harmonized seed security project (hassp) - fanrpan · harmonized seed security project (hassp) ......
TRANSCRIPT
1 2
Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP)
Common Vision Workshop Held at the Kopanong Hotel
20th-21st May, 2010
Workshop Documentation
REGIONAL SECRETARIAT 141 Cresswell Road, Weavind Park 0184 Private Bag X2087, Silverton 0127 Pretoria, South Africa
Tel: +27 12 804 2966 / 3186 Fax: +27 12 804 0600 Email: [email protected] www.fanrpan.org
This report documents the Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP) Common Vision Workshop, held at the Kopanong Hotel & conference center, in Benoni. South Africa. This report is not finally synthesized, but tries to capture the output of the consultative process in a non-interpreted way.
THIS DOCUMENTATION IS MEANT TO BE A REFERENCE DOCUMENT for all participants and is intended to provide details of what transpired during the meeting. All outcomes of the plenary presentations, table group work and plenary discussions are documented with minimal modifications. Workshop designed by: Edward Chuma, Hlami Ngwenya & Dr Jürgen Hagmann
Workshop Facilitation and documented by: Edward Chuma & Hlami Ngwenya
Institute for People, Innovation & Change in Organizations-PICOTEA
Table of contents
FOREWORD BY THE WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS ............................................................................................... 5
WORKSHOP BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 7
FOREWORD BY THE FACILITATORS ................................................................................................................. 8
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. 9
1 OPENING AND SETTING THE SCENE ..................................................................................................... 11
1.1 OPENING OF THE WORKSHOP ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.1 Opening speech by Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda ............................................................................... 11
1.1.2 Opening speech by Swiss agency for Development Cooperation .................................................... 17
1.1.3 Opening speech On behalf of COMESA‐ ACTESA ............................................................................. 19
2 SETTING THE SCENE ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.1 GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER .................................................................................................................. 21
2.1.1 Introduction of the facilitation team and approach ........................................................................ 21
2.2 FACILITATION PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................... 22
2.3 INTRODUCTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................... 24
2.3.1 Differentiation: Who is represented here? ...................................................................................... 25
2.3.2 Participants’ expectations and fears ............................................................................................... 28
2.4 GETTING THE GRASP OF THE AGENDA AND PROCESS ......................................................................................... 29
2.4.1 Anticipated workshop outputs/ products and the program overview ............................................ 29
3 WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM .......................................................................................................... 30
3.1 DOMESTICATION OF THE HARMONISED SEED SECURITY PROJECT (HASSP): THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 30
3.2 CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATION FOR THE FUTURE HASSP .................................................................................. 39
4 COUNTRY SITUATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 42
4.1 COUNTRY EXPERIENCES .............................................................................................................................. 42
4.1.1 Experiences from Malawi: Perspective from government ............................................................... 42
4.1.2 Experience from Malawi: Perspective from ASSMAG ...................................................................... 47
4.1.3 Experiences from Swaziland: Perspective from government ........................................................... 49
4.1.4 Experiences from Zambia: Perspective from government ............................................................... 53
4.1.5 Experience from Zambia: Perspective from Self help Africa ............................................................ 56
4.1.6 Experiences from Zimbabwe: Perspective from government .......................................................... 58
4.1.7 Experience from Zimbabwe: Perspective from CTDT ....................................................................... 64
4.2 ANALYSIS OF GAPS IN THE COUNTRIES ........................................................................................................... 66
5 WHO IS DOING WHAT IN THE REGION‐ THE EXISTING INITIATIVES ....................................................... 67
5.1 EXPERIENCES FROM ACTESA ..................................................................................................................... 67
5.2 EXPERIENCES FROM SYNGENTA ................................................................................................................... 69
5.3 EXPERIENCES FROM AGRA ......................................................................................................................... 72
5.4 EXPERIENCES FROM CIMMYT .................................................................................................................... 76
5.5 EXPERIENCES FROM ICRISAT ...................................................................................................................... 78
5.6 EXPERIENCE FROM ICRISAT‐ MALAWI ......................................................................................................... 82
5.7 EXPERIENCES FROM CORNELL UNIVERSITY‐ SEED OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ..................................................... 85
5.8 EXPERIENCES FROM IFPRI .......................................................................................................................... 86
5.9 EXPERIENCES FROM FAO ........................................................................................................................... 91
6 COUNTRY GAP ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT ............................................................ 94
6.1.1 Gaps and opportunities for support for Zimbabwe ......................................................................... 95
6.1.2 Gaps and opportunities for support for Swaziland .......................................................................... 97
6.1.3 Gaps and opportunities for support for Malawi .............................................................................. 98
6.1.4 Gaps and opportunities for support for Zambia ............................................................................ 100
7 THE COUNTRY’S 6 MONTHS WORKPLANS .......................................................................................... 102
7.1 WORK PLAN ZAMBIA ............................................................................................................................... 103
7.2 WORK PLAN ZIMBABWE ........................................................................................................................... 107
7.3 WORK PLAN MALAWI .............................................................................................................................. 111
7.4 WORK PLAN SWAZILAND .......................................................................................................................... 114
7.5 THE CG‐CENTERS, DONORS AND FARNPAN ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION .......................................................... 116
8 GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENT OF THE HASSP ................................................................................... 116
8.1 PICOTEAM EXPERIENCES IN FACILITATING AN INNOVATION PLATFORMS .......................................................... 116
8.2 IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISM PROPOSAL: AN INPUT PRESENTATION ............................................................... 121
9 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY ............................................................................................................ 128
9.1 THE FANRPAN WEBSITE: STRENGTHENING THE NETWORK AND ITS VOICE ........................................................ 128
9.2 THE ROLE OF EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION ................................................................................................... 129
9.3 INTERNAL COMMUNICATION ..................................................................................................................... 132
10 THE WAY FORWARD AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................... 133
11 WORKSHOP EVALUATION AND CLOSING ........................................................................................... 134
11.1 WORKSHOP EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 134
11.2 WORKSHOP CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................. 135
11.3 CLOSING RECEPTION ............................................................................................................................... 136
12 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................... 138
12.1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................................................. 138
Foreword by the workshop organizers
Seed is a key input for improving agricultural productivity and ensuring food security. In fact there can be no food security without seed security.
Seed security is an issue that farmers around the world consider vitally important to production and boosting productivity. Yet amidst global debates on achieving food security and better rural livelihoods, this issue is often given only peripheral attention.
Throughout Africa, seeds are expensive, of poor quality and difficult to access due to trade barriers. With a swelling global population and projected future yield losses due to climate change, we need to step one level down the production chain and pay adequate attention to this most primary of agricultural inputs: the seed.
Seed security entails that farmers, especially smallholder farmers, enjoy uninterrupted access to quality seeds and new varietals at fair prices and at the right time.
From Policy to Practice
For this reason, the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) has just launched a four-year project to boost seed security within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The pilot project, supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), will cover four countries, namely, Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The programme ultimately aims to create a secure SADC-wide system that will provide farmers with a stable supply of seeds now and in the future. In particular, it addresses the needs of resource-poor small-scale farmers whose seed systems have been affected by a history of recurrent disasters.
Trade barriers between SADC member states have prevented seeds from moving quickly across borders when a seed deficit occurs due to a disaster, such as flooding, drought, or pest infestation. Fragmented seed legislation has meant that sourcing seeds between neighbouring countries is complicated and lengthy, leaving farmers without the bare essentials to grow crops.
Integrating seed policy and seed regulation, including phytosanitary policies, also reduces the cost of seed testing, since this is typically currently carried out in both the country of origin and import. This unnecessary duplication is both costly and time-consuming. It also leaves farmers with less time to plant during harvest season, or with lower-quality seed, which affects the amount of food they are able to grow.
Economic growth from agriculture reduces poverty by twice as much as any other industry, according to the World Bank. However over the years, agricultural productivity in the developing world has stagnated, with the average growth in cereal yields falling from 6% to 1.5% in recent decades. The most recent food crisis from 2008 pushed an additional 100 million people below the poverty line.
The Harmonised Seed Security Project (HaSSP) aims to create a harmonised regional market by integrating smaller seed markets into one large SADC market, facilitating easier movement of quality seeds between countries and reducing the cost to farmers of accessing them when needed.
FANRPAN’s seed security project will not only work with member countries at a regional policy level, but it will also train farmers at the community-level in proper use and storage. Furthermore, information on seed security needs to be shared, and stored. It will also create a seed database and publish updates on the latest crop varieties and production techniques in order to build capacity amongst farmers, researchers and input suppliers. The database will include the amount of seed currently in stock and where it is located.
Making markets work for farmers is essential if the world is to meet its food security objectives and the aspirations of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). FANRPAN’s HaSSP looks to connect fragmented marketplaces and smooth out unnecessary bureaucracies in the current regulatory system.
The 2 day HaSSP common vision planning meeting was attended by over 50 participants representing government, private sector, research community, not for profit NGOs, development partners and regional economic community secretariats, who were involved at different levels in the development of the seed harmonization protocols. These bring with them different levels of lessons learnt, experience and wisdom on the issues at hand. The workshop brought stakeholders who are relatively new to the seed harmonization process who will inject fresh ideas to the process, in addition to bringing insights gained from other projects they have engaged in. The workshop therefore provided a platform for key stakeholders to deliberate and develop work plans which will not only translate to the realisation of seed security for smallholder farmers in Africa, but will ensure that smallholder farmers become successful and significant seed producers.
Preface by Dr. Lindiwe Sibanda, the Chief Executive Officer and Head of Mission at the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) and a spokesperson for the Farming First coalition.
The preface contains Extracts from an article published by the same author in the UK Guardian on 29 April 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/katine-chronicles-blog/2010/apr/29/african-seed-harmonisation
Workshop Background
In response to the challenges of food insecurity, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), guided by its development philosophy stated in the “Message South” successfully funded Phase I of the SADC Seed Security Network Project (SSSN 1) (2006-2008), whose aim was to contribute to policy dialogue and formulation, culminating in elimination of trade barriers that are hindering intra-regional trade in seed products. SSSN 1 culminated in the approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) by SADC Ministers responsible for Agriculture and Food Security to adopt a SADC Harmonized Seed Regulatory System. The protocol has high potential to improve the flow of improved seed between countries, thus increasing access by men and women farmers to higher yielding technology. If implemented, the protocol will strengthen: (i) the variety release system to promote sharing of improved crop varieties across countries, (ii) strengthen the seed certification and quality assurance system in order to speed up the release of commercial seed onto the market, and (iii) strengthen the phytosanitary measures system to standardize them and facilitate cross-border movement of safe seed within the region.
Given this potential, and building on this success from SSSN 1, SDC is funding Phase 2, the Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP) with the overall objective of improving food security of smallholder farmers in the SADC region by increasing their access to seeds. The purpose of the project is to provide enabling support to SADC member states to domesticate the regional seed protocol, harmonize their seed policies and legislation, and effectively implement the provisions of the protocol with enhanced national capacities. The ultimate beneficiaries of the project are smallholder farming households whose access to better yields of staple and other preferred crops are expected to increase.
HaSSP is conceived as a pilot project that is designed to gain entry into an initial four countries (Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe). HaSSP will finance the following main activities: (i) the process of reviewing national policy and legislation on seed; (ii) capacity strengthening of key institutions and individuals involved in critical stages of the seed value chain, including upgrading of laboratory facilities for seed testing and phytosanitary control; (iii) policy research and advocacy around seed issues; (iv) establishment of national and regional databases and other activities for information and knowledge dissemination on new seed policies and regulations, and new varieties released and commercialized.
This workshop aims to develop a shared vision of the proposed project and initiate planning of the implementation process.
Foreword by the facilitators
We take every assignment we engage in as a learning process. This particular workshop not only provided us with new knowledge around seed security, but also served as a reminder of our own experiences in facilitating the development of seed systems through innovation platforms. This was indeed a very enlightening workshop and it has broadened our knowledge in seed security issues.
First of all, we would like to thank Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda and Dr Bellah Mpofu for entrusting us to facilitate this work. The words of Lindiwe, when she said in her opening speech “I am confident we started with the right team and on the right footing. And failure is not an option”, have put a lot of pressure for us not to let down but to keep the attitude of “FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION”. We hope we have lived up to those expectations.
We would like to thank all the participants for their active participation and dedication throughout the workshop. This has helped us tremendously in delivering what we have set ourselves to. We would like to express our special thanks to the process steering group, which spent extra time in reflecting with us the daily proceedings as well as jointly planning with us the next day’s process. We appreciate your guidance.
As pilot countries, you have tremendous pressure to generate lessons on how things can work, so that others could learn from you. So we say to you FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION for you too. As you have heard that this project started 22 years ago, all the eyes will be on you not to repeat the same mistakes, but generate evidence of live cases. This is not an easy journey, but a possible one. It will require new thinking, and innovative ways of doing things. Remember “if you do what you always did, you will get what you always got”.
To all of you, we think you have done a wonderful job of bringing together the process that sees the beginning of an exciting but yet challenging journey. We believe that if you can manage to maintain the level of energy and passion you have portrayed, as well as the commitments you have made in this meeting, you will be able to have significant influence in your countries and contribute to broader impact on seed security in our region, and ultimately food security.
We also would like to thank the entire FANRPAN team who worked in the background in making everything a success. You have made our work very easy and more exciting.
We have really enjoyed working with you all and we wish you all the best as you get ready to implement the process in your countries.
Hlami Ngwenya and Edward Chuma
Acronyms and abbreviations
ACTESA Alliance for commodity trade for Eastern and Southern Africa
ADDs Agriculture Development Divisions
AGRA Alliance Green Revolution in Africa
ASIF Africa Seed Investment Fund
ASSMAG Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group
AFSTA African Seed Trade Association
CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development program
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture
CIMMYT The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
COMESA Common Markets for Eastern and Southern Africa
COMRAP COMESA Agro Inputs Programme
CSB Community Seed Banking
CTDT Community Technology Development Trust
DUS distinctness, uniformity and stability
FANRPAN Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network
FIPS Farm Input Promotions
HaSSP Harmonised Seed Security Project
ICRISAT The International Crops Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics
IFPRI The International Food Policy Research Institute
IPPC International Plant Protection Convention
ISPMs International Standards of Phytosanitary Measures
ISTA International Seed Testing Association
MAP The Malawi Agriculture Partnership Model
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NPPO National Plant Protection Organization
OPV Open pollinated variety
PASS Program for Africa’s Seed Systems
PBR Plant Breeders’ rights
PQS Plant Quarantine Services
PRA Pest Risk Analysis
RIU Research into Use
RVR Regional Variety Release
SABI Sustainable Agri-business Initiative
SABRN Southern Africa Bean Research Network
SADC Southern African Development Community
SDC Swiss agency for Development Cooperation
SFSA Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture
SGA Seed Grower Association
SMAGs Seed Marketing Action Group
SSCQAS SADC Seed Certification and Quality Assurance System
SSSN SADC Seed Security Network
STAM Seed Traders Association in Malawi
SVRC Seed Variety Release Committee
VCU value for cultivation and use
WASA West Africa Seed Alliance
WTO-SPS World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
1 Opening and setting the scene
The opening and the setting of the scene for this workshop was a two staged process comprised of two sessions. The first stage (the opening speeches) was the official opening, and the second one (the setting the scene) was meant for the participants to get to know each other.
1.1 Opening of the Workshop
To officially open the workshop, there were three series of opening speeches given on behalf of FANRPAN (by Lindiwe Majele Sibanda); on behalf of the Swiss agency for Development Cooperation (by Richard Chenevard); and on behalf of COMESA-ACTESA (by Angel Daka). N.B. The speeches as captured in this session were recorded and transcribed word for word.
1.1.1 Opening speech by Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda
Dr Lindiwe Sibanda was the first one to officially welcome all the participants. She first recognized the presence of the board members and observed all the protocol. She also conveyed the greetings sent by the board chair Sindiso Ngwenya who was is DRC at the time.
In her opening speech, Lindiwe expressed that:
“Today is a day of celebration. And I equate this to child birth. The elephants are laughing today because it takes them 22 months to deliver a baby. But with us it took us 22 years. This project started in 1998, and today 22 years later we meet here as friends to celebrated. This is a landmark event.
I paid tribute to SADC and to Mrs Margret Nyirenda in particular for spear heading this program.
Now what is it that we seek to do in domesticating the harmonized protocol? The objectives
of HaSSP are:
1. We have to make sure that we align our national systems to the regional protocol. This is the domestication and implementation of the SADC harmonised seed regulatory system
2. We need to improve the seed testing facilities. To ensure sustained production and distribution of high quality seed to our farmers
3. We need to enhance institutional arrangements, the human resource capacity and physical capacity in the seed sector
4. We need to enhance national capacity for improved seed production, seed multiplication and distribution
5. We need to enhance the adoption of improved seed varieties
6. We need to establish and strengthen efficient and development oriented seed relief strategies
7. We need to provide regular information to stakeholders on seed security 8. We need to support seed science and technology capacity building initiatives
Ladies and gentlemen you will agree with me that that this is a toll order that cannot be undertaken by one organization. And that is why from the mix of people we have today, we are calling on all our partners to converge and support this very critical process.
The four pilot countries
With the resources we are receiving from SDC, we would have loved to cover all 15 SADC countries, and later still scale up to all the 19 COMESA member states. This is not possible, and we have decided to zero in on four pilot countries. These four countries have been carefully chosen in consultation with all our partners, and we hope that by the end of these two days, you as partners will also step in and grab what is there on the table for the domestication.
Now, why these four countries and which are the four? The choice has been guided by the principle that we need to learn. We are piloting. And the chosen four should allow lessons for scaling up, that will allow us to cover the whole region.
Zimbabwe is one of the countries. This is a country that we all know has been the bread basket in our region. With the current developments, we believe that there is a window of opportunity to intervene in a quick impact country that is ready for quick turn-around.
Secondly: Zambia. Over the last 10 years we have as member states enjoyed watching the economic success in Zambia. And we believe that the program when implemented there will start on a very strong footing. Because Zambia already has a number of institutions that are centers of excellence, and can provide the right capacity to support implementation.
I note here that Zambia is already hosting the SADC Plant Genetic Resource Center, the Genebank. And it will soon host the new SADC Regional Seed Center. Now both these institutions are expected, and will indeed play a major role in the implementation of this project.
For Swaziland, we have decided to stimulate production. We are dealing with a country that despite having good soils, favourable rainfall pattern and stable political and economic environment, the country remains food insecure. The country’s staple food production covers less than 35 % of total national requirement, leaving much of the food supply to depend on imports. This cannot be allowed to continue. And we believe that by piloting we will be able to showcase the potential and actually be able to realize that investment in seed security can turn into food security for the country.
Now, finally the fourth country is Malawi. Malawi is a known success story and creates a great opportunity for technology absorption.
The whole of Southern Africa is vulnerable to governance problems, social economic shocks such as HIV AIDS, rising food prices etc, that negatively impact on the living conditions of the most vulnerable populations and on food security in particular. With the increase of climatic variations, the region now faces regular droughts and flooding. This is increasing the need
for humanitarian assistance which is interwoven with development activities so that the two mutually reinforce each other. The region needs both since it cannot afford only the former. The linking of relief to recovery and more sustainable development solutions is therefore paramount. It is in this respect that HaSSP will make a difference by providing an instrument that has both a relief element (grants for improved seed production and distribution) and a development orientation (the strengthening of the local seed supply chain through for example, strengthening capacity of the local agro-dealer network
The development assistance foreseen under HaSSP aims to ensure smooth transition and continuity from humanitarian assistance to market based approaches and at the same time to reinforce the resilience of the population to these increasing shocks.
.
Now who are the project target groups?
We are going to work with the stakeholders in the seed value chain. These include government departments of agriculture; the national agricultural research and extension services; civil society organizations such as farmer groups, the farmer unions; the international seed research organizations; and individual organizations that are involved in the business of marketing seeds. And most importantly, the farmers themselves.
We will make sure that each of these players can put a finger in the policy process and fine tune the policies in each of the four pilot countries. And make sure they are aligned and create a conducive environment for seed security.
Who are the partners?
HaSSP is going to collaborate first and foremost with the mother bodies, our regional economic communities. We are dealing with the regional protocol, it is therefore fitting that both COMESA secretariat and SADC secretariat take a lead in paving the way, to make sure that our ministers, our heads of states are aware of this initiative, and can indeed support in creating the space that is required.
We are going to work very closely with the CGIAR centers. Now given the interesting development that has happened in the CG system; we want to believe that as you put together your mega-programs, you will plan and make sure that the budgets that you are putting together can talk to Africa, can talk to seed security, and can talk to the domestication of the harmonized protocol. This is the call we are making to the CG, because you have been given a golden opportunity to harmonize the way you work. You are no longer going to be talking as CIAT, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, IFPRI and so on. W e are going to be talking to one family which has got 15 children with different expertise, all working together to make sure that Africa can feed itself.
We are also going to work very closely with international and national universities. One of the things that have been very bad, in our regions is not to create our own centers of excellence. We have sidelined our universities; we have not given them the challenge to play a role in development. We have developed a culture of using short term consultants and yet we have opportunities to institutionalize the knowledge. So I would like see an opportunity in the next four years, where our national universities become visible players in development, where we task them to undertake research that is aligned and relevant to development.
What is FANRPAN?
Finally, I am sure you are asking, what is this animal called FANRPAN? What is it that they bring on the table, why them? As a regional network, we were set up as far back as 1997 in response to a call that was made by our own ministers of agriculture from both Southern and Eastern Africa who met in Harare and were grappling with issues of policy harmonization. Now with own voice club, everybody who had thought they had good policies. For example, if you take my country x policies you can address the challenges we face in the region. A call was made that we need an autonomous body that will generate evidence, collate and present it to inform harmonization of regional policies. We were then created and registered in 2003. And right from onset, it was clear that this cannot be just a research network. It brings together farmers, it brings together private sector, but most important, it bring in government. So as FANRPAN, we do not work and talk against government, but we work with government.
The board of governors
And indeed, in our board of governors we have three permanent secretaries, one from our host country South Africa, two from the region. We have both SADC and COMESA sitting on the board. We have Farmer organizations represented by SACAU sitting on the board. We have research organizations represented by the University of Pretoria. And we have private sector and development partners represented by USAID.
And the whole idea is let us not talk behind each others’ back. Let us bring the ideas and issues to dialogue, but they have to be backed by research evidence.
At national level
We do this at national level where we are hosted by our country nodes. And I am happy that you will interact with some of our node coordinators from the four respective pilot countries. The idea is to create space, not for toyi toyi, but for bringing evidence to dialogue so that when we come out of those meetings, we can say government, what are doing in the business of seed security? What have you done with the harmonized policy protocol? And why do we still seeds not flowing in our countries.
Now this is what FANRPAN does. We do not implement, we bring in partners with the expertise to either generate the research evidence, and we bring in NGOs with the expertise to carry the message as our messengers to policy makers.
At regional level
At regional level our role is to make sure that this noise is created globally and that is why those who know my lifestyle, I have been called Vasco da Gama because we have to be on the table so that we are heard. And thanks to modern communication tools, we can now be in the whole world in terms of what is FANRPAN, why do we need a conducive policy environment.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure we’ve got the right mix of people here today to do the task at hand. We’ve got the farmers, we’ve got government, we’ve got private sector, and we’ve got the CGs. We’ve got everybody who has what it takes to make this happen.
The Output of this meeting
Five things I ask for out of this meeting
1. Can we come today and tomorrow with a clear plan of what it is that we are going to do to make this a reality. As your regional secretariat. We have tried to put together what we believe needs to be done; it is in your folders. But this has to be
enriched by you the implementers. And if you just endorse what has been given to you, implementation will be a challenge. The call is for you to unbundle, and reassemble what we have put together. But make sure you walk out with clarity in terms of what is your personal role in this game. What is it that will change by 2011 when we have been on the ground for one year
2. Secondly, I believe we have a tendency in this region to duplication of what others are doing. Thanks to the harmonization of CGs, they won’t have much ground to compete for money. They would have to declare what they want to do, and somebody will say you partner with so and so because you have asked for the same money to do the same things. For us on the ground the call is the same. I am hoping that today and tomorrow we will be able to declare what is it we are already doing as different partners. Can we as FANRPAN hold a map that we regularly update and share with you of who is doing what in the business of seed security in the region? That way, we will be able to add value and we will avoid duplication.
3. Number three. Can we create governance and management systems that work for us? I mean, we spend a lot of time dealing with bureaucracy, spreading hate that does not develop or help the poor. Can we agree on what we call a committee of seed elders? Adults who have interest in food security so that they can passionately drive this process. It is not going to be driven by my secretariat; we are going to set up a project steering committee made up of elders. And I hope these elders will be made up of mothers and fathers, not just fathers. To make sure that we realize our objective. In terms of management, we are lucky to have engaged Dr Bellah Mpofu to be the interim coordinator. But I want to leave it to these elders to elect or appoint the person you will want over the next four years to shepherd this process. You are the experts. You know what is required; you will develop the work plan. And I hope within the next month or two you will be able to put together and give us the direction in terms of who is going to steer the process, at the regional level and national level where we are going to appoint a focal person.
4. Number four, communication. Can we make sure this is a learning process? Can we make sure we clarify how we are going to learn amongst ourselves. How are we going to share knowledge, how are we going to communicate externally with our partners? So that they know what we are doing.
5. And finally, can we establish a quantifiable baseline of where are we starting from. You are going to share today what you are doing in your countries, and I hope you can show us where is the baseline, where are we. How tall is the order, and who needs to come to the table?
I want to end by making a call that my chairman has asked me to communicate. He is tired of workshops, and he hopes you can answer three questions:
Can you tell him how many women farmers would become seed producers and agro-dealers at the end of this project?
He says researchers are scared of numbers and commitments, and he is in the business of politics. The minimum he would like to see is 50% increase in access to seeds by smallholder farmers. This is the minimum, the call for you is to beat the minimum and go over 50%.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know I have said a lot, but I think it is important for you to realize how important the task ahead of you is and I want to thank you all. You are all busy
people. Some have come from as far as India, the United States, Europe and the region. And we are happy that this is a day of celebration and you will get time to know each other and interact. But please, let’s give the job what it takes.
Thanks to PICOTEAM for agreeing to facilitate. And I am confident we started with the right team and on the right footing. And failure is not an option.
Thank you very much.
1.1.2 Opening speech by Swiss agency for Development Cooperation
Presented by Richard Chenevard
In his opening speech, Richard indicated that
To COMESA and SADC, Representative of the private sector, donors and friends, Ladies and gentlemen
Today is obviously a very important day and I think Dr Sibanda really expressed what we have tried to do over the past month. And today is really the achievement of the beginning of what we have been setting up. On a very personal note, I have to say that I am extremely proud to be here today to see the launch of this project.
Who are we?
Now, as some of you might be very familiar with SDC, please allow me to introduce our organization. The Swiss agency for Development Cooperation is actually a Switzerland development cooperation agency within the department of foreign affairs. So it is official, we are kind of DFID but much smaller.
Our overall goal is poverty reduction and we intend to achieve this by first doing economic self reliance, state autonomy and good governance and by providing better access to education and basic health care services.
In Southern Africa our regional program aims at addressing social, economic, political and environmental issues within the SADC region.
Basic governance and HIV / Aids are also some of the issues we want to introduce in our projects.
The regional food security strategy
The regional food security strategy of SDC could be summarised in the following way: - from seed, research to markets. We would like to have a holistic approach and not just a pint point to very specific aspect of it. Seeds start with the research, and move on to the policies and move on to the private sector because it need t be multiplied, and then finally it move to the farmer, to the end user. And that again move to the markets, so that he has cash and he can trade to get the necessary inputs back for him.
SDC is always working within the frame which has been defined by the region itself. It means that we do not implement our agenda, it is your agenda, and it is not ours. So we are very much inspired by the SADC, by COMESA, by ACTESA and by all other regional initiatives.
We do not want to impose something from outside; we want to support something which comes from the region. And I think, with FANRPAN, this has been quiet successful.
The forthcoming projects
Our forthcoming projects (if I can out them in a nut shell) will address issues of productivity improvement and adapted seed multiplication, linkages to the markets, Storage facilities, knowledge sharing and support to policy development. As I have mentioned before issues such as Gender equality good governance and HIV and AIDs will be considered as well.
As you know, our support along with other donors has been support the SADC seed security network and this led t the adoption of the seed protocols, which were meant to harmonize modalities for seed to be certified and traded in the region. This was a major achievement by SADC, and particularly by the Food and Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate. The Harmonized seed security project you will be discussing today is a direct consequence of that. It took SDC and FANRPAN quiet some energy and time before this project could be finalized. Because both organizations have very high quality standards. (If I can open a bracket, we have been nagging very hard. To get that project running. And again I am very proud that today it is running).
In order to not overlap with other donors, SDC has decided to fund activities in Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Of course it is not only the matter of donor coordination, it but because we have our own budget constraints.
With our investment of over four million USD, over the next four years, SDC want to show its commitment towards the region, and its trust in FANRPAN. The trust has been underlined after a due diligence process that was conducted last year. So it is not only us that claim that it is a trustful organization, we can prove it.
Your presence today to this common vision workshop proves that we (meaning all of us) are on the right track. There is a lot of work to be done. And the Swiss agency for development cooperation is convinced the project objectives will be achieved, and this is possible with all your involvement.
On behalf of SDC, I would like to thank you already now for your involvement, for your work and for your passion.
Thank you very much.
1.1.3 Opening speech On behalf of COMESA- ACTESA
Presented by Angel Daka
Production and Food security advisor for COMESA –ACTESA
In his opening speech, Angel said:
I am here representing the secretary general of COMESA on this seed systems harmonization, and also the chief executive officer of ACTESA. ACTESA is regional Alliance for commodity trade for Eastern and Southern Africa.
The secretary general of COMESA has requested me to inform you that COMESA region has vast population of all regional economic bodies, the population of four hundred and ten million people. But to inform you that these regional economic bodies are not going to operate in isolation. We have now entered the tripartite era in which SADC, COMESA and East African Community and where sub-regional bodies are actually merged to work as one. So we are dealing with a population of five hundred and thirty million people.
And we would like that actually, the seed movement across borders of these members’ states is not inhibited in anyway and we are going to work with over 30 million smallholder farmers. These are the farmers that we are striving with.
COMESA looks at regional integration through economic development and also attainment of food security. We believe that there can be no regional integration without food security. Both regional economic bodies of SADC and COMESA are to date food insecure. Although a few countries have reported surpluses which member states are unable to handle due to poor storage, and also the food cannot move across borders. And smallholders are status quo of producing for suboptimal use because of unimproved seed.
Now as COMESA, we look at policies in the region and we have been struggling over years to see how these policies could be implemented at national level. And through these struggles the region has come with an agency ACTESA (Alliance for commodity trade for Eastern and Southern Africa), which was endorsed by member states. And on the 9th June last year it was launched officially and this is an organization that is going to convert policies into actual implementation. And it will translate all agriculture policies to actual practice, and it will interface with all stakeholders and farmers in the region.
As a specialized agency, ACTESA will look at commodity focus of cereals, oil seeds, roots and tubers, forest foods and products, livestock and fisheries, tree crops and agro inputs. Agro inputs have been designated as a commodity focus. And it is agro input that we are here today to interface with our colleagues in seed harmonization systems.
In agro inputs, we will be dealing with seeds and fertilizers in order to increase productivity in the region. And perhaps turn around the food insecurity that occurs in the region.
ACTESA has designated programs and I will mention two that are going to deal with seed harmonization or promotion of seed trade across borders. This is 1) COMRAP which is supported by the European Community. I will not go into detail about this program, because I
have my colleague here Julius Matende who is going to give a presentation this morning on the details of the program. And that program is going to reach almost all the farmers that are working with APEX bodies. It could be SACAU, East Africa Federation bodies and so on. But we work through countries, and in the countries where we expert impact.
As my elder sister Dr Sibanda mentioned, ACTESA is not an implementer, we are going to facilitate and we look forward to you people, that all the programs that have been approved would actually be put into good use and produce the necessary impact
We are talking at the moment with our colleagues at the Swiss development cooperation to support a program on seed harmonization. Maybe some of you might be asking why again seed harmonization. We spoke about the tri partite arrangements. We would like that all the regional economic bodies harmonized the seed policies. The secretary general requested me further to inform you that the seed system in SADC has been very comprehensive, and I think as my sister mentioned once more, it took more than 22 years to bear this body. And I think a lot of experience has been learned. So COMESA will pick this harmonization system as it is and take it into COMESA and polish it a bit for the non-SADC countries in COMESA so that we have very comprehensive harmonized system.
So it will not take us long. ASARECA has done already some good work in 10 countries of Eastern and Central Africa and so we should be talking about seeds without borders on the Continent. Unless you scientists say this seed cannot move to that country. We believe in evidence based actions. So if you give us the evidence, we will not do the wrong thing, we will listen to you.
Finally, ACTESA supports the actions of CAADP pillar 2 and 3. Pillar 2 is Infrastructure development and market access, and Pillar 3 is increasing food supply and production so that you actually improve food security in the region and the correct practice towards food crisis.
To this end ACTESA has signed an MOU with AFSTA (African Seed Trade Association) so that we can have a better data base of what seeds are being traded. At the moment, seed trade is very poor in all the regions that I have actually mentioned.
So we will be working with our development partners, implementing partners and those that support us to actually actualize this. And already FARNPAN is our key partner. They are working on our regional compact in the COMESA region, and so with this seed system it is already something that is going to be embedded into our key projects within the region.
We would like to thank all of you who have made it to this workshop, and I believe that you will do the five things that were requested by Dr Sibanda. I wish you have a fruitful workshop full of energy so that you get back to your respective countries with action plans.
2 SETTING THE SCENE
The setting of the scene was presented in a four staged process of 1) getting to know each other. This included the introduction of the facilitation team and the approach, the introduction of the participants, as well as getting to know who is represented in terms of gender and institutions present. The second stage was getting to know the agenda (anticipated outputs), the participants’ expectations and the program overview.
2.1 Getting to know each other
2.1.1 Introduction of the facilitation team and approach
After greeting the participants, Hlami introduced herself and her colleague Edward Chuma who are both from an organization called PICOteam. PICOTeam is a network organization that stands for People Innovation and Change in Organizations, and have branches in Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America. The main role of PICOTeam is to facilitate organizational change management/ development, mainly (but not exclusive) in the field of rural development, research, extension and natural resource management. PICOTeam also provides training, coaching and mentoring on different aspects that include personal mastery and soft skills, leadership development etc, using an action learning mode.
More about PICOTEAM can be found in www.picoteam.org).
Process steering group
After the introduction of the facilitation team, the facilitator introduced the process steering group (PSG) which is constituted of a cross-section of participants and organizers and take responsibility in the co-management of the workshop.. The PSG would meet at the end of the day to review the process and progress and together plan for the following day.
Emphasis was made that this group was not a representation of certain positions, but rather about co-planning and steering the process. After introducing the names of the people in the PSG (see the box below), she urged the participants to give feedback to the PSG about anything they would like to be discussed.
Process steering group
Is a mechanism for co-management of the workshop by the participants?
Task: To obtain feedback from the participants on the content and process
- To plan together with the facilitator, process of the next day.
Members:
- Mary Mgonja John MacRobert
- Sam Mundia Berean Mukwende
- Ben Zulu Jeff Luhanga
- Angel Daka Lindiwe
- Bellah Edward
- Hlami
2.2 Facilitation principles Hlami indicated that as the participants are used to flying, they are familiar with the safety regulations that the flying crew recite just before taking off. She assumed that many participants are so familiar with these rules to an extent that they might know these rules by heart. She said this in preparation for her to introduce some facilitation principles (as the safety rules) that would be guiding the interaction in the two days. She acknowledged that some participants who have attended their workshops before might be familiar with these principles, but it was necessary to present them as a reminder to those who know them, and an introduction to those who may not know these principles.
The facilitation principles are meant to ensure an atmosphere that allows free interaction by the participants and the facilitators, and they comprise some core values, and the rules for t interaction at the tables.
The core values
Informality-(relaxed atmosphere with discipline). She encouraged the participants to feel at home and be relaxed, but with discipline. This means doing away with hierarchies and positions in the organization so as to make everyone equal. If we want a productive but relaxed informal meeting, we should first agree to call each other by first name and drop the titles. Informality also means that we are free to stand up when we feel tired. Discipline basically means keeping time.
Open dialogue Multilog: - The reason why we are sitting at the round tables is because we want to encourage the participants to talk to each rather than just listening to the facilitators. This meeting is not a chairman-like type, so there will be no one way communication but rather an open dialogue
Inclusiveness: This emphasizes fostering the participation of everybody and giving priority to the
quiet ones to speak up in order to avoid domination by the participants who are more articulate than others. She also challenged the participants by saying that “at your table, if you are the only one talking while the others are quite, you should then ask yourself why. If you are the only one quiet while others are discussing, you also ask yourself why”. She then urged the participants to encourage the quiet ones during the discussions.
Ownership by participants: She indicated that although the meeting was organized by the FANRPAN management, the process and the outcome should however, be co-created together with the participants in order to have their active input into it. It is important for the participants to use this opportunity and take ownership of this meeting and its outcome.
Appreciation of any contribution: As the participants are coming from different backgrounds, they have different levels of understanding of the issues and appreciation of contributions across the tables shall be of paramount importance. There will be no stupid question. Participants are encouraged to ask any question, so that at the end of the meeting no one goes home with unanswered questions.
Integrity – She stressed that as independent facilitators, we have no stake in the meeting agenda per se, but rather there to guide the process. They (as facilitators) will not be taking any side but will make an effort to balance contributions so that at the end of the meeting every participant is happy with the outcome.
Openness, transparency and accountability- The facilitator indicated that there should be no hidden agendas, so she urged the participants to open up and bring everything on the table. It is about open engagement.
Creativity-thinking out of the box: Creative and wild ideas are welcomed. We have not managed so far to solve many problems with the way we are doing things. Participants were therefore encouraged to think outside the box- Hlami challenged them to continuously re-assess their perceptions in order to see if there could have new thinking or new way of seeing things, which will be very useful in bringing new ideas. She also challenged them to challenge and provoke each other at the tables.
Flexibility- This meeting will not have a rigid agenda. The process will be flexibly managed in order to allow for intensive discussion of key issues and give room for new ideas as they arise.
Honesty and Political incorrectness –People tend to be polite especially when real sensitive issues are discussed. This often makes them articulate issues so coded that one can no longer recognize what is meant. Ultimately the real issues are put under the carpet. Hlami then encouraged the participants to be ‘political incorrect’ and bring out things on the table without hiding the real issues citing that we tend to avoid discussing critical issues that could eventually make us to move forward. She encouraged them to call a spade a spade and deal with it, rather than being nice and use words that are sweet, but in the end we do not know what it really means and go home frustrated.
Constructive Controversy: It should be forward looking and constructive. There is a difference between a chairman and a facilitator as a facilitator uses controversy to bring out the real issues while a chairperson is afraid things could go out of hand. It is important to join hands and come up with constructive solutions.
“If we do what we always did, we will always get
what we always get what we always got” Anon.
Rules for the interaction at tables are:
After the facilitation principles (above), some rules for interaction at tables were presented to the participants.
Sit on a new table every half day with new people (make sure you interact with all the participants). After lunch sit at a different table with new people and find new people. This is much more interesting than to sit next to the same neighbour for 2 days
Listen much more than you talk
Only present once. Give everyone a chance to present and express themselves. There should be no professional presenters.
Encourage the quiet ones; sometimes the quiet ones may have very productive ideas
Think first individually, then discuss when given group work
No speeches, be to the point; be short to make a point, make your contributions short so that many people can get a chance to give their points.
No computers during sessions
After the introduction of both the core values and the rules for interaction at the table, Hlami asked the participants if they could agree to these. Generally the participants agreed with these principles. However, there was an outcry about the prohibition of the use of laptops during the session. After a back and forth discussion, it was then agreed that in order not to give their divided attention to the discussions, they ought not to use the laptops. The participants also made an additional rule of not using cell phones during the session, or putting them on the silent mode.
2.3 Introduction of the Participants In order to create an atmosphere for free interaction, it was necessary for the participants to get to know each other beyond names and where they come from. To do the introduction exercise, Hlami requested the participants to sit at the table with people whom they do not know very well, and follow the guidelines in the box below:
Participant’s introduction
1. Make sure you sit at a table with people whom you know least!
2. Find out from each other:
a) Who are you and where your roots are
b) What are some of the highlights in the last year in your personal and
professional life- positive or negative?
c) What is the single most challenge you face regarding seed security in your own
area of operation
3. Agree together:
a) What you would like to see happening in this meeting?
b) What should NOT happen in this meeting?
Max 3 cards per table per issue
(15 mins-)
2.3.1 Differentiation: Who is represented here?
To get a feel of who is represented in this meeting and how this may have implications on the discussions, the participants were asked to move and stand at a large open space in the room. The differentiation exercise was done to reflect the participant representation at this meeting. Three different categories were used : gender, their involvement in the SADC seed security project, and their role in the seed sector.
Gender
Gender Numbers
Women 12
Men The majority
The exercise revealed that there was a greater representation of men as compared to the women.
Some observations and implication for the discussion
The facilitator then asked the participants what their observations were and how this had implications on their discussions. Below are some of the observations and implications:
There is gender imbalance. This is a reflection of how things are on the ground and in the communities. Women are lacking in decision making positions
This shows how weak men are, they need to be in big numbers.
This is an indication that ladies are not interested in seed issues
These are the endangered species
We blame Lindiwe for this
In practice, about 70% of the produce is produced by women, but the decisions are made by men
Implications for the discussion
After the participants had shared what their observations were, the facilitator asked what implications this would have on the discussion during these two days. These are some of the implications:
During the discussion we need to give the ladies twice as much chance to make their contributions.
We need to guard against the deficiency in balancing the ideas
We should not only think about the numbers, but rather the quality and the substance of the contributions
We do not need to be women to think about the issues that affect women. We also need to think about other social groups in our discussions.
The involvement with the SADC seed security project
The participants were asked to take position based on the number of years they had been involved in this project.
Their engagement with the SADC seed security project Numbers
Those who have been engaged for more than 16 years (the veterans or the grandmothers/ fathers)
07
Those who have been engaged for more than 10 years 14
Those who have been engaged for more than 05 years 10
Those who have been engaged for more than 2 years 15
Those who are engaged for the first time (the green ones)
Some observations and implications for the discussions
In general, those who are green or have little experience in the project are many
Embracing the greens
The greens might be green in terms of their knowledge about this project, but they bring a lot of their experiences from elsewhere.
In the discussion, we need to give them a chance because they have a fresh look at things
We need to take note of what the greens will be saying- that is where the gap is
Not reinventing the wheel
There are people who have been with this process for a long time, so we need to listen to them too in order not to reinvent the wheel
We are not starting from scratch, but we are building on 22 years of experience
We need to reflect on what worked and what did not work so well, and use that as a learning process for the future
Everybody has a role to play in this process; we all bring our different experiences.
Role in the seed industry
At this stage, the facilitator asked the participants to position themselves according to their role in the seed industry. It was clear that some participants have multiple roles and find it difficult to position themselves. But Edward asked them to position themselves based on what they consider to be their role primarily. This exercise revealed the following:
Their role in the seed sector Numbers
Seed producers 03
Marketing and distribution 08
Researchers/ scientists 08
Seed users 07
Policy related issues ±20
Others 07
Some observations and implications for the discussions
WHO is here?
After this exercise, the facilitator then asked each participant to quickly say who he or she is and what his or her organisation is known for. The exercise revealed that there are participants from government, agricultural research institutions (national and international), NGOs, Universities, Development partners, Farmer organizations etc. The details of each participant are shown as an annex of this documentation in the list of participants.
“If you were to go with a life saving boat, and you are
requested to take only one role because that is what the boat can accommodate. If you take
two roles the boat will sink what would that role be?
2.3.2 Participants’ expectations and fears
This section explores what the participants’ expectations were. This was (part 3) of the participants’ introduction exercise (see the task in the previous section) where they were requested to agree (per table) and write on cards what should and should not happen. A representative from each table presented these cards in plenary and this is what emerged:
What should Happen
Focus on implementation and delivery on all issues discussed
Identified implementers
Focus on implementation of the system not repeat the processes already done
Agree on action plans who will be doing what
Realistic workshop plans with a timeline of deliverables
Ideas for practical action at farm level not just talk
Clear work plan to implement in the different countries
An agreed stand point which will lead to the work plans
How it will be piloted n the 4 countries Need to understand the seed harmonized protocol
Clarify who is already doing what on seed security
What are the potential policy challenges
Contribution by participants should be relevant and positive
Increased investment in seed program design
Sustainable seed production system
What Should not happen
Talk not just talking (let us walk the talk)
No time wasting
No talking shop
Talk shop and go home and meet after 4 years and nothing has changed
Empty promises by all participants i.e. commitment
No destructive controversy
No pushing of hidden agendas- express agenda
Unfinished business
Do not hold information Session should not start late and drag unnecessarily
2.4 Getting the grasp of the agenda and process After getting to know each other better; knowing who is represented here (in terms of gender, involvement with HaSSP, the role in the seed sector, and organizational affiliations) and knowing what participants’ expectations were in terms of what should and not happen in this workshop; the facilitator then presented the overall purpose and the anticipated outputs of the workshop and the program overview as discussed and agreed upon by some of the process steering group in the previous day.
2.4.1 Anticipated workshop outputs/ products and the program overview
After the presentation of the anticipated outcomes, the participants were invited to make some comments to see if these were in line with what they expressed as what they would like to see happening in this workshop. The facilitator also invited some additional issues that the participants felt the outputs are not addressing. Generally the anticipated outputs matched the expectations of the participants, but in addition there were some issues that the participants felt needed to be considered during the proceedings of the meeting.
The anticipated workshop outputs/ products
The anticipated outputs / products are:
1. Shared understanding of the results of the SADC Seed Security Network phase 1 (SSSN1) 2006-2008 – the SADC protocol on seeds and its implications for phase 2.
2. Map of key players/stakeholders in the seed industry and their roles (policy, production, marketing and use of seeds).
3. Determination of the key Seed production and distribution challenges in the four pilot countries including gaps in legal frameworks and capacity for improved seed security.
4. Country workplans for the harmonized seed security project – details of implementation of the SADC Seed protocol.
5. Governance mechanism of the project
6. Communication strategy of the project
Program overview
The programme overview was presented and it was emphasized that it would be managed flexibly and adaptively to accommodate the interests of the group and to make maximum use of the time and energy of the participants. The program overview as presented in the table below would only serve as a guide for the management of the process. Amendments would be made if a need arose.
Program Overview
Sessions Thursday Friday
Session 1
8:30-10:30
Opening
Setting the scene
Recap of Day 1
Planning
Session 2
11:00-13:00
Where are we coming from
Country situation gap analysis
Planning cont’d
Presentation of the plans
Session 3
14:00-15:30
Country situation gap analysis cont
Who is doing what
Governance
Communication strategy
Session 4
16:00-17:30
Who is doing what Way forward
Evaluation
Closure
Open space Cocktail dinner
3 Where we are coming from
In order to create a platform for a common understanding on the issues and the basis for moving forward jointly, there was a need to reflect on the implementation and results of the SADC Seed Security Network Phase 1 project and take stock of lessons learnt so far, develop a shared understanding of the SADC Seed protocol and reflect on the implications. This was done in two stages. Firstly, there was an input presentation on the history of the SADC seed security project. Secondly, the participants distilled some lessons and the challenges for the future.
3.1 Domestication of the Harmonised Seed Security Project (HaSSP): the challenges and opportunities
Presented by Mary Mgonja of ICRSAT
N.B. It is important to note that this presentation is a powerpoint presentation that was converted to a word file
without modifying the content, but only for the purpose of reducing the size of this document
Presentation
• Seed and agricultural productivity
• Challenges in seed system for SSA
• Harmonized Seed Security Project
- ESA, WASA
- The 3 components of HaSSP
• Domestication of HaSSP: Challenges and Opportunities
• Summary
Seed
• Key ingredient for improving agricultural productivity
• Preferred tool for re-establishing livelihoods of farmers affected by disaster
• Facilitate food resource diversification
• As an important prerequisite for attaining food security in Africa
Seed Industry development in SSA
5 -10 % of farmers in SSA can access quality seed of improved varieties (WB 2003)
• Lack of commercially viable or effective product (seeds) deployment systems
• Lack of consistent quality & supply impede uptake
• Seed markets are segregated, small & difficult to access
• Lengthy variety testing & release procedures before seed can be marketed
• Variation in national standards for seed certification and quality control
• Quarantine & phyto-sanitary measures for seed complicate trading between countries
• Seed prices are not subject to efficient competition & this limits farmers’ choices
Call for harmonization of seed laws & regulations to create a regional market
Seeds Trade Harmonization
Harmonization is the process of bringing together regionally different approaches (policies, laws, regulations and procedures) into a unified strategy
The ultimate aim of harmonization is to increase the flow of seed across national borders
ECA: The Policy Analysis & Advocacy Program (PAAP)
SADC: Seed science Center – Iowa State University (SSC – ISU); ICRISAT, CIMMYT, SADC member states
WCA: West Africa Seed Alliance (WASA); AGRA, USAID, AFSTA, ECOWAS
Harmonization of Seed Policies -Eastern and Central Africa (ECA)
Seed and plant variety protection acts either changed or enacted in Tanzania, Rwanda & Uganda
Technical agreements to ease variety release & seed certification negotiated
Broad agreement at technical level between Kny, Ug & Tz
Political approval through the East African Community (EAC) is yet to be sought
Concern that approval by EAC would exclude other members of ASARECA
West Africa Seed Alliance
Analyses in WCA show that farmers still do not have access to technological innovations because of inadequacy of the seed system
WASA established in 2009
Multiple Resource partners: USAID,AGRA, ECOWAS
Collaborating partners WCA
Implementing partners
- ICRISAT
- CNFA
- SSC-ISU
To establish a sustainable commercial seed industry in West Africa capable of:
- Ensuring that farmers have affordable, timely and reliable access to adapted genetics and traits in high quality seeds and planting materials;
- Playing a leading role in the growth and development of viable agricultural inputs systems;
- Supporting the development of African agro-industry; and
- Supporting the policy commitment and call by African Union Leaders and NEPAD member states for the Intensification of Agriculture at the Abuja Declaration at the African Fertilizer Summit and in line with commitments to CAADP
History of Seed Policy discussions in SADC
Components of the agreed Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP)
• Crop Variety Testing, Registration and Release System,
• Seed Certification and Quality Assurance System
• Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures for Seed.
Domestication of the Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP)*
• It is in the context of implementation of the agreements where possible challenges could arise or be anticipated.
• The Objective of this power point presentation is to articulate on the ”Domestication of the Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP)” in the identified target countries,
• Identify potential constraints as well as exploring opportunities for better implementation of the proposals in the target as well as in the other countries and also in other regions.
• The 3 components of HaSSP
1: SADC Variety Release System
The purpose is to make it easier and cheaper for new and existing varieties to gain access to SADC countries
This in turn will stimulate availability of more varieties, encourage more companies to invest in seed business in SADC countries, and thus
Increase the farmers’ choice
SADC CROP VARIETY RELEASE COMMITTEE (SVRC)
• Will be established to provide technical guidelines in variety testing, registration, and release.
• The SVRC will develop and update variety release guidelines & procedures
• Identify and recommend procedures for utilization in the variety testing, registration and release system;
• Assist in technical backstopping of the established system.
• Each SADC Member State should designate a National (Seeds/Variety) Authority that will implement the system
The Designated National Authority*
• Will facilitate implementation of the system in the respective Member State;
• Facilitate testing, registration and release of the variety at the national level;
• Will endorse release of the variety at SADC level; and
• Advise breeders, seed companies and other stakeholders on procedures in the area of variety testing, registration and release.
SADC Variety Catalogue
• A list of varieties released for marketing in the region will be developed and maintained.
• The list will be called the SADC Variety Catalogue (the catalogue).
• Inclusion of new varieties in the catalogue will be determined by minimum requirements as outlined by the SVRC.
• Seed of varieties listed in the Catalogue can be sold in all SADC Member States without restrictions related to variety.
Varieties included in Catalogue
• Varieties of any crop for which DUS and VCU data is available may be listed in the catalogue.
• DUS descriptions will be according to UPOV guidelines.
• VCU information will be derived from field experiments conducted in the major agro-ecological zones over a minimum of 2 seasons.
SADC Variety Release Committee (SVRC
• Will develop guidelines for VCU testing.
• A unique numbering system will be instituted
• The variety will have a name and may have synonyms, in different countries.
• Varieties entered on the catalogue will be valid for 20 years.
• Inclusion in the catalogue will incur an application fee, and upon successful registration, an annual fee.
Regional Variety Release
• Before a variety can be entered in the catalogue it must be released in at least 2 SADC countries.
• Thereafter, the Variety Holder may apply for regional release through the National Seeds Authority in one of the countries where national release was obtained.
• The application must be accompanied by a reference sample, proof of national clearances in at least 2 SADC countries, DUS and VCU test results.
Varieties already released in SADC Member States
• or those under production when the catalogue is established will automatically be entered in the catalogue provided:
• an application is submitted with the necessary information including DUS and VCU data;
• and the variety is listed on the National Variety List of at least 2 Member States.
• Landraces will be eligible for registration while genetically modified varieties will not be eligible for registration until a SADC consensus is reached on the registration of genetically modified varieties.
Variety Database
• A variety database covering all crops will be developed, updated and maintained.
• The database will include all varieties in the region, comprising rejected varieties, released varieties and landraces.
• The details of the database which will be accessible to all Member States are to be determined by the SVRC.
Possible challenges around the SRVR protocol and requirements
• The variety holder selects two SADC countries and applies for national variety testing and release in the two countries
The challenge here would be if the crop or the target agro ecologies of the two countries are not matching then the variety holder may not be able to meet the very basic requirement of testing in any of the two countries targeted in the implementation of HaSSP
• In the country where application for regional release is filed, national release requirements must be met
• In the second country of national release, requirements for national release must be met.
• The variety is released at the national level in the country of application and
• The variety is released at the national level in the second country
In any of the four listed as pilot countries, there could be variations in terms of time span to meet the national requirements for release and therefore this could result in delays
The variety holder applies for SADC variety release through the NSA in the country of application and application form is accompanied by results of DUS, VCU, suggested name, proof of national release in the two countries and reference sample
The speed with which the above listed documents can be accessed or processed may differ and this may cause further delays in the regional variety registration.
Failure to pay fees for maintaining of the system and also limited capacity and unavailability of breeders to follow upon the system.
Testing for VCU and DUS requires a fee and therefore the breeders must have access to funds to facilitate payment to the system. Participation may be limited to those countries with staff and resources and therefore may result in segregation of countries and create a type of hierarchy
Pest Lists
Two rationalized pest lists have been introduced:
• SADC list of pests which require control when seed is traded between SADC Member States; and
• SADC list of pests which require control when seed is traded into a SADC country from outside the region.
SADC Quarantine and Phyto-sanitary measures
Possible challenges:
• Pests are dynamic and evolve and it is not clear how often pest lists will be reviewed and hence review the quarantine list.
• The phytosanitary documentation and procedures to be used in the harmonized seed system for SADC may need to be streamlined further and adopt common formats
General challenges or risks across the 3 harmonization areas:
• Member state failure to provide strong political support and good will
• Most of the activities supporting harmonized seed system require sustainable financial support, though currently availed by the donor it is not certain how funding will be sourced to support the system sustainably
• Not certain how fast PVP will be introduced to more /all member states
• Adaptability and use of the system by breeders, seed companies , NGOs and development agencies
• Political instability or any other adversity in the target country may hinder implementation
• Countries capacity/skills, incentives availability and willingness to adopt, realign and comply with the new / amended procedures such as collection and sharing of information
• Facilities and physical premises may require major capital injection to bring them to the minimum stated for operation especially with the seed testing facilities
• Connectivity in the region is sometimes a challenge and this can affect regular updating and retrieval of information
Opportunities that will lead to successful domestication of HaSSP
• The rationalization to harmonize the SADC seed security system is based on scientific evidence and justification:
• ICRISAT & partners- AEZ and mapping regional variety adaptation
• Address institutional challenge on declining resources
• Constraints cut across borders
• Recommendation domains AEZ-GIS, traits
• Multiple variety releases
Mapped regional adaptation of varieties for scaling out
• Multi country release- sorghum Macia
• GIS mapping to determine potential adaptation beyond countries of release
• Mapped adaptation of 12 sorghum varieties: Handbook
Implications/ Impact:
• Fast release: Macia in RSA 2005
• Regional seed market– economies of scale
• Seed security, targeted relief seed
• Seed harmonization and Regional Variety Release /registration-
Mapping Mega Environments (CIMMYT to facilitate regional deployment of varieties
Mapped regionally released varieties
Opportunities to successful domestication of HaSSP
2 Initiatives such as WASA, AGRA/PASS for capacity building of practical breeders and establishment of seed entrepreneurs will reduce threats on human resources
3 Formation of AFSTA and National STA will facilitate dialogue among seed companies who are also potential beneficiaries and supporters of SADC HaSSP
4 Product market creates a pull for seed demand and there are models that link seed and product markets
5. Establishment of agro dealers reaching out to farming community will increasingly create seed demand
6. Projects and development investors are increasingly becoming impact oriented, hence most projects take a value chain approach that integrates a workable seed system and product markets. HaSSP needs to map these projects and establish collaborative partnerships to create synergies
Summary
1. Quality seed of improved varieties is a key ingredient to increased crop productivity
2. Challenges to farmers’ access to quality seed have been analyzed across SSA
3. Justification to harmonize seed regulations, policies and laws have been documented and are based on scientific evidence
4. Three areas for SADC seed system harmonization have been endorsed and domestication of the agreements is underway
5. Challenges and opportunities for a successful pursuance of the agreements have been outlined for further discussion
6. Lessons to be drawn for better implementation in target /other countries
Issues emerging from the presentation
At the end of the presentation by Mary, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. These are some of the issues that were raised:
Plant variety protection
Question: What is the story around plant variety protection? I did not see it in your presentation.
Response: The plant variety protection- it is supposed to be organized by individual countries. I am not sure if that is part of the seed harmonization
It was dealt with in the three documentations- those are some of the objectives that we are looking at.
In terms of capacity building – there is a need to support the countries which need plant breeders
Harmonization versus other existing systems
Question: Harmonized versus the use of other available systems
Response: We should make an effort that the people should get the document- what I under- there are within component of harmonization, but there will be flexibility based on country specificity.
Capacity building and the succession plan
Question: Is it capacity building or staff retention? What is the real issue?
Response: There is a need to build a succession plan, to know what will happen if someone leaves.
Capacity building should be a continuous action and should cover all areas
Question: A need for country specific breeder- can we not harmonize that at regional level- Could a breeder from Malawi not work in Zimbabwe for instance?
Response: There is an existing regionalized breeding approach
He can do the basic breeding and share with the breeders in other countries
We can mainstream this regional approach
In this project there could be an opportunity to create a facility for secondment of breeders.
Synthesis of where we come from
Looking at this presentation and your own experience; what are the major lessons and/ or implications for the implementation of the Harmonized Seed Security Project (HASSP)? Max 5 cards
3.2 Challenges and implication for the future HaSSP
After the presentation on the history of the SADC seed security project, the participants’ were asked to discuss at their table, in order to draw some lessons from the previous experiences, and to distil some of the key challenges and/or implication for the future implementation of the HaSSP. The table discussion was guided by the task in the box here:
After the short discussion, each table represented by the participants presented their outcomes in plenary. There were a number of clusters of issues that emerged and are reflected in the table below
Capacity building
Structural and human capacity not at the same level for the different countries
There is a need to take stock of capacity in the region and make use of that
Capacity building- different countries have different capacity.- level of capacities for harmonization success
There is need for understating what is available and make an attempt to harmonize that
Succession and capacity building
Succession in the breeding
Making use of existing capacities in some states. E.g. private companies own certification
Regional reference centres for seed quality control
Standard harmonization – let us harmonize standards e.g. for seed testing (ISTA accreditation) use standard to remove doubt on quality
Re-alignment of national laws to harmonize regulations
International property rights- can there be a framework to protect the breeders’ rights (in the interim by accreditation to UPOV
Streamline regulation
Improving the seed movement framework (customs control delay of living material)
Opportunities – movement of seeds for availability
How can public varieties be released at the regional level
Improving the seed movement framework (customs)
Opportunities for the movement of seed for availability
The levies and service charges need to be harmonized in the region
Regulation of GMO seed
Allowance to deal with potential short comings and gaps within this framework
Information sharing
Awareness and understanding enhancement public awareness and understanding and
Pace at which member state will conform to MOU
available opportunities and threats for different stakeholders
Non signing of MOU by other states could pose challenge to implementation
We need drivers at both SADC and national level
Fees categorisation and affordability
Artificial barriers (business/ political) Susceptibility to political will- the change in government can change direction
After the challenges were presented and clustered, the facilitator asked the participants what their observations are regarding the issues that emerged. Some additional issues that were raised include the following:
Capacity
Main question: The issues of capacity were raised again. The main question was “are we loosing capacity or we are re-distributing capacity”?
Response: It is both – there are places where expertise is lost, but there are other places where there is a lot of capacity.
There is a lot of regeneration of capacity in many organizations. Look at us in this meeting, there are many young people. This is an indication that new expertise is being groomed.
How do we create opportunities for the young people to develop fully?
Some countries have well developed seed industries with seed labs, seed inspectors- But there are other countries that do not have these capacities.
There could be too much capacity somewhere, and there is no capacity in other areas.
The regional legal frameworks and protocols
There was a discussion around the different regional legal frameworks and what their links are. E.g. RISDP, RAP, HaSSP etc.
There was a heated debate about the issues around the signing of MoUs. It came to the attention that only four countries have signed the protocol. That is DRC, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland.
The implications and way forward
The implications for the non-signing of the protocols by the countries to this initiative was discussed. There is a need for a third majority for the pilot countries to move forward with such an initiative. The political challenges about getting the MoU signed by the member states were also highlighted.
With the football players. The good player wants to play in Europe, but
when the country team is playing, they call them back. Why can we not
do that?
After a long debate, and going back and forth on these issues, the participants agreed on what needed to be done in order to move forward.
MoU is negotiated document and it is a political process
There is no need to point finger
SADC is everyone, therefore what is our roles as member states in this situation
What can we do to demonstrate that it is possible to do things
What can we do with the absence of an MoU?
There are other things that we can do without an MoU- let us prioritize those things and begin to do them
This is a four year project- there are steps that we can be doing in the meantime
This could be an opportunity to get our countries to sign
It is a challenge for everyone in this meeting to go back to our countries- if you are from one of the countries that have not signed, talk to your permanent secretaries to communicate with SADC so that they can get the MoU to sign
We need to find out from our PSs what is going on
Each country has a node committee- we can use them to communicate with the PS
When you have an MoU signed, what does it mean in terms of gaining the support
The council of ministers have approved, which is a level higher that the ministers
We all need to know what is in these protocols – first ourselves we know, and make others understand- Otherwise we tend to say things but we mean something else.
The director- the message is are we communicating clearly what is in the protocol?
The story of the director by Edward
One woman once said, my husband is a director. When asked what his salary was, she responded, “He earns a
minimum wage”. Then she was asked what he really does as a director. The woman said, “He is the one who stands at the gate and directs people to where they should go. So
he is a director.”
Are we communicating clearly. protocol is?
4 Country Situation analysis
After the presentation on the history of the seed security project, the analysis of some challenges for the future and the discussion thereof, the countries had a chance to share what they are doing in their countries. This session followed a two stage process of, firstly. the various countries sharing their experiences, from government perspective, followed by NGO perspective. Secondly, the participants went into their country groups to thresh out what their challenges and gaps were with regard to seed security.
4.1 Country experiences
Prior to this meeting, the participants from the countries were given some guidelines for their presentations. There were requested to outline the following:
Seed Policy
Seed Laws
Plant breeders’ Rights
Legislation
Phytosanitary measures
As indicated before, for every country there were two presentations- One from government, and the other from an NGO. What is presented here is the presentation from the government followed by the NGO of that particular country. After every presentation, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity.
4.1.1 Experiences from Malawi: Perspective from government
Presented by Grace Kaudzu
N.B. It is important to note that all the presentations were made as powerpoint, but they were all
converted to a word file without modifying the content, but only for the purpose of reducing the
size of this document
Outline Provided by FANRPAN
Overview of seed policy, seed laws and plant breeders rights legislation.
Crop variety testing, registration and release process
Seed certification
Quarantine and phytosanitory measures for seed
Changes necessary to align with harmonized seed legislation protocols
Implementing institution/s’ capacity and challenges faced.
Introduction
Availability of high quality seed is crucial to achieving food security and social and economic growth in Malawi.
The benefits from the distribution and use of good quality seed are enormous.
- Increased and sustained crop productivity
- Increased household incomes
- Reduced risks from pest and disease pressure
- Production patterns would become more predictable and sustainable.
Seed Certification Institution
The Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit in Malawi was established in 1976 and is the official seed certification institution in Malawi.
Its activities are coordinated at Chitedze Research Station where the Seed Testing Laboratory is accredited by the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA).
Seed Certification Institution
Objective
To ensure that farmers in Malawi are planting high quality seed and planting materials of all crops.
To conduct research in seed science and technology.
To develop appropriate seed certification, processing and testing procedures and standards.
To conduct field inspections and laboratory tests.
To train stakeholders in the seed industry in seed production, certification and quality control activities.
Mandate;
To ensure that good quality seeds of improved varieties are produced and made available to the farming communities in Malawi.
Achieved through;
Comprehensive seed crop registration
Field inspections
Laboratory tests
Monitoring
Seed Production Programs
Formal seed programs, ARET, commercial seed companies.
Seed Associations
Individual farmers (Medium scale)
Informal seed programs (smallholder farmers)
Overview of Seed laws of the Republic of Malawi,
The National Seed Policy of the Republic of Malawi, 1993
General
The Government of Malawi recognizes the fundamental importance of a sustainable seed industry in contributing to increased agricultural production.
The Government will therefore establish, through appropriate policies and programmes, an environment conducive to the development of the seed industry.
Direct Government investments will include research, training, seed certification and testing.
Quality control
Quality control is recognized as being fundamental to seed production and marketing.
Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit and internal quality control systems of the commercial seed companies will undertake the necessary measures to ensure that only high quality seed is marketed.
Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit will provide seed certification services to the commercial seed companies, individuals and associations in accordance with the Seed Act.
Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit has responsibility for the enforcement of the Seed Act and Seed regulations.
KEY INSTITUTIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LINKAGES
The Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit of DARS will continue to play a key role in the organized seed sector. It will perform all the necessary tasks in the seed certification programme, including crop inspection in the field and operation of the seed testing laboratories. The Section will also be responsible for the enforcement of the Malawi Seed Act.
Official variety testing will continue to be undertaken and coordinated by DAR in order to ensure the impartiality of the procedures carried out. The NSC, through the Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit, will make sure that all promising varieties undergo DUS testing to provide a comprehensive description on which their identity can be based.
The existing Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee (ATCC) will continue to operate under the Technology Clearing House. The ATCC will protect the interests of farmers but will not unduly constrain the entrance of new varieties on the market. Exhaustive testing under research conditions without assessing farmers’ preferences will be avoided.
Breeder’s, Basic and Certified Seed Production
The production of all breeders, basic and certified seed will be under the supervision of the Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit.
In the commercial seed sector, Government is concerned to promote the development of competition for the benefit of the smallholder farmer. Any organization or individual will therefore be permitted to produce and sell seed provided such seed meets the minimum quality standards and procedures stipulated in the Seed Act and Regulations.
Malawi Seed Legislation (Seed Act and Regulations, 1996)
The Seed act was enacted in Malawi to provide for the minimum standards to regulate and control (of ) production, processing, sale, importation, exportation and testing and further to provide for the certification of seed.
In the laws of Malawi “Seed” is defined as any part of plant, customarily referred to as seed, intended for planting and includes other propagating materials. The word "seed" or" seeds” is designated for all propagating material (Seed regulations, 1996).
IMPORT AND EXPORT OF SEED
The Malawi Government may allow importation of certified seed in case of unavailability of sufficient quantities.
Any seed imported into Malawi should be approved seed and not restricted seed.
The seed should conform to seed standards and other requirements prescribed by the importing country.
If the seed is packed in a container, the container should be clearly labeled stating the genus, species, variety and the country of origin. Upon importation into Malawi, the seed importer should inform the Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit, within seven days of its delivery, requesting a sample to be taken for test at a seed testing laboratory.
No person should sell or otherwise dispose of imported prescribed seed prior to the receipt of a report of the test from the seed testing laboratory.
The report confirms that the imported prescribed seed conforms to the prescribed seed standards.
Plant Breeders’ Rights in Malawi
Drafted without farmers’ rights
Presented to stakeholders who suggested that farmers’ rights be included.
Submitted to Ministry of justice
Suggested that farmers’ rights be removed because they were already included in the access and benefit sharing act of the Environmental Affairs Department.
Farmers’ rights were removed
Planning for a stakeholders meeting and then submission to Ministry of Justice.
Crop Variety testing, Registration and Release process
Done by breeders
Done in three years on station and two years on farm in different agro ecological zones.
Varieties preferred by farmers are selected
Proposal is written and submitted to ATCC for release.
After release, Seed Certification and Quality Control Unit verifies quality of the variety.
Varieties released are documented (listed) by Secretariat of ATCC (Department of Research).
Quarantine and Phytosanitory measures for seed
Import permit
- Imported seed must be accompanied by a valid plant import permit that authorizes entry in accordance with Malawi Phytosanitory Regulations
Phytosanitory certificate
- This certifies that the imported agricultural commodities are free from insect pests, diseases, weeds and must be of good quality.
Orange Certificates
- Orange Certificate attests the viability, purity and quality of seed being imported.
Certificate of origin
- This ascertains the source or the origin of the seed being imported.
Fumigation Certificate
- Fumigation certificate attests treatment if the seed needs to be treated.
MRA and Loading documents may also be required.
Changes necessary to align with harmonized seed legislation protocols
Need to enact the Plant breeders’ rights so that varieties can be registered in Malawi and consequently easily be registered in the SADC variety catalogue.
Variety testing should be done by both the breeder and the seed regulatory authority. In view of this a section within the seed certification and quality control unit will need to be established to concentrate on issues of variety testing.
Indicate that varieties from the SADC member states will not be tested again as same standards will be used within the region.
Currently, Malawi recognizes only three classes of seed and this need to be changed to reflect all the five classes of seed as indicated in the SADC harmonized seed regulations.
Seed evaluated and released in at least two SADC countries allowed for seed multiplication.
Implementing Institution’s capacity and Challenges faced
The institution to implement the harmonized seed regulations will be all stakeholders in the seed industry coordinated by DARS (Seed services unit and Plant protection services).
There will be need to develop capacity for both human resource and infrastructure to ensure that implementation is successful.
Expansion of the seed industry in Malawi is a challenge to the regulators but processes are underway to effectively tackle this challenge.
Questions emerging from the presentation
At the end of the presentation by Grace, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. Here are some of the issues they raised.
Comment: How does it work that the Ministry of Environment manages issues related to agriculture?
4.1.2 Experience from Malawi: Perspective from ASSMAG
Presented by Abiel Banda (chairman for ASSMAG)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR ASSMAG
ASSMAG stands for Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group an organization mandated to multiply and sell open pollinated variety (OPV) maize seed and some legume seeds. Have also expanded to disease free cassava cuttings, sweet potato vines, improved fruit tree seedlings and agro-forestry seedlings.
Was established in 2001 with eight (8) affiliate associations which fall under eight (8) Agriculture Development Divisions (ADDs), forty nine (49) Seed Marketing Action Groups (SMAGs) with 2450 seed growers country wide of which 40% are women seed producers.
ASSMAG works as a coordinating body for smallholder seed producers.
Started as a Ministry of Agriculture/Donor community initiative called Maize Productivity Taskforce Action Group II for the increased seed production of improved varieties in 1996.
Average production levels of ASSMAG are 20% of the total national seed production which comprises entire membership of Seed Traders Association of Malawi, but its market share is currently 10%.
ASSMAG membership cuts across all the country’s ecological zones. This, in itself, gives ASSMAG an edge over others in producing a variety of seed crops.
ASSMAG is full member of the lone country’s seed organisation called Seed Traders Association in Malawi (STAM)which is a private sector seed companies grouping.
VISION
To become a household name in high quality seed production and marketing through empowerment of its members to satisfy national seed requirements.
MISSION STATEMENT
To provide customers with high quality and affordable seed of superior performance that would add value to its members and contribute to food security requirement.
MAJOR GOAL
To operate as a sustainable seed programme in the country through the commercialization of its operations.
PRODUCTION CHALLENGES
Research Related Constraints
Research centers do not have enough foundation seed and planting materials for improved crop varieties for smallholder farmers to multiply due to inadequate financial resources.
Seed Services Unit does not have enough resources to carry out its mandatory seed inspections as per their required frequency and schedules.
Due to resource constraints small scale seed producers do not receive much needed annual training sessions vis-à-vis seed production to maximise required seed quantity and quality.
Until now, the national policy is not very clear on plant breeders rights (PBR) to the extent that a particular variety is used free for all without control as opposed to other privately owned brands.
CHALLENGES ON DELIVERY:
ASSMAG suffers a huge transportation bill in a bid to centralise maize for processing and taking it back to selected market outlets hence considerably reducing on the growers’ profit margins.
Another challenge faced by ASSMAG seed producers is accessibility by potential buyers if such seed has not been collected by its Secretariat.
Seed Promotion costs are unattainable by small scale seed. This renders otherwise good seed produced by small scale farmers but remaining unknown and unsold due to lack of aggressive promotional campaigns.
ASSMAG lacks centralised warehouse facility for seed stocks re-handling, fumigation and storage prior to distribution to ensure quality uniformity.
ASSMAG has no processing plant of its own to process its raw seed. However, when it is required to process its seed, it hires such services from other seed companies which come along with high costs and having the service at a later time than when we require it most.
SOME CURRENT HIGHLIGHTS
2009-2011 AGRA Support to ASSMAG under Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS)
- The project has support on Seed
- Production and Dissemination.
- Comprises major activities of Production, Processing, Farmer education and Dissemination.
- Under PASS, ASSMAG is promoting legumes, OPV and, for the first time, hybrid maize seed of MH26 which is at bulking stage now.
2009-2010 Research Into Use (RIU) support to ASSMAG under Legume Seed Platform
- This focuses on Breeders/Basic seed multiplication of Groundnuts, Beans and Soya Beans.
- Major activities comprise Production, Farmer Training and seed marketing.
The preceding engagements highlighted above are a clear testimony that ASSMAG is not only an opportunity on its own but is fully capable of handling any major projects to do with seed production.
IMPACTS OF SMALL SCALE SEED PRODUCTION GROUP
Socio-economic improvement of the seed producing farmers.
Complemented seed companies in making available improved seed varieties of superior performance and at affordable prices, hence contributing to the fight against food insecurity.
Seed producers have continuously received relevant training in seed production and dissemination and hence increasing their knowledge base.
Complementing government efforts in its Input Subsidy Programme by making available some seeds which would otherwise not have been there.
Creating a readily available widow for production of seeds which are newly introduced or are in urgent demand.
Issues emerging from the presentation
After the presentation by Mr Banda, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. These are some of the issues that were raised.
Question: The percentage of small holder farmers in Malawi
Response: 5 % of farmers
Question: Are farmers working independently from government?
Response: The farmers are working on their own, but there are areas where they require government intervention
4.1.3 Experiences from Swaziland: Perspective from government
Presented by C.M Mthethwa
OVERVIEW OF THE SEED LAW (1/2)
The Seeds and Plant Varieties Act, 2000 came into force after going through parliament and then signed by the King on the 17th October 2000.
It provides for the control, sale, importation and exportation of seeds and matters incidental thereto.
It consists of the following:
(a) Preliminary – interpretation, application of Act and appointment of Registrar of Seeds;
(b) Registration of seed cleaners, sellers, importers and exporters;
(c) Provisions for the recognition of certain varieties of plants;
(d) Certification schemes;
(e) Establishment of an official seed testing station;
(f) Requirements relating to seeds, packaging material, seeds and labels;
(g) Importation and exportation of seed; and
(h) Other sections e.g. inspection and proof of documents, secrecy, appeals, offences and penalties.
PLANT BREEDERS RIGHTS LEGISLATION
Currently, there is no plant breeders’ rights legislation in the country.
Work is currently in progress towards drafting the legislation.
SEED REGISTRATION
The Registrar of Seeds shall be responsible for all the registration of seed in the country:
(a) Register of establishments – names, postal address, physical location, kind of business.
(b) Application for registration – apply in writing using application forms and a prescribed fee. The Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration if he is satisfied.
(c)Terms of registration – valid for 12 months and shall be renewable
(d) Termination of registration – the Registrar may, at any time, terminate the registration of any establishment if it does not comply with any of the following:
- (i) The type of building (not suitable);
- (ii) The necessary facilities (not available); and
- (iii) Record keeping (not up to standard).
CROP VARIETY TESTING The Minister of Agriculture may, by notice in the Gazette, prescribe a variety list in
respect of such plants as he may determine.
Only varieties of plants that are listed in the variety list may be sold.
A variety may be recognized if:
(a) it is by reason of any important characteristic, clearly distinguishable from any other variety of the same kind of plant;
(b) it is sufficiently homogeneous;
(c) it is stable and remains true to description after repeated reproduction;
(d) it is identified by a denomination (be suitable to identify and not be liable to mislead or cause confusion); and
(e) it has sufficient merit in at least one agronomic character
The minister shall appoint a committee whose chairman shall be the Registrar of Seeds to consider and examine applications for the recognition of varieties of plants.
The Minister may authorise the committee to use results of tests conducted outside the country if he is satisfied that they form a reliable basis.
There shall be a variety list which shall be kept by the Registrar of Seeds.
The list shall be published in the Gazette at least once a year and not later than the 1st July each year.
SEED CERTIFICATION
The Seed Quality Control Services (SQCS) is an official seed testing station and also the official certification authority.
The SQCS shall have official seed testers and inspectors whose appointment shall be notified by public gazette.
No seed shall be certified unless it has been produced, inspected, sampled, tested and it complys with set standards.
Seed shall be certified into six classes: A = pre-basic seed; B = basic seed; C1 = certified seed, 1st generation; C2 = cert. seed, 2nd gen.; C3 = cert. seed, 3rd gen.; E = emergency class.
Only cultivars which have been approved by the Registrar shall be eligible for certification.
Field inspections for the purpose of certification shall be conducted by persons authorized by the SQCS to be seed inspectors.
A seed inspector may refuse to certify a crop if he is satisfied that:
(a) the crop is heavily contaminated with weeds, other species or diseases as to render the crop unfit for seed;
(b) the isolation distance or standards relating to off types and other cultivars have not been complied with;
(c) for hybrids of maize, sorghum and sunflower, there are more than one pollinating female per 100 plants; and
(d) The crop exceeds the approved and registered hectarage by more than 10%.
For the purpose of certification, an inspector shall conduct three field inspections per crop.
Additionally for hybrids, at least three inspections shall be conducted during pollination.
A report for every field inspection shall be made by the inspector and shall be countersigned by the registered grower or the growers’ representative.
It has been a very long time since hybrids were produced in the country. Seed companies now prefer importing them from other countries.
Only one open-pollinated variety (OPV) for maize is produced (ZM521) whose basic seed is obtained from CIMMYT.
The country is also in possession of basic seed for two other OPVs (ZM309 and ZM611).
Group of farmers interested to produce the varieties are still being sought.
Legume seed production is conducted at five different areas under the emergency/quality declared seed class.
QUARANTINE AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES
Phytosanitary measures are governed by the Plant Control Act, 1981 (under review).
The quarantine and phytosanitary measures are not specifically for seed but for all plants and plant products.
The country has a national pest list and is reviewing its quarantine pest list.
The country has recently finished constructing the post-entry quarantine facility which consists of two laboratories and green houses at Malkerns Research Station.
Recruitment of staff is currently pursued.
CHANGES NECESSARY IN THE LEGISLATION
The Seeds and Plant Varieties Act, 2000 should include an article that talks about the establishment and maintenance of the SADC Variety Catalogue and the SADC Variety Database.
Seeds of varieties listed in the Catalogue can be sold in all SADC Member States without restrictions related to variety.
Before a variety can be entered in the Regional Catalogue it will need to be released in at least two SADC countries.
A member country can apply for permission to prohibit the use of a given variety in its territory if it is not suitable for its growing conditions.
The minimum seed certification standards for the country should be in line with the minimum SADC Seed Certification Standards.
Example: minimum germination % for groundnut for the country is 80%, yet the SADC one is 75% for certified seed.
CHALLENGES FACED IN IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTION CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT
(a) Capability capacity:
- Orientation of extension personnel, NGOs and farmers’ associations on different seed issues/topics.
- Thorough training of new staff members to be recruited.
- Training of existing staff members on seed inspection and seed health testing.
- Training of extension personnel on the importance of the Seed Act.
- Thorough training of farmers’ associations involved in seed production.
- Fact sheets for extension personnel and NGOs.
(b) Resource capacity
- shortage of transport;
- maintenance of existing equipment;
- late acquisition of materials for day to day activities of the laboratories;
- Computers used are now very old and unreliable.
Questions emerging from the presentation
At the end of the presentation from Swaziland, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. Here are some of the issues raised.
Question: Are there any specific reasons for the farmers importing seeds?
Response: They say it is very easy to import than to produce
4.1.4 Experiences from Zambia: Perspective from government
Presented by Edward Zulu
Seed Policy
In place 2004
Embedded in the National Agricultural policy
Ensure the development of an effective, efficient and sustainable system of producing and supplying high quality seeds of crops to satisfy the national seed requirements.
Legal Framework
Seed sector is controlled by following legislation:-
- Plant Variety & Seeds Act (CAP 236),
- Other related pieces of legislation are:
- Cotton Act, Plant Pest and Diseases Act,
Plant Breeders Rights
Plant Breeders Rights Act, No. 18 of 2007 Enacted in 2007
SCCI to implement not yet operationalised
Crop Variety Testing, Registration and Release Procedure:
Variety Registration
DUS & VCU tests for 2 seasons
Each year VCU & DUS data collected, analysed & sent to variety owners
Application for Variety release after 2 seasons
VRC – (Multisectoral)
Certification Scheme used in Zambia is based on the OECD
Six classes for seeds in general and six classes for potato (Irish)
standards and guidelines are set and reviewed by the government
SEED CERTIFICATION SCHEME (For general seeds)
CODE CLASS PARENT SEED COLOUR OF LABEL
A Pre-basic Seed Produced from the breeder's parent material under control of the breeder and supervision of the SCCI.
Violet stripe on white
B Basic Seed Produced from Pre-basic Seed White
C1 Certified Seed, 1
st
generation
Produced from Basic Seed Blue stripe on white
C 2 Certified Seed, 2
nd
generation
Produced from Certified Seed, 1st
generation (or higher class)
Red stripe on white
C 3 Certified Seed, 3
rd
generation
Produced from Certified Seed, 2nd
generation (or higher class)
Red stripe on white
QDS Quality Declared seed
Produced from Quality Declared or Higher class
Green
E Emergency class Only used when a serious shortage of seed of compulsory crops occurs.
Red
For Irish Potato Seeds
SEED CERTIFICATION SCHEME (For Irish Potato seeds)
CODE CLASS PARENT SEED COLOUR OF LABEL S1, (S2, S3)
Pre-basic Seed Produced from the breeder's parent material under control of the breeder and supervision of the SCCI. Max 3 generations
Violet stripe on white
SE Basic Seed Produced from Pre-basic Seed Blank (White)
E 1 Certified Seed, 1st
generation
Blue stripe on white
E 2 Certified Seed,
2nd
generation
Produced from Basic Seed Red stripe on white
A Certified Seed, 3rd
generation
Produced from Certified Seed, 1st
generation (or higher class)
Green stripe on white
B Certified Seed, 4th
generation
Produced from Certified Seed, 2nd
generation (or higher class)
Green stripe on white
Seed Certification Process for Zambia
• variety testing (pre & post control growing tests)
• Variety release system
• Registration of seed growers
• Field inspection
• Seed sampling
• Laboratory analysis
Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures for seed.
• Implemented by ZARI
- Zambia is Party to:
- WTO
- OIE
- IPPC
• In the region, Zambia is party to
- COMESA, SADC and Great Lakes
• Zambia ratified the IPPC on the 26th June 1986
• Zambia accepted the revised text in 2005
• For that reason Zambia follows the obligations and rights in the Convention
• Pest Risk Analysis (PRA)
- ISPM 2 and 11
• Surveillance
- ISPM 6
• Issuance of Permits
- ISPM 7 and 12
• Commodity Pest listing
• Decentralized Systems
• Seeds selected:
- Maize
- Sorghum
- Beans
- Wheat
- Cassava
- Zambia has already developed the pests’ lists for the above.
Changes necessary to align with harmonized seed legislation:
• Period for testing varieties need to be uniform
• Need for Common seed certification schemes, standards, terminology etc
• Commodity Pest listing
• Pest Risk Analysis (PRA)
• Surveillance
• Issuance of Permits
Implementing institution
• Capacity
- Infrastructure, in terms of buildings and basic equipment.
• Challenges
- Low staffing levels/staff turnover
- Inadequate resources allocated for activities
Questions emerging from the presentation
At the end of the presentation from Zambia, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. Here are some of the issues thy raised.
Question: Zambia is not a member of OECD
Response: We are using OECD seed scheme- just give us two years, we will be a member
4.1.5 Experience from Zambia: Perspective from Self help Africa
Seed Entrepreneurship for Economic Development and Food Security (SEEDFS) project
Presented by E. Manda
Project Objectives
Overall objective: To increase food security and incomes of farming communities through enhanced seed sovereignty for 100,000 rural small scale farmers
Specific Objective: To increase access and timely supply of good quality seeds and other agricultural inputs suitable for 100,000 farmers
Anticipated results
1. Increased production of diverse quality seed in ten districts
2. Increased availability and access to foundation seeds of locally (community) bred and improved seeds by seed growers in Zambia
3. An enabling environment created for production, distribution and marketing of seeds and other agricultural inputs
4. Increased agriculture productivity through use of sustainable agriculture methods
Targeted Beneficiaries
• Seed Growers Associations our primary target Five SGAs reasonably well established.
• This action to raise profile of five existing consumer/producer groups to level of registered SGAs
Emphasis
• Strengthen SGAs
• Promote growing of quality and certifiable seed
• Empowering SGAs and its members with seed production technologies
• Commercial production and marketing approach
• Strong coordination between MACO, SCCI, Research Institutes and private sector
Targeted Locations
• Central Province: Chibombo
• Lusaka Province: Kafue
• Eastern Province: Chipata, Lundazi and Katete
• Northern Province: Mpika
• North-Western Province: Solwezi and Kasempa
• Western Province: Senanga and Kaoma
Partners
• EPFC: Chipata and Katete
• KZF: Solwezi, Kasempa, Senanga and Kaoma
• MK-SAP: Lundazi
• OPAD: Kafue, Chibombo and Mpika
Duration & funding
• Project duration : 22 months
• Funding source : EC & SHA
• Total Project budget :€ 1,206,300
Other Key Stakeholders
• Ministry Agric & Cooperatives (MACO)
• Seed Control & Certification Institute (SCCI)
• ZARI and other research institutes
• Commercial seed breeder
• Commercial seed companies
4.1.6 Experiences from Zimbabwe: Perspective from government
Presented by L. Karadzandima
PRESENTATION LAYOUT
• INTRODUCTION
• SEED SERVICES
- Seed laws
- Variety Release system
- Seed certification
- Necessary changes for harmonisation
- Institutional Capacity and Constraints
• PLANT QUARANTINE SERVICES
- Phytosanitary regulations and Standards
o Acts of Parliament
o International Standards
- Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seed
- Necessary changes for harmonisation
- Institutional Capacity and Constraints
INTRODUCTION
• Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development (formerly Ministry of Agriculture)
• Department of Research and Specialist Services (DR&SS)
• Research Services Division
Division of Research Services Mission Statement
• To develop framework and cooperation between agro-industries, farmers, government and other relevant stakeholders, through the provision of reliable, efficient and competitive regulatory services.
• To ensure quality agricultural inputs and produce thereby promoting sustainable agriculture and economic growth.
SEED SERVICES
MANDATE
Legal mandate of regulating and administering activities related to agricultural, vegetable, tree and flower seeds
Major Functions
• New variety evaluations
• Granting Plant Breeders Rights
• Registering seed crops and growers
• Conducting seed inspections
• Seed testing
• Registering seed sellers, seed testing laboratories and seed companies
• Regulating import and export of seed
Seed Laws
• Seed Services has two Acts of Parliament
1. Seeds Act, Chapter 19:13 and its enabling Regulations – Seed Regulations (1971) and Seed (Certification Scheme) Notice 2000.
2. Plant Breeders Rights Act Chapter 18:26 of 1979
Variety Release System
Recognition
A variety that is known should:
• Be true to type, thus it must maintain its characteristics over repeated propagation
• Must be on a government list (Second Schedule of the Seed Certification Scheme Notice, 2000) that show varieties recognised for seed production in Zimbabwe.
RECOGNITION OF ELIGIBLE VARIETIES
• New variety evaluations by Seed Services- D.U.S.
• National Variety Release Committee assesses the data on performance and approves
• Listing of the new variety in the Second Schedule (variety list)
• Procedure for recognition of varieties
• D.U.S events and how they are conducted
• Variety release, and
• Maintenance of recognised varieties
Purpose
- To ensure that ONLY seed of known varieties is produced & marketed
- So that end user of product is assured of yield – for food and income security
Who conducts D.U.S tests?
• In Zimbabwe - Seed Services
• Good system in place – guided by legal terms of ref
• section 10 of SSCN
• section 19 of SA & PBR
Maintenance of new varieties
• The new variety will remain listed on 2nd Schedule if:
- It remains stable
- Genetically pure seed is propagated
- Annual renewal fees are paid to the CA
Current 2nd Schedule
• Shows varieties of crops approved for seed production & marketing in Zimbabwe
• Quite diverse
• SS is responsible for maintaining & updating the list (whether listing or de-listing varieties)
• BE FAMILIAR with the list- check when not sure!
• Clearly shows KIND & VARIETY OF CROP, VARIETY NAME & MAINTAINER
• Kinds and varieties of seed to which the scheme applies:
• Includes maize (hybrid & OPV-white & yellow)
Registration
• A seed company can only multiply seed of crops it is licensed to produce.
• The seed company is also obligated to formerly notify Seed Services of its seed growers, where they are located, hectarage grown and the varieties being produced.
• Recognised varieties should only be produced by seed growers under authorised seed companies.
Inspection
• Registered seed crops should only be inspected in the field by authorised seed inspectors, whether from seed companies or government (ensures uniformity in the manner in which certification is conducted).
• Certification inspections are conducted at vegetative, flowering and pre-harvest stages of crop growth.
TESTING
• Registered and inspected seed must be tested for purity and germination before it is sold, to ensure that it meets the minimum purity and germination standards outlined in the Seed Regulations 1971.
• Seed tests are conducted to determine the following seed parameters:
- germination
- moisture content
- number of weed seeds
- purity (presence of chaff and other unwanted material)
- presence of seeds of other crops
- laboratory proficiency (ISTA samples)
- testing
• Seed samples that meet the specific requirements are given local or international certificates
Marketing
• Only quality guaranteed seed must be sold.
• The seed must also:
- a) Have labels;
- b) Be non-expired;
- c) Sold by authorised people with valid seed sellers’ licences
- d) Stored properly for maintenance of quality
Institutions capacity
• Seed Services centrally situated in Harare at the DR&SS Head Offices
• Plans are underway to decentralise to other provinces in Zimbabwe to improve service delivery
• Staff complement is adequate consisting of 11 seed inspectors and 8 analysts and support staff
• Seed services is ready to tackle harmonization
Changes required for seed harmonisation
• SADC and national implementation similar
• Human resource training/staff retention
• Procurement of seed testing equipment and consumables
• Independence from stakeholders i.e. not rely on clients vehicles to do inspections
• Decentralisation of Seed Services
Plant Quarantine Services (PQS)/National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO)
Phytosanitary Regulations and Standards
• Plant Pests And Diseases Act Chapter 19:08
• Zimbabwe is a signatory to the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO-SPS)
• Also a signatory to the FAO-International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and follows International Standards of Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)
• Regulatory powers to inspect, disinfect and eradicate
Seed Imports/ Exports Procedure
• To import seed into Zimbabwe, an Import Permit is to be applied for prior to movement of seed by the importer so as to get details of conditions for importing.
• The Zimbabwe NPPO issues Import Permit only after having seen documentation from Seed Services Department allowing for importation of the seed.
• The Import Permit is sent to the exporter for use to apply to export seed.
• Seed should follow seed export procedures (Seed Health and Control aspects) for the NPPO of the country from which seed is coming from.
• Consignments of seed are to be accompanied by a Phytosanitary Certificate on a Government prescribed form from the NPPO of the country from which seed is coming from.
• Form to have been completed by the Plant Health Inspector indicating certification of conditions required by importing country (Zimbabwe).
• Seed exportation basically consists of reversal on NPPO duties from the Seed importation procedures
Seed Importation
Institutional Capacity
• Head Office (Plant Quarantine Station) situated in Mazowe
• Site has well-developed laboratories, glasshouses, incinerators and offices.
• Works with all points of entry/exit into/out of Zimbabwe.
• Manned by Plant Health Inspectors and their assistants
• 108 Phytosanitary inspectors plus support staff.
• Plant Quarantine Officers-pathologists, entomologists and nematologists
• Well equipped laboratories, glass houses secure fields for post-entry Quarantine
Plant Health Inspection Points
Institutional Constraints
• Operational resources remain the major constraints for maximum performance of Plant Quarantine Services
- Human Resource in-house training/ staff retention
- Lack of consumables
- Mini lab entry points
Changes required for seed harmonisation
• SADC and national implementation similar
• Human resource training
• Repair and maintenance of existing seed testing equipment
• Procurement of seed testing equipment for establishment of mini-laboratories at entry/exit points as well
• Independence from stakeholders i.e. not rely on clients vehicles to do inspections
Questions emerging from the presentation
At the end of the presentation from Zimbabwe, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. Here are some of the issues they raised.
Question: What happens to the plant breeders rights?
Response: If someone wants to protect their variety that can be done
4.1.7 Experience from Zimbabwe: Perspective from CTDT
Presented by Andrew Mushita
INTRODUCTION
• CTDT has more than 10yrs experience in community based farm seed systems
• Current activities cover 10 districts of Zimbabwe (Tsholotsho, Chiredzi, UMP, Chegutu, Goromonzi, Seke, Nyanga, Murewa, Mudzi, Mtoko)
• Both farmer saved seed and improved seed from the formal sector has been distributed through seed bulking/ multiplication programmes
Community seed banking
• Enable the conservation of different plant genetic resources within the local communities so as to safeguard against genetic erosion.
• Act as a strategic seed reserve at community level in case of genetic loss due to natural disasters such as droughts, floods, diseases, etc.
• Create a link between the communities and national gene bank for easy access to genetic materials: farmers can retrieve lost genetic material from the National Reserve
• Serve as a platform for knowledge exchange and trade of planting materials by farmers within rural communities
• Seed banks are strategically placed in the management of Changing Climatic Environments
Accessions collected/stored by crop
CROPS Accessions in 3 Seed banks
Maize 95
Sorghum 350
Pearl millet 270
Cowpeas 550
Ground nuts 127
Indigenous vegetables 190
Partnerships on farm seed production
Year Crop Seed produced (tons)
2000 ( Seed Co/ICRISAT/CTDT) Pearl millet 140
2001 ( Seed Co/ICRISAT/CTDT) Pearl Millet 55
2002( Seed Co/ICRISAT/CTDT) Pearl Millet 90
2003( Seed Co/ICRISAT/CTDT) Pearl Millet 300
2004 (Agri-seeds/CTDT) Pearl Millet 150
2005 (Agri-seeds/CTDT) Pearl Millet 95
2006 (Agri-seeds/CTDT) Pearl Millet 55
2007 (Agri-seeds/CTDT) Pearl Millet 67
2008 (Agri-seeds/CTDT) Pearl Millet 58
2009 (Agri-seeds/CTDT) Pearl Millet 32
Seed and input distribution through partnerships
District Maize seed (MT)
Cowpea (MT)
Sorghum (MT)
Groundnuts (MT)
Total Beneficiaries
Mrehwa 45 (Hybrid) 3 1 - 4500
Mutoko 40 (Hybrid) 3 1 - 4000
UMP 25 (Hybrid) 2 1 - 2500
UMP 45.5 (OPV) - 1 - 4550
Mudzi 35(OPV) 3 25 20 7500
Chiredzi 40 (OPV) 3 10 - 4000
Seke 79.4 (OPV) - - - 5294
Distribution of vegetable seed packs
• Vegetable seeds are distributed during Dry Winter Months to vulnerable households.
• Among communities, cultivation of leafy vegetables in wetland areas is common soon after the end of rain-fed agriculture.
• During the winter period (April to July 2009) CTDT distributed 2000 nutritional kits with eight different vegetables (rape, beans, carrots, butternut, tomato, onion, cabbage & squash).
• NB- there is a need to initiate vegetable seed production programmes at community level.
Proposed interventions in seed production
• Facilitate the establishment of community based seed production associations (groups).
• Decentralize seed production requirements by crop type and quantities to Provinces.
• Promote inter-provincial seed trade centres
• Enhance engagement of farmers into contract seed production through an agri-business approach.
Issues emerging from the presentation
After the presentation, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. These are some of the issues that were raised.
Question: The prizes for seeds in the different countries- what is the situation like?
Question: What is the status on GMOs?
4.2 Analysis of gaps in the countries After all the countries had shared their experiences, the participants were sent to their country groups where they were asked to discuss and distil some of the challenges and gaps that can be addressed by the HaSSP. The country group discussions were guided by the task in the table below.
After the discussion, the groups visualised their outcomes on the pin boards. This outcome was used again as a basis for the different initiatives to position their support. The outcome of the gaps as identified by the countries is therefore presented in section 6 of this report, which combines also the support pledged by the different initiatives.
Group work on Gap analysis
In order to implement the protocol effectively, what are the 2-3 priority challenges in each category variety release, seed certification and quality assurance and phytosanitary measures) which need to be addressed in the short term (next 12 months) and long term, to build seed security?
Max 3 cards of short term and 3 cards of long term for category
(30 minutes)
5 Who is doing what in the region- the existing initiatives
After the countries had shared their experiences and analysed some gaps, participants from different institutions that are currently implementing seed related initiatives were given a chance to share about their existing initiatives that contribute to seed security in the region. The presentations were meant to answer to questions of a) who are you; b) what is your main focus; c) where do you work and how; and d) what could be your contributions
5.1 Experiences from ACTESA Presented by Julius Mathende
OUTLINE
• Background on ACTESA
• Issues and Decisions Related to Seed
• ACTESA/COMESA Initiatives in Seed Development & project areas
• Partners in Seed Development
WHO IS ACTESA
• Specialised Agency for COMESA
• Objectives
– Improve policy environment and competitiveness
– Improve and expand market facilities and services, and
– Increase commercial integration of producers into national and regional markets.
FOCUS AREAS
• Cereals and Pulses
• Roots and Tubers
• Oilseeds
• Horticulture
• Tree Crops
• Forestry products
• Livestock
• Agricultural Inputs
MAJOR ISSUES IN SUB SAHARAN AGRIC
• Low Productivity
• Low Fertiliser Use
– Nutrient Mining
• Adoption of Improved/quality seed
• Intra Regional Trade
• Export/Import Restrictions
MAJOR DECISIONS TOWARDS REDRESS
• MDG 1
• G8 L’ AQUILA DECLARATION 2009
– G8 Agrees to fund agric to tune of US$20b in 3yrs
• Abuja Fertiliser Summit
– 50kg/ha by 2015
• AU Maputo Declaration 2007
– 10% of National Budgets towards Agric
• Sitre Declaration of 2009
– Agriculture sustainability key to prosperity
• Seychelles Declaration on Seed by COMESA Ministers of Agriculture of 2008
IMPORTANCE OF SEED
• Major Component of Green Revolution Trinity
• No seed or planting material – crop agric doomed
• Contribution to Productivity Gains
• 1% in productivity gains leads to 2-3% poverty reduction
ACTESA/COMESA INPUTS MKT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
• FIVE PILLARS OF INPUTS MARKET DEVELOPMENT
• COMESA AGRO INPUTS PROGRAMME -EC
• COMPONENTS (INTERVENTIONS)
– Enhance Capacity to Deliver Rural Credit
– Agro Dealer Development
– Seed Policy and Supply
MEASURES TO ENHANCE SEED SUPPLY & TRADE
• Regional Seed Policies & Regulations Harmonisation and Rationalization
– 19 Member States
• Focus Areas
– Variety evaluation, release & registration
– Standards for Seed Certification
– Phytosanitary measures (Pest Lists)
– Plant Variety Protection
– Import/export documentation
MEASURES TO ENHANCE SEED SUPPLY & TRADE - 8 LANDLOCKED STATES
• Regional Seed Policies & Regulations Harmonisation and Rationalization
• Approach
– Baseline (SADC, COMESA, West Africa)
– Stakeholder Workshop on Recommendations & Way Forward
– Feedback and Buy-in from Member States
– Finalize Report (Concretize Recommendations)
– Submit Report to technical committee and policy organs
– Draft Legal Instruments
– Adoption and domestication
MEASURES TO ENHANCE SEED SUPPLY & TRADE
• Seed Quality and Supply Improvement
– Support for Equipment for Seed Certification
– Support for Equipment for Seed Multiplication
– Support for production of basic/breeders seed
– Support for multiplication of seed
PARTNERS IN SEED DEVELOPMENT
• All those who share our vision and wish to work with us – lost sheep most welcome back
– Donors, fellow RECs, Farmers, National Governments, Financial Institutions, Insurance Companies, Input Suppliers, Researchers, Extensionists, NGOs, policy makers, press, etc
MY EXPECTATIONS
• Draw lessons on seed harmonisation from others
• Engage a few partners under the COMESA Agro Inputs Programme (COMRAP) Implementation
5.2 Experiences from Syngenta Presented by Dilip Gokhale
Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA)
• Though fully funded by Syngenta Corporation, SFSA is independent
• It has an independent management / structure
• Headed by an Executive Director (Dr. Marco Ferroni – former World Bank executive)
• Supervised by an independent Board of Directors
• Present in Asia, Africa and Latin America
SFSA Activities
• Support smallholder farmers
– Agriculture Extension
– Insurance
– Market linkages
• Seed Systems Development
• Agricultural Research collaborations
• Work in partnership with Governments, NGOs and Private Sector
SFSA activities in Seed Systems Development
• Long standing donor to CGIAR
• Strongly support the “D” part of “R&D”
– Private sector seed associations (e.g. STAK, ASTA)
– Cornell / MM (Ed Mbaya will give details)
– Coach and mentor small seed companies in Africa in seed production, processing, marketing etc
– Recently arranged a visit of eight West African seed companies to India, jointly with AGRA
• Facilitate Research Collaborations (e.g. CIMMYT)
• Support a project to raise countries’ capacity of biosafety management (coordinated by FARA)
SFSA Expertise
• SFSA has access to Syngenta vast knowledge in seeds and CP as well as a deep footprint across the developing world
• Syngenta’s oldest legacy seed company was set up in Holland as a partnership in 1810 and in U.S. in 1867
• Syngenta is present in 90 countries and sells its products across the world
• I bring 38 years of seeds experience in India (through the Green Revolution), Asia as Head, APAC and global as Head of Field Crops based in Switzerland
Stylistic representation of seed market development, India
SFSA: India
• Total area : 329 Mio ha, 55% cultivated – Rice: 42 Mio ha, Wheat: 31 Mio ha – Sorghum: 10 Mio ha, Millets: 6 Mio ha – Sugarcane: 4 Mio ha – Second largest producer of vegetables in the world
• Extent: (8 to 37 N) N-S Oslo to Rabat, W-E Lisbon to Warsaw • Three crop planting seasons • Temperature: -40c to +50c, Rainfall: 5mm p.a. to 12,500 mm p.a. • 25 main languages, 200 dialects
Issues emerging from the presentation
After the presentation, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. There was a comment raised:
Comment:
The biggest challenge in Africa is how to promote private sector while we want to protect small holder farmers
5.3 Experiences from AGRA AGRA Support to Seed Security in Africa
Presented by Augustine Langyintuo
Reasons for low use of improved varieties
• Company establishment
– High start-up investment cost
– Lack of manpower and technical know-how
• Production
– Limited access to suitable germplasm
– Production infrastructure
– Limited access to production credit
– Weak producer base
• Marketing and distribution constraints
– Poor market infrastructure
– Limited retail networks
– Challenges related to use of intermediaries
• Seed policies
– Weak internal seed laws and regulations
– Import/export restrictions
– Lengthy variety release processes
– Restrictions on access to public germplasm
AGRA’s interventions in seed sector
• Training of MSc and PhD
• Breeding grants to NARS and seed companies
• Seed production grants to seed companies
• Agro-dealership training and guaranteed loans
• Seed Enterprise Management Institute in collaboration with the SC-Iowa, CIMMYT & UoN
• Investment fund as a Loan Facility (ASIF & WAAIF)
No. of MSc & Phds Enrolled & Graduated - Cummulative
Breeding grants by crop
No. of Seed Enterprises Supported
Agro-dealers that have received technical and business management training under AGRA's programs
Policy interventions
• Supporting the strengthening of internal seed laws and regulations
• Advocating for minimal delays in the release of new varieties
• Advocating for the easy access to public germplasm
• Supporting the implementation of regionally harmonized seed laws and regulations
• Working to eliminate trade restrictions
How harmonization of seed policies and legislation will enhance AGRA’s work
• Greater liberalization of (foundation and certified) seed production and marketing
• Increased competition ensuring better prices
• Squeezing out fake seed dealers through cross-border movement of seeds
• Enforcing regulatory measures
• Promoting increased crop productivity and a potential for an African Green Revolution
5.4 Experiences from CIMMYT CIMMYT’s Seed Security Initiatives in southern Africa
Presented by John MacRobert
NSIMA VISION:
A comprehensive seed value chain
Seed Value Chain
5.5 Experiences from ICRISAT Southern African Seed Systems Development Initiative
ICRISAT and ISU
Presented by A. Mujuru
Overall Objective of the Initiative
To improve food security and increase profitability of southern African resource poor farmers
• Changing the institutional & policy environment
• Facilitating increased and efficient availability of new varieties
• Expanding seed marketing and trade
• More choices of improved seed to farmers
Objectives of this Presentation
• Present on the progress made since project inception
• Share project experiences
• Challenges faced and suggestions on how to overcome them
Background Information
• Project started in 2004/05 -- now entering its sixth year
• USAID Agriculture program – Agriculture Enabling Environment
• Collaborative work between ICRISAT, ISU, SADC FANR & regional partners
• Focus is on supporting regional seed policies harmonization & capacity building
• Concentrates on technical issues that promote marketing and regional trade of seed:
- Variety Release
- Certification & Quality Assurance
- Quarantine & Phytosanitary Measures
Why Seed? Why Harmonize its Trade Policies & Regulations?
• Seed constitutes the main propagule for plant growth
• Sets precedence for increased agricultural activity & economic gains among farming communities
• Different policies & regulations governing seed trade in SADC Member States (Seed trade barriers & restrictive national seed regulations)
• Seed markets are isolated
• Farmer’s choices are limited
• Seed prices are not subject to competition
• To lure domestic foreign investment in seed, expanded markets are imperative
• Seed security is key to being food secure
Progress to Date
• Technical approval of seed harmonization agreements (2005/06)
- Variety Release System
- Seed Certification & Quality Assurance
- Quarantine & Phytosanitary Measures
• Approval of harmonization agreements by SADC council of Ministers and the Ministers of Agriculture
- In 2007 permanent secretaries approved
- Inter-Ministerial Council of Ministers approved in 2007
- Ministers of Agriculture approved in 2009
- Ministers from DRC, Lesotho, Namibia & Swaziland signed -- 2010
- Other countries could not sign as it requires the substantive Minister & not their representatives
- Now need to facilitate the remaining Ministers to sign
• Advisory assistance to seed industry to support implementation of accreditation/certification agreement
- Training was done for private seed sector participants
- Follow ups were made by ISU to assist additional companies
• Setting up of seed import/export quality manuals & quarantine pest lists
- 14 countries were trained in the development of import/export manuals
- Regional quarantine pest list was also developed
• Collaboration with ARIPO
- Regional PVP position in the SADC Member States
• Facilitating the creation of a regional variety catalogue to support implementation of the variety release agreement
- Countries put together information on 19 crop varieties (2009)
- Supports the implementation of the SADC Variety Release System-- Variety released in two SADC countries qualifies for trade in the region
- 10 countries in the region submitted their national variety lists & these were cross tabulated at the Lusaka workshop (see next slide)
- Regional variety catalogue now awaits distribution
Crop Varieties Released in the region
Same Varieties Released in at least 2 countries
Bean 201 24
Cabbage 85 13
Cassava 37 0
Cotton 54 5
Cowpea 42 1
Finger Millet 6 2
Groundnut 65 41
Irish Potato 94 10
Maize 839 119
Onion 104 5
Pearl Millet 22 5
Rice 40 4
Sorghum 105 11
Soybean 96 8
Sunflower 119 10
Sweet Potato 48 2
Tobacco 87 5
Tomato 245 11
Wheat 154 12
Total 2443 288
• Increased awareness of the technical agreements in seed policies harmonization in SADC countries
- Distribution of information material --800 copies of the technical agreement monographs were distributed
• Development of seed quality manuals
- Several—e.g. MRI, Kamano, ZamSeed & Dengo commercial developed manuals with the assistance of ISU
• Strengthening regional awareness & forging a common regional understanding on plant protection in the region
- Involved exchange of information & appraising on policy & institutional issues to do with pests & diseases
• Instituting the regional & national PBR agreement
- Protocol for PBR was developed based on UPOV convention
- Mozambique & Zambia now have PBR laws joining countries like Zimbabwe & Tanzania who already had them
- PBR policy brief has been prepared & now awaits printing
• Training on modalities of establishing seed & PBR laws in countries where they do not exist--2009
- Workshop was held and 8 countries attended
- There is significant progress in the countries
• Unplanned benefits
- Pooling together of seed practitioners
- Sharing of knowledge, best practices & ideas
Year Training program Number of participants
2009 SADC Regional Variety Catalogue 25
2009 Seed & Plant Variety Protection Legal Frameworks 17
2008 Standardization of Seed Inspectors in the Region 21
2008 Plant Breeder’s Rights & Variety Release 24
2008 Seed Import & Export 23
2008 SADC Plant Technical Committee 23
2007 Private Sector Seed Companies 20
2007 Plant Breeders Rights 13
2006 Plant Variety Release 21
2006 Phytosanitary for Seed 32
2005 Seed Certification & Accreditation 56
2005/06/07 Plant Variety Protection 86
Total 361
Challenges
• Signing of MoU by SADC Ministers of Agriculture
- 4 Ministers signed: DRC, Lesotho, Namibia & Swaziland
- There is need to find ways for the remaining countries to sign
• After harmonization, then what?
- Implementation
- Need to facilitate seed trade – flow of quality and improved seed across national boundaries through a series of initiatives
5.6 Experience from ICRISAT- Malawi Reconciling Legumes Seed Supply and Demand: Unsustainable Seed Delivery System
that works
Presented by Siambi M, E. Monyo
Globalization and its consequences
• ‘De-commodification’ of commodities
– Multiple uses of same crop but with different traits
• Producers need to:
– Meet Grades and Standards
– Track minor product innovations
– Keep up with change to remain competitive
Seeds and Productivity
• Improved varieties increase yield - biotic and abiotic tolerance and response to inputs
• Seed production requires systematic and coordinated effort – identifying weaknesses in the chain
• Public and Private sector roles must be defined
• Quality can only be guaranteed by using improved seed
ICRISAT’s Revolving Seed Fund
• Farmers interested in seed production apply to ICRISAT
• Applicants with satisfactory land are Registered with the Seed Services
• Contracts are signed and seed is collected
• The crop is monitored by ICRISAT
• Inspection and Certification is done by Seed Services Unit.
Seed Delivery
• Seed processing done by Farmers - delivered to ICRISAT premises at Chitedze.
• A sample is drawn for Germination and Purity tests.
• Once Certified, payment is made as per agreed price
Contributing to productivity in Malawi
2009 Seed ‘sales Subsidy Market Other Markets
Pigeon peas (Kgs) 15,020 10,706
Groundnuts (Kgs) 370,587 67,457
Total volume sold (Kgs) 385,607 78,163
A New Approach
Current Seed Production and Distribution in Malawi
Proposed route to the market
Agro-dealers “common Brand”
• Seed identification
• Enhances quick purchase decisions by farmers
• Well positioned seed brand reassures farmers of expected brand attributes
• Helps define seed source
• Customer retention and repeat purchase
• Legal protection
• Seed differentiation from competitors
• Enhances corporate image
Challenges to Agro-dealers
• Lack substantial financial resources to support production and marketing
• Seed business ethics – may put grain in “branded” packets to make greater profits
• Quality management – Training needed
• Business management – pricing and customer management (among others)
• Project supporting with more trainings
Putting it all together
• Coordinated approach required
– Public investments in Crop improvement
– Pre-financing of source seed production
• Forward contracting
– Minimize seed market distortions
• Avoid free distribution
• Private-sector marketing should be facilitated
Some Myths
• Seed systems for “Orphan crops” MUST always be SUSTAINABLE - UNTRUE
• Seed Certification “DENIES” farmers access to improved seed - UNTRUE
• We do not know “ENOUGH” about Seed systems in the region - UNTRUE
• Seed is the “MOST important” component of the production system – for Food security??
• Legume seed is available WHENEVER you need it – Forward planning is necessary
5.7 Experiences from Cornell University- Seed of development program
Presented by Edward Mabaya
Seeds of Development Program
• Market Matters, Inc. – A not-for profit organization with offices in New York and Pretoria
• Emerging Markets Program, Cornell University
• Seed Industry Stakeholders in Africa
• Founded in June 2003
Why Seeds?
• Seeds are to rural agricultural development what pills are to modern medicine.
Program Objectives
To build management capacity of locally owned seed companies.
To create platforms for networking among African seed companies.
To conduct research on the seed industry that will guide company strategies and inform public policy.
Where we work – 25 Fellows
Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mali and Mozambique
Who we work with…
Who we all work for…
Current Program Activities
Workshop Training
- Making Markets Matter
Network Creation
- Seed Trading Forum
- Field visits
Coaching
Research to inform company strategy and public policy
Our plans
Expand network to accommodate increasing demand.
Benchmark our activities to avoid duplication and explore collaboration.
Engage other stakeholders (agro-dealers, policy makers, research institutions).
Facilitate business deals for seed companies
Contact Information
Edward Mabaya
Stellenbosch University
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +27 726905203
http://sodp.marketmattersinc.org
5.8 Experiences from IFPRI The Farm Input Promotions (FIPS) Partnership Model
Presented by Paul Thangata
Main Aspects of the Farm Input Promotions (FIPS) Partnership Model
• FIPS: promotes an innovative approach of using “Minipack” inputs for the benefit of small-scale farmers
• Private sector and value chain analysis: in partnerships with private seed firms make seed available to local agro-dealers in small packs
• Farmers are encouraged to experiment with new technologies from different providers
• Skills and capacity development to farmers and agro-dealers: farmer empowerment through FFS, and agronomic training to rural agro-dealers
• Farmer to farmer knowledge transfer: Increases likelihood of rapid scaling up
Lessons from the Farm Input Promotions (FIPS) Partnership Model
Farmers diversify their crop production. They adopt an incremental strategy in the way they purchase their inputs. They take small steps by first experimenting with small packs of inputs to apply onto their crops. After they are convinced that the
technology has a positive impact on their livelihood, they then purchase more of the inputs.
Lessons/Impact of the FIPS Partnership Model
The Malawi Agriculture Partnership (MAP) Model
Main Aspects of the Malawi Agriculture Partnership (MAP) Model
• Coordinated by an NGO Sustainable Agri-business Initiative (SABI): promotes PS growth & competition
• Govt. is a key partner: Assisting the Malawi Agricultural Development Program (ADP) in creating a platform to encourage P-P dialogue in the agri-sector; smallholders are main actors.
• Linkages among PS firms. e.g. PS partners establish a Business Farm Partnership Project & Development Training Farm--to showcase, demonstrate and provide agronomic training, extension
Lessons from the MAP Model
• Trust among PS players: Provide a practical demonstration of effective collaboration along the different agric. value chains (PPP)
• Identify specific clusters within the value chain to address key constraints
• Improve farmer knowledge and technology choice
• Gradual integration of farmers into value chains that provide opportunities for raising cash crop incomes
• From smallholders to small scale commercial farmers: Ensures farmers have access to affordable inputs and profitable output markets
Market segmentation strategies and seed purchasing decisions among smallholders: Kenya
Source: David J. Spielman and Kwaw S. Andam-IFPRI (Co-authors: Hugo De Groote and Ben Gathigi, CIMMYT-Nairobi)
The issue
How can we get new technologies to smallholders?
• New technologies are difficult to promote given:
– Market distortions (input subsidies, price controls)
– Market failures (orphan crops, OPVs)
– Information asymmetries (seed labeling, trust)
– Complexities (knowledge-intensive use)
– Poverty (risk aversion)
The classic solution
“Technology targeting”
1. Improve crops specifically relevant to smallholders (Maize, millet, sorghum, wheat, etc.)
2. Develop traits specifically relevant to smallholders (Disease resistance, shorter maturities, nutritional enhancements
3. Promote deployment specifically to smallholders (Public extension services, input subsidies, discount vouchers)
Voucher use rate: Community-based ID
Voucher use rate: Geography-based ID
Lessons/Conclusions
1. The simple idea of promoting input use through subsidy-based vouchers isn’t straightforward!
2. Targeting the “poor” is tricky business
A. Targeting: Challenges for community-based ID-ing
– Subsidies may still go to non-targeted groups
– Subsidies may go to farmers least able to use them
B. Promoting new technologies through vouchers
– Actual voucher use: slightly more than 50%
– Impact on seed purchase: some impacts, but limited
Generic Lessons
1. Work with smallholder farmers as partners
2. Private sector involvement
3. Government is a key partner (Policy issues)
4. Smallholders are potential buyers of seeds/inputs…
Understanding the Private Sector
If you want to sell a product
I. First Segment: Untapped Market. Consumers who do not know that innovation exists/ not considered as possible consumers of that innovation in the time period t.
II. Second Segment: Effective Potential Market. This is where consumers from segment 1: are now potential consumers of the innovation in the time period t.
III. Third Segment: Current Market. Consumers who have already bought the innovation in the time period: the adopters of the innovation.
Rogers' bell curve and the Private sector decision making
Operationalizing and Monitoring the Harmonization of Seed Systems: Assessing Institutional and Policy Issues
A Concept Idea!
Why?
The main challenge:
1. How to make the regional variety release system concept work.
2. Regional capacity gaps at different levels-including policy on other inputs.
How?
PART 1:
Know who is doing what
– Institutional and capacity assessments-both public and private sector stakeholders involved in agricultural input markets.
– Documenting the impacts of agricultural inputs policies on the regional efficiency of the agricultural sector
– Conduct a comprehensive review of agricultural input policies region in relation to free movement of inputs from one country to another.
PART 2:
Develop a framework to operationalize and monitor the regional variety release system:
– Promote dialogue aimed at informing both public and private sector stakeholders on the progress on harmonization-continuous.
– Develop a mechanism to monitor the harmonization of the seed systems.
– Support capacity development and institutionalization of an input policy monitoring and analysis system.
– Policy research to support both public and private sector actors at both national & regional levels
5.9 Experiences from FAO FAO AND SEED SECURITY INITIATIVES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
Presented by Irene Kadzere
Functional and efficient seed delivery systems are critical to sustainable production intensification and productivity increase
FAO’ s Contribution to strengthening seed systems in developing countries:
• Seed policy, strategy and programmes formulation or review
• Strengthening local seed production and supply systems
• Facilitating and coordinating seed procurement and distribution in an emergency to help in agricultural rehabilitation
• Seed related information and knowledge management.
REGIONAL SUPPORT
To SADC
• 2003 – Initiation of the Harmonization of Seed Rules and Regulation with SADC
• Facilitating establishment of the SADC Seed Security Network
• IPPC – in the region FAO SFS is focal point for the IPPC Secretariat
- Together with SADC Plant Protection Technical Committee - Support countries to meet their IPPC obligations of e.g. reducing transboundary movement of insect pests and diseases (e.g. through seed and other planting materials)
- Plant Inspectors Handbook on Pests and Diseases Identification and Quarantine produced (SADC, FAO, SACAU, COMMARK Trust with support from the USAID)
To COMESA
• FAO is planning on carrying out some Seed Harmonisation work with COMESA
Examples of Country Level support
• Botswana
• Privatization of seed production activities of the Seed Multiplication Unit in the Department of Agricultural Research
• Study recommended:
• Privatization of the Seed Production Systems
• Development of a comprehensive Seed Policy in harmony with SADC framework
• Madagascar
• Support for the revitalization of the seed sub-sector in Madagascar for the production and use of quality seeds (Appui pour la redynamisation du sous-secteur semencier malgache en vue de la production et de l’utilisation de semences de qualité)
• Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia
• Review of Seed Systems for Cotton, Cassava and Associated Crops. Recommendations made
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Cassava Central, Eastern and Southern Africa (CACESA) Strategic Framework 2009 (FAO and Partners)
• Comprehensively addressing production challenges to cassava with emphasis on management of Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) and the cassava brown streak virus (CBSV).
• Conservation Agriculture in various countries –Legume seed for rotations in Conservation Agriculture and other farming practices
Supporting vulnerable farmers to recover and rebuild their production capacity after disasters
• Germplasm (Seed/planting materials) needs assessments through e.g. CFSAMs and some targeted studies.
• Support to quality seed access by vulnerable households.
• Linking users with suppliers
• Community level production
• Supporting relevant partners to obtain quality seed for agricultural recovery activities
Current Study to determine demand and supply in the region for the 2010/2011 season
WHAT CAN FAO CONTRIBUTE TO THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS?
Key areas of harmonization
• Variety release regulation
• Seed certification and standards
• Plant breeder’s rights
• Phytosanitary measures
• Seed trade regulations
• Harness global science (genetics, technology, physiology, entomology, pathology, agronomy, biodiversity) to improve the seed systems
• Policy and legislation - Facilitate development/review of policies that support the whole seed systems value chain (international and regional cooperation, Guidelines for production and quality control standards, Guidelines for variety development and releases, Phytosanitary and Quarantine Capacity Systems; Certification etc)
• Seed systems Data, Information and knowledge management, sharing and coordination (statistics, regular and strategic regional assessments of demand and supply for seeds including targeted assessments after disasters)
• Fostering linkages among players (farmers, marketers, producers, breeders, policy and decision makers ……)
• Economic – facilitatory (management, marketing, investment, finance, credit, improved movement of good quality seed movement across member states)
• Capacity building – facilitate across the value chain
Sustainability is key
CONTACTS FOR SEED ISSUES IN FAO SOUTHERN AFRICA
Dr. Joyce Mulila-Mitti
FAO Sub- Regional Office for Southern
Harare, Zimbabwe
6 Country gap analysis and opportunities for support
This session combined the outcome of the country gap analysis as well as the opportunities for support provided by the different initiatives. After the country presentations (see section 4.1 on this report), the participants (in their country teams) were asked to distil some of the challenges and gaps regarding seed security, that can be addressed by HaSSP (see section 4.2). The outcomes were visualized in a matrix on the boards. The country group discussion was guided by the task in the box below, as shown also in section 4.2.
On the other hand, after the presentations by the different initiatives (see section 5 of this report), the presenters were asked to go around the boards and indicate where they can be able to provide support.
What are presented here are tables that show the country gap analysis as well as the opportunities for support from the different initiatives.
Group work on Gap analysis
In order to implement the protocol effectively, what are the 2-3 priority challenges in each category variety release, seed certification and quality assurance and phytosanitary measures which need to be addressed in the short term (next 12 months) and long term, to build seed security?
Max 3 cards of short term and 3 cards of long term for category
(30 minutes)
6.1.1 Gaps and opportunities for support for Zimbabwe
Gaps and support opportunities for Zimbabwe
Short term Long term
Gaps Support from Gaps
Var
iety
Rel
ease
Awareness and understanding through workshop, extension and publication
IFPRI: (Policy review and Policy monitoring & evaluation)
IFPRI & GAT : Capacity building and Institutional analysis)
CIAT: (Variety database; Targeting varieties using GIS and Bean germplasm
ICRISAT: (Germplasm; Variety testing and Short term training)
CIMMYT: (Improved maize varieties and data on variety performance VCU and DUS)
SODP: (Networking and facilitating cross regional of variety by SMES)
Alignment of seed legislation with regional protocol
Enhance capacity for seed production
See
d C
erti
fica
tio
n a
nd
Qu
alit
y as
sura
nce
Training
- Short courses on seed issues
- Extension to farmers/ technicians
- Funding for BSc, Msc and PhDs
IFPRI: data management (see ASTI program by IFPRI)
CIMMYT: (Training and technical backstopping )
ICRISAT: (Digitization of database and Breeder & foundation seed production)
ACTESA:
Equipment for seed multiplication
Seed certification equipment
Seed multiplication
Production of breeder seed
CIAT: (Public- private partners and Seed system and delivery)
Update legislation e.g. PBRs Act
Decentralization of testing laboratories, certification centers
Human resource and capacity building
- On farm production, contracting agro-dealers
Staff retention (incentives to retain staff)
Seed inspection (mobility and coverage required)
nit
ary
m
ea Staff training
- Seed Health testing
Establishment of a database to
- Field inspection procedures input information communication
amendment of pest list, legislation, regional pest risk analysis
Equipment: (vehicle for mobility, Maintenance, Mini- laboratories and Consumables)
Public awareness
Workshops for farmers, policy makers, private sector, NPPO
6.1.2 Gaps and opportunities for support for Swaziland
Gaps and support opportunities for Swaziland
Short term Long term
Gaps Support from Gaps
Var
iety
Rel
ease
Update variety release database IFPRI: (Policy review and Policy monitoring & evaluation)
IFPRI & GAT : Capacity building and Institutional analysis)
CIAT: (Variety database; Targeting varieties using GIS and Bean germplasm
ICRISAT: (Germplasm; Variety testing and Short term training)
CIMMYT: (Improved maize varieties and data on variety performance VCU and DUS)
SODP: (Networking and facilitating cross regional of variety by SMES)
Amendment of the seed act to be in line with SADC
Review of criteria for release of new varieties
See
d C
erti
fica
tio
n
and
Qu
alit
y as
sura
nce
Human capacity (recruitment and training of new and existing staff members)
IFPRI: (Data management)
CIMMYT: (Training)
ICRISAT: (Digitization of database and Breeder & foundation seed production)
ACTESA:
Equipment for seed multiplication
Seed certification equipment
Seed multiplication
Production of breeder seed
CIAT: (Public- private partners and Seed system and delivery)
Upgrade existing equipment to be in line with modern technology Complete the seed testing quality manual
Update categorization of seed varieties for zonal suitability, drought to relevance and disease tolerance
Ph
yto
san
itar
y m
easu
res
Recruitment of new staff members and training of existing members
Develop in house capacity (helped by UNISWA staff member at the moment)
Finalise review of national quarantine pest list
6.1.3 Gaps and opportunities for support for Malawi
Gaps and support opportunities for Malawi
Short term Long term
Gaps Support from Gaps
Var
iety
Rel
ease
Creating awareness and understanding to all relevant stakeholders in new variety release
IFPRI: (Policy review and Policy monitoring & evaluation)
IFPRI & GAT : Capacity building and Institutional analysis)
CIAT: (Variety database; Targeting varieties using GIS and Bean germplasm
ICRISAT: (Germplasm; Variety testing and Short term training)
CIMMYT: (Improved maize varieties and data on variety performance VCU and DUS)
SODP: (Networking and facilitating cross regional of variety by SMES)
Inadequate human capacity to address needs for important crops
Legislation of variety release
support
AGRA: Capacity building and advocacy support
Providing capacity of DUS and VCU to seed services unit
See
d C
erti
fica
tio
n a
nd
Qu
alit
y as
sura
nce
Creating awareness to all stakeholders
IFPRI: (Data management)
CIMMYT: (Training and backstopping)
ICRISAT: (Digitization of database and Breeder & foundation seed production)
AGRA: Capacity building
ACTESA:
Equipment for seed multiplication
Seed certification equipment
Seed multiplication
Production of breeder seed
CIAT: (Public- private partners and Seed system and delivery)
Affiliation to OECD
Review of legislation
Support
AGRA: Technical and financial support
Capacity building
Ph
yto
san
itar
y m
easu
res
Resource mobilization AGRA: Capacity building Infrastructure
Staffing levels Capacity building
6.1.4 Gaps and opportunities for support for Zambia
Gaps and support opportunities for Zambia
Short term Long term
Gaps Support from Gaps
Var
iety
Rel
ease
Equipment e.g. transport and computers
IFPRI: (Policy review and Policy monitoring & evaluation)
IFPRI & GAT : Capacity building and Institutional analysis)
CIAT: (Variety database; Targeting varieties using GIS and Bean germplasm
AGRA: Support for advocacy
ICRISAT: (Germplasm; Variety testing and Short term training)
CIMMYT: (Improved maize varieties and data on variety performance VCU and DUS)
SODP: (Networking and facilitating cross regional of variety by SMES)
Human resource development
Infrastructure development
Align release process to harmonized SADC regulations e.g. Drafting
support
AGRA: Capacity building and advocacy support and
Consulting support for review
Strengthen variety release system
See
d C
erti
fica
tio
n
and
Qu
alit
y as
sura
nce
Staff retention in seed inspection and seed testing
CIMMYT: (Training and backstopping)
ICRISAT: (Digitization of database and Breeder & foundation seed production)
CIAT: (Public- private partners and Seed system and delivery)
ACTESA:
Equipment for seed multiplication
Seed certification equipment
Seed multiplication
Production of breeder seed
Capacity building in terms of infrastructure and equipment
Support
AGRA: A SIF funds support
Ph
yto
san
itar
y m
easu
res
Staff retention in Phytosanitary
Encourage countries to ratify the ISSB
Provision of ITC to countries for transparency
Harmonized training program e.g. inspection
AGRA: Capacity building
ACTESA
Phytosanitary upgrading
National pest listing
Inspectors and customs training
Support surveillance program
Pest identification and taxonomy
Sustainability of systems
Soft and hard infrastructure
7 The country’s 6 months workplans
After having explored and discussed issues from the different angles of, a) getting an understanding of where the Seed security project comes from, b) sharing of country experiences, c) sharing of the existing initiatives and d) analysis of some gaps and opportunities for support. The participants were then given a task to develop their work plans for the next 6 months that will allow them to create a foundation for harmonization. The discussion was guided by the task in the box below:
After intensive discussions, the participants presented their work in plenary. They were critiqued, in terms of questions for clarity and additional inputs. The comments were incorporated and what is presented here is the amended work plans. N.B. The teams could not finish with their work plans because of time constraints. However, they made commitments for finalize the plans within a week. What is presented here is the unfinished work plans as presented during the workshop.
Group task: Work plan
Taking into considering the gaps identified by your country team and planned activities of the project; draw up a year 1 work plan for the implementation of HASSP in your country. Your work plan should consider the pre-project and process and initial harmonization deliverables.
A) Pre-project and process
What pre-project and process deliverables are required for your country (e.g. MoU signing, reporting back, stakeholder mapping, appointment of national coordinator, national workshop etc)
B. Harmonisation deliverable
What are the 2-3 most important priority challenges for your country?
Criteria –
that have to be addressed to provide a foundation for the whole harmonization process,
that can be addressed in the next 12 months with a high likelihood of success
N.B. For both A and B, answer the following:
1. What is the envisaged /outcome
2. What deliverables/performance criteria/ (milestones) are required for your country
3. What strategies(broad actions/steps) are needed
4. What are detailed activities for each step
5. What can we do by ourselves and what support do we require, from who and how (take into consideration the offers from the initiatives).
6. Who else needs to be involved
7. Who is responsible (who takes the lead)
8. By when (deadline)
9. What resources are required (estimated budget)
2½ Hours
7.1 Work plan Zambia
HaSSP WORKPLAN ZAMBIA: JUNE – DECEMBER 2010
Outcome Deliverables/
performance
criteria/indicators
(milestones)
Strategies/ steps
and actions
Detailed activities
for each step
What can we do
by ourselves
Support required
from who and how
Who else needs to
be involved
Who is responsible
(who takes the lead)
By when
(deadline)
Estimated
budget)
Selection of
interim national
steering
committee
Interim in place and
functional
Select from
stakeholders present
at HSSP workshop a 4
person multi sectoral
interim committee
To coordinate and
spearhead pre
project activities up
to the national
awareness
workshop
The entire selection
process
SCCI (Mr.
Edward ZULU)
ZAMSEED
Dr. S. Mundia
ZNFU (C.
Hamusimbi)
Done
Debriefing of
Minister MACO,
FANRPAN Node
about the SADC
MOU and
Harmonized
SADC Seed
Protocol
Minister sensitized
becomes aware
and
HSSP
disseminated in
media
NODE briefed and
aware of HSSP
Use the Ministerial
debriefing as part of
national awareness
creation /visibility
Prepare a brief on:
SADC MOU
HaSSP
Ministerial Brief
for dissemination
by Minister to the
Nation
Debriefing of
Minister, Node
Print and electronic
media
Interim Committee Within 14
working days
of 24th May
2010
US$5,000
Follow up on MOU signed Use momentum Constant FANRPAN Interim By End of July
Outcome Deliverables/
performance
criteria/indicators
(milestones)
Strategies/ steps
and actions
Detailed activities
for each step
What can we do
by ourselves
Support required
from who and how
Who else needs to
be involved
Who is responsible
(who takes the lead)
By when
(deadline)
Estimated
budget)
signing of SADC
MOU by
Minister MACO
from debriefing
to request
Minister to
timely sign MOU
follow up by
Interim Com &
Node
Zambia Node Committee 2010 (all
things being
equal)
Hold a National
Awareness
Workshop
Workshop held
Stakeholders
sensitized
Compilation of
necessary
background
documentation
and info
Stakeholder
mapping
Dissolution of
Interim
Committee
Selection of
National
Steering
Committee
Stakeholder
mapping and
invitations
Workshop
organization
Other
stakeholder/coo
perating
partners
‐ ACTESA
‐ AGRA
‐ CIAT
‐ CIMMYT
‐ IFPPRI
‐ Syngenta
Foundation
‐ ZASTA
‐ Interim
Committee
And
NODE
By End July US$50,000
Media
publicity
Realigning
National VR
guidelines to
SADC
‐ VR procedures and
guidelines
Realigned to the
SADC harmonized
‐ Review current
VR procedures
and add/amend
where necessary
‐ Desk review of
current VR
procedures &
guidelines
‐ Consultant
‐ Plant Breeders
‐ ZASTA
‐ ZNFU
‐ National
Coordinator
‐ FANRPAN Node
By 20th
December
2010
US$80,000
Outcome Deliverables/
performance
criteria/indicators
(milestones)
Strategies/ steps
and actions
Detailed activities
for each step
What can we do
by ourselves
Support required
from who and how
Who else needs to
be involved
Who is responsible
(who takes the lead)
By when
(deadline)
Estimated
budget)
harmonized
protocol
protocol ‐ Make
necessary
amendments
‐ Validation and
Consensus
Workshop on
reviewed VR
procedures &
guidelines;
‐ Gazetting the
reviewed
guidelines
‐ Consultant
working with
VR Committee
‐ Consultant, VR
Committee,
Industry
Players &Other
Stakeholders
‐ PSFAZ
‐ ZWIA
‐ VR Committee
Members
‐ National
Steering
Committee
Training of
Personnel in
International
Standards and
SADC HaSSP
Procedures
‐ Min. 60 personnel
and key
stakeholders
trained in 2
workshop
‐ Two training
workshop
involving experts
from Phyto, Seed
Certification, VR
and key
Stakeholders
‐ Workshop
planning
‐ Identification
of resource
persons
‐ Identification
of participants,
‐ Assembly of
materials,
‐ Workshop
planning and
identification
of trainees
‐ ACTESA
‐ IPPC
‐ CG Centers
‐ National
Coordinator
‐ FANRPAN Node
‐ By end of
Decembe
r 2010
US$130,000
Outcome Deliverables/
performance
criteria/indicators
(milestones)
Strategies/ steps
and actions
Detailed activities
for each step
What can we do
by ourselves
Support required
from who and how
Who else needs to
be involved
Who is responsible
(who takes the lead)
By when
(deadline)
Estimated
budget)
‐ Training
Realigning
Seed
Certification
guidelines to
SADC
harmonized
protocol
‐ SC procedures and
guidelines
Realigned to the
SADC harmonized
protocol
‐ Review current
SC procedures
and add/amend
where necessary
‐ Desk review of
current SC
procedures
&guidelines
‐ Make
necessary
amendments
‐ Validation and
Consensus
Workshop on
reviewed SC
procedures &
guidelines;
‐ Gazetting the
reviewed
guidelines
‐ Consultant
‐ Consultant
working with
SCCI &key
Stakeholders
‐ Consultant,
SCCI, Industry
Players &key
Stakeholders
‐ Plant Breeders
‐ ZASTA
‐ ZNFU
‐ PSFAZ
‐ ZWIA
‐ SCCI
‐ National
Coordinator
‐ FANRPAN Node
‐ National
Steering
Committee
By end of
November
2010
US$100,000
7.2 Work plan Zimbabwe
OUTCOME/
OBJECTIVE
DELIVERABLES/
PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA/INDICA
TORS
(MILESTONES)
STRATEGIES/
STEPS AND
ACTIONS
DETAILED
ACTIVITIES
FOR EACH
STEP
WHAT CAN
WE DO BY
OURSELVES
SUPPORT
REQUIRED
FROM WHO
AND HOW
WHO ELSE
NEEDS TO BE
INVOLVED
WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE
(WHO TAKES
THE LEAD)
BY WHEN
(DEADLIN
E)
ESTIMATED
BUDGET)
A.
To Set up
Seed
Harmonisatio
n Task Force
Steam rolling of
the programme
Selection of the
task Force
(Twice)Semi-
monthly
meetings for
June
& July
The rest of
the months at
least once a
month Aug-
Dec
National Seed
Harmonisation
Task Force meetings
Support: NOD
coordination
Ministry of
Agriculture-
Perm Secretary
Farmers Union
presidents
FANRPAN NODE 31 May
2010
Transport
Stationary
and printing
US$1000/me
eting
estimated
total-
US$8000
To get the
MoU signed
MoU signed Identify
champions
Engagement
with the
Minister and
Elders
Organise
meetings with
the Ministry of
Agriculture-
Awareness
and
understanding
Facilitate
process
Support: FANRPAN regional secretariat
Patrons NODE
Coordinator
July 2010 Return air
ticket to
Harare from
US$1000
To map out
stakeholders Comprehensiv
e report on the
seed sector of
Zimbabwe
Desk review
or study of
stakeholders
to produce a
document
Task force to
Commissioni
ng the
desktop
review
Developme
nt of terms
of
reference
Identify the
consultant
Signing of
the
contract
Plan and
launch the
review
The Consultant Seed
Harmonisation
Task Force
30 June
2010
US$5000
To launch the
HaSSP in
Zimbabwe
HaSSP launched
in Zimbabwe
Convening of
workshop
Backgroun
d
document
preparation
Workshop
program
Invitation
of
participant
Organise
workshop
Hire
workshop
Facilitator
FANRPAN
secretariat
Media
Seed
Harmonisation
Task Force sub-
committee
30 July
2010
US$20 000
s
Date setup
duties
To select and
Hire a
National
Coordinator
National
Coordinator hired
TORs
development
Advertising
Advertising
Interviewing
Formulation
and signing of
a contract
3year
Seed
Harmonisation
Task Force
FANRPAN
NODE
30 June
2010
US$10 000
B.
To enhance
national
awareness
and
understandin
g on regional
seed
harmonization
Publications and
(print &
electronic)
materials to
educate the Seed
Sector
Workshop
proceedings
Commissioning
individuals to
produce
publications
Collection of
information,
processing,
packaging and
distribution
Documentation
and packaging
of best practices
on seed issues
Establishment
of a e-
newsletter,
website on
seed issues
Plan and run
road shows
Identify,
collect and
process
information
Support:
NUST
CIMMYT
IFPRI
SYNGENTA
CIAT
Electronic and
Print media
SADC
FARNPAN
Regional
CTA
FANRPAN
NODE
31 July-
first
publicatio
n &
Continuou
sly
US$30 000
To align
national seed
legislation
A review of
National
Legislation policy
Recommend
amendments of
national
with regional
protocol
Legislation to
the Cabinet
To enhance
capacity for
seed
production &
marketing
7.3 Work plan Malawi HAASSP WORK PLAN FOR MALAWI: YEAR ONE
Outcome Deliverables Strategies Activities Support Requirements
Who else needs to be involved
Responsible Authority
Deadline Estimated budget
Pre-project processes SADC harmonised seed regulatory system domesticated and implemented in Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland with important data, information and knowledge utilised in the wider SADC region for evidence-
MoU signed Briefing of the Deputy Minister on HaSSP MoU signing1
Dr Maideni Dr. Luhanga Vic Mhoni
MoAFS 28.05.10
Stakeholders identified
Conduct a collaborative mapping & current national policy with SADC Seed Protocols (block a day)
DARS: SSU, PQS & Breeders CISANET STAM CGIAR
SSU 04.06.10
Documents circulated
Circulation of Seed framework documentation (soon after mapping)
CISANET/FANRPAN Node DARS
NC ToRs developed Governance system approved
Organise the national sensitisation workshop on harmonisation
DAES FUM CISANET
DARS/CISANET 28.06.10
1 Dr. Maideni should develop an outline for the DRC meeting as the guiding framework
based decision-making on seed systems
NC appointed
Appointment of National Coordinator2
CISANET
Training report
Training for 10 VCU & DUS, 10 breeding & 10 Gene Bank technicians3
Regional institution DARS: SSU 30.09.10
Training in pest risk analysis (12) (PRA)
Regional training institution
DARS: PQS 31.12.10
Conduct capacity needs assessment for seed services, plant protection & breeders
SSU M. Soko, PQS NRC- Cereals
Procurement of computers & equipment
DARS:SSU, PQS & Breeders
CISANET/FANRPAN 30.06.10
Workshop: Review the SADC Technical Agreement on current Malawi framework
DARS STAM NGOs FOs
DARS: SSU CISANET/FANRPAN
31.08.10
Follow-up workshop: Align of the policies with the SADC framework4
31.08.10
2 This should be brought to the attention of the national workshop; it will require advertising and selection 3 Training for establishment of an independent unit to manage seed services and plant quarantine issues in Malawi 4 This is a month long activity but budgeted for 5 days
Visibility & communications
DARS CISANET/FANRPAN Media institutions Printers STAM
DAES
Review and updating of the varieties list & pest list
DARS CGIAR centres
DARS
Demand assessment of foundation seed and empowerment of breeders to produce enough foundation seed
CISANET STAM FUM
STAM
The core team should be made up of: FUM DARS: SSU, plant protection & breeders CGIAR STAM CISANET The core team should be linked with the ASWAp process (**) Capacity assessment for laboratory capacities in Lunyangwa & Bvumbwe: consultant to assess Tenders for the equipment
7.4 Work plan Swaziland
Outcome/objective
Deliverables/performance criteria
Strategies Detailed activities
Support required
Other involvement
Responsibility
Deadline (time frame)
Estimated budget (US Dollars)
Pre-activities:
MOU disseminated to stakeholders and project reporting
Number of stakeholders who have received the MOU
National one day meeting
-secure venue
- invitations
- multiply copies
-prepare report
- financial support
- Regional Node
- Swaziland Node
End of June 2010
1500
Stakeholder mapping
Database of key stakeholders
FANRPAN node meeting
- core team brainstorming
- host FANRPAN node for verification and endorsement
- node secretariat
- - Secretariat - 1st week of June 2010
100
Appointment of National Coordinator
Recruitment and signing of contract
-advertising
-
- terms of reference
- advert. Preparation
- engage media
-conduct interviews
- financial support
- Regional Node
- Swaziland Node
- 2nd week of June 2010
- contracting
National workshop Number of stakeholders informed about the project
- three days workshop
-secure venue
- invitations
- programme development
-prepare report
- financial support
- workshop facilitation
- regional node
- secretariat - end of June 201
Harmonisation deliverables
Seed variety release, certification and phytosanitary policies, systems and structures in Swaziland reviewed
National status report - engage an independent consultant
- develop terms of reference
- advertising
- recruitment
- contracting
- reporting back
-financial support
- technical backstopping
- regional institutions
- ministry of agriculture
End of September 2010
Upgrade of seed certification equipment
Human resource capacity upgraded (training)
Community based seed production
7.5 The CG-Centers, Donors and FARNPAN round table discussion
Parallel to the countries developing their work plans, the participants from the CG-Centers, donors and FANRPAN also had a round table discussion on how they can all complement the work of FANRPAN and extend the HaSSP beyond the 4 pilot countries, with possible funding support from USAID. The participants at the round table discussion were:
Cecilia Khupe (USAID); Lindiwe Majele Sibanda (FANRPAN); Mary Mgonja (ICRISAT); Rachel Muthoni (CIAT); Rowland Chirwa (CIAT); Paul Thangata (IFPRI); Moses Siambi (ICRISAT); Allan Majuru (ICRISAT); Sam Kareithi (SDC); John McRobert (CIMMYT).
What is presented below is the outcome of the RT discussion.
Output:
1. Agreed that the CG-consortium should merge the existing concept note into one - to
be submitted by FANRPAN to USAID
2. Timeline for CN development:
a. Merge all documents – 28th May – Paul Thangata, Rowland Chirwa, Mary
Ngonja and John McRobert
b. Merged document circulated to all partners and receive comments by – 4th June
c. Teleconference organized by FANRPAN – 11th June
d. Fine tune the CN - 16th June
e. Submit the CN to USAID --18th June
3. After 12th July – hold a stakeholders meeting including representatives from 4 pilot
countries and 5 additional countries
8 Governance arrangement of the HaSSP
In this session, the focus was to agree on the governance arrangement of the HaSSP. The process was done in two stages. Firstly, the facilitator presented an example of how this was organized in similar initiatives. Secondly, Lindiwe also made an input presentation of the governance mechanism as proposed by FANRPAN. These two input presentations aimed at stimulating ideas as the participants think and give their inputs into the governance of the HaSSP:
8.1 PICOTEAM experiences in Facilitating an innovation platforms
Presented by Edward Chuma
In order to stimulate debate and give input on an alternative way of organizing around issues of seeds, Edward shared with the participants some experiences of PICOTEAM in facilitating innovation platforms around seed system. He stressed that this is not only based on training or coaching people to facilitate innovation platforms. But also their personal practical experiences of what they have done in the field and going a step further to help other facilitates innovation platforms.
Picoteam experiences
1. Development of Innovation platforms through field implementation.
2. Competence development, coaching and mentoring of Innovation platform facilitators
Innovation platform – social system
The African Funeral
In their experience, they always get stuck when they have to explain what innovation platforms are, because there are many explanations and definitions.
They then use an analogue of an “African funeral”. Edward asked the participants if they have attended an African funeral. There were about one or two who had not attended one. He further asked them what is unique about an African funeral. Participants had their input such as: Women are crying, there is consultation, and people make contributions etc.
According to Edward, the most important thing with an African funeral is that it never fails. No matter what the circumstances maybe, the body has to be buried. He then explored with the participants some of the principles that make an African funeral successful.
Responsibilities are clear
Total commitment
Experience
Empathy
Fear of consequences
Shame
Champions
Peer pressure
Self interest
He then related these principles to the functioning of innovation platforms
Innovation platform
• Making things work in systemic mode
• Breaking ideas of innovation system theory into practical and operational steps which everyone can engage
• Personal commitment key – personal development/personal mastery incorporated
• It is about a clear vision, discipline to deliver, social skill to hold everyone accountable
• It is about governance and leadership
Facilitating Innovation platforms. Why Innovation platforms?
• Need to make the system work
• Failure of traditional approaches due to institutional and system failure (it is not about technology failure)
• “Linking“ of actors NOT enough
• It is about relationship of mutual accountability for delivery
• Knowing in detail what other actors expect and what is expected of me to make the system work.
Seed provision system - The problem
Farmers expressed the need of having access to new seed varieties of maize with the following characteristics:
• Disease resistance
• Storage characteristics and taste similar to local variety
• Grains uniformly white in colour
• Early maturing
Seed provision systems - Functions
Once the farmers have defined their needs, the facilitators helped them to define the functions that are required to fulfil the demand. The forms follow function principle.
Seed provision systems - Role players
To develop a sustainable seed provision system to smallholder, a stakeholder platform made up of the following Institutions/Organisations was established:
1. University of the North
2. NDA - Directorate of genetic resources
3. ARC-GCI Potchefstroom
4. South African national seed organisation (SANSOR)
5. University of the North
6. University of Venda
7. NPDAE agricultural colleges
8. Eco-link Mpumalanga
9. Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture
10. CIMMYT - Zimbabwe
Regulatory aspects
Research & development for varietal
improvement
Extension approaches for seed and food
security
Commercialisation of seeds and grains
Smallholder seed
production system
Stakeholder linkages
Soil fertility aspect in seed
selection
Approaches to seed varietal
selection
Preservation of bio-diversity
Improving crop
varieties suitable
for smallholder farming system
11. ICRISAT- Zimbabwe
12. GTZ/SADC/SSSP- Zimbabwe
Lessons – Factors that make Innovation platforms work
• Facilitation competence
• Relevence of innovation
• Actors should see tangible benefits
• Trust between actors
• Clear vision
• Commitment of key players
Some Wisdom
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission!
Never give up - until you have impact!
Smoke and brave people always find a way out
No one should leave our Universities without realising how little they know
8.2 Implementation mechanism proposal: an input presentation
After the input presentation by Edward, Lindiwe made another presentation that highlighted the implementation mechanism as defined by FANRPAN. What is presented here is the combination of the presentation Lindiwe made before about the Organogram structure of FARNPAN, and the one that looks beyond the Organogram to the implementation mechanism. Therefore, the first four slides are about the FANRPAN Organogram, the last three slides show the implementation mechanism.
On the board the seat for the private sector is vacant. . We were given a directive that by September we should have that seat filled. So if you have names of private sector representatives who can sit there, that will be ideal. Now, at regional level, how are we structured? I sit in as CEO supported by Director of communication, which is vacant Director of research, which is also vacant. Then we have a finance and admin unit of four.
The four programs
Then we have the programs. We have four program thrusts.
Program number one is what we call Food systems. Under that cluster, we have got three projects.
a) Bio-safety and Bio-technology our active focal point for this is Dr Wynard who is on mission and could not join us for these two days.
b) Food prices, we have been working with the National Agricultural Markerting Council. After the high food prices of 2008, we have been trying with some countries where we have resources to track the food prices.
c) And then CAADP, FANRPAN has been contracted to develop the regional CAADP compact for COMESA. In addition to that through support from USAID and very soon from GTZ, we are convening the CAADP round tables at country levels. Now CAADP as you know is the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program and everything we are doing now congregates there. It has got the four pillars. Pillar number 1 is Sustainable land and water use. Pillar 2 is Infrastructure and trade; Pillar
3 is Food security and reduction of vulnerability, Pillar number 4 is Research and technology uptake. So everything we do really relates to CAADP processes in the region. And currently in the member states of COMESA, six countries have signed their national CAADP compacts, which is the agreement that details the investment that will lead to 6% per annum growth minimum in each of the countries. So we are coordinating that COMESA wide, but working with the countries in the dialogue.
The second cluster is Agricultural input and output markets. In there we have three projects we are coordinating.
a) Women in policy where we are funded by the Gates Foundation, to try and help women influence policy in terms of accessing agriculture input. We are piloting that through Theatre for agriculture policy advocacy, where women’s voices are captured through theatre. And those theatre plays are taken o the road shows in the villages at national level. And this is happening in Malawi and Mozambique.
b) Second project is on input voucher and subsidies. How can input voucher be a token or an avenue for accessing vulnerable households, but at the same time not sidelining commercial activities? That project is funded by USAID; they have been our partner for over seven years now. And we are working in the region, mainly in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia and soon to scale up in terms of households. We have got households we have been tracking for three years now, where we look at their asset base and whether they are justified to be receiving input. The level of vulnerability, whether it justifies them to be in a subsidy program or they should be graduating, to purchase their inputs. Already in Malawi we are seeing evidence of households that have moved from 800 kilograms per hectare of maize, to up to 3200 kilograms per hectare which means, they can now have 1 ton for domestic consumption and the excess for sale. This means they can buy their own inputs. So by just doing a sample in a country, we are able to have longitudinal database that tells the story of house households’ move from acute to coping levels, and what policies are suitable for the different levels.
c) This project you are on in this two day workshop is the enhanced seed security policy framework for improved seed availability in the region. It falls within the inputs and outputs markets program thrust. We are saying you are the champions to develop the governance mechanism for that.
The next thrust we have is the Natural Resource and Environment,
a) We are doing transboundary water in the Limpopo basin. We are looking at vulnerable populations who live in the Limpopo basin which cuts across four countries (Botswana, South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe); a population of 14 million but you find 80% of those are living below a dollar a day. And yet they are sitting on the wealth of the water resource that is moved upstream for the large scale commercial farmers, for the mining and tourism industry. So our work is looking at what are the technologies that these households can adopt to improve their livelihoods.
b) We have done work on bio fuels. We have found that two countries have bio fuel policies in Africa. And we are trying to say side by side with climate change can we improve the policy environment and embrace bio fuels as an option for development, but harness it to make sure that we do not use food crops for that.
c) Climate change: we’ve been pushing the no agriculture no deal call to make sure that the climate agreements that are done globally would accept that in Africa, a deal that does not address agriculture is no deal. Agriculture has a role to play both in terms of adaptation because it is the source of livelihood for the majority. But also in terms of mitigation, because of the carbon potential.
And finally, the fourth cluster is social protection and livelihoods. a) We are the key center for HIV/ AIDS worldwide. And in Southern Africa you cannot
talk development without addressing the impact of HIV and AIDs. So we have developed a tool that looks at household vulnerability, and we have been updating our data based on that.
The country nodes
All these I have described are done at country level. Now, in the countries we have what we call our nodes. The node in a country brings in all the stakeholders - anybody, everybody who has a stake in agriculture and in food security. If you look at the regional secretariat we are just a coordinating body. We have all these countries that we work in, we have pulled out the example of Zambia. In Zambia our node is coordinated by the Agriculture Consultative forum. They bring together representatives from government, civil society, private sector and the farming community. And just to give an idea when you are grappling about which institution should coordinate. We are saying the FANRPAN node offers you a platform for all the stakeholders to meet, update, share, and learn what is happening in terms of food security in the country.
Membership
This is a breakdown of the membership in the node. How do you become a member? If you have stake in the business of food security, if you are a registered national, international or regional body you have a right to be an active player in the national node. At regional level, we have 43 MoUs with international bodies. At national level they keep a database of who is doing what in terms of food security. So if your organization is active in country Malawi, we encourage you to go to CISANET and say we have a stake in the business of food security, we want to participate in the regular dialogues.
The role of the nodes
Now what should these nodes be doing? They should be looking at burning policy issues in terms of food security, collating the evidence. Using the evidence your organization is sitting on, and bringing government, private sector, farmers and all the researchers to engage in the dialogue process. Now for something like this, this is the argument we presented to SDC to say we have the comparative advantage over others as FANRPAN to be the hub of coordinating. But you have the comparative advantage in terms of being the implementers. So what I want to emphasize is that we are a network of networks. We are the sub regional hub which collates everything that is happening at the national level. Because of our connectivity to regional economic communities, we as FANRPAN are mandated and have the right to convene ministerial and senior policy makers in the region to our meeting. We can invite any country head of state to our meeting. We do not have to go through SADC or COMESA, but we have strong links with both the regional economic communities to allow our outputs to input into the regional policy making processes. Now this can go through the board, this can go through the secretariat and this can go through our annual meeting that we convene and bring selected policy makers at high level to engage with the policy process. So I thought, before we duplicate or create too many new structures, let’s understand what FANRPAN is, why it is coordinating this process, and why your role as researchers, farmers and private sector would be to bring to that platform, the evidence that we need to inform policy.
The policy processes
Before I end, we have been made to assume and understand that policy is a simple linear process where if you engage the Minister you have made impact. Well it is an untidy process and one of my good friends who is a very senior policy maker frequently warns me that “one thing you should never watch in the making is policy making, because it is worse than sausage making. That is how it happens.
Coordination function
So if we sit here and think that we are going to make this happen alone, there are too many other players out there. So what you need is the network, with well coordinated activities. And you need a center, and that is why in Swaziland we have Ndlangamandla as the country coordinator. And his role is to receive information, organize policy dialogues and make sure the outputs are taken up to government circles. From the country level we at regional level, get those submissions. And our role is to make sure that they are taken up to SADC and to COMESA. Zimbabwe, you’ve got the ARC, Isaiah Mharapara is here, and that is the role of that hub. In Zambia I have already mentioned, it is ACF, and Malawi it is CISANET, and Victor Mhoni is here with us. So I thought that I should just explain the role of FANRPAN and its interface with policy processes.
The Steering committee/ the change champions
So coming back to the issue of the steering committee that you need at country level, it will be good for such a highly politically charged project to have champions who will talk for you and open doors for policy engagement. We’ve got the board at FANRPAN regional level, but it will be even better if you have what I refer to as the talent we have in our countries that we resign to our villages and never visit them except during funerals. Let us look for those veterans the former ministers, permanent secretaries who are well versed with the policy processes. Let us look for individuals from the private sector, retired but still passionate. Let’s look for researchers who understand this business, and let’s look for farmers and traditional chiefs. .
A committee of three or four per country will be useful in opening the doors for this project so that we do not have any hurdles. If you mix the business we want to do, which is technical and politics, we will spend our time on process. If we concentrate on those low hanging fruits and we report to our elders that so and so is causing trouble, they will be the gate openers rather than the gate keepers.
That is what I wanted to explain. Thank you.
Issues emerging from the presentation
After the presentation on the Organogram and the implementation mechanism, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity as well as make some additional input. These are some of the issues that emerged:
The private sector especially the seed are not represented
Champions to provide some oversight
The countries need help in defining the terms of reference for the champions
It is a brilliant idea to have people who have passion to make influence in seed security
Ownership
The national dynamics is the responsibility of the countries, what we want is a contact point and delivery
The country project coordinator
The coordinator is hosted in the FANRPAN node in order to harmonize management and accountability
This will be a full time job so that he or she will give 100% attention to the project
9 Communication strategy
After the discussion on the implementation mechanism, there was a session on communication strategy. Three issues were discussed here. Firstly, Lufingo shared with the participants about the FANRPAN website. Secondly, there was a presentation about external communication. And last the discussion about internal communication.
9.1 The FANRPAN website: Strengthening the Network and its Voice
Presented by Lufingo Mwamakamba
Lufingo made a presentation about the FANRPAN website- what it is all about, what kind of information can be found. In his presentation, he highlighted the following:
FANRPAN’s “Voice” thrust is to engage consistently and authoritatively in both regional and national policy-making processes and in raising awareness of the contribution of policy research and dialogue to policy development, implementation and monitoring. However strong the quality of FANRPAN’s research, and however effective its organization of the national nodes, the most important criterion of success for FANRPAN is the extent to which it contributes to regional food, agricultural and natural resources policies to assist the region as a whole to achieve greater prosperity.
FANRPAN is keenly aware that research divorced from policy debate and policy formation, is often largely ignored. The strategic issue, therefore, is the enhancement of FANRPAN’s voice in national agricultural and food policies and in regional policies that directly impact upon the national level.
FANRPAN seeks to enhance the voice of farmers’ organisations and civil society within its national and regional fora by assisting such organisations to develop evidence and articulate the interests of their membership in important agricultural and food policy debates such as the CAADP round table processes.
There are three dimensions to this broader voice strategy: i) improved information flows, ii) improved capacity of network members to use research-based evidence as a basis for advocacy, and iii) improved positioning with respect to policy deliberations.
For improved information flows, the major activities involve:
Use multiple media to disseminate information on food, agricultural and natural resources issues in the region and member countries
FANRPAN website as a site for cross-sharing information between and among nodes.
Use of multi- media journalists and provide press releases
Use regional and international conferences as opportunities to share FANRPAN experiences and outputs
The FANRPAN website “hits” have been steadily increasing currently at about 8000 per day. Progress has been made in improving, updating and expanding the FANRPAN web site. The website presents an excellent platform to share outputs.
To achieve more effective information flow, the FANRPAN website plays a crucial role in providing policy research initiatives by:
Contributing to cost-effective and timely access of relevant information by a wide range of interested people on key issues for the agricultural development in Southern Africa from national, regional, continental and global sources
Facilitate effective sharing of information, views, experience, best practices and materials on agricultural policy issues of importance to the region between and among interested people from all geographical regions.
Regularly uploading materials and news on the FANRPAN Website and provide maintenance of the Website, ensuring that the necessary tools and systems are in place to allow it to remain active and effective.
9.2 The role of external communication Presented by Michael Hoevel
To set the stage for the discussion on the external communication – what communication can do and
TO WHOM do we communicate?
Seed Users (Farmers)
- Seed Makers (Producers)
- Seed Sellers (Agrodealers)
- Seed Shapers (Policymakers)
- Seed Scientists (CGIAR; NARS)
- Seed Teachers (NGOs; farmers)
- Seed Funders (Governments; donors)
• Accomplishments
– To demonstrate accountability
– To maintain political will
• Activities
– To build trust
– To build partnerships
• Opinions
– To stimulate discussion
– To encourage innovations
• Goals
– To identify future funding
– To build more political will
- Seed Talkers (NGOs/IGOs, networks)
- Seed Consumers (Everyone!)
… Do you recognize the common word here?!
WHY do we communicate?
Harmonized Seed Security Project
• Policy Goal:
– to contribute to improved food security of smallholders in the SADC region through increased availability of and access to seeds
• External Communications Goal:
– to safeguard political support for the programme
– to attract further support (funding/endorsements/innovation)
But…
• Who and where are your target audience(s)? (they may be different for the different countries)
• What are your key message(s)?
• Who are your key spokespeople?
• What activities will help communicate these goals?
• How will you make the media take interest?
Issues emerging from the presentation
After the presentation on external communication, the participants were given a chance to ask questions for clarity. Here are some of the issues that were raised:
Balancing the misconceptions about seed
Question: There is a growing misconception about the seed industry. When people talk about seed, people think about GMO. Within this project where do we position the counter message?
Response: One story can mean many things for different people. One has to think who you are communicating to and what is the purpose for that message. Depending on whom you are communicating to, you will modify your message and package it in a manner that suits that audience.
The audience I am reaching to already know about these issues
One reason could be we are not telling our side of the story. We need tell the story in the manner that we want to people to know it. Unless we do that, someone will tell the story their way. I think this is our responsibility.
Countries communication externally
Question: If the countries want to communicate externally, what will be the correct channel? Do we have to go through FANRPAN, or can we do it directly. What is the situation?
Response: We are still finalizing what the role of external communication will be, as soon as that is finalized, we will let you know.
Question: What are some of the frequently asked questions that people can look at and get to know?
The role of the media is to help projects to be transparent
The FANRPAN website
The FANRPAN website can be used to communicate cases that are happening at country level - In the FANRPAN website, we are able to load projects that are happening in the countries. This however can only be done through the regional office.
Country node- can be able to post documents via the regional office
Any innovative idea can be loaded
This is a FANRPAN platform
There is need for filtering some documents. At the end of the day FANRPAN has to take responsibility for everything that is published through its website.
9.3 Internal communication In order to explore with the participants about the need for internal communication, the facilitator asked them the question ‘Why do we need internal communication?’ The responses to the question included:
To check ourselves where we are
To make sure that everyone is on the same page
Information exchange
To help us improve our performance
It is part of the action reflection action cycle
If we are going to improve in the way we do business we need to reflect in terms of what has happened, what went well and what did not go so well
The mechanism for sharing and learning
During the brainstorming, the participants came up with the following as some of the mechanism that can be used for sharing and learning:
What are the mechanisms to share and learn?
Progress report
List server
Meetings
Process versus results
In most cases, we tend to share about the results, but we forget the process that led to those results. Observing the process is a very key aspect of learning.
There is a need to link the learning to our monitoring and evaluation system
Link our learning to the M & E system
10 The Way forward and next steps
Finally, the participants discussed what the next steps after the meeting will be. Here they made some commitments on the things they would do immediately when they get home to kick start the process. These commitments were visualized in terms of what needed to be done, by when it should be done and by who. This will help to make follow up with certain people whose names are allocated. In the table below are some of the commitments that the participants made towards the next steps and the way forward.
Way forward and next steps
What / activity By when By who
Workshop documentation Friday the 28th May Hlami & Edward
Distribution of the workshop documentation to the participants
Friday the 28th May Bellah
Submission of country work plans Friday the 28th May Isaiah (Zim)
Edward (Zambia)
Emanuel (Swaziland)
Victor (Malawi)
Submission of names of champions Friday the 28th May Malawi
11 Workshop Evaluation and closing
11.1 Workshop Evaluation
The workshop evaluation was done in two stages. Firstly, the participants were given an evaluation form that needed to be filled in and given back to the FANRPAN team. Secondly, the facilitators asked the participants to discuss at their tables, guided by the following statements:
What they like in this workshop is ....
What they did not like or could be improved is ...
Looking forward in the future of HaSSP I/ we feel...
What I/ we liked in this workshop is …
Facilitation process
Good facilitation
Excellent facilitation
Good facilitation +++
Humour and jokes
Participants mix
Active participation in discussions
Multi-stakeholder representation
Venue
Good venue
Good feel to the workshop
Good discussion
Communication
What could have been better is..
Public address Not enough time for work plans
Planning targets not fully met
Free time
Time allocation
More time for the workshop
Notice of meeting
Information communication invitations
Distribution of key workshop documents in advance
Agenda (too long)
Too many speakers/ presentations
Discussion and presentations time too short
More private sector participants
Improved gender balance
Location of the venue could have been improved
Bigger names for the name tags
Looking ahead in the future of HaSSP I/ we feel ....
We will succeed
We are on track
FAN-good PAN-Fried
11.2 Workshop closure
For the workshop closure, there were three people who said a few words.
On behalf of the Facilitators
Hlami thanked Lindiwe and Bellah for having invited them to facilitate this meeting. She also thanked the entire FANRPAN team for the support during the workshop. She extended her appreciation to the participants for their cooperation and positive engagement during the workshop as well as contributing in making the workshop a success. Lastly, she thanked the hotel staff for their assistance in the organization of the room and their availability during the workshop.
On behalf of FANRPAN Board of governors
On behalf of the FANRPAN Board of Governors, Dr Sam Mundia read a closing speech which reads thus:
I am now going to read the speech of my boss the Honourable Sindiso Ngwenya the board chair of FANRPAN and the head of COMESA.
Representatives of the Swiss Agency for development cooperation and USAID. Farmers, regional government officials here present. Researchers and all stakeholders represented here. Shall I say all protocol observed. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen
Please allow me to read this because it is official, and it is important for you to hear the message from my boss.
Ladies and gentlemen I am honoured to stand here on behalf of my colleagues on the FANRPAN board of governors. Mine is a simple task of thanking you for accepting our invitation to be here. I must be honest and say that I thought this meeting will be business as usual, but what I witnessed in the last two days is a new era for FANRPAN.
We have had the CG network coming here as a collective to contribute to regional development. Our farmers have always been there but what I have enjoyed is seeing them work in unison with the research community. We are grateful for AGRA and Syngenta Foundation,, we are grateful for FAO, we are grateful for the national seed systems both research and extension and we are grateful for the development partners: USAID and the SDC who funded this whole process. But what is more exciting is that there is convergence.
FANRPAN is a network platform and when we look at who is doing what, each one of you here today are the doers and there is a coordinating platform where we will share ideas, our outputs and our pain, (I hope the pain is minimized). But more importantly our success and take this to our ministers at national level and to our regional economic bodies SADC and COMESA who have to make this region a conducive
venue where seed is easily available to all who want to access it. Food security will be achieved.
I am here to thank you and to let you know that flights allowing my own boss, in case you did not think I have one, the chairman of FANRPAN BOARD and Secretary General of COMESA, Honourable Sindiso Ngwenya would be joining us soon during the cocktail, just to give us his own remarks in terms of the passion he has for this project. You have already witnessed his passion for this project by the dedication of a high level delegation of two people from COMESA who are going to work with FANRPAN on seed security and compliment what we are doing. Hon Ngwenya will will be here to consolidate all that tonight.
Last but not least ladies and gentlemen, thank you and let us meet for the cocktail, you are all invited. Let us relax. It is small payment for what you have done. But we can never pay for your intellect and the time. Let us use the time to get to know each other better. Travel well for those who are going back to other countries.
I thank you
Dr Sam Mundia on behalf of the FANRPAN Board Chairman
On behalf of FANRPAN secretariat
After the official closing speech, Lindiwe acknowledged the board chair of FANRPAN in absentia. She thanked Dr Mundia, the Swiss agency for development cooperation for their financial support. She expressed her appreciation to all the participants for their attendance and their fruitful discussion and input during the two days. She thanked the PICOTEAM for facilitating the workshop. And she extended her special thanks to Dr Bellah Mpofu, the interim project coordinator and the entire FANRPAN team for their effort in making this workshop a success.
11.3 Closing Reception Hon Sindiso Ngwenya, the FANRPAN Board Chairman and Secretary General of COMESA officiated at Closing Cocktail and spoke as follows; Members of the FANRPAN Board here present Development Partners present; SDC, USAID, FAO Distinguished Guests, Civil Society Representatives – Farmers, Researchers and NGOs, Ladies and Gentlemen This seed journey is indeed an exciting one for me. On 24 February 2010 I launched this
project in Pretoria, where we were accompanied by the Ambassador from the Swiss
Government, H.E Eric Amhof and representatives from the SDC including our dear
colleague, Richard Chenevard, the Deputy Resident Director of the SDC and Dr. Sam
Kareithi.
Later on, I sent my own delegation from COMESA and ACTESA to be part of the launch that
was done in Malawi on 5 March 2010. Very soon my organisation COMESA will convene in
Swaziland with Ministers of Agriculture and Heads of State for COMESA member states
where, with submissions from FANRPAN and ACTESA, we will have space to tell the region
what seed security is all about. I am informed that the deliberations you have had will make
Africa a different region. We have heard about the change process in the consultative group
for international agricultural research system but what is exciting is that they are here now to
join hands with FANRPAN. I am told they have made a commitment to work not with
FANRPAN, but under FANRPAN. This ladies and gentlemen is a new way of doing business.
It’s about coherence and impact. Who is this FANRPAN? It is you and all of us; the farmers,
private sector, government, researchers, media and parliamentarians. All we are saying is
that FANRPAN has provided you a platform at sub-regional level to coordinate what you do
and inform us who sit at regional level, both SADC and COMESA. Our mandate is to interact
face to face with your ministers and heads of state. So there can never be a better time for
enhancing development for food security. It is my wish during my lifetime to see small holder
farmers who are in the business of seed production making income and standing side by
side with multi-nationals. It is my wish to see the price of seed reduced by 50 percent so that
we do not have to subsidise, but that everybody in farming business makes money, buys
seed, fertiliser and pesticides and makes a profit.
I am excited to be here, I have just come from the DRC and I am happy to say FANRPAN
has expanded its wings to the DRC and later in the year, I am told by the CEO that we are
expanding to Uganda and Kenya. Ladies and gentlemen these are exciting times and all of
you have a stake and contributions to make. This region will never be the same. We will be
food secure, we will be the bread basket of the world, mark my words.
I hope the CEO did tell you my expectations, by 2014. I expect;
1) 50% of the agro-dealers in the pilot countries to be women
2) 50% of the seed producers are smallholder farmers
3) The price of seed is reduced by at least 50%
I thank you and God bless you.
Honourable Sindiso Ngwenya
Chairman FANRPAN Board of Governors
Secretary General COMESA
12 ANNEXES
12.1 List of participants
Name Organisation Position Contact Details
Tel Email Address
1. Abiel Banda ASSMAG Chairman +265 888 898 136
[email protected] PO Box 30679, Lilongwe Malawi
2. Allan Majuru ICRISAT Scientific Officer +263 912 737 260
[email protected] Matopo Research Station Box 776 Bulawayo Zimbabwe
3. Angel Daka COMESA – ACTESA
Agriculture & Food Security Advisor
+260 977 793 536
[email protected] PO Box 30051 Lusaka, Zambia
4. Arundel Sakala ZARI Coordinator +260 211 278 141
[email protected] Private Bag 7 Chilenga Zambia
5. Augustine Langyintiuo
AGRA Policy Officer +254 733 500 429
[email protected] PO Box 66773 Nairobi Kenya
6. Bellah Mpofu FANRPAN Interim Project Coordinator
+27 765307023 [email protected] Private Bag X2087 Silverton 0127 Pretoria South Africa
7. Ben Zulu ZAMSEED Chief Executive +260 211 243 762
[email protected] PO Box 35441 Lusaka Zambia
8. Buhlebethu Ncube FANRPAN Research Assistant +27 12 804 2966 [email protected] Private Bag X2087 Silverton 0127 Pretoria South Africa
9. Cecilia Khupe USAID, SA Agricultural Adviser +27 83 417 6859 [email protected] PO Box 43 Groenkloof Pretoria South Africa
10. Christopher Seed Control Acting Head +268 760 55 866 [email protected] PO Box 4 Malvern
Mthethwa Swaziland
11. Cowin Vilakati PANNAR Seed +268 764 9330 [email protected] PO Box 2266 Matsabha Swaziland
12. David B Kamchacha
FANRPAN Director, Inputs and Outputs Market
+27 12 804 2966 [email protected] Private Bag X2087 Silverton 0127 Pretoria South Africa
13. Dilip Gokhale Syngenta Foundation
Senior Advisor [email protected]
14. Eddie Goldschag SANSOR Technical Manager +27 12 349 1438 [email protected] PO Box 7298 Lynnwood Ridge 0040 South Africa
15. Edward Chuma PICOTEAM Facilitator +263912235047 [email protected] 2934 off Mapereke New Marlborough, Harare, Zimbabwe
16. Edward Mabaya Cornell University SODP
Researcher +27 72 690 5203 [email protected]
17. Edward Zulu SCCI Seeds Officer +260211278170 [email protected]
18. Elia Manda Self Help Africa Project Manager +260 977 481 271
[email protected] PO Box 510529 Chipata, Zambia
19. Essau Mwendo Phiri
World Vision Malawi
Food Security Manager
+265 88 883 2156
[email protected] PO Box 692 Lilongwe Malawi
20. Fred Kawalewale AISAM Executive Director +265 999 699 34 [email protected] Private Bag 218 Lilongwe Malawi
21. G.A. Jimeyo Phiri Chitedze Res Station Malawi Plant Protection
Agricultural Research Officer
+265 1 707 145 [email protected] PO Box 158 Lilongwe Malawi
22. Hlami Ngwenya PICOTEAM Facilitator +27833417397 [email protected] Postnet Suite 341, P/Bag X10, Elarduspark, 0047
23. Ian Mashingaidze FANRPAN Consultant +27 12 804 2966 [email protected] Private Bag X2087 Silverton
0127 Pretoria South Africa
24. Isiah Mharapara ARC, Zimbabwe & FANRPAN Zimbabwe Node Host
CEO +263 916 161 977
[email protected] 79 Harare Drive Marlborough Harare, Zimbabwe
25. Jeffrey Luhanga Ministry of Agriculture
Controller +265 88 88 233 53
[email protected] PO Box 30134 Lilongwe Malawi
26. Joan Sadie Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, South Africa
Registrar +27 12 319 6034 [email protected] Private Bag X250 Pretoria 0001
27. John MacRobert CIMMYT Seed Systems +263 712 218 124
[email protected] PO Box MP 163 Mt Pleasant Harare Zimbabwe
28. John Makoni Pristine Seeds CEO +263 912 682 534
[email protected] 6 Wellington Ave Belvedere Harare Zimbabwe
29. Laurah Karadzandima
Ministry of Agriculture
Research Officer +263 4 791 223 / 912 853 631
[email protected] PO Box CY550 Harare Zimbabwe
30. Lindiwe Majele Sibanda
FANRPAN CEO +27 12 804 2966 [email protected] Private Bag X2087 Silverton 0127 Pretoria South Africa
31. Louisa Makumbe Ministry of Agriculture, Zimbabwe
Quarantine Research Officer
+263 4 700 339 / 912 675 986
[email protected] PO Box CY550 Harare Zimbabwe
32. Lufingo W Mwamakamba
FANRPAN Networking Officer +27 12 804 2966 [email protected] Private Bag X2087 Silverton 0127 Pretoria South Africa
33. Mable M. Simwanza
SCCI Seed lab Analyst +260211278170 [email protected]
34. Mary Mgonja ICRISAT Principal Scientist +254 20 722 4562
[email protected] PO Box 39063 Nairobi Kenya
35. Mike Connolly FAO - SADP Agricultural Services Adviser
+268 760 2339 [email protected] PO Box 6616 H100 Mbabane Swaziland
36. Mildred Sandi DP Foundation CEO 263 9 88 669 / 91 221 8221
[email protected] PO Box 1768 Bulawayo Zimbabwe
37. Monica M Zana Ministry of Agriculture
Seed Inspector Research Technician
+263 4 791 223 / 733 244601
[email protected] PO Box CY550 Harare Zimbabwe
38. Moses Siambi ICRISAT Principal Scientist +265 1 707 071 [email protected] PO Box 1096 Lilongwe Malawi
39. Paul Thangata IFPRI RF +251 910 184710
[email protected] Ethiopia
40. Paxie Chirwa University of Pretoria
Chair, Forestry +27 82 85 233 86
[email protected] Lynnwood Road 0002 Pretoria South Africa
41. Rachel Muthoni CIAT Researcher +256 754 447 786
[email protected] PO Box 6247 Kampala Uganda
42. Richard Chenevard
(Special Guest)
SDC Deputy Director +27 12 362 2972 [email protected] 1185 Park Street Hatfield Pretoria
43. Rowland Chirwa CIAT Network Coordinator +265 99 99 62 851
[email protected] PO Box 158 Lilongwe Malawi
44. Sam Mundia FANRPAN Board of Governors +260 97 421 4181
45. Samuel Kareithi SDC Pretoria Programme Manager
+27 83 462 2429 [email protected] 1185 Park Street Hatfield Pretoria South Africa
46. Hon. Sindiso Ngwenya
(Special Guest)
COMESA & FANRPAN Board of Governors
COMESA Secretary General & FANRPAN Board Chairman
+260 211 229 725 / 30 / +260 211 231 751
[email protected] P.O. Box 30051, Lusaka, Zambia
47. Victor Mhoni CISANET & FANRPAN Malawi Node Host
National Coordinator +265 995 204 354
[email protected] PO Box 203 Lilongwe Malawi