Agriculture and Human Values 16: 381–388, 1999. © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Improving technology delivery mechanisms: Lessons from bean seed systems research in eastern and central Africa Soniia David1 and Louise Sperling2 1 CIAT, Pan African Bean Research Alliance, Kampala, Uganda; 2 CIAT, CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research
and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA), The Hague, The Netherlands
Accepted in revised form March 22, 1999
Abstract. This article addresses concerns of technology dissemination for small farmers, specifically focusing on the diffusion of new varieties of a self-pollinating crop. Based on bean seed systems research in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it shows four commonly-held basic assumptions to be false, namely that: first, small-scale farmers do not buy bean seed; they mainly rely on their own stocks or obtain seed from other farmers; second, that small-scale farmers cannot afford to buy seed of newly introduced bean varieties or will not risk it; third, that farmer seed networks function efficiently in varietal diffusion; and lastly, that a good variety will sell itself. Grounded in the reality under which small farmers actually operate, the article offers recommendations for improving the delivery of newly introduced bean cultivars by NARS and seed suppliers. Most of the recommendations are relevant to other self-pollinating crops. Key words: Beans, East and central Africa, Seed systems, Technology adoption, Technology diffusion Soniia David is a rural sociologist with the Pan African Bean Research Alliance of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Uganda. She conducts research on seed systems, technology adoption, and impact and diffusion systems. Louise Sperling facilitates the Plant Breeding Group of the PRGA. She has worked twenty years in Africa and Asia on innovative breeding and seed system strategies to benefit small farmers. Introduction Technology dissemination, generally a weak link in the crop development process in eastern and southern Africa, is especially problematic for self-pollinating crops such as common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) that cannot be economically produced by the formal seed industry. Although the organized seed sector in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, and Ethiopia supplies certified bean seed, in most cases the output is irregular and limited to a few commercial varieties. To fill this gap in the technology transfer process, national agricultural research systems (NARS) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and cooperatives in some countries have become involved in the production and dissemination of newly released bean varieties. This paper argues that the methods, strategies, and procedures for seed delivery adopted by some institutions are based on assumptions that do not necessarily reflect the reality under which small farmers operate. Using bean seed systems research data from central and eastern Uganda (Mubende and Mbale Districts) in
the mid 1990s (David, 1996; Hoogendijk and David, 1997) and from the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, and DR Congo) in the period immediately prior to the civil upheavals of the early and mid 1990s (CIAT, 1991; Baert, 1992; PAK, 1992; PAMU, 1993; Sperling, Randrianmapita et al. 1992; Sperling, Scheidegger et al. 1992; Sperling, summary, 1994), the discussion challenges assumptions made by seed suppliers on farmers’ seed purchasing and diffusion behavior. Certified bean seed was available for sale in all study locations, usually in limited quantities and typically in outlets not easily accessible to small-scale farmers. Thus, what is referred to as “seed” in this paper is in fact grain produced by farmers and informally traded. Beans, an important low value commodity in Uganda and the Great Lakes Region, are grown for both food and cash in similar mixed cropped farming systems during two growing seasons a year. Beans are a key crop in all localities. They provide up to 65% of farmers’ protein requirements in both the Great Lakes Region and Uganda. What mainly differentiates the sites is whether beans are grown as varietal mixtures
382
S ONIIA DAVID AND L OUISE S PERLING
Figure 1. Farmers’ use of different bean seed sources in four East and Central African countries (including two sites in Uganda). Data from one or two seasons for each country, spanning the early to mid-1990s.
(in the Great Lakes Region) or as single varieties (in Uganda) and the relative levels of commercialization. Mbale District, Uganda is the most market-driven site in the sample. In the other sites, farmers mainly grow the same bean types for both home use, local markets, and markets farther removed. The discussion addresses four assumptions in turn: (1) small-scale farmers do not buy bean seed; they mainly rely on their own stocks or obtain seed from other farmers; (2) small-scale farmers cannot afford to buy seed of newly introduced bean varieties or will not risk it; (3) farmer seed networks function efficiently in varietal diffusion; and (4) a good variety will sell itself. By way of conclusion, recommendations for improving the delivery of newly introduced bean cultivars by NARS and seed suppliers are offered, most of which are relevant to other self-pollinating crops.
Assumption 1: Small-scale farmers do not buy bean seed; they mainly rely on their own stocks or obtain seed from other farmers Research on local seed systems in Uganda and the three Central African countries shows that in all countries, purchased bean seed (usually uncertified) ranks next in importance to farm-saved seed, that is, seed from farmers’ own stock (Figure 1). The importance of all other sources combined (exchange with friends or relatives, gifts, handouts from development projects) is small, less than 15% of all seed used. The relative use of farm-saved or purchased seed varies across and within regions of a country and is influenced by season, household characteristics such as wealth status, and the level of production relative to household usage.
The relatively greater market dependence of farmers in the Great Lakes countries, as shown in Figure 1, is a function of the gap between bean production and utilization caused by high per capita consumption throughout the year,1 poor storage conditions that force many farmers to sell their harvest, and a high dependence on beans as a cash crop. Most seed buyers in the Great Lakes Region and Eastern Uganda purchased a significant proportion (40% or more) of their seed, but nearly a third of the overall Ugandan sample bought less than a quarter of the amount sown. Twenty-three percent of all Ugandan farmers surveyed claimed never to buy bean seed. In classifying the population of bean farmers by seed purchasing frequency (Table 1), farmers in the Great Lakes Region are less seed secure compared to those in Uganda, as the majority depend frequently (i.e., seasonally or one out of every 2 seasons) on commmercial sources to supplement seed stocks or restock after a crisis (death, illness, or crop failure). Most Ugandan farmers are usually seed secure but sometimes (one out of every 3 or more seasons) depend on other seed sources to top-up their own stock, restock, or to obtain new varieties. A significant proportion of farmers in Rwanda, Burundi, and DRC, and a small percentage of farmers in Uganda, are chronically short of seed and obtain all of their seed from off-farm sources every season. Who buys seed? It has generally been observed that some farmers, especially the poorest, eat or sell all of their grain during periods of acute food shortage or when attracted by favorable market prices. Evidence from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and DRC confirms that, generally, the poor are less seed secure than better-off farmers and purchase seed from off-farm sources more frequently. The Uganda data show that in the main bean growing season in 1993, a third (32%) of the poor, compared with 15% of rich farmers and 24% of middle category farmers, purchased seed. A higher proportion of poor Ugandan farmers purchase seed every season compared to better off farmers (12% compared with 5% of rich farmers) and obtain all of their seed from commercial sources (15% compared to 8% of rich farmers). Similar trends were documented among poor farmers in the Great Lakes Region: 70% in Burundi, 52% in DRC, and 33% in Rwanda usually purchase all of their bean seed during at least one season a year. In both regions, the larger mean quantities of seed purchased by better-off farmers compared to other farmers constituted a relatively small proportion of seed sown. These findings suggest that for the most part, poorer farmers buy seed to replenish declining or depleted seed stocks (resulting from consumption, sale, and unfavorable agro-environmental conditions), while better off farmers tend to purchase seed to restock after
I MPROVING TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY MECHANISMS
383
Table 1. Estimated seed purchasing frequency of bean farmers in Uganda and the Great Lakes Region (percent of farmers). Frequency of purchase
Uganda (N = 235)
Great Lakes regiona
Periodic (1 out of 3+ seasons) Regular (1 out of 2 seasons, or once/year) Every season
50–60 30 10–15
10–30 30–60 20–40
a Rwanda (N = 152); Burundi (N = 295) ; DRC (N = 227).
Figure 2. The varied importance of “own stocks” and “markets” as seed sources in relation to farmers’ wealth, Burundi 1992.
periodic crises resulting in seed loss or to improve their genetic stock. Figure 2 suggests the generally strong link between wealth and seed source acquisition using data from Burundi. One notable exception to this pattern was observed in the highlands of Mbale District, where most farmers who specialized in fresh bean production bought bean seed seasonally irrespective of wealth standing (Hoogendijk and David, 1997). Seed purchases tend to vary seasonally, with more purchases being made in the main growing season when production is at its peak or following an agroenvironmental calamity (e.g., drought, excessive rainfall, diseases, pests, storage losses). The majority of Ugandan farmers interviewed purchased seed (a mean of 7 kg in Mubende and 21 kg in Mbale) at the start of the main season (February–June). Burundi farmers purchased an average of 15 kg of bean seed from markets in the main growing season and 5 kg in the second season. Typically, Ugandan farmers buy one variety but the number of varieties purchased is likely to be determined by the reason for buying (i.e., to restock, replace seed, or improve genetic diversity). In all Great Lakes regions surveyed, mixtures of varieties predominate in both home stocks and market outlets.
Farmers show preferences for specific sale outlets, differing by country, region, locality, and socioeconomic category. Such information is useful for seed suppliers distributing new crop varieties. While farmers in the Great Lakes Region distinguish between several categories of commercial outlets (local markets, large town markets, large merchants, small merchants, farmer-sellers) in terms of quality, availability, and the possibility of obtaining credit, only three categories proved important in Uganda (i.e., large town markets, local shops, local markets). In the DRC, local and large town markets were important for over half of surveyed farmers; in Rwanda, farmer merchants were an important source for 11% of surveyed farmers and in Burundi, 23% of farmers purchased seed from local sources-either farmer-sellers or local merchants. Shops were a more important source of seed for Mubende farmers, while most farmers in Mbale purchased seed from open markets. Farmers in isolated Bugitimwa Parish in the highlands of Mbale District relied mainly on purchases from other farmers compared with farmers in more accessible Bubentsye Parish who depended relatively more on off-farm sources (Hoogendijk and David, 1997). Farmers in Central Africa report on the mixed quality of purchased bean seed: the closer it is to the farm, the better it tends to be. They observe that farmer-sellers or local merchants tend to be more conscientious about adaptive qualities and physical sorting (to remove undesirable seed affected by disease, mold, weevils etc.) than large town merchants. The major constraint to purchasing seed from neighbors in the Great Lakes countries is quantity: other farmers may not have much to spare. Ugandan farmers, overall, express dissatisfaction with seed purchased from commercial sources. Farmers in both regions tend to rank seed purchased from stores or markets lower than their own seed and that of other farmers and consider it potentially riskier to sow. Negative aspects of store bought seed include: poor physical quality (i.e., unsorted, poorly stored, old seed), poor genetic quality (Great Lakes countries only), distance to shops (Uganda only) and high cost. Yet, farmers
384
S ONIIA DAVID AND L OUISE S PERLING
Table 2. Prices of introduced bean varieties sold through action research activities. Country
Sale price (kg)
Premium over grain price1
Uganda Rwanda Tanzania
$0.44–0.87 $0.80–1.00 $0.90–1.00
150–300% 100–150% 75–100%
1 Calculations are based on the lowest price for grain at
planting time following a “normal” season.
recognize some advantages to buying seed from commercial outlets. Farmers in the Great Lakes Region are challenged to use the market efficiently by sorting out good genetic material from unknown and poor quality material but appreciate the easy access of market sources. Availability of new genetic material, easy access to seed when needed and in the required quantity, and the possibility of buying on credit (only from shops) is important to Ugandan farmers.
Assumption 2: Small-scale farmers cannot afford to buy seed of new bean varieties or will not risk it This assumption forms the basis for the free distribution of seed of new varieties by many NGOs and national commodity programs. For example, between 1990 and 1992, the Tanzanian National Bean Program gave away approximately 4.8 tons of seed of two new bean varieties (Lyamungu 85 and Lyamungu 90) to over 1000 farmers in 4 regions. This program was subsequently discontinued due to shortage of funds. Likewise, the Uganda National Bean Program spent approximately $30,000 to produce 9 tons of seed of 5 newly released bean varieties for free distribution (F. Opio, pers. comm.). Action research conducted in Rwanda (CIAT, 1991; PAK, 1992; Sperling et al., 1996), DRC (T. Musungayi, pers. comm), Uganda (David, Kasozi, and Wortmann, 1997) and Tanzania (C. Mushi, pers. comm.) confirms that farmers will eagerly buy seed of unknown bean varieties if certain marketing principles are observed. In all cases, seed was packaged in small quantities (50–250 g for climbing varieties in Rwanda, 200–500 g for bush beans in Rwanda and Uganda and 1–2 kg in Tanzania) in heat-sealed clear plastic packets containing an informational leaflet in the appropriate local language. The name of the variety, number of days to maturity, tolerance to disease, yield, and cooking time relative to popular bean varieties were described in the leaflet. Seed was distributed through both market (shops, markets) and non-market channels (clinics, nutritional centers, agricultural training centers, NGOs, and farmer groups).
Table 2 indicates that seed prices greatly exceeded the lowest grain prices. Nevertheless, in Uganda, seed purchase was not significantly associated with farmers’ wealth status, suggesting that poorer farmers are as motivated as better-off farmers to pay cash for new cultivars and to risk growing them. The sale of modest amounts of seed of introduced bean cultivars by three farmer-run seed enterprises in Uganda provides further evidence of farmers’ willingness to buy seed of little known materials (David, 1997). Purchasing quantities ranged from a mode of 500 g in more subsistence oriented production areas to 1 and 5 kg in more commercially oriented production areas, indicating the inappropriateness of larger packaging volumes characteristic of the formal seed sector.
Assumption 3: Farmer seed networks function efficiently in varietal diffusion This assumption derives from the historically proven efficacy of informal seed systems in supplying seed of local, and in some cases, improved, crop varieties to the vast majority of farmers. However, select research findings suggest that the nature of farmer-to-farmer diffusion may never have been as swift or equitable as presumed (Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993), and that, with time, there probably has been a shift: (a) away from gifts to more commercial forms of transactions (i.e., sale and exchange) and (b) possibly toward involving smaller quantities of seed per transaction. Whatever the historical situation, when the only source of bean seed besides farmers’ own stock was from neighbors and relatives, the importance of local networks of exchange and gift giving today appears to be declining in many localities. Ugandan farmers concurred that there is a decline: as late as the 1960s, gifts constituted a quarter of the seed sown by most farmers, with the remainder coming from their own production. Ten percent or less of farmers in DRC, Burundi, and Rwanda recently obtained bean seed as gifts from other farmers (Figure 1). Similarly, in the first season of 1993, only 8% of farmers surveyed in Eastern and Central Uganda obtained bean seed as gifts, while 1% obtained seed through exchange. Of these farmers, 18% depended solely on this source while 59% received less than a quarter of the seed sown as gifts. About half of the Ugandan farmers surveyed shared a mean of 10 kg of bean seed with other farmers in 1993, although the majority claimed to rarely or never share seed (Table 3). Despite the declining importance of local networks as a source of seed, farmers in Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda ranked seed obtained from other farmers second in preference to their own
I MPROVING TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY MECHANISMS Table 3. Frequency of seed sharing by Ugandan farmers (percent of farmers). Frequency
Giving gifts of seed (N = 233)
Receiving gifts of seed (N = 234)
Every season At least one season per year Rarely Never
15 22 41 21
4 13 56 27
seed because of the perceived good quality of the seed and access this source provides to preferred, locally adapted, diverse varieties. Disadvantages of using seed obtained free of charge from other farmers include a sense of dependence, lack of control over the quantity and time of delivery, and in some cases, the poor quality of seed given as gifts (David, 1996). Seed systems research suggests that, while some farmers are more generous in sharing bean seed than others, such altruistic individuals are not widely dispersed in the population. Among a sample of 235 bean growers in Uganda, only 15% gave away 3 or more gifts of bean seed in 1993, while 7% shared a mean of 19 kg of seed with 4 or more farmers (David, pers. comm.). Likewise, key diffusers in a Rwandan study comprised only 6% of surveyed farmers, but they were responsible for nearly half of the seed of introduced varieties distributed (Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993). Key diffusers may not necessarily share similar characteristics and therefore cannot be easily identified by researchers and extension workers. Ugandan data show a significant association between diffusionrelated behavior and wealth, with rich farmers giving more gifts and diffusing seed of local varieties more widely (David, 1996). Key diffusers in one survey also tended to be older (41+ years) than less generous farmers, although this trend was not observed in a second study (David, pers. comm.). The informal diffusion of appreciated introduced varieties appears to follow a pattern similar to that observed for landraces in terms of the involvement of a minority of farmers. This process, however, tends to be slow to start as farmers require at least 2–3 seasons of experimentation before diffusing new materials (Pachico and Ashby, 1983; Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993). In Rwanda, 55% of farmers who had sowed a new bean variety for at least three seasons had not diffused seed (Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993). Similarly, in Kagera Region of Tanzania, 62% of farmers interviewed had not given away seed of a new bean variety distributed 3 years earlier (Mafuru et al., 1996).
385
By contrast, most farmers involved in bean varietal trials in several districts of Uganda shared seed of test varieties with other farmers after the first harvest or 3– 5 seasons later (David, Wortmann et al., 1997; Grisely, Mwesigwa, and Kisakye, pers. comm.). Cross-cultural differences in seed sharing behavior may explain these variations, but other factors such as the amount of seed initially received, varietal productivity, the favorableness of the environment, and farmers’ socio-economic characteristics, are important determinants of farmers’ ability to retain and diffuse seed. Furthermore, while farmers typically tend to be selective about whom they give seed to (David, 1996; Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993), the range of diffusion networks varies cross-culturally. Rwandan farmers participate in socially narrow diffusion circles (Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993), while in Uganda nearly a fourth of farmers surveyed sent gifts of seed to relatives and friends in other administrative localities (David, 1996). All this evidence suggests that the nature of seed networks and the dynamics of seed exchange from farmer-to-farmer diffusion may not necessarily facilitate the rapid adoption of introduced crop varieties.
Assumption 4: A good variety will sell itself. To popularize a new variety, you need to disseminate it once in a given locality This assumption derives from cases showing the widespread diffusion of introduced bean varieties with little external intervention and spontaneous adoption of test lines. The spread of K20, thought to be the most widely sown variety in Kenya and Uganda (Grisley, 1994), exemplifies a case of the unassisted diffusion of a variety with few superior agronomic and culinary characteristics. Released in 1968, it cooks relatively slowly, yields modestly under most growing conditions but is highly marketable. However, high adoption was achieved after 25 years. Researchers observe varietal differences in diffusion patterns for appreciated introduced materials (Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993) and, contrary to expectation, data from a Ugandan survey show that diffusion and the quantity of seed shared was not higher for an appreciated cultivar relative to an unpopular one (David, Wortmann, et al., 1997). Factors affecting seed availability and retention, such as the degree of popularity of a variety, the amount of seed initially received, varietal productivity, agro-environmental conditions, and farmers’ socio-economic characteristics, have been suggested as explanations for these observations. In the Ugandan case, the relatively high diffusion of an unappreciated cultivar might also
386
S ONIIA DAVID AND L OUISE S PERLING
reflect farmers’ efforts to get rid of it in the form of grain. Since farmers give away beans both for use as grain or seed, this distinction is difficult to ascertain when investigating seed exchange. Accidental seed loss, a factor unrelated to varietal characteristics and appreciation, contributes significantly to slowing down the informal diffusion of a new variety. In Lushoto District, Tanzania, where researchers undertook a one-shot effort to distribute seed of two new varieties (Lyamungu 85 and 90), between 63– 77% of disadopters (53–65% of the sample) lost seed during drought years (Ndakidemi and Mushi, pers. comm.). Yet, the presence of the new varieties in local markets and considerable farmer-to-farmer diffusion suggests high farmer appreciation. In one region of Rwanda, Umubano, a climbing variety both highly regarded and productive, suffered relatively low mortality and had a high distribution rate (Sperling and Loevinsohn, 1993). In contrast, researchers noted that another variety (Ikinimba), although well regarded by farmers in an area of relatively low productivity, was unlikely to diffuse at all without efforts to stimulate distribution and to assist farmers who had lost seed to restock. Many farmers eat or sell seed of appreciated new varieties during periods of food or cash shortage. In a post-trial survey in Uganda, a quarter of farmers who stopped sowing K132, a preferred, highly marketable seed type, had sold all of their seed, while 17% had consumed it (David, Wortmann et al., 1997). Some possible explanation for this seemingly irrational sale behavior by these farmers, who, at the time had no further access to seed of the test varieties, are, that they confused K132 for K20 (a similar seed type), were hard pressed for cash, or expected to receive a regular supply of seed from extension agents.
Conclusions and recommendations Seed systems studies, an under-researched area, can contribute in important ways to the formulation of more appropriate, farmer-oriented seed delivery strategies by providing detailed information on farmers’ seed purchasing behavior (is seed accessed offfarm, is it given or purchased, if it is purchased, in what amounts and when; preferred market outlets, who buy seed, etc.) and seed diffusion patterns. Several national bean programs in Eastern Africa plan to conduct diagnostic studies on local seed systems, the Great Lakes bean programs having given priority to these. Indeed the value of investigating local seed systems can be deduced from the growing literature worldwide (Janssen et al., 1992; Almekinders et al., 1994; Rice et al., 1997; Tripp et al., 1998; Thiele,
1999). Yet, throughout Eastern and Central Africa, similar studies on other commodities are rare. The findings outlined in this paper also suggest the need to rethink present arrangements for bean seed production and, more generally, seed regulatory frameworks in the region. In most countries, centralized seed production of self-pollinating crops is inappropriate from both a supply and demand side, given the limited seed requirements of small-scale farmers, their often localized preferences, and their ability to reproduce the seed themselves once they have the novel genetic material. The present trend toward decentralized, quasi-formal or informal seed production can learn from, as well as contribute to, knowledge of local seed systems. In conclusion, more sustainable, farmer-oriented distribution systems for seed of new varieties are likely to result from implementing the following researchderived recommendations: 1. Since farmers are willing to buy seed, the free distribution of bean seed should be avoided except in emergency relief situations. Anecdotal evidence and observation suggests that when farmers purchase bean seed, they value it more and are therefore more likely to plant and retain it. The sale of new varieties can be encouraged if certain key principles, outlined below, are observed. 2. Farmers are likely to assume the risk of trying out new crop varieties distributed by NARS, NGOs, and other development agencies. Seed of new bean varieties should be packaged to stress quality. Small packing quantities (50 grams to several kilos) counteracts high seed prices and encourages risk taking, albeit on a limited scale appropriate for small farmers. More familiar seed types can be packaged in larger volumes than unknown seed types. Due to their superior yields compared to bush beans, new cultivars of climbing beans can be distributed in very small quantities (e.g., the size of commonly vended peanut packages) in areas where this technology is being introduced. 3. Since action research shows that small-scale farmers in Eastern and Central Africa are only willing to pay a small premium for seed of new bean varieties, seed prices will usually not cover the actual cost of production and delivery. This will be particularly true if NGOs/development organizations aim to distribute material that could be “certifiable” rather than aim for a quality standard that is at least as clean as the farmers’ own. Based on Ugandan and Rwandan experiences, the price can be set at twice or more that of local grain, although flexibility on this issue is required. Following a strategy used by traders, the price of unknown/unappreciated seed types should ini-
I MPROVING TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY MECHANISMS
tially be lower than that of familiar seed types to encourage sale. 4. Efforts may be needed to hasten diffusion of new crop varieties, since farmer seed networks may not function efficiently. Seed of new bean varieties should be promoted and distributed through multiple market and non-market channels in as many localities as possible to maximize the number and types of households that have access to new cultivars. For instance, while open markets and small country stores are obvious choices, the effectiveness of distribution through health clinics (David et al., 1997) and soda vendors (who go everywhere!) needs to be further explored. 5. Under certain circumstances, special effort may be required to encourage the diffusion of even appreciated crop varieties. In localities with risky production conditions, repeated seed distribution over several seasons may be necessary before a new variety is fully established within local seed networks and markets.
Acknowledgments An earlier version of this paper was presented at the All Africa Crop Science Congress, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa, January 13–17, 1997. The authors thank the following collaborators: NARS partners at ISAR, ISABU, PNL/Mulungu and the Ugandan and Tanzanian National Bean Programs; the USAID Farming Systems Project who jointly worked on the Burundi seed system case, NGO colleagues in Rwanda, PAMU, and PAK; CIAT team members, Robin Buruchara, Urs Scheidegger, and Charles Wortmann. Much of the Great Lakes seed systems research was funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the Rockefeller Foundation. Financial support for the research in Eastern Africa was provided by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Note 1. In Mbale District, by contrast, immediately after the harvest per capita bean consumption reaches levels similar to those found in Rwanda but drops in subsequent months (David, 1996).
387
References Almekinders, C., N. P. Louwaars, and G. H. de Gruijn (1994). “Local seed systems and their importance for an improved seed supply in developing countries,” Euphytica 78: 207–216. Baert, T. (1992). “La multiplication, la diffusion et l’impact d’une nouvelle variété,” in Actes du sixième seminaire régional sur l’amélioration du haricot dans la région des Grands Lacs, Kigali 21–25 Janvier 1991. CIAT African Workshop Series no. 17. Butare, Rwanda. Centro Internacional Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) (1991). Annual Report. Bean Program. Cali, Colombia: CIAT pp. 377–379 David, S. (1997). Dissemination and Adoption of New Technology: A Review of Experiences in Bean Research in Eastern and Central Africa, 1992–1996. CIAT Occasional Publications Series no. 21. CIAT, Kampala, Uganda. David, S., S. Kasozi, and C. Wortmann (1997). An Investigation of Alternative Bean Seed Marketing Channels in Uganda. CIAT Occasional Publications Series no. 19. CIAT, Kampala, Uganda. David, S., C. Wortmann, S. Kasozi, and M. Mugisha-Mutetikka (1997). “Using trial follow-up surveys to assess varietal adoption: the case of beans,” African Crop Science Journal 5(3): 285–294. David, S. (1996). “Local bean seed systems in Uganda: preliminary results from surveys in two districts,” in S. David (ed.), Alternative Approaches to Bean Seed Production and Distribution in Eastern and Southern Africa: Proceedings of a Working Group Meeting, Kampala, Uganda, 10–13 October 1994. Network on Bean Research in Africa, Workshop Series no. 32, CIAT, Kampala, Uganda. Grisley, W. (1994). “The bean revolution,” CERES. 149, 26(5): 27–30. Grisley, W., D. Mwesigwa, and J. Kisakye (1993). Adoption of Climbing Beans Following the Introduction of New Varieties from On-farm Trials in the Kabale District. Unpublished manuscript, Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, Kampala, Uganda. Hoogendijk, M. and S. David (1997). Bean Production Systems in Mbale, Uganda with Emphasis on Varietal Diversity and the Adoption of New Climbing Varieties. CIAT Occasional Publications Series no. 20. CIAT, Kampala, Uganda. Janssen, W., C. Luna, and M. Duque (1992). “Small-farmer behavior towards bean seed: evidence from Colombia,” Journal of Applied Seed Production 10: 43–51. Mafuru, J., L. Mukandala, J. Maimu, and C. Bosch (1996). “Adoption and diffusion of Lyamungu 90 bean variety in Kagera Region,” Tanzania. Field Note no. 58, Farming Systems Research Program, Lake Zone and Tanzanian National Beans Research Program. Pachico, D. and J. Ashby (1983). “Stages in technology diffusion among small Farmers: Biological and management screening of a new rice variety in Nepal,” Agricultural Administration 13: 23–37. Projet Agricole de Karama (PAK) (1992). Promotion du haricot volubile dans la commune de Karama. Project Report, September 1992. Gikongoro, Rwanda.
388
S ONIIA DAVID AND L OUISE S PERLING
Projet Agricole de Muganza (PAMU) (1993). Rapport Annuel 1992. Butare, Rwanda. Rice, E., M. Smale, and J. L. Blanco (1997). “Farmers’ use of improved seed selection practices in Mexican maize: Evidence and issues from the Sierra de Santa Marta.” CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 97-03. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT. Sperling, L., U. Scheidegger, and R. Buruchara (1996). “Designing seed systems with small farmers: Principles derived from bean research in the Great Lakes Region of Africa.” Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper no. 60. Overseas Development Institute, London. Sperling, L. (summary) (1994). Analysis of Bean Seed Channels in the Great Lakes Region: South Kivu, DRC, Southern Rwanda and select bean growing zones of Burundi. CIAT African Occasional Publications Series no. 13. CIAT/RESAPAC, Butare, Rwanda. Sperling, L. and M. Loevinsohn (1993). “The dynamics of adoption: Distribution and mortality of bean varieties among small farmers in Rwanda,” Agricultural Systems. 41: 441– 453. Sperling, L., G. Randrianmapita, E. Rutagengwa, B. Ntabomvura, L. Mubera, and L. Uwimana (1992). “Etude de l’adoption et l’impact de variétés améliorées au milieu rural,”
in Actes du sixième seminaire régional sur l’amélioration du haricot dans la région des Grands Lacs, Kigali 21–25 Janvier 1991. CIAT African Workshop Series no. 17. Butare, Rwanda. Sperling, L., U. Scheidegger, W. Graf, A. Nkundabashaka, and B. Ntabomvura (1992). “Mécanismes pour la diffusion des haricots volubiles,” in Actes du sixième seminaire régional sur l’amélioration du haricot dans la région des Grands Lacs, Kigali 21–25 Janvier 1991. CIAT African Workshop Series no. 17. Butare, Rwanda. Thiele, G. (1999). “Informal potato seed systems in the Andes: why are they important and what should we do with them?,” World Development 27(1): 83–99. Tripp, R., D. J. Walker, A. Opoku-Apau, A. A. Dankyi, and L. L. Delimini (1998). Seed Management by Small-scale Farmers in Ghana: A Study of Maize and Cowpea Seed in the Brong-Ahafo and Volta Regions. NRI Bulletin 68. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. Address for correspondence: Soniia David, CIAT, P.O. Box 6247, Kampala, Uganda Phone: +256-41-566282/567670; Fax: +256-41-567635; E-mail:
[email protected]
