Decentralized Common Bean Seed Production and

Delivery System
Endeshaw Habte, Setegn Gebeyehu, Kidane Tumsa and Kassayea Negash
Melkassa Agricultural Research Center
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
P. O. Box 436, Adama, Ethiopia

Abstract
In Ethiopia, the formal seed sector meets only less than 10% of the
total seed demand of our farmers. Given such a huge difference
between supply and demand, the development of alternative seed
sources such as farmer based seed production in addition to existing
formal seed sector cannot be considered optional. This paper
summarizes the experience of impact oriented decentralized seed
system and farmer based seed production and dissemination The
experiences include demand creation for improved bean varieties,
multiplication of farmer preferred varieties, initiating localized seed
production and decentralized recovery and redistribution of seed to
wider seed beneficiaries. Partnership, monitoring and evaluation and
capacity development were the cornerstones of all the activities
designed in these projects.. The strengthening of farmers’
association/union is indispensible in providing conducive marketing
environment for informal seed sector and ensuring localized as well
as sustainable seed supply. To maximize out of their
complementarities, the need to integrate the informal with the formal
seed sector cannot be over emphasized. Proper training of farmers on
quality seed production, market information network, coordination
and linkage among important stakeholders as research, agricultural
offices, local administrative bodies, formal seed sector and
unions/farmers association are also necessities.
 Endeshaw et.al

1. Introduction

Despite the presence of extensively operating formal seed sector in

Ethiopia, with no exception, its capacity to satisfy the demand of
millions of farmers is far below satisfactory. Nearly half of the farmers
in the Central Rift Valley (CRV), where most of the physical, market,
institutional and technological infrastructures are relatively better off,
for example, use own maize seed and 15% percent purchased seed
from traders (Dawit et al 2007). During the 2004/05 season, the supply
of seed through the Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE) was 304 000 q,
i.e., 73% short of official demand for seed based on estimates
developed by woreda and regional bureaus of agriculture. In
particular, the supply from the same source and season for haricot
bean was 79% less the official demand (Ibid). This simply underlines
the fact that, given the infrastructural and resource limitation, the
country cannot fully rely on the formal sector alone.

Analyzing the contribution of the formal and informal seed system

Zewdie et al (2008 ) indicated that out of potential annual seed
requirement (estimated 150, 000 tons), the share of formal seed
system is estimated to be about 10-20% while the rest (80-90%) is
covered by the informal seed system. The Ethiopian Seed Enterprise
(ESE) takes the lion share (80-90%) of the amount supplied by the
formal sector. The experiences and empirical evidences to date, by and
large, clearly justify the need to strengthen the informal seed sector.
In recognition to such need to revitalize informal seed supply for local
crops and varieties, ESE has made a move to improve the seed supply
by working with farmers through contractual seed production with
Farmers’ Producers Cooperatives and through Farmer-Based Seed
Production and Marketing Scheme (FBSPMS) (Yonas et al., 2008).
The move helped in improving the seed supply of less profitable crops
both in terms of local availability and access by resource poor farmers.
Accordingly, of the certified seed produced by ESE, the FBSPMS
accounted for 25% (in 2005) and 35% in 2006. Whoever initiates a
farmer participatory decentralized seed production, the fact that the
opportunity can simultaneously be used to introduce improved

62
Decentralized seed production and delivery

management practices which can contribute to improved productivity

of small famers is real double advantage (Endeshaw et al., 2009).

Looking into the diversity of the seed supply during 2000-2007, Yonas
et al., (2008) showed that wheat and maize accounted for more than
90% of the total seed sales of ESE demonstrating that the informal
sector remains a major supplier of improved and local land races of
diverse crops grown by small farmers. They also indicated that of the
total seed being circulated by the informal seed sector, the share of
improved seed is only about 10%.

The concentration of the formal seed sector, ESE in particular, mainly

on production of certain cereals has generally devoid the potential
attention the bean farmers’ require, among others, in terms of
availability and access to improved seeds. Though there existed a
number of varietal options (more than 30) with food and market class,
most bean farmers had little, if any, or no access to seeds of improved
varieties. Hence, unavailability of quality seeds of improved bean
varieties in time, space, and required quantities is among the major
factors that contributed to low access to improved bean
varieties/technologies thereby remained as limiting factor for
production and productivity. For instance, the national average
productivity of the crop is estimated at 1.04 t ha-1 (CSA 2008) against
the potential 2.7 t ha-1. Small scale poor farmers in drought prone
areas of the country have, particularly, much lower access to seeds of
improved varieties.

Not all farmers cultivate crops that are commercially important and
thus, hardly attract the interest of formal seed sector. Even when,
seeds of interest to the small farmers in the hard to reach areas are
being produced by the formal seed sector, access and affordability
becomes another face of the problem. Generally speaking, public
supported commercial seed enterprises have not provided options
attractive for poor farmers. By implication there is a need for new
avenues to provide access to seeds of improved varieties that respond
to the choice and demands of poorer farmers. Therefore, the
development of the informal sector (decentralized seed production and

63
 Endeshaw et.al

delivery) as an alternative and reliable seed source, in such cases,

cannot be optional. Towards this argument, various projects targeted
to address the needs of poor farmers with little or no access to
improved seeds through partnership with key actors have been
implemented in order to stimulate policy attention and thereby ensure
a formal support to the informal seed system.

This paper presents the experience of two distinct projects (Impact

Oriented Decentralized Seed System in Tropical Legumes II project
(TL II) and Farmer Based Seed Production and Dissemination in
Strengthening Technology Development, Verification, Transfer and
Adoption through Farmers Research Groups Project (FRG) on
decentralized bean seed production and delivery with farmers and
other important partners in bean growing region of Ethiopia. The
prime purpose of the projects were identifying farmers preferred
(adapted, stress tolerant and good yielder) common bean varieties and
improve availability and access to those farmers preferred varieties by
poor farmers through decentralized seed production and distribution
approach. The challenges as well as important lessons drawn from
these experiences are also summarized.

Structure and Evolution of Seed Systems

The formal and informal seed systems are differentiated based on who
is responsible for conservation of genetic resource,
breeding/improvement and seed supply as well as in terms of level of
integration in the seed system (Table 1). While the formal seed system
has a specialized actor for each component as gene bank for genetic
resource conservation, research institutions for breeding/improvement,
and seed parastatals/seed companies for seed supply, in the informal
seed system all are carried out by the farmers who do all the
maintaining of the genetic resource, selection in combination with
natural processes such as genetic mutation and serve as seed source
for self and others. Obviously, the latter is highly integrated than the
former. Of course, the current position of the two systems evolved over
time as a result of policy directives and actions taken in responding to
varying scenarios in the last four decades (Table 2).

64
Decentralized seed production and delivery

Table 1 Distinction between formal and informal seed system

Formal seed system Informal seed system

Conservation of genetic Gene bank Farmer
resource
Improvement Breeding programs in research Farmer
institutions
Seed supply Parastatals/ private companies Farmer through exchange in the
local system
Operation level National (potential areas) Community
Integration Less More
Adapted from Walter et al., (2008)

Nowadays, in addition to farmers, many other actors (such as NGOs,

research institutions, seed parastatals) have taken interest in the
informal seed system mainly because it is a low-cost source of seed,
reliable, efficient and accessible channel to provide resource-poor
farmers with seeds of improved varieties (which are of less interest to
the commercial sector). Such an interest in the informal seed sector
was triggered by the limitation of the formal seed sector to deliver
seeds of different crop varieties to the diverse farming community.

2. Approach and Methods

The first most important step in the seed production activity was
creation of awareness as well as potential demand for particular
variety. Once farmer preferred variety is identified the mechanism to
satisfy the demand was designed in such a way that reasonable access
to seed is ensured through localized/ decentralized/ farmer based seed
production and delivery endeavors. Though, in terms of the methods
used at different levels (Table 3) and in the design, there was certain
distinctions between the two projects, there were four important
stages common to both (Fig 1). Nevertheless, capacity development on
seed production practices was an important common denominator in
these projects.

65
 Endeshaw et.al

Table 2 Evolution of the formal and informal seed sector

Decades Directions and Actions pursued Issues

Developments
1970 Significance of quality Establishment of • Limited financial sustainability
seed recognized by highly subsidized
African governments formal seed sector- • Limited involvement of small-farmers
and donors seed parastatals in variety development and seed
supply chain
1980 Recognition of the A policy shift to • Focus limited to hybrid maize, high
significance of private disbanding parastatals
sector role and encouraging value crops, high potential area
private sector • Minor crops and hard to reach
development
community were marginalized
1990 Interest in seed Support to community • Access to seed in remote areas and to
sector by NGOs and -based seed
Rural development production and supply poor farmers improved
agencies • Transforming community seed
producers into producers of high
quality seed
2000 Renewed effort to Focus on supporting • Companies focus on more profitable
improve seed access the private sector
(small & medium crops/varieties rather than wide range
agro-dealers); of crop species which determine the
establish seed
resource-poor farmers’ food security
business friendly
regulations
Adapted from Rubiyogo et al., (2009)

Demand creation
The target community/farmers are exposed to new varieties with
management practices. This stage adopts variety of methods including
participatory variety selection (PVS), participatory evaluation and
demonstration, field days, training, sales of new varieties via small
packs for farmers to try themselves in small plot of land and use of
promotional materials. Consequently, the varieties for which farmers
show preference would be identified jointly.

Multiplication of preferred varieties

Once the preferred variety is identified, this is a preparation stage
where the variety (basic seed) is being multiplied on research station
in proportion to targeted seed producers in selected weredas.

66
Decentralized seed production and delivery

Localized seed production

The basic seed produced is distributed to seed producing farmers
through respective weredas, farmers’ cooperative unions, NGOs, and
private firms. The selected seed producers shall produce a certified
seed that can be made available to the local farmers through local
networks or farmers’ association. This activity engages a number of
partners in monitoring and evaluation of the production activity.

Decentralized recovery and redistribution of seed

The seed produced by selected farmers is partly recovered either in kind
(same size of seed provided to the farmer) and/or through sales to the
partners involved, usually farmers cooperative unions. The same seed
recovered is redistributed to new batch of farmers as seed and the cycle
continues with introduction of new varieties. This is expected to build the
capacity of partners in dealing with seed business.

Though both share important similarities, the two projects had

distinctness in terms of the scale and purpose pursued in bean seed
production. The seed production in the FRG project is an activity that is
embedded in the testing of different management practices for farmer
preferred varieties. It is carried out simultaneously with the on farm
evaluation of improved and local management practices (for instance,
land preparation and planting method, weeding techniques and so on)
which help in identifying the best management option that ensures
maximum gain from the variety. The purpose of farmer based seed
production, here, was to respond to the demand of the farmers in the
wereda who developed interest to the varieties due to exposure during
field days and information from neighbors and extension workers. The
starting/foundation seed is provided from the research center both to the
FRG farmers directly (with the knowledge of the Woreda Agricultural and
Rural Development offices-WARDO) and to the WARDO who in turn
distribute to other non FRG potential seed producing farmers. Whereas
the decentralized impact oriented bean seed production and delivery
project (TL II) tries to identify and establish a decentralized seed
production and delivery modes that are tailored to various clients thereby

67
 Endeshaw et.al

generate information on the ideal model for different scenario of seed

production and delivery. Accordingly, it was framed in such a way that
the research centre plays the role of capacity building on seed production
and provides foundation seed in different pack sizes to primary partners
whose main role was distributing the same to selected individual/group of
farmers through collaborative partners (WARDOs and NGOs). Private
farms directly receive seed from research centre and produce seed
themselves as per the agreement.

Table 3 Similarities and differences in methods used between the two projects (FRG and TL II) in
decentralized seed production

FRG (2005-2007) TL II (2008-2009)

Demand creation for Group based participatory Participatory Variety Selection (PVS),
new varieties planning, evaluation and training, demonstrations, using small packs,
demonstration, training, field day, promotional materials
promotional materials
Multiplication of On research station On research station, in addition, the seed is
basic/ certified seed packed in to different sizes (5, 12.5 and 25
kg) customized to the capacities of seed
producers with the end to stimulate
development of agro seed enterprises
Seed distribution to Planning with FRG member Decentralized planning with all partners
seed producers farmers and respective Weredas (Primary partners: Farmers cooperative
Agricultural and Rural unions (FCU), NGOs and Collaborative
Development Offices (WARDO); partners: Farmers, Extension experts,
seed production embedded in field NGOs, private farms)and distribution is
demonstrations of crop done through FCU, WARDO and NGOs
management practices; respective
WARDOs does distribution to
FRGs and copy farmers
Seed recovery and Recovered in kind by weredas Recovered in kind and via cash through
redistribution and distributed to other farmers; primary partners (FC Unions + NGOs) and
Redistribution is mainly left for redistributed by the same and through local
local networks (cash or non cash networks (cash or non cash based
based exchange) exchange)
Scale Selected weredas in Central Rift Bean growing areas in the country
Valley (CRV)
Actors engaged Research, WARDOs, farmers Research, WARDOs, FC Unions, NGOs,
private farms, farmers

In the impact oriented bean seed production and delivery project (TL
II), joint review is organized annually, and the roles of partners are

68
Decentralized seed production and delivery

redefined in response to meeting emerging challenges. This was found

useful in modifying the models to fit the purpose of effective seed
production and delivery.

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Demand Creation

The creation of demand for new improved bean varieties is one of the
core activities in the decentralized seed production. The projects
introduced different varieties of bean to farmers in a range of bean
growing weredas. Various promotional materials (posters, leaflets, clip
charts) and tools were also utilized in stimulating interest in new
varieties as well as evaluating and demonstrating the varieties with
participating farmers (Table 4).

Table 4 Varieties, target sites and promotional materials and tools used in creating demand

The projects Varieties Number of Promotional Tools

used Weredas materials
(types)
15 3 2  Participatory evaluation and
FRG
(2005-2007) demonstration with FRGs
 Field days
 Training
 Promotional materials (Clip
charts, leaflets)
12 34 3  Participatory Variety Selection
TL II
(2008-2009) (PVS)
 Demonstrations
 Small packs (8562 packets of
different sizes and varieties)
 Promotional materials
(posters, seed production
manuals, leaflets)

In addition to joint evaluation and demonstration of new varieties,

69
 Endeshaw et.al

capacity development (training) on the production of quality seed of

preferred bean varieties were carried out side by side with
development of promotional materials as a reinforcement to continue
production and improve localized access to the varieties (Table 5).

Table 5 Capacity building (training) activities on seed production

Number of Target Types of Remark

participants districts Participants
FRG 36 3 Farmers, Extension Farmer to farmer
(2005-2007) workers experience sharing
TLII 136 21 Extension workers ToT who in turn trains
(2008-2009) (DAs + Experts) farmers

As indicated earlier, introduction of the new varieties was not a

standalone activity. It was accompanied by a decentralized seed
production and dissemination of the varieties for which the target
community exhibited special preference. Various actors/partners were
organized along the production and distribution chain to ensure better
access to the new technologies.

3.2. Local Availability of Demanded Seeds

Once farmers’ preferred varieties are identified, a decentralized seed
production and distribution is effected with keen involvement of
partners. Simultaneously, introduction of new varieties continued to
unreached production areas. As it can be observed from Table 6 quite
a number of partners were engaged in the production and distribution
activity. The seeds of varieties already introduced and preferred by
the farmers (popular varieties) were packed into bigger pack sizes (50,
100 kg) in 2008 and later modified to commercial pack sizes (5, 12.5,
25 kg) in 2009 were distributed to 1609 and 2740 seed farmers in
respective years through the primary partners. The packaging was
done at the research center after agreement was reached with
partners on the ranges of pack sizes, particularly in 2009. Of the total
seed distributed to farmers a total harvest of 377 and 126 tons seed of
different varieties in respective years, was reported. This data was not
complete because it refers to only the harvest from part of the total
seed planted by seed producers. However, with all its limitation, so

70
Decentralized seed production and delivery

much seed was produced and made available to local farmers as well
as others from surrounding/neighboring districts, zones, and regions.
Side by side new varieties were also demonstrated on farmers’ field as
well as distributed through small pack sizes of 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 kg
to stimulate new demands and trigger the supply of the same using
the most suitable mode of localized delivery by partners.

In the FRG project as well, in three districts both FRG farmers in 2006
and non FRG ones in 2007 were involved in production of seeds of five
varieties (Table 7). In addition to the farmers, the actors actively
engaged in the community based seed production were district
agricultural and rural development offices as well as Melkassa
research center. The former, besides distributing the seed to
participant farmers, played the role of revolving the seed produced to
new batch of farmers by recovering (after harvest) the amount they
distributed in kind and providing information for other farmers about
who and where the seed is available.

71
 Endeshaw et.al

Table 6 Decentralized seed production, distribution, and introduction of new varieties by TL II project

Year >> 2008 2009 Remark

Number of Primary partners (FC Unions, NGO, 17 14
Pvt farms) 4.
Number of Districts involved 27 34
5.
Quantity of In bigger pack Distributed 44.6 45.15* Out of the total
popular size (50, 100kg) (ton) distributed few tones
varieties Planted 40.2 41.9 were left undistributed to
(ton) farmers, hence, not
planted
Distributed using - 34.55
commercial packs size (5, 6.
12.5, 25kg)(ton)
Quantity of new Distributed in small pack size - 5.50 7 varieties; 8562 packs
varieties (0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 kg) (ton) distributed through 9
Primary partners
Distributed for demonstration 1.32 - 13 varieties on 1316
(ton) demo plots in 30 districts
Number of farm HH (participant) 1609 2740 More than 18500 farmers
got access to seed from
seed producing farmers
as a spill over to other
areas
Total harvest (ton) 377 126 The total harvest data is
only from part of the total
planted in the respective
year. Remaining was not
reported from partners
N.B. *The seed distributed in 2009 includes the seed that is recovered from 2008 by partners (4 t) and the one
provided by MARC (41.5 t)

Partners involved: Central Rift Valley (CRV): Agriculture and Rural Development Offices (ARDO) (6 Zonal and 20 Woreda),

CRS (HQ and two churches: Wonji and, Meki), ELFORA Agro Industry PLC, Farmers Cooperative Unions (Lume Adama, Uta

Wayu , Hitosa, Silte Melik), IPMS-ILRI (Alaba and Dale), ACOS Ethiopia, CIAT , Ethiopian and Oromiya Seed Enterprise.

West Haraghe: CARE, WARDO (Chiro, Gemechis and Goro Gutu), EIAR-MARC

East Hararghe: HCS, WARDO (Kersa, Meta and Goro Gutu), EIAR-MARC, FCU (Afran Qallo), Haramaya University

72
Decentralized seed production and delivery

Table 7 Decentralized seed production and distribution by FRG project

Districts Varieties No participant Basic/ certified Quantity

Years farmers seed in tone produced (ton)
(source) @
2006 3 5 30 (Farmers’ 12.1
Own)*
2007 3 5 135 6.5 92.2
(MARC+Own)
* The trial on variety selection was in progress from 2005 that the seed farmers used for 2006 seed production
activity was the one harvested from the trial plots
@ Refers to the seed used for seed production the original source being the research center and partly the
distribution to farmers was taken care by respective WARDOs (Shala, Adamitulu-Jido-Kombolcha, and Bora)

6.1. Decentralized Recovery and Re-distribution of Seed

The seed produced by the farmers in both projects was recovered and
redistributed either in kind or through different forms of exchange
(through gift, seed credit, and exchange in kind and, cash sale). It was
attempted to trace the fate of the farmer produced seed in the case of
TL II project. The result from the recovery and post harvest utilization
of seed by participant farmers implied that farmers’ hardly return the
seed given in kind, and in contrast the recovery through purchase
looked better. However, there was no consistency from 2008 to 2009.
The slipping of quite sizeable quantity (21-22%) of the seed produced
to the grain market sounds absence of attractive seed price that can
justify the investment on seed production (Table 8). If seed price is not
well differentiated from that of grain, farmers would definitely lose
interest in seed production for lack of incentive for the higher cost
requirement compared to grain production.

In the FRG project, on the other hand, it was simply assumed that the
seed shall reach to the target community in the weredas through local
seed networks (exchanges, sales, gifts) in addition to what is being
resolved through the facilitation of respective weredas, that is,
agreement was reached with participant farmers to return the same
amount of seed they were given at the beginning in kind to the
weredas and the same is to be redistributed to new farmers in the
wereda. Accordingly, it was recorded in two of the districts out of the

73
 Endeshaw et.al

92 tons of seed produced in 2007, only 2.7 tons was reported to be

recovered in kind and distributed to 57 new farmers. With no
exception, in this project too, recovering the seed in kind from farmers
was not that satisfactory. With all the irregularities in recording as
well as returning the seed in kind, it was somehow recognized that
localized access to seeds of farmer preferred bean seed varieties was
created. Given the increased popularity of the farmer preferred
improved bean varieties in the respective weredas, it is also believed
that the farmer produced seed reached other farmers through
exchange of seed (in different form) mainly as a result of frequent field
day events that arose keen interest among visiting as well as informed
farmers from different kebeles of those weredas.

Table 8 Recovery and post harvest utilization of seed produced by farmers (TL II)

Years >> 2008 2009 Remark

Total seed distributed from MARC through 40.6 41.5 The same amount is
primary partners (ton) expected to be returned in
kind to primary partners
Total seed produced (as reported) (ton) 377 126 At least 30% of the total
produce is expected to be
sold to primary partners
Recovered by primary Kind 3 9
partners (%) 7.
Purchase 29 7
Temporarily stocked by farmers (%) 15 17.8
8.
Sold/given to Other farmers 9 17.9
/kept for self sowing as seed (%) 9.
Consumed (%) 6 1.2
10.
To grain market (traders + farmers) (%) 21 22
11.
Source: National Bean Research Project M & E data, 2009

In general, the two projects which depended on the engagement of

range of partners in the decentralized seed production and
distribution have been instrumental in both gaining practical
experiences of producing seed with farmers and narrowing the
potential supply gap that comes out of the wider demand created in
the process. The fact that beans are hardly produced by the seed

74
Decentralized seed production and delivery

parastatals justifies the later. The experience was not all smooth.
There were challenges, many ups and downs which left valuable
lessons for setting up a successful decentralized seed production and
delivery.

11.1. Challenges in the Decentralized Seed Production and

Delivery

The following were some of the challenges encountered during the

implementation of the two projects in general

Inputs availability and affordability

There were no clearly stated criteria used to select farmers who would
participate in the production of seed. Thus, the foundation seed was
provided to those farmers (picked by the extension workers) who had
different level of access and purchasing power to necessary inputs.
Therefore, it was not possible both to ensure the availability and/or
affordability of input, particularly fertilizer, for the participant
farmers. Some of the farmers’ did not have either access or capacity to
purchase the required fertilizer.

Management practices
At times farmers tend to manage the seed multiplication plot no
differently from the normal grain production activity due to
competition for limited resource (labor/capital) and/or reluctance by
sticking to the traditional practices where beans field are hardly
weeded. This affected not only the yield but also the seed quality

75
 Endeshaw et.al

Monitoring and evaluation

It was found difficult, particularly after harvest, to trace the fate of
the seed produced. This is because once farmers’ threshed and the
seed is ready, how much will be retained, exchanged, consumed, sold
as grain/seed does not take place at a specific time. In addition, with
the intention of not returning the seed given in kind farmers
sometimes manipulate the actual harvest data that will undermine
the total seed produced. On the other side, the small seed packs which
were distributed on cheaper (affordable) price with the end of
introducing new varieties, basically, require the registration of buyers
with their profile for tracing where the seed went and what was the
farmers’ experience. Collection of buyers’ profile was difficult because
the buyers were rushing in number and the selling was done by
research staff and there was hardly any support from some partners
who were supposed to play this role. Over and above this, the
incidence of frequent transfer as well as work over load of extension
staff coupled with poor information sharing tradition created
information gap and weakened the monitoring and evaluation
activities.

Partners’ commitment
Though there was a memorandum of understanding signed with
partners, commitment was totally dependent on good will and
understanding. There was no any enforcement/incentive mechanism
to ensure commitment. Some partners had hard time owning the
activity. This was reflected both in M & E as well as timeliness in
distribution and recovery of the seed. The risk behind this could be
that it can create the impression that partnership oriented
decentralized seed production and delivery is hard to realize

Seed recovery
There was both delay in recovery of seed as well as less attractive seed
price which forces farmers to send the seed to the grain market, and
on the other hand farmers have hard time returning the seed provided
in kind. When they do, they may do it with poor seed quality or do not
return at all. They tend to confuse it with free offer/aid.

76
Decentralized seed production and delivery

Storage problem
Farmers do not have appropriate storage facility/technology that can
maintain the seed quality up to the next season. Since many farmers
hardly purchase seed early enough before planting, the farmers who
produced the seed had little option to extend the storage life and were
forced to sell it as a grain. Moreover, the fact that beans mature early
before other crops, makes it to be marketed early to fill the cash
shortage that will be needed to pay for the labor cost of harvesting and
threshing other crops. Coupled with storage the later is a real
challenge in beans seed production. There is a critical need to work on
development of appropriate bean seed storage technology to ensure
local seed production and supply of best preferred varieties

Cash and marketing problems

Farmers are tempted to sell the seed as a grain when the grain market
gets even more attractive than the seed price early before following
planting season. Some siphon all to the market and do not even
maintain seed assuming they would again receive the same seed. This,
despite the potential demand, also limits the dissemination/
availability of the seed to other farmers in need just because they lack
the cash in time to secure the seed.

12. Lessons Learnt

The decentralized/farmer based seed production and delivery, through
the two projects, had left important lessons that should be considered
in establishing and improving informal seed production with partners:

 Seed production is an investment. It requires higher level of

management compared to grain. Accordingly, farmers who would be
engaged in seed production need to be food secured, capable to
efficiently manage the seed production plot and absorb some shocks
related capital. Or they will be tempted to poorly manage the crop and
siphon the seed into the grain market to fill their cash requirement.
Small and poor farmers in drought prone areas need to be
beneficiaries of decentralized seed production than being a seed
producers

77
 Endeshaw et.al

 Unless there exist a differentiated price between seed and grain

(which was a bit abnormal during the project period), it may force seed
producing farmers to lose interest in seed production. There must be
a price reward for seed.
 The quality of seed produced by participant farmers was variable. This
suggested that there should be a mechanism to measure the quality
level and set the price accordingly. Constant and organized
engagement in ensuring as well as rewarding good quality seed
produced by farmers is necessary. It can stimulate other interested
farmers to be sensitive to quality.
 Farmer based seed production scheme demand some basic
institutional arrangement beyond getting quality seed produced
locally. There should be: involvement of local/community leaders,
service cooperatives as well as administrative bodies; input and credit
arrangement, market information network and incentive for quality,
and storage facility which can be managed by collectively owned
institutions as farmers’ association/union
 The dissemination of low quality seed, through revolving or
whatsoever, may check the adoption of well performing variety and
can damage trust between farmers and other stakeholders involved.
Hence, caution must be taken not to revolve seeds of lower quality.
 Potential connection of seed producing farmers with the formal seed
sector as well as strengthening the link with projects/institutions
working on seed business can enhance their complementarities and
provide for exchange of experience and building of local capacities
towards developing seed business. Furthermore, systematic and
strategic integration of the informal and formal seed sector would be
instrumental in enhancing and sustaining the production and delivery
of quality seed.
 Seed multiplication activity can be a very good opportunity to evaluate
and introduce/demonstrate various improved management practices
with farmers
 Packaging of seeds- commercial pack for popular and small pack for
new varieties- in to different sizes proved their worth in providing
access to /introduction of new varieties and maximizing the option to
acquire seeds of popular varieties by small farmers with low
purchasing power. It encouraged them to acquire new varieties, take

78
Decentralized seed production and delivery

modest risk, and even to pay for small seed packs. Similar marketing
strategy can be, even beyond this, applied to other inputs such as
fertilizer.
 Capacity development both technical and institutional is crucial if
farmer based seed production has to thrive and sustainably address
the demand for seed. Farmers’ and extension workers’ need to be
equipped with all the necessary knowledge and skill for production of
quality seed. Besides, farmers’ association/unions and other small
scale entrepreneurs’ capacity to deal with marketing of farmer
produced seed including storage facility should also be developed.
Establishing important quality parameters and sharing the same with
farmers through developing their technical capacity and setting seed
quality standards together with corresponding premium is crucial to
ensure availability and sustainability of quality seed. Besides, this
may facilitate the growth of small scale entrepreneurs in the informal
seed sector. The interest developed with some institutions,
particularly NGOs, with regard to enhancement of small scale
entrepreneurs in the informal seed sector need to be exploited as an
opportunity.
 While planning decentralized seed production and delivery business
with partners, it is important to give equal emphasis to both the
production and marketing aspects. Particularly, setting up clear seed
distribution procedure/system and creating shared understanding of
the same early enough in the planning stage would be useful to reduce
the tension at the end.

13. Conclusion

Given the present huge difference between supply and demand, the
development of alternative seed sources such as farmer based seed
production in addition to existing formal seed sector cannot be
considered optional. Yet, even establishment of informal seed
multiplication capacity does not just happen; proper training of
farmers, market information network, incentive mechanism, linkage
among important stakeholders as research, agricultural offices, local
administrative bodies, formal seed sector and unions/farmers

79
 Endeshaw et.al

association are requisites. It is also necessary to set up a clear

distribution procedure as well as mechanisms to control the quality
and accordingly sustain the supply. In general, the experience in these
projects suggested that beans seed multiplication, among other,
demands a storage facility to ensure its availability at planting time
with acceptable quality; coordination among key partners and proper
institutional arrangements to avoid sales of seed as a grain. The
strengthening of farmers’ association/union is indispensible in
providing conducive marketing environment for informal seed sector
and ensuring localized as well as sustainable seed supply. To
maximize out of their complementarities, the need to integrate the
informal with the formal seed sector cannot be over emphasized. Last
but not least, use of buyers’ friendly packaging both for commercial
and new varieties has significant role in improving access to seed as
well as awareness to new varieties to a range of small farmers with
variable purchasing power.

References

Bishaw Z, S Yonas and S Belay. 2008. The status of the Ethiopian seed
industry. In: Thijssen, MH, Z Bishaw, A Beshir and WS. de Boef (eds.).
Farmers, seeds and varieties: supporting informal seed supply in
Ethiopia. Wageningen, Wageningen International, p. 24
Central Statistical Authority. 2008. Agricultural sample survey of 2007/8:
Area and production of crops. Volume 1, Statistical Bulletin 417, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dawit Alemu, W Mwangai, Mandefro Nigussie and DJ Spelman. 2007. An
Analysis of Maize Seed Production and Distribution Systems in
Ethiopia’s Rift Valley. Research report 72, Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa.
Endeshaw Habte, Kidane Tumsa and Birhanu Amsalu 2009. Farmer Based
Bean Seed Production and Dissemination-Experience From Bean FRG
Activity In Selected Weredas Of CRV. In: Beshir B, S Birhanu, D
Lema, M Niioka, K Shiratori and K Wole K (eds). Proceedings of the
workshop on farmers’ seed production held in Melkassa Agricultural
Research Center in Melkassa, Ethiopia, 18-19 September 2008.

80
Decentralized seed production and delivery

Melkassa, EIAR, OARI, JICA.

Rubyogo JC and L Sperling, 2009. Developing seed system in Africa. In:
Scoons, I. and J. Thompson, (eds.). Farmer First Revised: Innovation
for Agricultural Research and Development. IDS, University of Sussex,
Practical Action Publishing Ltd, PP 52-57.
Sahlu Y, S Belay and B Zewdie. 2008. The farmer-based seed production and
marketing scheme: lesson learnt. In: Thijssen, MH., Z Bishaw, A Beshir and
WS. de Boef (eds.). Farmers, seeds and varieties: supporting informal seed
supply in Ethiopia. Wageningen, Wageningen International, pp. 33,46.
Setimela PS, E Monyo and M Banziger. 2004. Successful Community-Based
Seed Production Strategies. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT
Walter S de Boef and Z Bishaw, 2008. A system perspective for linking
farmers and professionals supporting farmers practices in seed supply.
In: Thijssen MH, Z Bishaw, A Beshir and WS. de Boef (eds.). Farmers,
seeds and varieties: supporting informal seed supply in Ethiopia.
Wageningen, Wageningen International, pp 48-50.

81