of MVs over the TV, data fi'om the Advanced Variety Trials (AVT)
conducted by the Bean Program at Bunda College were analyzed to identify top
performing varieties and their yields. The Program conducts three types of trials. First, its
Preliminary Trials (PT) screen varieties for subsequent testing in AVT. The most
promising AVT entries are then evaluated in the National Variety Trials (NVT) before
being recommended for release. Therefore, the AVT yield data used in this study
represented trials of varieties that were about to be tested nationwide. The data used in
this analysis were obtained fiom AVT trials that were conducted at three research sites:
(Bunda College research farm, Dedza research site and Champhira research site) over
three rainy seasons (1993/94, 1994/95 and 1995/96). These locations represent the major
agro-ecological areas in Malawi where most of the country’s beans are grown, i.e., mid-

altitude areas (Bunda and Champhira) and high altitude area (Dedza).

The research trials were laid out in a randomized complete block design, involving 25
entries which included one recommended traditional variety (N asaka), one newly-released
variety (Kalima, released in 1993), and twenty-three unreleased lines (Appendices 6.1, 6.2,
and 6.3). Each variety had three replicates per year per site (N=9). Plot (7 .2 m’) yields
were calculated on a per hectare basis. A Bartlett-Box test was conducted to check for

homogeneity. This procedure is necessary before one can conduct any test to compare

190

yields among varieties. Therefore, the homogeneity test was conducted for all 25 varieties

for each site (Table 6.1)

191

Table 6.1: Results of a Homogeneity Test on Yield Data fi'om Variety Trials at

Bunda, Champhira and Dedza Sites.

 

Variety Bunda Site Champhira Site Dedza Site
(Bartlett-Box’s p—value)l

A 197 NA 0.33 0.55
Sugar 56 0.41 0.34 0.05
AND 660 0.26 ~ 0.63 0.77
14N/2 0.62 0.10 0.46
2-10 0.03 0.13 0.09
Sugar 47 0.49 0.94 0.43
PC 293-C11 0.27 0.01 0.03
BAT 477 0.33 0.07 0.19
Enseleni NA 0.58 0.24
BAT 336 0.40 0.15 0.20
Nasaka 0.67 0.42 0. 10
AFR 248 0.87 0.53 0.54
l7K/2 0.27 0.39 0.05 "
G 05434 0.11 0.35 0.74
(2) A344/4 0.07 * 0.07 * 0.44
Sugar 46 0.79 0.22 0.00 “
A 286 0.29 0.00 " 0.62
Umvoti 0.25 0.05 "' 0.41
PVA 508 0.79 0.21 0.55
PVBZ 1589 0.10 0.04 " 0.15
V8025 0.51 0.74 0.16
Kalima 0.85 0.55 0.27
Sugar 57 0.13 0.40 0.08
16-6 0.04 " 0.68 0.60

 

192

25-2 0.43 0.07 * 0.07 *

 

1when the p-value is less than 10 percent, reject null hypothesis and conclude that there
is no homogeneity. Therefore, can not compare yield of the variety with that of others.

‘Varieties whose yield does not conform to homogeneity condition at 10 percent level
of significance

NA: Could not calculate p-value because one cell had zero variance

 

Varieties which failed a homogeneity test can not be compared with Nasaka, a traditional
variety. A T-test was conducted to determine whether the yield of the improved varieties
were significantly higher than the yield of Nasaka at 5 percent, 10 percent and 15 percent
levels of significance, and also the least squares difl‘erence (LSD) test was used at 5

percent level of significance. Furthermore, a yield index was developed with Nasaka as a

standard, (i.e., Nasaka =100%). These results are presented in Table 6.2.

193

 

 

 

 

”“523 Eh'nfifayéflnhfiifl‘QSM‘g 111513.81 {1837853185699 “t
Variety Bunda Site Champhira Site Dedn Site
W‘F/l’) 11g: 988 81’) 13.89883 15.?
A 197 906 56 112 512 49 57 1,174 55 139"
Sugar 56 1,104 69 137'” 719 85 81 1,109 40 132
AND660 853 64 106 762 61 85 1,040 58 123”
141812 784 49 97 807 56 90 1,352 50 160‘“
2-10 781 79 97 823 54 92 1,100 76 130 2"
Sugar 47 877 66 109 853 54 96 1,633” 34 193W
PC 293-cr1 769 51 95 866 81 97 823 95 101
BAT 477 903 42 112 868 50 97 1,135 84 136
Enseleni 803 61 99 878 56 98 929 100 110
BAT 336 855 61 106 887 57 99 1,113 67 136‘
Nasaka 807 89 100 892 66 100 844 60 100
AFR248 1,023 47 127" 903 57 101 1,457 48 173"-
17102 772 65 96 909 61 102 806 119 90
G 05434 960 62 119 .... 930 69 104 913 82 108
(2)/134414 853 76 106 950 81 107 1,145 70 136”
Sugar 46 790 55 98 969 66 109 768 127 84
A286 704 82 88 974 70 110 1,097 74 130”
Umvoti 872 65 108 985 79 110 1,104 56 131”
PVA 508 866 52 107 995 59 112 1,625“ 50 193W
PVBZ 1589 853 44 105 999 51 112 1,384 60 177'"
vs025 903 74 112 1,030 57 115 1,094 69 130"
Kalima 884 62 110 1,032 48 116 1,247 53 148‘”
Sugar 57 1,009 61 125 m 1,051 51 118 1,272 72 151 ...
16-6 1,024 60 127 1,079 69 121 1,165 62 138‘
25.2 958 59 119 1,159 66 130 m 1,048 124 114
Mean 876 913 1,135
LSD ... 511 542 737

 

194

CV 63 64 69

mmmwz Mg“ 181" ‘ 1:63;. 118.812.911.06: Wmta

topassa 1161:1133qu

 

The analysis of pooled data for three years presented in Table 6.2 indicates that none of
the MVs grown at Champhira site produced a yield higher than Nasaka’s at a 5 percent
level of significance. Only one variety at Bunda, Sugar 56, had a higher yield than
Nasaka’s yield at the significance level of 5 percent. In contrast, at the Dedza location, six
MVs had yields which were significantly higher than the yield of Nasaka at a significance
level of 5 percent. Two varieties at Bunda had significantly higher yields than Nasaka but
failed to meet a homogeneity requirement therefore the results were discarded. One
variety at Champhira, 25-2, failed to meet the homogeneity requirement while Dedza had
two varieties. Moreover, each variety performed difl‘erently at each site, i. e. the highest
yielding variety at one location was not highest yielding at the other locations. For
instance, the highest yielding variety at Bunda, Sugar 56, ranked 24" at Champhira (had a
yield index of 81% of Nasaka) and it ranked 13" at Dedza (25 varieties were evaluated at
each site). Similarly, the highest yielding variety at Dedza, Sugar 47, ranked 20" at
Champhira and 11" at Bunda site. Finally, the highest yielding variety at Champhira, 25-2,
ranked 18" at Dedza and 6" at Bunda. These findings suggest a strong interaction
between variety and location. Thus, when making recommendations, the performance of

varieties at specific locations needs to be considered.

195

Also, the performance of varieties varied by year. At each site, the overall highest yielding
variety did not yield highest in all three years. For instance, at Bunda, the highest yielding
variety, Sugar 56, had the highest yield in the second year, but ranked 13“ in the first year
and ranked 2" in the third year. Likewise, at Champhira, the highest yielding variety, 25-2
had the highest yield in the first year, ranked 5" in the second year and ranked 8" in the
third year. The implications of these results are that when making recommendations, there
is need to use yield data for more seasons to avoid basing recommendations on extra-

ordinarily good season (outlier).

The locations, the average trial yield varied by year. For instance, although the Dedza
location had the overall highest average yield, its average yield was highest in the first and
third years while Bunda had the highest average yield in the second year. However,
analysis of the pooled data (three years) showed that at Bunda, the highest yielding entry,
Sugar 56 averaged 137 percent of the yield of Nasaka. At Dedza, the highest yielding
entry, Sugar 47, averaged 193 percent of the yield of Nasaka. At Champhira, the highest

yielding variety, 25-2, averaged 130 percent of Nasaka.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the results presented above. First, these trials
confirm that the Bean Research Program at Bunda had varieties that substantially out-yield
the traditional variety. Therefore, if released and adopted, these highest yielding bean
entries would substantially increase farmers’ bean harvest. However, the performance of I

these varieties was quite variable fiom season-to-season and varied greatly by location.

196

The MVs had a higher yield at Dedza than at the other two locations and more varieties at
Dedza yielded higher than Nasaka (21 of 25 varieties) than at the other location. At all
sites, the coeficient of variation (CV) of yields for each year was almost half of the CVs
for the three year period. This suggests that within a year, the variation in yields of the
varieties is lower than the yield variation of the varieties over the three years. The high
coeficient of variation for the pooled data is due to relatively large year-to-year variation

in average yields at these sites.

For subsequent economic analysis, only data fi'om two locations, Bunda and Champhira
were used. Results fi'om these sites were selected because yield data from these locations
were consistent with research yield in other parts of the country. In contrast, yields at
Dedza were judged to be exceptionally high. Thus, for Bunda, the average yield of
Nasaka was compared to the mean yields of Sugar 56 and at the Champhira site, the

average yield of Nasaka was compared to the average yield of 25-2.

Data in Table 6.3 Show the yield comparison of the three highest yielding varieties and the

respective yields of Nasaka for the two sites.

197

Table 6.3: Yreld Comparison of Three Highest Yielding Modern Varieties and the

Traditional Vang at Bunda and Champhira Sites, Malawii 1994 to 1997

 

 

 

Variety Average Yieldl Coeflicient of Level of a,
(Kg/Ha) Variation Y"“’>YTV
Bunda Site
Sugar 56 1104A 69 0.02
16—6 1030AB 60 0.09
AFR 248 1023113 47 0.09
Nasaka 807B 89 -
Champhira Site
25-2 1 159C 66 0. 14
16-6 1079c 69 0.29
Sugar 57 1052C 51 0.37
Nasaka 892C 66 -

 

‘Varieties having the same letter are not significantly difl‘erent at a 5 percent level of
significance. For Bunda the Least Significant Difl‘erence yield was 250 kg/ha and for
Champhira it was 358 kg/ha.

Source: Mkandawire, A. B. C. (1998) Advanced Bean Trial Results from Bunda College
Research Site and Champhira Research Site.

 

The results in Table 6.3 show that at Bunda the yield of the top performing variety (Sugar
56) was significantly higher than Nasaka at the two percent level. In contrast, at
Champhira, the yield of the top performing variety (25-2) was only Significantly higher

than Nasaka at 14 percent levels of Significance“.

 

“At Bunda, Sugar 56 yielded 297 kg/ha above Nasaka. To be significantly higher than
Nasaka at the 5 percent level, only a yield difl'erence of 250 kg/ha was required.

198

6.1.3. The Grain Production Budget

Budget analysis was used to determine the incremental profitability of producing grain
when planting MV compared to growing TV. The items included in the budget were: 1)
inputs used to produce the grain (seed, fertilizer, and bags for storage), 2) labor used to
produce and market the crop (clearing the land, planting, weeding, fertilizer application,

harvesting and marketing) and 3) gross benefits (Table 6.3).

For grain production, the inputs used to produce both the MVs and the TV are similar,
except for the inputs that varied with yield (i.e., the number of bags needed for storing

produce, and labor required for harvesting, cleaning, bagging and marketing).

Since the data were from experimental plots, the yields were adjusted to 90 percent of the
trial yields to more realistically represent the yield farmers would likely obtain. CYMMIT
uses a 90 percent factor to adjust experimental yield to farmers’ expected yield. The main
reason for the difference between farmers’ and experimental yields is that experimental
stations carry out their cultural operations at optimal times and use more labor and capital.
Nevertheless, experimental yields should be compared with farmers using similar cultural
practices. Therefore, the results reported in the following sections would be applicable to
small commercial farmers who apply fertilizer and plant beans in monoculture. Evidence
suggests that there is no such group of farmers. Farmers would rather use fertilizer on
crops such as maize and tobacco than on beans. Furthermore, for seed production, the

efi‘ective yield was discounted by a factor of 20 percent, since seed production yield is

199

lower than for grain production due to losses associated with cleaning shriveled and

unhealthy seed and any off-types fiom the harvested seed crop.

200

Table 6.4: Seed Multiplication and Grain Production Budget, Bunda Bean Research

Data and Champhira Research Site Data, Malawi, 1996/97.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Location
Bunda Site Champhira Site
TV-Grain MV-Seed MV—Grain TV-Grain MV-Seed MV-Grain

WM 623 757 852 688 795 894
Yield
(ks/MY
Price 28 39 28 28 39 28
(K/ks)
Total 17,436 29,532 23,853 19,264 31,005 25,032
Revenue
(K)
Inputs (K)

Labor 908 1,143 1,200 940 1,166 1,226

Seedh 1,000 1,400 1,400 1,000 1,400 1,400
Fertilizer 50 50 50 50 50 50
Insecticides 60 60 60 60 60 60
Total Cost 2,093 2,759 2,829 2,133 2,787 2,861
(K)

Gross 15,351 26,764 21,027 17,131 28,218 22,171
Revenue

(K)

 

 

Thebudgetisbasedon TV-grain, MV-seedandMV-grainwhentheproduec is sold afierthree months
and a farmer is facing a 50 percent discount rate; ‘Yield of MV—grain and TV-grain were adjusted to
90 percent to adjust for the experimental factor and at reduced by 5 percent per month to adjust for
storage losses; 3Cost of seed for MV-seed and MV-grain is based on the cost Bunda Bean program
charged NGOS for seed and the cost of seed for TV-grain is based on market price; Cost for fertilizer
and insecticides were standard irrespective of the enterprise. While unit costs of labor was the same,
an enterprise’s activities determined the total cost e.g. Some costs were based on the amount of beans
_harvestedandsomewerebasedonfinalproducte.g. seedproductionwasmore laborintensive

The level of inputs used in the budgets were set at levels that the Bean Program at Bunda

College used in its bean variety trials during the 1996/97 cropping season. Therefore, the

201

budgets associated with the MV represented the input use of a more commercial farmer,
rather than a typical smallholder farmer. The results above indicate that the gross revenue

of a MV-seed is clearly higher than the gross revenue for MV-grain and TV-grain.

6.1.4 Analytical Framework

Net Benefits of Producing Grain fionr Modern Varieties

The cost of the inputs and labor used each month were summed to generate the cost of
production per month. These total monthly costs were then discounted, using two
alternative discount rates (50 percent and 120 percent). Each month was discounted
separately (4 percent and 10 percent, respectively) and a net present cost was calculated
for 8 MV and a TV planted at each of the two. When sold at three months, the price of
K28perkilogramwasusedtovalueboththeTVandtheMVs, ifsoldasgrainandseed
was valued at K39 per kilogram. Total benefits (total revenue) for the MV and the TV
were also discounted. Finally, the net present value were calculated (Table 6.5) as

indicators of the profitability for each enterprise.
Sensitivity Analysis.

Sensitivity analysis was carried out using yield, interest rate, and time of selling the

produce as discussed below.

202

The base case compares the mean yield of the bean variety that gave the highest yield at
Bunda and Champhira research sites with the respective yields of Nasaka. Second, the
base yield was then reduced by 10 percent to assess the sensitivity of the results to the

yield assumption used in the base case scenario.

2. Discount/Interest Rate

By engaging in bean production, farmers were foregoing an alternative activity. First, the
farmer had a choice of lending money used to finance her/his bean enterprise to borrowers
and charging an interest rate ranging fiom 50 to 200 percent (Chipeta, 1981). Second, the
farmer could have borrowed money to undertake bean production. Malawi Rural Finance
Company, a bank that targets its loans at farmers, charges an interest rate of 46 percent.
Therefore, for this budget analysis, two difi‘erent interest rates were used-50 percent
representing the case where a farmer borrows from 8 Malawi Rural Finance Company and
120 percent, representing the case where a farmer had an alternative of borrowing money

fi'om neighbors.

3. Time of Sale of Seed/Grain

Two periods were assumed for selling the farmers’ bean crop. First, at harvest time and
second, three months later at planting time. This was reflected on the price of grain which
was K28 per kilogram when grain was sold at three months compared to the price of K25
per kilogram when grain was sold at harvest. Similarly, the price of seed was K35 per

kilogram at harvest and it was K39 per kilogram when sold at 3 months after harvesting.

203

6.2 The Legume Seed Supply Model-Profitability of Producing Seed from a MV
versus Producing Grain from a TV
For seed production, the objective of the analysis was to determine how profitable it
would be for a farmer to multiply seed of 8 MV, compared to producing grain of a TV. It
would appear that producing seed (using MV) would be more profitable than producing
grain (using TV) because the MVs are higher yielding and it was assumed that seed
growers would receive a premium price for their seed crop. However, seed production is
more labor intensive than grain production because of the need to rogue off-types growing
in the bean field and clean the seed prior to sale. Also, due to cleaning losses, seed
producers can only sell part of their crop as seed. Thus, the relative profitability of

producing seed from MVs versus a TV grain production is an empirical question.

The seed versus grain production analysis incorporated two scenarios. Aside fi'om yield,
the other important factor determining the seed producer’s net income is the price at
which the seed is sold. In the sensitivity analysis, first, the sale price of the MV which
gave benefits (NPV) equal to the NPV of a TV was determined. Second, two prices were
used as the seed could either be sold at harvest or at planting time just prior to the next

8888011.

Scenario One: Sell Seed at Harvest

204

Iffarrners sell their seed at harvest, the difl‘erence between the price they receive for seed
versus grain is the premium of seed over grain (i.e., K10/kg). In this case, costs arising

fi'om storage or risk of storage are minimal.

Scenario Two: Sell Seed at Planting Time

Most smallholder farmers in Malawi prefer to purchase seed just prior to the beginning of
theplanting season. Thus, there isatimelagbetweenthetimefarmers harvesttheirseed
and when they are be able to sell it as seed. The price at which farmers will expect to sell
theirseedis afl‘ected bytwo factors. First, the seedproducerwill expectto sell seedata
higher price than grain, regardless of the point in time when the sale is made (8.3. at time,
T,) because seed production requires more inputs than grain production. Secondly,
seasonal price variation affects the price a farmer can expect to receive for seed (and

grain) e.g. at time, Tt (Figure 6.1).

205

 

 

 

 

 

P.
Price of grain Gram
and seed
P8
Pa
PIP
T, T.
Time of harvest Time of Planting
Figure 6.1: Theoretical Seasonal Variation of Seed Price
and Grain Price

Data on monthly bean prices for 1997 Show that after the harvest period (April), the price
of beans (grain) is twice the harvest price level (Appendix 6.5 and Appendix 6.6). Thus,
by storing the seed for pre-planting sale, the farmer can expect to receive a significantly
higher price for the seed crop. However, a farmer who chooses this strategy will incur
storage losses. In this study, a loss of 5 percent per month was assumed. This takes into
account losses due to spillage, as well as the cost of any pest control a farmer uses.

For this analysis, the bean price at planting was assumed to be 10 percent higher than that

at harvest“. This takes into account the fact that farmers sometimes will plant beans in the

 

“Afler three months, a price of grain/seed was 10 percent higher than the price at
harvesting because it was assumed that seed would be planted in dirnbas or in relay other
than during the main growing season.

206

dry season in dirnbas or in relay cropping. The produce fi'om this crop is used as seed for

the main rainy season.

Seed producers will have to decide whether to sell their produce at price, P”, at harvest
time, T, or sell their produce three months later at price, P, at the time of planting, T,.
AS most farmers begin to look for seed just before planting", the seed producing farmers’
time of sale decision is guided by whether they expect P, to be sumciently greater than P,
for them to incur both storage costs due to pests, spillage, and the opportunity cost of
postponing sales until later in the year. This analysis was done using two discount rates
(50 percent per year and 120 percent per year, as a proxy for the opportunity cost of

capital, r'.e., farmers’ discount rate).

6.3 The Framework of Analysis

The profitability of producing seed/grain fi'om 8 MV was compared with the profitability
of producing grain from a TV. The three types of analysis were carried out. First, the
absolute profitability of each enterprise was calculated. Second, the incremental benefits
associated with producing seed/grain from MV over grain from a TV were calculated,
under two scenarios-seed sold at harvest and seed sold after storing for three months.
Third, break-even analysis was conducted to determine the yield and price at which ’

seed/grain from MV production was no more profitable than grain production fiom a TV.

 

62In a study conducted by NBIP in 1995, over 75% of the farmers indicate that they start
searching for seed to plant in November, just prior to the planting season (Scott et. al.,
1998). Therefore, price P,0 may not be observable.

207

6.4 Results: The Profitability of Producing Seed/Grain from MV versus
Producing Grain from TV

The profitability of producing seed and grain fi'om 8 MV, compared to TV, was assessed

comparing the NPVs of producing grain fiom MV over the NPV of producing a grain

from TV. The results reported in Table 6.5 show the profitability of each.

Discussion of the various scenarios follows. First, the results are presented by the time of
selling produce (i. 8. selling seed/grain at harvest versus selling seed/grain three months

after harvesting). Second, two levels of discount rates were used (50 percent and 120

percent).

208

Table 6.5: Absolute Benefits of Producing Seed/Grain fiom MV versus Producing

 

 

 

 

 

Grain fi'om TV.
—
Location
BtmdaSite Champhira Site
PM #12096 r-50% r-120%
th' MV1 Nasaka MVl Nasaka MV2 Nasaka MV2
NPV(MK)
Sellas At 12,842 17,622 9,486 13,043 14,366 18,601 10,645 13,788
Groin Harvest
After3 10,634 14,597 6,363 8,770 11,925 15,425 7,193 9,302
Months
Sellss At 12,842 22,639 9,486 16,866 14,366 23,868 10,645 17,804
Seed Harvest
After3 10,634 18,757 6,363 11,470 11,925 19,793 7,193 12,136
Months

 

 

Asannptims:Priceofgrain(MVandTV)atharvestisK25/kg. Priceofgraina'VandMVHhreemmthsafler
harvestisKlSlkg Pficeofseed(MV)athuvesLK35’kg;andpriceofseed(MV)afla3mcnths,K38/kg
'Nasakawasonlysoldasgrain(usedasabase).MVlisSugar568ndMV21525-2.

6.4.1 The Profitability of Selling Grain/Seed at Harvest

Absolute Profitability of Grain Production

Results fiom the two locations indicated that while growing beans (N asaka and MVs) for
sale at harvest as grain was highly profitable at both sites, it was more profitable at
Champhira than at Bunda. For example, at a 50 percent rate of discount, the NPV for
producing grain fi'om Nasaka was K14,366 at Champhira, compared to K12, 842 at Bunda
(Table 6.5). Similarly, at a discount rate of 120 percent, the NPV at Champhira was

higher (K10,645) than at Bunda (K9,486).

209

At the higher discount rate of 120 percent, the NPV was typically only about 60 percent
of the NPV found when using a discount rate of 50 percent. This implies that even at the
high discount rate, it would still be highly profitable for farmers to produce Nasaka for

sale at harvest as grain.

Absolute Profitability of Seed Production

Similarly, producing seed of 8 MV for sale as seed at harvest was highly profitable at both
sites. At a 50 percent discount rate, farmers at Champhira would earn a slightly higher
NPV (K18,601), compared to farmers at Bunda (K17,622). However, at 120 percent
discount rate, the difl‘erence in NPV between sites (Champhira site, NPV=K13,788,

Bunda site, NPV=K13,043) falls to only K745.

Despite the higher costs associated with growing 8 MV as seed, at both sites and both
discount rates, the NPV for the grain from MV was 37 percent (at Bunda) and 30 percent
(at Champhira) greater than the NPV associated with growing the TV“. This difference
was due to both the higher yield and price associated with the MV production. However,
the relative profitability of growing 8 MV was greater at the lower discount rate (50

percent) compared to a high discount rate of 120 percent.

These results suggest that if farmers at both sites were to sell their produce as seed at a

premium price assumed in the analysis, they would make about K10,000 above what they

 

“These results are for grain production from MV sold at harvest.

210

would make by producing grain fi'om Nasaka. Furthermore, farmers who sold an MV as

seed would earn K5,000 above what they would make selling 8 MV as grain.

Incremental Benefits: Hie Profitability of Growing MVS Compared to a TV

An analysis of incremental benefits illustrate clearly the results fi'om the absolute benefits.
At both locations, there were higher incremental benefits from growing grain/seed from
MV than producing grain from MV (Table 6.5). Although the difl‘erences were not large,
the incremental benefits from producing grain fiom the MVs was higher at Bunda (K4,779
and K3,557 at 50 percent and 120 percent respectively) than at Champhira (K4,235 and
K3,143). The difl‘erence arise fi'om the higher yield of Nasaka at Champhira (892 kyha)

compared to the yield of Nasaka at Bunda (807 W).

6.4.2 The Profitability of Selling Grain/Seed Three Months after Harvesting
Selling Grain after Three Months

Since the price of beans rises after harvest, it would appear that farmers should store their
harvest for fiiture sale. However, selling of both TVS and MVS grain after three months
drastically reduced the NPV, compared to the NPV of selling grain/seed at harvest.
Storing a TV reduced the NPV by 18 percent (at 50 percent discount rate) to 21 percent

at 120 percent discount rate. In contrast, MVs’ NPV was reduced by 25 percent to 44

percent.

211

In general, the reduction in NPV was greater under a 120 percent discount rate than at 50
percent discount rate. Also, the reduction in NPV was greater for the MV than for the
TV. These results suggest it would be more profitable for farmers growing both MVS and

TVS to sell their produce at harvest.

Selling Seed Three Months after Harvesting

Similarly, it is more profitable for farmers to sell seed of MVs at harvest rather than three
months after harvest. Selling seed three months after harvest reduced the NPV to 83
percent of the NPV of selling seed at harvest, (under 50 percent discount rate) and to 68

percent (under 120 percent discount rate) (Figure 6.2).

 

 

W 50 150$: W 120

Figure 6.2: The Relative Profitability of Storing MV Seed versus
Selling Sad at Harvest

 

 

 

 

Note: Relative profitability is calculated by dividing the NPV at three
rrronths by the NPV at harvest.

212

These results suggest that if farmers face a high discount rate, they are less likely to keep
their seed to sell later at planting time. Moreover, since there is no market for legume

seed, the price of the MV at three months is the price seed growers should expect to get.

Implications to MV Bean Grain/Seed Production

The results have the following implications. First, the MVs have higher yields than the TV
at both locations therefore they ofi‘er a potential to increase bean production in the
country. Second, irrespective of the discount rates used, it was profitable to grow MVs at
both location. Third, it was more profitable to sell grain/seed at harvest than three
months after harvesting. Figure 6.3 show the relative attractiveness of growing MV under

difi‘erent enterprises, i. e., seed or as grain with storage and no storage as options.

Overall, growing seed for sale at harvest was the most profitable enterprise. This is
followed by growing seed to be sold three months after harvest and growing 8 MV as
grain to be sold at harvest. The least profitable enterprise was growing MV as grain to be
sold three months after harvesting. These results therefore imply that even if farmers who
grew MV for seed ended up selling their produce as grain at harvest, they would be better
ofi‘ than growing a TV. However, storing their seed would be profitable if seed users
would be willing to pay a higher price for seed than for grain. Moreover, at planting time,

most farmers have less cash to spend even for seed.

213

 

 

WOWdWWW

ma- (finish
::;.;.6 Ha .G St 1]]]s Ha

Figure 6.3: Relative Profitability of Seed/Grain Enterprise with
Grain sold at Harvest aSBase

   

 

 

 

Note: Measure of relative profitability is a proportion of an enterprises’
NPVasaProportionofNPVofgrain soldatharvest The
calculations are based on a discount rate of 50%.

6.5 Sensitivity Analysis to the Profitability of Producing Seed from MV versus
Producing Grain from TV

An analysis was conducted to determine the effect of a 10 percent reduction in yield on

profitability (using the same analytical fiamework as above, 1'. e. calculating the net benefits

and the incremental net benefits where the yield of MV was reduced by a ten percent and

the TV’s yield was constant). Complete results are presented in Appendices 6.5 and 6.6.

Data in Table 6.6 summarizes the effect of yield reduction on incremental benefits.

214

Table 6.6: The Effect of a Ten Percent Yield Reduction on Incremental Benefits of

Growing Beans as Seed and as Grain at Bunda and Champhira Sites

 

 

 

 

Location
Bunda Champhira
-Discount Rate-
50% 120% 50% 120%

NPV (MK) -Percent Decrease in Incremental NPVJ
Sell us At Harvest 41 42 49 50
am." After 3 42 44 50 53

Months
Sell as Seed At Harvest 25 25 27 28

Afier 3 26 26 28 29

Months -

 

 

A 10 percent yield reduction afi‘ected the profitability of enterprises (seed, grain and sell at
harvest and sell at three months) differently. When yield was reduced by a ten percent an
incremental profitability of grain production of MVs decreased fi'om 41 percent to 50
percent. On the other hand, the 10 percent yield reduction reduced incremental benefits of
seed production by 25 to 29 percent. This implies that a 10 percent reduction in yield
reduces the profitability of grain production more than the profitability of seed production.
These results indicate a price difference used in the analysis whereby seed had at least a 40
percent price premium (K35/kg) over the price of grain (K25/kg). On the other hand, the
time of sale significantly did not affect the profitability of enterprises, i. e. a ten percent
decrease in yield had the same percent decrease in the incremental benefits in seed sold at

harvest or sold three months after harvesting (about 25 percent). Similarly, a reduction in

215

incremental benefits in MVs grain production was almost the same irrespective of the time

the produce was sold (42-45 percent).

6.6 Break-even Analysis

Break-even Yield Analysis

A break-even analysis was conducted to determine the yield that farmers planting 8 MV
would have to get to make seed enterprise’s NPV equal to the NPV of the TV given the
price assumed. Data in Table 6.7 presents the break-even yield of MV which would give

same NPV as the TV.

Table 6.7 Break-even Yield of MV at Bunda and Champhira Sitfi Malawi

 

 

 

 

location
Bunda Champhira
r=50% r=120% r=50% r-120%
Yield % of Yield % of Yield % of Yield % of
(ks/ha) Base (ks/ha) Base (ke’ha) Base (ks/ha) Base
Yield ' Yield ' Yield ' Yield '
Sold as At 836 76 841 76 921 79 957 80
Grain harvest
Alter 3 841 76 . 852 72 927 80 940 81
Months
Sold us At 666 60 670 61 734 63 738 64
Seed harvest
After 3 673 61 682 62 741 64 751 65
Months

 

 

'Break-evenyieldasapercentoforiginalyield,1104kg/haforBundaand1159kg/haforChamphira.

216

The yield at which the MV was as profitable as growing grain from a TV, deparded on
whether the MV was sold as seed or as grain. The break-even yield (yield of MV at which

NPV for MV would equal NPV for TV) for seed was generally lower than the yield of

grain.

If sold as grain, the MVS break-even yield was 72-81 percent of the base yield, depending
on the time of sale and discount rate. Ifsold as seed, the break-even yield was 60-65
percent of the base yield, depending on the time of sale and discount rate. This difference
can be attributed to the difference in prices between the two products. The MVs and TV
sold for the same price as grain, but when sold as seed, the MVs sold at a higher price
than the TV grain. Thus, when sold as seed, a lower MV yield produced a revenue equal

to the TV’S NPV.

Regardless of the discount rates or time of sale, at Bunda the MVs’ break-even yield was _
about 4 percent higher than at Champhira because the TV’s yield at Champhira was higher
than at Bunda. Thus, a higher MV yield was needed at Champhira in order for the MVS

NPV to equal the TV’s NPV.

Break-even Price Analysis

A break-even analysis was conducted to determine the break-even price of grain and seed

at which selling the MV would be equally as profitable as growing the TV (Table 6.8).

217

Table 6.8 Break-even Yield ofMV at Bunda and Champhira Siteai Malawi

Location
Bunda Champhira

Price %of Price %of Price %of Price %of
(K/ks)Base(K/ks)Base(Klks)B§se.(Klk8)Bue

 

 

 

Priee' Price‘I Price Price'

Sold us At 19 76 19 76 20 80 20 80
Grain harvest

Afier 3 21 75 22 79 23 82 23 82

Months
Sold us At 21 60 25 71 22 63 23 66
See! lnrvest

After 3 24 62 26 67 25 64 26 67

Months

 

 

'Break-evenpriceasapercentoforiginal prices, 1104kg/haforBundaand 1159kg/haforChamphira
PriceofgrainsoldatharvestisKZS/kgpriceofgrainsold3monthsafierharvestisK28/kg,priceofseedsoldat
harvestisK35/kgandpriceofseedsoldthreemonthsatterharvestisK39/kg Theaepriceswerecalculatedwith
thepriceofgrainforNasakafixedatK25/kg

 

When grain of the MV is sold at harvest, the farmers discount rate did not afi‘ect the
break-even price. This could be the case because the price of grain from the MV and the
price of grain fi'om the TV were the same and also there was little time over which to
discount the revenue. Therefore, time did not have a large impact on discounted revenue

regardless of the discount rate.

However, when grain is sold three months afier harvesting, the break-even price was
Kl/kg lower than the break-even price at harvest. The small difl’erence arises fiom the
fact that the period over which the revenue was discounted was not long period enough to

make the interest rate affect the revenue.

218

For seed producers who sold seed at harvest to earn the same NPV that they would get if
they were growing TV as grain, the price of seed had to range from K21/kg at Bunda to
K22/kg at Champhira under a 50 percent rate of discount, and from K25/kg at Bunda to

K23/kg at Champhira, under a 120 percent discount rate.

Implications of Break-even Prices

Although the break-even price for seed of MVS at which the NPV would equal the NPV
of grain from a TV was higher than the break-even price of grain, two factors stand out.
First, the difl‘erence in price between the MVS and TV (i. e., K19/kg and K21/kg at Bunda)
was very small. Second, the break-even prices for seed were lower than the actual price
of grain for the TV, which was K25/kg when sold at harvest and K28/kg when sold three
months after harvest. This implies that for the yields observed, the seed producer could
have sold the MVS at a price of grain and still be better off than they would if they grew 8
TV. Therefore, any price above the price of grain would make the growing 8 MV more

attractive financially.

Furthermore, even with a 10 percent yield reduction, the break-even prices did not
significantly increase. Data in Table 6.9 Show the break-even prices with a ten percent

yield reduction.

219

Table 6.9: Break-even Prices at Ten Percent Yleld Reduction Where MV NPV Equals

 

 

 

TV NPV.
—
location
Bunda Champhira
Price 96 Price % Price % Price %
at Base at Base at Base at Base
F5096 Price r-120 Price PM Price r-120 Price
% 96
Sold At Harvest 21 84 21 84 22 88 22 88
as
Grain
After 3 Months 24 86 24 86 25 89 25 89
Sold At Harvest 24 69 24 69 25 71 25 71
as
Seed
Alter 3 Months 27 69 27 69 28 72 28 72

 

 

PriceofgrainsoldatharvestisKZSlkgpriceofgrainsold3monthsafierhuvestisKZS/kgpriceofaeedsoldat
harvestisK35/kgandpriceofseedsoldthreemonthsafierharvestisK39/kg. Theaepriceswerecalculatedwith
theprice ofgrain forNasaka fixedatKZS/kg

 

6.7 Summary and Conclusion

The results in this chapter suggest that there were advantages to growing MVs. First, a
number of the varieties had yields which were higher than the TVS at 5 percent, 10
percent and 15 percent levels of significance. Economic analysis showed that the NPVs
fiom the MV were higher than the NPVs fiom the TV. These results were true for both
locations. Furthermore, growing MV as seed was more profitable than growing MV as
grain. However, the levels of profitability were affected by the time of sale of produce. In
general (irrespective of whether it was seed or grain), the NPV from selling produce at

harvest was higher than the NPV fiom selling after three months. Also, the results suggest

220

that farmers facing a higher discount rates would be more profitable if they sold their

produce earlier than store to sell later.

A 10 percent reduction in yield reduced the incremental benefits of grain from MVs more
than it reduced the incremental benefits of seed production. Break-even yield analysis
indicated that a farmer would break-even if when he got about 75 percent of the original
yield of the MVS when producing grain and if he got around 60 percent of original yield of
the MVs. Break-even price analysis suggests that even if farmers sold their produce (grain

or seed from MVs) at the price of grain used in the analysis, they would break-even.

The economic analysis therefore indicated that farmers are likely to benefit fi'om growing
MVS whether they are growing MVs as seed or as grain. Regarding seed production, if
seed users are willing to pay a higher price for seed at planting time, it is worthwhile for
seed growers to store seed, otherwise, the analysis suggests that farmers are better-ofi‘

selling their produce as grain at harvest time.

221

CHAPTER SEVEN

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 Study Objectives
This study first documents trends in legume production and the evolution of seed
multiplication schemes in Malawi. Second, it examines the institutional and economic
factors afi‘ecting the performance of existing smallholder seed multiplication schemes,
focusing on constraints to seed availability-including both supply side factors (constraints
to farmer access to seed), and seed demand factors. Finally, it presents recommendations

for improving the performance of smallholder seed schemes

7 .1 Summary

Malawi’s economy is based on agriculture, with about 85 percent of the population living
in rural areas and most of the rural population relies on agriculture for their livelihood. In
1996, agriculture accounted for 43 percent of Malawi’s GDP and 86 percent of its export
earnings. While the estate subsector contributes the bulk of export earnings, the
smallholder subsector contributes about 90 percent of the country’s food needs. Maize is
the staple food for more than 80 percent of the population and accounts for 70 percent of
the cultivated customary land under agriculture. While maize dominates Malawi’s
agriculture, legumes-especially beans-play a key role in the agricultural economy. Beans
are the second most important source of vegetable protein (following maize), are a cash

crop for many small farmers, and contribute to maintaining soil fertility.

222

With a high population growth rate estimated at 3.3 percent per annum, Malawi is one of
the most densely populated countries in sub-Saharan Afiica Therefore, there is limited
capacity to increasing agricultural production by expanding the cultivated area. Traditional
soil fertility enhancing technology such as crop rotation and fallowing are no longer being
practiced by many of the country’s farmers. As a result, most farmers continuously crop
their land, which has led to a decline in soil fertility and agricultural productivity in recent

years.

Since gaining independence in 1964, Malawi has adopted policies to encourage
smallholder farmers to apply inorganic fertilizers to increase agricultural productivity.
However, efi‘orts to expand inorganic fertilizers have been unsuccessfill. While the
Government established an input credit program to enable farmers to purchase fertilizer, in
recent years, only 30 percent of Malawi’s smallholder farmers have had access to fertilizer
loans, and most of these loans have gone to relatively well-to-do farmers. Additionally,
due to the removal of subsidies in the early 19908 fertilizer has become more expensive.
As a result, smallholders have reduced their fertilizer application, which has contributed to
declining maize yields. Finally, in 1992, the smallholder agricultural credit administration
collapsed due to non-repayment of the loans. Thus, today smallholder have limited access

to credit for purchasing yield-increasing inputs such as fertilizer and improved seed.

Because of the increasingly high cost of fertilizer and limited availability of credit,

scientists and policy makers have increasingly identified legumes as an option for

223

sustaining soil fertility and increasing agricultural productivity, especially among
smallholder farmers. Legumes not only provide organic matter, but are also both an
important source of protein and an important cash crops in some areas. In spite of these
benefits, studies have suggested that a lack of seed is a major bottleneck to increasing
legume production. To redress the seed scarcity, in 1986, the Malawi Government

embarked on developing smallholder seed multiplication schemes.

7.1.1 Legumes in Malawi

Today, Malawi’s major legumes crops are beans (145, 000 hectares), groundnuts (72, 000
hectares) and soybeans (53, 000 hectares)“. Groundnut was the most widely grown
legume crop until in the late 19808, but thereafter, beans became the most important
legume. In recent years (early 19908), soybeans have grown in popularity, although they
count for only a small share of the legume area. While most smallholders grow legumes
primarily for home consumption, many smallholders also grow legumes as a cash crop-

es ' y soybeans which they sell to processing companies.

7.1.2 Trends in Legume Seed Production

Historically, Malawi’s seed sector has evolved through three phases. First, during the
19608 to the mid-19708, the Government focused on developing a commercial seed
subsector. In the 19608, the Government provided farmers with new varieties through an

exchange program and in 1972, it established the National Seed Company of Malawi

 

“1996 hectarage.
224

(N SCM), a parastatal, as the sole supplier of the country’s seed needs. However, the
NSCM mainly focused on maize and tobacco, crops considered to be more profitable than
legumes. Thus, increase access to seeds of smallholder crops such as legumes, in 1986 the
Government established a smallholder seed multiplication scheme. However, facing a
budget crisis in the late 19808, the Government reduced its firnding for agricultural
support services (research and extension), which resulted in reduced firnding for the seed

multiplication schemes.

Second, in the early 19908, the Government amended the seed law. The resulting
deregulation of the seed industry opened up seed production and marketing to private
sector. Currently, Cargill is the controlling shareholder in the NSCM. Although a second
seed company, Pannar, was established in 1992, it only produced maize because it did not

consider legume seed production to be a profitable activity.

The third phase of Malawi’s seed history started in the early 19908, when NGOs were
allowed to establish smallholder seed multiplication schemes. The main participants in
Malawi’s smallholder seed multiplication schemes have been the Christian Service
Committee, ActionAid, Concern Universal, and the European Delegation. In 1996, more
than 10 NGOs invested over US $10 million in seed programs in Malawi. These seed
multiplication schemes have focused primarily on beans, groundnuts and soybeans, which
Malawian farmers generally grow either as monocrops or intercropped with maize. Thus,

they compete with each other for land, capital and labor.

225

7.1.3 Economic and Institutional Analysis

Several theories and concepts explain the underlying economic and institutional forces that
determine the performance of seed multiplication schemes. The first set of theories
highlights the role that institutions play at difi‘erent stages of agricultural development. As
a country’s agriculture develops from the traditional to the emergence stage, farmers
become increasingly dependent on oE-farm seed sources. In Malawi, Government
originally funded programs to develop improved varieties of cross-pollinated crops,
especially hybrid maize. When Government terminated its seed production monopoly,
private firms launched hybrid maize seed production and marketing initiatives. Since
farmers must buy hybrid seed each year, these firms were assured of a continued demand

for their varieties.

Seed development for self-pollinated crops such as legumes followed a difi‘erent pattern.
Since farmers growing self-pollinated crops do not have to replace their seed every year,
the demand for improved seed of such crops is weaker, compared to hybrid maize. Thus,
private companies have shown little interest in developing improved legume varieties.
While the public research system developed several improved varieties of self-pollinated
crops, the absence of a mechanism for multiplying seed limited farmers adoption. Thus,
for these innovations to benefit farmers, there was a need an institutional innovation. Seed
multiplication schemes represent an institutional innovation aimed at insuring that

improved legume varieties are produced and distributed to smallholder farmers.

226

In seed multiplication schemes, the organization managing the scheme obtains improved
seed fiom research institutions and distributes it to participating farmers. In addition,
seed schemes often carry out complementary activities such as regulating and certifying
the quality of seed, providing training and extension, support services, and marketing the
farmer-produced seed. Activities carried out at each of these difi‘erent stages lead to
transaction costs. Institutional analysis examines the comparative costs of planning,
adapting and monitoring task completion to determine both how difi‘erent schemes

organize these activities and how the schemes’ organization afi'ects their performance.

7.1.4 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Seed Schemes

Data used to carry out an institutional analysis of the seed multiplication schemes were
first collected through a rapid appraisal , during which oficials of several NGOs involved
in seed multiplication and omcials fi'om the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. Then,
seven seed multiplication schemes were selected for in-depth analysis (case studies):
Christian Service Committee’s smallholder seed exchange program, Christian Service
Committee’s Church Farm Scheme, ActionAid Smallholder Seed Development Program,
ActionAid Seed Multiplication Program, Concern Universal, Maize Productivity Task
Force, and NBIP Bean Seed Multiplication Schemes. These programs were chosen
because they were relatively large or were long-established schemes. The oficials fiom
these programs were interviewed using a questionnaire to identify important
characteristics of each seed multiplication scheme and to determine how each program

was organized. Subsequently, 163 farmers participating in these smallholder seed

227

multiplication schemes were interviewed to collect data regarding their experiences as

participants in the schemes. These data were entered in SPSS for analysis.

The schemes studied fill into two distinct categories—commercial seed schemes and seed
security schemes. The commercial schemes included the NBIP, MPTF and CSC-Church
Farms, whose objective was to train seed producers who would sell seed to other firmers
or firms. In contrast, the seed security schemes-CSC-SSEP, ActionAid-SM, ActionAid-
SD and Concern Universal—aimed primarily at alleviating the firmers’ seed security needs
and sometimes had income generation as a secondary objective. Female farmers growing
seed in groups tended to dominate the seed security schemes, while male firmers growing
seed individually dominated the commercial schemes. While the commercial schemes

mainly produced certified seed, the seed security schemes produced firmer seed.

Commercial scheme farmers received a relatively large amount of seed (30-40 kg),
compared to the seed security schemes (3-8 kg). Consequently, the seed security schemes
reached many more firmers than the commercial schemes. However, seed security
scheme farmers reported that the amount of seed (3-8 kg) that they received was
insuficient to alleviate their seed needs in the subsequent years. Facing a food shortage,
rather than saving seed for the next planting season, many scheme participants relied on
the schemes to meet their seed needs year after year. On the other hand, in the commercial
schemes, the main problem firmers ficed was a lack of a market for their seed. For ‘

example, under the Christian Service Committee Scheme, Naming’azi Church Farm ended

228

up selling its produce as grain to local firmers. In another case, firmers participating in
the MPTF project pressured the project to buy their seed when they doubted that fellow
firmers would not pay a higher price for seed than they would pay for grain. Only the

NBIP firmers, who had firm contracts with the National Bean Program, actually sold all

their bean harvest as seed.

In the long run, these schemes are not sustainable because they are subsidized. While
participating firmers paid for the seed they received, the schemes provided transportation,
storage and extension services-all important services for ensuring the success of the
schemes. In addition, in some instances both seed security schemes and commercial
schemes operated in the same area, thereby creating competition among the schemes. In
such cases, the seed security schemes may have undermined the viability of the seed
entrepreneurs (such as the MPTF farmers), since firmers preferred obtaining seed on
credit from a seed security scheme rather than purchasing it fiom farmers in commercial

schemes.

7.1.5 The Role of the Private Sector in Seed Distribution

Currently, all seed multiplication schemes are managed by NGOs or the Government.
Private firms have shown no interest in producing legume seed because, unlike hybrid
maize seed, firmers do not have to replace their seed every year. In Malawi, this market
fiilure (i.e. absence of an assured market) was initially solved by the Government, which

established seed multiplication schemes in 1986. However, because of budgetary

229

constraints, the Government reduced funding for its seed scheme development.
Subsequently, the Government invited NGOs to establish seed schemes to meet the seed

needs (especially legumes) of smallholders.

As the NGOs expand their role in smallholder seed multiplication, some scientists and
policy makers argue that while NGO-managed smallholder seed multiplication schemes
help to meet the immediate seed needs of smallholders, they discourage the development

of private sector legume seed production and distribution.

7.1.6 Profitability of Growing Improved Bean Varieties

An economic analysis was conducted to determine the financial profitability (net present
value, NPV) of producing seed and grain from modern varieties (MVs), using the
production of grain from a traditional variety (TV) as a basis of comparison. Data used
for this analysis were obtained from the Advanced Variety Trials conducted by Bunda
College’s Bean Program". Analysis of the profitability of producing grain and seed fi'om
MVs involved examining several scenarios to determine how alternative assumptions
afi‘ected profitability including the discount rates (50 percent vs 120 percent) for valuing
the cost of borrowing capital; the time of selling seed/grain (at harvest vs three months
later at a higher price); and third, 8 10 percent yield reduction. Furthermore, break-even

yields and break-even prices were calculated to determine yields and prices (that would

 

"Data used in this analysis were obtained from trials conducted over three seasons
(1994/95 to 1996/97) at two locations (Bunda and Champhira).

230

make producing seed and grain fiom MVs as profitable as growing a TV as grain.

Separate analyses were carried out for each of the two research sites.

The economic analysis show that the Bean Program at Bunda had available MVs whose
yields (at both research locations) were significantly higher“ than the widely grown TV
(N asaka). Therefore, farmer adoption of these bean varieties would substantially increase
smallholders’ profits. Furthermore, at both locations growing seed of aMV for sale at
harvest was the most profitable enterprise, followed by growing 8 MV for sale as seed
three months after harvest-which was similar to the profitability of growing 8 MV for
grain to be sold at harvest. Overall, storing seed or grain for sale three months later
lowered the expected NPV, especially at the higher (120 percent) discount rate. This
implies that firmers are extremely unlikely to keep their seed for sale later. A ten percent
reduction in the yield of the MV reduced benefits (i.e., absolute benefits) of growing a
MV for grain (40 percent) more than the incremental benefits associated with growing 8
MV for sale as seed (25 percent). This means that a ten percent decrease in the MV’S
yield reduced the profitability of MVs sold as grain more than it reduced the profitability

of seed production.

The break-even yield analysis showed that at the price of seed used in this analysis (K35),

farmers would break-even (earn the same NPV as TV growers), even if the yield of the

 

“At Champhira, the highest yielding variety had 30% more yield above the traditional
variety, the difi‘erence was not significantly because the data filled to pass the Bartlett’s
test for homogeneity of the variance.

231

MV decreased by 40 percent for a seed crop and by 25 percent for a grain crop. Similarly,
the break—even price analysis indicated that MV growers who sold their crop as grain
would break-even, even if the price of grain decreased by 25 percent. Similarly, MV
growers who sold their crop as seed would break-even, even if the price of seed decreased
by 40 percent. This suggests that the yield from MV was high enough to enable firmers

to selltheirproduceatthepriceofgrainandbebetterofi‘thaniftheyhadgrownaTV.

7.2 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

The seed multiplication schemes have increased smallholder firmers’ access to seed of
new varieties. Most of the farmers reported that as a result of participating in the seed
scheme, they were planting legumes on larger areas than they previously did. This implies
that scheme firmers now have more produce to use as food, for sale, or for seed.
However, there are changes that the seed schemes could make to improve their

effectiveness. This section presents key policy recommendations arising fi'om this study.

1R mmn tinfr nhenin h hm

l. The main constraint to commercial seed multiplication is that the demand for
legume seed is weak. The experience from the MPTF seed scheme suggests that
firmers are not willing to pay more for seed of MVS than they are willing to pay

for grain. This could be the case because farmers do not perceive the benefits of

232

paying more for seed of MVs, which are more expensive than seed of TVS (grain
price). Yet, in this study, the economic analysis indicated that the MVs were both
higher yielding and more profitable than Nasaka. This suggests that firmers lack
information about the benefits (profitability) of the MVS. To reverse this, there is
a need to create greater awareness of the benefits of new varieties. Information on
new varieties can be provided in several ways. First, greater efi‘ort should be made
to provide firmers more information regarding the added benefits of the new
varieties-including their genetic superiority (higher yielding potential) and the
value of growing disease-flee seed (e.g., the fict that the seed is certified or
quality-declared). Since information has public good characteristics, the
government and NGOS should help in disseminating this information through

demonstration plots, radio adverts and field days.

Even if firmers are convinced of the advantages of the MVS, they will be unwilling
to pay a higher price for this seed, unless they are assured that the seed they
purchase meets the promised quality standard. Thus, packaging and labeling the
seed is needed, which will add value to the seed by insuring farmers that the seed

in the package is variety-specific and disease-flee.

Apart from the NBIP, the other schemes did not guarantee the participants a
market for their produce. For example, the MPTF firmers were encouraged to sell

their produce without support fiom the scheme. Rather than expecting firmers to

233

market their own seed, it is recommended that schemes assist the farmers in
developing demand for the seed. To their credit, some schemes grew
demonstration blocks to create awareness of the new varieties grown in the
schemes and held field days so firmers who planted the new varieties could tell
their neighbors about the performance. The liberalization of the economy has
created mixed signals. First, while it is now easy to enter and exit the seed market,
firmers also have the option of selling their seed as grain to the highest bidder. On
the other hand, the schemes are not obliged to buy seed from the farmers. This
creates both supply and demand uncertainties in the subsector— the seed growers
are not sure whether they can sell their produce at a premium price and potential
buyers are unsure whether the seed will be available. Thus, there is a need for the
schemes to help reduce uncertainty by assisting firmers to identify the potential
buyers of the grain which will in turn increase demand for seed. Although this will
initially raise overhead costs of running the scheme, once farmers start buying the

seed, the schemes will no longer need to perform this service.

Most schemes provided only seed to the participating farmers. In cases where
seed growers produced high quality seed (such as certified seed in MPTF and
NBIP), farmers indicated that they used more inputs (mainly labor) than they
required for producing grain. No seed grower reported having ever applied
fertilizer to produce seed, as most of them use fertilizer on other major crops such

as maize or other cash crops. However, the model used in the economic analysis

234

included fertilizer as part of the inputs package and the results showed that the
operation was profitable. Thus, by ofl’ering credit for inputs, the schemes would
encourage farmers to apply fertilizer, which would increase their yield and profits,

and thereby increase seed available to neighboring firmers.

The seed schemes should develop stronger linkages with the Government
extension system, and input distribution channels (i. e., fertilizer, insecticides) in
order to identify opportunities for distributing seed through existing public and
private distribution channels. Also, to promote long term sustainability, stronger
linkages should be developed among the various actors in seed multiplication. For
instance, most farmers did not know the source of the seed they were multiplying.
Rather, the scheme provided the link between the farmers and the research
institution which produced the seed. Failure to create a direct linkage between the
farmers and the sources of seed has created a situation in which if the scheme
collapsed, farmers would have no mechanism to gain access to improved seed.
The linkages among the actors in the seed multiplication matrix can be improved
by encouraging the schemes to work within the existing structure of the Ministry
of Agriculture and Irrigation’s extension system. This will ensure that when the

projects phase out, the farmers still have access to the new varieties.

235

Most farmers indicated that they preferred the varieties that the seed schemes were
providing and will likely find acceptable the new MVs which are similar in quality.
To date, the main problem has been providing enough seed to meet the
participating farmers’ demand, i. e. in some schemes, farmers were given their third
choice crop, some of which was not an important crop in the area. Therefore, the
seed schemes need to more carefully assess firmers’ crop/seed requirements to
make sure there are adequate amounts of seed of the preferred crops at the onset

of the season.

The seed schemes should make a greater efi‘ort to reduce firmers’ dependency on
the scheme. Among the schemes which had been operating for more than one
year, there was evidence that some farmers had received seed of the same crop in
previous years. Instead of giving the seed to the same firmers, new firmers should
be selected to receive the seed. This would encourage firmers to start managing

theirharvesttomeetnotonlytheirfoodandcashneeds,butalsotheirseedneeds.

Most seed scheme firmers did not keep records for their seed multiplication
enterprise. For example in ActionAid’s scheme, only the extension workers kept
up-to-date records on how much seed firmers planted. Similarly, although the
MPTF was one of the best schemes in terms of firmers’ training, the firmers did

not keep records. Training farmers to keep ‘basic’ enterprise records would

236

enable both the scheme and farmers to determine the amount of inputs used in

producing seed, as well as estimate the cost of producing seed.

Some schemes operated independently of the Government extension system.
While this has freed the schemes fi'om the Government bureaucracy, the schemes
were also deprived of access to the existing agricultural infiastructure. In contrast
other schemes such as the ActionAid-SSDP and MPTF which worked in close
cooperation with the MOAI’s extension stam benefitted fiom this cooperation.
Furthermore, apart from ActionAid-SSMP, there was no evidence that the
schemes were making plans to phase out their seed projects. However, NGOs
normally have a specific time frame for their projects. With ActionAid-SSMP,
farmers had started assuming more responsibilities such as distributing and
collecting seed, identifying recipients of seed and storing the seed for distribution
in the following year. All schemes should implement similar strategies. Although
most of the schemes had firmer training component, some schemes did not have
extension workers trained in Seed production for their first two years of operation,
these schemes provided minimal training to firmers in seed production. Thus,
there is a clear need for greater collaboration between the schemes and

Government extension service.

237

10.

11.

The schemes in the study focused on working with either poor firmers (seed
security schemes) or better-off firrners (conunercial schemes). Most used a group
approach in assisting the poor farmers and an individual approach in implementing
the commercial schemes. Schemes should explore ways to increase the level of
interaction between farrrrers in two groups. For example, the better-ofi‘ farmers
could be the primary producers of improved seed, which they would sell to the
poorfirmersto growasgrain. Thus,theschemescouldutilizethebetter-ofi‘
farmers to multiply seed for other firmers. The schemes operated by the Concern
Universal project and Christian Service Committee’s Smallholder Seed Exchange
project were, in fact, seed consumer schemes, rather than seed multiplication
schemes. On the other hand, ActionAid and MTPF were designed to multiply seed
for distribution/sale to other firmers. Thus, instead of involving only one type of
firmer, the schemes should identify a few more highly killed farmers who could
save as primary seed producers in a community and would produce seed for sale to

neighboring firmers.

Regarding the quality of seed, there are several areas that needed improvement.
First, while most schemes distributed seed that was of good quality, in 1996 some
schemes provided firmers with seed that failed to germinate. For example, the
European Delegation imported seed from neighboring countries and distributed it
without first testing its viability, despite the requirement that imported seed must

be tested before it is distributed. Such failures can easily lead to firmers losing

238

12.

trust in the quality of seed and also in the scheme distributing the seed.
Furthermore, providing seed of poor quality has public good characteristics, i. e., if
one scheme provides poor quality seed, the reputation of other schemes can also
be afl'ected. Therefore, Government must develop and enforce clear guidelines to
ensure that firmers receive good quality seed. Similarly, where farmers return
seed to the scheme, farmers should be aware of the quality requirements and these
requirements should be enforced by the scheme. Finally, in schemes where firmers
keep their seed for distribution in the following year, the schemes should train the

firmers on how to maintain good quality seed.

For beans and soybeans, different schemes provided different varieties for firmers
to multiply. In the case of beans, long-established schemes such as CSC and
ActionAid-SSMP and ActionAid-SSDS obtained their seed (Nasaka) from the
Bean Program at Bunda College. The beans from the Ministry’s Department of
Research were provided to newly-established commercial schemes (MPTF and
NBIP). In the case of soybeans, CSC-SSMS provided farmers with Magoye
soybean variety—a variety fi'om Zambiauwhile the rest of the schemes got their
soybean varieties fi'om the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. Thus, farmers
were denied full access to the available varieties despite their other good
characteristics such as self-nodulating in the case of soybeans (Magoye) and

consumer acceptance in the case of beans (N asaka). Therefore, it is recommended

239

13.

that the schemes include more if not all improved varieties in their schemes and

allow farmers to choose which one they wish to grow.

Farmers in commercial schemes were required to undertake more activities than
the farmers participating in the seed security schemes. In addition to agronomic
requirements such as monocropping, observing isolation distance, and inspection,
the commercial scheme farmers were required to clean, sort and grade which
increased the cost of seed production. Unless measures are taken to increase the
demand for improved seed of high quality and firmers’ willingness to pay a
premium for this seed, commercial scheme firmers will have no incentive to follow

the practices recommended for quality seed production.

Since the NGOs do not have technical expertise in the field of breeding, they can
assist the public sector in identifying the smallholder farmers’ needs through
conducting socio-economic studies to identify attributes of a crop that firmers
desire. Also, the NGOS can assist in identifying the attributes that other end-users
of a crop desire. In addition, NGOS are in the position of providing valuable
feedback to scientists regarding the performance of improved varieties under
firmers’ management. Currently, there exists minimal data to assess the
performance of improved varieties under farmers’ management and across the
country’s varying agro-climatic conditions. By training scheme firmers in basic

record keeping and working with firmers to analyze these data, NGOS could

240

provide valuable feedback to scientists as to how the improved varieties performed

across the country.

Rmmn'n hD f 'l R

1.

Since the private seed companies are not interested in legumes, public research
institutions must play an active key role in developing new varieties. To this end,
the public research organization should tap the international research centers such
as ICRISAT (for groundnuts), CIAT and Bean/Cowpea CRSP (for beans) for
expertise and gerrnplasm in order to increase the number of varieties available to
firmers. Where several research organizations are involved in varietal
development, the Government must establish clear guidelines that will not fivor
one institution’s varieties over the others and thereby avoid limiting farmers’

accessibility to some of the new varieties.

To have a practical application to smallholder firmers’ situation, there is a need to
have research design that will closely replicate the smallholder firmers’
environment (management). Also, instead of recommending one variety for the
whole country, there is need to have a better agro-ecological targeting for specific

areas in order to optimize overall bean yield in the country.

The public sector should play an active role in providing basic seed for the varieties

firmers will multiply. In the current schemes, the public sector, i.e., Department

241

of Agricultural Research, was primarily responsible for multiplying basic seed to
foundation seed. However, farmers such as those participating in the MPTF
scheme, NBIP scheme or commercial farmers could possibly be contracted to
multiply basic seed into foundation seed or certified seed, which NGOS can use in
their respective schemes. This will enable the Department of Agricultural
Research (and Bunda College) concentrate its efi‘orts on conducting research and

monitor or regulate seed production other titan multiplying seed.

7.3 Limitations and Future Research

The economic analysis is based on a production system which is not typical of Malawian
farmers. First, apart fi'om the MPTF and NBIP, farmers in the other schemes never
planted seed cr0p in monoculture. Second, none farmers in the schemes applied fertilizer
to their seed crop. Furthermore, the coeflicient of variation fiom the data were high
(about 30 percent) therefore make the results less precise. Therefore, the results have less

direct applicability under Malawi situation.

Given the fact that the research was not conducted for the entire growing season, it is
recommended that future research should be conducted through an entire growing season.
This will assist in understanding the activities involved in seed multiplication. The
majority of the seed schemes focused on seed multiplication with little emphasis on
distribution. Research should be conducted to determine the possibility of using private

input traders as distributors of seed.

242

APPENDIX 3

243

Appendix 3.1

Seed Development & Multiplication Schemes Survey Key Informant Survey

FIELD OFFICE

CONSENT STATEMENT (read to the respondent)

This study is being carried out by Patrick Karnbewa, 8 Ph. D. Candidate in agricultural
economics at Michigan State University, as part of my degree program. This study is
funded by the Rockefeller Foundation’s Afir‘can Dissertation Fellowship Program. The
purpose of the study is to provide abetter understanding of the nature of the seed
programs being implemented in Malawi and propose suggestions for strengthening these
programs. You are flee to not answer any of the questions I will ask you, or you may
choose to not being interviewed-without any penalty or consequence. Ifyou agree to be
interviewed, the information you provide will be confidential. Are you willing to be
interviewed?

Yes| N0 (Circle one)
IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Name of NGO/Organization .. ........................................
Representative interviewed ..........................................

Address:

Phone/F ax ......................................................

1.2. Malawi headquarters Address ........................................

244

1.3 Status of organization (i.e., local NGO, foreign NGO, government) ...........

11. Overview of Organization/Programs

2.1 In what year did your organization start working at this site? ................
2.2. What was the M88313 of your organization’s program at this site?

..............................................................
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2.3 At this site, what are your organization’s current mm and their meal

1' .v2
W W

..............................................................
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2.4 At this site, how has your program (or objectives) changed in recent years?
Bram W

245

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2. 5 At this site, how has your program (or objectives) changed in recent years?
lat 158mm

2.6 Why did your organization make these programmatic changes?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
..............................................................

..............................................................

2.6 What W are associated with gash of your program (i.e., agricultural,

health, environment, food security)?
PM MA 'vi i

...'QOQgfilgllllll...ll!IOOQIOODQCOQJ'CDIJ_OQIQULLRLLJOIDM .......

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

..QOOOOOOQOOCOOQOIIOOQOOAROQOOLQOOIIOOL ooooooooooooooooooooo

2.7 What are the main mom for your organization?
Emma! W

2. 8 In what My, does your organization implement each of its mm?
PM W

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2.9 Briefly 51% the different ms of seed multiplication schemes your

organization supports

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

..............................................................

2.10 What is the main dflm between or among these seed schemes?

247

..............................................................
..............................................................

2.11 How have these seed schemes changed in recent years?

..............................................................
..............................................................

III. Characteristics of this location Not Applicable since this is a head ofl‘ice
3.1 What are the most important crops firmers grow in this site?

Foodcrops ..............

Cash crop .......................................................

3 .2 How much land (has) does the average firmer household cultivate in this site? . . .

3 .3 In what month do the rains usually begin? ..............................
3.4 When did the rains begin this year? ....................................
3 .5 In what month do rains usually end? ...................................

248

3 .6 Do farmers usually plant a relay crop?

Explain ........................................................
IV. Seed Related Program Activities at this Location (1996-97)

4.1 What are the specific objectives of your organization’s seed program?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

4.2 What class/type of seed does your program produce i.e., certified, approved,

farmer, etc..)

4.3 Does your organization carry out on-firm trials with the Agricultural Research
Department? .............................................. Y---N

Explain ........................................................

Village Selection
4.4 How/why did you select the participating villages (explain?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.5 What is the involvement of the local farmers in farmer selection? .............

..............................................................

4.6 Does your program deal with firmers as individuals or in groups? Explain why . .

..............................................................

Seed Crop Selection

4.7 For which crops do you supply seed and why has your organization targeted these

crops?
£2192 Ream X2!
ms;

5.1112911:

d
Maize ............................................ Year
Beans ............................................ Year
Soybeans ............................................ Year
Cowpea ............................................ Year

S. Potatoes ............................................ Year

Cassava, Sorghum, Pigeon peas ................................ Year
4.7 Did your organization carry out an initial seeds identification aimed at identifying

seeds in less supply in the area you work? ....................... Y—«N
Explain

..............................................................

4.8 Are farmers involved in selecting the crop for which they produce seed? . Y—«N
If no, why not ..................................................

Farmer Selection

4.9 What specific criteria do you use for selecting firmer participants?

..............................................................

..............................................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

251

4.10 What specific method do you use to select farmer participants?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

4.11 In what month did you select the farmers who will participate in your 1996-97

seed program? ...................................................

4.12 Overview of Seed Program Scope, 1995-96

 

Crop Varieties Seed Why this Churches Farmers Total seed
Sources source Involved Involved Distributed

(No.) (No.) ("118)

 

Pigeon

 

 

Soybeans

 

Cowpeas

 

Potatoes
Sorghum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

252

 

lCassaval l l l | l |

4.13 Whatismflfipecialcmdifimshffimwnforthanmmywrseed

program? (Describe the conditions)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.14 LigandMacfivifiesfinmmunderfikefiomthefinwtheyamseleaedmthefime

theyplanttheseed

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
....................................................................
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Seed Procurement and Storage
4.15 amismeseedboughttothissjtflmainofice) andbyM

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Is seed bought centrally or at site? .........................................

Heaistheseeddisuibutedtothefiaammdbym

....................................................................
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

How does your organimtion ensure that farmers participating in your program produce

 

 

 

 

 

seedswhicharetruetotypeandhealthy? ............................... Y—N
Were you satisfied with the quality of seed you received in 1995-96? ......... Y—N
(Exrllain any quality Problem!)

Crop Problem ...............................................
Crop Problem ...............................................
Crop Problem ...............................................
Crop Problem ...............................................
Crop Problem ...............................................
Haveseedsourceschangedovertheycars? .......................... Y—N

254

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

 

 

 

4.21 Wasthesecdtrcatedinanywaybeforearrivingatthesite? ................ Y—N
Crop Treatment ..........................................
Crop Treatment .............................................
Crop Treatment .............................................
Crop Treatment .............................................

1 fl . . ! 1 1 . . :

4.22 Howlongdidyoustoreitbeforedrstrr' 'butingthesecdtothefarmers? ...... Months

4.23 Whereandunderwhatconditionsdoyou storenewseed?

4.24 Do you treat the seed during storage (circle) ............................... Y/N
(explain) .............................................................

4.25 Doyoupack/repacktheseedbeforetakingittothefirmers? ................. YIN

m
Specifytheamountofseedperbagorlot

4.26 Doyoucarryoutanyteststodetermineitsquality(circle) ................. Y—-—N

Km.
Describethetests

4.27 Do you treat the seed in any way prior to distribution (circle) .............. Y—-N

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Seed Distribution/Repayment
4.28 Whendoyouexpectfarmerstoplantthecropseed
1. During the main growing season Yes
2. Indinrba (endofmaingrowingseason)
3. In relay cropping
4. Other (specify ......................................................................

4.29 Howmanyweeksbeforetheplantingperioddofirmersgettheseed ....... weeks

256

Seed Provided

430 How much seed do program participants receive?
“1 11.1.11:

Kgs of seed given: Maize: Legumes:
Typical size of groups:

SeedRepayment
4.31 Howdofirmersrepaytheseed?
If i in-kin :

Amountofseedreturnedforeachkgreceived:

 

Month repayment due:

 

11mm:
Amount ofcash per kg received:

 

Month repayment due:

 

4.32 Do participants sign any type of a written contract?

Ifyg

257

Explain

4.33 Whatisrequired (conditions) offinnersforthemtoparticipateinyourseedprograms

(uphill)?
4.34 Arethereanypenalties ifaparticipantdecidestodropoutoftheprogram? Y--N
If yes, describe the penalties

....................................................................
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.35 How does your organiution insure payment?

4.36 Arethereanycircumstancesunderwhichyouwillnotrequirerepayment? ..... Y-—-N

....................................................................

4.37

4.38

Inthepastyears,howsuccessfidwasymupmgrammhamfinnemrepaydleirseed
loans?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Canfirmersreceiveseedformorethanoneyear? ....................... Y--N

If yes, under what conditions?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Support Services Provided

4.39

Does your seed program provide any training to participating farmers? ....... Y—-—N

If yes:

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

259

4.40

4.41

4.42

4.43

Who actually provides this training? (Indicate where outsiders are involved)

....................................................................

....................................................................

Does your organimtion provide training for the extension workers involved in the
program? .............................................................
Ifyes, explain the type oftraining

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Does your organimtion have Sufi/extension agents in the participating villages? . Y—N

If yg
Number of villages per supervisor

Number of villages per extension worker

Whatdothesepeopledo?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Does your organization or any other organimtion provide any credit to participating
farmers for inputs, or other than seed? ................................. Y—-N
If yes

Whoprovides credit, forwhatinputs? (Indicatethenumberoffirmers benefittingandsize

of package)

4.44

4.45

4.46

4.47

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Doesanyoneinspectthefimrers'fieldsbeforefinnersplanttheseed? Yes

Exes
Whodoesthis?

Whatdotheyinspectfor?

Doesanyoneinspectthefinnersfieldsduringthegrowingscason? .......

Elsa
Whodoesthis?

Whatdotheyinspectfor?

 

 

Afierharvesfingarethereanytasksfarmersareexpectedtoperform?

Cleaning .....................................................

Does anyone supervise/inspect any of these activities inspected? ............

m

Which activities? ..............................................

261

........

Y--N

4.48 Does the organization cooperate with other organizations (i.e., NGOS, government omces,

ADMARC) in carrying out the seed multiplication exercise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assent MW
Farmer Decision Making
4.49 Can farmers choose what crop to grow? ................................ Y---N
4.50 Can farnrers choose the variety to grow? ............................... Y—N
4.51 How many different crops can firmers choose to multiply? .......................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.52 Does your program require firmcrs to:

9m Mm; W 89mm
Maize Y—N Y—N Y—N
Beans Y—N Y—N v.81
Groundnuts Y—N Y—N Y-—N

262

Soybeans Y—-N Y—-N Y—N

4.53 Isthereanyspecificdatefinnersareexpectedtoharvesttheircrop? ......... Y—--N

Marketing

4.54 Did your organintion buy seed fi'om seed producers? ...................... Y—N
If yes, explain

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.55 How was farmers’ seed from past programs handled (i.e., given to other farmers, )?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.56 Whenarefarmersexpectedtoselltheirseed?

(i.e., at harvest, prior to next planting season)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.57 Towhom/howarefarmersexpectedtoselltheirseed?
(i.e., seed bank, other firmers, MOAI, NGO, traders)
Explain:
263

4.58

4.59

4.60

4.61

4.62

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Willyourprogramassistfarmersfindamarketfortheirseed? ............... Y—-N

Ifyes, how?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

....................................................................

Will your organization provide any information to assist farmers in marketing their seed?

.............................................................. Y—-N

Atwhatprieedoyouthinkfarmersshouldselltheirseedoomparedtothegrainpriee

prevailinginthemarketwhenflreyselltheirseed?

m m E Pri f
264

 

 

 

 

Bean
Soybean
Groundnuts
4.63 Does your program guarantee a specific selling price for farmers’ seed? ........ Y—-N
If yes, explain/what price.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4.64 Will your program assist farmers with the following (tick where applicable and explain
and specify who will pay for these)?
Packaging ............................................................
Advertising ...........................................................
Transportation of produce ...............................................

Storage of produce .....................................................

V. Evaluation

5.1 Whataitefiawfllyourorganinfimusetoassessthesucceesofitsscedprogram?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

265

5.2

5.3

5.4

Doyou believefamrerswillstoretheirseedfor'saleasscedforthenextseason? .. Y-«N
Explain why/why not
Maize

 

 

 

Groundnuts

 

Doyoubelievefarmershaveagood (certain)marketfortheirseedcrop? ....... Y—-N
Explain why/why not

9m mm W

Maize

 

Bean

Soybean

 

Groundnuts

 

Inthisarea,whatfarmingactivitydofarmersgiveupinordertoparticipateinseed
multiplication (opportunity cost)?

....................................................................

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

Doesparficipafioninyourorgamnfims’seedprogmnrcquhefarmersmuseany
additionalresourcee(capital/cash, labor)cornparedtowhentlreyplantthecropasgrain?

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Whatdoyou feelarefliekeyfactorsflratcontributetoflresucceesofyourorganinfion’s

program?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Forhowmanyyearsareyougoingtocarryoutthisprograminthisarea?

Areyougoingtophaseflieprogrambeforcitendstoensuresustainabifity? ..... Y—-N
Explainyouranswer ....................................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

5.11 Descfibeflrerecordsthatyoukeepmfarmingacfivifiestodowithseedpmducfion .....

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

5.12 Doesyourorganintionuseanyoftheexistinglocal institutionsinyourseedmultiplication

Historical Seed Production

 

Year Seed Received Seed Sold

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

268

 

Area Number farmers

Amountofsecd

Hectarageplanted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many thanks for your time.

269

 

Appendix 3.2

Seed Development and Multiplication Schemes Survey Smallholder Survey

N ATEMENT

This study is being carried out by Patrick Kambewa, a Ph.. D. Candidate in agricultural
economics at Michigan State University, as part of a degree program. This study funded
by the Rockefeller Foundation’s African Dissertation Fellowship Program. The purpose
of the study is to provide a better understanding of the nature of the seed programs being
implemented in Malawi and propose suggestions for strengthening these programs. You
are the to not answer any of the questions I will ask you, or you may choose to not being
interviewed—without any penalty or consequence. Ifyou agree to be interviewed, the
information you will provide will be confidential.

Are you willing to be interviewed? ...................... (0==no, l=yes) Circle one

I. IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Name of respondent ...............................................

1 .2 Date ..........................................................
1.3 Village ............................................. EPA ..................................... RDP. .......
ADD ................................................ District .................................. Regron ......

1.4 Respondent’s Information:
Gender .................. Age .................... Marital Status ....................... Level of

education (years in school) ..............

270

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

II.

How many household” members live in the compound throughout the past year?
Adult males (>15years) .......................................
Adult females (>15 years) .....................................

Children (<15years) .........................................

How many household members lived away from home during the past year?
Adult males (>15years) .......................................
Adult females (>15 years) .....................................
Children (<15years) .........................................

In addition to farming, what other work does the household do to earn income?

h l m Activity

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Wealth ranking of a household (I propose we use the extension workers in the area
to do this ranking for us other than our using some indicators fionr the board).__

(CODES 1=poor, 2=average, 3=rich)

BASIC AGRO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION

 

“Interest is on household labor. Hence, a household is the smallest economic decision-
making-unit afier the individual.

271

2.1 In the 1996/97 how many hectares do you:

Own ............................................... (has)_
Borrow ............................................. (has)_
Rent ............................................... (has)_

2.2 Crops grown information

Parcel 1 Area (has)

 

Rainy Name Area 80ch
season (has) Intercrop
‘96/97 (circle one)

Fertilizer
(type/k8)

Relay
(no/3'68)

Harvest
(Ks)

 

Crop 1

 

Crop 2

 

Crop 3

 

Relay crop
‘96

 

Crop l

 

Crop 2

 

Crop 3

 

Dimba/da
mbo crop
‘96

 

Crop 1

 

Crop 2

 

 

 

 

 

Crop 3

 

 

 

 

272

 

Parcel 2

Area (has)

 

Rainy
season

1996/97

Name

(has)

Sole/
Intercrop

(circle one)

Fertilizer

(type/k8)

Relay
(no/yes)

Harvest

(K8)

 

Crop 1

 

Crop 2

 

Crop 3

 

Relay

crop ‘96

 

Crop 1

 

Crop 2

 

Crop 3

 

Dimba/da
mbo crop

‘96

 

Crop 1

 

Crop 2

 

 

Crop 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel 3

Area (has)

273

 

 

Rainy Name Area Sole/ Fertilizer Relay Harvest
season (has) Intercrop (type/kg) (no/yes) (Kg)

(circle one)

 

Crop 1
Crop 2

 

 

Crop 3

Relay
crop ‘96

 

 

Crop 1
Crop 2

 

 

Crop 3

Dimba/da
mbo crop
‘96

 

 

 

Crop 1
Crop 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crop 3

 

2.3 Of the crops you grow in the rainy season, from which do you get:
a. the most of your food ..................................
b. the second most of your food ............................

c. the third most of your food ..............................

2.4 Of the crops you grow in the relay season, from which do you earn:
a. the most of your food ..................................
b. the second most of your food ............................

c. the third most of your food ..............................

274

2.5 Of the crops you grow in the dimba or dambo, from which do you earn:

a. the most of your food ..................................
b. the second most of your food ............................
c. the third most of your food ..............................

2.6 Of the crops you grow in the rainy season, from which do you earn:

a. the most money ............................... - ........
b. the second most money .................................
c. the third most income ..................................

2.7 Of the crops you grow in the relay season, fi'om which do you earn:

a. the most money .......................................
b. the second most money .................................
c. the third most income ..................................

2.8 Of the crops you grow in the dimba or dambo, from which do you earn:

a. the most money ......................................
b. the second most money .................................
c. the third most income ..................................

275

2.9 Of the legumes you grow indicated in the table above, what are the objectives of
each?

(Prioritize. in terms order of decreasing hectarage)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legume Objectives
First legume 1.
2.
3.
Second legume l.
2.
3.
Third legume l.
2.
3.
Fourth legume 1.
2.

 

 

 

2.10 What are the desired characteristic of each legume? (Prioritize in order of

 

 

 

 

 

 

decreasing hectarage)
Legume Desired characteristics
Legume l 1.
2.
3.
Legume 2 1.
2.

 

 

 

276

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legume 3 l.
2.
3.
Legume 4 1.
2.
3.

 

 

2.11. Of the following statements about legumes ask the farmer whether they

(O=strongly disagree, l=disagree, 2=strongly agree, 4=don’t know).
2.11.1 Legumes are an important source of food .............................
2.11.2 Legumes are an important source of income ...........................

2.11.3 Legumes improve soil fertility .....................................

2.12 How do you harvest your legumes? (Prioritize in order of decreasing hectarage)

{Codesz l=pluck pods in the field; 2=pluck the whole plant to the

homestead where pods are plucked of the plant; 3=other (specify)}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legume Method of harvest
Legume l l.

2.

3
Legume 2 1.

 

 

277

 

 

 

Legume 3 1.

 

 

 

Legume 4 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.12.1 Ifthe whole plant is taken home, what do you do with the residue? ......... _

(l=burn, 2#eed to livestock, 3=manure, 4=others

(specify) .....................................

2.12.2 If the plant is left in the field, what do you do with it? .................... _

(1=burn, 2=feed to livestock, 3=manure, 4=others

(specify) .....................................

2.13 Compared to the past 2-3 years, during this cropping season did you plant more
as; to any legume? ................................. (0=no, l=yes)—
11:13.:
What legume and why?

We Ream

278

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2.14 Compared to the past 2-3 years, during this cropping season did you plant legume
to any legume? ..................................... (0=no, 1=yes)_

Luca

What legume and why?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Seed Issues

2.15 Before you joined the seed multiplication program, did you store suficient seed for

future planting requirements of the legume you are now multiplying?

................................................ (0=no, 15'“)—
lac:

279

 

Explain .......................... ' ..............................

2.16 Before you joined the program, from where did you get your seed? ........

{1=from the field, 2=bought fi'om the market, 3=from other farmers,

4=others (Specify)}

2.16.1 Did you get enough seed from these sources? .............. (0=no, l=yes)__
line;

How did you supplement the seed ...................................

2.17 How do you store your seed? ........................................

2.18 Do you buy seed from other sources? .................... (0=no, lfi'es)_)

x in r r'

Em
What is the fi'equency for buying seed? .............................. _

{CODES 1=every planting season, 2=once every two years

3=occasionally, 4=others(Spccify)}

280

 

 

 

2.19 Are there some farmers or traders who sell seed in your area? (Separate seed from
grain, i.e., you might be buying seed when the seller is selling grain. We are
interested in what is sold and bought as seed) (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_

If an.

 

2.20 Afier the onset of the rains, do prices of seed change? Explain ..............

 

III. Overview of Seed Multiplication Program

3.1 What organization runs the seed multiplication program in this area? ..........
3 .2 In what year did the organization start working in this area? .................
3.3 What was the aim of the program? ....................................

3 .4 What crop(s) is the program multiplying in the area? And why?

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

3 .5 Why did you join the program? i.e. what did you hope to achieve by joining the

program? .......................................................

281

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

3 .6 How were farmers selected to participate in this program? ..................

3 .7 In what year and season did you start participating in seed multiplication programs

 

Year/ Season Crop name Variety Reason for choosing

the crop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 .8 Do you multiply seed s an individual or in a group? (1=individual, 2=group) . . _
Explain why? ....................................................

3 .9 Do you prefer to multiply seed individually or in a group? (lq'ndividual, 2=group_
Explain why? ....................................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

IV. Seed Procurement and Storage

282

 

4.1

4.2

4.3

Between the time you were selected to the time of planting, describe the activities
that (s)he undertook or that the organization undertook. (In case of other
organizations, specify the name)

Training of farmers in seed production ......................
Selection of field ......................
Verification of appropriate field ......................

Getting of basic seed from original sources ......................

The buying of other inputs such as fertilizer & chemicals
Storage of seed fi'om the initial producers ......................

Laying out of the field ......................

How many weeks before planting did you get the seed this year? (W eeks before

planting)

How was the seed brought to you this year? ..........................
{CODESz 1=NGO brought it to farmer’s homestead, 2=farmer went to get
the seed from the NGOs office, 3=Original supplier brought it to the

farmer’s homestead, 4=Farmer went to get seed fiom original supplier,

5=0ther (Specify)}

283

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Who distributed the seed to you this year? ...........................

{CODES 1=NGO, 2=Govemment extension worker, 3=Village
committee, 4=Other(Specify)}

Did you receive treated seed this year? ........ (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_

If Yes

What was it treated with? ......................................... _

(CODES: 1=actellic, 2=ashes, 3=tobacco leaves, 4=others

(specify) .................................. )

What is the source of the seed you multiply year? ...................... _
{CODES 1=Chitedze, 2=Bunda, 3=others (Specify)}

How did you store the seed before planting this year? ................... __
{CODES l=Stored in a sack, 2=Stored in pots, 3=Don’t store,
4=Others(Specify)}

Do you treat the seed during storage before planting this year? .......... _

(0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)

Iers,

284

 

For Soybean Farmers Only! For non-soybean farmers proceed to Question 4.9

4.81 Did you inoculate your seed at planting? ..... (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_
Em
From where did you get the inoculant? .................................
111-9.;
Why not? ..................................................... _
{CODES: 1=never heard of the technology, 2=inoculant not available,
3=other (specify) ......................................................................... }
Proceed with all farmers
4.9 How much seed did you get this year? .............................. _
4.10 How are you expected to repay the seed this year? ..................... __
{CODES la'n cash, 2=in seed, 3=other (Specify)}
4.11 How much are you expected to repay this year?
{CODES l=same amount/value received, 2=P1us interest (Specify rate of
interest), 3=Other (Specify)}
4.12 Do you get inputs fi'om other sources other than the organization running the

program this year? ............................... (0=no, l=yes)__

285

 

.135.

Em

Explain

minaret Sam: M

Fertilizer ..............................................

Insecticides .............................................

Packaging materials (Specify) ........................................

Others (Specify) .............................................

Indicate whether the farmer is multiplying seed individually or in a group ......

(0=individual, l=group)

Decision making process

4.13 During seed multiplication this year, indicate how the following decisions are made
or who makes them

4.13.1 What crop to multiply? ....................................

{Use these codes fi'om question 4.12.1 to 4.12.6 CODES 1=farrner, 2=

group, 3=organization, 4=other (Specify)}

4.13.2 When to plant? .............................................

4.13.3 When to weed? ............................................

286

 

4.13.4 When to harvest? ............. ' ..............................

4.13.5 When to sell? ..............................................
4.13.6 How to sell i.e., grain or seed? .................................
4.14 How many are there in the group? ..............................
4.15 What are the benefits distributed among the group members? ..........
4.16 How are benefits distributed among group members? ................
4.17 How are labor requirements met? ...............................
4.18 Who stores the produce? .....................................
Support Services Provided

4.19 Did you get any training related to seed production? ........ (0=no, 1=yes)____

Ifyes, describe the topics covered (circle if yes)

287

 

 

4.20

4.21

Land selection .................................
Seed selection .................................
Land preparation .................................
Planting .................................
Weeding .................................
Spraying .................................
Seed chemical treatment .................................

Seed storage .................................

Is there any extension worker in the area helping you in seed production this year?

................................................ (0=no, l=yes)—
Ifyes:
WM Wh i h h ml

......................................................................................

Apart fiom seed, does the organization or other organizations provide other inputs

on credit? ......................................... (0=no, 1=yes)_

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

288

 

 

4.22 Did anyone inspect your field before planting the seed? ...... (0=no, l=yes)—

Ifyes,

 

Who inspected? ..................................................

For what did they inspect? ..........................................

4.23 Has anyone inspected your field since planting ? ............ (0=no, 1=yes)_
If yes;

Who inspected ...................................................
For what did inspect ...............................................

 

4.24 After harvesting, are you expected to perform the following tasks?
(Circle where applicable and if yes, describe in detail
Cleaning ........................................................
Sorting .........................................................
Treating seed ....................................................

Storing .........................................................

Packaging ......................................................

4.25 Does anyone supervise/inspect any of these post-harvest activities?

5 .. 1M . .
Cleaning ........................................................
Sorting .........................................................

289

Treating seed ....................................................

Storing .........................................................

Packaging ......................................................

4.26 Are there other organizations which assist the farmers or get involved in seed
multiplication? ..................................... (0=no, lacs)__
If yes;
W21.) f ° v v

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Farmer Decision Making

4.27 How many different varieties can farmers choose to multiply per season? . . . . _

4.28 Does the program require you to: (circle for each crop you multiply)

Q92 W W Mills
91.92

Maize Y---N Y--N

Y-u-N

Beans Y---N Y--N

Y—«N

290

Groundnuts Y---N Y--N

Y—«N Soybeans Y---N y...N
Y---N
4.29 Is there any specific date farmers are expected to harvest their crop? ..........
.................................... (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_
If ya.
explain .........................................................

4.30 List activities that you do to seed crop that’s djfiemt fiom a normal crop?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Marketing
4.31 Do you expect the organization that provided the seed to buy it back from

you/your group? ........................ (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_

4.32 Did the organization providing seed guarantee a specific selling price for your
seed? ..........................................................

.................................... (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_

291

explain ........................................................
4.33 Will the organization providing seed assist you with the following? ...........
l . .
4.33.1 Packaging ............................ (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_
Illa;
Explain type of assistance ...........................................
Who will pay for this? ............ (1%“, 2=NGO, 3=others (Specify)_
4.33.2 Advertising ........................... (0=no, l-fi/es, 2=don’t know)_
Em
Explain type of assistance ...........................................
Who will pay for this? ............ (1=farmer, 2=NGO, 3=others (Specify)__
4.33.3 Transporting of produce ................ (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_
1cm
Explain type of assistance ...........................................
Who will pay for this? ............ (l=farmer, 2=NGO, 3=others (Specify)—

292

4.33.4 Storage of produce ..................... (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_

If a!” 0
Explain type of assistance ...........................................
Who will pay for this? ............ (1=farmer, 2=NGO, 3=others (Specify)_

This section applies to farmers who multiplied seed in 1995/96 season, others go to

question 4.38
4.34 Were you involved seed multiplication last year? ........... (0=no, l=yes)—
Em;
4.34.1 What crop did you grow? ...........................................
............. (1=maize, 2=gnuts, 3=soybeans, 4=beans, 5=others(Specify)____
How much seed did you plant? ................................ (Kgs)___
How much seed did you harvest? .............................. (Kgs)—

4.34.2 How much (kgs) of the crop did you:

(a) Eat ............................................... (Kgs)—

(b) Sell as grain ........................................ (Kgs)__

293

Sell as seed .................. ' ....................... (Kgs)

c Give to other farmers ................................. (Kgs)__
4.35 When did you start selling your produce as grain? .............. (Month)_

(January=1....December=12, Not applicable=99)

4.36 When did you start selling your produce as seed? ............... (Month)_

(JanumlmDecembeFlz, Not applicable=99)

4.37 At what price did you sell the grain?

Euler Month Anointed! 2152912151 Lmal
market
his:
steal:
an:

Private traders ...............................................

Farmers ...............................................

NGO ...............................................

294

 

0000000000000000000

Ask all respondents

4.38 Are you willing to hold the seed you harvest this year until the planting season of

next year? ........................................ (0=no, 1=yes)_
Explain why/why not .............................................
4.39 Do you think you have a certain market for your seed crop this year? ..........
.................................... (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_
Explain why or why not ...........................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

V. EVALUATION

5.1 Do you think your program will succeed this year(0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_

5.2 What criteria will you use to assess the success of this program? Explain ......

295

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

What farming activity did you give up in order to participate in seed multiplication

(opportunity cost)?

Explain ........................................................

Does participating in seed programs require you to use any additional resources

(capital, cash, land and labor) compared to when you plant the crop as grain? . . .
..................................... (0=no, l=yes, 2 don’t know)_

Explain ........................................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Are there any problems that threaten to the success of the seed program? .......

.................................... (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_

What changes are needed to strengthen the seed program?

296

Explain ........................................................

5.8 For how many years can you participate in the seed multiplication program? .

5.9 For how many years are you going to participate in seed multiplication? ..... _

5.10 What records did you keep on your seed multiplication activities?

Explain ........................................................
5.11 Are there any local institutions in the area? . . . . (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_
Explain ........................................................

5.12 Do you belong to any local institution that facilitates the seed multiplication
exercise? .......................................................

................................................ (0=no, lfi'es)__

5.13 What are the strengths of the variety you are multiplying compared to the standard

variety? Indicate the [writer ’3 standard variety.

297

 

5.14 What are the weaknesses of the variety that you are multiplying compared to the

5.15

5.16

standard variety?
9m Maxim We!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Does the variety you are multiplying have any special characteristics you desire? .
.................................... (0=no, lacs, 2=don’t know)_

11m

Describe the characteristics ........................................

..............................................................

How does the variety you are multiplying in seed multiplication compare with your
standard variety? (i.e., if the farmer had unlimited amount of both varieties how
would he change his planting pattern? Would he plant more of the new variety or

more of the standard variety?) .......................................

Yield .......................................

Taste .......................................

Pest resistance .......................................

Drought tolerance .......................................
Market price .......................................
Other (Specify) .......................................
5.17 How did you first learn about the variety you are is multiplying? .........
1. It is a common variety in the area

2. Through the seed multiplication program
3. Through the Agriculture Research people

4. Other (specify)

5.18 Given the performance of the legume whose seed that you are now multiplying,
would you be willing to buy this seed variety fiom another farmer if you were not
multiplying it? ......................... (0=no, l=yes, 2=don’t know)_
Eng;

Explain why ....................................................

5.19 At planting time, how much more would you be willing to pay for the seed over

the price of grain in the market? ......................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

5.20 Do you think the other farmers in the area will buy your seed? ...............

..................................... (0=no, l=yes, 2 don’t know)_

299

Explain why or why not ...........................................

5.21 If you were buying seed, what month would you buy seed: ............... _
(1=January, ................ 12=December)
Many thanks for your time.

300

APPENDIX 5

301

   

Appendix 5.1
Steps in Carrying out the Participatory Rural Appraisal for Rural Resource

Management

1. Site Selection
The sites are picked by either the community or an extension officer or Government

oficial

2. Preliminary Visits
A PRA team consists of 4 to 6 specialists of whom at least halfare technical oflicers
assigned to the area. The team meets with village leaders before starting a PRA to clarify

what PRA will do as well as what it will not do.

3. Data Collection

Data collection involves meeting with local leaders initially. First, it involves the villagers
drawing a map for the village which will show the water sources, fertile areas and where
fields are, forestry and grazing areas. ' Second, important economic activities in the area
are recorded (cash crops, food crops, animals reared and businesses). After this stage, the
villagers are involved in data collection to verify the information from the leaders. Lastly,
the researchers ask key leaders to wealth rank the villagers with the aim of identifying the

poor. The ranking is done on at least three individuals independently.

302

 

4. Identification of the Poor
From the data collected, the researchers in conjunction with the local leaders identify the
beneficiaries of the project giving the poor first priority. Normally, the identified farmers

are asked to form a committee which will run the project.

303

 

Appendix 5.2

On-farm Seed Multiplication Project Chididi African Evangelical Mission

This contract is between the Christian Service Committee and the Chididi Evangelical

Mission to carry out On-Farrn Seed Multiplication.

The objectives of the project are:

- To increase smallholder access to seeds of improved varieties of various types of
seed.

- To create income generating activities for church institutions.

- To create sustainable linkages between church institutions and the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation, specifically as relates to seed production.

- To educate farmers in simple seed selection and storage practices along with
agronomic practices for various crops as recommended by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation.

- To serve as demonstration sites for the introduction of recently released types of

improved seed.

CSC of inputs for the production of 1 acre of sorghum.

Seed (4 kg @ K4/kg) K16
Fertilizer (2 bags @ K110/bag) K220

304

 

Labor (2 people x 4 months x K100/month) K800

Actellic K250

Sacks (12 sacks @ KID/sacks) K120
agrees to loan Chididi African Evangelical Mission the amount of K1, 406 for the purpose
of carrying out seed multiplication on their church farm. The money will be used for the
purchase

Total K1,406

The seed will be sold through churches the following season alter which the loan will be
repaid to CSC, along with 35 percent of the profits, by the end of November, 1995. This
35 percent will be given back to the church the following year, along with a second loan to
make up the difi'erence in the cost of inputs. This process will continue until there is no

longer a need for a loan from CSC to continue the process, probably by the end of the

third year.

Failure to repay the loan will result ibn the church being dropped from the project for

future years.

The church will charge farmers whatever it is felt to be a reasonable price for the seed

produced, keeping in mind that it also has to make a profit in order to stay in business.

305

 

The seed is only to be sold to farmers or to commercial entities who agree to sell the
produce as seed. Failure to comply with this will result in the church being dropped fi'om
the project. If; however, all of the seed is not sold by end of November, 1995, the church

may request permission from CSC to sell the seed to a commercial trader as grain.

The church will appoint a bookkeeper to be responsible for the project. CSC will assist

with the training of this bookkeeper if necessary.

Totally separate accounts will be kept for this project. CSC will have the right to examine
the accounts periodically. This is both to ensure that adequate records are being kept, and
to allow CSC to be able to learn from the process, given that this is a pilot project.

The church agrees to work closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation to
ensure that quality seed is produced, and to ensure that farmers are using proper practices
in cultivation, seed selection, and storage.

Church Representative

 

Chididi Afiican Evangelical Mission

Agricultural Development Oficer

Christian Service Committee

Head of Programmes

Christian Service Committee

306

 

APPENDIX 6

307

 

Appendix 6.1

Mean Yields, Multi-location Bean Advanced Trials at Bunda College Bean/Cowpea
CRSP Research Field, Malawi, 1993/94-1996/97.

Variety or 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 Three Year Aver e
Line Mean' |cv" Mean‘ cv" Mean'l cv" Mm: I C? IR-Yield°

 

 

 

 

 

A286 352 52 1,389 35 371 43 704 82 0.88
PC 293-c11 486 39 1,220 27 602" 13 769 51 0.95
17k/2 417 41 1,343 33 556" 25 772 65 0.96
2-10 398 32 1,481 42 463 17 781 79 0.97
l4N/2 593 40 1,157 37 602“ 35 784 49 0.97
Sugar 46 611“ 18 1,343 11 417 33 790 55 0.98
Enseleni 417 17 1,435 11 556" 0 803 61 0.99
lNasakaf ' 338 43 - 1,760 4 i. 324 . ’ 25 807' A ' 89 1:00"
PVBZ1589 507 16 1,266 27 787“ 10 853 44 1.05
AND660 338 17 1,528 16 694” 20 853 64 1.06
(2)A334/4 477 12 1,667 25 417 33 853 76 1.06
BAT336 435 71 1,389 36 741" 22 855 61 1.06
PVA 508 467 25 1,435 6 694" 20 866 52 1.07
Umvoti 347 16 1,574 13 695" 35 872 65 1.08
Sugar 47 361 48 1,621 5 648" 12 877 66 1.09
Kalima 33s 45 1,528 16 787" 27 884 62 1.10
V8025 394 23 1,759 9 555" 25 903 74 1.12
BAT477 625" 29 1,435 20 648“ 12 903 42 1.12
A197 449 63 1,528 0 740" 11 906 56 1.12
25-2 699“ 45 1,620 26 556” 25 958 59 1.19

G 05434 519 17 1,713 20 648“ 12 960 62 1.19
Sugar 57 620“ 10 1,805 15 602" 13 1,009 61 1.25
AFR 248 708" 35 1,621 10 741" 29 1,023 47 1.27
16-6 31 1,667 38 879“ 9 1,024 60 1.27
S

 

 

 

 

 

 

it

  

308

____________________________

 
 

..............
........
.....

   

' Mean of three replications dCoefficient of variation for three replications

° eMean of nine replications dCoefficient of variation for nine replications
cheld index, Nasaka= 1.00 fTraditional beanvarr magi:

”Denotethatmeanyieldisdifi‘erentfi'omthemeanyield ofN at5percent level of

significance.

Source: Mkandawire, A. B. C. (1998) Advanced Bean Trial Results from Bunda College

Research Site

309

Appendix 6.2

Mean Yields, Multi-location Bean Advanced Trials at Dedza7Bean/Cowpea CRSP

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

    

:Meanofthree

replications

Man of nine replications

 

d

 

310

 

 

' Coeficient of variation for three replications

Coeficient of variation, nine replications

Variety or 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 Three Year Av e
_Lin_° Mm'lcvb MalCVb I‘deillfl'lCVb Mean‘lalRelativeYield'
sugar 45 2,028” 27 145 3 131 13 768 127 0.84
17102 2,079" 2 154 13 185 83 806 119 0.90
pc 293.01 1,727 27 181 20 561 98 823 95 1.01
G 05434 1,894 11 310 35 537 26 913 82 1.08
Fnseleni 2,129" 17 268 30 389 72 929 100 1.10
AND 660 1,745 10 412 35 963 26 1,040 58 123
25.2 2,763“ 10 270 83 111 25 1,048 124 1.14
v 3025 2,005 28 574 32 704 20 1,094 69 1.30
A 286 2,111 9 486 84 695 39 1,097 74 1.30
2-10 2,171” 6 435 13 695 22 1,100 76 1.30
Umvofi 1,861 11 685“ 25 768 57 1,104 56 1.31
Sugar 55 1,246 57 1,204 5 880 46 1,109 40 1.32
BAT 335 1,903 23 491 27 946 72 1,113 67 1.36
BAT 477 2,296" 23 435 24 676 74 1,135 84 1.36
(2) A344/4 2,171" 18 579" 59 685 33 1,145 70 1.36
16-6 1,829 35 532 54 1,134 53 1,165 62 1.38
A 197 1,593 21 352 42 1,579” 12 1,174 55 1.39
Kalima 2,083“ 4 833“ 30 824 43 1,247 53 1.48
sugar 57 2,440" 11 458 16 916 5 1,272 72 1.51
l4N/2 2,171” 5 671“ 21 1,213" 24 1,352 50 1.60
pm 1539 2,407” 7 699” 17 1,046" 48 1,384 60 1.77
AFR 248 2,324” 7 815“ 15 1,232" 23 1,457 48 1.73
PVA 508 2,583“ 9 810“ 18 1,482“ 24 1,625“ 50 1.93
Sugar 47 2,255” 22 17 1,417” 15 1,633“ 34 1.93

 

°Yieldindex,Nasaka=l.00 ‘Traditionalbeanvari
“Denotethatmeanyieldisdifi‘erentfromthemeanyieldofN at5percentlevelof
significance.

Source: Mkandawire, A. B. C. (1998) Advanced Bean Trial Results fiorn Champhira Research
rte.

311

 

Appendix 6.3

Mean Yields, Multi-location Bean Advanced Trials at Cham hira Bean/Cowpea
—W

 

 

 

Variety or 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 Three Year Av e
L_ine Mean' Icv" Mean‘ [cv‘ Mean'] cv" Mfl° |cv3 IRelativeYield°

A 197 324 26 648 48 564 47 512 49 0.57
Sugar 56 352 43 1,519 7 287 15 719 85 0.81
AND 660 944 53 1,081 11 259 33 762 61 0.85
l4N/2 1,222 17 892 41 306 16 807 56 0.90
2-10 1,102 9 1,091 30 278 27 823 54 0.92
Sugar 4.7 796 52 1,253 25 509 74 853 54 0.96
pc 2934311 1,347 79 927 15 324 35 866 81 0.97
BAT 477 1,120 19 1,169 5 315 10 868 50 0.97
Enselenj 1,028 27 1,249 36 357 56 878 56 0.98
BAT 336 1,000 15 1,342 31 319 29 887 57 0.99
Nasakaf 991 74 1,288 21 398 95 892 66 I 1.00
AFR 243 1,120 37 1,266 22 322 51 903 57 1.01
17K/2 1,139 26 1,366 12 222 43 909 61 1.02
G 05434 1,157 19 1,485 24 148 71 930 69 1.04
(2) A344/4 1,088 66 1,619 23 143 54 950 81 1.07
Sugar 46 1,268 28 1,409 36 232 45 969 66 1.09
A 235 1,463 9 1,301 43 158 10 974 70 1.10
Umvofi 759 16 1,956“ 25 269 24 985 79 1 . 10
pVA 503 1,236 10 1,499 2 250 40 995 59 1.12
pvgz 1539 1,468 27 1,057 32 472 6 999 51 1.12
V8025 1,120 11 1,656 4 315 37 1,030 57 1.15
W 1,143 17 1,509 7 444 60 1,032 48 1.16
sugar 57 1,398 12 1,386 19 370 23 1,051 51 1.18
15.5 1,171 17 , 8 195 49 1,079 69 1.21
25-2 22

 

 

 

 

 

  
     

:Mean of three replications ' dCoiifi'rcicnt of variation for three replications
cMean of nine replications dCoefficient of variation, nine replications

312

°Yieldindex,Nasaka=l.00 ‘Traditionalbeanvari
“Denotethatmeanyieldisdifi‘erentfi'omthemeanyieldofN at5percentlevelof
significance.

Source: Mkandawire, A. B. C. (1998)AdvanccheanTrialResultsfromChamphiraResearch

Site.

313

 

8o— 4~<O§m3mh "ooh—ow

 

 

...... ...... ...... a... .2. an... on... .n... 6.... a... 2... ......
2.... a... a... z... 8... 8... 8... on... a... a... K... 3...
a... ...... a... ...... a... 8... ...... a... a... S... 8... a...
.3... 8... ...... 8... a... «a... 3.... 2.... ...... ...... an... S...
.8... ...... 3... ......“ a: 3.. a... a... $4 3.. ......H ......
.... n... .... 2.. a... S... 8... an... a... ...... ...... 2..
.2 an." .2 an. 8.. .3.. ....N ...... a... ...... ....n on...
8... a... 8... a... a... a... a... ...... a... .3... 3.... a...
..2 ....~ a.” ....N .....N ...... 8.. a... 2.. 9... ...... N:
a... a... a... a... ...... .8... 8... .n... a... we... 8... a...
n... n... a... 5.. 8.. 8.. n... a... ...... 2.. ...... 3..
...... a... 8... 2... «a... .8... a... x... .n... 8... ...... ......
...... a... 8.. a... .... ...... a... 8... ...... ...... s... ......
a... a... a... S... .2. a... 9.... 8... R... a... a»... a...
....N 2.. ....N 2.. 8.. e... a... a... N... 8.. 8.. a...
8o 62 so ..om a... .... a... a: ...... a: ..o... .6.

x06:— :32
who
3E n3—
NRO
8E 33
why
wait nea—
why
60E Noe—
NKU
work ~3—
NED
8km 83
NRU
3E ag—

 

ma. ... S... ......«E est-s. 9.23.5 .... 5.3....» 8.... 25.32 as...

6... 5.38.?

314

Appendix 6.5

Bean Monthly Price Variation for Chimbiya Market, Malawi, 1989 to 1995

 

.0
(D —L

.0
co

.0
or

Relative Price (December Price=1)
p o
01 -1

 

.0
rs

Jm Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

 

 

 

April is the bean harvest time and November-December is the planting time

315

REFERENCES

ActionAid (1997) “Brief Report on Community Groups Seed Multiplication and
Distribution: Malawi Smallholder Seed Development Project.” A Report prepared for the
Maize Productivity Group II Task Force held at Senga Bay, Salima, January 20, 1997.

ActionAid (1995) ”Smallholder Seed Development Project Proposal.” Proposal
Submitted to ODA April, 1995.

ActionAid (1994) “Smallholder Seed Development in Malawi.” Proceedings of the
Workshop on the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis of the
Structure and Functions of the Seed Services Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation.

Almeildnders, C. J. M., N. P. Louwaars and G. H. De Bruijn (1994) “Local Seed
Systems and Their Importance for an Improved Seed Supply in Developing Countries.”
Eurphytica 782207-211.

Arrow, K (1969) “The Organization of Economic Activity: Issues Pertinent to the Choice
of Market versus Non-market Allocation. The Analysis and Evaluation of Public
Expenditure.” The PPB System Vol. 1, US. Joint Economic Committee, 91" Congress,
1" Session. Washington DC: US. Government Printing Office, 59-73.

Banda, M (1994) “Seed Multiplication and Dissemination by the Christian Service
Committee of the Churches in Malawi.” Workshop Proceedings on Alternative
Approaches to Bean Seed Production and Distribution in Eastern and Southern Afiica,
CIAT Afiican Workshop Series No. 32.

Barnes-McConnell, P. W. (1989) "Culture and Agriculture in Northern Malawi: Social
Contribution to the Maintenance of Genetic Diversity in Beans. " Bean/Cowpea CRSP
Management Ofiice, Michigan State University.

Brown (1965) “A Review of Groundnut Experiments in Malawi.” Rhodesia Agricultural
Journal of Agricultural Research 3. ’ 39-50.

Chipeta, C (1981) “Indigenous Economics: A Cultural Approach.” Exposition Press,
Smitlrtown, New York.

Chirwa, R (1996) “Task Force on Maize Productivity Activities of Action Group 2.”
(April-June 1996)

316

Concern Universal (1997) “Report on the Evaluation of the Seed bank.” Household Food
Security and Nutrition Project: Concern Universal, Dedza.

Conroy, A C. (1993) “The Econonrics of Smallholder Maize Production in Malawi with
reference to the Market for Hybrid Seed and Fertilizer.” Ph.D., University of Manchester,
Manchester.

Conroy, A C. and J. D. T. Kumwenda (1995). ”Risks Associated with the Adoption of
Hybrid Seed and Fertilizer by Smallholder Farmers in Malawi." In Maize Research for
Stress Environments, ed. D. Jewell, S. R Waddingtorr, J. K. Ransom and K. V. Pixley.
Harare, Zimbabwe: CIMMYT.

Cromwell, E. and B. T. Zambezi (1993) ”The Performance of the Seed Sector in Malawi:
An Analysis of the Influence of Organization Structure. " ODI Research Report (London:
Overseas Development Institute).

Cromwell, E. A And S. Wiggins (1993) “Sowing Beyond the State: NGOs and Seed
Supply in Developing Countries.” ODI, London

Cromwell, E., E. Friis-Hansen and M. Turner (1992) “The Seed Sector in Developing
Countries: A Framework for Performance Analysis.” Working Paper No. 65. London:
Overseas Development Institute.

Cromwell, E. (1991) ”The Impact of Economic Reform on the Performance of the Seed
Sector in Eastern and Southern Afiica. " Paper prepared for the OECD Development
Center. London: Overseas development Institute.

De Ruiter, P. C., J. C Moore, K. B. Zwart, L. A Bouwmann, J. Hassink, J. Bloenr, J. A.
De Vos, J. C. Y. Marinissen, W. A M. Didderr, G. Lebbink and L. Brussaard (1993)
”Simulation of Nitrogen Mineralization in the Below Ground Food Webs of Two Wmter
Wheat F ields.” Journal of Applied Ecology. 30:95-106.

Doran, J. W., D. G. Fraser, M. N. Culik and W. C. Liebhardt (1987) ”Influence of
Altenrative and Conventional Agricultural Management on Soil Microbial Processes and
Nitrogen Availability." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 2:99-106.

Douglas, J. E. (1980) “Successful Seed Programs: A Planning and Management Guide.”
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

FAO (1994) “FAO Seed Review 1989-1990.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome.

317

FAO Year Book (1997). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome.

Ferguson, A. E., P. S. Karnbewa and R M. Mkandawire (1991) “Bean Production and
Use Practices: Results of the 1990/91 Socio-ecorromic Research in the three Regions of
Malawi. Technical Report.” The Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support
Program (CRSP).

Ferguson, A E. (1987) “Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Genetic Diversity in Malawi
Bean Landraces, Central Region.” 1987 Malawi/Michigan State University Project,
Socioeconomic Annual Report, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University,
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Women in Development.

Ghijsen (1996) “The Development of Variety Testing and Breeder Rights in the
Netherlands.” Pages 223-226 in Integrating Seed Systems for Annual Food Crops (van
Amstel, H., Bottema, J., Sidik, M. And van Santen, C. Eds) Bogor, Indonesia: CGPRT.

Giller, K. E., J. F. McDonagh and G. Cadisch (1994) ”Can Biological Nitrogen Fixation
Sustain Agriculture in the Tropics?" in Soil Sciences and Sustainable Land Management
in the Tropics, ed. J. K. Syers and D. L. Rimmer. Wallingford, U. K.: CAB International.

Groosman, T., L. A Wierema (1991) "Seed Industry Development in a North/South
Perspective. " Pudoc, Wageningen.

Groosman, A (1988) “Technology Development and the Seed Industry in the North
South Perspective.” Working paper 38, NO Tilburg

Heisey, P. W. and M. Smale (1995) “Maize Technology in Malawi: A Green Revolution
in the Making?” CIMMYT, Mexico, D. F.

HIID (Harvard Institute of International Development) (1994) “Fertilizer Policy Study:
Market Structure, Prices and Fertilizer Use by Smallholder Farmers.” Harvard Institute
for International Development and Economic Planning and Development Department,
Lilongwe, Malawi: Ofiice of the President and Cabinet, Government of Malawi. Mimeo.

J afi'ee, S. And Srivastava, J. 1993, “The Roles of Private and Public Sectors in
Enhancing the Performance of Seed Systems.” The World Bank Research Observer 9:97-
1 17 .

Kambewa, P. S. (1997), “The Bean Subsector in Malawi: Historical Developments,
Current Status, and Policy Issues.” A Plan B Paper presented to Michigan State

318

University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in
Agricultural Econonrics.

Karnputa, D (1996) “1996/97 Seed Inspection Report. Maize Productivity Task Force.”

Koopmans (1975) “Three Essays on the State of Economic Science.” New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Kumwenda, J. D. T., S. R Waddington, S. S., Snapp, R. B. Jones and M. J. Blackie
(1995). "Soil Fertility Management in the Smallholder Maize-Based Cropping Systems of
Afiica.” A Paper for a Workshop on 'The Emerging Maize Revolution in Africa: The
Role of Technology, Institutions and Policy‘. Michigan State University, USA, 9-12
July, 1995.

Kumwenda, J. D. T. (1995) ”Soybean Spatial Arrangement in a Maize/Soybean Intercrop
in Malawi”. Paper presented at the Second Afiican Crop Science Conference for Eastern
and Central Afiica, 19-24 February 1995, Blantyre, Malawi.

 

Kydd, J. (1989) “Maize Research in Malawi: Lessons fiom Failure.” Journal of
International Development 1, 112-114.

Luhanga, J. H. (1997) “Local Seed Systems.” SADC and GTZ

MacColl, D. (1989) “Studies on Maize (Zea mays L) at Bunda, Malawi. 11 Yield in Short
Rotation with Legumes.” Experimental Agriculture. 25, 367-3 74.

Maize Productivity Task Force (1996): “Action Group Two-EC Food Security Program.”

Maize Productivity Task Force (1996) “Task Force on maize Productivity Activities of
Action Group 2.”

Malawi Government (1997) “Economic Report 1997 .” Ministry of Econorrric Planning
and Development. Budget Document No. 4.

Malawi Government (1993), “Malawi Agricultural Statistics. 1993 Annual Bulletin.”
Malawi Government (1984) “1980/81 National Sample Survey of Agriculture”

Malawi Govemment/United Nations (1993). “Situation Poverty Analysis in Malawi.”
The Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs and Community Services, United Nations

Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
Lilongwe. 209 p.

319

Maredia, M (1997) “Increasing Seed System Eficiency in Afiica: Concepts, Strategies
and Issues.” Forthcoming MSU International Development Working Paper, Department
of Agricultural Economics and Department of Economics.

Mkandawire, A. B. C. Mkandawire (1998) “Advanced Bean Trial Results fi'om Bunda
College Bean Research Program.” Bean/Cowpea CRSP/Bunda Bean Program.

Mloza-Banda (1994) “Smallholder Seed Development in Malawi. Participatory Appraisal
of Smallholder Practices and Organizations in Preparation for the Smallholder Seed
Development Project.”

Mphande, B. K. And C. M. Masangano (1994) “Seed Multiplication and Distribution in
Malawi.” Economic and Institutional Review Study in the preparation for the Community
Based Seed Multiplication Project. ActionAid-Malawi and the Ministry of Agriculture
and Irrigation, Malawi Government.

North, D. (1990) “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.”
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pray, C. And B. Rarnaswarni (1991) “A Framework for Seed Policy Analysis in
Developing Countries.” Washington, D. C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Rusike, J. (1995) “An Institutional Analysis of the Maize Seed Industry in Southern
Afiica.” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Econorrrics, Michigan State University,
East Lansing.

Rusike, J., and C. K. Eicher (1995) ”Revitalizing the Seed Industry in Sub-Saharan
Afiica. " Stafi’ Paper No. 95-15. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State

University.

Rusike and Kelly (1997) “The Involvement of Small-Scale Private Companies in Seed
Multiplication and Distribution in Southern Afiica: A Case Study; Agricultural Seeds and
Services (PVT Ltd).”

Ruttan, V. W and Y. Hayarrri (1985) "Induced Innovation Model of Agricultural
Development. " in Agricultural Development in the lhird World Second Edition ed. by
C. K. Eicher and J. M. Staatz (1990), The John Hopkins University Press.

Sachez, P. A. (1995) ”Tropical Soil Fertility Research: Towards the Second Paradigm.”
ICRAF, Nairobi.

320

Sahn, D. E., J. Arulpragasarn and L. Merid (1990) ”Policy reform and Poverty in Malawi:
A Survey of a Decade of Experience. " Cornell Food and Nutrition Policy Program.
Monograph 7.

Shafi’er, D. J. (1992) “Institutions, Behavior and Economic Performance: Comments on
Institutional Analysis.” Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University.

Snapp, S. S. (1995) ”Improving Fertilizer Eficiency with Small Additions of High Quality
Organic Inputs. " In Report on the First Meeting of the Network Working Group. Soil
Fertility Research Network for Maize-Based Farming Systems in Selected Countries of
Southern Africa, ed. S. R Waddington. Harare, Zimbabwe: The Rockefeller Foundation
Southern Afiica Agricultural Sciences Prograrrr, Lilongwe, Malawi and CIMMYT Maize
Program.

Sperling (1994) “Analysis of Bean Seed Channels in the Great Lakes Region: South Kivu,
Zaire, southern Rwanda, and select Bean-growing zones of Burundi.” CIAT Afiican
Occasional Publications Series No. 13. CIAT/RESAPAC, Butare, Rwanda .

Sperling (1996) “Designing Seed Systerrrs with Small Farmers: Principles Derived fi'om
Bean Research in Great Lakes Region of Afiica.” Network Paper No. 60, Agricultural
Administration (Research and Extension) Network, ODI, London, UK. 15 pp.

Stevens, R D. and C. L. J abara (1988) “Agricultural Development Principles: Economic
Theory and Empirical Evidence.” The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and
London.

Swift, M. J. and P. L. Woomer (1993), "Organic Matter and the Sustainability of
Agricultural Systems: Definition and Measuremen ." In Soil Organic Matter Dynamos
and Sustainability of Tropical Agriculture, ed. K. Mulongoy and R Merckx. Chichester,
U. K.: Wiley-Sayce

Tripp, R (1997) “Between States and Markets: Innovations and Small-Scale Seed
Provision.” Overseas Development Institute. Paper prepared for the
ICRISAT/ICARDA/IITA/GTZ Workshop.

Weleschuk, I. T. And W. A Kerr (1995) “The Sharing of Risks and Returns in Prairie
Special Crops: A Transaction Cost Approach.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural
Economics 43.

Wiggins, S and E. Cromwell (1995) “NGOs and Seed Provision to Smallholders in
Developing Countries.” World Development, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 413-422.

321

Williamson, 0. E. (1985) “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets,
Relating Contracting.” New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan.

Woomer, P. L., A Martin, A Albrecht, D. V. S. Resck and H. W. Scharpenseel (1994).
”The Importance and Management of Soil Organic Matter in the tropics”. In 7718
Biological Management of Tropical Soil Fertility, ed. P. L. Woomer and M, J. Swifi.
Chichester, U. K.: Wiley-Sayce.

World Bank (1994) ”Malawi Agricultural Sector Memorandum: Strategic Options in the
19908.“ Volume II: Main Report. Southern Afiica Department. Agricultural Operations
Division.

World Bank (1993) “Towards a National Environmental Action Plan for Malawi:
Emerging Issues.” Agriculture and Environment Division. Southern Afiica Department

Wright, M. and P. Tyler (1991) “Traditional Seed-Saving Practices in Northern Ghana and
Central Malawi.” Natural Resources Institute (NRI) and Overseas Development
Administration (ODA).

322

I
I
H
l.
l
l
l