Wageningen University - Department of Social Sciences

MSc Thesis Chair Group Knowledge, Technology and Innovation

Thesis report

for

Master of Science in Development and Rural Innovation

2014/2015

Title:

Smallholders’ access to quality sweet potato vines in the Lake zone, Tanzania: The case of Mwanza.

Student: Ngabo Pamba

Supervisor: Dr. Ir. Conny Almekinders

Thesis code: CPT-80830

August, 2015

Registration number:770719640080

Dedication To my lovely wife and best friend, mother, children, and family as whole for unending spiritual support, I really love you deep from my heart

List of acronyms

BMGF Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation CIP International Potato Center CRP-RTB CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas DONATA Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa project DVMs Decentralized Vine Multipliers NGOs Non-governmental Organizations OFSP Orange Fleshed Sweet potatoes SASHA Sweet potato Action for Security and Health in Africa SP Sweet potato SPHI Sweet potato for Profit and Health Initiative URT United Republic of Tanzania WUR Wageningen University and Research Centre

Acknowledgement First and foremost, I am indebted to my Savior and Lord Jesus Christ for the opportunity to study in The Netherlands, and for the good health throughout the course of my study and above all for making everything possible. It is not by mighty nor by power but by the spirit of the living God.

Secondly, to my thesis advisor Dr. Ir. Conny Almekinders, I have nothing to pay back for your endless advice, support and commitment in this study than saying thank you very much. You have been very helpful and your guidance and inputs always gave me a direction from the beginning of this study. I am also grateful to Mr. Bela Tekeen, a PhD candidate (Knowledge Technology and Innovation) of WUR and Dr. Claire Daridzu for co-reading my thesis.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to Margaret McEwan (CIP- Research Leader, Social and Health Sciences Division, SPHI), and Dr. Simon Jeremiah the country coordinator of the Kinga Marando project based in LZARDI Ukiriguru, Mwanza for granting me an opportunity to undertake a three month internship with Kinga Marando-CRP RTB project under CIP. This internship provided a basis for my research with decentralized vine multipliers and farmers in Sengerema, Geita, Misungwi and Ilemela districts of the Lake Zone, Tanzania. Also to Kwame Ogero, the CIP-research associate and field supervisor, I am owed plenty for his support in transport arrangements during data collection as well as for the sharing of the official documents. He has been more than a brother.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to DVMs and farmers from Nyamle, Sumbugu, Misasi, Kayenze, Imalangómbe, Kisomeko, Kabusungu, Mwangika, Chigunga, Nungwe, Busaka, Chikobe and Tunyenye villages for their willingness to participate in this research, and to the local authorities through agricultural extension workers of Misungwi, Ilemela, Sengerema and Geita districts for their support in reaching the DVMs and their clients.

Lastly, special thanks go to my wife and family for the moral support and encouragement, and more importantly for prayers. Thanks again my wife for allowing me study for the two years taking care of the children and all family matters. I owe you plenty…….

iii

List of Tables Table 1: The number of decentralized vine multipliers established under Marando Bora project by implementing partners ...... 32 Table 2: Characterization of DVMs in the Marando Bora project ...... 33 Table 3: The number of studied decentralized vine multipliers and farmers by districts for the planting seasons October-November 2014 and February-March 2015 ...... 34 Table 4: The number of farmers purchasing vines (N=32) ...... 35 Table 5: Sweet potato varieties bought by first time buyers between 2013 and 2015 (N=16) ...... 35 Table 6: Reasons for farmers purchasing vines for first time (N=16) ...... 36 Table 7: Farmers’ reasons for multiple purchase of vines (2nd, 3rd or more purchases) for years from 2012 to 2015 (N=16) ...... 39 Table 8: Sweet potato varieties bought by multiple time buyers for years from 2012 to April, 2015 (N=16) ...... 41 Table 9: The number of farmers sourced vines from DVMs and their clients within the village (N=27) ...... 46 Table 10: The number of farmers sourced vines from DVMs and their clients outside the village (N=24) ...... 46 Table 11: Proportion of farmers willing to pay Tsh 5000 for a bundle of vines and their relation with decentralized vine multipliers (N=32) ...... 47 Table 12: The number of occurrences of the conditions under which farmers are willing to pay for vines by agro-ecological zones (N=51) ...... 48 Table 13: DVMs perspectives on the reasons for farmers purchasing vines by agro-ecology (N=7) ... 48 Table 14: Proportion of studied DVMs by agro-ecologies in the districts (N=18) ...... 51 Table 15: Current status of DVMs in rainy agro-ecology in relation to vine multiplication (N=10) .... 52 Table 16: Current status of DVMs in dry agro-ecology in relation to vine multiplication (N=10) ...... 58 Table 17: The estimated number of buyers of DVMs material, free and non-cash receivers by districts for the planting seasons October-November 2014 and February-March 2015 ...... 59 Table 18: DVMs’ opinion on right time for vine sales (N=7) ...... 60

List of Figures Figure 1: The map of Tanzania showing Lake Zone ...... 15 Figure 2: The schematic representation of the linkages existing between the vine multipliers (DVMs) and the farmers/customers in the Lake zone, Tanzania ...... 31 Figure 3: Sources of information about the DVM by frequency (N=51) ...... 43 Figure 4: Proportion of female and men in this study (N=51) ...... 44 Figure 5: Proportion of female farmers by reasons to source vines from DVMs and their clients (N=33) ...... 44 Figure 6: Proportion of male farmers by their reasons to source vines from DVMs and their clients (n=18) ...... 45 Figure 7: Farmers perspectives on availability of SP planting material at DVMs and their clients (N=51) ...... 47 Figure 8: Farmers acceptance of the vines by % agro-ecological zone ...... 50 Figure 9: Fatuma Seleman in her sweet potato farm. (Photo: Ngabo) ...... 54 Figure 10: Tunu’s sweet potato vines left in field ...... 55 Figure 11: Solomon Elifuraha in interview with the author ...... 61 Figure 12: Net tunnels constructed using insect proof nets, wooden sticks and wires/sisal twine at farmers’ fields...... 63 Figure 13: Proportion of farmers received free vines from DVMs or their clients by type of relationship% (N=19) ...... 66 Figure 14: Proportion of farmers who bought vines from DVMs by relationship % (N=32) ...... 68 Figure 15: Forms of reciprocal services through which farmers receive vines by number of occurrence (N=19) ...... 71

Table of contents Dedication ...... i List of acronyms ...... ii Acknowledgement ...... iii List of Tables ...... iv List of Figures ...... v Table of contents ...... vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 10 1.1. Scope ...... 10 1.2. Background ...... 10 1.2.1. Seed systems in Sub-Saharan Africa ...... 11 1.2.2. Sweet potato in Tanzania ...... 14 1.2.3. Problem statement ...... 17 1.3. Research Questions ...... 18 1.4. Theoretical framework ...... 19 1.4.1. Moral economy theory ...... 19 1.4.2. Social networks theory ...... 20 1.5. Methodology ...... 21 1.5.1. Description of the study area ...... 21 1.5.1.1. Location ...... 21 1.5.1.2. Climate...... 21 1.5.1.3. Population, area and economic activities ...... 21 1.5.2. Research design ...... 22 1.5.3. Sampling and sample groups...... 22 1.5.4. Methods for data collection ...... 23 1.5.4.1. Project documents ...... 23 1.5.4.2. Semi‐structured interviews ...... 24 1.6. Ethical considerations ...... 24 1.6.1. Informed consent ...... 24 1.6.2. Privacy / Confidentiality...... 25 1.6.3. Harm ...... 25 1.7. Data analysis ...... 25 1.8. Limitations of this research ...... 26 1.9. Layout of this thesis report ...... 26

CHAPTER 2: AGRO-ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT, THE MARANDO BORA PROJECT AND SWEET POTATO PLANTING MATERIALS ...... 28 2.1. Agro‐ecological conditions and sweet potato planting material ...... 28 2.1.1. Agro-climatic conditions: rainfall and access to water ...... 28 2.1.1.1. Sengerema district ...... 28 2.1.1.2. Geita district ...... 28 2.1.1.3. Ilemela district ...... 29 2.1.1.4. Misungwi district ...... 29 2.1.2. Cropping seasons and sweet potato production ...... 29 2.1.3. Sweet potato varieties grown in the study area ...... 30 2.1.4. Implications of the agro‐ecological zones for farmers use of sweet potato planting material ...... 30 2.2. The Marando Bora project ...... 32 2.2.1. Partners and sites of the Marando Bora project ...... 32 2.2.2. Planting material: varieties and vines ...... 32 CHAPTER 3: FARMERS DEMAND FOR SWEET POTATO VINES ...... 34 3.1. The farmers and DVMs in the study ...... 34 3.2. The purchasing behaviour of the farmers buying vines ...... 34 3.2.1. Motivation for buying vines by first time buyers ...... 35 3.2.1.1. New variety ...... 36 3.2.1.2. Farm saved vines found unfit for planting...... 38 3.2.2. Motivation for buying vines again ...... 39 3.2.2.1. Drying up or animal damage of the farm saved vines (loss of farmer’s vines) ...... 39 3.2.2.2. Obtaining sufficient vines for establishing a new sweet potato farm ...... 39 3.2.2.3. Perceiving DVMs vines of good quality and inadequate farm saved vines ...... 40 3.2.3. Farmers bought from different vine sources ...... 40 3.3. The quantity purchased in relation to the total area planted ...... 41 3.4. Farmers receiving free vines ...... 42 3.5. Farmers’ source of information about and relation with DVMs ...... 43 3.5.1. Farmers sources of information about the DVM ...... 43 3.5.2. Farmers relationship with vine sources: DVMs and clients ...... 43 3.6. Farmers’ need for sweet potato vine in relation to gender and distance ...... 43 3.6.1. Sweet potato vine need in respect to gender...... 43 3.6.2. Distance travelled by farmers in need of sweet potato vines...... 45 3.7. Farmers perspectives on availability of sweet potato planting material ...... 46

vii

3.8. Farmers opinion about the prices, willingness to pay and acceptance for sweet potato vines 47 3.8.1. Farmers perspectives of the conditions under which they would be willing to pay for sweet potato vines ...... 48 3.8.1.1. Vines fail due to drought or animal damage ...... 48 3.8.1.2. When rains are available ...... 48 3.8.1.3. New vines of the virus cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties ...... 49 3.8.1.4. Other conditions ...... 49 3.8.2. Farmers perspectives on acceptance of the cleaned and improved orange fleshed sweet potato vines by agro-ecology ...... 49 CHAPTER 4: DECENTRALIZED VINE MULTIPLIERS AND THEIR SWEET POTATO VINE MULTIPLICATION (SUPPLY) ...... 51 4.1. DVMs in the rainy agro‐ecology ...... 51 4.1.1. DVMs multiplying vines for own use and sale ...... 51 4.1.1.1. DVMs acknowledging the vine business worthwhile and promotional activities they do ...... 52 4.1.1.2. The experience of the unsuccessful DVMs in vine sales ...... 54 4.1.2. DVMs producing for own use ...... 55 4.1.3. DVMs who stopped the vine business ...... 56 4.1.4. Self-motivated multipliers ...... 56 4.2. DVMs in the dry agro‐ecology: DVMs with irrigation facilities ...... 57 4.3. DVMs perspectives about their customers and commercializing sweet potato vines ...... 58 4.3.1. The categories of sweet potato customers and vine sales ...... 58 4.3.2. Sweet potato vine sales, appropriate time for sales and timing vine multiplication ...... 60 4.3.3. Stirring customers/farmers’ interest for SP seed/promotional activities undertaken ...... 60 4.3.4. The voucher system ...... 63 4.3.4.1. The achievements of the voucher system ...... 63 4.3.4.2. Challenges of the voucher system ...... 63 4.4. Processes through which DVMs determine price for sweet potato vines ...... 64 4.4.1. Consulting other DVMs ...... 64 4.4.2. Negotiating with buyers ...... 64 4.4.3. DVMs own considerations ...... 64 4.4.3.1. Socio-economic status of the buyer ...... 64 4.4.3.2. Relationship with the buyer ...... 65 4.4.3.3. Frequency of purchase ...... 65 4.5. DVMs connections with sources for clean vine cuttings and new varieties ...... 65

viii

CHAPTER 5: RELATIONSHIPS/SOCIAL NETWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY TO SWEET POTATO VINES ...... 66 5.1. Existing relationships between DVMs, clients, and receivers of free vines ...... 66 5.1.1. Kinships/relatives ...... 66 5.1.2. Friendships ...... 67 5.1.3. Neighbourhoods ...... 67 5.1.4. DVMs and their clients ...... 67 5.2. Social networks for sweet potato vines in the study area ...... 68 5.3. Farmers’ access to the sweet potato planting material ...... 69 5.3.1. Cash as a determinant ...... 69 5.3.2. Social relationships as another determinant ...... 70 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 72 6.1. DVMs and roles they play in SP seed systems ...... 72 6.1.1. DVMs in rainy agro-ecology ...... 72 6.1.2. DVMs in dry agro-ecology ...... 73 6.2. Self‐motivated multipliers (SMMs) ...... 73 6.3. Farmers needs for vines ...... 74 6.4. Relationships and farmers access to SP planting materials ...... 75 6.5. Conclusions ...... 76 References ...... 78 APPENDICES ...... 81 Appendix 1. Interview guide ...... 81

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope

This study focused on areas of Mwanza region where the SASHA Marando Bora project was implemented. Mwanza is one of the previous 4 regions (now 5 regions after dividing Mwanza into 2 administrative regions: Mwanza and Geita) that comprised the Lake zone of Tanzania, namely, Kagera, Mwanza, Shinyanga and Mara. The study focused on Mwanza because it has higher potential in sweet potato production than other regions in the zone.

I explored small-scale farmers’ access to sweet potato planting material from specialized seed producers, also known as decentralised vine multipliers (DVMs). Furthermore, I designed this study to answer what farmers demand in terms of quality and quantity, what are the roles DVMs play in ensuring quality planting material that reach farmers at planting, who the DVM’s customers were and under which conditions (climatic and relational) they were willing to pay for vines or share them for free, are questions answered as well. Understanding farmers’ rationale/demand or interest for purchasing vines from DVMs helped to gauge the value of specialized seed multipliers. Additionally, I liked to know how the relationships between DVMs and farmers affected the price of sweet potato (SP) planting material, which in turn has effects on the farmers’ access to planting material. From moral economy perspective values and morals embedded in relationships were assumed to shape the pricing, in this case for SP planting material. Relationships had effect on the access of small-scale farmers to quality SP planting material. I defined quality SP planting material as vine cuttings of local landraces cleaned of viruses causing SP diseases or as improved varieties that meet small-scale farmers’ preferences and conditions.

This endeavour aims to contribute to sustainable SP seed systems. Furthermore, the study may open avenues for commercialization/marketing of the vines through identified links within and outside particular social groups of farmers in the Tanzanian Lake region.

1.2. Background

Seeds are an important agricultural input in crop production (Louwaars and Boef, 2012; Louwaars et al., 2013; McGuire, 2008). “Seed quality determines the success of crops in terms of yield….and…contributes to food security….” (Louwaars et al., 2013). Hence, much

effort has been made by governments, researchers and/ or private companies in Sub - Saharan Africa to ensure availability of, access to, and utilization of seeds of improved varieties by small-scale farmers. Such initiatives include, among others, supporting private companies to produce and/ or commercialize seeds, strengthening public support in seed quality control and variety registration (see in Louwaars and Boef, 2012). All these efforts sought to improve seed security at small-scale farmer level. Seed security, in this study refers to seed availability, accessibility and utilization that meet the need of the small-scale farmers. Thus, understanding seed security needs reflection on the functioning of seed systems that supply seeds to small-scale farmers, as well as understanding the needs of the farmers. In this regard, this study was carried out to explore the role that DVMs play in availability and accessibility to quality SP planting material for farmers. In this work, availability is defined as the production or multiplication of the SP planting material. Accessibility is defined as the material acquisition by small-scale farmers for SP production whereas seeds refer to vine cuttings used for growing the SP crop, which could be orange, purple or white fleshed.

1.2.1. Seed systems in Sub-Saharan Africa

Seed system in Sub-Saharan Africa can be conceptualised as existing of two sub systems, operating in a parallel fashion (Bishaw and van Gastel, 2008; Linnemann and de Bruijn, 1987). There is one known as formal seed system (FSS), which others termed as modern ( see for example, Linnemann and de Bruijn, 1987; Latour, 2012) and another informal seed system (ISS), also referred to as traditional, farmers’ or local seed supply system (Almekinders et al., 1994; Linnemann and de Bruijn, 1987; McGuire, 2007; McGuire, 2008). Different terms are used to connote different meanings. For example, ‘modern’ means a system with separate units of differentiated operations that are market-oriented, and uses hired labour and inputs such as fertilizers as well. Most, importantly, FSS considers seeds as an input rather than a commodity to be reproduced or recycled; chain-wise organised from A to B. ‘Local’ stands for specific locality agro-ecological features including infrastructure, socio-economic conditions, and is integrated in the sense that seed production is embedded in food production (home and market oriented) and in which seed is recycled.

Formal seed systems

The formal seed systems involves registered institutions/parastatals and seed companies in developing new varieties, producing, testing, certifying seed quality against standards and distribution (Almekinders et al., 1994; Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999; Louwaars et al.,

2013). The systems are characterized of differentiated specific roles for each unit. Research institutions often establish gene banks and develop new varieties (plant breeding), and private organizations or companies produce and distribute certified seeds (Bishaw and van Gastel, 2008). The strength of the formal seed systems is their capacity to produce seeds of improved varieties for (modern, mechanized) agriculture in uniform favourable areas. Seeds of improved varieties are important in Sub-Saharan African countries including Tanzania for improving crop productivity which translates into food security.

Empirical evidence, however, shows that formal seed systems in Sub-Saharan Africa have been ineffective in supplying seeds that meet the diverse needs of small-scale farmers in different agro-ecological areas at the right time (Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999; Bishaw and van Gastel, 2008). Areas with unfertile soils, bad infrastructure, and frequent droughts are significantly affected (Ibid). Studies depict that the formal seed systems hardly supply 10 %of the small-scale farmers’ seeds demand; limited to major food crops, such as maize and sorghum (Almekinders et al., 1994; Louwaars et al., 2013). Yet, the formal seed supplies for high profile crops like maize are reported to be inefficient. In addition, it is evident that improved varieties often become part of the informal system, when farmers start to reproduce (rather than buy), in particular self- pollinating and vegetatively propagated crops.

Demonstrating ineffectiveness of the FSS to meet farmers’ needs, Mhike et al. (2012) conducted a study on farmers’ selection of maize crop variety in drought prone areas of Zimbabwe and revealed contrasting needs/interests between small-scale farmers and breeders. The former prioritized seeds tolerant to drought, high yielding, early maturing and well performing in unfertile soils whereas the latter produced seeds resistant to diseases. Consequently, small-scale farmers disliked the seeds of the varieties developed by breeders. Similar cases were reported for many developing countries (see in Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999).

The situation was worse with other crops, such as sweet potato and yams, which were deemed to be of ‘low profile’. According to Louwaars et al. (2013) such crops were reported to be commercially un viable for private companies and researchers to undertake. Thus, as Almekinders et al. (1994) point out, sourcing of their seeds remained informal. Currently, despite the fact that formal seed sector complementarily distributes improved planting material to farmers, the wide spread of the material from farmer to farmer is still important; and as a result, farmers exchange planting material for free.

Informal seed systems

The informal seed systems supply about 80-90 % of total seed demand of small-scale farmers in developing countries including Tanzania (Bishaw and Turner, 2008; Cooper and TAD, 1993; McGuire, 2008; Sperling and Cooper, 2004). Their prominence is based on the fact that all components are integrated in crop production systems of small-scale farmers. There is neither specialization nor segmentation of activities spread over different institutions or units, instead variety use and development, seed production and exchanges are integrated in production implemented under farmer conditions (Almekinders et al., 1994). Given that farmers practice seed selection, production, saving and distribution under different farming environments, these systems presumably maintain varieties that are adapted to farmers conditions and preferences (Bishaw and Turner, 2008). Informal seed systems maintain and distribute seeds of many crops of different genetic variations (Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999). The systems are credited to conserve plant genetic diversity, which serves as a gene bank for variety improvement through natural and farmer selections (Ibid).

Integrating the formal and informal seed systems

However, recognizing the complementarities of the two seed systems, some authors recommended integration of the formal and informal seed systems at practice and policy levels, introducing the concept of Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD) (Louwaars and Boef, 2012; Louwaars et al., 2013). Although they propose strengthening the informal seed systems to enhance seed security for small-scale farmers in developing countries, they do not overlook the possible opportunities and targets realized in linking with formal seed sector including “food security, economic development and the promotion of agricultural entrepreneurship, and biodiversity management” (Louwaars et al., 2013, p. 191). In this light, DVMs were established in the Lake zone of Tanzania. DVMs include both individual and group vine producers. These provide space for interaction for both informal and formal seed systems. They play an intermediary role bridging the information and technological gap between research/NGOs partly constituting the formal seed sector and farmers in aspects of vine multiplication, i.e. availability and distribution which results in improved access. In my view, DVMs act somehow similarly to innovation brokers (see Klerkx and Gildemacher, 2012).

According to Klerkx and Gildemacher, “innovation brokers are persons or organizations that, from a relatively impartial third-party position, purposefully catalyze innovation through

bringing together actors and facilitating their interaction”. Apart from linking research and farmers, and a one-to-one interaction, innovation brokers create and facilitate many-to-many relationships. As an organization and function, innovation brokering differs from traditional extension and R&D because it represents the institutionalization of the facilitation role, with a broad systemic, multiactor, innovation systems perspective” (Klerkx and Gildemacher, 2012, p. 221). In this light, innovation brokers as DVMs could do, connect different actors who are not familiar with each other but may provide the “new combinations” essential for innovation. They can forge contacts between parties that would normally not cooperate. Moreover, they act as facilitators of interaction. Contrary to Klerkx et al. (2009) assertion that innovation brokers/intermediaries neither organize nor implement innovations but rather facilitate other organizations to innovate, DVMs in this case, participated in the quality vine multiplication and distribution. Though DVMs functions seem to be slightly different from Klerkx view of the innovation brokers’ roles, yet DVMs connected research/NGOs and small- scale farmers through vine multiplication and distribution affecting the availability and access to SP planting material for small-scale farmers respectively. DVMs as farmer organizations, though facilitated by the Marando Bora project under farmer conditions, connect with other NGOs and farmer groups creating many-to- many relationships that would be effective in vine multiplication, i.e. vine availability and distribution which makes access to SP planting material more feasible.

Nevertheless, no research paid much attention was on the farmers’ needs for the SP planting material and how the DVMs address them.

1.2.2. Sweet potato in Tanzania

Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) is the third major root and tuber crop in Tanzania after cassava (Manihot esculenta) and Irish potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) (Kapinga et al., 1995); the second after cassava in Lake Victoria region (Sindi and Wambugu, 2012). Most households in the Lake zone in particular (see Figure 1), rely on the crop as a source of livelihoods, contributing importantly to households’ food and income (Kapinga et al., 1995; Tairo et al., 2008). The following characteristics favour the crop in poor small-scale farmer conditions: short growth period, readily available planting materials mostly shared in social networks, ability to grow in marginalized lands (wet/swampy and relatively unfertile soils), high productivity per unit time, relative tolerance to drought, relative low use of inputs (manures/fertilizers and pesticides) and low demand in terms of labour and management (Joseph and Regina, 2007; Meludu et al., 2003).

Figure 1: The map of Tanzania showing Lake Zone

The sweet potato production in the Lake zone is hampered, among other factors, by inadequate supply of ‘clean’ (pest and diseases free) and high yielding planting material (Kapinga et al., 1995; Tairo et al., 2008). Attempts to address the situation in the past two decades through research, seed programs and other initiatives by Tanzanian government and or private companies/organizations focused on exploring factors affecting and/ or supporting improved functioning of formal seed systems. Yet, SP seed systems, as already noted, are

mainly informal (Gibson et al., 2009) as the formal sector is not active in those systems. SP seed systems are not interesting for private sector (seed companies) and apparently little attention is paid by the government/public sector.

Sweet potato is a vegetatively propagated crop. This means thatit can easily be genetically multiplied. As noted above, the crop is constrained, among others, by low availability and in access to quality planting material. Addressing this issue, a project called ‘Marando Bora’ (Quality Vines) was implemented in the Lake zone from October 2009 to June 2012. The project activities were centred on the following key areas: a) Provision of vines of high-yielding, more robust farmer-preferred SP varieties and those of beta-carotene enriched orange-fleshed varieties (OFSP). This would contribute towards reducing vitamin A deficiency in the Lake zone region; b) Ensuring that vines are provided free of viruses and are delivered early in the growing season. By doing this SP production would increase, impacting positively on food security and incomes; c) Training farmers on vine conservation approaches hence ensuring timely access to quality planting material at the start of the rainy season; and d) Training DVMs who would then become permanent sources of quality planting material. This would enhance farmers’ access to clean planting materials (CIP and BMGF, 2009). The project’s expectation was to stimulate availability and timely access of farmers to SP planting materials at the onset of the rainy season through individual farmers or farmer groups as DVMs. DVMs formed specialized outlets for planting materials. Planting materials were distributed through a partially subsidised voucher based system or sale basis to farmers in a radius of 10-12 km. The recipient farmers were willing and able to pay the sum of TSH 100 for a bundle of 200 vine cuttings and the project paid TSH 500 as subsidy for the sold bundles. The voucher system was expected to increase ownership and stimulate the market for planting material (SASHA Marando Bora case study, 2014). DVMs were actors providing space for interaction between the formal and informal seed systems, i.e. hybrid actors; where quality planting materials from research and NGOs were raised and from which farmers sourced both for free and at subsidized price, respectively. DVMs acted as integral part of the two sub-systems. The project phased out in June 2012. As a follow up action, this study partly investigates whether DVMs still commercialize their planting material; conditions under which

commercialization/specialization is feasible; who are the buyers/customers that rather purchase produced planting materials than multiply their own, together with information on the quality of planting materials required by customers; and how relationships shape pricing for SP planting material. Understanding the functioning of DVMs and farmers’ needs in relation to SP planting material, sheds light to an entry point to strengthening and ensuring effective and sustainable access to SP planting material for small-scale farmers.

I assumed that currently DVMs share for free some of the planting material and some apparently sell at certain prices. It’s my hypothesis that price setting considers moral values that SP has been a food security crop particularly utilized when cereals fail due to drought. Therefore, the crop planting materials are shared or sold at prices that ensure subsistence production. This is “moral economy” thinking (see Thompson, 1971) insuring that production stems on issues of insured availability and access to quality planting material.

In the beginning of agriculture – up to when breeding became a specialised activity, there was only an informal system. Then for some crops, formal seed systems developed, with varying success to meet demands of small -scale farmers in developing countries (Almekinders et al., 2007; Thiele, 1999). Some crops even never or hardly got attention, neither from private sector nor public sector, i.e. poor (wo) men staple food crops: yam, cassava, sweet potato as important examples in Africa (Almekinders et al., 1994). Seed systems for such crops remained informally valued by small-scale farmers in providing seeds of varied genetic architecture (Almekinders and Louwaars, 2002; Bishaw and Turner, 2008; Cooper and TAD, 1993; McGuire, 2008; Sperling and Cooper, 2004). As elsewhere in Africa, over years, SP seed systems in Tanzania have been informal based on farm saved vines. Vines distribution within and between farmers communities has been mainly through farmer-to-farmer exchanges. However, the systems have been characterized with recycled vines spreading SP diseases, which in turn cause low crop productivity

1.2.3. Problem statement In recognizing the complementarities of the two seed systems it was demonstrated that no one seed system could suffice farmers needs for seed, thus, some authors appreciate integrating them at practice level (Louwaars and Boef, 2012; Louwaars et al., 2013). With that light, an initiative to improve SP seed systems focused on establishing specialized seed producers also known as DVMs. DVMs act apparently as last players in formal seed systems at the same time frontline sources in the informal seed systems. These were meant to improve availability

and accessibility to seeds by small-scale farmers. However, little is known about farmers’ needs for SP planting materials and the DVMs’ roles to ensure farmers acquire such materials. This study seeks to understand what farmers, i.e. customers of the DVMs, need/demand in terms of quality and quantity as they buy from DVMs, and how DVMs meet this demand. In other words why they buy or get planting material from DVMs? Who are those customers? What DVMs do to get customers? And in what conditions, i.e. climatic and/or relational are customers willing to buy or share for free? Given that I assumed that DVMs sell SP planting materials, it is also important to explore how relationships affect pricing, which in turn affects small-scale farmers’ access to quality SP planting material.

This study focuses on availability and accessibility of propagation SP material. The study takes into consideration the access to information on propagation material and its genetic and sanitary health status. The findings from this study are aimed at shedding light on how informal and formal seed systems interact and function at a farmer level, and how effectively this can be improved to supply seed to small-scale farmers.

1.3. Research Questions

Generally, this study was carried out to address the research question: how do small-scale farmers in the Lake Zone of Tanzania access the SP planting material in a sustainable way?

Specifically, the study attempts to answer the following research questions: (i) What roles do DVMs play in ensuring SP planting material reaches the farmers? (ii) What would farmers need from sweet potato planting material produced by DVMs? (iii) How do the relationships between DVMs and farmers affect pricing for SP planting material?

1.4. Theoretical framework

The topic of this research requires making use of more than one theoretical approach to allow giving appropriate considerations to the three research questions.

1.4.1. Moral economy theory Scott (1976) used the concept of moral economy to connote peasants’ social life dependent upon principles of social justice, subsistence security and reciprocity; the break of which, he explains, resulted into peasants’ rebellion in Southeast Asia. Exploitation and disregard of moral ethics in social relationships triggered the exploited to become rebellious- a rebellion stirred up of social injustice, loss of rights and obligations, and reciprocity (Scott, 1976). He characterize peasants as farmers holding small pieces of land and producing mainly for home consumption (i.e. subsistence), such that their life depends on mutual support grounded on principles of reciprocity: giving gifts, sharing work and meals, communally accessing land and reciprocal loans (Coate and Ravallion, 1993; Scott, 1976). The so-called ‘moral economy’ centres on subsistence and reciprocity ethics. Morality of subsistence and reciprocity are derived from being embedded in social relationships shaped by values and mores that consider security of whole community as vital element. Such mores include “right to ‘just prices’…access to land…and forms of reciprocity that linked peasants with elites and with each other” (Edelman, 2005).

Perpetuating the concept of moral economy, Booth (1994) in his article titled ‘On the idea of Moral Economy’ contends that local markets are dominated by nonmarket institutions and relations, the implication of which is that the market forces of demand and supply are not determinants of prices for goods and services in local societies but rather the morals and values shaping relationships.

Though in a different context, likewise, Adams (1993) points on aspects/components of moral economy such as gifts giving, meal and labour sharing, free interest credit and other reciprocal services as non-market strategies farmers in Mali utilized to cope with food insecurity. However, he recommended complementary strategies alongside these social arrangements such as food aids and emergence seed reliefs. He, in addition, posits that moral activities are embedded in social relationships constituting networks inside and outside the village.

The concept of moral economy help to view the access to SP planting material through different forms of reciprocity that are embedded in social relationships between the DVMs, their clients and other farmers.

1.4.2. Social networks theory Social networks are defined as ties or interactions/relationships in a social structure that exist between two actors/persons-dyadic ties (Pescosolido, 2006; Persell, 2008). According to Granovetter (1973) ties/relationships/interactions between two persons create a network. Such ties can either be based on friendships or neighbourhood or kinship. Ties/relationships are established when resources such as goods, services, social support or information flow between actors and patterns of the ties shape the flow in terms of motivation, needs, desires, ways and means (Haythornthwaite, 1996, 2002). The strength of the tie is examined based on frequency of contacts, duration of association, intimacy of the tie, reciprocal services provided, and kinship (Haythornthwaite, 2002; Marsden and Campbell, 1984; Ruef, 2002). Ties can thus be categorized into strong and weak ties (Easley and Kleinberg, 2010). Strong ties represent more frequent interactions of few close friends or relatives or neighbours and weak ties embody very many, rarely communicating and distant actors such as friends of friends or acquaintances (Granovetter, 1973).

Literature points out that social networks are useful and effective in diffusing ideas, innovations, influence, exchanging resources between actors, providing social support- assistance, and information, for example about jobs (see Granovetter, 1983; Hachen, 2001). These networks may be limited within or beyond societies, small groups or organizations depending on whether strong or weak ties, respectively constitutes them. However, social networks can perpetuate exclusion of the marginalized people-especially in societies with predominant strong ties (Ibid).

As Zimmerer (1991) suggests, seed exchange networks among small-scale farmers serve as cultural practice frameworks and important channels for potato seed distribution in highlands of Peru and the southern Andes but not only within such geographical space but also beyond. This may be the same for SP planting material in the Lake zone, Tanzania. Thus, it would be interesting to check whether social networks serve in distributing SP planting material. Zimmerer adds that the networks form and enable people from different ethnic groups and geographies to maintain their cultural identity, and market their on-farm seed. However, geographic and socio-economic conditions, for example isolation and transportation costs,

may limit seed flows, thus influencing the strength of the ties for the purpose of seed exchange. For example, Snyder’s (1996) study in Northern Tanzania provides evidence that indicates the potential of social relations (friendship, kinship) in accessing and use of resources like land.

1.5. Methodology

1.5.1. Description of the study area

1.5.1.1. Location Lake Zone comprises of six regions that surround the Lake Victoria basin in the northern part of Tanzania. Such regions include: Mwanza, Shinyanga, Mara, Geita and Kagera. Due to time and transport cost constrains a decision was made to gather data from Mwanza region and that the region has a higher SP production potential than the other regions as well. Mwanza region is one of the regions where Marando Bora project was implemented.

Mwanza Region lies in the northern part of Tanzania, located between the latitude of 10 30' and 30 south of the Equator. Longitudinally the region is located between 310 45' and 340 10' east of Greenwich. Regions bordering Mwanza region are Kagera to the west, Shinyanga to the south and south east. In the north east, the region borders Mara region. The northern part of Mwanza is surrounded by the water of Lake Victoria which in turn separates the region from neighbouring countries of Uganda and Kenya (see figure 1). The region is administratively divided into seven districts: Ilemela, Nyamagana, Misungwi, Sengerema, Kwimba, Magu and Ukerewe. For this study, data were collected from Ilemela, Misungwi and Sengerema districts which were all involved in the Marando Bora project.

1.5.1.2. Climate The average annual rainfall of Mwanza region is about 930 mm varying from 1,800 mm in the western parts of Ukerewe Island to 750 mm in the southern and south eastern parts of the region. Under normal conditions the rainfall is distributed in two periods, namely the short rains in October-December and the long rains from March to May. Usually, there is a dry spell from January to March and frequently these rains are of an erratic pattern.

1.5.1.3. Population, area and economic activities According to the 2012 national census, the Mwanza region had a population of 2,772,509. For 2002-2012, the region's 3.0 % average annual population growth rate was the eighth highest

in the country. It was also the sixth most densely populated region with 293 people per square kilometer (URT, 2012).

As of 2007, the region covered an area of 20,095 square kilometres (7,759 square miles) of dry land; however, parts of the region were demarcated to become part of the Geita Region in 2012.

About 85 % of Mwanza regional population depends on agriculture for their livelihood. In general, crop production levels per unit area are very low. Major food Crops produced in the region are: maize, paddy, millet/sorghum, cassava, sweet potatoes and chickpeas. Cotton is the only cash crop.

1.5.2. Research design This study can be classified as qualitative one which investigates DVMs and their clients/customers as well as farmers who sourced from the DVMs clients as objects of study or units of analysis. The qualitative approach helped to understand the perspectives of the DVMs as sources of sweet potato planting material and farmers in relation to seed security; the DVMs and farmers experience around the availability (i.e. the vine multiplication) and access to SP planting material. A case study approach was used to allow analyse the DVMs in depth taking note of all roles they play in the sweet potato seed system. Case studies allow a lot of detail to be collected that would not normally be easily obtained by other research designs. However, the case study approach has been associated with poor external validity (De Vaus and de Vaus, 2001).

1.5.3. Sampling and sample groups In this study, purposive sampling was employed in selecting sites that participated in the Marando Bora project-the SP seed systems project. The DVM and mass dissemination data sheets of the Marando Bora project together with information about current status of DVMs obtained during the internship provided information that was used in the selection of DVMs. The Marando Bora project established 37 DVMs in Mwanza region that included six districts namely, Mwanza city (Ilemela and Nyamagana), Misungwi, Magu, Sengerema and Geita districts. Geita was later administratively divided to form the Geita region. In the four districts where this study was carried out (Ilemela, Misungwi, Sengerema and Geita), the Marando Bora project had established 24 DVMs from which 16 DVMs were selected based on their agro-ecologies including DVMs from both rainy and dry agro-ecologies, the current vine multiplication status for those DVMs still multiply for both own use and sale, those produced for own use and those whose production had been stopped.

Moreover, the number of DVMs established in a particular district was considered in order to determine the DVMs to interview. Other two DVMs were added, 1 established by the on- going Kinga Marando project and 1 DVM self-initiated DVM to venture into SP agribusiness. The last two DVMs were purposefully selected based on good performance in the vine multiplication and marketing and self-motivated spirit to venture in the vine business, respectively. Hence 18 DVMs (both individual and farmer groups) participated in in-depth interviews. Farmers were selected using snowball sampling. On average each DVM identified 3 of their customers, and farmers who received free vines from both DVMs and their customers. A total of 51 farmers (32 customers, and 19 neighbours, friends and relatives of both DVMs and their customers who received free vines) participated in this study. Individual DVMs, farmers and farmer groups were used as the units of analysis.

1.5.4. Methods for data collection Two research tools/methods for data collection were used in this study; the official projects documents and semi-structured interviews (Green and Thorogood, 2014; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).

1.5.4.1. Project documents Three official documents of the Marando Bora project were used namely the SASHA Marando Bora project final technical report, the DVM and Mass Dissemination Data sheets of the Marando Bora project and the Marando Bora project endline survey report. Moreover, to grasp the status of the on-going project that utilizes some of the DVMs established during the life of Marando Bora project, the report of current Kinga Marando project implementation, the Kinga Marando Progress Narrative 2015 was used.

The Marando Bora project final technical report summarizes all activities carried out in 3- year life (October 2009 to June 2012) of the Marando Bora project. Among other information, the document together with data sheets of the DVMs and mass dissemination provided a list of all DVMs established and their distribution across 12 districts as well as their respective implementing local non-governmental organizations. The MB end line survey report provided knowledge of the SP seed systems six months after the completion of the MB. The Kinga Marando project as the daughter project of the MB addresses the issues around availability of clean SP vines closer to farmers. Since cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties introduced during MB were susceptible to diseases after 2-3 multiplication cycles/generations, the project then used net tunnel technology aimed to protect vines from vine diseases transmitting vectors, the aphids and whiteflies, at farmer conditions to

investigate the virus degeneration rate and the socio-economic feasibility of the technology at farmer level.

1.5.4.2. Semi‐structured interviews A semi-structured interview was open. Such openness allowed interviewees to bring new ideas for a topic in question. Semi-structured interviews allowed for focused, conversational, two-way communication between the researcher and DVMs, their customers, friends, neighbours and relatives of both DVMs and customers.

Not all questions were designed and phrased ahead of time. Some questions were created during the interview, allowing both the researcher and DVMs, customers and their friends, neighbours and relatives being interviewed the flexibility to probe for details or discuss issues.

1.6. Ethical considerations

In principle the researcher was ethically responsible for all stakeholders that were directly or indirectly connected to his/her research; be it research respondents, co-researchers, funders or the wider public (Green and Thorogood, 2014). In this research, the following were considered to be stakeholders: the main researcher, co-researchers, respondents/participants (farmers, traders, individual users, hotel managers, locally based researchers, and extension workers), research supervisor (s) and Wageningen university.

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) posit that ethical concerns are characterized into five basic issues: informed consent, confidentiality, harm, exploitation and consequences for future research. In this research, I aimed at adhering to these ethical considerations for building good field relations for future research.

1.6.1. Informed consent The principle of informed consent states that individuals should not be coerced, persuaded or induced into a research against their will, but that their participation should be based on voluntarism and full understanding of the implications of participation (Green and Thorogood, 2014). During the course of this study participants were asked for their consent to participate in this study.

1.6.2. Privacy / Confidentiality Some authors have suggested that an account of confidentiality and privacy of respondents should not be taken as neglect of these will have long term impacts (Green and Thorogood, 2014; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Even though in this study real names for research respondents have been used as the study did not involve sensitive issues like sexual behaviour.

1.6.3. Harm Research can sometimes have negative consequences for either the participants or for others, due to the research process itself or the publication of the results (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Although this study included income matters which are sensitive for research respondents to share with the researcher, that challenge was overcome by having good field relations that built trust and rapport with subjects. For this reason, the questions asked were carefully chosen. However, probing questions are important in some instances for gathering data that otherwise would not be provided. However, again ensuring real names are anonymous in research report is crucial.

1.7. Data analysis

I initiated the data analysis process during the data collection process. This process involved reflecting on the data collected whether it adequately answers the research questions. In line with that I had to rethink, refine and or add questions that captured information required to answer the research questions.

Data processing involved transcribing recordings as well as writing up full field notes. To achieve this I did a thorough, detailed and repeated reading of field notes/data. Doing so, helped see themes, common patterns, differences, unexpected phenomena and resulted in a more informed conscious reorganization of data into themes. I triangulated the data with secondary data more particularly in research questions 2 and 3 since direct questions would not suffice capturing conditions in which farmers would pay for vines and how the relationships affect the price for vines. The specific questions of the study formed the main 3 themes, i.e. the roles played by the decentralized vine multipliers, farmers’ needs for vines and conditions under which farmers are willing to pay for vine as well as relationships that affect the prices for vines. These three themes form the basis for empirical chapters of this study.

1.8. Limitations of this research

In this research the cost-benefit analysis for vine multiplication was not done. This may be a limiting factor to explicit understanding of the commercialization of the SP vines as planting materials. In this regard, it might be difficult to economically report whether the vines business venture was worthwhile or not.

Retrospective questions demanded interviewees’ active memory of the past events/information, particularly of vine purchases done some months back. This data may be incorrect if the interviewee does not have good memory. Many did not keep records. The researcher could not verify such data.

Issues associated with relationships between DVMs and farmers/customers may have intimate feelings. Farmers would feel embarrassed that the researcher searched for personal relationship. The farmers could think the researcher wanted to connect their personal relationships with free exchange of vine, particularly when the source and the receiver are of different sexes. Hence the farmers would try to hide such information. This in turn would have affected the data about existing relationships and thus black box the modes for accessing sweet potato planting material.

1.9. Layout of this thesis report

In general, the report of this study takes the form of six chapters. The first chapter provides background information to the research problem and specify the research questions. It also contains the theories used for interpreting data in this study. The sampling technique and methods used in data collection as well as the description on the conduct of the research is provided. The last sections of this chapter describe how the data was analysed and the limitations of this research. Second chapter begins by laying out the agro-ecological context of the research, and looks at the implications of such context in the farmers’ use of the SP planting material.

The third chapter presents the findings of the research, focusing on the farmers’ needs for the SP planting material on a demand side. Different aspects including their motivations for buying vines are described. The fourth chapter is concerned with the decentralized vine multipliers, DVMs on a supply side, and the roles they play in dry and rainy agro-ecological conditions to meet farmers’ needs for the quality SP planting materials. The fifth chapter

presents kinds of relationships and networks around seed sourcing by clearly explaining the forms of reciprocal services through which small-scale farmers acquire SP planting materials. This chapter shows the relationships that exist between DVMs, clients and farmers who receive free or non-cash vines. It further provides findings on factors influencing access to the material. Chapter 6 discusses findings of this study grounded in the moral economy and social network theories.

CHAPTER 2: AGRO-ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT, THE MARANDO BORA PROJECT AND SWEET POTATO PLANTING MATERIALS

2.1. Agro-ecological conditions and sweet potato planting material

2.1.1. Agro-climatic conditions: rainfall and access to water Detailed characteristics of agro-ecological zones (AEZ) within this study are given below district wise. For the purpose of this study the northern parts/zone of Sengerema, Geita, and Ilemela disticts are categorized as rainy agro-ecological zone and the southern parts of the same and Misungwi district as dry agro-ecological zone.

2.1.1.1. Sengerema district The Sengerema district has an average temperature between 210 C and 230C and bimodal rainfall patterns, the short rains that start in October ending in early January and the long rains starting in February until May. However, these rains are frequently erratic and the most affected area being the southern parts (UNDP – UNEP, 2014).

The district receives average annual rains ranging from 800 mm to 1200 mm. Its agro-ecology is divided in two zones namely the northern and the southern zones. The northern zone that includes the Kahunda and Buchosa divisions as well as Nyamatongo and Buzilasoga wards (in Katunguru and Sengerema divisions, respectively), receives ample and reliable rains between 900mm and 1200mm and the southern zone receives less and relatively erratic annual rains below 1000mm. The southern zone includes the Nyanchenche and Katunguru divisions as well as the Busisi and Tabaruka wards of the Sengerema division (Ibid). Hence the northern part of the district is relatively rainy where important crops such as maize, cassava, paddy, sweet potato, pulses, cotton and coffee are grown compared to the southern parts which are relatively dry with erratic rains. The agricultural activities carried out in the southern areas include cultivation of crops tolerant to drought such as sweet potato and cotton, and livestock keeping. These southern parts experience more often prolonged dry periods that cause the crops failure, particularly sweet potatoes. The crop failure has led to scarcity of the planting material for next seasons.

2.1.1.2. Geita district As in Sengerema, Geita district receives bimodal rains evenly distributed in two agro- ecological zones, the northern (around the Lake shores) and southern zones. The northern zone/lake shore zone (includes Bugando and Butundwe divisions) is wet/rainy receiving reliable rains between 1000mm and 1200mm per annum. The crops grown in this zone are

such as cotton, paddy, sweet potato, cassava, maize, pineapple and coffee. The southern zone (includes the Busanda divisions) is relatively dry with annual rains ranging from 800mm to 1000mm. The crops grown in the later zone are cotton, paddy, groundnuts, sorghum, and maize. This zone has potential for cattle husbandry as well. In Geita, short rains begin in September and end in December followed with short dry spell in January. Long rains pour out from late February to late May (URT, 2013).

2.1.1.3. Ilemela district Ilemela district has bimodal rainfalls, short rains beginning in October ending in early January and long rains starting in late February until mid-May. The rains are relatively more ranging from 800mm to 1200mm in the northern parts including areas 2kms away from the Lake shores. The southern parts of the district are relatively dry receiving annual rains that range from 600mm to 800mm. Again, the southern parts are characterized with erratic rainfall patterns, i.e. unreliable rains unevenly distributed to allow for planned rain fed agriculture. Often the district, particularly in the southern parts, experiences frequent dry periods that lead to crops failure, especially the maize. Crops cultivation is thus more depended on drought tolerant crops such as sweet potato. However, the sweet potato production is hampered by recurring dry spells. As the crop fails, the planting materials for the future season(s) become scarce. Access to water is often a challenge in the southern parts of the district that are distant to the Lake shores.

2.1.1.4. Misungwi district Misungwi district receives bimodal rainfalls ranging from 800 mm to 1000 mm annually. The short rains start in October and end in January while long rains start in February ending in May. However, these rain seasons are unpredictable characterized with scanty and unreliable rains. In comparison with other three districts, Misungwi is relatively dry. Similar climatic conditions are experienced in southern parts of Sengerema, Geita and Ilemela districts. And since rains are scanty even during rainy seasons farmers access to water for farm activities is often a challenge. The crops grown in the district are cassava, cotton, sorghum, and sweet potato, which are drought tolerant (FAO, 2001).

2.1.2. Cropping seasons and sweet potato production The cropping seasons in the study area coincide with bimodal rainfall patterns; the short and long rainy seasons/periods. The first cropping season starts at the onset of the long rains generally in March and ends in May. This is the period in which farmers grow sweet potato for the first round. The second planting season begins in October and ends in January when

short rains diminish. In some areas the planting of sweet potato starts earlier in September. This is the case in all the four districts Sengerema, Geita, Ilemela and Misungwi. However, low rainfall highly affects the cropping seasons in the southern zone (relatively dry areas) of Sengerema, Geita and Ilemela districts in a similar way as in Misungwi district. But, in the northern zone the cropping season is stable due to reliable rains. Water for sweet potato production is available. In that regard, sweet potato is potentially grown in the northern parts of Sengerema, Geita and Ilemela that constitute the rainy agro-ecologies, as compared to southern parts of the same, and Misungwi district, which are relatively dry agro-ecologies.

2.1.3. Sweet potato varieties grown in the study area The sweet potato varieties grown include landraces and improved varieties. The landraces grown are many including Ishakalyabhashihani, Busanagulwa, Bilagala, Kiliona (also known as Ukerewe), Polista, Katebe, Umeme, Mwezigumo, Ng’wanamulwa, Klofeniko and Ghumyabhaho, which in Jita means take care for your family. These landraces are white and yellow fleshed (Sindi and Wambugu, 2012). Improved OFSP varieties grown are Ejumula, Jewel, Carrot Dar, Carrot C, and Kabode.

2.1.4. Implications of the agro‐ecological zones for farmers use of sweet potato planting material Recent study carried out in the Lake zone shows that farmers in Sengerema, Geita, Ilemela and Misungwi districts used both local landraces and new varieties in the past 5 years (Okello et al., 2013). In the northern parts of the two districts of Sengerema and Geita which are wet and potential for growing sweet potato, sweet potato planting materials are plenty except in Ilemela district. Farmers would source from other farmers within or outside the community the vines of the kind they do not have in order to test them or because animals damaged their vines (Badstue and Adam, 2011).

In southern areas of the same districts and in Misungwi district, where rains are scanty and unpredictable, sweet potato production often declines. The crop either fails due to drought as farmers cannot maintain vines through long dry seasons. These conditions in turn render to scarcity of the planting material for next planting seasons. Farmers in these areas would source vines from other farmers/multipliers with water sources/irrigation facilities within the community or from outside their community in rainy areas.

As observed in Figure 2 below, many farmers source vines from DVMs with irrigation facilities in dry agro-ecological areas (i.e. southern parts) of Sengerema district (see sections 3.6 and 4.2) compared to those ones from rainy agro-ecologies (northern parts) of Sengerema,

Geita and Ilemela districts. As findings mentioned above indicate, the figure shows more links between DVMs and farmers within their village. Very limited links are observed among DVMs and between DVMs and farmers across districts.

Geita

Sengerema Lake

Victoria

Misungwi Ilemela

Keys

Decentralized Vine Multipliers (DVMs) Vine customers/farmers Flows/links between customers and DVMs within a village/ward or district DVMs in Sengerema district with water depression for irrigating vines

Weak links between DVMs in distinct districts

Flow/links between customers and DVMs in distinct districts Figure 2: The schematic representation of the linkages existing between the vine multipliers (DVMs) and the farmers/customers in the Lake zone, Tanzania

2.2. The Marando Bora project

2.2.1. Partners and sites of the Marando Bora project The Marando Bora project tested two models for disseminating vines to farmers, the decentralised vine multipliers (DVMs) and mass dissemination. For the purpose of this study I focused on the DVMs. DVMs were formed through piggy-backing on the existing Great Lake Cassava Initiatives project (GLCI) which piloted a voucher-based supply of cassava planting material, Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) groups and others associated with neither of the two. The implementing project partners of the cassava-voucher initiative were local non-governmental organizations: Buhemba Rural Agricultural Center (BRAC), Catholic Diocese of Shinyanga (DoS), Kituo cha Mafunzo ya Kuboresha Mazingira na Kilimo Adilifu (KIMKUMAKA), Mogabiri Farm Extension Centre (MFEC), Misungwi Rural Housing Project (MRHP) Rulenge Diocesan Development Office (RUDDO) and Tanzania Home Economics Association (TAHEA). Table 1 depicts the implementing partners and DVMs formed during the life of the project.

2.2.2. Planting material: varieties and vines The Marando Bora project promoted and distributed seven varieties to farmers through DVMs; two virus cleaned landraces and four improved orange fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) varieties. The cleaned landraces were Polista and Ukerewe, and the improved OFSP varieties were Ejumula, Jewel, Kabode, Kiegea and Mataya1.

Table 1: The number of decentralized vine multipliers established under Marando Bora project by implementing partners

DVMs established by period Total Implementing Aug- Dec- Mar- May- Sep- Partner 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 BRAC 4 6 410 2 26 KIMKUMAKA 4 3 3 12 0 22 RUDDO 0 0 0 22 3 25 TAHEA 4 0 5 6 0 15 TOTAL 12 9 12 50 5 88 Source: Adapted from Catholic Relief Service, 2012.

The project was coordinated by Catholic Relief Service (CRS) and partnered with implementing partners to establish 88 DVMs (Table 1). 20% of the 88 DVMs were selected

1 The variety so called Mataya was removed from the MB seed system in August 2011 as it was wrongly identified. It was a true type.

from existing Great Lakes Cassava Initiative (GLCI) farmer groups in the Mwanza - a cassava seed system project, 10% from Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILC) groups and 70% neither from GLCI nor SILC farmer groups (Table 2). The project partnered with DOS, MRHP and MFEC in mass dissemination of vines, as a second model, in the four districts of Kwimba, Maswa, Rorya and Tarime after realizing that the DVM model would not meet the targeted 150,000 households (Catholic Relief Service, 2012).

Table 2: Characterization of DVMs in the Marando Bora project

Name of IP Districts Total # of # involved # involved # Non covered by DVMs in GLCI in SILC SILC/GLCI DVM (%) (%) (%) BRAC Musoma Rural 26 6 (24%) 0 (0%) 20 (76%) and Bunda KIMKUMAKA Magu, 22 4 (18%) 3 (14%) 15 (68%) Misungwi and Mwanza RUDDO Biharamulo, 25 5 (25%) 3 (15%) 17 (68%) Bukombe, Chato and Bukombe TAHEA Geita, Ukerewe, 15 3 (20%) 2 (13%) 10 (66%) and Sengerema Total 12 88 18 (20%) 8 (10%) 62 (70%) Source: Adapted from Catholic Relief Service, 2012.

In Mwanza region, the Marando Bora project established 37 DVMs through TAHEA (Geita 6, Sengerema 5, Ukerewe 4) and KIMKUMAKA (Ilemela 8, Magu 5, Misungwi 5, and Nyamagana 4). Of 37 DVMs established, 31 were farmer groups and 6 individual farmers. These farmer groups included GLCI, SILC groups and others apart from the two. The non SILC/GLCI groups were formed to meet the required number of households supplied with the vines. After formation, the 2 NGOs as implementing partners, trained such individuals and farmer groups as DVMs to produce quality planting material which would be distributed through a subsidised voucher based system (Catholic Relief Service, 2012). The voucher system was introduced by the Marando Bora project targeting at enabling farmers easy access to the planting material.

CHAPTER 3: FARMERS DEMAND FOR SWEET POTATO VINES

3.1. The farmers and DVMs in the study

Of the 51 farmers that were sampled from the customers of the 18 DMVs in Sengerema, Geita, Ielemela and Misungwi districts, and ‘receivers-for-free’ of both DVMs and customers, 32 bought from DVMs and 15 received free vines from DVMs and their clients, 2 exchanged for labour and 2 others for land and loan each with the DVMs (see Table 3).

Table 3: The number of studied decentralized vine multipliers and farmers by districts for the planting seasons October-November 2014 and February-March 2015 District /Category Sengerema Ilemela Misungwi Geita Total DVMs 6 5 4 3 18 Farmer buyers who participated in this 21 3 4 4 32 study Farmers received free vines from 5 0 0 5 10 DVMs who participated in this study Farmers received vines in exchange for 0 0 0 2 2 labour from DVMs who participated in this study Farmers received vines in exchange for 0 0 0 2 2 land and as loan from DVMs who participated in this study Farmers received free vines from farmer 5 0 0 0 5 buyers who participated in this study (2nd generation) Source: Field data, 2015

3.2. The purchasing behaviour of the farmers buying vines

As indicated in Table 4, 16 farmers bought for the very first time and other 16 had bought on earlier occasions. Five of them even have bought every year since they started buying; 1 since four years back, 2 since three years back and the rest 2 since two years back. These buyers bought from DVMs with irrigation facilities in dry agro-ecologies (southern parts) of Sengerema, and from rainy agro-ecologies (northern parts) of Sengerema, Ilemela and Geita districts (Figure 2).

Table 4: The number of farmers purchasing vines (N=32) District/Purchase Sengerema Ilemela Geita Misungwi Total behaviour First time buyers 11 0 3 2 16 Multiple time buyers 10 3 1 2 16 Total 21 3 4 4 32 Source: Field data, 2015

3.2.1. Motivation for buying vines by first time buyers As indicated in Table 5 below, of the 16 first time buyers, 9 bought vines of improved orange fleshed sweet potato varieties, 4 bought a mixture of vines, both cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties while one farmer bought the cleaned landraces. The rest 2 did not remember the type of the vines they bought.

Table 5: Sweet potato varieties bought by first time buyers between 2013 and 2015 (N=16) S/No Name of the multiple Varieties Year time buyer purchased 1. Scholastica Joseph 1. Ukerewe 2013 2. Polista 2 Roze Manyabulubha 1. Kabode 2015

3 Christin Prosperity 1. Kabode 2015 Nyagiro 4 Robert Fundikira 1. Kabode 2014 2. Ujumula 3. Carrot Dar 5 Efrazia Misana Toto 1. Kabode 2014 6 Joyce George 1. Kabode 2014 7 Joyce Zacharia 1. Jewel 2014 Magoma 2. Kabode 3. Carrot C 8 Diana Pius 1. Jewel 2014 2. Kabode 3. Carrot Dar 9 Sylivanus Sylivester 1. Ejumula 2014 Lukonge 2. Kabode 3. Carrot Dar 4. Carrot C 10 Sara Bangaya Forgot 2014 11 Yusufu Ndamanyilu Forgot 2013 12 Bahati Zacharia 1. Polista 2015 2. Kabode 13 Tatu Saidi 1. Polista 2014 2. Kabode 14 Ester Ayub Emmanuel 1. Jewel 2014 2. Kabode

3. Polista 4. Ukerewe 15 Mwanamirembe 1. Polista 2013 Manda 2. Kabode 16 Masalu Makigo 1. Kabode 2014 2. Polista Source: Field data, 2015

3.2.1.1. New variety First time buyers had different reasons to buy vines. Of the 16 first time buyers, 13 had bought vines of cleaned landraces and improved OFSF varieties as they wanted to acquire new vines (Table 6). Farmers assumed the cleaned landraces as new vines as their local landraces, the Polista and Kiliona (Ukerewe), were highly degenerated. Those farmers who bought for the first time were interested to test the performance of the cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties in different aspects and compare with their local landraces, including the Polista and Kiliona.

Table 6: Reasons for farmers purchasing vines for first time (N=16) Reason for purchase Sengerema Ilemela Geita Misungwi Total Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Looked for a new variety 8 0 0 3 2 13 Lost his/her own vines 0 0 0 0 0 0 Felt his/vines were not 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 good anymore Total 3 8 0 0 3 2 16 Source: Field data, 2015

Tolerant to drought and sweet potato diseases Farmers were interested in the vines that could tolerate drought and sweet potato diseases. They noted of the sweet potato disease symptoms as yellow leaf discolouration, stunted growth of the plant, curled leaves, and emergence of feathers on both leaves and stems. Farmers reported that the sweet potato diseases had affected many of their locally available landraces such as Polista, Kiliona (also known as Ukerewe), Bilagala, Busanagulwa, and Umeme. Farmers reported that the cleaned landraces, Polista and Ukerewe as well as Kabode, the improved OFSP variety, did well. Other improved OFSP varieties particularly Ejumula and Jewel were susceptible to diseases.

High nutritional value and yields Farmers also noticed the nutritive value and high yielding potential of both improved OFSP varieties and ‘cleaned’ landraces. For example, Christin Prosperity Nyagiro a female farmer, at her forties, based in Sengerema Township, bought the vines for the first time in February- March season (2015) from Justus Kibipi, a DVM in Tunyenye village in Sengerema district.

She highlighted the nutritional value of the new vines of the improved OFSP variety, the Kabode referring to the OFSP flour she had previously bought from Kibipi before buying the vines. She says, “I was so much inspired/ delighted of the porridge made of OFSP flour. I had a health problem. I had lost much body weight in short period of time with no reason, and my skin was shrinking. But after using it I became well and gained so much weight. Hence I looked for more flour packets and the vines from Justus Kibipi, a DVM in Tunyenye village ...I was delighted by the good taste as well as the flavour. I believe that these sweet potatoes (OFSP) improve health as I observed it myself... In addition, despite the long time lapse from vine receipt to planting due to family problems, all the materials sprouted very well. They are vigorous and of such good quality.....I wish to share these vines with relatives so that they can improve their health as well, particularly the children and old people” (Source: Field data, 2015).

Vines vigour and early maturing Farmers looked for vigour, and early maturing planting materials. They said that the vines of the cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties looked vigour, grew fast and produced high yields. Explaining on maturity, they noted that the vine and root harvests would be ready in 82 days and 2-4 months after planting, respectively.

Roots of good taste and high dry matter content Another aspect farmers noted is the marketability of the roots. Farmers considered the expected market for roots in selecting the variety to grow. They selected vines whose roots fetch markets; the roots that root traders want/buy. Since root consumers liked tasteful roots and roots with high dry matter content, farmers looked for vines that fulfilled these criteria. They liked the taste and high dry matter content of the roots of Ukerewe and Polista, the virus cleaned landraces, compared to the OFSP varieties. Farmers said that the OFSP roots were to watery. Polista is a white fleshed sweet potato preferred because of its high dry matter content. Since farmers’ livelihood significantly depends on farming (for both food security and earning), the marketability of the roots became an important factor to consider in selecting the vines.

For example, Tausi Phillipo, a 35 years old female farmer living at Chigunga village, Geita collected vines of Kabode, the OFSP variety from Fatuma Suleman, a DVM in the same village. She notes on the importance of the orange fleshed sweet potato saying, ‘Farmers like the roots of those vines because they have good flavour, sugary, tasteful and soft such that you do not need complements such as sesame butter, porridge or vegetables to eat them

compared to the local landraces. Someone can eat like two sweet potatoes and gets fully satisfied, i.e. food security...they are healthy to children and sick people’ (Source: Field data, 2015).

Expecting increased household income Moreover, farmers mentioned that OFSP recipes attracted them for OFSP planting materials. Particularly female farmers mentioned that they expected increased household income from multiple recipes’ sales. Farmers make ‘maandazi’ (buns), cakes, pan cakes ‘chapati’, scones and flour for porridge from Jewel, which has fewer fibres compared to others. Some farmers pin pointed on the benefits obtained from the improved vines (i.e. OFSP varieties) and the cleaned landraces.

3.2.1.2. Farm saved vines found unfit for planting Table 6 above shows that three (3) farmers who bought for the first time (N=16), felt that their vines were unfit for planting after 4-6 multiplication cycles. They said that their vines were degenerated such that would not be potentially productive any longer: the material was highly infected by sweet potato diseases. The farmers bought vines of Kabode, the improved OFSP variety to replace the degenerated farm saved vines of Ejumula and Jewel. Noting of the same case, Efrazia Misana Toto and Joyce George, female farmers from Kanyala village in Sengerema, said that the sweet potato diseases had hampered their sweet potato production. Both of them acknowledged that they had participated in DONATA2 project – a sweet potato project that, among other activities- supplied them, about 3 years ago, with improved OFSP varieties of Jewel and Ejumula, for vine and root productions. But, the varieties were susceptible to diseases. The diseases caused vine leaves discolouration and curling, stunted growth of the plant that could no longer use them for planting. Having been informed of the cleaned and improved OFSP varieties through a local radio programme and Simon Igogote, the DVM in Mwangika, Efrazia and Joyce based in Kanyala village bought 4 bundles of Kabode, 300 cuttings each from Simon about 25 kilometres away from their village. The DVM helped with arranging transport for the vines, but the cost of transportation was covered by farmers.

2 DONATA stands for a project named Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa implemented in East and central Africa for four and half years since 2009. The project promoted QPM and OFSP technologies using an innovation platform for technology adoption (IPTA) approach to enhance farmers access to quality seeds, information and markets and capacitate them on use of these (Kimenye L, and McEwan M (eds), 2014).

3.2.2. Motivation for buying vines again

3.2.2.1. Drying up or animal damage of the farm saved vines (loss of farmer’s vines) Of the 16 farmers who bought vines for multiple times, 11 purchased vines as the ones they bought in earlier seasons had dried up due to drought and/or damage by animals. Eight (8) farmers reported that their vines dried up and 3 reported damage by cattle and goats (Table 7). These farmers are located in the southern parts of Sengerema and Ilemela districts and northern part of Misungwi district; the areas which are predominantly dry and have potential for sweet potato production and livestock keeping as well (see chapter 2).

Table 7: Farmers’ reasons for multiple purchase of vines (2nd, 3rd or more purchases) for years from 2012 to 2015 (N=16) Reason for purchase Sengerema Ilemela Geita Misungwi Total Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Lost his/her own vines 8 1 0 0 2 11 Felt his/vines were not 0 0 0 0 0 0 good anymore Perceived DVM’s vines 0100 0 1 of good quality Inadequate own saved 0 1 0 0 0 1 vines 1st round vines not 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 enough Total 2 8 2 1 1 2 16 Source: Field data, 2015

3.2.2.2. Obtaining sufficient vines for establishing a new sweet potato farm As indicated in table 6, three (3) farmers, (2 in Sengerema and 1 in Geita) being new to the sweet potato production, pointed out buying for more than one round in order to acquire enough vines for establishing big sweet potato farms. Faida Muyomba Muganga, a male, degree holder journalist from Geita Township is one of them. Faida travelled about 30 kilometres to Chigunga village where Fatuma Seleman, a female DVM lives to fetch vines. The previous had established a new sweet potato farm at Kasota village in Geita about 70 kilometres from Chigunga. He bought as many bundles as 20 in different rounds in the February – March season in 2015. He noted that because of using a motor cycle, he could buy all 20 bundles in one time. He associated his multiple behaviour of purchasing vines desire to establish a sweet potato vines and roots enterprise using improved orange fleshed sweet potato varieties. Having collected information about the nutritional and economic significance of sweet potato, particularly about the improved OFSP varieties from extension workers at district agriculture office and village level, he decided to venture into the sector.

3.2.2.3. Perceiving DVMs vines of good quality and inadequate farm saved vines One farmer in Ilemela bought vines multiple times as she perceived the vines from the DVM to be better in quality than her farm saved vines. She believed that DVM’s use of net tunnel protects the vines from diseases. Another farmer mentioned inadequacy of farm saved vines as reason for her multiple time purchasing behaviour (Table 7). She noted of not being able to conserve her own vines after harvesting the roots.

3.2.3. Farmers bought from different vine sources Of the 16 multiple time buyers, 18.75% reported to have had bought from at least two different DVMs; the major reason being the inadequate vines from one DVM. DVMs would not meet the quantities of vines farmers required especially at the beginning of the rains. For example, Juliana Bryson, a female farmer in Kayenze, Ilemela reported to buy 2 bundles of the vines of Kabode, the orange fleshed variety from KKN, the DVM in the same community. But the vines were not enough. She considered buying another bundle of the same type of vines from a different DVM (Naomy Elkana) at Rangi village in Magu district, 10 kilometres away from Kayenze. Because she had few vines for planting, she walked that distance to search for vines. Similarly, Salome Deus Mabula, another female farmer at her fifties, using a hired bicycle, travelled more than 15kms from Nyampande village to Tunyenye village in Sengerema district fetching vines of Kabode she needed for sweet potato production.

When asked about the variety they bought, 87.5 % of the multiple time buyers had purely bought the vines of Kabode or mixed with other types of vines such as Ejumula, Jewel, Carrot C and Carrot Dar (see Table 8). Farmers mentioned relative tolerance to drought, high dry matter content and high yield potential of the vines of Kabode as attributes they preferred as compared to other OFSP varieties such as Ejumula and Jewel. Moreover, Kabode is more available compared to other improved OFSP varieties as Kinga Marando project currently promotes it using net tunnels. For years they bought, farmers reported to recover the lost vines. But, recovery depended on vine availability and the purchasing power of the farmers at that point of time.

Table 8: Sweet potato varieties bought by multiple time buyers for years from 2012 to April, 2015 (N=16) S/No Name of the multiple District Varieties Years Major reason for time buyer purchased purchasing vines 1. Salome Deus Mabula Sengerema 1. Jewel 2012, Lost her vines due to 2. Kabode 2013, drought 2014 2 Paulina Kaswahili Sengerema 1. Polista 2012, Lost her vines due to 2. Kabode 2014 drought 3. Ukerewe 3 Rachel John Sengerema 1. Polista 2014, Lost her vines due to 2. Kabode 2015 drought 3. Ukerewe 4. SP 2001/264 4 Mwanne Lenard Sengerema 1. Kabode 2014, Lost her vines due to 2015 drought 5 Getrude Dominic Sengerema 1. Kabode 2014, Lost her vines due to 2015 drought 6 Zephania Phillipo Sengerema 1. Kabode 2014, Lost his vines due to 2015 drought 7 Solomon Elifuraha Sengerema 1. Kabode 2014, Lost his own vines 2. Ujumula 2015 due to drought and 3. Ukerewe animal grazing 8 Marietha Kapatiko Sengerema 1. Jewel 2014, Lost her own vines 2. Kabode 2015 due to drought 3. Carrot C 9 Ally Masoud Njeru Sengerema Forgot 2015 1st round vines not enough 10 Dotto Ngalula Sengerema Forgot 2012 1st round vines not enough 11 Faida Muyomba Geita 1. Kabode 2015 1st round vines not Muganga enough 12 Juliana Bryson Ilemela 1. Kabode 2014 Lost her own vines due to animal grazing 13 Magdalena Amos Ilemela 1. Ukerewe 2013, Inadequate farm 2. Ejumula 2014 saved vines 3. Kabode 4. Polista 14 Sologo Charles Ilemela 1. Ukerewe 2013, Perceived DVM’s Kilekaboye 2. Kabode 2014 vines of better 3. Jewel quality 15 Martha Benjamin Misungwi 1. Kabode 2014, Lost her vines due to 2015 drought 16 Kaparatiko Muhindi Misungwi 1. Ejumula 2014, Lost his vines due to 2. Kabode 2015 drought Source: Field data, 2015

3.3. The quantity purchased in relation to the total area planted

On average every farmer bought 2 bundles of 300 cuttings each (of 30 centimetres long). The first time buyers bought 1.69 bundles per buyer on average (n=16) while the multiple time buyers bought on average 1.88 bundles in the second round (n=16). The later bought 2.25 and 5 bundles on average per buyer in the 3rd and 4th rounds respectively. Those bought for the 3rd round were 4 farmers, 3 had lost vines while one had established a big farm. The fourth round buyer had a large farm. These data show an increasing trend with every round the buyer bought the vines despite that the number of buyers declined in every further buying round.

Farmers considered a number of factors in determining the quantities of vines to buy; the area to plant being one of them. Other factors such as having cash/money and/or actual price and availability of the vines determined the quantities bought. Of the 16 first time buyers, 13 looked for new vines and 3 bought when they felt their farm saved vines are not good anymore due to degeneration (see Table 6). Of the 16 farmers, 8 (6 who bought vines as new variety and 2 who felt their vines unfit) bought at least 2 bundles of vines each to cover the area prepared. The rest 8 farmers bought 1 bundle each. These farmers would plant the purchased cleaned and/or improved OFSP vines as well as the local landraces such as Busanagulwa, Bilagala, Katebe, and Klofeniko.

For the farmers who had lost all previous vines due to drought and/or animal destruction or required enough vines, or perceived DVMs vines healthy, the purchased vines are all they planted.

3.4. Farmers receiving free vines

Of the 51 famers interviewed, 19 received free vines for planting from both DVMs and their clients. These farmers sought the vines of the cleaned landraces and the improved OFSP varieties from such sources as they were aware of the significance of the material as compared to their own local landraces. The major reasons farmers connect to such sources include vigorous and healthy vines, high nutritional value, high yield potential, early maturity and expected income generation from roots and vines sales. They would ask for new kind of vines, i.e. the vines they do not have and which they would like to try out, as well as those to replace their lost farm saved vines due to drought or animal damage.

Besides, 4 farmers reported that animal damage of farm saved vines prompted the need for vines from the DVMs when rains start. Farmers noted that cattle and goats grazed on immature and mature conserved vines while in the field.

3.5. Farmers’ source of information about and relation with DVMs

3.5.1. Farmers sources of information about the DVM Farmers reported a number of sources for information about the DVM mainly the DVMs themselves, their fellow farmers, public and TAHEA extension workers, and signboards. Moreover, farmers noted other sources including relatives (mother, brother, etc.), radio programmes, and farmers’ visits to DVMs’ fields, farmer groups’ facilitator, farmer group meetings and local Sengerema Television programme (see Figure 3).

40 35 35

20 14 Frequency 15 11 10 8 6 55 5 1 2 1 0

Sources of information

Figure 3: Sources of information about the DVM by frequency (N=51) (Source: Field data, 2015)

3.5.2. Farmers relationship with vine sources: DVMs and clients Farmers participated in this study related to their vine sources, i.e. the DVMs and their clients in different ways. There were those related to DVMs just as buyers like a seller-buyer relationship, others were kin/relatives, neighbours and friends (see chapter 6).

3.6. Farmers’ need for sweet potato vine in relation to gender and distance

3.6.1. Sweet potato vine need in respect to gender Of the 51 farmers (both clients of the DVMs and those sourced from DVMs’ clients) interviewed, 65% were women (Figure 4). They wanted the vines of improved OFSP varieties (particularly Jewel and Ejumula) for various purposes including making food recipes for both home consumption and vending such as buns, pan cakes, cakes, biscuits, porridge, and flour.

35 % was men whose major purpose to venture in the SP production was income generation expected from sales of raw roots of both improved orange and white fleshed SP.

Males 35%

Female 65%

Figure 4: Proportion of female and men in this study (N=51) (Source: Field data, 2015)

Of all female farmers (N=33), 15 % acknowledged sweet potato food vending as income earners for households while 85 % mentioned increased nutritive value as attribute to sourcing vines from DVMs and their clients (see Figure 5). Moreover, women sold raw roots in local markets.

Income generation 15%

Other reasons such as nutritive value 85%

Figure 5: Proportion of female farmers by reasons to source vines from DVMs and their clients (N=33) (Source: Field data, 2015)

As Figure 6 below shows, 56 % of the male farmers (n=18) who sourced vines from DVMs and their clients, did that with the anticipation of making business. They expected new vines multiplied by DVMs and their clients would generate income for the family accrued from vine and root sold to projects and NGOs. They were told that different projects and NGOs would buy vines for distributing in other places as well as roots for human consumption and processing purposes in Mwanza city and elsewhere. Meanwhile 44 % of the male farmers sourced the vines for other reasons such as the nutritive value of the materials.

Other Income reasons such generation as nutritive 56% value 44%

Figure 6: Proportion of male farmers by their reasons to source vines from DVMs and their clients (n=18) (Source: Field data, 2015) 3.6.2. Distance travelled by farmers in need of sweet potato vines Of the 51 farmers participated in this study, 27 came from the same community of the DMVs (14 from dry agro-ecological areas, 13 from relatively rainy agro-ecological areas close to the lake shore) (Table 9). As Table 10 indicates below, 24 farmers were from distant places. The distances to the DVMs and their clients ranged from 3 to more than 70 kilometres away. Of these 24, 15 came from another agro-ecological area, i.e. an area which is much dryer. This is reflected in Figure 2 which indicates many farmers sourcing vines from DVMs with irrigation facilities in dry agro-ecological areas (i.e. southern parts) of Sengerema district (also see section 4.2) as well as those ones located in rainy agro-ecologies (northern parts) of Sengerema, Geita and Ilemela districts.

Table 9: The number of farmers sourced vines from DVMs and their clients within the village (N=27) Mode of acquisition Dry agro-ecology Rainy agro-ecology Total Bought 10 4 14 Gifted 4 5 9 Labour 0 2 2 Land/Loan 0 2 2 Total 14 13 27 Source: Field data, 2015

Table 10: The number of farmers sourced vines from DVMs and their clients outside the village (N=24) Mode of acquisition Dry agro-ecology Rainy agro-ecology Total Bought 12 6 18 Gifted 3 3 6 Labour 0 0 0 Land/Loan 0 0 0 Total 15 9 24 Source: Field data, 2015

3.7. Farmers perspectives on availability of sweet potato planting material

As Figure 7 below indicates, more than 50 % of the farmers participated in this study (N=51) mentioned inadequate planting material as a hampering factor in SP production at the onset of the rains. They claimed that the DVMs, more particularly in dry areas of Misungwi and Ilemela districts could not meet the farmers need for the planting material that was much greater than DVMs produced. The situation was even more elevated as those DVMs lacked irrigation facilities to help conserve the material during prolonged dry periods.

Unknown 12%

Adequate 37%

Inadequate 51%

Figure 7: Farmers perspectives on availability of SP planting material at DVMs and their clients (N=51) (Source: Field data, 2015)

3.8. Farmers opinion about the prices, willingness to pay and acceptance for sweet potato vines

Table 11 below indicates that 78 % of the farmers who bought vines from DVMs (N=32) were willing to pay Tsh. 5000 (equivalent to US Dollar 2.37)3 for a bundle of about 300 vine cuttings (30cms long on average). For these farmers that price was worthwhile. When asked for the way how they knew the price was worthwhile, farmers noted that they would consider the size of the bundle, imagine the costs of vine multiplication the DVMs incurred as well as the nutritive value of the vines in question. Of all farmers who bought vines, 22 % were not willing to pay Tsh. 5000 for a bundle of vines and instead paid less than Tsh. 5000, between Tsh. 200 (US $ 0.09) and Tsh. 3200 (US $ 1.32). These farmers were mainly relatives and those who had bought for more than one occasion, i.e. multiple time buyers.

Table 11: Proportion of farmers willing to pay Tsh 5000 for a bundle of vines and their relation with decentralized vine multipliers (N=32) Amount paid/bundle Number of Percent Relation with DVM (Tsh) farmers

5000 25 78 Mostly buyer

Less than 5000 (200-3200) 7 22 Frequently buying relative or friend

Source: Field data, 2015

3 The exchange rate was US $ 1 to TSH. 2109.704641350211

3.8.1. Farmers perspectives of the conditions under which they would be willing to pay for sweet potato vines Farmers had different perspectives on the circumstances may trigger their willingness to buy vines.

3.8.1.1. Vines fail due to drought or animal damage Both farmers and DVMs, as indicated in Table 12 and Table 13, identify failure or loss of the vines by drought or animal destruction as important condition that triggers farmers’ willingness to buy vines. In dry areas where vines dry up after every planting season, farmers are sensitive with the availability of rains or the rains patterns. They would often buy or loan or beg or barter to get the vines for planting at onset of the rains. Similar situation occurs when the vines are destructed by cattle and/or goats. In rainy areas, farmers mentioned drought as an important condition that may trigger them buy vines than those in dry areas.

Table 12: The number of occurrences of the conditions under which farmers are willing to pay for vines by agro-ecological zones (N=51) Conditions triggering Rainy agro- Dry agro- Total willingness to buy vines ecology ecology When it's raining 4 6 10 Vines fail by drought 8 6 14 Vines fail by animal damage 4 4 8 Vines are new 2 2 4 Aware of the vines value 5 3 8 Inadequate vines 3 0 3 Market for roots available 3 0 3 Vines degenerated 1 0 1 No free sources 0 5 5 (Source: Field data, 2015)

Table 13: DVMs perspectives on the reasons for farmers purchasing vines by agro- ecology (N=7) Reasons for farmers purchasing Rainy Dry agro- Total vines according to DVMs agro- ecology ecology Awareness of the vines value 0 1 1 Vines are new 3 3 6 Vines degenerated 1 2 3 Vines fail due to drought 1 0 1 (Source: Field data, 2015) 3.8.1.2. When rains are available As shown in Figure 8, farmers pointed out rains as a prerequisite condition for planting. The period of about three months as from October to December, when first short rains start, is the

time during which farmers would look for vines. Either, farmers reported the period between February and May as not optimal for planting, yet they would grow vines because it’s often raining. Thus, availability of the rains is an important factor that informs farmers’ decision to buy or source vines from DVMs and/or their clients. When the rainfall exhibits erratic patterns, farmers are unlikely to buy vines. Tunu group, the DVM at Nungwe village in Geita district reported on the rain issue. They raised their complaints for lacking vine markets in last March-May 2015 due to changing rain patterns. Vine customers/farmers were uncertain of the rains. They did not buy the vines. Talking on rain issue, Emericiana Salala said, “...this year 2015 we are so confused in timing sweet potato production, because rains delayed. A dry spell persisted to extent that grasses dried up. I only have an acre of sweet potato, not like last year when I grew up to 2 acres. Only of recent days it rained and time for growing sweet potato had passed already...”(Source: Field data, 2015). Emericiana is a retired female primary school teacher, at her early sixties living in Tunyenye, Sengerema. She is a sweet potato farmer.

3.8.1.3. New vines of the virus cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties Table 12 and Table 13 indicate farmers’ willingness to pay for new vines of the cleaned landraces and improved varieties though farmers mentioned the willing to pay for new vines fewer times than their DVMs counterparts. Farmers noted that their incentive is the belief that new improved varieties would perform well and that they have quality characteristics which by testing might adapt to their agro-ecologies.

3.8.1.4. Other conditions Other conditions indicated in Figures 8 and 9 which may trigger purchase of more vines of the cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties include degeneration of the farmers’ vines, farmers being aware of the nutritional value of the vines, and reliable market for the roots.

3.8.2. Farmers perspectives on acceptance of the cleaned and improved orange fleshed sweet potato vines by agro-ecology When asked to give their opinions about the acceptance of the vines of cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties, 38% of farmers in rainy agro-ecological areas (N=29) reported that the acceptance of such vines is between high and moderate while 52% reported that the vines have low acceptance due to several reasons such as lack of market for the roots and their watery nature (talking of themselves and other farmers). About 10% did not know whether the vines are accepted or not. In dry areas more than 80% of farmers (N=22, i.e. 15 vine buyers and 7 free vine receivers) rated the acceptance of the vines of cleaned landraces and improved

OFSP varieties between moderate and high. The acceptance of the vines depends on the acceptance of the roots. Apart from 14% who did not know how farmers would say, no one reported disliking the attributes of the vines (see Figure 8). Because of limited vine sources in dry areas, farmers could go for the vines of improved OFSP varieties despite being watery, but have high yield potential than those farmers in rainy areas who could choose from many different vines of both local and improved varieties from relatively many sources.

Dry agro‐ecology Rainy agro‐ecology Don't know (N=22) Don't (N=29) 14% know 10%

high 24% moderat e 18% high low moderat 68% 52% e 14%

Figure 8: Farmers acceptance of the vines by % agro-ecological zone (Source: Field data, 2015)

CHAPTER 4: DECENTRALIZED VINE MULTIPLIERS AND THEIR SWEET POTATO VINE MULTIPLICATION (SUPPLY)

In the study area, two sources of SP vines exist. These are the decentralized vine multipliers (DVMs) and the self-motivated multipliers (SMMs). DVMs were in both relatively rainy and dry agro-ecologies meanwhile the SMMs were concentrated along the Lake Victoria in the rainy agro-ecology.

The locations of the studied DVMs by agro-ecology

Of the 18 DVMs sampled, 44.4% were situated in the rainy area: 5 DVMs in the northern parts of Sengerema and Geita districts and 3 DVMs in northern part and along the shores of the Lake Victoria in Ilemela district (see Table 14). The rest 55.6% were located in relatively dry areas: 4 DVMs and other 2 in the southern parts of Sengerema and Ilemela districts, respectively and 4 DVMs in Misungwi district.

Table 14: Proportion of studied DVMs by agro-ecologies in the districts (N=18) District/Agro- Sengerema Ilemela Misungwi Geita Percent ecology Relatively 2 3 0 3 44.4 rainy agro- ecology Relatively dry 4 2 4 0 55.6 agro-ecology (Source: Field data, 2015)

In the four districts I carried out this study (Ilemela, Misungwi, Sengerema and Geita), 24 DVMs were established by the Marando Bora project from which I selected 16 DVMs. I added another two DVMs, 1 established by the on-going Kinga Marando project and 1 DVM self-initiated DVM to venture into sweet potato agribusiness: a sample size of 18 DVMs (see section 1.5.3). As indicated in Table 14 above, of the 18 DVMs, 44.4% was located in relatively rainy area in the northern parts of Sengerema, Ilemela and Geita districts. No DVM in Misungwi district (under this study) located in rainy agro-ecology.

4.1. DVMs in the rainy agro-ecology

4.1.1. DVMs multiplying vines for own use and sale Of the 8 DVMs in the rainy agro-ecology/along the lake, 4 DVMs (50%) (KKN in Ilemela, Fatuma Seleman, and Tunu in Geita - established by the Marando Bora project, and Juhudi in

Sengerema - established by the on-going Kinga Marando project (see section 1.5.4), multiplied vines for both own use and sale (see Table 15).

Table 15: Current status of DVMs in rainy agro-ecology in relation to vine multiplication (N=10) No DVM Category District Current status in Reason for of DVM vine business stopping/multiplying for own use

1 Buselemi Group Geita Produce for own use Fetched unreliable market for improved OFSP varieties 2 Fatuma Seleman Individual Produce for both own use and sale 3 Tunu Group Produce for both own use and sale 4 Furaha Group Sengerema Stopped the business Group dynamics, vines dried up 5 Juhudi Group Produce for both own use and sale 6 Tushikamane4 Group Ilemela Stopped the vine Group dynamics. business Members produce individually 7 Anicia Samwel Individual Produce for own use Most vines failed due to long dry spells and sweet potato disease infestations 8 Kilimo ni Kinga Group Produce for both ya Njaa (KKN) own use and sale Source: Field data, 2015

4.1.1.1. DVMs acknowledging the vine business worthwhile and promotional activities they do As indicated in Table 15 above, of the 4 DVMs still multiplying for both own use and sale, 2 reported SP business as a good venture. While KKN in Ilemela acknowledged vine multiplication as good business, Juhudi group in Sengerema appreciated the SP business as it combined the sales of both vines and roots. For the later, the vine sales alone were not paying.

KKN group reported to sell all its vines in every season. As many vine buyers up to about 500 would buy every season. It even reported to assign rations of 2 bundles of 300 cuttings each per customer to ensure a significant number of customers acquiring vines. The DVM mentioned rationing as a strategy to maintain/sustain customers. The buyers included first time buyers and those who had bought in previous occasions. Meanwhile the Juhudi group

4 Tushikamane group is at Kisomeko village in Ilemela district council. Despite being informed of the date for interview, 2 people appeared, a chairperson and one woman who lived close to chairperson. Although she came late, she left after short time. Thus the interview involved the chairperson alone. And the chairperson noted that the group had no any agricultural activity organized together; instead members conserved vines independently in their respective farms since late 2012.

noted to acquire on average 10 vine buyers in every cropping season within and outside the village. The number would change in different seasons. The common activities the two DVMs undertake to reach their customers/raise the awareness and interest of the customers on the vines include training the first time buyers about proper sweet potato agronomic practices, i.e. the preparation of the field, planting quality planting material, identification and control of diseases, conservation of vines and harvesting. The aim of the training is to enable farmers sustain the vines; improve the sweet potato production such that when big buyers require the roots may acquire them. Additionally, they act as farmer facilitators, inspecting sweet potato fields as well as advising on the kind of vines to plant. DVMs also welcome farmers visit their farms as demonstration plots through which the latter are informed about new varieties available, their nutritional importance and field performance.

The Juhudi group through Simon Igogote, the group chairperson, in the October-November 2014 season, sold 102 sacks of roots (of 100 kilograms each, on average) at Tsh 30,000 each to a processing facility in Mwanza city and to small root collectors within and in neighbouring villages (accrued about Tsh. 3, 060,00 equivalent to US $ 1,450). He also sold 49 bundles of vines at Tsh. 5000 each (each bundle contained 300 vine cuttings) for the group. The cost involved was Tsh. 330,000 for a 4 acre field of sweet potato. This catered for all operational costs from land preparation to harvesting. He additionally, mentioned to have formed a network with a fellow DVM in Iligamba village named Magwegwe through which they exchange market information about the buyers and the quantities they require. They came to know each other through meetings organized by the on-going Kinga Marando project which brought them together. And since they live in nearby villages, when one gets a vine customer and he does not have enough vines, he makes a phone call to another DVM directing the customer there. Moreover, Simon provides the first buyers with about four kinds of vines in every bundle, Carrot Dar, Jewel, Carrot C and Kabode as a means to create awareness and raise farmers’ interest of the varieties he has. Other own initiatives through which the Juhudi group reaches buyers/farmers include advertising on radio (supported by the Kinga Marando project), establishing an open farm near the main pathway, providing gifts (roots and/or vines) during public/social events such as funerals as well as visits to public schools used as means to introduce new vines, particularly Kabode for its high yield potential. He also sells the roots in local markets within and outside the village (see chapter 5 section 5.3).

He currently receives phone calls from Arusha and Mbeya and Dodoma. He has communication with roots buyers outside Mwanza region.

4.1.1.2. The experience of the unsuccessful DVMs in vine sales Of the 4 DVMs multiplying for both own use and sale in the rainy area, 2 mentioned unreliable market for vines/roots of improved OFSP Figure 9: Fatuma Seleman in her sweet potato farm. (Photo: Ngabo) varieties as an issue (Tunu group and Fatuma Seleman in Geita district). Noting on the market issue, Fatuma Seleman, an individual DVM at Chigunga village in Geita district – located in the rainy agro- ecological area - noted that many farmers are not aware of the nutritive value of the roots of the improved OFSP varieties. She said about 11 farmers in each season would buy the vines. “This is a small number of farmers aware of the vines”, she said. She said that the vines are often not finished. She conserved the part of the remaining vines since she had water depressions in a wet land for irrigating her vines all year round. Some vines were freely given to neighbours, friends and relatives in need. The rest spoiled while in field.

Tunu group (DVM) is located at Nungwe village, in the northern part of Geita district, in the rainy agro-ecological area. The group had lots of vines left in field since October 2014. Both vines and roots of Kabode, the OFSP variety, had no market. People within the village knew about the availability of both vines and roots, but no one needed them as almost everyone had had own saved vines. They acknowledged that before 2014, only TAHEA – an NGO that supplied the vines to them in first place - through Ramathan Bundala, its extension officer, bought the roots. DVM members said that since Bundala did not buy in 2014, the roots rot in fields. Farmers as well as DVMs did know where to sell their vine and/or roots. They lacked market information where else they could sell the vines/roots apart from projects/NGOs and farmers within and few from outside the villages. They said ‘although we continue multiplying the Kabode using a net tunnel technology, we hesitate because of an unsure

market in future. They noted distance and lack of information about the availability of vines limit the distant farmers in need to access the vines.

Figure 10: Tunu’s sweet potato vines left in field (Photo: Ngabo) 4.1.2. DVMs producing for own use As Table 15 shows such DVMs who produced for their own use encountered attacks of the sweet potato diseases for susceptible improved OFSP varieties and long dry spells in different seasons of the vine multiplication. The other 4 DVMs possessed man made depressions for irrigation. They claimed to suppress the sweet potato diseases when irrigating. For example, Anicia Samwel, a female DVM at Imalang’ombe village in Ilemela district explained that she had no irrigation facilities. She used to multiply vines in a swampy area. When the 2013 dry period prolonged, her vines dried up. Increasing the problem, sweet potato diseases infected her improved OFSP varieties more intensively particularly the Ejumula and Jewel as well than the cleaned landraces. She therefore lost a lot of her vines, both improved varieties Ejumula and Jewel, as well as the virus cleaned landraces (Polista and Ukerewe). Consequently, she multiplies vines for own use. Commenting on the farmers’ need for vines Anicia said, ‘even to date5 farmers want the vines of improved varieties, the OFSP varieties, Ejumula and Jewel, and the virus cleaned. But, I could not manage to produce such vines to meet their needs in terms of quantity and quality since I have few vines to grow for own use’. (Source: Field data, 2015).

5 Refers back to the time this study was done, in April 2015.

4.1.3. DVMs who stopped the vine business Table 15 above shows that 2 DVMs (25%) had stopped the vine agribusiness. DVMs pointed out problems related to group dynamics and dry spells or lack of irrigation facilities as the reasons for DVMs failed to sustain the vine business.

The chairperson of Furaha group lost her husband who had suffered for long time from body health issues. After death, her husband’s relatives claimed that she was involved in the death; she bewitched the husband and hence she fled from that village. Consequently, the group lost leadership to mobilize and organize labour to work in the farm. Coupled with prevalent drought, the crop failed. Land was another resource the group lost in following seasons since the farm used previously belonged to the chairperson’s family. They had no permanent farm for sweet potato production.

In our interview, Tushikamane group chairperson noted of having problems to implement agriculture- related activities collectively as a group since the completion of the Marando Bora project. No one wanted to work in a group farm. Instead members insisted working in individual farms. The group shared the vines to each member for multiplication. However, the group members did not manage the vines well. When dry spell hit, the material dried up since they had no irrigation facilities.

4.1.4. Self-motivated multipliers Four farmers from dry area of the northern parts of Sengerema and Misungwi districts mentioned the multipliers of the vines of local landraces as a second category of vine sources. I term such vine producers as self-motivated multipliers (SMMs). These are farmers who take their own initiatives, who have an entrepreneurial mind-set and identify opportunities for multiplying and selling vines. According the farmers these SMMs are mostly located along the Lake and implement their vine multiplication in swampy areas where water is available even during dry periods. They multiply vines of the landraces such as Busanagulwa, Katebe, Kiliona (Ukerewe), Umeme, Ng’wanamulwa and Polista.

I visited one SMM, Gidion Msabila Mhelela, at Busaka village in Geita district, located very close to the Lake Victoria. Gidion produced vines and roots of the local landraces, Busanagulwa, Polista and Kiliona (also known as Ukerewe). He sold both roots and vines of the local landraces to farmers within Busaka and from neighbouring villages. He noted advantages of the local landraces versus the improved OFSP varieties: high dry matter content, and long field life span. He added that farmers/his customers preferred the local

landraces since their roots fetched reliable market. However, Gidion noted that Polista took longer to mature and Kiliona was highly susceptible to SP diseases. In March 2014, when the Lake tide flooded his sweet potato farm and all local landraces failed, Gidion looked for the vines of Kabode, the improved OFSP variety from Buselemi farmer group. Being a group member, he received them for free. Gidion produced and sold Kabode for one season, but he reported that the produced Kabode fetched few customers of both vines and roots. Hence the unsure market for the variety led him to stop multiplying the Kabode.

For example, Emericiana Salala, the female farmer at Tunyenye village in the southern parts of Sengerema (dry agro-ecological areas) pointed on the SMMs as sources located in Buyagu village along the lake. Although the village is more than 10 kilometres (equivalent to 4 hour bicycle ride) away from Tunyenye, Emericiana could source from SMMs in Buyagu. She sourced there from the early 1990s to 2008 when rains start after critical drought periods. She said that the SMMs serve as main sources for vines (the landraces in particular) for many farmers. The modes for vines access include sales and barter. The sales involve exchange of vines for money and barter involves exchanging vines for cereals particularly maize grains. SMMs estimate the size of the field from which the farmer obtains the vine cuttings at certain amount of money. In bartering, SMMs exchanges vines for cereals from farmers measured using ‘vikolondo’6. Similarly, DVMs sell the vines, but they use standard size of bundles, i.e. 300 vine cuttings for a bundle and did not report barter.

4.2. DVMs in the dry agro-ecology: DVMs with irrigation facilities

Of the 10 DVMs (55.6%) in dry area, 2 (Manyara and Simon Kaswahili farmer groups in Tunyenye and Nyampande villages respectively) owned irrigation facilities. They had prepared man-made depressions which were filling up with water in the rainy season and which would use for irrigating vines year round, i.e. in the dry season. These DVMs supplied the planting material to farmers within and neighbouring villages (Table 16). However, the farmers need for vines surpassed the DVMs supply, particularly the Simon Kaswahili group. This group reported that the vine multiplication as worthless as farmers would only buy depending on the rains patterns. Unpredictable rains affected the vines sales rendering to low capacity of the DVM to further invest in the vine multiplication.

6 Vikolondo is a Sukuma word that stands for a small plastic or tin container used to measure the volume of cereals. Self‐motivated multipliers use vikolondo to measure the volume of maize grains in exchange for vines.

Table 16: Current status of DVMs in dry agro-ecology in relation to vine multiplication (N=10) No DVM Category District Current status Reason for of the in vine business stopping/multiplying DVM for own use

1 Twigungumle Group Misungwi Stopped the Fetched unreliable business market for improved OFSP varieties 2 Igembe sabo Group Produce for own Drought hit the vines. use The small quantity remained is currently produced for sharing among group members 3 Tupendane Group Stopped the Vines failed due to Mitego business flooding when rains started 4 Imani Group Produce for both own use and sale 5 Tujikomboe Group Sengerema Stopped the Group dynamics, vines Lugongo business dried up 6 SECORO Group Stopped the Group dynamics, vines business dried up-lacked irrigation facilities 7 Manyara Group Produce for both own use and sale 8 Simon Group Produce for both Kaswahili own use and sale 9 Mshikamano Group Ilemela Stopped the vine Vines dried up due to business drought and lack of irrigation facilities 10 Igunanilo Group Stopped the Most vines failed due to business long dry periods and lack of irrigation facilities Source: Field data, 2015

4.3. DVMs perspectives about their customers and commercializing sweet potato vines

4.3.1. The categories of sweet potato customers and vine sales DVMs noted two types of customers/farmers who need vines. The first category are farmers who want the planting material for further vine multiplication. These farmers sell the multiplied vines at the beginning of rains as DVMs do. The second category comprise the farmers whose incentives are mainly roots production. Beside the roots, the latter would acquire vines for own use and/or sale as well. DVMs reported that many customers are root producers. Few customers/farmers were reported to multiply and sell vines as well. DVMs

noted that their customers/farmers would come from within the village and from neighbouring villages, wards7 and districts outside their territories (see more in chapter 3).

To most DVMs, selling vines to farmers within the same village elevated competition for vine customers. For such DVMs like Buselemi group in Busaka, Geita, the market for vines became uncertain as farmers would acquire from sources other than the DVM or use own saved vines. But, for few DVMs like Juhudi group, the vine sales to more farmers within the village were counted an opportunity to meet the highly demanded OFSP roots by Mwanza processing facility and beyond. Table 17 below depicts a significant estimated number of the customers who buy DVMs materials in comparison to the ones they share for free or for labour/land or loan.

Table 17: The estimated number of buyers of DVMs material, free and non-cash receivers by districts for the planting seasons October-November 2014 and February- March 2015 District /Category Sengerema Ilemela Misungwi Geita Total DVMs 6 5 4 3 18 Estimated total no. of buyers of 150 500 15 11 676 DVMs material Estimated total no of ‘receivers-for- 50 12 9 22 93 free’, labour, land and loan Source: Field data, 2015

However, DVMs in rainy areas, particularly those in the northern parts of Geita district, would remain with vines in gardens/farms (see in subsection 4.1.1 above). What do they do with the remains? Tunu group in Nungwe, Geita responded saying that, “we share among ourselves...and go to plant in our fields...and this is not only when the vines remain, but also when we want to establish our own fields. But still we don’t finish them. We share some vines with friends, neighbours and relatives and the rest spoil in the field” (Source: Field data, 2015). As already explained, such DVMs would in one way or another remain with vines since farmers could not buy all. I noted that most DVMs did not multiply vines timely as a result would fetch few customers as many had planted the material from other sources or their crops like maize already. In addition, DVMs in areas plenty of rains and/or along Lake Victoria note the same bottleneck.

7 A ward is the government administrative structure at the community level and usually represents between 1,000 and 21,000 people. Rural wards are composed of several villages. Urban wards represent a single town, or a portion of a larger town or city.

4.3.2. Sweet potato vine sales, appropriate time for sales and timing vine multiplication Regarding the proper time for vines sales, DVMs said that farmers would go for the planting materials when rains begin. DVMs reported that farmers often lose vines from late May to early September, particularly in dry agro-ecological areas. Both first time buyers and the multiple time buyers would go for the planting material mainly when rains begin. Table 18 below indicates the period between October and November as peak time for the sales of vines. This is the time the second cropping season reaches its peak and it ends in January. Furthermore, DVMs noted the period between February and March as second time for vine sales. But, the latter sales are often small except for the KKN group in Kayenze, Ilemela as the area receives much rain and more farmers would come for the vines with trust to succeed.

Table 18: DVMs’ opinion on right time for vine sales (N=7) DVMs multiplying District Period for sales vines for both own use and sale Oct-Nov Feb-Mar

1. KKN Ilemela Few sales Peak sales

2. Manyara Sengerema Peak sales Few sales

3. Simon Kaswahili Sengerema Peak sales Few sales

4. Juhudi Sengerema Few sales Peak sales

5. Imani Misungwi Peak sales Few sales

6. Tunu Geita Peak sales Few sales

7. Fatuma Seleman Geita Peak sales Few sales

Source: Field data, 2015

Concerning the timing of the vine and root production, the Juhudi group, at Mwangika village in Sengerema said that they would plant vines immediately when short rains start in October while other farmers in that area go for maize. In January when many farmers plant SP vines, the group often has vines and roots to sell. The group mentioned February-March as time for peak vine and roots sales.

4.3.3. Stirring customers/farmers’ interest for SP seed/promotional activities undertaken DVMs carry out a number of promotional activities; all of which aim to create awareness, stimulate farmers’ interest and adoption of the improved material. Such activities are currently even being implemented in areas with need for the materials to capture those farmers that are still not aware of the availability of the material and in areas/places where the need for the material is relatively low. Knowing that awareness creation helps understanding

the significance of and raising interest for the material, promotions of the sweet potato vines and roots were implemented. In Box 1 a farmer at Sengerema Township in Sengerema district, the dry agro-ecological area narrates about the benefits of the material and sources of such information which connect back to the promotional campaigns DVMs undertook.

Box1: A farmer identifies sources of information about the significance of improved sweetpotato vines (planting material)

Solomon Elifuraha, a male ex secondary school teacher identifies his curiosity to test the performance of the improved vines. At his sixties he sees the Marando Bora project vehicle passing by at a village that borders with Kamanga bay, on the Sengerema side. He gets inspired by the notion that the vines could perform well in terms of productivity because they are labelled quality vines. He however, did not know where to source them until three years ago when he heard about Manyara group, a DVM located at Tunyenye village, Sengerema through the group chairperson, Mr. Justus Kibipi. The farmer knew Justus for years back to 1970s as a supplier of onion seeds from whom he sourced but, not as a supplier of sweet potato vines. He had his phone number which he used to make a phone call inviting him for a visit. Upon coming, Mr Justus informed Mr. Solomon, the farmer about the nutritional and quality importance of the vines. First, that the vines are early maturing, second, high yielding and third, suitable for improving human health, particularly the health of elderly with limited sight capacity and that of children. He added that he expected an added value from the vines of cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties like vitamins (own curiosity) as a natural treatment of his eyes, and high yields. He finally bought 3 bundles of Kabode, Ejumula and Ukerewe in 2014. The DVM sold to Solomon a bundle of about 300 vine cuttings at a price of Tsh 6000 per bundle inclusive of Tsh. 1000 as charges for a bicycle transport. Despite the distance and high price for vines, he managed to buy to fulfil his aspirations. However, the vines failed due to drought and animal damage. Solomon did not give up. He bought 1 bundle of Kabode which he planted in the following cropping season 2015. He acknowledges acquiring all the above information about significance of the vines of cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties from the DVM. Therefore, he recommends establishing demonstration plots that will create farmers’ awareness and interest. The demos will act as promotional activities for attracting farmers towards improved vines.

Source: Field data, 2015

Figure 11: Solomon Elifuraha in interview with the author (Photo: Ngabo)

As DVMs already noted, farmers affirmed of the various means through which they could get information about the vine multipliers and the value of the vines DVMs multiply, be it nutritional and/or economical (for more details see chapter 3). Among the sources, farmers outline the following:

i. The posted sign boards nearby or at sweet potato planting material gardens/farms and at village centres. Those boards were fixed by Marando Bora (Quality vines) and Kinga Marando8 (Protecting vines) projects for the purpose of promoting the improved sweet potato planting material; ii. Village meetings initiated by DVMs (both individual and group DVMs) were utilized to sensitize and attract farmers; iii. OFSP recipes shows at village level and through farmers’ festival/agricultural shows (Nanenane) at district/regional/national levels were means to get farmers aware of the importance of the OFSP in terms of nutritional value and food security. These shows were supported by different stakeholders including district councils, projects under NGOs and/or research; iv. TV and radio programmes were used during and after the Marando Bora project. These initiatives were mainly supported by projects such as DONATA and Kinga Marando projects. DONATA is an abbreviation of the project called Dissemination Of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa. This project focused on scaling up and out the proven sweet potato technologies and innovative practices mainly on the OFSPs; v. Net tunnels and demonstration plots established in farmers’ fields enhance knowledge transfer to the farmers and stir up their interests towards the vines as they observe the vines’ performance and quality at farmer conditions. Net tunnel technology was first developed by International Potato Centre (CIP) to test options for conserving and multiplying clean planting materials (vines) under vector controlled conditions. The net tunnel is made of materials which are fairly low-cost and easy to access including; insect proof netting, flexible wooden sticks, and wires or sisal twine (Figure 12). The use of net tunnels could prevent virus infection of disease-free planting material maintained under the net in high virus disease pressure areas for at least three years.

8 Kinga Marando project is on‐going. It started in 2014 and lasts for three years until 2016. It focuses on scaling up/out the net tunnel technology with the aim to protect the vines from vector (whiteflies and aphids) transmitted sweet potato diseases. This project fixes sign boards at vine farms as well.

Farmers had opportunity to test the technologies at farmer conditions meanwhile multiplying clean planting materials (vines).

Figure 12: Net tunnels constructed using insect proof nets, wooden sticks and wires/sisal twine in farmers’ fields. (Source: Field data, 2015) 4.3.4. The voucher system

4.3.4.1. The achievements of the voucher system All 18 DVMs acknowledged voucher system to promote the vines. They noted the system to help reach as many farmers as possible.

During the voucher system, DVMs multiplied a lot of vines. They extended farms and all produced vines were used. The vouchers stimulated and promoted the vines of the cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties. They also enhanced wide spreading of the planting material within the villages where DVMs were located as well as beyond. The redeemed vouchers were advantageous to multipliers since many farmers would buy at prices subsidized by the Marando Bora project. During the life of the project, DVMs reported no redundant vines.

4.3.4.2. Challenges of the voucher system DVMs noted that the voucher system had some challenges including delayed/late payments for redeemed vouchers, and some not paid at all. Moreover, for farmers who lost their vouchers, such unredeemed vouchers would be a loss for the DVMs. Additionally, DVMs noted that the voucher system decreased future demand for vines as many farmers accessed subsidized vines. Such farmers, according to DVMs would not come again for the vines. They had their own saved vines as planting material in future seasons.

4.4. Processes through which DVMs determine price for sweet potato vines

DVMs reported three different processes through which they set prices for SP vines. These include consulting other DVMs, DVM determining the price alone, and DVMs negotiating with buyers.

4.4.1. Consulting other DVMs In setting price, DVMs would consult fellow multipliers in other localities to establish a basic price. The basic price considered the number of vine cuttings and the length of the vines. In this way the multiplier sets the basic price with which all buyers adhere to. For example, Fatuma Seleman, the DVM in Geita district pointed out that she communicated to Justus Kibipi, the chairperson of the Manyara group at Tunyenye, Sengerema asking for criteria for setting vine price. She noted that Justus told her to establish a bundle of 300 vine cuttings of average 30 centimetres long and that the price for that bundle should be Tsh. 5000. Moreover, she said that the price does not change with the variety the farmer would like.

4.4.2. Negotiating with buyers DVMs reported to set the price and the size of the bundle. Even though, buyers would negotiate with DVMs mainly on the size of the bundle/the number of vine cuttings. DVMs noted that farmers would request for additional vine cuttings until satisfied or till they (both multiplier and customer/farmer) reach an agreement for the size. For example, Simon Kaswahili group at Nyampande village, Sengerema noted saying that he determines the price for certain number of vines say, Tsh. 3000 per a bundle of 200 vine cuttings. If a farmer looks at the size of the bundle and s/he is not satisfied, he or she would ask for a few extra vines on top of the bundle, say 300 vines for Tsh. 3000. If the DVM agrees with the farmer’s request, then the price is being set.

4.4.3. DVMs own considerations In setting price for vines alone, DVMs noted to consider factors including the socio-economic status of the buyers/farmers.

4.4.3.1. Socio-economic status of the buyer DVMs noted that they would look at the farmer’s physical and economic outlook. If the farmer in need for vines looks poor, seemingly to have little or no cash, and physically old, DVMs could source vines to such farmer(s) at low price or even free of charge. Moreover, DVMs pointed out to consider production costs. DVMs like the Juhudi group mentioned to maximally lower the price for a bundle of 300 vine cuttings from Tsh. 5000 to Tsh. 3500.

4.4.3.2. Relationship with the buyer DVMs reported that if the buyer is a relative/kin, s/he would get vines at a low price for the first round. When s/he comes for the second round, the normal price is charged as for other non-related farmers. Manyara group chaired by Justus Kibipi at Tunyenye village, Sengerema noted that for being related both DVMs and a friend or a kin, had some sort of power to negotiate the price. But, again, the negotiation mostly went around the size of the vine bundle.

4.4.3.3. Frequency of purchase Moreover, the price setting for vines was influenced by the frequency of purchases from one multiplier. DVMs noted to lower the price indirectly for those farmers who bought from them repeatedly. They could increase the size of the bundle in order to satisfy and so maintain their customers. The multipliers also said that depending on the number of purchases the customer/farmer had reached, s/he could have power to ask for additional vine cuttings at particular price. The two could negotiate, but normally the multipliers increased the bundle sizes.

4.5. DVMs connections with sources for clean vine cuttings and new varieties

Of the 18 DVMs under this study, 8 participate in the currently implemented Kinga Marando project. These DVMs reported that the Kinga Marando project supplies them with first stocks of Kabode and NASPOT 11, the improved OFSP varieties, and Polista, the cleaned landrace for tertially multiplication using net tunnels. One self-initiated group DVM located at Nyamle village in Misungwi district noted to source clean vine cuttings from a nearby research centre, LZARDI Ukiriguru.

CHAPTER 5: RELATIONSHIPS, SOCIAL NETWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY TO SWEET POTATO VINES

5.1. Existing relationships between DVMs, clients, and receivers of free vines

Figure 13 below shows that more than 50% of the farmers who received free vines from DVMs and their clients (N=19) were kin/relatives. The rest of the farmers were friends (26%) and neighbours (21%). Of the 19 farmers, 63.2% were located in rainy agro-ecological areas while 36.8% were in dry agro-ecological areas. The distance travelled ranged from 0.3kilometres for a farmer in Chigunga village, Geita who sourced from Fatuma Seleman , the individual DVM in the same community to more than 70 kilometres for the farmer from Chato district who sourced from her young sister, Efrazia Misana Toto in Kanyala village, Sengerema.

Neighbours 21% Kin/relatives 53% Friends 26%

Figure 13: Proportion of farmers received free vines from DVMs or their clients by type of relationship% (N=19) (Source: Field data, 2015)

5.1.1. Kinships/relatives Figure 13 above shows that 53% of farmers (N=19) who have close relationships with DVMs and their clients, being a mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, nephew or aunt, benefited free vines. Those kin’s/relatives asked for the materials. Even though, there are times DVMs shared the planting material without kin’s request for different purposes including enhancing seed security and food security for the big family. The kin/relatives received the vines in the form of gifts as shown in Figure 15 below.

5.1.2. Friendships As relatives, friends received free vines from DVMs and their clients. These constituted 26 % of the farmers who were given free vines. These farmers reported to have friendly relationships with the sources. For example, Tausi Phillipo, a female farmer in Chigunga village in Geita district notes that she has been in friendly relationship with Fatuma Seleman, the DVM for long time such that the two look or behave currently as close relatives. Having such relationship, Tausi notes, helped her source free vines of Kabode, Kiliona (Ukerewe) and Polista from Fatuma for three different seasons.

5.1.3. Neighbourhoods As Figure 13 above shows, 21% of farmers who received free vines (n=19) were neighbours to DVMs and their clients. These farmers reported to interact or have ties with DVMs or their clients which stem on farm labour arrangements. Neighbours received vines from DVMs or their clients in exchange of the planting materials. Maliceli Joseph, a male farmer at his forties at Chigunga village, in Geita, as an example, notes of the labour provision as a mode of acquiring SP planting materials from Fatuma Seleman, the DVM in the same community. Being a neighbour to Fatuma, he irrigated coffee plants in the latter’s farm for exchange of the vines.

5.1.4. DVMs and their clients Figure 14 below indicates that more than 90% of the farmers who paid for the vines (N=32), were not related with the DVMs. Six percent of the buyers reported to have been related to the DVMs. The latter were a close friend and young sister to one of the group members of the farmer group (a group DVM). Both of the related live in the same community with the DVM, in the rainy agro-ecological area. These farmers are Juliana Bryson and Magdalena Amos (both multiple time buyers) all living at Kayenze Street in Ilemela district, the close friend and kin of the secretary of KKN group, respectively. They reported to pay low prices for vines, Tsh. 2667 (US $ 1.26) and Tsh 700 (US $ 0.33) per bundle (on average) for Juliana and Magdalena respectively. Meanwhile the normal price for a bundle of 300 vine cuttings paid by other non-related vine buyers was Tsh. 5000 (US $ 2.37).

Related buyers 6%

Non related buyers 94%

Figure 14: Proportion of farmers who bought vines from DVMs by relationship % (N=32) (Source: Field data, 2015)

5.2. Social networks for sweet potato vines in the study area

DVMs – Clients’ networks

Figure 2 shows more links with 2 DVMs along the Lake Victoria/rainy agro-ecology of Sengerema and Ilemela districts and those located far from the Lake or in a dry agro-ecology of Sengerema district who possess irrigation facilities. One of the limiting factors to such multipliers was agricultural calendars or seasons dependent on rains before which customers/farmers could not buy the planting material for SP growing. In that light customers/farmers within the village, wards or district and beyond relied on those DVMs in sourcing planting material. This is what you can see e.g. in Sengerema a number of arrows (as customers/farmers) directing to them compared to other DVMs despite the fact that they are in same geographical/agro-ecological area.

Customers/famers from distant geographical (i.e. beyond village, ward) and agro ecological (dry or rainy) areas who were somewhat linked to distant DVMs situated in rainy agro- ecology, sourced vines from those. Such linkages / networks existed between customers/farmers in Geita district and the Juhudi group DVM in Sengerema district. DVMs in the rainy agro-ecologies (i.e. the northern parts) of Geita district had generally few links with farmers. Consequently, for example, Tunu group, at Nungwe village in Geita district had plenty planting material in the field since October, 2014, when was ready for selling. Similarly, Buselemi group at Busaka village reported about the scarcity of vine buyers.

DVMs – DVMs networks

DVM(s)-to-DVM(s) linkages/networks within and across districts were weak, limited on information about setting vine price Figure 2. More occasionally DVMs in different geographical and agro-ecological locations connected in sharing vine market information (who the customers/farmers are, which varietal and quality characteristics of vines are liked, when which quantities are needed and frequency of sales) With these DVMs, regularly linkages/share of market information was observed with members within a group DVM and between DVMs in a nearby community. When one member of the group DVM acquired customers for vines and s/he couldn’t satisfy or didn’t have vines, it shared information to next group members with vines.

DVMs and free receivers

Kinships, friendships and neighbourhood relations existed between DVMs and vine customers, and farmers. Such relations helped farmers acquire planting materials for free. Information about the new vines flows easily among the related. There were feelings of brotherhood and adherence to community or moral value, which perpetuated free of charge sharing of the planting material or gifts. However, for the related who come for more than once, paid low price for the vines. Hence their relationships with DVMs, negatively affected the price for the SP planting material.

5.3. Farmers’ access to the sweet potato planting material

5.3.1. Cash as a determinant Provided that the materials from DVMs were sold, the first determinant for access was cash, i.e. finances. Farmers with cash would buy from DVMs and those without could not. The multipliers exchanged vines with money. The amount given was according to prices set. On average the prices ranged from Tshs. 1000 to 5,000 per bundle of 300 vine cuttings (on average)9.

However, some farmers were given vines with cash they had. The multiplier would decide the size of vine load/bundle in respect to money given and on how the multiplier judges the socio- economic status of the farmer. Farmers who looked poor, and/or elderly that could not afford

9 The size of bundles varied in accordance with season, the purchasing power of the customer/farmer and relationship existing between the multiplier and the farmer. So, the multiplier would negotiate with the farmer the size of the bundle, i.e. the number of vine cuttings in a bundle at particular price.

the price set benefited the offer. In that regard, some farmers received vines from DVMs for free. For example, the KKN group, DVM at Kayenze in Ilemela district, mentioned that farmers were supplied with vines according to amount of cash they have. Those with cash bought the vines at prices already set, and those observed to be poor or old paid what they had or given for free, but the size of bundle was also moderated accordingly. Those farmers, who looked ‘well-off’ (according to the multiplier point of view) but had no cash, could not get vines. However, the interest to purchase derived from awareness of the nutritional/economic value of sweet potato for human health. Farmers mentioned that – apart from those landraces produced by self-motivated multipliers - the improved planting materials, OFSP in particular, are relatively advantageous. They mentioned the OFSPs to improve sight capability of the elderly, to increase number of CD4 for HIV/AIDS victims, to generally improve body strength/health, to yield high, are early maturing, and are expected to increase farmer’s income from vine and root sales. For the improved landraces, the ‘viruses cleaned’ Ukerewe and Polista materials, the interest was about high yields, early maturity and high dry matter content. The raised understanding/awareness of the significance of the improved materials is another factor for sourcing from DVMs.

5.3.2. Social relationships as another determinant As already noted in section 5.1 above, farmers related to the multipliers were more likely to acquire the material than those with no such relations. DVMs reported to source their materials for free to those whom they are related. For example, family members (relatives), neighbours, friends within and/or outside the village(s) would easily acquire the material from DVMs. Though, they mentioned that they could only give gifts to the related who do not sell the free vines as own small business, rather search such vines for enhancing food security. DVMs felt ashamed or found it inhuman to sell vines to such relatives, friends and neighbours. They also noted that they avoided being socially isolated as exchange of planting material has been a common place in all areas covered by this study. It is counted as immoral to sell vines to other villagers. Farmers exchanged the material for ensuring food subsistence and as reciprocal service, i.e. the source for the material in one time becomes a recipient in another time.

Forms of reciprocal services embedded in relationships

Figure 15 below depicts that 15 of the farmers who received free vines (N=19), acquired them as gifts. These farmers noted to be related with DVMs or their clients were kin/relatives (10 farmers) and friends (5 farmers). Of those farmers received gifts (n=15), 8 were in rainy agro-ecological areas and

7 in dry agro-ecologies. The rest 4 farmers received vines in kind as loans, and for the exchange for labour and land. The later farmers reported to be neighbours to the DVMs. All of them came from rainy agro-ecological areas of Geita district in same communities with DVMs.

15 form 16 14 12 reciprocal

for

10 8 6 occurences

of 4 2 11 2

Number 0 Gift Exchange for Exchange for Loan labour land Form of reciprocity through which farmers received free vines

Figure 15: Forms of reciprocal services through which farmers receive vines by number of occurrence (N=19) (Source: Field data, 2015)

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1. DVMs and roles they play in SP seed systems

6.1.1. DVMs in rainy agro-ecology The first question in this study explored roles which DVMs play to ensure that farmers acquire quality SP planting materials. Of the 18 DMs studied, 8 were located in rainy agro- ecological areas. The results of the study indicate that 50 % of the DVMs (n=8) in rainy agro- ecological areas of Sengerema, Geita and Ilemela districts, i.e. the northern parts of these districts, produce and distribute to farmers the vines of the cleaned landraces (Polista and Ukerewe) and improved OFSP varieties such as Ejumula, Jewel, Carrot Dar, Kabode and Carrot C (see chapter 4, section 4.1.1.). The other half of the DVMs that were part of this study either produce vines for own farm use or stopped the vine business.

Furthermore, the results indicate that 25% of the DVMs (n=8) in rainy agro-ecological areas would account vine business worthwhile. These are the KKN group in Kanyenze, Ilemela and Juhudi group in Mwangika, Sengerema. In case of Kayenze the results show that farmers’ needs for the vines surpassed the DVM’s supply.

This finding was unexpected in rainy areas where farmers would commonly exchange vines free of charge. Apart from Okello et al. (2013) who finds that the majority farmers in Mwanza would source from DVMs and other farmers affiliated to them, no research has suggested vine business as worth investing financially, particularly in rainy areas. There are several possible explanations for this finding. First, these DVMs acted as focal points for training and provision of advisory services about SP planting material management at farmer level. Such services would possibly draw farmers’ attention towards the DVMs and raise interest for their vines. Second, the use of a new net tunnel technology to protect vines from SP diseases made farmers to perceive that DVMs vines have better quality than local landraces. Third, farmers and other root consumers in such areas had developed a positive attitude towards OFSP roots that have an added nutritional value for children, sick people such as elderly and HIV/AIDs victims as well for the improvement of the households’ food security. Fourth, these DVMs had established marketing contacts with vine and roots consumers outside their localities. And farmers saw the cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties as the new vines they were looking for. This is in line with Tripp (2001) who notes that farmers would source seed from other sources when they look for a different seed among other reasons. This implies that despite the look for new vines, felt own vines not good for planting anymore, having

inadequate vines, the farmers purchase of the vines would be enhanced with activities undertaken by DVMs including promotional and vine management.

This finding is interesting as it brings forth the understanding of the roles DVMs may play to ensure smooth delivery of the vines to farmers at planting time and for the sustainability of the SP seed systems at large without compromising the aspect of farming as a business.

6.1.2. DVMs in dry agro-ecology The evidence from this study also shows that 20% of the DVMs (n=10) located in dry agro- ecological areas, i.e. Misungwi district, southern parts of the Sengerema, Geita and Ilemela districts, have irrigation facilities which they use to harness water for irrigating vines year round. However, farmers particularly in Nyampande village, Sengerema noted of the scarcity of the planting material at the onset of the rains despite the presence of Simon Kaswahili the DVM (see chapter 4 section 4.2). This finding is consistent with a study carried out in Tanzania by Kapinga et al. (1995) that found availability of planting material at the beginning of the rains as hampering factor to SP production. A similar study by Okello et al. (2013) reported of the same scarce availability of the SP planting material. Possible explanations for this might be that the DVM lost the capacity to produce as years pass by or the DVM had limited capital for further investment in the vine business that would be used to extend or intensify the vine multiplication. This would be due to erratic rains that affect farmers’ purchase of vines.

Besides multiplying different vines, findings indicate that DVMs use a number of technologies for vine multiplication to ensure farmers acquire quality SP planting materials at the start of the rains. They use rapid vine multiplication and ridging (conventional) techniques for vine and roots production respectively. Additionally, DVMs had limited knowledge on the type of pesticides to apply but were aware of rouging as they identify SP disease symptoms. This would imply that if the DVMs get knowledge of the proper pesticides to apply, they would control the diseases.

6.2. Self-motivated multipliers (SMMs)

With respect to the first research question, the present study was designed to assess the roles of the DVMs in ensuring that farmers access quality SP planting material. But, unexpectedly the findings show that farmers would source from other multipliers who by their own initiative, ventured into the vine business (see chapter 4 subsection 4.1.4.). The findings

moreover, show that the SMMs are located along the shores of Lake Victoria where access to water for irrigating vines during dry periods is readily. Additionally, the findings indicate that SMMs would become more potential source for farmers looking for SP planting materials of the local landraces such as Busanagulwa, Umeme, Bilagala and Klofeniko. Most farmers would come from dry areas where DVMs have no irrigation equipment to sustain their vines through drought periods (i.e. DVMs that either multiply for own use or stopped). Contrary to loans (i.e. reciprocal services), gifts, and vines provided in exchange for work that are common modes for accessing SP vines; SMMs sell or exchange their vines for cereals. Although they seem to be part of the informal seed systems which would predominantly be based on seed exchanges, loans, and gifts, SMMs undertake vine multiplication as a business in which farmers access the vines in exchange for cash or cereals mainly maize, i.e. the barter system. These results are in line with Tripp (2001) assertion about the availability of farmers in the communities known as “reliable sources of seed” who would provide seed to other farmers in order to gain respect or profit. Although SMMs appear to be important actors for sustainable delivery of SP planting material, further research is needed to understand how they operate, the scale of their operations and the possible linkages that can be instituted to improve their functioning.

6.3. Farmers needs for vines

The second question in this research aimed to find out the characteristics of the SP planting material that farmers would prefer. This had an implication for formal systems (plant breeding) as to what quality attributes should be incorporated in the SP distributed to farmers. One finding is that farmers who would buy for the first time look for a different vine. They want to test its performance in terms of yield potential and tolerance to drought and diseases. Moreover, the added nutritive value of the improved OFSP varieties was crucial (see chapter 3). Other factors include considering one’s own vines degenerated such that they are unfit for planting. Farmers who would buy the planting materials repeatedly are triggered by having inadequate materials, and drying up or animal destruction of the vines. These findings are consistent with results of the study by Badstue and Adam (2011) carried out in the Lake zone, Tanzania. They found that farmers would acquire SP planting material from others wishing to try out a different variety with attributes they prefer, and regain the lost ones. Tripp (2001) made a similar note as he explains the reasons why farmers source from others. The results of the current study suggest that farmers would often go for new vines and that there should be

new vines or cleaned local landraces from time to time. However, caution has to be taken that the vines contain attributes that farmers prioritize.

6.4. Relationships and farmers access to SP planting materials

Another research question for this study sought to know how relationships would affect the price which in turn affects the access to SP planting material. The results show that kinship/relatives, neighbourhoods, and friendships enable farmers to acquire the planting material. Those farmers who are kin/relatives and friends to DVMs and their clients are more likely to get free planting material or pay little cash or acquire more vines (see chapter 5 sections 5.1 and 5.3). The findings show additionally, that neighbours to the DVMs could acquire vines through exchange for labour, land and loans (i.e. another forms of reciprocal services). Regarding vine prices, findings show that the average prices for the related buyers is between Tsh. 700 (US $ 0.38) to Tsh. 2667 (US $ 1.26) whereas for other non-related buyers the price is Tsh. 5000 (US $ 2.37). Thus the kin and friends enjoy low prices. As Tripp (2001) contends the vine transaction costs decrease for the kin, friends and buyers who have established relationships with DVMs.

Partly these findings match those observed in earlier study by Badstue and Adam (2011) in which, having been studied the production, management and ways of acquiring SP planting material in the Lake zone, they found kin/family to likely acquire free SP planting material. And that those among the kin/family who happened to buy, paid low prices. This study furthermore, found that other farmers would acquire vines as a reciprocal service, in a way exchanging vines for labour and in form of loan.

These findings align with the theory of moral economy which centres on the mutual support among small-scale farmers. According to the concept of moral economy, such support among and between small-scale farmers is grounded on the principles of reciprocity, i.e. gifts, sharing work and loans, which are embedded in social relationships. These relationships are shaped by morals and values which consider the food security of the SP farmers important. Hence farmers help each other to acquire SP planting materials in different forms of reciprocity. Moreover, the theory notes that when small-scale farmers would want sell seeds among themselves, the prices consider the value of securing their community with food as something important.

Evidence shows that relationships between DVMs and kin, friends and/or their neighbours form networks. Additionally, such networks extend to DVMs-to-DVMs and DVMs-to-free receivers. The networks help sharing of information about and the vines of the cleaned landraces and improved OFSP varieties among the small-scale farmers. However, the DVMs- DVMs networks involve sharing information about setting basic vine prices among a limited number of DVMs across districts. Information shared was also about customers and quantities they require within same agro-ecology, particularly between the Juhudi group at Mwangika village and Magwegwe in a nearby Iligamba village in Sengerema (see chapter 5 section 5.2). These findings connect to the theory of social networks which promotes the usefulness of networks in spreading information and materials among people in the relationships. However, contrary to Granovetter (1973) assertion about strong relationships that would favour neighbours among the related to freely acquire the vines, the findings of this study imply neighbours do not get favour from DVMs. They acquire vines from DVMs through labour and loan.

6.5. Conclusions

This research was designed to explore how small-scale farmers in the Lake zone of Tanzania access the SP planting materials when needed. It specifically focused on the roles DVMs play in the delivery of quality SP planting material to farmers in a timely fashion as well as in accordance with the farmers’ needs in relation to planting materials. Furthermore, the study assessed the effect of relationships on acquisition of SP planting material.

From the results of this study we can conclude that DVMs play producing and distributing roles of SP planting material. They provide technical and advisory services to farmers as well. In so doing, DVMs have an intermediary role bridging the gap between farmers and extension.

Moreover, as the findings have shown, farmers would go for new vines that acquire attributes of their priorities such as high yield potential, tolerant to diseases and pests and high nutritional value from DVMs and their clients. Additionally, this study found that relationships between DVMs and kin, friends and buyers have a negative effect on price of the SP planting material charged by the DVM particularly when the related buyers are first time buyers. On the other hand, having relationships with DVMs and their clients, increase the likelihood of small-scale farmers to access the planting material.

These findings have significant implications for the understanding of how small-scale farmers would access SP planting material in a sustainable fashion which in turn would result into well-functioning SP seed systems in the Lake zone, Tanzania.

This study extends our knowledge on SP seed systems in the Lake zone by identifying DVMs roles in the seed systems and in the needs of farmers in respect to SP planting material.

The most important limitation lies in the fact that this study lacks information from farmers who did not source from DVMs or their clients. Such information would help to better characterize buyers and people who seek to acquire SP planting materials. SMMs information is also lacking as the study focused on DVMs. What is now needed is to undertake a further research that could usefully explore how SMMs operate, the scope of their operations and how SMMs can strengthen the SP seed systems to effectively deliver the planting material in a sustainable manner.

REFERENCES Adams, A. (1993). Food insecurity in Mali: exploring the role of the moral economy. ids bulletin 24, 41-51. Almekinders, C., Louwaars, N., and De Bruijn, G. (1994). Local seed systems and their importance for an improved seed supply in developing countries. Euphytica 78, 207-216. Almekinders, C. J., and Louwaars, N. P. (1999). "Farmers' seed production: new approaches and practices," Intermediate Technology, London. Almekinders, C. J., and Louwaars, N. P. (2002). The importance of the farmers' seed systems in a functional national seed sector. Journal of New Seeds 4, 15-33. Almekinders, C. J., Thiele, G., and Danial, D. L. (2007). Can cultivars from participatory plant breeding improve seed provision to small-scale farmers? Euphytica 153, 363-372. Badstue, L. and R. Adam (2011). Gender and Vines. Production, manangement and exchange of sweetpotato planting material among smallholers in the Lake Victoria Region, Tanzania.Technical Report. Helen Keller International, Nairobi, Kenya. Bishaw, Z., and Turner, M. (2008). Linking participatory plant breeding to the seed supply system. Euphytica 163, 31-44. Bishaw, Z., and van Gastel, A. J. G. (2008). ICARDA's Seed-Delivery Approach in Less Favorable Areas Through Village-Based Seed Enterprises: Conceptual and Organizational Issues. Journal of New Seeds 9, 68-88. Booth, W. J. (1994). On the Idea of the Moral Economy. American Political Science Review 88, 653- 667. Byerlee, D., Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., Townsend, R., and Klytchnikova, I. (2007). "Agriculture for Development: World Development Report 2008," World Bank, Washington D.C. Catholic Relief Services (2012). SASHA Marando Bora Final Technical Report. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. CIP and BMGF (2009). Sweet potato Action for Security and Health in Africa (SASHA) Project Proposal. Nairobi, Kenya, CIP. Coate, S., and Ravallion, M. (1993). Reciprocity without commitment: Characterization and performance of informal insurance arrangements. Journal of development Economics 40, 1-24. Cooper, D., and TAD, I. (1993). "Plant genetic diversity and small farmers: issues and options for IFAD," International Fund for Agricultural Development. De Vaus, D. A., & de Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. Sage. Easley, D., and Kleinberg, J. (2010). Strong and weak ties. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World, 47-84. Edelman, M. (2005). Bringing the Moral Economy back in… to the Study of 21st‐Century Transnational Peasant Movements. American Anthropologist 107, 331-345. FAO (2001). Working paper: Striga research activities in central and Lake zone of Tanzania- Evaluation of on-farm research trials 2000 and 2001. Accessed on 17/07/2015 through http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/agrotech/2002/R7564_FTR_anx1c.pdf Gibson, R., Mwanga, R. O. M., Namanda, S., Jeremiah, S. C., and Barker, I. (2009). "Review of Sweet potato Seed System in East and Southern Africa," International Potato Center. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological theory 1, 201-233. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 1360-1380. Green, J., and Thorogood, N. (2014). "Qualitative methods for health research," Sage. Hachen, D. S. Jr. (2001). Sociology in action: Cases for Critical and Sociological Thinking Pine Forge Press Thousand Oaks, California London New Delhi. Hammersley, M., and Atkinson, P. (2007). "Ethnography: Principles in practice," Routledge. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & information science research 18, 323-342. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society 18, 385-401.

Jack, S. L. (2005). The Role, Use and Activation of Strong and Weak Network Ties: A Qualitative Analysis. Journal of management studies 42, 1233-1259. Joseph, N., and Regina, K. (2007). Viruses and virus-like diseases affecting sweet potato subsistence farming in southern Tanzania. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2, 232-239. Kapinga, R., Ewell, P., Jeremiah, S., and Kileo, R. (1995). Sweet potato in Tanzanian fanning and food systems: Implications for research. Development, Tanzania. Kimenye L, and McEwan M (eds) (2014). Scaling up, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies using Innovation Platforms—Lessons from Eastern and Central Africa. ASARECA (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa), Entebbe. Klerkx, L., and Gildemacher, P. (2012). The role of innovation brokers in agricultural innovation systems. World Bank. Agricultural innovation systems: an investment sourcebook, Module 3. Klerkx, L., Hall, A., and Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8, 409-438. Latour, B. (2012). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press. Linnemann, A. R., and de Bruijn, G. (1987). Traditional seed supply for food crops. ILEIA Newsletter 3, 10-11. Louwaars, N. P., and Boef, W. S. d. (2012). Integrated seed sector development in Africa: a conceptual framework for creating coherence between practices, programs, and policies. Journal of Crop Improvement 26, 39-59. Louwaars, N. P., Boef, W. S. d., and Edeme, J. (2013). Integrated seed sector development in Africa: a basis for seed policy and law. Journal of Crop Improvement 27, 186-214. Marsden, P. V., and Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social forces 63, 482-501. McEwan M., Lusheshanija D., Shikuku K. and Sindi K. (2013b). Decentralized vine multipliers: Practice after project. International Potato Center: Nairobi, Kenya. McGuire, S. J. (2007). Vulnerability in farmer seed systems: Farmer practices for coping with seed insecurity for sorghum in Eastern Ethiopia. Economic Botany 61, 211-222. McGuire, S. J. (2008). Securing access to seed: Social relations and sorghum seed exchange in eastern Ethiopia. Human Ecology 36, 217-229. Meludu, N., Ajala, C., and Akoroda, M. (2003). Poverty alleviation through the processing of sweet potato tubers into toasted granules and consumer preferences in Nigeria. Africa J. Tuber and Tuber Crops 5, 56-59. Mhike, X., Okori, P., Kassie, G. T., Magorokosho, C., and Chikobvu, S. (2012). An appraisal of farmer variety selection in drought prone areas and its implication to breeding for drought tolerance. Journal of Agricultural Science 4, 27-43. Okello J., Sindi K., Shikuku K. and Nakazi F. (2013). From scale to impact: Effects of the Marando Bora sweet potato seed multiplication and distribution project in Tanzania. End line survey report. International Potato Center: Nairobi, Kenya. Ogero, K., McEwan, M. and Pamba, N. (2014) SASHA Marando Bora Project:Testing seed delivery systems at scale: dissemination of healthy sweet potato planting materials for improved food security in Lake Zone Tanzania. Draft document. Pescosolido, B. (2006). The sociology of Social Networks. 208-217. Ribot, J. C., and Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access*. Rural sociology 68, 153-181. Ruef, M. (2002). Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change 11, 427-449. Scott, J. C. (1976). The moral economy of the peasant: Subsistence and rebellion in Southeast Asia. Yale UP (New Haven). Sindi, K., and Wambugu, S. (2012). "Going-to-scale with sweet potato vines distribution in Tanzania." International Potato Center (CIP). Sperling, L., and Cooper, D. (2004). Understanding seed systems and strengthening seed security: a background paper. In "Towards Effective and Sustainable Seed Relief Activities: Report of the Workshop on Effective and Sustainable Seed Relief Activities, Rome, 26-28 May 2003", Vol. 181, pp. 7. Food & Agriculture Org.

Tairo, F., Mneney, E., and Kullaya, A. (2008). Morphological and agronomical characterization of sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] germplasm collection from Tanzania. African Journal of Plant Science 2, 77-85. Thiele, G. (1999). Informal potato seed systems in the Andes: Why are they important and what should we do with them? World Development 27, 83-99. Tripp, R. (2001). Seed provision & agricultural development: the institutions of rural change. Odi. UNDP - UNEP (2014). Pro-poor Economic Growth and Environmentally Sustainable Development Poverty and Environment Initiative (PEI) - Mapping Study of P-E Related Innovative Local Best Practices and Local Private Funding Opportunities Sengerema District. UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative. Accessed on 17/07/2015 through http://www.esrftz.org/PEI/pdf/PEI_Assesment_Study_Sengerema.pdf URT (1982). Soil survey report of Geita and Sengerema districts. Tanga. Accessed on 17/07/2015 through http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/009/as017e/as017e.pdf. URT (2013). Geita Investment Profile. Accessed on 17/07/2015 through http://lakezoneinvestmentforum.go.tz/sites/default/files/Geita%20%20Investment%20Profile %20Consolidated_0.pdf Zimmerer, K. S. (1991). The regional biogeography of native potato cultivars in highland Peru. Journal of Biogeography 18, 165-178.

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Interview guide

Take note of the following before starting interviewing:

 Introduce yourself, and the activity you are undertaking;  Tell the farmer that the study is meant to improve availability of sweet potato planting material. So, you need to know what current practices are.  And that you have some questions you would like to ask the respondent;  Moreover, tell the farmer that his/her responses are aimed for the research and not otherwise;  Ask if the farmer is willing to spend some time answering questions. I. SPECIALISED SEED PRODUCERS/DECENTRALISED VINE MULTIPLIERS (DVMs) These are continuing producers that still produce for sale and/or share for free some years now after the Marando Bora project had phased out.

Particulars

For individual producers/DVMs

1. Name, Age, Sex/Gender, Education level, location-village, ward, division, district. For group producers/DVMs

2. In which year did your group start? How many are you currently? How many males and females? What about the ages of the members, what is the dominating age group?, location- village, ward, division, district

(This data helps to currently know the gender involved in vine multiplication and commercialization, level of education and age) Purpose for vine multiplication

3. Do you currently produce vines? For what purpose do you produce? In other words why do you multiply vines? How did you know the varieties to multiply? 4. What varieties do you produce? 5. Where did you source the varieties you produce? Why did you source/buy from that source (s)? Were there other sources? If yes, why didn’t you buy from the other sources? How did you get information about the sources?

Vine marketing/commercialisation

6. Do you sell vines? Yes/No. If yes, do you sell all vines you multiply? What if you don’t sell all vines? How many customers bought from you in last two years? How did you know the varieties to multiply? Would you estimate distances they move to come to you? How do you attract customers? If you did not share information before, have you ever asked your customers where they got information about your vines? What did they say? Do you give away vines? To whom? Is any of your relatives (mother, father, brother, uncle, nephew, cousin) having the vines you multiply? What about your friends? Where did they get? Did you sell/give them for free? Do you know who shared the information about these vines with relatives/friends?

7. Do you remember who your vine customers are? What is the type of customers? Roots, vine producers or root traders? From which village(s)/districts they come from? Are there any vine producers/common sources other than you in this village? If yes, would you please mention them? If there are, did you ask your customers why they buy from you? What did they say? What are their reasons? Did your customers buy from you more than once? How many times? Which season/year? Do they consume all vines from your gardens? Imagine they buy only once, what would you do? Will you stop multiplying? How will you get other customers? Would you roughly estimate the average number of bundles each customer buys? What is the peak time for vine sales? What time in season do you experience much vine sales? What other periods of time do you sell vines? Imagine a customer asks for a particular variety to buy, will it be available? What do you think, are all varieties equally demanded? Which variety (ies) is/are more preferred than others? Why preferred? Could you please rank them?

8. How much vines did you multiply in last season October/November 2014?...... …………………. 9. How much money did you spend multiplying vines for last season October/November 2014?...... 10. How much vine cuttings did you sell in last season October/November 2014? ...... If you compare costs and profit, what could you say about vine business? Is it profitable? What is your experience with vouchers? 11. How much vine cuttings do you expect to sell/multiply for next production season October/November 2015?…………………………………………………. Relationships and pricing

12. How do you set price for vine cuttings? Do you sell in bundles or single vines? If in bundles, why not as single vines? What is the number of vine cuttings per unit bundle? Who decides the number? What informs your decision? 13. What is the price of a bundle of vine cuttings? Is it always the same? What was it last year? What is it at starting of rains? What is it after dry period? What do you think, are customers willing to pay the prices at different times/periods? What is the price for a new customer wants to buy? What if s/he buys more than one bundle? What will be the price? What if s/he keeps coming to buy from you? What if your nephew comes, and he want to buy. What if he buys not only for himself, but he sets up a little business, reselling, what will you do? Continue charging/giving? Did the price for bundle change ever since you started multiplying? Imagine a customer asks for a particular variety to buy, what will be the price? Is the price the same for all varieties? Are customers willing to pay that price for the variety? Which variety (ies) is/are more preferred than others? Why preferred? Maintaining vine quality and management practices

14. How do you multiply your vines? Rapid vine multiplication or common root production or both? If rapid multiplication, what technique (s) do you use?: beds, spacing, watering, planting dates, weeding, and fertilization? 15. Why do you adopt such multiplication technique (s)? 16. Who sells the best quality vines around here? Why are these better? And yours, could they be even better? Do you need somebody to help you monitor and validate the quality of your vines, would you be willing to pay for inspection for quality declared planting material? 17. What factors may influence your willingness to pay for inspections?

II. VINE USERS/CUSTOMERS

1. Particulars: Name, Age, Sex/Gender, Education level, location-village, ward, Division, district. 2. Where do you get vines for planting? 3. Did you know where to buy the vines you like? 4. How did you get the vines? Did you buy or got for free? 5. How did you get information about the DVMs? 6. Do you consider buying from somebody else? Have you visited other DVMs? Which ones? What made you go there? What information do you have about these other vine sellers? 7. Have you been purchasing from those DVMs before? 8. How many times did you buy/get for free vines? From same source? 9. Why do you collect vines from that source? 10. Under what conditions do you buy vines? 11. What is the price (in Tsh) for a bundle of : Ejumla vine cuttings at onset of rains Ejumla vine cuttings at fading rains Polista vine cuttings on onset of rains Polista vine cuttings on fading rains Kabode vine cuttings on onset of rains Kabode vine cuttings on fading rains 12. Who sets the price for vine cuttings? 13. What factors inform pricing for vine cuttings? 14. What is the average size of vine cuttings you bought? 15. Is the price of the vines important for the decision to buy, to buy what or to buy more or less vines? Would you be willing to buy/pay for vines if the price rises? 16. What factors influence your willingness to buy/pay for vines at raised prices? 17. How far (in km) is the place you come from to a decentralized vine multiplier (DVM)? 18. Do you have relations with DVM(s)? 19. How much did you buy from DVM in last season October/November 2014? 20. What factors are important for your decision to buy and buy from whom? 21. In your opinion, does a DVM you bought vine cuttings from produce adequate vines at right time? Does DVM multiply vines you like? What do you like about DVM’s vines? 22. Did you ever share vines? Yes/No. If yes, to whom did you share? What is your relationship with one you shared with? Why did you share vines? How did the ones you shared with come to know you had such vines? 23. According to your opinion, what is the response of farmers toward DVM’s vines?

III. FARMERS RECEIVED FREE VINES FROM DVMs AND THEIR CLIENTS (RELATIVES, NEIGHBOURS AND FRIENDS) 1. Particulars: full name, age and education, place of residence-village, ward, division and district. 2. Do you produce sweet potato? Yes or No. If yes where did you source vines for planting? What varieties did you get? How did you get them? What is your relationship with the source of vines? How did you know about the vines of that source? 3. What is your opinion about the vines you got? What is their importance? 4. Have you ever sold vines to other farmers? Yes or No. If yes to whom? If no, why? What is your relationship with those farmers you sourced vines to?

5. Do you have enough vines of such varieties? Yes or no. If not, would you want to get them? Yes or No. If yes, which varieties you prefer? Why that?