Noragric MSc Thesis

Centre for International Environment and Development Studies

AGRICULTURALUNIVERSITY OF NORWAY

Seeds and Solidarity:

A study of seed flow in the year 2000 post-flood situation

in southern Mozambique

Leif Tore Trædal

May 2002

Abstract

The tendency of distributing external seeds in emergency situations is often based on the

assumption that there is an absolute lack of seeds in the area struck by a disaster. In most

cases the reality is far from one-sided, and farmers’ own capacities to rehabilitate their seed

stocks have often been ignored or underestimated. This thesis argues that an actor-oriented

approach may offer a dynamic view on local seed systems. Since these systems are composed

of different households and individuals with different needs, capacities and priorities, these

systems should be viewed as dynamic and changing over time, as different actors see new

opportunities and limitations in the production system. An understanding of the local

processes of seed acquisition and seed flow in emergency situations may be of value for how

to deal with future crisis situations.

The study is based on a fieldwork conducted in two separate villages (Fenisseleni and

Zongoene) in southern Mozambique. The goal of the study was to get an understanding of the

local processes of seed acquisition in a crisis situation, and how this induces a seed flow

between different areas. The area was chosen because of the special situation that arose there

in the year 2000 flood in southern Mozambique. Because of the impacts of the flood on the

local seed systems, all seed resources in lowland areas of the Limpopo Valley (e.g.

Fenisseleni) were wiped out, while households in surrounding highland areas (e.g. Zongoene)

still had left what was cultivated and stored in the highlands. By selecting these two villages I

was able to compare two different sites, which were left in completely different situations

after the floods. The study was approached by using qualitative methods, including semi-

structured interviews with farmers (individually or in groups), observations in the fields, in

addition to studies of secondary data in Maputo, the capital of Mozambique.

The study showed that farmers themselves are well aware of other areas than their own as

sources of seeds (and other resources), and see the value of having social relationships with

people in different agroecolocial zones in times of crisis. By calling upon traditional values of

help and solidarity, these relations are used to acquire seeds, which in turn generates a flow of

seeds between different areas. Farmers’ social networks (which are based on a set of kinship

relations and established friendship relations) form what I in the thesis have termed farmers’

“social capital”, and are defined as the capacity of individuals to command scarce (seed)

II

resources by virtue of their membership in social networks or broader social structures. By

exchanging and offering gifts and reciprocal assistance, farmers invest economic capital to

establish social capital, which can be used in times of crisis to access scarce (seed) resources.

For this reason the more prosperous farmers, who have the assets to invest, most likely are the

ones who are members of the most multiplex social networks and have the highest capacity

to rehabilitate seed stocks in difficult times.

The study showed that in the post flood situation in the year 2000 there were some biological

and some social constraints on farmers’ rehabilitation of genetic resources. First, unique

lowland seed material (i.e. lowland varieties of sweet potato and bananas) that were lost in the

floods constitute the biological constraints. Farmers in lowland areas like Fenisseleni, today

cultivate varieties adapted to highland environments, which may not be optimal for the

lowland soil conditions. Second, the fact that some farmers neither take part in multiplex

social networks through which all types of seeds are exchanged, nor have access to the

economic capital to acquire seeds through markets, shops or other farmers, constitute the

social limitations on seed rehabilitation.

No post-disaster situations are identical, and it is therefore difficult to come up with “quick-

fix” solutions that aim at increasing the most vulnerable farmers’ abilities to rehabilitate their

seed stocks in such situations. Development projects that aim at increasing the most

vulnerable farmers’ abilities to rehabilitate seed resources, should acknowledge the embedded

dynamism in local seed systems, due to different farmers’ needs, capacities, and

manoeuvrings within a changing environment. An actor approach may offer a dynamic

perspective on local seed systems, and can be used to understand how farmers in different

ways make use of their social and economic capital to access new seed resources in crisis

situations.

III

Acknowledgements

This thesis is written as one of the requirements for the degree in Master of Science in

Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture at the Agricultural University

of Norway (NLH). It is based on the results of my fieldwork in Mozambique August 6.–

December 19., year 2001. I am very grateful to Noragric (Centre for International

Environment and Development Studies) at NLH, that has assisted me scientifically and

financially. The whole study would not have been possible without this institution’s support.

During the whole process I was fortunate to meet and get to know many interesting and

skilful people, both professionals and non-professionals. Conducting the fieldwork and

working with this thesis has been interesting and inspiring, which I hope is reflected in the

final outcome. I am very thankful to the people in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene, for their

friendliness and openness, and for making the whole study possible. The outcome is as much

theirs as it is mine, and hopefully this work can have some value and benefit for the local

communities in which the research was undertaken. I am also very grateful to the staff at the

“Provincial and District Offices of Culture, Youth and Sports” in Xai-Xai for introducing me

into the local communities and facilitating my fieldwork. Here I would especially like to

mention the Director of the Provincial Office, Sr. Jossias Miambo, and the Director of the

District Office, Sr. Lorohamo Cândido. Thank you for your hospitality and help. Several

experienced researchers have contributed to both the design of the study and the elaboration

of the thesis. First of all I want to thank my supervisor Trygve Berg and my co-supervisor

Randi Kaarhus, for sharing their knowledge, inspiration, and patience throughout the whole

process. Thanks to my local supervisor, the Gene Bank curator at INIA, Sr. Paulino Munisse,

who guided me through the whole fieldwork period in Mozambique. A lot of reward also goes

to the Director of “Arquivo do Património Cultural” (ARPAC), Dr. Fernando Dava, who gave

me valuable information and shared experiences that helped me to develop the focus of my

study. I would also like to thank the staff members at the FAO-office in Mozambique, and

particularly Kaori Abe, who helped me with getting contacts and information about the study

area. I would also like to thank Sigmund for his valuable comments and corrections in the

final parts of the writing process. A special thanks goes to Solveig, who gave important

comments and support through the whole writing process. Without your patience and support

the outcome of this study would not have been what it has become today.

IV

Shangana – English dictionary

bila = lowland clay soil

chapa = local public bus

cofunanana = cooperation

kulomba = to loan

kunhiquiva = to give

kurimela = to cultivate for something

kuthekela = to ask for something

kuthekela ushaka = to create a familiarity

kuthlaisa = creation and keeping of seed stocks

kutsembisa = an amount paid by the family of the man as a symbol that he will pay the

bridewealth in the near future

kutxintxana = to exchange

kuxava = to buy

lobolo = bridewealth

machamba = plot of cultivated land

mapfunana = to help each other

maseve = family-in-law

thlava = highland sandy soils

thlavate = lowland mixed clay and sandy soils

tsala = traditional place inside of houses where seeds can be stored

tsima = a way of enlisting a day’s labour in exchange for a meal, beer or tea

tsovo = lowland humid organic soils

ukhossi = friendship between women

ungano = friendship between men

Abbreviations and acronyms

ARPAC = Arquivo do Património Cultural

FSS = Farmer Seed Systems

FAO = Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations

UNICEF = United Nations Children’s Fund

V

Table of contents Declaration I Abstract II Acknowledgements IV Shangana – English dictionary V Abbreviations and acronyms V Table of contents VI 1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Farmers and external influences 3 1.2 The value of genetic diversity conservation 5 1.3 Disaster impacts and FSS-resilience 7 1.4 Farmers as agents within networks of seed exchange 8 1.5 Composition of the thesis 11

2.0 Context of study 13

2.1 A history of wars, movement of people, and uncertainties 14 2.1.1 Migration of people and cultural integrations 15 2.1.2 Natural hazards – a history of fluctuations and uncertainty 16 2.1.3 Colonisation, market economy and modernisation 17 2.1.4 Ten years of civil war 19

2.2 Site profiles 20 2.2.1 Fenisseleni 22 2.2.2 Zongoene 23

2.3 Concluding remarks 24 3.0 Methodology and research methods 25

3.1 Research approach 26 3.2 Preparations and selection of study area 26 3.3 Practical problems and my role in the local communities 28 3.4 Research methods and data collection 29

3.4.1 Interviews 30 3.4.2 Key informants 31 3.4.3 Observations in field 32 3.4.4 Secondary sources 32

VI

3.4.5 Group interviews 33 3.5 Reflections around the data 33

4.0 Risk management and coping with stress situations 37

4.1 Cropping patterns 37 4.2 Storage and seed conservation (kutlhaisa) 40

4.2.1 Physical methods 40 4.2.2 Taboos and rituals 43

4.3 The impacts of the year 2000 floods 44 4.3.1 Fenisseleni 45 4.3.2 Zongoene 45

4.4 Farmers’ adaptive strategies 46 4.5 Concluding remarks 47

5.0 Temporal composition of crops and varieties 48

5.1 “Colonial crops” 50 5.2 Groundnuts 51 5.3 Cassava 52 5.4 Changing FSS; why to be perceived as dynamic? 53

6.0 Seed acquisition and seed flow 55

6.1 Seed acquisition 56

6.1.1 Different ways of acquiring seeds 57 6.1.2 The relative importance of the different methods 61

6.2 Creation of social relationships (kuthekela ushaka) 63 6.2.1 Making friendships 63 6.2.2 Marriage 64 6.2.3 Performance and importance of kuthekela 68

6.3 Money and seed provision 69 6.4 Concluding remarks 71

7.0 Increasing genetic diversity and decreasing farmers’ vulnerabilities 72

7.1 The nature of disasters 72 7.2 Constraints to rehabilitation of genetic diversity in the post-flood situation 74

7.2.1 Biological constraints 74 7.2.2 Social constraints 75

7.3 Interventions 77 8.0 Conclusions 81

VII

VIII

References 84 List of tables:

Table 1: Local names of present and lost varieties 49 Table 2: Different ways of acquiring seeds 61

List of maps: Map 1: Mozambique: provinces, neighbouring countries and provincial capitals 14 Map 2: The Province of Gaza 21

List of pictures:

Picture 1: House abandoned after the 1977 flood 23 Picture 2: Woman in Fenisseleni preparing groundnuts for cultivation 35 Picture 3: Maize field with sweet potatoes on the margins of the machamba 38 Picture 4: Tsala, the traditional place to keep seeds 41 Picture 5: Bottle and glass container used for the storage of seeds 41 Picture 6: Maize stored on walls inside the house 42 Picture 7: Woman planting stems of cassava in the field 43 Picture 8: Farmer showing seven different varieties of beans 58

1.0 Introduction

The floods in the year 2000 struck the southern parts of Mozambique hard, and destroyed the

livelihoods of people living on the floodplains of the Limpopo River. This was the context for

my fieldwork preparations as a part of my MSc thesis research. The intentions of my studies

were to investigate the seed flow between lowlands and highlands, and find out if some of the

genetic material that was lost during the floods could be found in the highlands. This was an

exciting task, very much reminding me of a “Sherlock Holmes mission”, where I was the

detective, searching for lost genetic material in the highlands. During my fieldwork it soon

became clear to me that there was no need for a detective, because farmers themselves are

well aware of other areas as sources of new seed material. The focus of my fieldwork then

changed and became rather to understand the processes related to the seed flow between

different areas, and the social relations that are relevant when exchanging seeds.

The tendency of distributing external seeds to farmers in emergency situations has its

background in a general idea of absolute lack of seed in an area struck by a disaster. Absolute

lack of seeds implies a true scarcity of seeds in a region, while relative lack implies problems

with accessing seeds rather than a total absence (Sperling 1997). The picture after a disaster

situation is often far from one-sided, and farmers’ abilities to rehabilitate their seed stocks

have often been ignored or underestimated. Support to farmers that helps them to overcome

the causes for a relative lack of seeds may be more appropriate than seed relief itself (ibid).

In this thesis I will, by presenting empirical data from southern Mozambique, argue that an

actor oriented approach may offer a dynamic view on local seed systems, and be of value

when developing intervention programs that aim at increasing farmers’ abilities to rehabilitate

seed resources in disaster situations. I will argue that local seed system resilience is dependent

on the abilities of different households to rehabilitate the on-farm genetic diversity in post-

disaster situations, which in turn varies according to the different household members’

economic and social capital. By establishing social relationships, farmers create social capital

that can be used in times of crisis to mobilise new seed resources. Throughout the thesis I will

try to show how farmers, in a situation of complete lack of seed resources after the year 2000

flood, were using social networks of exchange when rebuilding their seed stocks.

1

It is difficult to draw general conclusions from an analysis of a disaster situation because no

post-disaster situations are identical (Grunewald 1998, Longley & Richards 1999). Disasters

are not only dependent on the nature of hazards, but also on people’s own abilities to cope

with the crisis situation. An understanding of the local capacities and processes of seed

rehabilitation may be of value for how to deal with future disaster situations. Although it is

not very likely that similar floods like the one that occurred in the year 2000 in southern

Mozambique will happen again in the near future; prognoses of future climatic changes due to

the greenhouse effect and changes in the water regime because of dam constructions in the

upstream Limpopo, makes the future flood regime of the Limpopo River even more

unpredictable than it has been before. A thorough understanding of the local processes of seed

acquisition and distribution in these areas that were struck by the floods in the year 2000 may

therefore be of value when coping with future calamities. In relation to this, there is not only a

need for more efficient mechanisms for coping with future natural hazards, but also a need for

reducing farmers’ vulnerabilities to them. Blakie et.al. define vulnerability as “… the

characteristics of a person or a group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist,

and recover from the impact of a natural disaster” (1994: 9). Disasters must not be analysed as

a natural phenomenon, but as a result of the impact of hazards on vulnerable people (Blakie

et.al. 1994).

The rest of this chapter presents other relevant theories and concepts for the following

discussion of the results of my investigations. First, there is a need for an understanding of

different perspectives of the farmer in an environment of changing terms of agricultural

production, and I will argue for a view on farmers as active agents that are able to manoeuvre

within a changing environment and adapt to external influences. In this way we are in a better

position to understand how seed systems are dynamic and change over time. Second, genetic

diversity conservation has become a major concern for scientists and development workers.

Different perspectives on how to conserve genetic material enable us to understand farmers’

own practices of seed conservation and how in a best way manage local genetic resources in

case of future situations like the one farmers in the Limpopo Valley experienced in the year

2000. This section therefore presents different ways of conserving genetic material and

discusses the different methods. Third, natural disasters are external influences that expose

farmers’ vulnerabilities in many tropical and sub-tropical countries, and there are important

factors we need to consider when we assess the impact of disasters and farmers’ abilities to

recover from a stress situation. Fourth, as we are stating that farmers’ participation in social

2

networks of seed exchange is important for an understanding of the resilience of local seed

systems in stress situations, I present concepts and perspectives on farmers as social actors,

interacting with present and non-present social actors, in addition to their natural

environments. Finally I briefly present the different chapters, which constitutes the structure

of the thesis.

1.1 Farmers and external influences

Perceptions of local seed systems as dynamic and changing over time imply a notion of

development and social change in relation to external and internal processes. The analytical

stance of the study is decisive for how I perceive development and how social change in

general takes place. By presenting the analytical approach of this study I will be able to

explain how farmers as social actors act in and process crisis situations in the local seed

systems.

Norman Long (2001) distinguishes between two broad paradigms within development

thinking which exhibit divergent views on how societies work. The structural models of

development include theories of modernisation and neo-Marxist dependency. In some

respects these theories can be viewed as ideological oppositions (ibid). The modernisation

theory takes a so-called “liberal” standpoint, believing in the benefits of gradualisms and

“trickle down” effect. On the other hand the dependency school takes a radical stance, and

views development and social change as emanating primarily from external centres of power

via interventions of the state or international bodies (ibid). What the models have in common

is the weight put on macro-processes in determining social change. Both models have a “…

determinist, linear and externalist view on social change” (ibid: 11), and people are viewed as

passive recipients of external processes out of their own control.

Long admits that certain structural changes may result from the impact of outside forces, but

states at the same time that “… it is theoretically unsatisfactory to base one’s analysis on the

concept of external determination” (2001:13). All external influences enter the lifeworlds of

individuals and social groups, and the external forces are in this way mediated and

transformed by these same actors and structures (ibid). An actor approach offers an alternative

view of how social change and development take place. According to Long there is interplay

3

and a mutual determination of “internal” and “external” factors and relationships, and he

recognises the central role played by social actors. This approach offers a better opportunity

to analyse how farmers as social individuals are processing and coping with stress situations,

and explore the nature of social interaction in such situations in the light of wider social,

political, economic and natural processes.

The concept of Farmer Seed Systems (FSS) is central for this thesis. Following the argument

of Longley & Richards, FSS are parts of larger agricultural production systems, and can be

defined as “… the processes which farmers use to produce, obtain, maintain, develop and

distribute seed resources, both from one growing season to the next and in the long term”

(1999: 1). This definition of FSS implies a general idea about local seed systems as dynamic

in time and responding to internal and external changes, which indeed are important

characteristics of local seed systems and a central part of this thesis. Although I apply the

term FSS, that does not mean that I have used a systems approach which explains social

behaviour in terms of its roots, or of causes and effects. Adopting a systems approach implies

some notion of determinants, hierarchical patterns, logical models, and systems (Villarreal

1992).

One of the most important implications of systems models is that systems can be manipulated and re-oriented. Using an appropriate model, one is able to map out reality taking into account the whole and not simply the parts, and look into the information and communication flows which sustain the vital organisation in question. Pathologies can then be detected and tackled, thus allowing a certain manoeuvring of the system towards some pre-conceived ideal typical model (Villarreal 1992: 250).

The systems model is considered a useful tool for development workers as well as for

researchers. When adopting a systems approach, a development worker is supposed to target

efficiently a specific population in order to offer adequate “packages” for different social

categories within it (Villarreal 1992). Failures in projects are most often explained by failures

in the implementation stage, ineptness of the implementer, corruption of the middleman etc.

Sometimes it is even acknowledged that the package was inadequate, “... but the categories

used and the presumed system are hardly ever questioned, thus providing good reasons for

repeating mistakes or making new ones” (ibid: 251).

Throughout this thesis I view FSS as composed of different households and individuals with

different needs, capacities and priorities. Since farmers are agents within local agricultural

4

production systems and seed systems, these systems are not static, but changing over time as

farmers see new opportunities and limitations in the production system. The composition of

crops and varieties is therefore not constant, but the rate of turnover in FSS is generally quite

high (Longley & Richards 1999). Exotic varieties are regularly introduced and adopted, lost

or rejected in the local seed system, depending on the farmers’ own preferences and abilities

to store genetic material. Flow of seeds may include commercial seeds as well as local

varieties from neighbouring areas. Local and commercial seeds are all liable to change by

natural and intentional selection and by being mixed up. A variety can be considered as local

when it has been cultivated in the local agricultural production system for at least one

generation (or 30 years or more) (Louette 2000). In a study of landraces of maize in the

indigenous community of Guazalapa in western Mexico, Dominique Louette states that

because farmers are seeking out of their own community to exchange seeds, an appropriate

scale over which we can define a variety as local is problematic. Introduced varieties of maize

may be mixed and integrated in local varieties, and they may be a source of phenotypic and

genetic diversity (ibid). Exotic varieties, both modern and traditional ones, can in a given

situation, increase the local genetic diversity, which in turn is important for how farmers are

able to cope with stress situations.

1.2 The value of genetic diversity conservation

In the 1980s the attention about genetic resource conservation changed from being

concentrated on genetic resources as economic sources to being considered as cornerstones of

the earth’s ecosystems (Pistorius 1997). According to Swanson (1996), genetic diversity

provides the raw material for farmers’ coping with the fluctuating climatic environments we

find in many tropical and sub-tropical countries. The FAO Global Plan of Action for the

Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources in Food and Agriculture

(adopted in 1996) recognised the value of the world’s plant genetic resources in assisting

farmers and communities confronted by disasters when restoring their agricultural production

systems (Hodgkin & Anishetty 1999). There are indications that farmers themselves, in a

world of new opportunities from markets and globalisation, are less concerned with the

conservation of local genetic diversity, and this is an incentive for a public concern about

genetic diversity conservation (Swanson 1996).

5

In the following part I present different ways of conserving genetic material, and consider the

limitations of the different methods for the conservation of local genetic diversity. Generally,

there are two ways to conserve genetic material, either ex situ or in situ. Ex situ conservation

is designed to maintain the genetic material in the state in which it was collected (Brush

2000), and implies storage of genetic material outside of the farmers’ fields, either in national

or in local gene banks. This method has its limitations. As stated by Johan Pottier (1999), ex

situ conservation of genetic material is in reality not conservation but preservation of genetic

material. This implies that genetic material saved for several years may in a given situation of

seed scarcity, not fit the present farming system and farmers’ needs. This is consistent with

the view of local seed systems as dynamic and changing over time. A more dynamic way of

conserving genetic material is to involve farmers in the conservation of seed resources in the

field (in situ), and let them manage and perform the selection of planting material according

to their own preferences. These methods are normally culturally significant, and they often

involve both physical and metaphysical (religion, rituals, taboos, etc.) aspects. According to

Stephen B. Brush, “… the purpose of in situ conservation programs and projects is to

conserve specific agroecological, cultural, and biological processes in specific localities so

that the historic processes and ecological relationships of crop evolution remain viable

therein” (2000: 12). An example of change in varietal use as a response to root rot by farmers

in Rwanda, shows the relatively high level of dynamism in farmers’ fields compared to gene

banks (Sperling 1997). In a recent study from the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, Tin et.al. (2001)

have compared gene bank-conserved and farmer managed populations of the same varieties of

rice. This study showed that the agronomic and morphological traits of the in situ conserved

population had changed compared to the population store ex situ. The results are interpreted

as an adaptation to the changed farming system and “… include natural and farmers’ selection

for maturity time (…) and market standards” (Tin et.al. 2001: 491). Still, in given situations

of absolute lack of seed resources, national and local gene banks may be the only sources with

relevant and good seed material fitted to the local agroecological conditions. Rather than

being considered as oppositions, ex situ and in situ conservation of genetic resources should

be viewed as complementary (Brush 2000).

An absolute lack of seed resources in an area can be experienced in times when calamities

like floods, droughts, and war have struck the area, resulting in a stress situation in the local

seed system. In the following I will consider what factors that may influence the impact of a

6

calamity, and how farmers are able to manage diversity in times of acute stress, deciding the

resilience of the local FSS.

1.3 Disaster impacts and FSS-resilience

As already stated, no post-calamity situations are identical (Longley & Richards 1999), and

disasters are often a complex mix of natural hazards and human action (Blakie et.al. 1994). It

is therefore difficult to come up with a universal set of tools for analysing the impacts of a

natural disaster on the FSS. What impact a disaster has on the local seed system is highly

dependent on the mode of onset (rapid or slow), frequency, timing, and duration, in addition

to the scale and magnitude of the disaster (Grunewald 1998). The impact of the disaster on the

seed system is not only dependent on the nature of the disaster itself, but on particular needs

and capacities of those affected by the disaster, and the well-functioning of the social

networks of which they form a part (Longley & Richards 1999). It is out of normal life and

social organisation that the social conditions for disasters emerge (Blakie et.al. 1994). The

most vulnerable households are the ones without capacities and resources to rebuild their seed

stocks, and relative lack of seed is therefore indicative of poverty rather than varietal erosion

(Sperling 1999).

When there is lack of seed resources locally, farmers need to seek out of their own household

and community to acquire new seed resources. According to Louise Sperling, “a key for the

understanding of the process of diversity in times of acute stress lies in the analysis of seed

channels” (1997: 33). Channels for acquiring seed may be formal, through shops and markets,

relief agencies and governments, or they may be informal, meaning through traditional

networks and institutions. These traditional channels of seed flow can be characterised by, in

addition to being traditional and informal, operating on the individual community level,

involving many ways of exchanging seeds, and the quantities of seeds exchanged through

these networks are often very small (Cromwell 1990). A holistic analysis of seed channels

needs to ask questions like: Who uses which specific channels?; For which crops, varieties

and quantities of seed?; When can each channel be used?; And with which restrictions?

(Sperling 1997). An analysis of seed acquisition systems and their vulnerability and resilience

in emergency situations needs to consider how the social basis for seed exchange is affected

by social and economic changes effected in emergency situations (Longley & Richards 1999).

7

In the following I will discuss theoretical perspectives on how farmers, as social agents, orient

themselves within social networks of exchange, constituting what I here term farmers’ social

capital.

1.4 Farmers as agents within networks of seed exchange

In this part I will discuss how the term social capital can help understanding how farmers

mobilise (seed) resources through social networks. The theory of agency can be applied when

understanding how farmers manoeuvre within an insecure environment, and how they

respond to external influences like natural hazards, war, penetration of market economy, and

how they in other manners interact with their natural environments. Farmers do not only

respond to external influences and structures, but also to internal changes and processes. All

farmers also interact with each other, and are part of social networks that are not rigid and

static, but flexible and changeable.

According to Kelly, “social networks are assortments of individuals who maintain recurrent

contact with one another through occupational, familial, cultural, or affective ties. In addition,

they are intricate formations that channel, filter, and interpret information, articulate

meanings, allocate resources, and control behaviour” (1995: 219). An individual’s social

network contains a set of kinship relationships in which the person is born, and in addition

relationships that the person establishes and maintains by reciprocal exchange (Leifsen 1996).

Social capital can be defined as the “capacity of individuals to command scarce resources by

virtue of their membership in networks or broader social structures…” (Portes 1995: 12), and

entails “…networking, co-operation, (and) building of trust relations…” (Long 2001: 133). In

times of scarcity of seeds, farmers who are able to mobilise new seed resources by virtue of

their membership in networks of seed-exchange, mobilise seed resources by using parts of

their social capital.

Resources acquired through social capital often carry the expectation of reciprocity at some

time in the future (Portes 1995), and quite contrary to the economic capital, the social capital

is normally not depleted when used, but is instead maintained or even increased (Long 2001).

Through social relationships based on trust and reliability, the farmers have a kind of

“informal seed certification system” regarding seed quality. Informal market transactions may

8

not involve the same kind of reliability in seed quality as if seeds are acquired from family or

friends, and the latter may therefore be preferred as channels for seed acquisition.

The negative sides of social capital have often been ignored when discussing different aspects

of this kind of capital. According to Long “… there is an almost inherent blindness to the

conflictive and unequal nature of social capital” (2001: 133). All or most farmers are

participants in networks of trust, where resources can be mobilised when there is a scarcity of

resources in the household, but to what degree farmers actually have access to resources

through their social networks of exchange depends on the persons that are included in the

networks. What Kelly (1995) refers to as social capital truncation, does not translate into the

lack of social capital based on relations of trust and reciprocity, “…but into a diminished

capacity to gain access to resources controlled by larger social groupings” (1995: 217). What

is an important characteristic of social networks is their multiplexity; this can be defined as

“… the degree to which it [a social network] may be composed of persons with differing

social status, linked in a variety of ways, who play multiple roles in several fields of activity”

(Kelly 1995: 220). If a farmer bases his social capital only on kinship, this can yield meagre

benefits unless his or her kin are part of larger networks that control desirable resources. In

this way some farmers may not be included in, and are not able to mobilise resources through

networks of exchange, because of a low degree of multiplexity in their social networks. These

farmers are therefore more vulnerable to the impacts of natural disasters on their on-farm

genetic diversity.

Farmers not only interact with each other face to face, but also with external, non-present

actors, like development organisations, firms, governments, and all other entities that “…

reach decisions, act accordingly and monitor outcomes” (Long 2001: 16). According to Long,

an actor approach can offer an integrated and dynamic approach to the understanding of social

change and the interplay and mutual determination of external and internal factors and

relationships. Theories on agency give the farmer the attributes of being able to process

experience and devise processes of coping in crisis and stress situations. Sociological theories

of agency have traditionally analysed social actors’ interaction with their social environment,

while ecological theories of agency have focused on actors’ interaction with their natural

environments. The problem of the latter theories have therefore been a tendency to view the

individual as apart from his or her social context (Nyerges 1997), while sociological theories

have ignored actors’ interaction with their natural environments. The “ecology of practice” is

9

concerned with how natural resources themselves are shaped and formed and get a social life

through those who use them (Nyerges 1997), and is particularly relevant in relation to how

farmers select and modify genetic material through their own culturally significant practices

of genetic diversity management (Longley 2000).

Throughout the thesis I argue that the degree to which farmers have economic and social

capital decides to a large extent farmers’ abilities to restore the genetic diversity of the local

seed system, which in turn decides the resilience of the seed system in the case of a stress

situation. Those farmers who lack both sufficient economic and social capital to acquire new

seed resources will experience livelihood insecurity and severe underproduction. Economic

capital does not only entail money, but all assets that can be used in transactions for acquiring

seeds. According to Blakie et.al. (1994), reducing vulnerability to disasters is linked to

increased resource access and empowerment of marginal groups. Thus, in a post-disaster

situation, the ability of the local seed system has some social constraints.

As we shall see there are also some biological constraints on seed rehabilitation in post-

disaster situations. Exotic varieties may be poorly adapted to local growing conditions and are

therefore not suitable as compensation for the lost local varieties. In a situation where exotic

varieties are the only seeds available, farmers may experience problems of underproduction

when cultivating varieties that are not adapted to the local agroecological conditions. If the

lost varieties have been collected and are kept in gene banks, genetic material stored ex situ

could be a source for restoration of local diversity. This will of course depend on the rate of

turnover in the FSS, and the abilities of the ex situ conservation practices to adapt and change

according to farmers’ preferences and strategies.

So far in this chapter I have presented the background and focus of my study, and relevant

concepts and theories for the following analysis of FSS in the study area. As we have seen,

FSS are dynamic systems, because farmers are active agents within an environment of

structural changes, climatic fluctuations, and other natural processes. Farmers not only

interact with each other, but also with their natural environments and external non-present

agents like development agencies, governments etc. The focus of my study is to investigate

how farmers, as social actors in a situation of stress in the local seed system, mobilise seed

resources by using their social capital, and how this generates a seed flow between different

areas.

10

1.5 Composition of the thesis

Before being in a position to examine the impacts as well as the resilience of the local seed

systems in the study area, there is a need for a presentation of the historical and geographical

context in which the farmers of Fenisseleni and Zongoene live. This will be done in the next

chapter (Chapter 2). By doing this we are in a better position to understand how the natural

environments and historical processes of war, natural disasters, politics, and intrusion of

markets in the rural economy, all have influenced and shaped the lives and agricultural

practices of farmers living there. These are all factors that are important when we consider the

vulnerability of the people living in the Limpopo Valley under natural hazards and stress

situations. The methodological approach of the study, and the different methods that I applied

during my fieldwork are presented in Chapter 3. The chapter gives the reader a possibility to

explore my fieldwork experiences and the process of collecting data.

In Chapter 4 I present the composition and functioning of the agricultural production system

and local seed systems in the study area. An understanding of the spatial distribution of crops

and farmers’ different ways of conserving seed material is important for an understanding of

the impacts of the year 2000 flood on the local seeds systems.

Chapter 5 gives an overview over how the composition of crops and varieties has changed

over time, exemplified by three concrete cases, namely “colonial crops”, groundnuts, and

cassava. Since Chapter 5 states that seed systems are not static in time, Chapter 6 explores

important reasons why they should not be perceived so. Different ways of acquiring seeds

from external sources stimulate a seed flow between areas. The different ways of acquiring

seeds are presented, and their relative importance is considered. I further go on and see how

the creations of social relationships like friendship and marriage are particularly important for

the seed flow. In this chapter I also briefly consider the influence of money and market

economy on the traditional ways of acquiring seeds.

In Chapter 7 I argue that the post-flood disaster situation should not be considered the result

of one natural hazard, but rather a result of several factors. In addition I briefly consider

biological and social constraints on farmers’ own abilities to rehabilitate seed resources in the

post-flood situation, and how these have implications for how to intervene in post-disaster

situations to improve farmers’ own capacities to rehabilitate their seed stocks. Finally,

11

Chapter 8 draws some conclusions and implications from the discussions throughout the

whole thesis.

12

2.0 Context of Study

Mozambique has its borders to South-Africa and Swaziland in the south and south-west,

Zimbabwe and Malawi in the west, and Tanzania in the north (Map 1), and the size of the

country covers an area of 801.590 km2. The country is divided into ten provinces, Maputo,

Gaza, Inhambane, Sofala, Manica, Tete, Zambezia, Nampula, Niassa, and Cabo Delgado

(Map 1). According to the 1997 Census the population size of Mozambique is 15.740.000

persons (CIUEM 2001). The population is unevenly distributed between north and south, the

southern part being the most densely populated. Mozambique is among the poorest countries

in the world, with a life expectancy of 45,9 years, and an infant mortality rate of 117,6 per

1000. The official language of the country is Portuguese, but several local Bantu languages

are spoken in different parts of the country, and Portuguese is not widely spoken outside of

the largest cities.

In this chapter I give a brief presentation of the historical and geographical context in which

the study was undertaken. First, I present a brief overview of historical events that I find most

relevant for the coming discussion. This is part of the background for the analysis later in this

thesis where the combination of long-term social changes and natural hazards are discussed as

having been decisive for the people’s vulnerabilities to the floods, and how people in different

ways were able to access seeds in the post-flood situation. In an analysis of access profiles in

a post-disaster situation one should focus on long-term intergenerational social changes

instead of the short term immediate impacts of relatively sudden events like floods are (Blakie

et.al. 1995). Second, the geographical context gives an overview of the physical

characteristics of the study area and the study sites. The study was undertaken in two different

villages in the Province of Gaza. Demography, climate, and other physical characteristics are

here presented. In this way we are able to understand under which conditions the people in the

area are living and interacting, and how the year 2000 floods affected areas in different ways.

13

Map 1: Mozambique: provinces, neighbouring countries and provincial capitals.

(Source: IIASA 2002)

2.1 A history of wars, movement of people, and uncertainties

Migrations of people, war activity, colonial occupation, natural disasters, and processes of

modernisation and integration into a market economy, are all factors that during historical

times have influenced and formed the culture of the people living in the southern parts of

Mozambique. It is important to be aware of these external influences and processes for a

thorough understanding of how farming practices and people’s patterns of interaction have

changed over time.

14

2.1.1 Migration of people and cultural integrations

The exact origin of the population in the study area is not known. The Machangana is

considered the oldest ethnical group in the region, this creating the general idea that all

individuals are Machangana (Dava 2001). The origin of the people living in the area dates

back to the 19th century, when the Nguni conquest in southern parts of Mozambique led to the

emergence of the Gaza State (Covane 1996). The Ngunis were patrilineal mixed farmers, who

were grouped into chieftaincies and relied heavily on cattle surpluses and cattle exchange

(Newitt 1995). The critical drought period of the 1820s led to clashes between various

chieftaincies, and traditionally organised hunting bands became transformed into war

regiments. This expansive period led to the integration of the native Tsonga and invading

Nguni groups, and the two groups closely influenced each other’s development (ibid). The

polygamy practiced by African monarchs was highly successful in integrating conquered

people and binding together different elements in the society, but it was also the one

important factor that led to a crisis in the Gaza Kingdom. Disputes over succession after the

death of Shoshangane (the first Gaza king), plunged the state into a bitter civil war (Newitt

1995).

In addition to practicing polygamy, marriages between men and women from different

lineages than their own (exogamy) was the most common way of marriage. After the

marriage women had to move away from their natal home to stay in the husband’s house1

(Feliciano 1998). Their children were considered to be members of the man’s lineage,

something that signifies societies that are patrilineal. Cultivated land, cattle, and other

properties were transferred to the eldest son, who in turn divided it among his younger

brothers. Except for the practice of polygamy, these traditions are still present in the society,

facilitating movement of people as well as resources between different groups and areas, and

are an important element in times of crisis.

1 Within anthropological theory the tradition that women move to the men’s family’s house or village is often referred to as virilocality.

15

2.1.2 Natural hazards – a history of fluctuations and uncertainty

How people have moved and migrated over long distances is related to the highly fluctuating

climatic environment in which the people in the southern Africa live (Newitt 1995). Both

droughts and floods have influenced the population in the Province of Gaza during historical

times (and most probably times before as well), and people have adapted their ways of living

to this fluctuating environment. Rain has normally been associated with abundance, while

droughts have been associated with hunger (Feliciano 1998). Traditionally people have had

several strategies in times of droughts, from intensifying hunting, gold mining and

commercial activities, to dislocation from their own region to more fertile regions (Newitt

1996). Movements of people could in the end lead to competition and conflicts over rights to

water and land. From 1794 to 1802 the southern part of Mozambique experienced a severe

drought, which in the end might have led to the emergence of the Zulu kingdom (Newitt

1996), and is an example of what impacts, both physically and socially, a natural disaster can

have in the region. The drought (often referred to as mahlatule) disrupted the traditional

agricultural communities, and was a trigger to political, economic, and social changes among

the Nguni (Newitt 1995). Also in the beginning of the 1980s and the 1990s the southern parts

of the country experienced droughts in periods over several years, something that was

disastrous to the population and their livelihoods. At this time UNICEF provided the drought

sufferers with oxen for ploughing and seed from neighbouring Zimbabwe, technologies that

were both familiar and suitable in the local production system (Blakie et.al. 1995).

Historically also floods have been a threat to people and agriculture in the Limpopo Valley,

and this has had an impact on how people live and adapt to their environments. The records of

the Limpopo River water regime show that the river went over its banks in the years 1917,

1953, 1977, and 2000 (Dava 2001). The year 2000 floods had a great impact on people and

agriculture in the area. The whole floodplain was then covered with about ten meters of water,

and people had to escape from their homes. According to official numbers, in the District of

Xai-Xai about 16.000 families, equivalent to about 65.000 persons, were affected and had to

dislocate from their homes during the floods (DDCJD 2001). Many people were evacuated by

helicopters or by boats, but most people left by foot or by public transport. People went to

stay with relatives and friends in the highlands, but many of them returned just a few months

after the floodwater had withdrawn in June 2000.

16

People living on the floodplains of Limpopo have developed strategies for coping with floods,

temporary migrations to relatives living in the highlands being one of them (Covane 1996).

People have also developed techniques that enable them to live in top of trees for up to

several weeks or months. Covane describes how people were able to survive in trees during

floods (refers to a flood before year 2000):

… it was possible to keep clothes, food, firewood, pots, other items and even domestic animals in trees and to maintain a family during periods of flooding. Men went periodically to the highlands to maintain stocks of food and firewood. Only those who had family in the highlands used to move with their belongings there until the end of the calamity. This highlights the importance of marriages between families from different ecological zones. During rescue operations, helicopters found people in trees who did not want to be evacuated. They wanted to continue in the trees with their belongings until the floods came to an end, and serious efforts had to be made to convince them to embark in the helicopters (Covane 1996: 295-296).

2.1.3 Colonisation, market economy and modernisation

The dominant Portuguese colonial period in the southern parts of Mozambique dates back to

the establishment of the Military District of Gaza in 1895 (Feliciano 1998). This period has

influenced the country both culturally and economically. Xai-Xai City became the centre of

commercial activities for the Colonial District of Gaza (Covane 1996), and the Limpopo

Valley was believed to become the future granary of the colony. The colonial system tried to

integrate a European capitalist rational model into the traditional African economy (Feliciano

1998). The growth of urban populations seems to have encouraged changes in farming in

order to provide food or other commodities for the city (Covane 1996). Commercial

production of rice, sugarcane and cotton was established, but only rice, and to certain degree

sugarcane were widely adopted by the farmers. Even though the colonial government

practised forced production of these commercial crops, the farmers’ resistance to cotton

production was high. While most farmers resisted forced cotton production, it was a new

opportunity for others. Especially women got a new opportunity to make their own income,

and this combined with men’s migration to South Africa working in the mines, gave the

women a new position in the rural society. Agriculture now became women’s task, and

women became more liberated from their husbands. Women’s new income opportunities were

especially important in cases of crisis in a marriage, because the women themselves now were

17

able to pay back the bride-wealth (o lobolo), but in addition, women were able to invest their

money in prestige products like cattle and ploughs (Covane 1996).

Increased labour migration to the mines in South Africa was an important factor in the

integration of Mozambique into a world economy. As stated by Newitt:

… migrant labour undermined the social and economic structure … in a way which wars had never done, and began the rapid absorption of the people of southern Mozambique into the modern world economy (Newitt 1995: 297).

Young men’s migration to the mines in South Africa contributed to their social liberation

from the elders, now not being dependent on the cattle controlled by their fathers to have a

future income (Covane 1996). The men who migrated to the mines brought back money that

could be used to buy food products, and to invest in other prestige products like cattle and

several wives. Young men became more independent, and were able to marry several women

at a young age. Money gradually replaced cattle in the bride wealth transactions (o lobolo),

partly because of the increased importance of money and partly because of a reduction in the

number of cattle in the region. In the period from 1895 to 1898 the number of cattle in the

area was markedly reduced. The reasons for this were mainly increased consumption of cattle

and increased death rates because of rinder pest (Feliciano 1998).

Migrant labour also facilitated the introduction of ploughs into the area (Covane 1996).

Initially only men could operate ploughs, but as women became more involved in all

agricultural activities, they were gradually admitted to work with ploughs and oxen. The

elders of the society saw the new technology as a threat to their prestige, knowledge and

influence as family heads, and ploughs were by many seen as defying the spirits of the

ancestors (ibid).

All of these factors led to a profound change in social structures and power relations in the

area. The social changes led to a nuclearisation of families and changed household structures

(Feliciano 1998). Even though the new income opportunities introduced by market economy

led to an increase in market transactions, the money earned by individuals was often used in

traditional transactions like lobolo and other social events (gifts, beer drinking, rituals, etc.).

18

In 1975, after ten years of war for independence Mozambique was liberated from the colonial

rule of Portugal. This transformed Mozambique from a colony with strong economic and

cultural bonds to Portugal to a socialist state in isolation from the western world. Socialisation

of agriculture was among the first of the new government’s task, and involved state and

cooperative farms, with people living in new villages (Covane 1996).

2.1.4 Ten years of civil war

After ten years of a destructive war of liberation, Mozambique plunged into ten new

destructive years of civil war. The conflict had its background in strong South African

opposition to Frelimo, the socialist government of Mozambique, and South Africa was

blamed for supporting the conflicting part, Renamo, both economically and by providing

training facilities. South African opposition to Frelimo was brought about by Frelimo’s

support of the ANC. The conflict increased in intensity after the plane crash, where the

Frelimo leader and official president of Mozambique, Samora Machel, died. It was believed

that Renamo and South Africa were responsible for the “accident”. The conflict formally

ended in October 1992 when the Rome Peace Accord was signed, and Mozambique was by

that facing peace, and processes of democratisation and modernisation.

The war in itself was devastating for the population in Mozambique and it led to a general

collapse of the whole economy (Covane 1996). People were killed and dispersed, and social

networks were broken down. Agriculture suffered particularly because people had to move

from their farms, and the land was left fallow for several years. Ploughs, cattle, houses,

granaries and social stability were lost (ibid). But still, many people decided to move back to

their farms after the Rome Peace Accord in October 1992.

The combination of destruction of infrastructure in the war of liberation, droughts, floods, and

civil war, made the situation after the independence very difficult for the young nation, and

undermined peasant agricultural production (Covane 1996). In the end of the 80s and early

90s, due to the collapse of Soviet Union and the East Block, the Mozambican government

turned to the western world to receive economical support from the Bretton Woods

institutions (Newitt 1996), and this in general meant an opening up of the economy and

greater reliance on market forces. This opening up of the economy became even stronger after

19

the1992 peace agreement between Frelimo and Renamo, and many now consider

Mozambique a market liberal democratic state.

2.2 Site profiles

My investigations were performed in the Province of Gaza about 200 km north of Maputo, the

capital of Mozambique. The provincial capital of Gaza, Xai-Xai, is in the Limpopo Valley,

and has a population of about 100.000. The Limpopo River flows through the valley, and

highly influences the lowland areas. After the Zambezi River, Limpopo is the second largest

river in Mozambique, with a catchment area of more than 390.000 km2. The river has its

sources in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, outside the borders of Mozambique, and

its flood regime is characterised by high variability throughout the year. The dry season

normally runs from April to October, while the wet season normally is between November

and March.

The lower Limpopo River covers an area of approximately 2.000 km2, extending inland from

the sea to Chibotu 60 km in the north, where the Limpopo and Changane River confluence

(Covane 1996). The river has a major impact on agricultural production in the area, with its

periodic floods and drier periods. In the rainy seasons the river sometimes overflows, adding

nutrients to the soil. People in Xai-Xai District call floods going over the banks of the river

ndambi, and in cases when the floods are big and destructive people often say: ndambi hi

muyendzi, meaning the flood destroyed a lot (Dava 2001).

Due to topographic factors, there is a difference between the highland and lowland areas

regarding soil, both in terms of composition and humidity. Contents of clay are the main

characteristics of lowland soils, while the highland soils are sandier. The lowland soils

normally have more water in dry periods due to the proximity of the river and the water

holding capacity of the soil. In flooding periods, when the river runs over its banks, only

lowlands are inundated.

Mozambique has a tropical and sub-tropical climate, characterised by wet and dry seasons,

which determines how farmers in the area perform their agricultural production. The highly

fluctuating climate creates a seasonal micro-climatic environment whereby immediately

20

different areas may experience considerable variation in rainfall patterns, with consequent

different effects on agriculture (Covane 1996). Most farmers combine several crops in a

system of multiple cropping, and most of them produce both for their own subsistence needs

and for selling in local markets. The composition of crops varies in different zones in the

region, according to climate, soil, and different economic conditions (Feliciano 1998).

My investigations took place in two different villages, Fenisseleni in the lowlands and

Zongoene in the highlands (Map 2). As we shall see, different agroecological conditions in

the two study sites have an influence on the composition of crops and varieties, which in turn

had an influence on how the impacts of the year 2000 floods affected the two villages

differently. In the following I will present the two respective villages and their main

characteristics regarding the site, population, soil regimes and agricultural practices.

Map 2: The Province of Gaza, with the two study sites, Zongoene and Fenisseleni (the

latter being a suburb in the city of Xai-Xai).

21

2.2.1 Fenisseleni

Fenisseleni is a village situated north of the Limpopo River, just about 1 km south of the town

centre of Xai-Xai. The village is therefore considered a suburb of Xai-Xai City. Before the

year 2000 floods, approximately 800 families inhabited Fenisseleni, but during the flooding

period from February to May 2000 the whole population had to escape from floodwater,

leaving the village unpopulated for several months. The total number of families that had

returned by December that same year was approximately 250 (Berg 2000, Dava 2001). The

total number of families living in the village at the time of this study was uncertain, but there

are reasons to believe that the number had increased even more, and that the village was about

to be fully repopulated. Still, there are some households that have not yet returned, leaving

their land (machambas2) uncultivated.

Farmers in Fenisseleni perform multiple cropping, where maize, beans, and sweet potato are

among the most important crops, but also cowpeas, rice, bananas, pepper, and different types

of vegetables like lettuce, tomatoes, and onions, are widely grown. Cassava and groundnuts

can also be observed in the fields, but the soil regimes in the lowlands do not favour these

crops. Crops are mainly cultivated according to types of soil. Maize is the only crop grown on

all the different types of soil, and is the most common crop in Fenisseleni.

The area around Xai-Xai was an area where civil war activity was relatively low. Many

people fled to areas like Fenisseleni, and still today one can find people who escaped from

war-affected zones living in the village.

Floods are not new phenomena for the people in Fenisseleni. After the floods in 1977, many

people in Fenisseleni living closely to the river were forced by the government to move from

their houses. This was because the government considered these areas too dangerous in case

of a future large-scale flood. Houses in these areas are therefore today abandoned, but the

areas are still cultivated by the landowners (Picture 1). These policies may have saved human

lives in the large-scale flood that struck the area in year 2000.

2 Machamba is the Shangana word for a plot of cultivable land.

22

Picture 1: House abandoned after the 1977 floods. Today the area is transformed

into agricultural fields.

2.2.2 Zongoene

The area of Zongoene is situated about 30 km southeast of Xai-Xai City, close to the mouth of

the Limpopo River. The area of Zongoene has a population of 24.836, and the village “24 de

Julho”, which was the village where I performed my investigations, has a population of

13.253. 3 The agricultural practices in this area are characterised by cultivation both in high-

and lowland areas, giving the farmers of Zongoene other possibilities for their agricultural

practice compared to farmers cultivating only in lowlands or in highlands.

For longer periods during the civil war, Zongoene was hard struck by war activity, and people

had to escape from their households and farms to live in more safe areas like Fenisseleni

outside of war affected zones. Today Zongoene is fully repopulated, and agricultural

production is rehabilitated.

The soil regime in the lowland areas of Zongoene is mostly the same as in Fenisseleni, but in

the highland areas sandy soil types enable farmers to cultivate groundnuts and cassava, in

23

3 Source: Figures and tables presented by the “Chefe do Posto” in Zongoene, 22.11.2001.

addition to other crops like maize, cowpeas, and different types of vegetables. Since the

population of Zongoene live in the highlands, and also cultivate here, the year 2000 flood did

not strike this area as badly as it did Fenisseleni. Farmers still had left what was cultivated and

stored in the highlands, but also here what was planted and stored in the lowlands was lost

during the floods.

2.3 Concluding remarks

In this chapter we have seen that external factors like war, natural hazards, modernisation and

integration into a market economy, are all factors that have influenced the lives of the people

living in the study area. But following the argument of Long (2001) it is unsatisfactory to base

one’s analysis of social change on the concept of external determination. Social change

should be viewed as the product of the “… interplay and mutual determinations of “internal”

and “external” factors … which recognises the central role played by human action and

consciousness” (Long 2001: 13). An actors approach is therefore the basis of this thesis,

which in turn has implications for the research approach and methods that I applied. These

will be presented in the next chapter.

24

3.0 Methodology and research methods

The methodology of a study encompasses theory and is therefore not directly operational like

methods are, which can be defined as “… a comprehensive set of approaches to gather

evidence and analyse specific problems …” (Mikkelsen 1995: 223). It is the questions to be

answered that must decide the methods that are chosen, and not vice versa (ibid).

In the beginning of my study I was in need of information about how people in the study area

acquire seeds, both in normal seasons and in times of stress, and how this has changed (if

changed at all) over time. In addition I was interested in social relations through which people

transfer seeds, and from which persons they receive seeds, and whom they provide with seeds

in times of scarcity. In relation to this I was concerned about how these processes are

influenced in time by external processes, and I therefore wanted to search for information

about historical processes of natural hazards, war, colonialism, modernisation, and how

farmers have been integrated into markets and a money economy. The research questions I

came up with in the initial phases were changed and modified continuously during the

fieldwork period. In this way I was able to accumulate knowledge and develop my focus of

study constantly as my findings enriched me with new information. As stated by James

Spradley, ethnographic research is not a static process, but “… requires constant feed back

from one step to another” (1979: 93). My focus on social relationships narrowed down to

understand the importance of marriage and friendship relations for seed acquisition, and how

these relationships are created. In addition I developed a special interest in local crops and

varieties and how the composition of these in space and time has changed, which in this thesis

functions as a context and illustration of the embedded dynamism in local seed systems.

In this chapter I first present the general research approach of this study, which took a

qualitative form. Second, I explain how I prepared for my fieldwork in Fenisseleni and

Zongoene, both before my departure to Mozambique, and in Maputo, the capital of

Mozambique. Third, practical problems that I met regarding access and acceptance in the

local communities, in the process of selecting an interpreter, and general communication

problems, are presented. This process was decisive for the results that I ended up with.

Fourth, the different methods of collecting data are presented, and finally, I will do some

reflections around the data.

25

3.1 Research approach

According to Denzin & Lincoln (1994) quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and

analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes, while qualitative research

stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the

researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry.

Most social scientists like to be considered as neutral, and passive actors within their own

research project. My experiences as a researcher in the local context made it clear to me that

this is an ideal that is rarely fulfilled (if fulfilled at all). When considering my role as a

researcher, it is necessary to see myself as a social actor within the local context. My research

project was founded on certain basic values, and must in itself be considered as an

intervention and external influence on the populations of the two villages. According to Long,

“… intervention is a “multiple reality” made up of differing cultural perceptions and social

interests …” (2001: 30). Through my social interaction with different actors in the two

villages, I tried to gain knowledge and data relevant to my research objectives. It would be

wrong to believe that the farmers who I made interviews with, talked with, and interacted

with in other ways, did not have their own “projects” and goals in their interaction with me.

Local actors may actively formulate and pursue their own projects that often clash with the

researcher’s project (Long 2001), and observations and interview situations can therefore be

seen as socially situated in the “worlds” of the observer and the observed. This perspective on

the interaction between the researcher and local actors is important for an understanding of

how I was perceived in the local setting, and how this is reflected in the problems that I had to

face in the beginning of my fieldwork and the results that I ended up with. Information is in

the interview situation reinterpreted and recreated differently by each “receiver” as well as by

each “sender” (Villareal 1992). In qualitative research, a scientific ideal of testable and

verifiable data is therefore an ideal that is rarely or ever fulfilled.

3.2 Preparations and selection of study area

My fieldwork in Mozambique was conducted over a period of 41/2 months, from the 5th of

August to the 18th of December 2001. Much of my time was spent collecting background

information and preparing my data-collection in the field. The period I spent in the District of

26

Xai-Xai was from the 13th of September to the 30th of November 2001. Most of my time in

the field was spent in Fenisseleni, just outside the Xai-Xai City, while one week was spent in

Zongoene, about 20 km south-east of Xai-Xai. Even though my stay in Zongoene was short,

this part of my fieldwork was done in the final period when I had become more experienced

with collecting data and interviewing people, which in turn made this fieldwork period more

productive. In addition, because I was staying in the village in this period, I was able to spend

my time more effectively and collect more data over a shorter period of time.

Most of my fieldwork preparations were done in Norway, and were based on a report written

by Trygve Berg (2000) in relation to FAO-LinKs’ Rapid Rural Appraisal in Fenisseleni and

Zongoene in the period 2-7th of December 2000. According to this report, Fenisseleni and

Zongoene are representative of the flood struck areas of the Limpopo Valley, and are

therefore suitable for a study of the flood impacts on genetic diversity and farmers’ coping

with the disaster situation (Berg 2000, Dava 2001).

Arriving in Maputo, I spent about one month learning Portuguese, and studying historical

sources from the area, both as a preparation for my coming fieldwork and as secondary data

for my thesis. Particularly valuable here was the library of “Arquivo do Património Cultural”

(ARPAC), which has good sources on the culture and history of Mozambique. The director of

ARPAC, Dr. Fernando Dava, also provided me with lots of information and perspectives on

the focus of my study.

When I arrived in Xai-Xai, I spent some time finding accommodation and an interpreter for

the fieldwork, and I also made some efforts getting official permits for my work. While doing

my fieldwork in Fenisseleni, because of practical problems, I had to live outside of the

village. It would certainly have been an advantage to stay inside the village while conducting

the fieldwork, because this would probably have given me better access to data than when I

had to travel back and forth every day. On the other hand, travelling every day in public

transport gave me an entrance to some significant parts of the Shangana culture. Chapas are

the local buses that transport most people when they are travelling to distant areas visiting

family or friends, and it is also a place where people meet and connect friendships (Covane

1996). When travelling with these buses I was able to observe how people interact with each

other on the bus, and how people travel and what they bring when they go to their daily

activities in the fields, local markets, and make visits to family or friends.

27

By the help of the “Provincial and Districtal Offices of Culture, Youth and Sports” I was able

to get official acceptance for my work, and officials representing these institutions introduced

me in the local community. This could be one reason why I was misunderstood in the

beginning of my fieldwork.

3.3 Practical problems and my role in the local communities

My problems were not over after getting official access to and local acceptance for my

fieldwork. In the beginning people perceived me as a kind of development worker, or a

person that would provide organisations or the government with information about their direct

needs, that in turn would result in the supply of money or seeds to the local community.

Because of this people responded in a strategic way, which was not good for my research.

When I asked people about how they acquired seeds after the floods, all farmers would reply

by buying, hoping for return in the form of money. In addition, when asked about the

household seed stocks, all farmers would answer that they did not have any seeds at all, which

obviously was not correct. When observing the farmers’ fields it was quite clear that many

farmers had their own seed stocks, quite contrary to how they responded to my questions.

This illustrates my role in the local community, and how farmers actively were trying to use

their relation to me actively to achieve certain goals. The situation challenged me as a

researcher and as a person. By using my social relationships with three people in the village

(the chief, a carpenter and a teacher), I tried to make a new foundation for my study in the

village. After a conversation with them, it became clear to me that the whole village had

misunderstood me in the context of my introduction with the officials from Xai-Xai. I had to

change my research strategy.

The selection of a new interpreter turned out to be a good decision. In addition, I had to

restate my position as a student and researcher more thoroughly. I was also, by the chief,

provided with a local guide, who could help me select informants and inform me about local

farming practices and cropping patterns, local crops, varieties etc.

The local language in the villages is Shangana. Since Portuguese is not widely spoken in the

rural areas of Mozambique, my efforts spent in Maputo learning Portuguese were therefore

28

not so useful in my direct communication with local people. Still, even though my Portuguese

was far from fluent, this was useful in my communication with Portuguese-speaking men in

the local communities, and with my interpreter and local guide. The interpreter also had some

English skills, but this was not sufficient for a full understanding and interpretation of the

interviews. He was therefore translating most interviews into both Portuguese and English.

This was the optimal way of interviewing people, and even though it was a little bit more time

consuming than only translating into one language, it gave me a more complete understanding

of the information that I received from the interviews.

3.4 Research methods and data collection

The research tools that I applied in my fieldwork were selected according to the focus of

study, the time frame of my study, and the available resources that I had for my fieldwork. By

applying several kinds of methods I tried to increase the validity of the data. Triangulation,

which refers to the use of several kinds of methods to secure an in-depth understanding of the

phenomenon in question, “is not a tool or a strategy of validation, but an alternative to

validation“ (Denzin & Lincoln 1994: 2). During my fieldwork I conducted 20 in-depth

interviews, and two group interviews. In addition, observations in the fields and conversations

with farmers were very important parts of my fieldwork.

A majority of my informants were women, which was a choice that I made on the background

of information collected from secondary sources in Maputo. According to Covane “…the role

of women in the rural economy has been extremely important” (1996: 38), and during his

fieldwork there, he experienced that most men were unable to provide him with much

relevant information concerning agriculture. My experiences with this were mixed. Some men

were very experienced with agriculture, while on the other hand some women were not so

knowledgeable. There seem to be a gendered differentiation in the agricultural tasks and

related knowledge about farm production. Men are normally responsible for the cultivation of

cash crops like maize, rice, sugar cane and bananas, while women have the main

responsibility and knowledge about the cultivation of food crops like cassava, sweet potato,

groundnuts, beans, and cowpeas. There are also reasons to believe that men’s position in

agriculture is increasing again, due to decreased migration to South Africa.

29

3.4.1 Interviews

All the interviews that I performed were semi-structured in their form. In a semi-structured

interview only some or few of the questions are predetermined (Mikkelsen 1995). In this way

the interviews become more conversational, and it is possible to restructure and change

questions and add new ones during the interview. All the interviews that I made were

prepared in the day before the interview to fit each individual informant. In the evenings after

the interviews, all the information gained during the day was processed and analysed in a best

possible way, and was in this way a foundation for structuring and developing the interviews

for the next day. In this way I was able to develop and accumulate knowledge about the

research topic.

Using interviews as a fieldwork method, the bias of interviewing only one group in society

should be avoided (Mikkelsen 1995). Still, because women are considered to be important in

the agricultural production in general and in the production of food crops in particular, I tried

to put more weight on collecting information from women. I conducted 13 in-depth

interviews with women and 7 with men, while the group discussions that I had was with a

group of about 10 elder women and a group of 5 men in Fenisseleni. Even though I tried to

put more weight on women and women’s role in the agricultural production, most interviews

that I conducted with men gave me a feeling that they were of a better quality than the ones

that I had with the women. The most important reason for this is probably the fact that most

men speak Portuguese, which gave me a better understanding of the information, and, in

addition, it gave me an opportunity to communicate directly with my informants. Also the fact

that I am a man may have made the women more introvert compared to the men in the

interview situation.

When I conducted interviews with women I tried to avoid doing the interviews together with

their husbands. This was because of my concern with husband’s domination over his wife in

the interview situation, which is confirmed by the studies made by Covane:

… I generally observed that when husband and wife were interviewed together, the man spoke and quite openly tried to prevent his wife from saying anything. This is partly a reflection of the traditionally assumed minor and secondary role reserved for women in the context of kinship hierarchy or marriage in the southern Mozambican countryside. This was contradiction to the more active role played by women during

30

the collective interviews involving men who were not their husbands. Unmarried or widowed women were particularly active during such interviews (Covane 1996: 35-36).

The fact that my interpreter and my field guide in Fenisseleni were men was therefore

probably not a problem, since none of them were married to the women who I interviewed. It

seemed like most women felt free and were relaxed in the interview situations, where, in

addition to the informant, only my interpreter, field guide and I were present. Most interviews

in Fenisseleni were conducted on one site, in my guide’s garden. This was a satisfactory

solution since conducting interviews in each of the single households most probably would

involve the husbands of the women that I wanted to interview. The situation was quite

different in Zongoene, where most of the interviews were conducted in field or in each single

household. The observations made by Covane were partly confirmed through the interviews

that I conducted with women and their husbands at the same time. Some women were not

speaking unless their husbands permitted them to, while others were quite open and spoke

freely together with their husbands.

3.4.2 Key informants

A key informant is a person who is particularly knowledgeable about a given topic

(Mikkelsen 1995). Relationships with key informants often happen by coincidence, and are

most often not planned or intended. In addition to just being an interpreter, my interpreter also

became a friend and good source of information. With his cultural experience and knowledge

about agricultural practices, he certainly became what is referred to as a key informant.

Every day I had a guide with me in Fenisseleni, both when I performed interviews and made

walks in the fields. Two persons (the carpenter and the teacher) were guides, one each day.

My guides were also important sources of information about agriculture and cultural

practices. It became a routine every day to have a kind of “morning meeting” with my guides

and interpreter, where I could ask them questions about the previous days, and prepare the

interviews we were about to conduct on that day. In this way I was able to accumulate

knowledge in a communicative manner, and discuss with them the data that I received and

with whom we should talk to receive more information about the topics.

31

This situation was quite different in Zongoene, where I was able to work more independently.

Here I developed a good relationship with the maid of the house where I lived. She gave me

lots of information about people and agriculture, and was able to indicate possible interview

objects.

3.4.3 Observations in field

I spent much time walking in the fields, talking with people who were working in their

machambas, and observing crops and cropping patterns. This turned out to be very useful in

terms of differentiating crop varieties, and for understanding local agricultural practices.

Particularly in Zongoene, most of my time in the field was spent doing walks, talking with

people, and observing them preparing and cultivating their fields.

3.4.4 Secondary sources

Secondary data have been important sources of information, both as data and in my

preparations. My fieldwork was based on a workshop performed by FAO and other interest

organisations after the floods in year 2000, and I have used much information from reports

written from this (See: Berg 2000 and Dava 2001). In addition, a doctoral thesis written by

Luis António Covane (1996) about the importance and influence of labour migration to the

mines in South Africa on agriculture in the Limpopo Valley, has provided me with valuable

information regarding culture and structural changes in relation to the introduction of market

economy and the influence of war activity on agricultural production. This can also be said

about the work by José Fialho Feliciano (1998), which gives a deep presentation of the culture

and economy of the Thonga in the southern parts of Mozambique. In addition, the general

historical presentation of the history of Mozambique by Malin Newitt (1993) has been

valuable for my understanding of the historical processes that have influenced the lives of the

rural people of the country.

32

3.4.5 Group interviews

“Group interviews provide access to a larger body of knowledge of general community

information” (Mikkelsen 1995: 104). In Fenisseleni I conducted two group interviews, the

first with a group of ten senior women, while the other was with five men. The interview I

made with the elder women was about bride wealth, and its importance to society in general

and for women in particular. The other group interview that I made with a group of five men

was about local names of different crop varieties. By homogenising the composition of the

groups that I interviewed I tried to stimulate free expression and dynamic discussions

(Mikkelsen 1995).

3.5 Reflections around the data

Problems and possible confusion perceived by the reader regarding what is the unit of

analysis need some discussion. Although I made interviews with individuals, the intention of

my study is to consider the capacities of households to rehabilitate seed stocks in post-disaster

situations. A central part of my study is to consider how farmers’ social and economic capitals

are related to farmers’ capacities to access seeds in stress situations. Thus, I view the

households’ capacities to rehabilitate seed resources as the sum of the social and economic

capitals that each individual of the household possess. Different members of the household

may have different capacities due to factors as gender, age, and social and economic status.

What this study lacks is an analysis of the households’ overall economic status in relation to

on-farm genetic diversity. I still believe that by considering different individuals’ capacities, I

will be able to draw some conclusions regarding post-disaster seed-rehabilitation capacities in

different households.

As already mentioned, the presentation of myself in the local community gave me some initial

problems. Because my role and purpose of stay were misunderstood, people did not respond

to my questions and interact with me in a way that was good for my own project. Even though

this was a problem in the initial parts of my fieldwork, I do think that I was able to state my

position, and avoid further misunderstandings of who I was and what were the purposes of my

work in the villages. Because I was better prepared and more aware of these potential

33

difficulties and misunderstandings, I was able to avoid many of these problems when

presenting myself and doing my work in Zongoene.

Even though my interpreter was good and able to communicate with people and translate in a

satisfactory way, his limited language skills in English (in addition to my limited skills in

Portuguese) were a problem when communicating with local people in the villages,

particularly in the beginning of the fieldwork. This improved after working together for a

while, and in the end we had improved our communicative skills. Still, the optimal solution

would have been to be able to communicate with people directly through the local language,

Shangana. The relatively short fieldwork period did not give me the possibility to learn

Shangana, apart from trivial daily phrases, in addition to words and expressions that I,

through the translation process, found useful and relevant for my study. Local language,

expressions, and words can hold a key to the understanding of local cultures (Spradley 1979).

Local names of varieties were one such group of local words that I tried to pick up during my

fieldwork. Some varieties’ names were difficult to collect because of the meanings of the

names. Local names of sweet potatoes were particularly difficult to collect, because these

names often have insulting or vulgar meanings4.

The fact that my interpreter was from outside of the community is also a potential problem in

the fieldwork situation. A person who is from outside a community does not have the same

local knowledge and social network of trust and reliability as a person from within the

community. On the other hand a person from outside the community is more independent and

maybe not as tied up in his social position and relationships as a person from within. My

interpreter’s ability to make contacts and interact socially with people was very valuable for

my research.

The guides that I had in Fenisseleni were from the local community, which, as mentioned,

also can be a potential problem in the interview situation. Depending on the informants’

relationship with the guide, they may not give the same information as if they had been in an

interview situation with only the interpreter and me. But by avoiding interviews with the field

guides’ wives, and women were relatively extrovert and free speaking.

4 As an example, Nwarahco is a local name on a variety of sweet potato, and means “big buttock” in Shangana.

34

The period when I performed my investigations also had an influence on the information that

I received. Most of the time I spent in Fenisseleni was in the end of a long dry season. The

farmers were therefore waiting for the rain to come, and many farmers were preparing their

fields for the next growing season. Not very many farmers had yet started to mobilise and

prepare seeds for cultivation, which normally is done right after the first heavy rains. Some

farmers were drying their maize in the sun, while others were sorting out groundnuts for

planting (Picture 2). I was therefore not able to observe farmers cultivating their fields, and

interview farmers about the seed material they were planting in the field. All of my

information here is based on interviews outside of the fields and on farmers’ memories. This

was contrary to my fieldwork in Zongoene, which started right after the first rains, and

farmers had just started their cultivation and mobilisation of new planting material. It was

therefore easier to walk around there, observing and asking farmers directly about the seeds

they were planting.

Picture 2: Woman in Fenisseleni preparing groundnuts for cultivation.

35

In this chapter I have presented the study approach and the different methods that I applied

through the fieldwork period. By applying several methods and by developing and changing

my research strategy as I gained more information throughout the research process, I have

tried to get an as complete as possible understanding of how farmers are acquiring seeds, and

how they are manoeuvring within a production system that is constantly exposed to external

influence like natural hazards, market economy, colonialism, war activity, and other processes

of modernisation.

36

4.0 Risk management and coping with stress situations

In this chapter I more concretely consider cropping patterns, and how farmers conserve their

seed resources for planting in the next season. Both of these factors are important for an

understanding of the different impacts of the year 2000 floods in Fenisseleni and Zongoene. I

consider different factors that were important to why the flood had different impacts in the

two villages. The agricultural system in general, and the Farmer Seed System (FSS) in

particular, are developed according to farmers’ strategies of managing risks in a highly

fluctuating environment. Different farmers have different strategies and see different

possibilities and constraints in the process of coping with stress situations. The ability of

farmers to recover seed stocks after the flood depended not only on the nature of the hazard

itself, but also to a high degree on the different farmers own abilities to mobilise new seed

resources, either through informal networks or formal markets and institutions. Finally in the

chapter I briefly consider farmers’ different adaptive strategies when coping with natural

hazards like floods and droughts.

4.1 Cropping patterns

In this section I consider how the spatial distribution of crops is related to farmers’ adaptation

of the agricultural production system to soil regimes and climatic fluctuations. An

understanding and overview of this spatial distribution is relevant for the understanding of the

impacts of the year 2000 floods, and how farmers coped with this situation. In the following, I

will concentrate the discussion around maize, sweet potato, groundnuts, cassava, rice,

cowpeas, and beans. Although farmers in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene cultivate a number

of other types of crops, like different types of vegetables, fruits, and legumes, I consider the

first mentioned to be the most important crops that represent the seed systems in both study

sites in a balanced way.

Farmers in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene perform multiple cropping. Maize is the most

important crop grown in Mozambique south of the River Save (Feliciano 1998), and is

characterised by its high capacity of adapting to different temperatures and soil regimes. Its

short growth cycle of about three months enables farmers to plant and harvest this crop more

than one time during a growing season. In the fields of Fenisseleni maize is often grown

37

together with beans and sweet potatoes, the latter grown on the margins around the

machamba (Picture 3). Sweet potato is very important in the lowland agricultural production

system of Fenisseleni, and there are developed local varieties particularly adapted to the

lowland environments.

Picture 3: Maize field with sweet potatoes on the margins of the

machamba.

.

Groundnuts are mainly adapted to dry sandy soils, and are therefore mostly observed in the

highlands. This crop is therefore important in the highland areas of Zongoene, but can also be

observed in Fenisseleni on certain soil types (thlavate). Groundnuts are never grown in the

lowland areas of Zongoene. Cassava is, like groundnuts, adapted to thin and sandy soils,

facilitating the development of the roots. This is therefore a typical highland crop, but is also

cultivated in the lowlands of both Fenisseleni and Zongoene, though traditionally this has not

been the case in Zongoene. Rice is exclusively grown in lowland areas, and produces well in

38

wet organic soils. This crop is relatively new locally, introduced by the Portuguese in colonial

times. The same is the case with sugarcane.

As already mentioned, which crops are grown where is highly related to the local conditions

of soil texture and humidity. Bila is the local term for clay soil, and this soil type dominates

the lowland areas in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene. This type of soil has a dark colour, and is

characterised by being slippery in the rainy season and very hard when dry (Dava 2001). Bila

is good for cultivating maize, sweet potato and different types of vegetables. Most farmers in

both Fenisseleni and Zongoene said that tsovo is the local term for permanently humid clay

soil. But according to Dava (2001), tsovo is organic soils almost like swampland, demanding

drainage for being cultivable. Before cultivation simple irrigation systems enable farmers to

inundate the tsovo fields, increasing the productivity of the soil. When managed well, this soil

type is good for the cultivation of rice, bananas, sugarcane and maize.

In the highlands we find thlava, a sandy type of soil, dominating the soil regimes here. This

type of soil is light brown coloured and has a low capacity of retaining water, but produces

well in rainy wet seasons when the soil humidity is high (Feliciano 1998). Groundnuts and

cassava are well adapted to this type of soil, but also cowpeas and maize are widely cultivated

in it.

In the rainy season, if there are heavy rains, sandy soil is washed down to the lowlands,

creating a mix between highland (thlava) and lowland (bila) soils. This type of soil is termed

thlavate, and is characterised by having a whitish colour in the dry season and a darker colour

in the rainy season, when the soil humidity is higher (Dava 2001). Crops like maize, sweet

potatoes and different types of vegetables are widely grown on these soil types, but also

typical highland crops like groundnuts and cassava can be grown. This soil type gives the

farmers in Fenisseleni the possibility also to grow these crops that are more adapted to the

highland soil regimes.

As we shall see, this spatial distribution of crops in the study area is important when we

consider the impacts of the year 2000 floods, as are the different methods of conservation that

farmers apply.

39

4.2 Storage and seed conservation (kutlhaisa)

In the following, farmers’ methods of conserving seeds in the study area will be briefly

presented. Kutlhaisa is the Shangana word for the creation and keeping of seed stocks, and

involves selection, treatment and storage of seeds for planting in the following season (Dava

2001). According to Longley & Richards (1999), between 50 and 80% of farmers worldwide

use their own planting material, which implies that the functioning of local seed systems

depends to a high degree on farmers’ abilities to retain seeds from the previous harvest. By

storing seeds for use in the next growing season, farmers are securing the following year’s

harvests and livelihoods.

Farmers in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene select seeds for planting after the harvest. Farmers’

seed preferences and selections are based on the physical characteristics like shape, colour

and size of the seeds. One farmer explained to me how he selected maize by considering the

shape and the colour of the maize ear. By considering these factors the farmer said that he

could predict what seeds would germinate when planted, and which ones would not.

Farmers’ ways of keeping seeds may be divided into physical methods, and ritual and

religious manners (Dava 2001). Keeping seeds physically involves selection, treatment and

storage of the seeds. Seeds are stored in the house or in the field, depending on the crop

characteristics. In-field conservation of seeds should not be confused with in situ conservation

of genetic resources, which is a general term of farmers’ own conservation of genetic

resources. In field conservation of seeds can therefore be seen as a part of farmers in situ

conservation of genetic resources in the study area.

4.2.1 Physical methods

Maize, beans, cowpeas, rice and groundnuts are normally kept inside the houses in containers.

Before put in containers for storage, seeds are normally dried and sometimes smoked and

treated with chemicals. Maize, cowpeas, and groundnuts may be dried in the sun or smoked

under the roof inside the house. When put in containers the seeds are often mixed with ash,

sand or gasoline.

40

Picture 4: Tsala, the traditional place to keep seeds.

Picture 5: Bottle and glass container used for the storage of seeds.

Tsala is the traditional place inside the house where farmers keep seeds. The tsala is placed

under the roof of the house (Picture 4), and then seeds can be dried, smoked, and stored. For

various reasons, this method is today decreasing in importance locally. During the war,

houses and granaries were destroyed (Covane 1996), and today, new ways of constructing

houses do not facilitate the use of tsala. Other ways of keeping seeds are in bottles and other

41

glass containers (Picture 5), sacks, and even in traditional drums (Dava 2001). Some farmers

also hang up cubs of maize on the walls, using nails or other tools like screwdrivers, to keep

them on the walls (Picture 6). Today, farmers are coming up with new methods. One farmer

showed me that she now uses plastic boxes for the storage of beans. She claimed that this kept

the seeds dry and away from insects, and other pests and diseases. What methods farmers

choose when storing seed depend on the farmers’ own preferences. One farmer who preferred

bottles said that he started using bottles instead of the tsala simply because this offered him a

better method of conserving seeds.

Picture 6: Maize stored on walls inside the house.

When storing cassava and sweet potato in field, cuttings are collected in the machamba. The

stems of the cassava and the vines of the sweet potato must be replanted shortly after harvest

(Picture 7). One farmer claimed that vines of sweet potato can be buried into the soil and

stored there for about a month, which suggests that the methods applied when storing cassava

and sweet potato in field are not uniform, but vary between different households (Dava 2001).

42

Picture 7: Woman planting stems of cassava in the field.

4.2.2 Taboos and rituals

The physical conservation of seeds is often combined with rituals and ceremonies, and there

are taboos related to who is allowed to touch the seeds while stored (Dava 2001). Stored seeds

have traditionally been kept away from sexually active people. The only persons who are

allowed to touch the seeds are sexually non-active persons, like children and elders. Like one

woman in Zongoene said: “The blood of the persons having sex is too hot, and it may destroy

the seeds”. On the other hand, sexually active people are allowed to plant seeds, which is even

looked upon as facilitating the germination of the seeds, giving the seeds vigour and strength

in the germination process. Most farmers in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene said that today

this tradition is not very much in use, and there are nowadays normally no restrictions on who

is allowed to touch the seeds before planting. Still, some elder women said that it is of crucial

importance to keep the seeds away from sexually active people if one is to expect a good

harvest. Other rituals in relation to the storage of seed are related to the general protection of

43

seeds (khoholo); the prevention of insect attacks (mpfunfanye); to avoid misfortune from the

ancestors (kulumela); or asking for rain in the growing season (mbelelo) (Dava 2001)5.

As we can see, all methods applied in the conservation of seeds are related to the risk and

avoidance of pests and diseases, and other factors that can cause misfortune to and destruction

of the seed stock. Still, there are certain risks and misfortunes that are not easily avoided

through the traditional seed conservation practices. In times of droughts, many farmers are

often forced to eat their seed stocks as a substitution for grains and other food assets when

harvests have failed. The Xai-Xai District was also hard struck by several years of civil war

that almost led to a collapse in the agricultural production (Covane 1996). This, even though

it is difficult to investigate today, most probably led to the extinction of several local varieties.

In addition, the farmers living on the floodplains of Limpopo live under the risk of floods that

can physically wipe out all or most of the lowland seed resources, last seen during the floods

in the year 2000.

In the next section I will consider the impacts this devastating hazard had on the local seed

system of Fenisseleni and Zongoene respectively, and look more specifically on how the

spatial distribution of crops and varieties and farmers’ different methods of storing seeds were

decisive for the flood impacts.

4.3 The impacts of the year 2000 floods

Due to the rapid onset of the year 2000 floods and absence of effective alert systems, the

hazard came as a surprise to all the people living in the Limpopo Valley. People were not

prepared for a flood of this scale and magnitude, and many were therefore not able to escape

from their homes and rescue the on-farm assets. Resources like cattle, food, seeds, and houses

were washed to the sea by the great and strong masses of water. In addition, the timing of the

flood was the worst thinkable. The flood struck right before harvest time, and lasted for about

three months (from February to May 2000). The timing, long period and the magnitude of the

floods caused a wipe-out of all lowland resources. Even though the scale of the floods was

bigger than people living in the area had ever experienced before, the floods were naturally

5 See Fernando Dava (2001) for a more thorough examination of the ritual practices related to the conservation of seeds.

44

delimited to the lowland areas, and most people were therefore able to escape to the highland

areas, where many of them had family and friends. Thus, the impacts of the floods on the FSS

in the two villages were quite different. In Fenisseleni, all seed resources were lost because of

its position on the floodplains, while in Zongoene, only the seed resources on the floodplains

were lost, and all the seeds farmers kept in the highlands were safe from the floodwater.

4.3.1 Fenisseleni

In Fenisseleni, both seeds stored in houses and in the fields were lost, which resulted in a total

collapse of the seed stocks here.6 Typical lowland crops like rice and sugarcane were almost

extinct from the whole area, and local varieties of particularly sweet potato and bananas were

lost. According to Dava (2001), about 12 local varieties of sweet potato were totally extinct in

Fenisseleni. Farmers are today cultivating varieties of sweet potato that are adapted to

highland conditions. These varieties are not producing as well as the old varieties that were

adapted to the particular lowland environments. Other typical lowland crops and varieties like

rice, sugarcane and bananas, were also lost in the devastating floods. Both rice and sugarcane

were introduced to the area in colonial times, and originates from introduced commercial seed

material, and there is therefore a high probability that these landraces can be rehabilitated in

the near future (Berg 2000). Farmers in at least Zongoene, already today cultivate their old

landraces of rice, which suggests that farmers are on their way to succeeding in the

rehabilitation of their rice seed stocks.

4.3.2 Zongoene

In Zongoene only seeds stored in the lowland fields were lost, and farmers still had left what

was stored in the houses and in the highland fields. Still, the timing of the floods, right before

harvest time, meant that farmers lost most of their lowland planting material, especially

planting material stored in field (i.e. sweet potato). But generally, compared to the farmers in

Fenisseleni, farmers in Zongoene were left in a much better situation after the floods. Farmers

in Zongoene did not have big problems in obtaining seeds after the floods, which is explained

6 Still, I talked with a farmer who said that she found some seeds of m’tsave, which is a type of lettuce, in the fields she was preparing for cultivation when she had returned after the floods.

45

by the fact that they do not only cultivate in the lowlands. In times of droughts farmers in

Zongoene get seeds from the lowlands to plant in the highlands, and in times of flooding seed

is transferred from the highlands to the lowlands (Dava 2001). This is a part of farmers’ own

strategies for coping with stress in the agricultural production system of Zongoene.

4.4 Farmers’ adaptive strategies

Floods and droughts are not new phenomena in the Xai-Xai District, and farmers in the

southern parts of Mozambique have developed strategies for coping with risks and disasters

(Feliciano 1998, Newitt 1995). In times of droughts, mangoes, which are very drought

resistant, are boiled and used as a part of the drought diet. In addition, in times of droughts

when subsistence needs have been hard to fulfil, fishing has been an important protein source

(Feliciano 1998). Normal strategies in times of flooding have been to evacuate and dislocate

to the highlands, and farmers have even developed technologies that enable them to survive

weeks and even months in top of trees (Covane 1996).

According to Olga F. Linares, in the situation of climatic uncertainty and ecological stress,

“… the timely organisation and management of agricultural labour becomes crucial” (1997:

41). Farmers in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene have to mobilise labour and seed resources

immediately after the start of the rain season. Different ways of sharing labour and co-

operating in this period have developed. Mapfunana is the Changana word for helping each

other, and cofunana the word for co-operation. This form of co-operation can be performed

by one farmer helping another farmer one day, and vice versa another day. This is a bit

different from tsima, which is like a social gathering where farmers are exchanging labour for

local beer or a meal immediately after the work is finished. In this way farmers are able to

mobilise extra labour in critical periods like for example cultivation and harvesting.

Through the cultivation of crops and landraces that are drought resistant and adapted to the

local soil conditions, farmers respond positively to their variable physical environments.

Farmers’ methods of selection, treatment and storage of seeds secure farmers’ livelihood

against risk factors like pests and diseases, and to a certain degree droughts. But still, the year

2000 floods showed clearly that these processes are not sufficient in the conservation of the

local seed stocks. Still, in my fieldwork I discovered that, despite all the difficulties farmers

46

have had to face related to the destructive floods, even farmers in the hard struck village of

Fenisseleni have reconstructed their lowland agricultural production. This has occurred

despite the fact that there have been no extensive seed rehabilitation programs by any relief

agencies aiming at reconstructing the farmers’ seed resources. It is quite obvious that the

farmers in Fenisseleni have applied external sources and informal networks of seed exchange

to rehabilitate their seed stocks, and replaced their old seed stocks with external seeds.

Farmers know about external seed sources, and they know where to go to get seeds in times of

crisis. In Zongoene there is no farmer who does not know about other regions (like Ngowine)

as sources of drought resistant cultivars (Dava 2001).

4.5 Concluding remarks

In this chapter we have seen that both cropping patterns and farmers’ different methods of

seed conservation influenced the impact of the year 2000 floods. Through coping strategies

farmers have been able to reconstruct their seed stocks in the post-disaster situation. By using

external formal and informal sources, farmers have to a large degree been able to reconstruct

their seed stocks in the post-flood situation. What we need to question is how farmers create

networks and relations through which they can exchange seeds, and who are able to use these

networks when mobilising new seed resources? To what degree farmers have the possibility

to mobilise seed resources through informal networks of seed exchange is highly dependent

on the different household members’ access to multiplex networks of seed exchange and

economic capital. Those households who have both access to complex informal seed channels

and have the economic means to buy seeds from markets or shops are more able to

rehabilitate their seed stocks. This will be investigated more thoroughly in Chapter 6 and 7.

In the next chapter I indicate, by presenting three concrete examples, the rate of turnover in

the local seed systems in the study area, and how farmers have responded to external

influences of colonialism, markets, and natural climatic fluctuations.

47

5.0 Temporal composition of crops and varieties

In this chapter I consider the turnover in the composition of crops and varieties by presenting

three examples. This can both tell us something about farmer’s changing needs and strategies

over time, and how disasters and structural changes historically have influenced the local seed

system. My considerations are based on historical records and farmers’ own memories of the

composition of crops and varieties, and the varieties are referred to by the local names used

by the farmers themselves (Table 1).

Local names of varieties are often descriptive or geographic. As an example, the local name

of the maize variety Chimoio refers to the place where the variety once came from. Some

farmers claimed that the variety got its name because Chimoio was the place where one

farmer once upon a time went to get the variety. This particular variety’s name illustrates that

local varieties have an origin and history, and ca be said to have a social life. It also shows the

problem of delimiting a variety to one particular area, and indicates that one geographical

appropriate scale over which we can define a variety as local is problematic (Louette 2000).

This variety most probably did not have the name Chimoio when it left Chimoio, and this

therefore also shows that in the process of acquiring seed, original names of varieties can

disappear and change, and the varieties can get new names with different meanings (ibid).

The general turnover of composition in crop varieties locally is indicated in Table 1, and

shows both the present and lost varieties. Farmers themselves voluntarily reject some

varieties, while other varieties are lost due to natural disasters, pests and diseases. In the

following section I will present three historical examples of how farmers in the area have

rejected and adopted new crops and varieties, and how this is related to changing terms of

agricultural production due to colonisation, new market opportunities, climatic fluctuations,

and farmers’ own changed preferences. The first example presented is rice, sugarcane and

cotton, which are introduced “colonial crops”. This example shows how farmers critically

adopted and incorporated these new crops in their local production system. The second

example is groundnut production, which today is dominated by two varieties that were not

present in the local production system only 30-40 years ago. Finally, cassava represents an

example where traditional varieties are grown together with newly introduced varieties. All

48

the examples illustrate that farmers’ use and preferences of crops and varieties are not static

but change over time.

Table 1: Local names of both present and lost varieties of rice, groundnuts and cassava.7

Crops Rice Groundnuts Cassava

Present

varieties

Chibissa - most normal, and preferred variety. Red looking.

China - white looking variety.

Faia

Riquissoni

Xigongondzuane - small sized. Produces well, grows fast, and is good for cooking.

Ntxuxhululu - variety that produces best in the highlands.

Munhassa - produces well and is good for cooking.

Gangasole - means “love of doubt” in Shangana. Drought resistant and grows slowly. Diocese - refers to “church” in Portuguese. The most frequently observed variety in Zongoene. New locally. Produces well, but is not preferred in traditional cooking.

Chukelane

Lost

varieties

Nsatinculo8 - means “big woman” (or “first wife”) in Shangana. Big sized. Mkuko - big sized variety that did not produce well.

Murada

Mutusu

Mwamtamebane

Tsaninama

Mavafurumela

Xsibasa

Muatsusane

Navalajare

7 Mainly based on information collected in Zongoene in the period 22.11. – 29.11.2001. 8 Nsatinculo is also the name of a local variety of cowpeas, and indicates that the same names can be used for different varieties. Same varieties may even be given different names in different villages and households.

49

5.1 “Colonial crops”

The production of cotton and rice started in 1943 and 1950 respectively (Covane 1996), and

was introduced by the colonial government of Portugal. The introduction was related to the

colonial dream of transforming the Limpopo Valley to the “granary of the colony” (ibid). The

consequences for the farming production were dramatic, because farmers were forced to

switch from subsistence farming to production for a commercial market. Rice was quite easily

integrated into the farming system, because rice also had value as food in the household. In

contrast, farmers widely resisted the production of cotton because it did not have any value

for the food security of the household. Stories are told about farmers’ resistance, boiling the

seeds making them unable to germinate, and afterwards claiming that the soils were not

appropriate for the production of cotton (Covane 1996). Still, some women used the new

income opportunities as a means of liberating themselves from the men, by being able to pay

back the bride-wealth (o lobolo) in the case of a crisis in the marriage (ibid). This, in

combination of men’s migration to South Africa working in the mines, has changed women’s

position in the society, and has in turn caused major changes in the agricultural production in

both Fenisseleni and Zongoene. According to Melissa Leach, “… major shifts in farming

patterns are best explained by the social and gender dynamics of resource use in an evolving

economic context” (1997: 137), which is well illustrated by these shifts in agriculture in the

study area.

Today cotton is not cultivated in large scale neither in Fenisseleni nor in Zongoene.

Particularly in periods of low food security, no farmers cultivate cotton. Rice is produced

according to type of soil. Tsovo, which is organic, humid soil, is the best soil type for the

production of rice, while lowland clay soil (bila) is useable but not preferred for this

cultivation. Farmers who do not have these types of soil do not cultivate rice. This shows that

farmers have adapted the production of rice to the local environment, a production that is now

integrated in a local knowledge system.

Even though the forced production of rice and cotton had its negative impacts on the

agriculture in the area, in the new situation farmers were not just passive recipients of a

foreign production system, but also actively adapting to the external influences for their own

advantage. Today crops introduced by the colonial government are grown in and are an

important part of the local agricultural production system.

50

5.2 Groundnuts

Groundnuts are particularly important in the agricultural production system of Zongoene,

where farmers have fields both in the highlands and lowlands. Groundnuts produce best in,

and are well adapted to the highland soils that are sandy and have a more loose structure,

which makes the production more manageable. The clay soils of the lowland areas in

Fenisseleni and Zongoene, are not preferred for the production of groundnuts because this

type of soil is too compacted, and hard to penetrate by the root systems of the groundnuts.

The two varieties Nsatinculo (meaning “mother” or “first wife” in Shangana) and Mkuku are

both traditional varieties of groundnuts. Almost all farmers I was in contact with said that

these varieties are not preferred anymore because they now have the Xigongondzuane and

Ntxutxhululo varieties. These last mentioned varieties are small in size, and introduced to the

area during the past 30-40 years. They can therefore now be considered a local landrace

adapted to the local environments. No farmers were able to tell me exactly where these new

varieties originally came from, only that they were introduced by some farmers who had

visited other areas to find new groundnut planting material.

It is the Xigongondzuane variety that now is preferred and dominating the agricultural

production in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene. Farmers gave me several reasons for why they

now plant this variety, but the most important one is probably the fact that these new small

sized groundnuts do not spread in the ground like the old varieties. This makes harvesting

more easy because farmers do not have to search the soil to find the pods as with the old

varieties. In addition farmers told me that the Xigongondzuane produce more and has better

qualities for cooking.

Farmers’ changed practices regarding the groundnut production are not only related to a more

easy process of cultivation and an increased production, but can also be seen in relation to

new possibilities in the market. Groundnuts are widely sold at local markets, both within the

villages and in Xai-Xai, and sales of groundnuts are a source of extra income for some

farmers. I was told by some farmers that the old varieties of groundnuts produce more oil, and

they were therefore better for the preparation of some traditional dishes like Matapa, but most

farmers do today not give priority to this quality. The old varieties do therefore not exist or

are at least rare in the local agricultural production systems in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene.

51

The production and composition in groundnut varieties have changed over time according to

changed terms of production, and farmers’ new possibilities and needs. The new varieties

gave the farmer the possibility to increase their production and adapt the production of

groundnuts to new market possibilities.

5.3 Cassava

There are several varieties of cassava grown in the area (Table 1), especially in Zongoene,

where the highland sandy soils are suitable for this crop. The three varieties Munhassa,

Diocese, and Gangasole are today the most frequently observed varieties of cassava both in

Fenisseleni and Zongoene. Still, only Munhassa and Gangasole can be considered true local

varieties. The high rate of turnover and loss of local cassava varieties indicated in

Table 1 can be explained by environmental stress factors, droughts being the most important

one. Like one farmer said: “That is what happens. We lose varieties in droughts, and

afterwards we are provided with other, new varieties”.

Diocese is an exotic variety introduced in the area by the Catholic Church (which also

explains the local name of this variety) during the past 5-10 years. Still, this variety is the

most frequently observed variety in the fields of Zongoene. Munhassa is also a relatively new

variety locally, and farmers in both Fenisseleni and Zongoene claimed that this is the

preferred variety of cassava because of its good taste and supreme qualities for cooking. I was

told that most farmers in Zongoene abandoned the production of the old varieties

Mavafurumela, Mutusu, and Matula when they discovered the supreme qualities of the

Munhassa. The Diocese variety does not have these good qualities, some farmers claiming it

to be too harsh to be considered good for cooking. The most important factors explaining why

Diocese is the dominating variety in the production system today is its high growth rate and

high production. In addition there are reports of problems with diseases on the Munhassa

variety, possibly explaining why farmers are putting more weight in the production of the

Diocese.

Gangasole (meaning “love of doubt” in Shangana) is among the oldest local varieties of

cassava, and is a variety that is easy to distinguish from the other varieties in the field because

52

of its tall aboveground branches. It is a slowly growing variety with a high drought tolerance,

explaining its importance in the local production system. This variety is complementary to the

other varieties, and is important in dry periods when other non-drought tolerant varieties are

not producing well.

Cassava is not like groundnuts an important cash crop, but mostly for own consumption. The

high rate of turnover in the landraces of cassava is not that much related to new market

possibilities, but more to environmental stress and the qualities of the varieties regarding

growth rate, drought resistance and cooking qualities. The pattern of production does not only

change in time but also in space. The farmers themselves are not able to explain the new

practice of cultivating cassava in the lowlands in Zongoene. Sperling’s (1997) example from

Rwanda, where farmers in the situation of war put more weight on the production of staple

crops (beans) rather than commercial crops (potatoes), might be relevant in the understanding

of lowland production of cassava in Zongoene. The thlavate areas in the lowlands of

Zongoene have traditionally been used for production of some commercial crops like

tomatoes and different types of lettuce. The production of cassava in the lowlands might be

related to needs and priorities of food crops, cassava being one of the most important food

crops in the region. It still remains to see in a stable situation of high production over several

years, whether this crop is abandoned in the lowland fields or continuedly cultivated here. The

knowledge of cultivating this crop is not new because in places like Fenisseleni, where there

is only cultivation in lowland fields, this crop has been cultivated on thlavate soil for

generations. There are therefore reasons to believe that the cultivation of cassava in the

lowland fields of Zongoene is not an innovation, but a normal response to loss of lowland

planting material, which was severe during the year 2000 flood.

5.4 Changing FSS; why to be perceived as dynamic?

The examples presented above illustrate the dynamics of the FSS in the area, and how farmers

are responding to changed terms of production. Factors like environmental stress, new income

opportunities, and possibilities of a higher production are among the most important factors.

Production of cassava in the lowlands of Zongoene may indicate short-term changes in

production due to climatic variability and lack of appropriate lowland planting material. It is

53

possible to state that the FSS in the study sites are not static in time and space, but dynamic

responding to changed internal and external terms of production.

However, except from stating that the colonial state and the Catholic Church have been agents

of introducing new crops and varieties into the area, we are not yet in a position to explain

how the FSS is changing and who are the local agents of introducing new planting material.

Introduction of new crop types and crop varieties implies that farmers are actively seeking out

of their own village (Longley 2000), since the only external agents responsible for introducing

new planting material are governments and aid agencies. The channels through which farmers

can acquire new planting material, will be presented and examined more thoroughly in the

next chapter.

54

6.0 Seed acquisition and seed flow

The seed flow between different areas and regions is not well understood without a proper

perception of how farmers acquire seed resources in times of low local availability. Farmers

in the study area provide each other with seeds and other items of value (like food) in crisis

situations. This is done according to cultural principles of mutual help and solidarity between

persons that have special social relationships (like family and friends). In this chapter I

present the different ways of acquiring seeds, and I briefly consider the relative importance of

the different methods.

I particularly consider the importance of social relationships and networks as channels for

seeds and seed diffusion; how people are able to create these relationships and actively use

them in times of crisis reflect people’s social capital. This can be used strategically to

mobilise seed resources in times of low availability locally. I here particularly consider the

importance of marriage and affinal relations9 in the processes of acquiring seeds, and how

these are of crucial importance in times of a crisis. Social actors are not passive recipients of

external influence, but “… active recipients who process information and strategies in their

dealings with various local actors as well as with outside institutions and personnel” (Long

2001: 13).

In addition I briefly look at the impact of money and market economy on social relationships

and networks, and how this has had an influence on the traditional channels of seed

acquisition, and on principles of help and solidarity in times of crisis. For both Marx and

Simmel, money was perceived to promote the growth of individualism and destruction of

solidary communities (Bloch and Parry 1989). According to Keith Hart (2000), the

monetarisation of traditional cultures has normally been perceived as a process of subversion,

and money is often portrayed as a lifeless object separated from persons, while it is in fact,

like art, subjective. Money enters people’s lifeworlds, and its role and function is determined

by and integrated in cultures. In the last part of this chapter I argue that money and

commercial markets are complementary to and even integrated into the traditional channels of

seed acquisition, and can in some cases increase the on-farm genetic diversity. This is not to

9 Affinal relations refer to relationships that are based on marriage links.

55

argue against market economy creating social differences and vulnerabilities, “… but rather to

argue against a monolithic conception of ‘the market’” (Pottier 1999: 109).

6.1 Seed acquisition

In this section I will present different ways of acquiring seeds, and consider the relative

importance of the different manners. It is important to bear in mind that all of the processes

mentioned below are general processes when obtaining resources, and not exclusively meant

for the acquisition of seeds.

As already mentioned in Chapter 4, in years of normal availability of seed resources locally,

most farmers provide themselves with seeds saved from the previous season. The exceptions

here are farmers who are not able to store seeds from their own yields because they are not

producing enough to have a surplus for seed storage. These farmers are chronically in need of

obtaining seed resources from external sources. In addition some more wealthy farmers buy

seeds in shops in Xai-Xai or even in Maputo, to increase yields and the on-farm crop

diversity, even in times of abundance, when their own machambas are producing well.

In times when there is lack of seed resources locally (e.g. after the floods in the year 2000),

farmers to a high degree acquire seed from sources outside of the village. Lack of seed

resources locally is normally caused by external factors like droughts and floods, but during

the past decades war activity has also been a destructive factor for the agriculture in the

province (Covane 1996). In times of lack of seed resources locally, geographical differences

in resource availability is a determinant factor for how and if farmers in the area are able to

recover from the crisis, and rebuild their seed stocks. Travelling to distant areas offers farmers

opportunities to access new seed resources, and has been a normal and traditional way for

farmers to cope with situations of scarcity (Covane 1996).

According to Longley & Richards (1999), there are three main ways to acquire seed: 1) by

saving from the previous harvest; 2) as loans, gifts or other forms of reciprocal assistance; and

3) by purchasing through markets or localised trade networks. In the study area there is a

multitude of manners for acquiring seed material, and it is not easy to fit all of them into a

classification of this kind. Social relationships and networks of seed exchange are crucial in

56

the rehabilitation of seed stocks in the study area. Following the argument to Sahlins (1972:

186-230), the relationship between social relations and material flow is reciprocity, a term

that can be valuable for the following presentation of the different ways in which farmers

acquire seeds. According to Sahlins, reciprocity involves a whole class of exchanges, ranging

from the pure gift to self-interested seizure. The expectation of returns says something about

the spirit of exchange (disinterest vs. self-interest). A generalised reciprocity is the solidary,

altruistic extreme of exchange. Here the material side of the transaction is repressed by the

social, and the expectation of reciprocity is indefinite. A sustained one-way flow is a good

and pragmatic indication of generalised reciprocity (Sahlins 1972). A balanced reciprocity is

in between a generalised disinterested exchange and a self-interested seizure. This type of

transaction is less personal than generalised reciprocity. Here the material side of transaction

is at least as critical as the social.

It is notable of the main run of generalized reciprocities that the material flow is sustained by prevailing social relations; whereas, for the main run of balanced exchange, social relations hinge on the material flow (Sahlins 1972: 195).

There is a relationship between closeness in kinship, distance in space, and mode of

exchange. Reciprocity is inclined toward the generalized pole by close kinship, and toward

the negative side in proportion of kinship distance (Sahlins 1972). The same can be said about

the spatial factor. Relatives who live close together are more likely to have a relationship

where general reciprocity dominates transactions of objects.

In the following I start by presenting acquisition of seeds by means of money through

markets, shops, and other farmers, and go on to describing different ways farmers can acquire

seeds through social relations and by working on other farmers’ fields.

6.1.1 Different ways of acquiring seeds

Buying is termed kuxava in Shangana, and is an important way for farmers to acquire seeds

(Table 2: 61). Farmers can buy seeds from other farmers locally or in local markets, or they

can buy in shops in urban areas. Some more wealthy farmers, who have the money and the

capacity to travel outside of the village, normally practice the latter alternative. One farmer I

was in contact with, regularly went to Maputo buying exotic varieties of beans, and she

57

showed us seven different varieties of beans (Picture 8) that she grows in her machamba. This

farmer was from Maputo, but was married to a man from Fenisseleni. Therefore they often

travel to Maputo to visit her family, and when they are there they often buy seeds to bring

back to Fenisseleni. On their farm in Fenisseleni they produce a lot of different types of

vegetables, beans, pepper, etc. for selling, and they like to experiment and try new crops and

varieties in the machamba.

Picture 8: Farmer showing seven different varieties of beans.

Acquiring seeds on loan is locally termed kulomba. Many farmers said that in these days this

is not an easy way of acquiring seeds because of people’s dishonesty. Many farmers do not

return what they have borrowed, resulting in reluctance to lend each other seeds. Some

farmers said that for this reason they only want to give seeds on loan to relatives, since

relatives are the only ones you can trust. This contrasts with what was found in a study in

north-western Sierra Leone. Here it was claimed that farmers are generally reluctant to give

seeds on loan to family members because it is unlikely that the loan will ever be paid back

due to the familiarity of the relationship (Longley 2000). This might be explained by the

degree of generality in transactions between close family members, where the social side of

the transaction is important, and the expectation of return is indefinite (Sahlins 1972).

58

Kutxintxana is the Shangana word for exchange of objects. This can be done by farmers

bringing objects that they know are in scarcity in another household, village or area, and

exchange these objects for the seeds they are in need of. This comes close to what we have

termed a balanced form of reciprocity, where what is given is compensated for in the

immediate context of the transaction. Here the material side of the transaction is more critical

than the social side.

On the other hand kunhiquiva is to be provided with a gift, being most close to what Mauss

has termed the “pure gift” in archaic societies. According to Mauss (1954) the exchange of

gifts implies duties of giving and duties of receiving the gift. The gift is an expression of

reciprocity, and involves moral, social, religious, and economic aspects. The exchange of gift

is a total performance (préstation totale), and tells us something about the identity of the giver

and the social relationship between the giver and the receiver. According to Igor Kopytoff

(1986: 69) “… gifts are given to evoke an obligation to give back a gift, which in turn will

evoke a similar obligation – a never-ending chain of gifts and obligations”, contrasting the

impersonal and non-obligatory exchange of commodities where the counterpart has an

equivalent value to give back in the immediate context. Gifts can therefore be seen as a more

generalised form of reciprocity, though this will vary according to the persons involved in the

transaction. As we shall see later, in the local communities of the study area, gifts are

presented and exchanged when creating social relationships, and are used for the maintenance

of these.

Two other processes of acquiring seeds that are important are kuthekela and kukombela.

Kuthekela means to ask for something from someone else. It differentiates itself from

kukombela by that in kuthekela something is expected in return, while in kukombela it is not.

Kukombela covers what we in the west term “begging”, and is also the Shangana word used

for this. But, while begging, in the “Western” perception of it, is socially abnormal and

unacceptable in friendship and family relationships, kukombela is a socially accepted way of

acquiring seeds, money, and other objects in times of crisis. Kukombela can be considered a

generalised form of reciprocity, where the social side of the transaction is considered more

important than the material side of it.

It is difficult to give an exact and short definition of what kuthekela is, except for being a

process of acquiring objects by asking relatives and friends in distant areas in times of low

59

availability (Covane 1996). Like one informant told me: ”Kuthekela is a lot of things. It is like

a process and a ritual”. Kuthekela seems to be more like an interest rather than an exact way

of obtaining objects. According to my data, kuthekela is not exclusively performed with

people living in distant areas, but can also be performed between family and friends within

the local community. What we call favours is a process somewhat similar to the process of

kuthekela, and it might be relevant to compare kuthekela with this. Favours are normally

asked from persons we have a particularly good relationship with. In addition, the

relationships through which we ask favours are normally strengthened when using them, and

the size of the favours are normally scaled according to the closeness and familiarity in the

relationship. We normally do not ask distant friends for an interest free loan, while we in

certain situations can do this with close family members.

The process of kuthekela is the principal mechanism that secures a circulation of resources

between different ecological zones (Feliciano 1998), and will be described more thoroughly

later in this chapter, when I discuss the importance of performing kuthekela through marriage

and friendship relations.

Kurimela is seasonal short-term work for other households to obtain certain objects. This is a

very common and easy process of acquiring seeds, and can be performed within the village, in

neighbouring areas or in more distant areas. If a farmer needs seeds, food or other items, he or

she may offer his or her labour in exchange for what is needed. For some people this was

traditionally only practised in times of crisis, like when there were droughts or floods. This

practice seemed to increase in the 1940s and 1950s as a result of class formation in the

population, possibly a result of colonialism. At the same time there were an increasing

number of poor landless people who depended less on traditional family ties, but rather on

access to rural work, and more prosperous peasants depending on the access to poor landless

people (Covane 1996). Today, the entrance of market economy and money are threatening the

existence of this practice (Dava 2001). But according to many farmers in both Fenisseleni and

Zongoene, doing work on the fields for other farmers to obtain money or objects like seeds is

perceived to be an easy process because it, most often, involves a type of work that people are

familiar with.

60

6.1.2 The relative importance of the different methods

When representing data on the relative importance of the different ways of acquiring seeds,

some methodological problems appear. Data on how farmers acquired seed after the floods in

the year 2000 (Table 2) can tell us something about the relative importance of the different

ways of acquiring seed (Dava 2001), but it is important to bear in mind farmers’ strategic

responses to questions of this kind. When analysing such data it is important to consider our

role as researchers and how we are perceived in the local context, which is well illustrated

through the process that I went through during my fieldwork period (See Chapter 3).

Table 2: Different ways of acquiring seeds in Fenisseleni and Zongoene after the year 2000

flood.

_______________________________________________________________________

Forms of acquisition No. of respondents (N=123) Percentage (%) ___________________________________________________________________________ Kuxava 59 47,9 Conservation10 10 8,1 Family help 9 7,3 Donations11 9 7,3 Governmental help 7 5,7 Kurimela 5 4,0 “Casa agrária”12 5 4,0 Help from neighbours 5 4,0 Kuthekela 3 2,4 Exchange of other products 2 1,6 ___________________________________________________________________________ (Source: Dava 2001: 22)

Although buying seed has increased in importance, there are reasons to believe that buying

seeds was of less importance for farmers in their reconstruction of seed stocks after the floods,

than expressed in Table 2. First, many kinds of seeds, especially seeds stored in the fields like

sweet potato and cassava, are not sold even in local markets. Second, general high prices on

all goods due to scarcity and inflation, was one of the effects of the large scale floods that

10 This is probably most relevant for the farmers in Zongoene since they were the only farmers in the two villages who had their houses and highland fields intact after the flood. 11 This refers to assistance from aid organisations (e.g. World Vision, Save the Children, and World Food Program). 12 This used to be a government facility where farmers can receive agricultural inputs (like seeds, tools, etc.), a system that is not very much in use today.

61

struck the area in the period from February to May in the year 2000. Seeds were no

exceptions to this. Third, the floods destroyed all lowland markets and commercial shops in

Xai-Xai, and seeds from markets were therefore not easily accessible in lowland areas.

Fourth, poor farmers with no regular income are normally not in a position to buy seeds

regularly from local markets or in shops, and the critical situation that prevailed for some time

after the floods, probably did not make the situation better for this group of farmers. Fifth,

highland areas where the only areas that were left relatively unaffected by the destructive

water, and probably one of the few secure sources of seed material. And finally, the tradition

of helping and sharing in times of crisis is not a tradition out of date, but still alive and

performed regularly amongst the farmers. In addition, money has today a central position in

the process of kuthekela, and is frequently transacted in this process. This can be confusing

for people from the outside, but also for locals people themselves. People are often referring

to the same transaction as kuxava and kuthekela, meaning that the person with whom they

performed kuthekela needed money in return, or vice versa.

Although it is difficult to state the relative importance of these traditional processes of

kuthekela and kukombela, they are expressing cultural values that are important in times when

there is a lack of resources locally, and are therefore important factors for the seed flow

between different areas. In the following I will particularly consider the process(es) of

kuthekela, and the importance of creating social relationships for the performance of this. The

reason why I am giving priority to this process of acquiring seed resources is simply that it is

culturally significant, and as we shall see, difficult to differentiate from many of the other

ways of acquiring seeds. Kuthekela can be performed by kurimela, kutxintxana, kunhiquiva,

and even kuxava, and kuthekela is therefore of importance when understanding all these other

processes as well.

In principle, kuthekela can be performed between any persons, but there are certain social

relationships that seem to encourage this way of obtaining objects. First, kuthekela between

persons who are in family relationships is very common. Doing kuthekela with members of

the family is the easiest way of doing kuthekela, because “you don’t need to feel any kind of

embarrassment when you go asking for something that you need” (farmer in Zongoene).

Secondly, friends are also important persons with whom you can perform kuthekela. Doing

kuthekela or kukombela with people you have a social relationship is a more easy process,

62

because people do not have to feel embarrassed or shy when visiting these persons asking for

seeds.

6.2 Creation of social relationships (kuthekela ushaka)

People are regularly making friendship relations with persons from both inside the village and

in more distant areas, and a marriage between two persons is at the same time an alliance

between two families. There is a need for a thorough understanding of these processes of

creating social relationships, and how they are important in the performance of kuthekela and

kukombela when acquiring seed resources. For the simplification of it, I will in the following

term both kuthekela and kukombela as kuthekela, because they are similar processes

performed through the same relationships. Both are based on the principle that when one

person is in need the counterpart, when requested, is supposed to share what he or she has.

The only difference is that when doing kukombela, the person asking does not have anything

to contribute with and is not expected to give anything in return.

Having distant allies who could be turned to in times when a subsistence crisis strikes one’s

own area has traditionally been a much used strategy among the rural population (Covane

1996). By creating social relationships through marriage and friendship, such alliances are

created. Kuthekela ushaka in Shangana means to create a familiarity with someone, that being

between persons or families. When two persons create a friendship, or when two families get

connected through the marriage between two members of the respective families, it is said

that they have done kuthekela ushaka (created a familiarity). The apparent lingual relationship

between kuthekela and kuthekela ushaka might be more than a lingual one. In the same way

as people are asking for objects in times of scarcity, people are asking for each others

friendship or marriage.

6.2.1 Making friendship

Ukhossi is the name of friendship between women, and ungano is the similar relationship

between men. ”An ungano (friend) is one who knows your secrets, and whom you will trust

and help when the person needs it” (farmer in Fenisseleni). In old times friendship was often

63

created on inter-community dancing festivals, where people from different communities met

to compete in dancing and singing. If a girl was impressed by the way another girl was

dancing, singing or behaving, she would approach her, and offer small gifts and ask her to

accept friendship. In addition, meeting on the bus, in the shops, or at the wells, offer other

possibilities of meeting new people and creating friendship. Men often create friendships

when they migrate to South Africa, working in the mines. In this way people from distant

areas are connected, and these friends can be called on when food and other resources are in

short supply as a result of droughts or floods (Covane 1996). Both ukhossis and unganos are

expected to help in the event of calamity, when there are no resources available locally (ibid).

As we can see here, by asking for friendship and offering gifts social capital is created, and

people are creating social networks of security through which resources can be mobilised in

times of crisis.

According to Sahlins (1972), in the beginning, friendship transactions are normally balanced,

but may well become more sociable over time and take a more general form. Sometimes a

friendship relationship between parents can lead to a marriage between their children,

confirming and strengthening the relationship between the two families. After a person has for

instance been working in the fields of a household in another area, there might have become a

familiarity, and they may become friends. In the long run, the children of the two families

might even get married, and the familiarity between them gets even stronger.

6.2.2 Marriage

How to regard marriage as a cultural institution has been described by both “descent

theorists” (represented by e.g. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown) and “alliance theorists” (here

represented by Claude Levi-Strauss). Simply speaking, “descent theorists” looked upon

marriage as a prohibition against marrying within your own group or lineage, often referred to

as the incest prohibition. On the other hand Claude Levi-Strauss presented the “alliance

theory” that explained marriage outside the group as a stabilising obligatory act (Smedal

2000)13. My interpretations of marriage in relation to its importance for seed acquisition are

13 Levi-Strauss has been criticised for his language use, where concepts like “exchange of women” and “wife givers” and “receivers” are central (Smedal 2000). First, it is wrong to say that the “whole” woman is exchanged, because normally some rights and duties are maintained within the group she was born. Second, women are not

64

very much influenced by the “alliance theories”. In this thesis, I will consider marriage as a

way of establishing social relationships with people in distant areas. According to Malin

Newitt (1996), marriage in Southern Mozambique has been a stabilising factor in times of

conflicts and calamities. Traditionally, through marriage relationships there existed an intense

movement of food and drinks, visits, and diverse ritual acts (Feliciano 1998). A recent study

made by Longley (2000) in north-western Sierra Leone, shows that the geographical patterns

of marriage also map the ways along which seed varieties travel.

Because of their productive and reproductive values, the woman traditionally had the status as

capital, comparable with cattle, and people often referred to women as money (Rita-Ferreira

1986, Covane 1996). This view is not anymore considered to be politically correct, and after

the de-colonisation the new government of Frelimo encouraged women to take a full part of

society on an equal basis with men (Newitt 1996). What was considered buying and selling of

women was therefore strongly discouraged by the new government, and this, in combination

with the already mentioned women’s economic liberation from their husbands due to new

market possibilities and men’s migration, have led to an erosion of the traditional practice of

lobolo.

Lobolo14 is the act where the family of the man offers things of value to the family of the

woman he is requesting, and it is an important act in the process of a marriage (Longa 1990).

According to Covane (1996) the lobolo is not only a contract of marriage between two people,

but also more like a social matter between two families. What things to offer in the act of

lobolo have changed over time. Progressively hoes were substituted by cattle due to Nguni

influences, while money and introduction of market economy in the colonial period, in

addition to droughts and cattle diseases all were factors that encouraged a shift from cattle to

money in the process of lobolo (Covane 1996, Longa 1990). In the 1870s gold coins began to

replace cattle as lobolo, a modernisation of a traditional institution, which the elders in society

tried to resist (Covane 1996). According to Adriane Longa (1990) the lobolo does not have

anything to do with business and commercial speculation, but is a consequence of the struggle

for survival and stability between groups of people. The lobolo should be seen as

exchanged between men, but between groups. Men’s apparent control does not necessarily mean that women are passive objects that are docilely moved around. Third, a woman does not symbolise the relationship between groups; she is the relationship. 14 The term lobolo is a “Portugisation” of the Shangana term lowolo, a term that derives from the verb kulowola (Longa 1990), referring to the act of lobolo described above.

65

compensation for a loss of both a productive and a reproductive asset to the household of the

woman. A woman normally considers the lobolo necessary, and she will normally feel proud

because it shows that she is appreciated. For most people lobolo is not at all related to

commodity exchange of human beings, but is in reality a sign of love.

Still today, money is not the only thing offered as lobolo by the family of the man. Items like

wine, liquor, mdowo (which is a kind of cloth, referred to as capulanas in Portuguese) and

other clothing are normal and important offers in the act of lobolo. The mdowo used to be

more important in the past since young unmarried women did not wear a skirt covering their

breasts until they had performed the lobolo. Wearing a mdowo covering the breasts

symbolised that the woman had performed the lobolo, and that she now belonged to a man.

Before the lobolo the man who is asking for the woman, has to introduce himself to the family

of the woman, and pay a certain symbolic amount of money (kutsimbesa). The kutsimbesa is a

signal that the man is going to perform the lobolo in the near future. Before the performance

of the lobolo the parents in law (maseves) have met and negotiated over what and how much

the lobolo should be. On the day of the lobolo, both families are gathered in the house of the

woman’s parents (preferably the house where she was born), and the ritual of lobolo is

performed. A meal is shared, dances are performed, and the money and all the other items are

presented on an esteira (a traditional sleeping mat made of straw material). The family of the

woman confirm that everything they had requested is present.

The lobolo means a lot for the future relationship between the maseves. If everything is done

correctly, and both parties are pleased, the familiarity between the families becomes strong. If

a woman leaves her family’s house to live in her husband’s house without doing lobolo, it is

an act of no dignity. In this case there does not exist any kind of familiarity or good

relationship between the maseves. Still, the family of the husband will normally be the most

pleased part, because they did not have to pay the lobolo. However, a man would normally

not feel comfortable if a woman is living in his house without having performed the lobolo.

The woman may decide to leave the house bringing their children with her, and the husband is

left with no rights to the children. Like one farmer was saying: “Not doing lobolo is like

66

travelling without documents and passport. When you do things according to the traditions

you have more rights and are able to do more things.”

If the family of the man is not able to pay the lobolo immediately, they may do a presentation.

The man goes to the house of the woman asking for the marriage and pays the kutsembisa as a

signal that he will perform the lobolo in the near future. The woman may then move to the

house of his family without doing the lobolo. The lobolo is just postponed until the family of

the man is able to pay what is required. In this situation, the relationship between the maseves

is the same, and there exist the same rights and duties as if the lobolo had been performed.

There are no general rules on how long time a family can wait until they perform the lobolo,

and is constantly related to the assets of the man’s family.

The value of having family in other areas in times of crisis can be crucial for the survival of

the household, and therefore it is of great importance to keep a good relationship with the

family-in-law. A bad relationship between the maseves may occur in cases where the family-

in-law or the husband is mistreating his wife, and she in turn tells this to her own family. In

addition, a woman may not meet all the expectations of the family in law. If she is not doing

her duties like cooking, washing, preparing baths etc., the family in law of the woman will

often not treat her as well as if she had followed the traditional rules. If she informs her

parents, there might arise some kind of “misunderstanding”. Still, the familiarity that exists

between maseves is generally perceived to be one of the most stable relationship that exist

among people, and is founded on mutual respect, and reciprocal help and support in difficult

times.

In times of crisis, the maseves are expected to help each other as far as possible. Doing

kuthekela with maseves in other areas occurs regularly, and seeds are often obtained through

these processes. The two families in law can visit each other and share seeds and experiences.

In times when seed resources are not easily available locally, a household may decide to make

a visit in a distant area where a family-in-law lives and ask them for seeds. Sometimes the

whole family go for a visit, other times just a representative of the household.

67

6.2.3 Performance and importance of kuthekela

When the person arrives he or she will often sit down with the family, share a meal, and then

present the problem. The person may say: “Nikombela kuthekela” (“I am asking for

kuthekela”). And the family will reply: “Olava kuthekela yine?” (“What do you need to do

kuthekela for?”). If the person needs maize, he or she will say: “Nikombela kuthekela

mawele” (“I need to do kuthekela to get maize”). After that they will all sit together and

discuss by what means the kuthekela should be done. Sometimes it may be decided that the

seeds can be obtained by doing some work, while if the visited household is in a need for

something, they may make an exchange. This confirms my earlier assumptions, that kuthekela

is not only one way of acquiring objects, but can be said depend on the needs and capacities

of the parties involved in the process. Some farmers had problems differentiating between

particularly kuthekela and kurimela that was claimed to be almost the same thing. According

to Fernando Dava (2001), kurimela cannot be considered as a part of kuthekela, because while

kuthekela is based on principles of solidarity, kurimela is a type of paid work for non-

universal exchange objects, normally agricultural products (seeds, food etc.). What signifies

kuthekela is that it is a process over time, and people are aware that they might be the ones

that are in a need in the near future. Like one farmer told me: “After the floods in year 2000, I

provided people who came here asking for seed without asking for something in return. I

know that in times of crisis when I am in a need of something, they will help me.”

This is characteristic of what I here have termed general reciprocity, where reciprocity is

indefinite, and often asymmetrical. The exchange between two families that are united by a

marriage is not a balanced one, first of all because the marriage transaction itself seems to be

a transaction of incomparables (Sahlins 1972). In the case of the Machanganas women move

against cattle, money, or other objects, which in itself seem to be of asymmetrical value.

Following the argument of Sahlins further, an asymmetrical exchange relationship seems to

be a precondition for a stable and firm relationship between families linked through marriage.

If neither side of a relationship is “owing”, the bond between the two parties is comparatively

fragile (ibid).

The relationship that exists between the maseves is generally perceived to be more stable than

friendship relationships. Following the argument of Smedal (2000), the woman who has

married a man and moved to his home is not only a symbol of the relationship between the

68

two families; she is the relationship. A general reciprocity will exist between the woman and

her natal family, and forms the basis for transactions between the two parties. In times when

seed is requested from distant areas, maseves are primary sources for seed. They will provide

large amounts frequently, depending on the needs of the requesting part. On the other hand

friends will often only provide other friends with small amounts of seed, and not as frequently

as maseves. These relationships seems to a higher degree to be based on principles of

balanced reciprocity, which may be an explaining factor to why these relationships are

perceived as more fragile than relationships based on marriage.

6.3 Money and seed provision

The following part is concerned with money and the influence of market economy on the seed

flow in the study area, and I will present how my “western” perception of money and market

economy had an influence on how I viewed seed transactions where money was involved.

The apparent declined importance in traditional ways of seed acquisition in the study area in

favour of markets (Table 2) may indicate a transition from a society based on principles of

solidarity and kinship to a more individualised society. Who is to blame for this? Money and

the market, or people themselves, who after all turn to account new possibilities, constraints,

and changes that are introduced by the market?

During my fieldwork, my concern about the effect of money and market economy on the

traditional seed flow was very much influenced by my “western” perception of money as

immoral and inappropriate in family and friendship relations. These assumptions were

fundamentally challenged. It became clear to me that money is an acceptable gift, and is

frequently requested and given when seed material is exchanged through friendship and

family relations. Rather than focusing on the means of transaction itself, one should focus on

the exact needs of the different parties involved in the transaction. If one of the parties is in

need of money, this can be requested or given, with no respect of who is involved in the

process of transaction, that being maseves or friends.

In the study area there has been a decline in the utilisation of traditional processes for seed

acquisition based on principles of family ties and solidarity (Table 2). According to Fernando

Dava (2001), this has partly been caused by the entrance of market economy that has changed

69

“the mentality of individuals”, and led to a more individualised society. Examples from West

Africa show that the entrance of a market, rather than destroying traditional institutions of

kinship, has strengthened them (Vaughan 1996 in Pottier 1999), and show that there is no

apparent causal relationship between the entrance of money and market economy and a more

individualised society. As Bloch and Parry (1989: 9) writes: “Where it is not seen as a

separate and amoral domain, where the economy is “embedded” in society and subject to its

moral laws, monetary relations are rather unlikely to be represented as the antithesis of bonds

of kinship and friendship, and there is consequently nothing inappropriate about making gifts

of money to cement such bonds”.

Money and market economy are not in themselves breaking up traditional social relationships

and institutions in the study area, leading to an individualisation of the communities. But

indeed, market economy and new income possibilities have changed and still are changing the

foundation for some of the social power relations among different groups of people. The most

obvious and clear example here is women liberation due to new income opportunities by

producing rice and cotton for a commercial market. At the same time as some women got the

possibility to improve their personal economical situation, other women were left alone in the

households while their husbands were in South Africa working in the mines, a situation that

meant new duties and more work (Covane 1996). In turn, labour migration lead to young

men’s economic liberation from their fathers. By getting their own cash income, young men

now could pay the lobolo and acquire several wives in relatively short time. Traditionally,

men’s wealth was reflected in the number of wives they had. Polygamy was therefore very

common in the traditional southern Mozambican society. But after the entrance of money and

market economy, polygamy seem to have been characteristic of more conservative men, “…

who did not embark on new ventures to improve their material life” (Covane 1996: 271).

Money and new market opportunities have opened up some new spheres for the peasants of

southern Mozambique, which in turn have influenced the seed acquisition of the households.

Those who have regular income and access to money have the possibility of buying and

experimenting with exotic varieties from commercial markets, and by that increase the on-

farm genetic diversity. There has become a division between those farmers who have access

to money and those who do not, limiting farmers’ choice and possibilities of experimenting

with commercial varieties. “With money you can do anything” (Farmer in Zongoene). But

still traditional processes of seed acquisition are important, particularly when farmers are

70

coping with a disaster situation with a scale and magnitude like the one experienced during

the floods in the year 2000. These traditional processes should, rather than be seen as

oppositions to market transactions, be considered complementary in crisis situations. As we

have already discussed, traditional networks of seed exchange, based on marriage and

friendship relations, are important in times of crisis, but also money from new income

opportunities (like labour migration) has been used in times to alleviate consequent shortages

of food caused by cyclical floods and droughts (Covane 1996).

6.4 Concluding remarks

In this chapter I have presented different ways farmers acquire seeds, and we have seen that

money and acquisition of seeds from markets have increased in importance to the farmers in

the area. Money are integrated in the traditional seed supply system, and markets are

supplementary to the traditional seed channels when farmers rehabilitate their seed stocks in

post-disaster situations.

We have also seen that social relationships are important, and different persons can be called

upon in times of crisis. By investing economic capital, farmers are establishing a social

network through which seed resources can be transferred. In the post-flood situation, all

farmers in the lowland areas lost most of their economic capital, and the farmers with the

most extensive and multiplex social network were also those farmers with the highest

capacity to mobilise new seed resources. Farmers’ social and economic capital become

keywords when in the following chapter I discuss who are the most vulnerable groups of

farmers, and how we should perceive interventions and target them to decrease these

vulnerabilities in the best possible way.

71

7.0 Increasing genetic diversity and decreasing farmers’ vulnerabilities

From what we have seen so far throughout the thesis, in this chapter I draw some lines and

sketch some implications for intervention in case of future natural hazards. First, I consider

how the nature of disasters often is caused by the combination of several factors that make

these situations complex. People’s vulnerabilities to disasters are often not simple to explain,

because they are caused by a multiplex set of factors. Second, I consider both the biological

and social constraints on rehabilitation of local seed systems in the study area in the post-

flood situation in the year 2000. Finally, there is a need to consider how the implications of

the conclusions drawn from the discussion on constraints and an actors approach could guide

implementations of interventions by external development agencies.

7.1 The nature of disasters

According to Longley (1997) there is a need to understand more fully how different kinds of

disruptions cause different kinds of damage to seed systems. All farmers both in Fenisseleni

and Zongoene said that to them, drought is more damaging to the seed stocks than floods are.

This was explained by the fact that while floods strike a limited geographical area (the

floodplains), a severe drought over several years may impact large areas and all people. Seed

resources will in a drought situation be difficult to access, and people may have to travel long

distances to search for new seeds, while in post-flood situations, seed resources are quite

easily available in the surrounding highland areas. In fact, highland areas normally become

more fertile in periods of heavy rains.

Long-lasting exhaustive droughts may have a destructive effect on social networks of

exchange through which seeds are transferred. Most societies probably have a breaking point,

where the scale of a disaster overwhelms cooperation, and bonds of reciprocity may dissolve

and reveal an inhuman self-interest (Sahlins 1972). Long-lasting periods of civil war may

cause another damage to the “social fabric” of a seed system. Wars often corrode the social

confidences upon which informal seed systems rest (Richards and Ruivenkamp 1997), and

destroy what we in Chapter 1 termed “informal seed certification systems”. Relationships that

72

before were characterised by trust and reliability may now be turned into relationships of

distrust and suspiciousness.

A critical factor explaining the devastating effects of the year 2000 floods seems to have been

the extremely rapid onset of the flooding. Within hours the whole area was covered with

water, and people had to escape on short notice. Because of this people had few possibilities

of bringing with them assets like seeds and other material resources. With a better regional

flood alert system this could maybe have been avoided. Still, a large-scale rescue operation of

seeds stored in field (like sweet potatoes and bananas) will in any circumstance be difficult,

because these seeds are not easily transferred and replanted in other areas for storage.

Disasters most often result from a combination of several factors. The southern parts of

Mozambique have, for a number of reasons, been struck by several disasters during the past

25 years, and some groups of people have most likely suffered more than others because of

these repeated stress situations. The combinations between a long and exhaustive civil war

and several periods of drought may have made some groups of people extremely vulnerable to

the devastating floods that struck the Limpopo Valley in the year 2000. Repeated disasters

may result in that some people’s access to (seed) resources is progressively reduced, making

them more prone to disaster and less able to recover before the next disaster occurs (Blakie

et.al. 1995).

In times of disasters, seed rehabilitation programs have traditionally focused on supplying

farmers with germplasm from outside of the local communities. According to Sperling, if

germplasm is to be reintroduced in an area in a post-disaster situation, “… it should, as far as

possible, resemble that which farmers were using directly prior to the emergency situation

(…)” (1997: 28). An element that is often ignored is to focus attention on reducing farmers’

vulnerabilities to disasters, rather than on short-term help in the immediate crisis situation.

Anti-vulnerability programs should aim to increase the availability of seeds locally and by

that contribute to increasing the seed security in crisis situations. Even though I have

emphasised farmers’ own abilities to cope with post disaster situations, in most cases there

exist both some biological and social constraints on the rehabilitation of the local seed system

in post-crisis situations.

73

7.2 Constraints to rehabilitation of genetic diversity in the post-flood situation

In the following I will discuss the biological and social constraints of the local seed systems to

rehabilitate the on-farm genetic diversity in the post-flood situation. The year 2000 flood

struck some crops and varieties in the study area harder than others. Some varieties were

completely wiped out, and these form the biological constraints on the FSS resilience. In

addition, those farmers that were not able to rehabilitate their seed stocks through informal or

formal seed channels in the post-flood situation constitute the social constraints on the

rehabilitation of the agricultural production for some households.

7.2.1 Biological constraints

Local varieties lost in crisis situations can be lost forever, and there are no local mechanisms

or technologies that can prevent this from happening. All the crops and varieties that are

cultivated in the lowland areas of Xai-Xai are extremely vulnerable to floods. What we need

to ask is: what crops and varieties are unique to the lowland areas, and are therefore not

available in surrounding highland areas or in more distant areas out of the reach of the

floodwater? From what I discussed in Chapter 4, there is a probability that unique lowland

varieties of sweet potato and bananas are the most vulnerable to floods because these only

exist in field, and not even households with their houses in the highlands (like in Zongoene)

could save those varieties from the flood water. Since some farmers in Zongoene still had

some food grain of rice left after the flood, these could be used and multiplied in the post

flood situation. In addition, rice and sugarcane are two relatively newly introduced

commercial crops, and this probably made the regeneration of these crops even easier (Berg

2000).

One way of approaching problems of this kind is to search in other areas not struck by a

disaster, with similar agroecological conditions, to find varieties that could replace the lost

varieties. In this way a regional, national, or even international network of germplasm

exchange could be established and used in future crisis situations. The problem with such an

approach is the fact that farmers’ composition of crops and varieties is not only influenced by

agroecological factors like climate and soil conditions. Farmers also construct their

74

production system according to factors like taste preferences, culture, adaptations to markets

etc.

Another way of contributing to farmers’ ability to reconstruct their seed stocks in a post-flood

situation could be to establish ex situ storage facilities in the highland areas, outside of the

reach of floodwater. This can be a case for community action and initiative (Berg 2000). This

could be a good solution for lowland seeds that are normally stored in house, like rice, beans,

maize and cowpeas. On the other hand, this would not solve the problem of securing seeds

stored in the field, which seem to be a problem not easily solved. Lowland varieties of

bananas and sweet potato seem to be the most vulnerable varieties to floods. Community seed

banks in the highlands could be established for keeping some growing specimens of the

varieties of these crops. Even though the varieties would be kept outside of their optimal

lowland environments, this could be a source for farmers in a lack of lowland planting

materials.

7.2.2 Social constraints

Based on the results of my study I am not in a position to pinpoint the exact households and

groups of people most vulnerable to flood hazards, but I still believe that I am able to indicate

what are necessary conditions for a farmer to be able to access seed resources in a post-

disaster situation. Lack of both economical and social capital may exclude some farmers from

the local processes of seed rehabilitation. Farmers that neither have money or other assets, nor

take part in extensive social networks of seed exchange, may face problems in the

rehabilitation of their agricultural production. “Economic and social systems allocate

societies’ resources to the detriment of some groups and the benefit of others, and this affects

people’s capacity to withstand floods, and also exposes them to flood risks unequally” (Blakie

et.al. 1995: 124).

The social and economic capitals of farmers are not two separate domains. Through the social

capital, farmers can mobilise economic capital (like seeds), and vice versa, by using their

economic capital, farmers are able to create social capital. This is illustrated in a good way

when farmers are establishing social relationships with other people by doing kuthekela

75

ushaka. Like one woman said: “It is difficult for me to do kuthekela ushaka because I feel so

poor compared to other people”.

As we have seen, marriage is an alliance between two families, and this is confirmed through

the lobolo, where assets from the family of the man’s economic capital is offered to the

family of the woman. Before they make a commitment with the family of the man, the

woman’s family will normally consider the economic status of the man’s family. To have a

wealthy family-in-law is a security in times of crisis, when resources are of low availability.

In the same way, the family of the man will consider the welfare of the woman’s family. In

this way, there is a tendency that households of similar economic status get connected through

marriage. This is a tradition that maybe is on its way out or decreasing in importance, because

“the youngsters these days are finding each other in the streets” (farmer in Fenisseleni). But

still, persons of similar backgrounds seem to have a tendency to find each other and establish

marriage ties.

The same is true when people establish friendship relationships. When a person wants to

become friends with another person, gifts are normally offered as a sign of their friendship

establishment (Covane 1996). In addition, constantly offering and receiving gifts in a

reciprocal manner maintain social relationships. This shows that the two capitals (social and

economic) cannot be seen apart from each other, and both are important when farmers are

rehabilitating their seed stocks. Wealthy farmers with lots of resources will normally also take

part in a complex social network through which new (seed) resources can be mobilised in

times of crisis. In addition, buying seeds in shops, markets, or from other households can

contribute to increase the on-farm genetic diversity.

As argued above, money is not synonymous with economic capital, but only a part of it. The

increased importance of money in transactions involving seed resources may indicate that

money is becoming a key-asset in household welfare and on-farm genetic diversity. The

increased importance of money when acquiring seeds, also through the traditional seed

channels, may, when there is a crisis, influence the availability of seeds to marginal groups in

a negative way. There may become a division between those farmers who have a regular

income and access to money in other ways, and those who do not have this. In earlier times,

other resources produced on the farm could to a larger degree be exchanged or offered when

acquiring resources like seeds. Today farmers like to ask for money in return. In addition,

76

inflation is a new dimension introduced to the area with the entrance of money and market

economy. In relation to disasters, market prices on food and other assets like seeds increase,

which in turn influences the availability of seeds to the poorest farmers in a negative way.

The problem of reducing the vulnerability of the local seed systems to disasters does not seem

to have any “quick-fix” solutions. Despite the penetration of markets to the local community,

local coping strategies involving traditional processes of exchange and help still seem to be

present and functioning well. Interventions aiming at increasing the resilience of seed systems

should as far as possible be founded on these traditional ways of exchanging seeds, presented

in Chapter 6.

7.3 Interventions

All forms of intervention necessarily enter the lifeworlds of the individuals and social groups

in the local communities exposed to this external influence. In this regard it is necessary to

view intervention as “… an on-going socially constructed and negotiated process that goes

beyond the time/space frames of intervention programmes” (Long 2001: 4). All social actors

exercise some kind of power, and have room for manoeuvring, and development projects can

therefore be seen as an ongoing “battle” between development agents, local individuals and

other social groups involved. The goal (or output) of a development project is therefore not

predetermined and static, but constantly re-negotiated and changed as farmers are strategising

in terms of their own projects and interacting with outside institutions and personnel (Long

2001).

Having this actors approach as a background when considering relevant and sustainable

intervention strategies to reduce the local seed systems’ vulnerabilities to natural disasters, it

becomes difficult to predict outcomes of an intervention on the seed system itself in the long

run. A keyword in the development industry since the 1980s has been sustainability, which

implies that the intervention should initiate a development that results in an improvement in

living standards of the local people that continues in the long run also after the development

project has been terminated. An intervention aiming at decreasing the vulnerabilities of

people to natural hazards should therefore as far as possible rely on local resources (Blakie

et.al. 1995). When people rely on their own resources, “… vulnerable communities may stand

77

a better chance of recovery and of preserving their ability to do so in the future” (Pottier 1999:

146). Interventions should therefore aim at supporting local initiatives, and by that both save

lives and preserve a way of life.

Useful and relevant development interventions to enhance crop diversity and reduce

vulnerabilities of local seed systems can only be successful if they are based on an

understanding of the nature of the problem (Sperling 1997). In the case of the year 2000

floods, there was only a relative lack of many types of seeds, since most of them were

available in the surrounding highland areas. Highland areas are normally facilitated by heavy

rains, which improve the fertility of the highlands soils. An intervention strategy aiming at

increasing the production and multiplication of seeds in these areas and facilitate movement

of people between the areas could have been a better strategy than distributing seeds to

farmers in the lowlands. In this way local institutions and seed exchange-networks could have

been integrated in an intervention strategy aiming at helping people to regenerate their seed

stocks in the post-flood situation.

Situations of absolute shortage of seeds tend to be exceptions rather than the rule (Longley

et.al. 2001). In cases of a relative lack of seeds, rather than being germplasm-based, projects

should be innovative and poverty-focused (Sperling 1997). In this way the vulnerabilities of

the poorest farmers could be reduced, and farmers would be better able to cope with and

rehabilitate their seed stocks themselves in possible future crisis situations. An intervention

program should therefore aim at increasing and strengthening both the economic and social

capital of farmers. Above I argued that both of these two types of capital are interrelated

because farmers construct their own social capital by investing their economic capital in

establishing social relationships. In addition, economic capital in the form of money can

increase farmers’ access to seeds through commercial and local markets, or by buying seeds

from other farmers. This indicates that by increasing the economic capital and thereby also

the social capital of farmers, their vulnerabilities to disasters can be reduced.

This study does not aim at having an overarching macroeconomic and political discussion

over how to reduce poverty and integrate farmers in high value markets, but rather to identify

what groups of farmers that are the most vulnerable to natural hazards like floods. Useful aid

and development interventions in areas where crop diversity is under a threat can only derive

from targeted knowledge (Sperling 1997), because different people will to different degrees

78

be vulnerable to disasters. Households that are vulnerable to one type of disaster are likely to

be vulnerable to others as well. People who are members of these households will often have

a poor access profile with little choice and flexibility in times of post-disaster stress (Blakie

et.al. 1995). What we need to ask then is: Who are the most vulnerable groups in the study

area, groups that are not able to mobilise seeds by using either their economic or social

capital?

Low access profiles will often occur together with - and are caused by - social network

truncation and low degree of multiplexity in the farmers’ social networks. Since displaced

people often have lost contact with their own community support networks (Blakie et.al.

1995), this group of people will often be more vulnerable in case of a natural disaster. As I

mentioned in Chapter 2, many people left their war-affected areas and fled to Xai-Xai and

Fenisseleni. Many of them came from neighbouring areas, and were probably able to

conserve and rehabilitate their social networks throughout the war, but there people also came

from more distant areas. Many of these people decided to stay in Fenisseleni even after the

war activities ended, and there is a large group of war-displaced people living in Fenisseleni

today. Most of these people probably stayed behind because in the post-war situation they felt

that Fenisseleni had become their new home, but there might also have been people who did

not have the resources and energy to move back to their home areas. This group of people

might be one group of farmers that are cut off and not able to mobilise seeds through local

processes of seed exchange.

Single headed households are also a group that probably have a weaker capability to

rehabilitate their seed stocks in case of an emergency situation. Vulnerable single headed

households often include households with elder childless men or women. Their chances of

establishing new marriage relationships to other families are non-existing because they do not

have children, and do therefore not have family-in-law (maseve) to turn to in case of seed

scarcity in the household. In addition, elder people do not have the same working capacity as

younger people, and do therefore not have the possibility to perform kurimela to earn money

or to get seeds or to do other kinds of paid work. Single headed households with elder people

do therefore not have the possibility to have a source of cash income, and are therefore not

able to buy seeds either from other farmers, local markets, or commercial shops. HIV and

AIDS are factors that may have caused an increase in the amount of single headed household

79

with elder people, because younger people die of the disease. This is a point that needs further

investigation.

The gendered division of labour may also have influences on which households are the most

vulnerable to natural hazards. Traditionally women have been responsible for subsistence

production of the family, while men have had the responsibility for cash crops like rice,

sugarcane, and bananas (Dava 2001). In crisis situations, men have shared the responsibility

of subsistence production with the women. Knowledge regarding crops and production has in

the same way been gendered. Women have not in the same way as the men been able to take

part in paid work. Labour migration to South Africa was exclusively for men, and because

women were left in the fields, their income possibilities have been delimited to sales of

agricultural products. Since money is an important source of increasing on-farm genetic

diversity, single headed female households may not have the same capacity to rehabilitate

seed stocks, as households where there is a man with a source of income present.

The combination of all these factors may indicate the people worst off and most vulnerable to

disasters – displaced, single headed female households with elder people may be among the

most vulnerable households. This is not an exhaustive discussion about vulnerable households

in the study area, but rather aims at indicating some important points when considering the

vulnerabilities of households and appropriate interventions aiming at facilitating on-farm

genetic diversity in relation to disaster situations like the one that occurred in the year 2000.

There may exist other important factors not mentioned here that contribute to the

vulnerabilities of households.

What we can conclude so far from this study is that social networks are important for farmers

when rehabilitating their seed stocks after a disaster situation. A multiplex social network is a

precondition for a farmer to have a secure and stable seed supply system in times of crisis in

his own on-farm seed supply. Since farmers are investing their economic capital to increase

their social capital, farmers rich in economic capital are often also wealthy in terms of social

capital. These farmers will often also have a high on-farm genetic diversity, and are able to

rehabilitate their seed resources in a post-disaster situation.

80

8.0 Conclusions

In this thesis we have seen that farmers themselves are well aware of other areas as sources of

new seed material in crisis situations. By having social relations with people in different

agroecological zones most farmers have a security network based on mutual help and

solidarity in times of crisis. Farmers’ social networks constitute what I have termed farmers’

social capital, which can be used to mobilise new seed resources. We have seen that by

creating friendship and marriage relations, persons and families create relations through

which seeds can be mobilised. By investing economic capital, farmers create social capital,

and the two capitals can therefore not be seen as separate and independent. Farmers who have

sufficient economic capital are most likely to be part of multiplex social networks of seed

exchange, and are therefore the ones who are best able to rehabilitate their seed stocks in

disaster situations.

I have argued that there were some biological and some social constraints on the rehabilitation

of genetic diversity after the year 2000 floods. The biological constraints were related to

regeneration of varieties that are unique in the lowland areas. Some varieties of particularly

sweet potatoes and bananas were totally lost in the flood situation, and it may not be possible

to rehabilitate the populations of these varieties. Farmers had to replace these varieties with

external varieties that were originally from the highlands or other areas that were not affected

by the flood. These varieties are not adapted to the lowland conditions, and may therefore not

produce as well as the old varieties. Through the farmers’ management and selection of seeds,

and the plants’ own natural adaptation to the lowland environments, these new varieties will

in time probably get adapted to the lowland environments (given that the areas are not

exposed to new floods of the scale and magnitude that we saw in year 2000).

The fact that some farmers neither have access to extensive social networks through which

seeds are exchanged nor have sufficient economic capital to buy seeds from formal or

informal markets, constitute the social constraints in the post-flood rehabilitation of the local

seed system. These farmers were not to the same degree as other farmers able to access new

seed resources in the post-flood situation. This group of farmers could be the target of an

intervention program aiming at increasing the most vulnerable farmers’ abilities to

rehabilitate the on-farm genetic diversity in post-disaster situations.

81

I have argued that a goal for appropriate intervention strategies to reduce farmers’

vulnerabilities to disasters could be to increase the poorest farmers’ social capital because

seeds are exchanged through informal traditional networks based on mutual help and

solidarity. No post-disaster situations are identical, but there is a high probability that the

poorest farmers with the least multiplex social networks are the ones that are struck hardest by

natural hazards, and are the ones with the most difficulties in rehabilitating their seed stocks.

But there are problems related to projects that target the poorest and most vulnerable in a

society, because projects of this kind often turn out in practice not to benefit the poorest, but

instead those who are willing and at hand at the moment (Villareal 1992, Long 2001). This

shows that interventions cannot be viewed as a result of what inputs lead to what outputs, but

as an ongoing negotiation between the implementers and the recipients of an intervention. An

actor-oriented approach offers researchers and development workers a dynamic way of

understanding the processes of implementing interventions that aim at increasing farmers

capacities to rehabilitate their seed resources in post-disaster situations.

Development projects should acknowledge the dynamics and capacities in local seed systems

due to different actors’ needs, strategies, and manoeuvrings within an ever-changing

environment. The need for different crops and varieties changes according to internal and

external changes in the production system, which is an important factor for why seed systems

should be viewed as dynamic. This was illustrated by three examples. “Colonial crops” were

introduced, and are today an integrated part of the local production systems. The production

of groundnuts shows that farmers have changed their varietal use as a response to new market

possibilities and changed preferences. The high rate of turnover in the composition of cassava

varieties is a response to stress factors like droughts and diseases. After the floods some

farmers in Zongoene also started to cultivate this in the lowland, which may be a response to

lack of appropriate lowland planting material. The examples show that different farmers are,

due to their economic and social capitals, in different ways able to manoeuvre and respond to

the changed terms of agricultural production.

The intentions of my study has not been to present concrete answers for how to intervene in

case of future crisis, but rather to indicate some important points to consider in such

situations. Too often seed relief programs have been based on the assumption of an absolute

lack of seeds, and that farmers themselves are not able to rehabilitate their seed resources in

82

times of crisis. Throughout this thesis I have illustrated that an actor approach may offer a

dynamic perspective on how farmers in different ways use their economic and social capital

to rehabilitate seed resources. In this way we are better able to understand the dynamics of

local seed systems, and use this as a basis for increasing farmers own capacities to rehabilitate

seed resources in crisis situations.

83

References

Berg, Trygve 2000. Post-Disaster Rehabilitation and Seed Restoration in Flood affected

Areas of Xai-Xai District, Mozambique. Summary on findings in visits to affected villages 2nd

to 7th December 2000, and suggestions for action research. FAO-LinKS. Noragric.

Blakie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davies, B. Wisner 1994. At risk: natural hazards, people’s

vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, London.

Bloch, M. & Parry, J. 1989. Introduction: money and the morality of exchange. In Bloch, M.

& Parry, J. (eds.) Money & the Morality of Exchange, Cambridge University Press.

Brush, S. B. 1999. The issue of in situ conservation of crop genetic resources. In S. B. Brush

(ed.) Genes in the Field. On-Farm Conservation of Crop Diversity. Boca Raton, Lewes

Publishers, International Development Research Centre and International Plant Genetic

Resources Institute, Ottawa and Rome.

Covane, L. A.1996. Migrant Labour and Agriculture in Southern Mozambique with special

reference to the lower Limpopo Valley, 1920-1992. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of commonwealth

Studies, University of London.

Cromwell, E. 1990. Seed diffusion mechanisms in small farmer communities: Lessons from

Asia, Africa and Latin America. In Network Paper 21. Agricultural Administration (Research

and Extension) Network, ODI, London.

CIUEM 2001. Basic Facts. Eduardo Mondlande University Information Centre.

http://www.mozambique.mz/dadosbas/eindex.htm (Accessed 22.05.2001).

Dava, Fernando 2001. Unpublished material. ARPAC, Maputo.

DDCJD 2001. Inquertio sobre as cheias no Distrito de Xai-Xai. Direcão da Cultura,

Juventude e Deportes de Xai-Xai. Xai-Xai, Mozambique.

84

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Introduction. Entering the Field of Qualitative

Research. In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research.

Sage Publications, London.

Feliciano, J. F. 1998. Antropologia Economica Dos Thonga Do Sul De Moçambique. Estudos

12. Arquivo Histórico de Moçambique, Maputo.

Grunewald, F. 1998. Characterising Disasters. In Restoring farmers’ seed system in disaster

situations: Proceedings of the international Workshop on Developing Institutional

Agreements and Capacity to Assist Farmers in Disaster Situations to Restore Agricultural

Systems and Seed Security Activities. FAO, Rome.

Hart, K. 2000. The Memory Bank. Money in an Unequal World. Profile Books Ltd., London.

Hodgkin, T. and Anishetty, M. 1999. Plant Genetic Resources and Seed Relief. In (FAO)

Restoring farmers’ seed systems in disaster situations: Proceedings of the international

Workshop on Developing Institutional Agreements and Capacity to Assist Farmers in

Disaster Situations to Restore Agricultural Systems and Seed Security Activities. FAO, Rome.

IIASA 2002. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Homepage. Laxenburg,

Austria. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/POP/pde/Maps/mz/b-mzmap.gif (Accessed

26.05.2002).

Kelly, M. P. F. 1995. Social and Cultural Capital in the Urban Ghetto: Implications for the

Economic Sociology of Immigration, in A. Portes (ed.), The Economic Sociology of

immigration. Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship. Russel Sage Foundation,

New York.

Kopytoff, I. 1996. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process, in A.

Appadurai 1996 (ed.), The social life of things: commodities in a cultural perspective.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

85

Leach, M. 1997. Shifting social and ecological mosaics in Mende forest farming. In E.

Nyerges (ed.) The ecology of practice. Studies of food crop production in Sub-Saharan West

Africa. Gordon and Breach Publishers. Australia.

Leifsen, E. 1996. En vev av uavhengighet. En studie blant quichua-indianere i Otavalo,

Ecuador. Magisteravhandling, Institutt og museum for antropologi. Univeristetet i Oslo.

Linares, O. 1997. Diminishing rains and divided tasks: Rice growing in three Jola

communities of Casamance, Senegal. In E. Nyerges (ed.) The ecology of practice. Studies of

food crop production in Sub-Saharan West Africa. Gordon and Breach Publishers. Australia.

Long, N. 2001. Development Sociology. Actor perspectives. Routledge, London and New

York.

Longa, A. 1990. O lobolo. Colecção Cultura e Evangelho, Maputo.

Longley, C. 1997. Effects of War and Displacement on local seeds systems in Northern

Sierra Leone. In AgREN Network Paper No 75. Agricultural Research and Extension

Network, ODI, London.

Longley, C. A. 2000. A Social Life of Seeds: Local Management of Crop Variability in North-

Western Sierra Leone. PhD Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University College London.

Longley, C., Jones, R., Ahmed, M. H. and Audi, P. 2001. Supporting Local Seeds Systems in

Southern Somalia: A Developmental Approach to Agricultural Rehabilitation in Emergency

Situations. In AgREN Network Paper No 115. Agricultural Research and Extension Network,

ODI, London.

Longley, K. & Richards, P. 1999. Farmer Seed Systems and Disaster. In (FAO) Restoring

farmers’ seed system in disaster situations: Procedings of the international Workshop on

Developing Institutional Agreements and Capacity to Assist Farmers in Disaster Situations to

Restore Agricultural Systems and Seed Security Activities. FAO, Rome.

86

Louette, D. 2000. Traditional management of seed and genetic diversity: what is a landrace?

In S. B. Brush (ed.) Genes in the field: on-farm conservation of crop diversity. Boca Raton,

Lewes Publishers, International Development Research Centre and International Plant

Genetic Resources Institute, Ottawa and Rome.

Mauss, M. 1954. The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Cohen &

West Ltd., London.

Mikkelsen, B. 1995. Methods for developing work and research: a guide for practitionaires.

Sage Publications, New Dehli.

Newitt, M. 1995. A History of Mozambique. Witwaterstand University Press, Johannesburg.

Nyerges, E. 1997. The ecology of practice. Studies of food crop production in Sub-Saharan

West Africa. Gordon and Breach Publishers, Australia.

Pistorious, R. 1997. Scientists, plants and politics. A history of the plant genetic resources

movement. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome.

Portes, A. (ed.) 1995. The Economic Sociology of immigration. Essays on Networks,

Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship. Russel Sage Foundation, New York.

Pottier, J. 1999. Anthropology of Food. The Social Dynamics of Food. Polity Press,

Cambridge.

Richards, R. and Ruivenkamp, G. 1997. Seeds and survival. Crop genetic resources in war

and reconstruction in Africa. International Plant Genetic Resource Institute (IPGRI), Rome.

Rita-Ferreira, A. 1982. Presenca Luso-Asiática e Mutações Cultaisno Sul de Moçambique.

Instituto de Investigações Cientifical Tropical. Lisboa.

Sahlins, M. 1972. Chapter 5. On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange. In M. Sahlins (ed.)

Stone Age Economics. Tavistock Publications, London.

87

88

Smedal, O. H. 2000. Blod, sæd, moral og teknologi: Hva slektskap brukes til. In F. S. Nielsen

& O. H. Smedal (eds.) Mellom himmel og jord. Tradisjoner, teorier og tendenser i

sosialantropologien. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.

Sperling, L. 1997. The effects of war on crop production and varietal diversity: A comparison

of two crops. In AgREN Network Paper No. 75. Agricultural Research & Extension Network,

ODI, London.

Spradley, J.P. 1979. The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, INC.

Swanson, T. 1996. Global values of biological diversity: The public interest in the

conservation of plant genetic resources for agriculture. In Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter

No 105.

Tin, H. Q., Berg, T. & Bjørnstad, Å. 2001. Diversity and adaptation in rice varieties under

static (ex situ) and dynamic (in situ) management. In Euphytica 122. Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Netherlands.

Villarreal, M. 1992. The poverty of practice. Power, gender and intervention from an actor-

oriented perspective. In N. Long & A. Long (eds.) Battlefields of Knowledge. The

Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. Routledge, London

and New York.