|
 Persistent
food and seed insecurities in Sub-Saharan Africa are normally
blamed on droughts and floods, as though the region never has
normal seasons. Relief seed donations have become a fixed
element in seed trade. We should all agree that food security is
dependent upon seed security, but food shortages do not
necessarily mean that there was not enough seed. The problem is
more complex than that.
Lack of
adequate seed supplies during emergency situations and efforts
to improve food production by subsistence farmers have been
addressed for many decades by way of relief seed handouts. This
may take the form of seed or combination packs of seed,
fertilizer and pesticides, free or partly subsidized, and
distributed directly by governments or NGOs, or through a
voucher system. Whatever system used and however noble the
intentions, the problem of endemic seed shortages has not been
resolved in over 40 years. A comprehensive
FAO study published in 1999
highlighted lessons learned, part of which covers inconsistent,
incoherent and inappropriate emergency seed approaches. More
often than not, existing seed systems were disrupted, as one
would expect from ad hoc interventions. Jeffrey Sachs, Director
of the UN Millennium Project, recommended that the way to
“stabilize fragile states is to send packages of food, seed and
medicine” and complained that “instead of practical help, rich
countries send an endless stream of international consultants to
design projects” (Scientific
American, August 2006). The first statement is surely an
oversimplification, while the second may find a number of
supporters.
A study commissioned by the
Food, Agriculture and Natural
Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) shows that the
recommendations in the FAO report have not been adequately
implemented. Relief seed in different guises has become a seed
business unto itself with positive spin-offs for some
stakeholders, negative consequences for others, while having
different impacts on member states in Southern Africa.
Benefits include access to seed
when national stocks are insufficient, farmers not having to pay
for seed, farmers having options to select best varieties
through a voucher system, some seed companies specializing in
relief seed markets, and other companies selling surplus stock.
Negative impacts are that some tenders based on least cost
procurement may lead to poor quality seed and even grain
presented as seed, unadapted varieties, late funding that delays
procurement and distribution, little recognition of informal
seed availability, limited range of varieties, and potential
misuse of funding or vouchers. Intervention through relief seed
also makes it difficult for companies to properly plan seed
production.
Maize represents the bulk of
relief seed trade. The move by government and NGOs away from
hybrid maize in Malawi has reduced hybrid share of the formal
market from 40 per cent to less than 13 per cent, to the
detriment of companies that specialize in hybrid seed. Some 26
per cent of the formal maize seed market is relief seed. An
analysis of three-year official crop yields showed that average
yields per hectare for hybrids were 1.7 tons, for improved
composites 1.1 tons, and 0.6 for farmer open-pollinated
varieties (OPV). Arithmetic tells us that one would need almost
three times as much OPV seed to harvest the same crop as for
hybrids. How can one then save on seed cost?
Major beneficiaries have been
Angola with over 13 000 tons of relief seed imports and Zimbabwe
with over 12 000 tons, both expected to increase this year.
South Africa has had substantial benefit from relief seed
procurement. In 2005 it exported some 21 000 metric tons of
relief seed valued at over $44 million, excluding vegetable
seed. These benefits accrued to relatively few companies. Zambia
has also cashed in by producing and exporting several thousand
tons of open-pollinated and hybrid maize seed to Zimbabwe.
What will happen when donor
funding dries up? How much dependency has been created: farmers
waiting for donated seed, seed companies waiting for farmers
with seed vouchers, and NGOs having become active seed
distributors? Some progress is being made in coordinating relief
operations with improved quality standards and facilitated seed
movement as part of the objectives. However, the key problem is
not being addressed, namely, creating an enabling environment in
which seed industries can flourish so that national seed
security is assured, while having opportunities to serve seed
export markets. This would require an enabling regulatory system
coupled with agricultural reforms that will lift subsistence and
smallholder commercial farmers out of the poverty trap. Quality
seed of high yielding varieties coming from the Green Revolution
and the Gene Revolution will be a key tool to achieve this.
Acknowledgement: This review
makes use of some information from the FANRPAN study report that
will released in the near future.
Dr. van der Walt can be reached at
wynandjvdw@telkomsa.net |
