Search

The purpose of this study is to identify the specific marketing activities that contribute most to the performance improvement of seed producer cooperatives (SPCs) in Ethiopia. Both quantitative and qualitative procedures were adopted to extract information from knowledgeable and experienced experts using structured questionnaires. Results indicate that clear differences exist between Ethiopian SPCs in their intensity and quality of execution of marketing activities, indicating that these activities are managed and controlled by SPCs themselves. However, the similarity in patterns of intensity and quality of execution of marketing activities shows that these effects cannot be disentangled in the Ethiopian SPCs context. Ethiopian SPCs performed well on marketing activities related to interfunctional coordination, but poorly on activities associated with competitor orientation. SPCs are likely to perform better when they use a variety of marketing activities including quality control of product (seed), product differentiation, managing customer and supplier relationships, responding to customers and competitors, customer and competitor assessment, leadership, integration of activities, and interconnections among committees and members. Hence, to provide value to customers SPCs need to have resources and the capabilities to coordinate these resources in order to execute marketing activities efficiently and effectively. Key words: Intensity of implementation, marketing activities, quality of implementation, seed producer cooperatives

Ethiopia is an agrarian country where agriculture dominates the economy, and thus agriculture is considered as an engine of growth by the government. Seed as one of the agricultural technologies, in fact, a carrier of many technologies, is critical to increasing production, but the use of quality seed from formal sources in Ethiopia is very limited. The current Ethiopian government has focused on agricultural development and has developed different policies both for agriculture in general and for the seed sector in particular. Following the developmental state approach, the government intensified its involvement in the seed sector to enhance agricultural development. Despite the policies and efforts of the government, a shortage of seed, a mismatch between demand and supply, the carryover of seed despite not satisfying the demand of farmers, and poor seed quality have been persistent challenges to the Ethiopian seed sector. Many studies have identified technical gaps that limit the development of the seed sector, and some of the studies have also discussed the extent to which policy responds to existing problems, and the extent to which what is in the policy documents is implemented. However, the causes of these ‘gaps’ are seldom discussed. The lack of such knowledge limits the understanding of the challenges, making it difficult to properly support the seed sector. For these reasons, this research has gone beyond the mere identification of ‘gaps’, aiming to analyse how actors and institutions influence seed policy making and implementation in Ethiopia. The goal of this research is twofold: to narrow the knowledge gap about policy making and implementation in the Ethiopian seed sector, and to contribute to the debate concerning how to make the seed sector function better. The central research question is: how did actors and institutions influence the formulation and implementation of seed policies in Ethiopia from 2008 to 2016? The empirical research to answer this overall research question addresses two processes: policy making and policy implementation. These include the process of revising the 2000 Ethiopian seed law and the process of implementing direct seed marketing. By analysing these two processes, the thesis unravels how actors and associated institutions have influenced seed policy making and implementation in Ethiopia. The major sources of data were interviews of actors in the seed sector, and desk research of different reports. Guided by theoretical concepts, the research used qualitative methods to generate and analyse data. Given the complexity of societal phenomenon, several analytical lenses have been used to examine the data in this research. In order to explain how actors negotiate the content of a policy document, including defining the problem and solution, the concept of discourse analysis is used, focusing on frame, the rounds model, and the policy arena. Similarly, to explain the process of implementing the existing policy and the outcome, the concepts of multi-level perspective on transition, transition management, non-decision making, and institutional lock-in are used. While using these analytical lenses to explain seed policy making and implementation, the concept of institutions has remained a central concept. Chapter 2 analyses the negotiation process, looking into the topics of seed sector governance and variety registration. The analysis reveals that different policy arenas provide opportunities for different actors to place their preferred policy options on the table, and to get them incorporated into the draft working document. While this is a positive step towards a deliberative policy making, the final decision is made by the executive branch of the government. Such a process can be explained by two informal institutions. These are the loose connection between the drafting arenas and the decision-making arenas, and the blurred separation of power between the executive and the legislature. At the Council of Ministers (CoM), where the critical decisions are made, the ministry presents its perspective, particularly on issues where disagreement exists between the ministry and other actors. The council uses the content of the draft and the justification of the ministry for endorsing the draft policy document. Moreover, the parliament can change the content of the draft policy document only if the ministry agrees with the change, regardless of the arguments and justifications provided by other stakeholders. Thus, the inputs of stakeholders are considered as long as the ministry agrees with the suggestions, and the policy decision remains in the hands of the ministry. Chapter 3 presents the different frames used by different actors to describe the problem of seed quality. While government officials attribute the problem of seed quality to the lack of alignment between the seed sector governance and the regional government structure, experts and bureaucrats attribute the problem to the lack of coordination at national level. As a result, they respectively suggest the decentralization and centralization of seed sector governance. These frames are embedded in the overall interest and strategy of the actors promoting the frames. The centralization frame reflects the interest of experts and bureaucrats to have a say with regards to the seed sector. They have lost this power because of the federal structure that was established formally in 1995. On the contrary, the decentralization frame is embedded in the government’s aim to implement the constitution that established the federal structure in 1995. Despite the fact that the process of revising the seed law took about four years, these actors could not agree on either of the options or find an alternative. This shows a lack of deliberation and reflexivity during the process of revising the seed law, reflecting the fact that seed policy discussion has been part of a larger debate about (de)centralization in Ethiopia since 1991. Thus, in addition to the issue of seed quality, the frames of centralization and decentralization are shaped by the old (unitary) and the new (federal) institutions of the Ethiopian government system. Chapter 4 focuses on the process of introducing and expanding direct seed marketing (DSM) in Ethiopia. Despite the fact that seed marketing is included in the policies on paper, the seed of major food crops is distributed through government channels resulting in inefficiency of seed distribution. The regional seed core groups introduced DSM in 2011, and by 2016 about one-third of the hybrid maize seed, the main seed marketed in Ethiopia, in Amhara, Oromia and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ region (SNNPR), was sold through DSM. The presence of actors outside the seed distribution system was instrumental for introducing the concept of DSM. To start the piloting of this existing policy, the core group needed to get approval from the heads of the bureaus of agriculture (BoAs). However, such approval was not required for other new ideas, like establishing an independent regulatory body, showing how the informal institutions guide what has to be approved by bureau heads, regardless of the formal policy. In addition to the demonstrated potential of DSM to overcome the problem of seed distribution inefficiency, strategic management of the stakeholders' process was critical in expanding the area under the pilot. Many actors, including the executives, supported the expansion of DSM to many areas. Despite the expansion of DSM, its demonstrated potential to overcome the problem of seed supply inefficiency, the support it received from the government officials, and the general policy of market-based approach, the government has not endorsed the use of DSM beyond the pilot. Chapter 5 points out that the government excluded the issue of seed marketing from the seed regulation enacted in 2016, showing that the government has no intention to make seed marketing one of the seed delivery channels in the near future. The major reasons for this are: bureaucrats do not want to contribute to the decision making of DSM because they assume that the government has a strong political interest to remain in seed distribution; bureaucrats need the seed distribution system to achieve the targets set by the government; there is a symbiotic relationship between actors, the extension service as well as seed producers, and the seed distribution system, and so actors want to maintain the distribution system Such institutionalized thinking and practices have created an institutional lock-in that prevents bureaucrats from presenting the recommendation to government officials, thereby leading to non-decision about the future of DSM. Chapter 6 summarizes the action of actors in affecting policy making and implementation as influenced by two conflicting sets of institutions. The first set relates to market-based thinking versus centralized planning as leading principles for economic development. Both are used as a discourse for promoting economic development and its operationalization, which are shaping how actors view and overcome the problems of the seed sector. This also explains why policies on paper are not implemented and why new initiatives are not formally endorsed. The tension between these divergent institutions has increased because of the dual use of seed by the government: the government has used the seed to both promote economic development and maintain strong political ties with farmers. The second set of conflicting institutions relates to authoritarian versus participatory decision making. On the one hand, is the government practice of authoritative decision-making, where only the input of stakeholders is considered when it fits in with the existing policy direction of the executives. On the other hand, it is common practice to organize stakeholders to contribute to policy making and implementation. The practice of considering the policy input of others only when it fits in with the policy direction of the decision-makers, creates a sense of being forced to accept, increasing the tension between how the government decides and the role of stakeholders. Given the tension between the conflicting institutions, and circumstances in Ethiopia, this research suggested that choosing one approach over the other will not guarantee the development of the seed sector. There is no guarantee that the outcome of a deliberative policy making process will be a different policy option than the one opted for by one of the actors. However, the co-development of a solution for the shared seed sector problem will guarantee better ownership and thus better implementation than an imposed policy. It is also important to note that deliberative policy making and implementation is not an easy task given the current stakeholders’ landscape and the culture of authoritative decision making. Thus, the change towards deliberative policy making and implementation is not something that emerges overnight: it is a process that matures over time. This calls for the strategic management of a process of change that leads to the transformation of the seed sector into a self-reliant and resilient sector. By identifying the underlying institutions behind the challenges of the seed sector and suggesting options for improvement, this thesis contributes to the debate on how to make the seed sector function better. At a higher level, it also contributes to the debate on policy making and implementation processes in Ethiopia.

One of the main challenges of Ethiopian agriculture is the shortage of certified seeds of improved varieties, which results in uneven dispersal of quality seed amongst farmers. In a context where 80% to 90% of the seed requirement is covered by the informal seed sector, understanding how and why seeds are exchanged through informal channels is crucial. This study aims to describe why nodal farmers disseminate seeds at a higher rate than other farmers in their network. Following a social network analysis, in-depth surveys were conducted with identified nodal and connector sorghum farmers in order to determine the main social characteristics that differentiate them from other farmers in a western lowlands community of the Tigray Region of Ethiopia. We examined empirically the main factors that motivate them, the main drawbacks they experience, and the behavioral decisions that could potentially speed up or slow down the adoption of newly released improved varieties of sorghum. The study showed that, in this district, few significant socio-demographic differences exist between nodal and non-nodal farmers. The seed exchange network was hyper localized, as the majority of exchanges took place within village boundaries. Focus group discussions showed that a nodal position should not be taken for granted, as the network is dynamic and in constant evolution. In-depth interviews revealed that it was unlikely for accessing farmers to be consistently denied seeds due to a deeply rooted social norm insisting that one should not, under any circumstances, be turned down when asking for seeds. However, in practice, chronic seed insecure farmers suffering from poor performances may find themselves unable to access quality seeds, as automatic support should not be assumed. In terms of motivation, nodal farmers ranked maintaining friendships and relationships as the two most important. Thus, beyond the risk-sharing mechanism underlying much of the seed exchange, it is a mix of personal and community interests that motivates nodal farmers to have more exchange partners and thus disseminate more seeds on average than other farmers in the seed networks. This indicates that their social capital is the major driver to exchange seeds.

Consumer concerns related to food safety scandals and globalization of food production have resulted in a global and interconnected system for the production and distribution of food. In the last decade many public and private standards on food safety and quality have been developed as a result of these developments. Currently, there is proliferation of standards worldwide. One effect is that, in particular, companies from developing countries and emerging economies have problems to comply with these standards. Another important effect is increasing marginal costs of certification and accreditation, which also puts pressure on company profits in industrialized countries. The combined impacts of these effects ask for strategies to revalue the cost/effectiveness of the certification and accreditation system.

The initial chapters of the monograph address the principles that underlie all dryland farming, and are the basis for the following chapters that address dryland farming issues around the world

Choices in project approach affect the continuation of soil and water conservation (SWC) after project withdrawal, and thus the sustainability and cost effectiveness of the project. A SWC project was carried out in southern Mali between 1986 and 1998. Its features were the promotion of cheap and simple SWC measures, a participatory village extension approach with limited use of incentives, and the incorporation of the SWC programme in an existing Malian extension service. By 2000, farmers in half the 5000 villages in southern Mali had been trained in SWC. By 2002, erosion-control measures had been installed in 94 percent of the villages in southern Mali by 46 per cent of the farmers and in 15 per cent of the fields. Though external donor support has stopped, farmer adoption is steadily continuing and spreading to untargeted villages.

Contains fulltext : 77105.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Competing claims on natural resources become increasingly acute, with the poor being most vulnerable to adverse outcomes of such competition. A major challenge for science and policy is to progress from facilitating univocal use to guiding stakeholders in dealing with potentially conflicting uses of natural resources. The development of novel, more equitable, management options that reduce rural poverty is key to achieving sustainable use of natural resources and the resolution of conflicts over them. Here, we describe an interdisciplinary and interactive approach for: (i) the understanding of competing claims and stakeholder objectives; (ii) the identification of alternative resource use options, and (iii) the scientific support to negotiation processes between stakeholders. Central to the outlined approach is a shifted perspective on the role of scientific knowledge in society. Understanding scientific knowledge as entering societal arenas and as fundamentally negotiated, the role of the scientist becomes a more modest one, a contributor to ongoing negotiation processes among stakeholders. Scientists can, therefore, not merely describe and explain resource-use dynamics and competing claims, but in doing so, they should actively contribute to negotiation processes between stakeholders operating at different scales (local, national, regional, and global). Together with stakeholders, they explore alternatives that can contribute to more sustainable and equitable use of natural resources and, where possible, design new technical options and institutional arrangements. 18 p.