To work well and be sustainable, seed systems have to offer a range of crops and varieties of good quality seed and these products have to reach farmers, no matter how remote or poor they may be. Formal seed sector interventions alone are not delivering the crop portfolio or achieving the social and geographic breadth needed, and the paper argues for focus on informal seed channels and particularly on traders who move ‘potential seed’ (informal or local seed) even to high stress areas. This paper provides the first in-depth analysis on potential seed trader types and actions, drawing on data collected on 287 traders working in 10 African countries. The research delves into four themes: the types and hierarchies of traders; the technical ways traders manage seed using 11 core practices; the price differential of +50% of potential (local) seed over grain, and the pivotal roles which traders play in remote and crisis contexts. Traders are the backbone of smallholder seed security and need to be engaged, not ignored, in development and relief efforts. An action framework for leveraging seed trader skills is presented, with the paper addressing possible legal and donor constraints for engaging such market actors more fully.

Smallholder farmers require seed systems that can meet diverse functions: move a range of planting material; spread specialty varieties (climate-resilient or nutrient-dense varieties); reach last-mile areas; and perform in high-stress contexts. Acknowledging that smallholders use both formal and informal systems, this article focuses on the latter and on a component largely unexamined to date: informal commercial seed systems (ICSSs). Four evidence-based cases show how ICCSs contribute to varied seed system functions. In Tanzania, traders have moved multiple modern bean varieties countrywide and within just a few years. In the remote Ugandan north, traders have commercialized the sale of sweetpotato vines (produced off-season) to those lacking their own critical marshlands. In Bolivia, traders routinely sell native and modern varieties of seed tubers to farmers, along with their commerce in ware potatoes. In central Mali, a cluster of villages produces and sells pearl millet seed that is specially adapted to extreme drought conditions. All four cases share key characteristics: they distinguish seed vs. grain, serve local, regional, and international customers, and, perhaps most importantly, are sustained without subsidy or project support. As ICSSs meet farmers’ demands for seed that is not supplied by other actors, a question remains as to whether ICSSs should be left alone, leveraged, or improved further. Recognizing possible legal and operational challenges, this article suggests that ICSSs first be studied in-depth—characterizing their variations, locales, and system functions—so that future debates on possible support can be grounded in concrete evidence of ICSSs’ strengths, weaknesses, and unique benefits.

This article explores the informal seed business, focusing on the yellow bean in Tanzania. The yellow bean is a major bean type traded, yet little is known about the seed supply that fuels it. The survey research in 2019 encompassed larger grain traders, informal seed traders, and retailers, covered major production, distribution and sale hubs, and was complemented by GIS mapping of seed and grain flows and DNA fingerprinting of yellow bean samples. Results showed that traders buy and sell grain and informal seed: it is not one business or the other, but both. Informal seed is an important moneymaker, representing between 15 and 40% of trader business in non-sowing and sowing periods, respectively. In the year monitored, 100% of the yellow bean seed was drawn from the informal sector, amounting to $US 4.35 million just among those sampled. Nevertheless, the informal and formal sectors are clearly linked, as over 60% of the beans sampled derived from modern varieties. Informal traders prove key for: sustaining the grain business, serving the core of the seed business, and moving varieties at scale. More explicit efforts are needed to link the informal sector to formal research and development partners in order to achieve even broader impacts.

Seed system interventions can spur agricultural growth and often focus on accelerating delivery of new varieties and good seed. The driving logic is that such modest investments can bring key gains, even to the poor and in challenging contexts. This article focuses on Africa and legumes, crops key for nutrition, soil enhancement, resilience to climate stress and rapid income generation. The default design for seed sector development, based on maize, proves inadequate for moving legume varieties and seed to smallholder customers. The article draws from a large dataset including 10,209 transactions from nine African countries. Findings show that legume seed is overwhelmingly bought (50% of transactions) - rather than saved, gifted, or obtained through a seed distribution - with 89% of purchases unfolding in the informal sector, mostly from local markets. Unlike with maize, farmers’ use of agro-dealers to obtain legume seed is minimal. The article identifies six legume customer seed market segments, but only the two smallest are served by current strategy. Refinements to formal sector delivery can help extend reach (e.g. with small packs), but real advances demand strong informal sector innovations, such as expanding sale and seller categories to embrace traders and local markets. A recent multi-country review of seed legislation suggests there may be room for such expansion.

Postharvest management of grain and seed is a challenge among smallholder farmers. Limited information is available on how smallholder farmers in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), who have been exposed to multiple conflicts, manage grain and seed after harvest. We interviewed 690 smallholder farmers in Lubero (Baswagha chiefdom) and Rutshuru (Bwisha and Bwito chiefdoms) territories of the North Kivu province of the DRC to assess how they dried and stored their crops. Results reveal that 95% and 80% farmers produced beans and maize, respectively. About half of respondents in Bwisha grew soybean, suggesting production diversification using conflict-resistant crops to minimize thefts and looting. Rotting and theft were the major challenges during field drying, while insects (81.3%) were the most important issue during storage. Sixty-six percent of farmers did not protect their grain during storage, exposing it to insect damage. Farmers producing beans in both Bwisha and Bwito, farmers storing beans and maize, and those storing for more than three months were more likely to protect their grains during storage. More than 70% of farmers saved seed for planting the next season but suffered significant weight losses of up to 50% due to insects. Storing grain in hermetic bags for six months had an estimated return on investments of up to 63% for maize in Baswagha and 54% for beans in Bwisha. Improved drying and storage technologies would help smallholder farmers to reduce their grain postharvest losses due to mold, theft, and insects. Smallholder farmers using these improved postharvest technologies have the opportunity to secure quality grain for home consumption and sale, and seed for planting.

In response to COVID-19, seed security interventions are being planned to help bolster fragile livelihoods. After 25 years of research during emergencies, there are many lessons to build on, including that seed systems, especially informal markets, prove fairly resilient and often function even in high stress contexts. As a wise first step, given the possible volatility in supply, farmers’ seed saving should be supported actively and at scale. Rigorous remote assessments will have to become the new norm for gauging seed security, with reviews recognizing that different crops might be affected in different ways by specific seed channel stress or breakdown. Well-known short-term seed security responses, for example, Direct Seed Distribution, will need to be tailored to the new COVID-19 reality, particularly in terms of altering logistics. More fundamentally, three new factors might herald a transformation in response: 1) Choice for farmers has to be the operative principle (especially as markets may fluctuate quickly); 2) Remote two-way ‘state of the art’ communication has to be built rapidly; and 3) Seed quality options might need to be liberalized, especially given the scale of possible seed security intervention. Covid-19 effects will likely linger several years or potentially six to nine seasons (depending on agricultural calendar). Now might be the time to move from stop-gap responses (and repetitive ones) to more sustainable and powerful market-led support, with particular emphasis on responses that leverage and strengthen the informal sector markets.