1. Delivery systems designed to meet the
Delivery systems designed to meet the
needs of women and the poor
Louise Sperling
Workshop in celebration of the lives of Dr María Jesús ("Chusa") Ginés
and Ms Verónica Mera

2. Last of three Ds?
Last of three Ds?
Discovery
Deployment
Discovery Deployment Delivery
Delivery

3. WHY should public sector research be
interested in Delivery?
i t t d i D li ?

4. WHY should public sector research be interested in
Delivery?
Reason 1: Costly NOT to deliver
Reason 1: Costly NOT to deliver
1) Single bean variety cost $ US 1,000,000 to develop–
Single bean variety cost $ US 1 000 000 to develop
not to deliver, waste
1) Not delivering in ‘development’ means $ US billions in
emergency aid

5. WHY should public sector research be interested in
Delivery?
Reason 2: There exist few truly equitable
effective delivery systems across technologies
effective delivery systems across technologies
Designing, testing and catalyzing ‘ best bet’ delivery
systems is a RESEARCH ISSUE
t i RESEARCH ISSUE

6. Three central queries
Can Research identify strategic features of Delivery
Systems: pro poor , pro women?
Can Research catalyze the implementation of such
Delivery Systems‐ through testing and evaluating
approaches?
Can Research provide the key evidence needed for
high level policy change– to promote more
h hl l l h
effective Delivery Systems?

7. EXAMPLE:
EXAMPLE:
Delivery of Seed‐based technologies
li f db d h l i

8. EXAMPLE: Seed‐based technologies
Based on breeding/genetic resources
Production increases
Production increases
Nutritional enhancement
Stabilizing environment tress
Stabilizing environment tress
> 60% of budget of NARS Africa‐‐‐‐ seed based technologies
> 60% f b d t f NARS Af i db dt h l i

9. FARMERS EAGER TO TRY NEW VARIETIES
(
(seed‐based technologies)
g )
Testing novel bean varieties
Rwanda: 40-70 during a lifetime
DRC: 20-30 during a lifetime

10. Status of Delivery Systems seed‐based
Status of Delivery Systems seed‐based
technologies?

11. Conventional Model
C i lM d l
Bean NARS led centralized seed systems
A few released popular On farm variety testing
varieties
Parastatal seed producers/ Farmer research groups/individual farmers
suppliers
GO/NGOs (for development projects
+ as seed relief)
Farmers Farmers Traders

12. Research Dynamism. vs. Seed Supply
(beans)
Country # var. # var.supplied by Seed
released formal seed channels coverage by
(96-04) formal seed
supply (%)
DRC 18 4 <2
Ethiopia 23 3 0.8
Rwanda 20 5 2
Uganda
U d 11 2 5

13. Common sites of seed sale
Common sites of seed sale
Town centers
Town centers Formal agro‐dealer shops
g p

14. Common sizes of seed sale : large !
100 kg 2‐20 kg

15. Use of certified seed in percent area sown in a selection
of African countries (DANAGRO 1988, CIAT 2002, 2004 SSN 2005)
1988 2002 2004,
Maize Sorghum Wheat Rice Common
Bean
Angola 15 0 50 0 0
Lesotho
L h 75 5 38 4 -
Malawi 10 5 19 4 0
Mozambique 10 5 13 - -
Rwanda - - - - 1
Tanzania 14 9 15 0 0
Zambia 75 0 97 <1 <1
Zimbabwe 83 25 97 <1 <1

16. until 2007: Stalemate
until 2007: Stalemate
Massive amount of research going into product
Massive amount of research going into product
development side‐‐‐ successes
Ineffective (circumscribed) delivery systems for seed
Ineffective (circumscribed) delivery systems– for seed
based technologies

17. DELIVERY SYSTEMS RESEARCH

18. Research into seed delivery systems :
key features for women/poor
key features for women/poor
Variety has to be REALLY good
Seed has to be available‐ qtes, in geographic proximity, in time for
planting (lots and near!)
Seed has to be ‘accessible’’
“low” cost
or via exchange/barter networks
Quality: acceptable to end‐users (trusted sources)
Information sufficient for farmers to make informed decisions
Information sufficient for farmers to make informed decisions
Ongoing supplies (responding to demand)
(Sperling+ Loevinsohn, 1993; Buruchara + David 1994 Sperling, Scheidegge
+ Burchara 1996;, David + Sperling 1999 ;Rubyogo et al. 2010)

19. Implementation tests: Variety really good :
Implementation tests: Variety really good :
Women Experts involved in selection process

20. Implementation tests: good quantities in
p g q
geographic proximity (2008) – trusted sources
Sold in open markets and country stores

21. Implementation tests: low cost small packs
(pro‐poor / pro women marketing)
Test sizes:
70 g 10Ksh ($ 0.15= cup of tea)
500g 50ksh
2000g 180Ksh
Leldet Ltd, Kenya

22. Results‐ small packs seed experiments
High volume sales
Niger groundnut 6,908 packs
Niger ‐ groundnut‐ 6,908 packs
Kenya‐ beans 28,000 “
Ethiopia beans 11,750 “
Ethiopia‐ beans 11 750
Nigeria‐ soybeans 7,980
Mozam cowpea 12 Tons in packs
Nigeria cowpea 15 “
Nigeria cowpea 15
Farmers purchase certified legume seed
F h tifi d l d
> 75,000 farmers (2 seasons)

23. Results: small pack purchase by gender
KARI/FIPS, eastern Kenya : Sept‐Dec 2008
/
5404 Customers
2265 (42%) men
3139 (58%) women
3139 (58%) women
female
male

24. Developing IPGs: delivery systems
Small P k
S ll Packs
Get new varieties to farmers
(80g 250g 500g, kg, kg
(80 250 500 1 k 2 k , 5 k kg
Uncover demand
Varieties
Seed
Expand market for certified
Leldet Seed
Company:, Kenya

25. New small pack model adopted: wide scale
AGRA
AGRA Nat l programs (legumes):
Nat’l programs (legumes):
$US 150 million Mali
Kenya
Private seed companies Ethiopia
Leldet; Kenya
Leldet; Kenya Nigeria
Dimitri‐ Malawi Mozambique
Niger

26. Small pack: Proof of Concept; with BMGF
Small pack: Proof of Concept; with BMGF
Small pack concept cross cuts BMGF:
Small pack concept cross cuts BMGF:
Agriculture
Market Access
Extension
Gender
Profitable– yet wealth + gender sensitive

27. Three central queries
Can Research identify strategic features of Delivery
Systems: pro poor , pro women?
Can Research catalyze the implementation of such
Delivery Systems‐ through testing and evaluating
approaches?
Can Research provide the key evidence needed for
high level policy change– to promote more
h hl l l h
effective Delivery ?
Yes Research can !

28. Moving forward in the research field of ‘Delivery’
Concrete suggestions

29. Proposed action 1. Research has to
sharpen delivery visions (all profitable)
h d li ii ( ll fi bl )
Private Sector Public Sector
Public Sector
Maximize profit
Maximize profit Sustainable profits + equity
Sustainable profits + equity
focus best clientele Focus broad range clientele
move only big winners move range of varieties
Sell in high population Sell geographically dispersed
areas areas

30. Proposed action 2. Donors/Project
managers have to ‘demand’ positive impact
h ‘d d’ ii i
Delivery R+D has to be built into project
Clear initial targets should be set for
l l h ld b f
ID of : gender‐ neutral /wealth neutral delivery
ID f d l/ lh l d li
processes
Actual target thresholds should be set (to push
the bounds))

31. Proposed action 3. Fields programs need
to test and evaluate range of ‘promising
delivery options’– as well as wild cards

32. Proposed action 4: Donors/Research
Directors need to make hard decisions ($$$)
Di d k h dd i i ($$$)
Refuse to fund: programs with no delivery R+D
Refuse to fund: programs with no delivery R+D
(unless delivery strategy fully ‘solved)’
Stop programs in which delivery is biased– leaving out
the poor and women (no matter how productive,
the poor and women (no matter how productive,
lucrative)
Promote/recommend, scaling up – with partners only
if delivery options are gender neutral, wealth neutral
y p g

33. Time to plan delivery strategy at the highest
Time to plan delivery strategy at the highest
levels ‐‐for more effective agricultural R+D
More food security
More food security
More economic growth
More economic growth
Greater empowerment of women
and the poor