informal agroforestry tree seed quality and supply systems: a
TRANSCRIPT
INFORMAL AGROFORESTRY TREE SEED QUALITY AND SUPPLY SYSTEMS: A CASE OF PERI-URBAN NAIROBI, MERU
AND WESTERN KENYA
KIURA JONATHAN MURIUKI
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (AGROFORESTRY AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT) OF KENYATTA UNIVERSITY
JANUARY 2005
i
DECLARATION Candidate′s Declaration
The thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other university or any other award
_________________________ ____________________
Jonathan Muriuki Kiura (N50/9017/2000) Date
Declaration by supervisors
This work has been submitted with our approval as supervisors
_______________________________ ___________________
Dr James B. Kung′u Date
School of Environmental and Human Sciences
Kenyatta University
_______________________________ ____________________
Dr Daniel N. Mugendi Date
School of Environmental and Human Sciences
Kenyatta University
_______________________________ ___________________
Dr Anthony J. Simons Date
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
ii
DEDICATION
To Esther, Grace and Victor
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Declaration......................................................................................................................i
Dedication.. ....................................................................................................................ii
Table of contents..…………........................................................................................ iii
List of Tables…. ......................................................................................................v
List of Figures…. ...................................................................................................vii
List of abbreviations and acronyms ..................................................................... viii
Definition of key concepts (Glossary) ....................................................................ix
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................x
Abstract ……. ............................................................................................................xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................1 1.1 Background of the study ....................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the research problem.....................................................................2
1.3 Research questions.............................................................................................3
1.4 Objectives ..........................................................................................................4
1.5 Research hypotheses ..........................................................................................4
1.6 Research rationale..............................................................................................4
1.7 Theoretical framework.......................................................................................5
Chapter 2: Literature review......................................................................................7 2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................7
2.2 Agroforestry comes of age.................................................................................7
2.3 Need for quality germplasm...............................................................................9
2.4 Emerging decentralised germplasm supply systems........................................12
2.5 Gaps in literature..............................................................................................14
Chapter 3: Research methodology ...........................................................................16 3.1 Study area description......................................................................................16
3.2 The sampling design ........................................................................................19
3.3 Primary data collection ....................................................................................20
3.4 Seed quality tests..............................................................................................21
3.5 Determination of seedling vigour ....................................................................23
iv
3.6. Secondary data collection ...............................................................................24
3.7 Data analysis ....................................................................................................24
Chapter 4: Results and discussion............................................................................25
4.1 Background of respondents..............................................................................25
4.1.1 Gender proportions of the respondents .................................................. 25 4.1.2 Respondents’ age-groups ........................................................................26
4.1.3 Education levels of the respondents....................................................... 27 4.1.4 Seed dealers introduction into the seed vending business ..................... 28
4.2 Sources of seed used by nursery operators in peri-urban Nairobi, Meru and
Western Kenya.................................................................................................32
4.3 Seed sources comparisons by nursery operators..............................................37
4.4 Seed quality and handling by decentralised seed dealers ................................42
4.5 Seed storage by seed dealers and nursery operators in Meru, peri-urban
Nairobi and Western Kenya.............................................................................49
4.6. Laboratory tests for the quality of seeds procured from informal seed dealers
in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya ............................................53
4.7 Perception of seed demand by the seed dealers and client relationship ..........57
4.8 Informal seed dealers’ constraints, associations and linkages .........................63
Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations ........................................................68 5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................68
5.2 Recommendations............................................................................................69
References...................................................................................................................74
Appendix….................................................................................................................81
v
List of Tables Page
Table 1: Gender proportions for nursery operators and informal seed dealers in selected parts of Kenya ..............................................................................25
Table 2: Age categories for nursery operators and informal seed dealers in selected parts of Kenya ..............................................................................27
Table 3: Education levels for nursery operators and informal seed dealers in selected parts of Kenya ..............................................................................28
Table 4: Duration of training attained and experience in handling of seeds by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and western Kenya...................30
Table 5: Content of seed related training that seed dealers in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya had participated in .....................................................31
Table 6: Frequency of tree seed suppliers as mentioned by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya for the season between June and October 2002..............................................................................................32
Table 7: Efforts undertaken by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya to ascertain the quality of seeds procured.......................................34
Table 8: Problems observed with informal seed dealers by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya ............................................................35
Table 9: Factors considered by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya when deciding which seed dealers to purchase tree seeds from ..................................................................................................37
Table 10: Ranking of different seed suppliers by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya.......................................................................38
Table 11: Germination rates of seeds of different species procured by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya from different sources expressed as percentage of expected germination rates as given in literature .....................................................................................................41
Table 12: Seed access shortfalls by nursery operators in selected parts of Kenya ....42
Table 13: Factors considered by seed dealers in peri-Nairobi, Meru and Western Kenya as describing good quality tree seeds .............................................43
Table 14: The influence of training in agroforestry and experience in seed handling by seed dealers on the average number of mother trees harvested and their average separation distance in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya...........................................................................................44
Table 15: Correlations of average number of mother trees harvested by seed dealers and their separation distances with the seed dealers’ level of
vi
training, education and experience in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya .........................................................................................................46
Table 16: Criteria used by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya to select mother trees for seed harvesting.......................................48
Table 17: Reasons given by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya for the number of mother trees harvested from in seed collection............................................................................................49
Table 18: Containers used by nursery operators and seed dealers for seed storage in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya..........................50
Table 19: Average seed storage period by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya comparing training category and experience of the seed dealers....................................................................51
Table 20: Means of verification on the viability of stored seeds by nursery operators and seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and western Kenya .........................................................................................................52
Table 21: Seed test results for Eucalyptus saligna supplied by seed dealers of different training categories and levels of experience in seed handling from Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya..................................54
Table 22: Comparisons of purity levels and germination rates of seeds collected from different seed dealers in Meru, western Kenya and peri-urban Nairobi .......................................................................................................55
Table 23: Seedling heights of Eucalyptus saligna procured from Meru and Western Kenya seed dealers and Cupressus lusitanica procured from peri-urban Nairobi seed dealers after 60 days in the nursery.....................56
Table 24: Average clients turn-over and prices charged for seeds for four top dealt with tree species by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya ....................................................................................60
Table 25: Information supplied with seed consignments to clients by the informal seed dealers in Meru, Western Kenya and peri-urban Nairobi..................63
Table 26: Interactions of informal seed dealers in Meru, Western Kenya and peri-urban Nairobi with the Seed Centre of the KEFRI ............................67
vii
List of Figures Page
Figure 1: Conceptual model for quality seed supply factors and outcomes ..................6
Figure 2: Map of Kenya showing the target study areas ............................................19
Figure 3: Reasons given by seed dealers in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya as to why they got into tree seed business ....................................................29
Figure 4: Agencies that had offered training to seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and western Kenya...........................................................................30
Figure 5: Seed collection methods used by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya..........................................................................47
Figure 6: Species encountered by seed dealers as having highest seed demand .........58
Figure 7: Constraints identified by seed dealers in their business ...............................64
Figure 8: Suggested points of interaction between informal seed dealers in Meru, Western Kenya and peri-urban Nairobi ........................................................65
viii
List of abbreviations and acronyms AFRENA-ECA -Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa; East and Central Africa
ICRAF - International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
KENGO - Kenya Energy Non-Governmental Organisation
JICA - Japan International Co-operation Agency
NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation
CBO - Community Based Organisation
GTZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
HIV-AIDS - Human Immuno-deficient Virus that causes Acquired Human Immune
Deficiency Syndrome
ISTA - International Seed Testing Association
KWAP - Kenya Woodfuel and Agroforestry Programme
KEFRI - Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KFSC - Kenya Forest Seed Centre of KEFRI
ix
Definition of key concepts (Glossary)
Agroforestry is a collective name for land use systems and practices where woody
perennials are grown on the same land management unit as agricultural crops
and animals either in a spatial mixture or temporal sequence. There must be
significant ecological and economic interactions between the woody and non-
woody components.
Seed viability is the percentage of seeds in a seedlot, which germinate under the test
conditions, or the number of seeds that germinate per unit weight of the
seedlot.
Germination energy is a measure of the rapidity of germination, and can be
expressed as the percentage of the viable seeds in the sample, which
germinate within a given time, or as the number of days required for a given
percentage (for example 50 %) of the viable seeds to germinate.
Propagules are seedlings, cuttings or grafts or any parts of plants with the potential
for producing new individuals (Huxley and Houten, 1997).
Informal systems are systems that operate outside the spheres of central government
or organized (formal) private sector running and supply products and/or
services to the users alongside formal service systems.
Genepool is the total genetic information possessed by the reproductive members of a
population of sexually reproducing organisms.
Seedlot is a quantity of seeds having uniform quality produced at a specific location
and collected from a single crop.
Seed supply systems are systems that ensure that users are able to get the desired tree
seeds in order to establish successful agroforestry systems
Peri-urban Nairobi as used in this study refers to the city of Nairobi (in Kenya) and
the bordering administrative divisions namely Limuru, Ruiru, Athi River,
Kiambaa, Kikuyu and Ngong.
Meru as used in this study refers to Meru Central district in the Eastern Province of
Kenya and the neighbouring Muthaara division in Meru North district.
Western Kenya as used in this study refers to Vihiga district in the Western Province
of Kenya and part of the neighbouring Yala, Impala and Winam divisions in
Nyanza province.
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank the almighty God for the enablement and renewal of energy through the whole process from proposal development through data collection and to thesis write-up.
This work would not have been possible without the support of the Department for International Development of the British government (DfID) through the domestication of agroforestry trees project, ANAFE (African Network for Agroforestry Education) East and Central Africa both of who supported my research work and Rockeffeler Foundation (FORUM) who supported my studies in tuition fees. I am very grateful for their support. I also acknowledge the support of my supervisors; Dr James B. Kungu, Dr Daniel N. Mugendi and Dr. Tony Simons for their guidance in the whole process ensuring that it maintained science quality. Alongside them, the invaluable contributions of Mr. Jens Peter Barnekow Lillesø who ensured to read every draft in time and communicate very precious comments cannot be overlooked.
In ICRAF I wish to acknowledge other colleagues in the trees and markets theme that contributed in various ways, Lucy Mwaura, Gertrude Mundia and Carol Njau for the seed tests, Benson Mutua and Bernard Muia with the laboratory experiment, Alexious Mutua with data entry and Sammy Carsan with handling part of my office work when studies would not allow me, I greatly appreciate. This also extends to Steve Ruigu and John Were in ICRAF Maseno for their help in facilitating surveys and seed collection. Thanks go to Rita Mulinge and Dr. Kebadire Mogotsi for their efforts in facilitating disbursing of ANAFE funds in time and to Mr. Joseph Kanyonyo who facilitated my transport home when I had to inevitably miss the bus in order to clear the pile on my desk.
It was a hard time for Esther and Grace when I had to be away most of the times from what was then a very young family in order to study and I appreciate their patience and encouragement. I would not have made it without them. I also remember my classmates in Kenyatta University particularly Mercy, Kinyua and Mairula for helping me out in handling some course issues when I was tied up in office duties and other friends, colleagues and relatives who contributed in many ways to make sure that I could make it to the end. I can never thank you enough though it may be hard to mention each person by name. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
xi
ABSTRACT
The supply of germplasm in sufficient quantities and quality at the small-scale users
level is a limiting factor to agroforestry development. While the past trend has been to
put more emphasis on central supply systems such as national tree seed centres and
government nurseries, policies are now being adopted to encourage decentralized
supply of seeds, seedlings or vegetative propagules. This study was therefore carried
out to investigate the mechanisms of supply and quality of the seeds supplied by the
informal supply systems, the species and amounts supplied by these systems in
selected parts of Kenya. The study focused on the seed supply systems in Nairobi,
Central (Meru district) and Western Kenya (Vihiga district). The selected districts
were representative of the regions and though nurseries were based in the districts,
seed suppliers from neighbouring districts were considered. The study involved a
survey of the nursery operators and seed dealers in the districts and seed tests and
nursery experiments at ICRAF to compare seed quality and early seedling vigour.
The seed tests at the laboratory followed the International Seed Testing Association
(ISTA) rules on seed testing while the nursery experiment was on a completely
randomised design to analyse seed quality and seedling vigour issues.
Results revealed that informal suppliers were supplying more seeds at the farm level
than formal systems with many seed dealers having joined the business after working
with the formal sector. They however, mainly supplied seeds of orthodox exotic
species that were easy to handle (collect, process and store). Many nursery operators
considered physiological quality factors in their choice of tree seeds and thus the seed
dealers’ seeds were of similar physiological quality (purity and germination potential)
as the seeds from the formal sector. This was also confirmed by the results of seed
xii
tests in the laboratory and seedling heights in the nursery experiment. These results
were found to agree with others observed with supply of agricultural crops in
different parts of the world. The genetic quality of the informally supplied seeds was
found to be low as revealed by a low number of closely spaced mother trees the seeds
were harvested from. Results were similar even for seed dealers who had undergone
some training or had some level of experience in seed handling. The linkages between
seed dealers and the formal sector represented by the Kenya Forest Seed Centre were
found to be low and limiting their operations. Thus the seed dealers were not able to
meet existing tree seed demand that they also had observed to be increasing. The
study recommends the recognition of the informal tree seed suppliers since they
contribute positively to agroforestry development by the formal sector. The formal
sector should devolve the supply of the seeds of majority species to the seed dealers
and only work to ensure that information on genetic quality issues is available to all
actors so that seed quality is maintained. The study also recommends that the seed
dealers form associations for closer linkages between themselves and the formal
sector. The farmers who were found to be major recipients of the seeds from the
informal suppliers should also be made more aware of quality issues so as to raise the
quality premiums with the informal suppliers when procuring seeds.
1
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study Trees and shrubs have significant contributions to climate amelioration, carbon
sequestration and other desirable environmental benefits. As the world changes in
respect to industrial capacity and other human activities that lead to reduced
environmental stability, the need for more trees can not be over-emphasized. The
trend however, has been the reduction of total tree cover in forests especially in the
tropics (Roper and Roberts, 1999). In Kenya alone, gazetted forest cover has reduced
from about 10% to less than 2% of the total land-size in the last three decades (Kenya
Land Alliance, 2002; Wass, 1999; Ngece, 2003). These forests also serve as water
catchment zones and their unabated conversion to agricultural land and other land
uses leads to reduced water flows in the river systems as well as siltation in water
reservoirs which reduces the amount of water available to the population as well as
other side effects such as reduced hydro-power generation. Reduced water catchment
also implies less agricultural productivity as about 70% of water consumption in
Kenya goes to agricultural activities (Mogaka et al., 2002).
A possible mitigating factor against these environmental threats is to take trees to
farms, which is the core mission of agroforestry, which simply can be defined as the
incorporation of woody perennials into farming systems, whether croplands or
pastures. The discipline involves technologies that play key roles in soil fertility
replenishment, provision of fodder as well as other tree products such as fruits,
fuelwood, timber and medicine. There are promising levels of adoption of
agroforestry systems and technologies in various regions, which are even expected to
2
increase as farmers become increasingly aware of the potential of agroforestry to
alleviate economical and ecological problems. This uptake results in increased
demand for woody perennials to be planted in farms, which then raises the demand
for suitable tree germplasm for both exotic and indigenous species in form of seeds or
seedlings by farming communities.
Farmers currently meet their seed or seedling demands in a variety of ways. The
sources of seed, seedlings or wildings are either from forests or other public lands,
central nurseries, neighbours or their own farms, amongst others. Less than half of the
trees on farms originate from seedlings retained on the site; the rest are planted on
purpose (Jaenicke, 2001; Lengkeek and Carsan, 2003). Some farmers produce
seedlings only for their own use while others produce for sale. The International
Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) has established that the major
constraints facing nursery operators include seed supply among others such as
marketing information and technical issues (Muriuki and Jaenicke, 2001; Basweti et
al., 2001).
1.2 Statement of the research problem Shortage of tree germplasm in sufficient quantities and quality has hindered
widespread adoption of agroforestry technologies by farmers. While use of wildlings
with high genetic quality as tree regeneration materials was common in the past due
to abundance of forests and natural woodlands, the widespread conversion of these
sources to agricultural use and increased planting of exotic tree species have led to
minimal use of wildlings. Governments and development agencies are also devolving
production of seedlings for on-farm use from their central nurseries to community
3
group and individual nurseries within the farming populations (Muriuki et al., 2001).
The increase of these nurseries as well as agroforestry technologies that require direct
seeding such as improved fallows has raised the demand for tree seeds to figures that
cannot be supplied by established formal institutions (ICRAF, 2000; Ruigu et al.,
unpublished). Farmers and nursery operators thus turn to informal decentralised
mechanisms such as seed dealers and own collection to satisfy the high seed demand.
While the role that these informal seed dealers can play in alleviating the shortage of
tree germplasm is appreciated, their functioning in terms of amounts and species
supplied as well as their reach remains unknown. The quality of the seeds supplied by
the informal seed dealers in terms of both genetic and physiological aspects is also
unknown. This can have far reaching effects on the establishment and productivity of
the trees established on the farms. The purpose of this study was therefore to assess
the functions and the quality of the seeds supplied by these informal seed dealers in
order to identify ways of developing them as a useful channel to address the
constraint of insufficient tree seed supply.
1.3 Research questions In carrying out this study, the following were the guiding research questions:-
1. What are the existing informal mechanisms for the supply of agroforestry tree
seed at the farmers’ level and do the systems meet the demand that exists?
2. What is the quality (genetic and physiological) of the seeds that are supplied
by these informal seed supply systems as compared with the formal systems?
3. Does training and/or experience on seed handling by informal seed dealers
affect the quality of seeds supplied by these systems?
4
1.4 Objectives The main aim of this study was to investigate the mechanisms of supply and quality
of the seeds, the species and amounts supplied by the informal tree seed supply
systems in selected parts of Kenya. The specific objectives pursued were:-
1. To assess the mechanisms of informal tree seed supply and their effectiveness
2. To assess the species and quality (genetic and physiological) of the tree seed
supplied by the informal decentralised systems and compare with that
supplied by formal institutions
3. To assess the effect of training and experience on seed handling by seed
dealers on the quality of seeds supplied by the informal systems
1.5 Research hypotheses
1. Informal seed supply systems are not effective in meeting the current demand
for agroforestry tree seeds
2. The seeds supplied by the informal seed supply systems are of low genetic
quality
3. Training and experience on seed handling by seed dealers has no impact on
the quality of seeds supplied by the decentralised systems
1.6 Research rationale Tree seed and seedling supply for agroforestry trees establishment has been done by
formal institutions for about two decades ensuring that the propagules are of high
quality. This supply however, has been limited in quantity and can not meet the
increasing demand at the farmers’ level. To ensure increased adoption of agroforestry
as a livelihood option for small-scale farmers in the tropics it is imperative that there
5
is ensured supply of tree seeds in sufficient quantity and quality. Many farmers are
unable to reach centralised seed sources and have had to collect seeds for themselves
implying that they plant only the species that can be accessed locally and therefore
the species diversity in farms is reducing. The alternative tree seed sources are the
informal seed dealers who supply to both the farmers and the on-farm tree nursery
operators. While some efforts have been geared towards developing tree nursery
operators’ skills, little has been done about the informal seed dealers who fill a big
gap in tree seeds supply. These seed dealers are a channel that can be developed to
ensure that they are aware of and take into consideration seed quality issues in their
operations. This would build their capacity to handle seeds of diverse tree species in
appropriate genetic and physiological quality and to develop systems that meet tree
seed demand among farmers and users.
1.7 Theoretical framework Supply of germplasm to the farmers is crucial to the scaling up of agroforestry
adoption. Cooper and Denning (1999) gave ten fundamentals of scaling up
agroforestry technologies uptake, which included ensured supply of quality tree
germplasm. Since the continued supply by organisations is not adequate and
sustainable, informal systems develop to bridge the gap between demand and supply.
Quite often, these systems reach out to majority of the users and will continue to
satisfy demand even long after organisations have devolved their activities. Efficient
supply of seeds in terms of quality and quantity by these systems is therefore
important in scaling up agroforestry adoption. The factors that determine seed quality
as well as effectively functioning seed supply systems are envisaged to interact and
ensure these systems are successful given an enabling environment (Fig 1). By
6
opening these systems up to interact more with the formal systems, they are expected
to evolve and improve on their efficiency in seed supply. More interactions with these
systems as well as self-regulation evolving from within can provide efficient systems
that will ensure high productivity, minimum loss of investments and genepool
conservation in agroforestry systems. This will ultimately contribute to sustainable
production systems especially through public-private sector collaboration. The
summary conceptual framework for sustainable quality tree seed supply is given in
Figure 1 below:
Genetic quality issues> 30 mother trees
Good selection criteria
Bulking seedlots
Physiological quality issuesGood collection methods
Efficient storage
Continued tests Quality AF tree seeds
Accelerated AF adoption
Supply systems issuesMatching supply to demandPackaging and information
Associations and linkagesRegulatory mechanisms
Inter & intra-specific diversity
High product potentialPosterity uses
Better tree establishment
High germination ratesUsers’ confidence
Decentralised seed supply
Better tree-zone matching
Less central supply dependency
Local investment options
Environmental benefits by trees
Contributing factors Outcomes
Figure 1: Conceptual model for quality seed supply factors and outcomes
7
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction Seed supply systems are pivotal to the success of any afforestation efforts whether in
plantations or farmlands. Unlike in agriculture where farmers have learnt to value
crop seeds, there has been less concern about the quality of seeds used in the
establishment of trees. Bonner (1998) recognizes that even in the developed world
where seed technology is advanced, most of the knowledge is about agricultural crop
seeds as compared to tree seeds. We cannot however, ignore the importance of
provision of quality tree seeds to users as agroforestry adoption continues to increase.
This review is about the work on agroforestry research and the missing gap in
studying the quality of the tree seeds that informal systems avail at the farmers level
especially in Kenya.
2.2 Agroforestry comes of age Agroforestry has been promoted as a viable solution to land-use problems especially
in the developing world where agricultural technologies that are successful in the
developed world (mainly monocultures) have seen less success (Masangano, 1996).
Martin and Sherman (1992) observed that agroforestry technologies are designed to
reduce risks associated with agriculture and to increase its sustainability by helping to
conserve and even improve the soil. The discipline implies a land-use system in
which trees and shrubs are grown in association with crops, pastures or livestock in
sequential or spatial arrangement yielding interactions between the components. The
aim of introducing the tree component is to increase the benefits of the land user
(farmer) either in income earnings or savings.
8
The establishment of ICRAF after the recognition of the need to intercrop farming
systems in the 1970s has spearheaded research in agroforestry for the past two and a
half decades. There have been noted adoption rates in various regions where ICRAF
is working in conjunction with national research and extension partners. In East and
Central Africa where agroforestry research and development was initially undertaken
through the AFRENA -ECA, various technologies have been developed to solve land-
use problems using a thematic approach in various zones (AFRENA, 1998). Other
networks have also reported success in various parts of the globe leading to
technologies that solve soil fertility problems (ICRAF, 2000), improved animal
nutrition at low input costs (Franzel et al., 2001), and provision of wood products at
farm level mitigating against deforestation trends. These efforts, coupled with the
existence of a tree planting culture in some communities, have made the number of
trees planted in farmlands so far to exceed the forest plantations and the gap tends to
widen (Simons, 1997).
Cooper and Denning (1999) submitted that quality tree-germplasm supply, or lack of
it, is often the single greatest factor affecting large-scale adoption of agroforestry.
Failure to access good germplasm makes farmers to plant whatever is available and
this is often of inferior quality. Enthusiasm to continue planting trees is also likely to
fade quickly if no germplasm is available. Many organisations involved in tree
planting programmes find it expensive to purchase large quantities of high quality
seeds from established seed centres to meet their demand at the local level making
them turn to informal systems such as farmer suppliers. Nathan and Thomsen (2001)
pointed to the one kilogramme mode of packaging as a major disincentive and
9
advocated the use of small packets of seeds at the local level supply. In other
instances, the germplasm coming from those central seed supplies cannot meet the
demand at the local programme level and the gap has to be bridged by the informal
systems (Kamondo et al., 1996; Harris, 1993).
2.3 Need for quality germplasm Among the disincentives noted in tree planting is the length of time it takes for the
user to access benefits. This implies that a major goal of research in agroforestry
activities is to avail benefits to farmers in reasonable time. Seeds have a lot to
contribute in this goal if provided in appropriate quality. Omondi (1991) observed
that quality seed is a product of specialized handling and no amount of silvicultural or
agronomic practice can compensate for use of poor quality seed. He pointed out that
since seed is a living thing that is subject to physiological and genetic transformations
and even death, the production and delivery of good quality seed is vital and calls for
an organized and technically sound system. Seed quality has therefore been taken in
terms of the physiological and genetic status. Losses due to physiological quality can
be determined early as reflected in low germination rates or poor quality seedlings
which can then be discarded. Genetic losses, however, appear far later but with more
far-reaching effects such as when all trees are wiped out by a disease or fail to
produce optimally because poorly adapted seed has been used (Nathan and Thomsen,
2001). Farmers are however able to notice reduction in yields in agricultural crops
when they recycle seeds for a few subsequent seasons as reported by rice farmers in
Andhra Pradesh, India (Tripp and Pal, 2001).
10
Genetic quality results from a diverse genepool ensured by the collection of seeds
from many mother trees with desirable characteristics. This means that the seed
collector and supplier must have the end-use in mind to be able to choose the right
mother trees. A good separation distance between the mother trees is also important
especially in natural forests, to ensure that one does not collect half-sibs which
ultimately lead to inbreeding of the resultant population. About thirty mother trees
with a spacing of about one hundred metres between them is recommended for a
majority of species (Dawson and Were, 1998). The drawback with genetic quality
determination is that it cannot easily be tested in a seedlot. It has to depend on the
deliberate efforts of the seed collector to maintain the genepool diversity in the said
ways. For indigenous tree species which already exist in a diverse pool, the genetic
erosion likely to happen from improper seed collection is less (depending on how
degraded the natural collection site is) than for exotic species which in most cases
come from a narrow genetic source at the initial introduction (Kamondo et al., 1996;
Ard Lengkeek pers comm.). Most of the species being used in agroforestry
technology development however are exotic especially in Kenya although recent
introductions might have taken genetic diversity issues into consideration and could
have been broad based.
Genetic quality also entails that different species and seed sources will be best at
different planting sites, and the challenge is therefore to match species and seed
sources to planting site. Well adapted seed sources may ensure a reliable yield for
farmers, while maladapted seed sources may result in loss - or even total failure of a
tree crop (Lillesø et al., 2001). A tree that will not adapt to its growing site will not
deliver benefits to the farmer and the cost, though high, may have to be judged far
11
later in field establishment which is worse than the purchase of seeds that fail to
germinate. A seedlot should produce trees that grow well in the midst of its
environmental range and also be able to withstand periodic harsh conditions. This
implies that the seed dealer or supplier should be aware of the variations within a
species or provenance range and ensure that all site variations are reflected in the
seedlot and not over-rely on one habitat. However some human activities such as
continual grazing can alter a site and even its vegetation make-up and seed collectors
should be able to distinguish such sites.
Physiological quality has to do with the success of early establishment and
subsequent plant growth (Ochsner et al., 2001). Mainly reflected in the germination
potential and germination energy of a seedlot, it ensures returns on investment in seed
procurement by farmers and tree planting programmes. There is need for viability
testing due to the tremendous variation that exists between trees within a species in
the number of viable seeds per unit weight of a seedlot. Within a species variability
arises from genetic variation and differences arising from factors such as year-to-year
variation in the physiological status of the trees, and timing of the collection in
relation to seed crop maturity. Improper collection and storage methods are also
likely to produce less viable seeds especially when immature or diseased seeds are
collected. The performance of a seedlot can be summarised in terms of its viability
and germination energy (Hampton and Hill, 2002). A seedlot with higher germination
energy is likely to be more valuable for direct seeding which is being applied in some
agroforestry technologies such as improved fallows and anywhere outside of the
laboratory where the germination conditions are not optimal (Poulsen, 1993;
12
Stubsgaard, 1992). Old seeds have low viability and germination energy levels
making them less suitable for use in seedling establishment.
Documentation of a seedlot is very important in seed supply systems. Analysis of
seed purity is important to determine whether the dominating part of the sample
corresponds to the species indicated by the supplier (Esbo, 1980). Some species are
difficult to distinguish and can easily be mixed while in some cases the wrong species
is supplied in another’s name altogether. In the later case it is important to test the
seedlot for genuineness followed by the purity tests. High presence of other filler
material occupying the seedlot means that the seed user has a very low proportion of
useful seeds in the seedlot. This erodes confidence in the users on the suppliers. Esbo
(1980) advises that users should be careful in their choice of seeds even when quality
is declared especially where there are low prices offered.
2.4 Emerging decentralised germplasm supply systems Initiatives to promote agroforestry have been mainly based on central seed supplies.
The supporting organisations purchase seeds and supply them to farmers who can
either establish nurseries or sow the seeds directly. These purchases are either from
international or national seed networks but often also from informal systems such as
farmers, or they offer contractual agreements for supply of seeds (Harris, 1993). As
the adoption scales up, the question of seed shortages keeps coming up (ICRAF,
2000) and organisations are often unable to purchase sufficient quantities of tree
seeds to supply to the users. While admitting that centralized seed supplies provide
seeds of the best genetic quality, Tengnas (1994) also encourages local seed
13
collection as a more effective way of ensuring a timely supply to the user of the seed
of the right species and provenance which works best if seed sources are available.
The policy in the recent past has been to devolve seed and seedling supply from the
central to the decentralised systems though little support has been given to the
development of the latter. A possible reason for this decentralisation is the declining
financial support to national tree seed centres, which may lead to scaling down on
some of their operations (Graudal and Kjaer, 2000). Most of these central systems
were also established targeting plantation forest regenerations and have tended to be
disconnected to farmers who are now recognised as the majority of tree planters.
Having recognised that demand at the farmer’s level far outstrips supply, authors
advocate decentralised systems of supply to the farmers so that they can access the
appropriate trees species (Shanks and Carter, 1994; Place and Kindt, 1997). This has
seen increase in the number of people involved in the production and supply of seeds
and seedlings to farmers. Farmers adopting various technologies have also been
encouraged to produce and save seeds of the species in various places. Other efforts
such as the use of retail stockists to reach farmers at the local level with the seeds of
species in high demand as observed in Western Kenya (Franzel et al., 2001; ICRAF,
2000), have also pointed at encouraging the participation of informal players in tree
seed supply.
The benefits of local seed collection and supply according to Tengnas (1994) can be
seen in the absence of provenance complications with indigenous species, seeds of
the desired species being available at the right time, lower costs for the users and
short storage requirement for seeds especially the recalcitrant type. This is very
14
effective if the seeds were to be collected by farmers themselves with facilitation and
advice by the extension staff on where and how to collect good seeds. As farmers find
themselves busy with many activities around their farms, and with limited number of
desirable mother trees for many species, the local collection approach does not
always work. This has created opportunities for the seed dealers to collect seeds and
sell them to the farmers and small-scale agroforestry projects encouraging tree
planting in many localities. Little consideration is given to the quality of seeds in this
case and physiological condition is based on visual assessment (Omondi, 1991).
2.5 Gaps in literature Recent work has concentrated on assessing the quality of seedlings coming out of
decentralised tree nurseries and ways of improving them (Wightman, 1999; Basweti
et al., 2001). There has been little focus on the functioning of the seed dealers in the
informal sector and the quality of tree seeds they supply although a great deal of work
has been directed to crop seeds (Lossau et al., 2000). There is however agreement
that the seed supplied by informal seed dealers is unlikely to conform to desired
quality standards and measures need to be put in place to ensure that these suppliers
are aware of quality measures and can at least achieve truth in labelling (Simons,
1997; Kamondo et al., 1996; Tripp, 1997). Many authors agree on the need to have in
place a national seed supply strategy and it is important to understand how these
decentralised systems have been meeting seed demand in form of quality and quantity
in the recent past and what role the national seed centres can play in line with the
strategy proposed by Kamondo et al. (1996). The functioning of the informal seed
supply systems and their networking with formal systems is also a missing link
15
necessary in understanding seed supply mechanisms which will be applicable in
future as more farmers adopt agroforestry technologies.
16
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Study area description The study was carried out in Meru (central Kenya), peri-urban Nairobi (Nairobi city
and the peri-urban zone bordering the city) and western Kenya (mainly Vihiga district
and parts of the neighbouring Kisumu and Siaya districts). The Nairobi urban and
peri-urban zone has experienced a lot of agricultural activities recently and the
agroforestry potential is seen by the prevalence of decentralised tree nurseries, which
supply seedlings to various parts of the country (Basweti et al., 2001; Foeken and
Mwangi, 1998). The area was therefore seen as a good focus to study informal
systems of germplasm supply in form of both seeds and seedlings. The other two
areas were selected as representative of rural areas where agroforestry research and
development activities have been started and/or encouraged by the government and
other research and development organisations.
Vihiga district is situated between longitude 34o 30' and 35o East and latitude 00o11,
and 00 15" North and covers an area of about 613 square kilometres. The altitude
ranges from 1300 m above sea level in the west to 1500 m in the east although hills
may rise above these limits. The district experiences bimodal rainfall which is
reliable, adequate and well distributed throughout the year ranging from 1800mm to
2000 mm. The average farm size is 0.72 ha with a population density of over 1100
people per square kilometre. Maize (Zea mays L.), often intercropped with beans
(Phaseolus spp.), dominates the cropping pattern. The soils have low fertility with
deficiencies of phosphorus (P) and low levels of other nutrients. The agricultural
practice is continuous cropping with low soil replenishment and a high demand for
17
wood products making agroforestry interventions a possible solution (AFRENA;
1996, 1997). Agroforestry research efforts in the area have concentrated on soil
fertility improvement and high value tree species planting and adoptions rates are
good. Farmers have developed ways of seed production for useful species in their
scaling up efforts (Ruigu et al., unpublished).
The Meru area covered by the study cuts across two districts namely Meru North and
Meru Central. The two districts which lie on the eastern slopes of Mount Kenya
straddling the equator and sloping from the 5199 m peak of Mount Kenya in the west
to around 800 m in the east. The area is approximately 5331 square kilometres and
lies within longitudes 37o and 38o East. The annual distribution of rainfall is bimodal
occurring from mid-October to December and from March to June. The south-eastern
slopes of Mt. Kenya receive 1250 to 2500mm of rainfall annually but this reduces in
the lowlands (northwards towards Isiolo and eastwards near Tharaka) to below I000
mm annually. Soils are moderately to highly fertile with dark loams that are derived
from volcanic turf predominant in the Timau area and dark peaty loams traceable in
the alpine meadow between 2,800 m and 4,200 m. The soils in the western part of the
district are volcanic in nature and hold high potential for agriculture. In the south and
south-east, the soils are formed by sedimentation and are also of high potential for
agriculture. The typical red colour of the soils in most parts of the district indicates
accumulation of iron oxide in fine soil (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983).
Agriculture is the economic mainstay of Meru districts with people mainly practising
mixed farming (crop cultivation and animal husbandry). The main crops cultivated in
the high potential agricultural zones include coffee, tea, cotton, potatoes and maize
18
while few crops survive in the low potential areas without irrigation. Tree planting
has been promoted by various projects, which has resulted in high on-farm tree
planting rates especially Grevillea robusta and other timber and fruit species (Betser
et al., 1999; Spiers and Stewart, 1992).
Nairobi is located 500 km from the Kenyan coast and is situated at an elevation of
about 1670 m above sea level. The peri-urban zone extends from the foothills of the
Aberdares in the north to the Ngong hills in the south and from Embakasi plains in
the east up to the slopes of the Great Rift Valley wall in the west (Hide et al., 2001).
The city covers an area of about 700 square kilometers with a population of about
three million people having a density of about 3000 people per square kilometre. The
total average annual rainfall is 800 to 1500 mm, which follows a bimodal pattern. The
soils in the northern part of Nairobi are moderately well drained, shallow, yellowish
red to dark brown friable clays (ironstone soils), while in the southern part, they are
imperfectly drained, very deep, dark grey to black clays (Sombroek et al., 1980). The
city borders with Kiambu and Thika districts of Central province, Machakos district
in Eastern province and Kajiado district of the Rift Valley province. The divisions in
these districts that immediately border the city have a peri-urban setting with a great
city influence in product markets and seedling trade is a viable enterprise (Basweti et
al., 2001; Njenga and Frost, 2001). Tree planting is a viable practice with many
farmers establishing fruit, timber and ornamental species and accessing seedlings
from peri-urban nurseries. Many of the farms in the eastern side of the city are just
being settled and a lot of tree planting is being practiced (Muriuki; unpublished data).
19
Figure 2: Map of Kenya showing the target study areas
3.2 The sampling design The sampling units in the survey comprised informal seed and seedling supply actors
who included nursery operators (individuals and groups) and seed dealers (vendors).
A multistage purposive sampling procedure was adopted with random sampling used
to select the seed and seedling suppliers in the three areas. The nursery flagship
project at ICRAF was used to provide a list of the nurseries, which it was working
with in the peri-urban Nairobi and Meru sites while staff at the ICRAF Maseno office
provided a list of contact nurseries they worked with together with their partners in
western Kenya. These lists were also enriched by additions from the Forest
Department from which a random sample of twenty nurseries was selected in every
zone. The operators of these nurseries then gave the names of the seed dealers from
whom they procured tree seeds. This list was also verified with the Forest Department
20
offices in each zone for any additions so that a total of ten seed dealers were selected
for interviews in each zone and seeds collected from them were used for laboratory
tests.
3.3 Primary data collection
Primary data was collected by use of an informal tree germplasm supply system
analysis from seed collection to seedling production by nursery operators and seed
dealers. The following research instruments were administered:
3.3.1 Nursery operators’ survey: A semi-structured interview schedule was
administered to nursery operators. The focus was on seed procurement and aspects of
seed quality in relation to the supplier and the resultant seedling quality guided by a
checklist (Case, 1990; see Appendix 1). Twenty nursery operators were interviewed
in each site making a total of sixty respondents for the survey.
3.3.2 Seed dealers’ survey: Formal interviews were conducted in which a
questionnaire was administered to seed dealers and the nursery operators who
collected seeds for themselves. The survey aimed at capturing information on
collection methods, number of mother trees and criteria for choice, storage conditions
and client details among others (see Appendix 2). Ten seed dealers were interviewed
in each site making a total of thirty respondents for the survey.
3.3.3 Supplementary information: Informal interviews were also conducted with the
Forestry Department officers on their role in informal seed and seedling supply as
21
well as review of any pertinent information from Kenya Forestry Seed Centre (KFSC)
in the linkages of these systems with the Centre.
3.4 Seed quality tests
Information on seed physiological quality was assessed through tests in the ICRAF
seed laboratory using seeds from ten seed dealers from each area and samples from
the Kenya Forest Seed Centre (KFSC) for comparison. The seeds collected from the
seed dealers were mainly of the species that were most commonly dealt with in the
different areas. They were tested for their genuineness, purity, seed weight, moisture
content and germination capacity. The germination capacity and germination energy
were taken as indicators of good quality seeds. Four replicates per seedlot were
tested. Samples of seedlings were then pricked out to polythene tubes and established
at the nursery in order to observe differences in seedling vigour (height being the
measured parameter) for seeds from different sources. The seed tests followed the
rules of the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA, 1999) using the procedures
outlined below.
3.4.1 Genuineness test: Seeds collected from seed dealers were compared with seed
samples at KFSC and ICRAF to ascertain that they were true to type (species).
3.4.2 Purity test (analysis): The objective was to determine the percentage
composition by weight of the sample being tested, and by inference the seedlot, and
the identity of the various species of seeds and inert particles constituting the sample.
The seeds in each sample were separated from the impurities (seeds of other species
22
and non-seed material) to give the proportion by weight of the pure seed in
comparison with the total sample weight.
3.4.3 Moisture content (MC): Seed working samples were placed evenly in
containers and the weight of the containers taken before and after filling. The
containers were then placed in an oven and dried at 103oC for 17 hours. The container
was cooled and weighed together with its cover and contents. The moisture content
was then calculated as:-
MC% = (M2 – M3)/(M2 – M1) x 100
Where M1 = Weight (g) of the container and its cover
M2 = Weight (g) of the container, its cover and its contents before drying
M3 = Weight (g) of the container, its cover and its contents after drying.
3.4.4 Germination test: The percentage germination indicates the proportion by
number of seeds that have produced seedlings classified as normal under the
germination conditions. From every seedlot, four replicates of one hundred seeds
each were germinated in petridishes with filter paper (for small seeds) and in trays
filled with sterilized neutral sand (for big seeds). The average number of seeds that
germinated were taken as the percent germination capacity for each seedlot calculated
as follows:-
Germination % = (N1 + N2 + N3 + N4) / 4
Where N1, N2, N3 and N4 are the numbers of seedlings that germinated in trays/petridishes 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively
23
3.4.5 Germination energy: This is a measure of the rapidity of germination, and can
be expressed as the percentage of the viable seeds in the sample, which germinate
within a given time, or as the number of days required for (e.g.) 50 % of the viable
seeds to germinate. The parameter was observed depending on the percentage of the
seeds that was germinating in each week from the first week that germination was
progressing. The germination trend was observed for the four replicates (in
germination test above) for every week from the week that germination commenced
until the last week it ended. The average germination for each week was taken (as in
the calculation below) until there was no more germination observed for each seedlot.
Germination energy week 1 = (N11 + N12 + N13 + N14)% / 4
Where N11, N12, N13 and N14 and the numbers of seedlings that germinated in
trays/petridishes 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively in the first week that germination
commenced. The same was done for each week and recorded in a table (see results).
3.5 Determination of seedling vigour
The nursery experiment used a randomised design with KEFRI seed samples
representing a standard and those from seed dealers as the variables. Among the seed
dealers, levels of experience and training in seed handling was used as a varying
factor so that seeds from experienced and trained dealers were separated from those
of recent entries, which produced the measured variation. From a combination of
training and experience categories, five seed dealers were selected in each area and
the performance of the seedlings from their seeds (measured in height after sixty days
24
from germination) compared to those from the Kenya Forest Seed Centre in KEFRI.
The study concentrated on the species that were found to be in more abundant supply
at the time of the survey in order to compare early seedling vigour. These were
established at the first seed collection (survey) so that there were not many species
per seed dealer. The most common species were Eucalyptus saligna, Cupressus
lusitanica and Grevillea robusta. Eucalyptus saligna seeds were tested for the Meru
and Western Kenya seed dealers while Cupressus lusitanica was tested for the
Nairobi seed dealers and each was compared with seeds from KEFRI.
3.6. Secondary data collection
Secondary data was collected from the relevant sources, which included:
• Reports and unpublished data from any projects working in the areas
concerning seed and seedling provision
• Review of past literature on seed and seedling supply systems in the country
and the region
3.7 Data analysis
The data collected from surveys and the tests was entered in Microsoft Excel and
analysed using a combination of Microsoft Access and Statistical Packages for Social
Sciences (SPSS). Frequencies, correlations and standard deviations were used to
interpret interview and seed test data while ANOVA was used to compare the
seedling heights in the nursery experiment. From interview data analysis, the average
number of mother trees, distances between them, the extent of demand and supply,
experience of seed dealers and their linkages were analysed. These were tabulated
and presented as charts and percentages.
25
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Background of respondents
4.1.1 Gender proportions of the respondents The survey revealed that majority of the nursery operators and seed dealers were men
who constituted 83% of nursery operators and 93% of seed dealers (Table 1). On
average, more women (17%) were found to be engaging in nursery operations than in
seed dealing (7%) with women seed dealers only encountered in Western Kenya.
Table 1: Gender proportions for nursery operators and informal seed dealers in selected parts of Kenya
Nursery operators (N=20 per zone)
Seed dealers (N=10 per zone)
Site
Males Females Males Females Number % Number % Number % Number % Meru 17 85 3 15 10 100 0 0 Western Kenya 15 75 5 25 8 80 2 20 Nairobi 18 90 2 10 10 100 0 0 Average 17 83 3 17 9 93 1 7
The entry into the business by both men and women gives an opportunity for people
who have minimum resources in form of land to benefit from agroforestry either as
seed dealers or nursery operators. Since trees on farm have been viewed in many rural
settings as an activity for men, this could have contributed to the observation that the
majority of the nursery operators and seed dealers were men. The urban nurseries can
also be viewed as off-farm income generating business which initially was associated
with the male gender. The fact that more women were found to invest in nurseries
than seed vending can be attributed to the hardships involved in the seed dealer
business such as risks in harvesting (tree climbing) and more traveling in search of
26
seeds and market supplies in comparison with nursery management, which is mainly
stationery.
The higher number of women involved in seed business in Western Kenya could have
been as a result of the efforts of the Kenya Woodfuel and Agroforestry Programme
(KWAP; formerly Kenya Woodfuel Development Programme) that introduced
women into tree planting. KWAP’s initial efforts were geared towards fuelwood
production later developing to general agroforestry and eventually to seed sales
(Carter and Bradley, 1994). Some of the women scaled up their seed businesses to
supply to both NGOs and other farmers. This shows that once when women farmers
are able to get over gender related prejudices, they are very receptive of tree planting
information and can invest in the seed business. Bockari-Kugbei (1994), reported that
women in Gambia were more receptive to advice and demonstrated greater
responsibility in business and some of them were already successful seed dealers and
commission agents (quoted by Ocran, 1997). Women were also observed to form
spontaneous networks that exchanged crop seeds among themselves in Kenya,
Malawi and East Java among others, hence maintaining genetic variety of farming
systems (Jiggins, 1993). Such networking capability can be developed to make
women successful tree seed dealers who also factor in all seed quality aspects.
4.1.2 Respondents’ age-groups
The main age group of the respondent nursery operators (65%) and seed dealers
(53%) was between thirty and fifty years. Twenty one percent (21%) of the nursery
operators and 17% of the seed dealers were below thirty years old and the rest (14%
of the nursery operators and 30% of the seed dealers) were older than fifty years
27
(Table 2). Meru was exceptional with 40% of the seed dealers being over 55 years old
possibly because they had been nursery operators who graduated into seed dealers as
the number of nursery operators and correspondingly seed demand, increased. It is
notable that the majority of the seed dealers and nursery operators were in the middle-
age group. This shows that tree germplasm can offer livelihood to the age group
where society demands a lot of productivity. Keeping them employed in germplasm
production and supply business in their most energetic phase of life, by building their
capacity as better entrepreneurs, can ensure more productivity since they are still in
the most receptive age for development information.
Table 2: Age categories for nursery operators and informal seed dealers in selected parts of Kenya
Respondents Nursery operators Seed dealers Site Meru W. Kenya Nairobi Meru W. Kenya Nairobi Age category No % No % No %
Av % No % No % No %
Av %
<20 0 0 1 5 1 5 3 1 10 0 0 0 0 3 21-25 0 0 5 25 1 5 10 0 0 1 10 1 10 7 26-30 1 5 3 15 1 5 8 1 10 0 0 1 10 7 31-35 3 15 2 10 2 10 12 0 0 1 10 1 10 7 36-40 3 15 1 5 3 15 12 1 10 2 20 1 10 13 41-45 4 20 2 10 5 25 18 0 0 2 20 2 20 13 46-50 7 35 3 15 4 20 23 2 20 2 20 2 20 20 50-55 1 5 2 10 1 5 7 1 10 1 10 1 10 10 >56 1 5 1 5 2 10 7 4 40 1 10 1 10 20 Total 20 100 20 100 20 100 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 100
4.1.3 Education levels of the respondents Majority of the nursery operators (32%) and seed dealers (30%) had attained primary
school education while a significant number of the seed dealers (30 %) and of the
nursery operators (28%) had acquired secondary education. Tertiary training (not
necessarily related to agroforestry), had been attained by only 13% of seed dealers
and 17% of the nursery operators, while the remaining minority had not received any
education at all (Table 3). The basic education most of them had attained is a useful
28
background to develop them to better entrepreneurs who generate higher income and
supply better quality seeds.
Table 3: Education levels for nursery operators and informal seed dealers in selected parts of Kenya
None Primary Secondary Tertiary Respondents Site
No. % No. % No. % No. % Meru 2 10 8 40 5 25 5 25
W. Kenya 0 0 12 60 6 30 2 10 Nairobi 0 0 11 55 6 30 3 15
Nursery operators (N = 20 per zone)
Average 1 3 10 52 6 28 3 17 Meru 2 20 5 50 0 0 4 40
W. Kenya 0 0 5 50 5 50 0 0 Nairobi 1 10 5 50 4 40 0 0
Seed dealers (N = 10 per zone)
Average 1 10 5 50 3 30 1 13
4.1.4 Seed dealers introduction into the seed vending business Thirty percent of the seed dealers had started the seed business mainly through
interactions with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and working in forestry
related activities (Figure 3). Others (17%) got involved due to their love of trees
while others had operated nurseries and encountered the seed needs. Only 7% of the
seed dealers got into the business through their interaction with the Ministry of
Agriculture. Since until recently tree seed vending had not been established as a
private entrepreneurial activity, it is only the people who had experienced the demand
of tree seeds as they engage in agroforestry activities who would be expected to start
such ventures. These findings agree with Tripp and Pal’s (2001), observations with
private rice seed dealers in India where most of them had experience with seed
dealings either as contract seed growers for private seed companies or as organizers
for seed outgrowing activities for such companies.
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Worked in forestryprojects
Interaction withMoA
Initiated thruNGOs
Operated nursery Love of trees
Reason
% o
f res
pond
ents
stat
ing
reas
on
Figure 3: Reasons given by seed dealers in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya as to why they got into tree seed business
Majority of the seed dealers (53%) had recently joined the tree seed supply business
and had only one to five years working experience while 30% of the seed dealers had
operated the business for between six and ten years (Table 4). Only 17% of the
respondents had more than 10 years experience in seed handling and vending. On
training relevant to tree seed handling, 10% of the seed dealers had attended courses
for more than four weeks, 23% for between two and four weeks while 20% had
attended one week or a few days (less than one week) of training courses. Forty-seven
percent (47%) had attended no training course at all (Table 4). The category of seed
dealers with over four weeks of training was taken as the most enlightened on issues
of seed handling among all the respondents.
30
Table 4: Duration of training attained and experience in handling of seeds by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and western Kenya
Item Category No of respondents Percentage
None 14 47 1 week or less 6 20 2-4 weeks 7 23
Training duration
Over 4 weeks 3 10 1-5 years 16 53 6-10 years 9 30
Experience in seed handling
Over 10 years 5 17
Figure 4 shows that the tree seed related training courses had been offered by
government departments (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Department; 33%)
and non-governmental organizations. The NGOs included the Japan International Co-
operation Agency (JICA) and KEFRI (13% each), KWAP (10%), the Kenya Energy
Non-governmental Organisation (KENGO), ICRAF, VI Agroforestry and GTZ
(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit; 7% each) and Plan
International (3%).
JICA (13%)
KEFRI (13%)
KWAP (10%)
KENGO (7%)
ICRAF (7%)
GTZ (7%)
VI (7%)
Plan International (3%)
MoA and FD (33%)
Figure 4: Agencies that had offered training to seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban
Nairobi and western Kenya
31
The contents of training courses undertaken included seed collection, processing,
storage, testing, treatment and general handling (Table 5). Others included general
agroforestry, tree nursery operations, tree management for seed production and seed
harvesting (tree climbing). With a great variety of topics in rather short sessions of
training, it is possible that quality tree seed production did not really get emphasized
in the training that majority of the seed dealers participated in. Muturi (1999)
observed that farmers were co-opted in training sessions together with extension
agents in the development efforts of many organisations of 1980s, which were rather
uncoordinated and this could result in poor adoption which could then influence the
quality of seeds supplied by the seed dealers.
Table 5: Content of seed related training that seed dealers in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya had participated in
Training content Number of responses Percentage†
Agroforestry 1 3
Climbing trees for seed collection 2 7
Nursery operations 7 23
Seed collection 14 47
Seed handling 8 27
Seed processing 3 10
Seed storage 5 17
Seed testing 2 7
Seed treatment 1 3
Tree management for seed collection 3 10 † Percentages add up to more than 100 because some dealers had attended more than once and most courses included more than one topic
32
4.2 Sources of seed used by nursery operators in peri-urban Nairobi, Meru and Western Kenya
Nursery operators reported procurement of seeds from both formal and informal
sources. The formal sources included the Forest Department of the Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources (FD), KEFRI, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
and various NGOs. These suppliers contributed only 16% of the seeds while all the
rest came from the informal dealers (Table 6). Informal sources included self-
collection (57%), purchase from seed dealers (24%) and seed exchanges with other
nursery operators (3%).
Table 6: Frequency of tree seed suppliers as mentioned by nursery operators in Meru,
Nairobi and Western Kenya for the season between June and October 2002
Species stock present Species not present Seed supplier / contribution Frequency Percent† Frequency Percent†
Average percent
Formal/ Informal
Dealer 49 25 39 22 24 I FD 9 5 18 10 7 F KEFRI 6 3 3 2 2 F MoA 1 1 1 1 1 F NGO 7 4 14 8 6 F Nursery operator 4 2 6 3 3 I Self 115 60 97 54 57 I Total 191 100 178 100 100
† The percentage calculation is based on the number of species and not the total amount of seeds supplied
It can be observed from Table 6 that informal sources were supplying five times the
amount of seeds that was supplied by the formal channels to the nurseries in the three
areas covered by the study. As the amounts being supplied by the formal sources
continue reducing and demand increases due to more dissemination of agroforestry
related information, it is expected that there will be more entries into the informal tree
seed business. There is an indication that since most of the entrants into the business
had been influenced by NGOs and other agroforestry promoters to meet the
increasing demand (as shown above); entrepreneurship was not their initial driving
33
factor. This could have limited their vision of expansion as well as quality assurance
since they had not yet been able to meet demand in a competitive manner. This
situation may have led to nursery operators only being concerned with physiological
quality factors such as germination potential as the only parameters to check out for
in seed supply.
Table 7 shows that after getting seeds from any source, 28% of the nursery operators
sowed them without undertaking any quality test, others (3%), relied on the
information supplied by the supplier to decide on the quality while 3% of the nursery
operators were working closely with forestry extension staff to determine the quality
of the seeds they purchased. Two percent (2%) of the nursery operators reported
comparing with other seeds from their own experience while another 2% would only
buy from seed dealers who collected seeds from known sources. The nursery
operators who conducted quality tests before sowing the seeds reported conducting
cutting tests on the seeds to check if they were still alive (30%), germination of a
sample of the seedlots (11%) or judging from visual observation on pest attacks or
colour of the seeds (12%). Attempts to sort the data using Microsoft Excell by the
level of education received by nursery operators did not relate any differences in
these efforts to ascertain seed quality to the seed dealers’ level of education.
34
Table 7: Efforts undertaken by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya to ascertain the quality of seeds procured
Quality check item Frequency Percent
Compare with others from experience 1 2
Cutting test 19 30
Germination of sample 7 11
Seek help from extension staff 2 3
Sends dealers to collect from known sources 1 2
Visual observation 8 12
Rely on information given by supplier 2 3
No other seed source except self collection 6 9
No test done 18 28
Some of the problems nursery operators had observed with seed dealers, as shown in
Table 8, included dishonesty (4%), high seed costs (6%), delivery of immature,
unhealthy or old seeds (32%), late deliveries of seeds (3%), and low purity and
germination rates (32%). Other problems included poor seed information and species
confusion (4%), poor seed sources and sites mismatch (3%), poor seedling quality
(3%) and low species variety (3%). A few nursery operators blamed the seed dealers
for not being easily reachable (6%) and for only having monetary rather than quality
interests (3%). Thirty seven percent (37%) of the nursery operators reported having
stopped dealing with an average of two seed dealers each because of irregularities in
seed supply. This shows that nursery operators in the three zones did not view seed
dealers as fully reliable.
35
Table 8: Problems observed with informal seed dealers by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya
Problem Frequency Percentage
Dishonesty 3 4
Expensive 4 6
Immature seeds 13 17
Late deliveries of seed 2 3
Low germination rates 20 29
Low purity 2 3
Poor species variety 2 3
Not easily reachable 4 6
Supply of old seeds 7 11
Only monetary interests 2 3
Poor information on seeds 3 4
Poor seed sources 1 1
Poor seedling quality 2 3
Site mismatch 1 1
Species confusion 2 3
Unhealthy seeds 2 3
It is worthy noting that out of the problems mentioned in Table 8, 67% of the issues
were related to physiological quality while only 10% were related to genetic quality.
The rest of the issues (13%) concerned functional mechanisms. This can be attributed
to the possibility that nursery operators did not put premium on genetic quality
possibly because of ignorance. Lengkeek et al. (2003b), reported that nursery
operators in East Africa did not consider genetic quality when collecting their seeds
and thus may not have bothered cross checking this aspect with seed dealers. More
training of the nursery operators and their closer interactions with relevant
organisations as well as between themselves will ensure more capacity building and
could change this view of seed quality aspects.
36
Nursery operators could have chosen to invest more in physiological quality since it
ensures production of seedlings that can easily attract market. Issues concerning
functional mechanisms such as delivery of seeds in good time ensure efficient
utilisation of the small window of time when seedlings’ demand is high after the rains
come for maximum returns. The low investment in genetic quality implies that there
should be attention given to this quality factor at the seed collection level as the
nursery operators and farmers may not alter that. Nursery operators however can
ensure broadening of the genetic base of seedlings by acquiring small quantities of
the same species from more than one supplier and bulking them. This is however only
achievable if they have understood the implications of genetic quality from training
and interaction with research and development agents.
As shown in Table 9, the factors that nursery operators considered when deciding
which seed dealers to buy tree seeds from were closely related to the problems
mentioned in Table 8 above. These included requirements such as seed dealers did the
seed collection themselves and not merely seed vending, they collected from known
sources or had operated (or were still operating) nurseries (4%), supplied credible
information about seeds or followed up on the performance of the seeds they supplied
(16%) and supplied in time (3%). The major quality factor was high germination of
the supplied seeds (48%), while other factors were minor such as delivery at the
nursery site, delivery of sorted seeds (each 1%) and credit facility offers (3%).
Genetic quality related concerns again only featured as a low priority (3%) as
reflected in self-collection, collection from known sources and a bit on the supply of
information on the seeds supplied. Since seed dealers can supply seeds of fair
germination potential and can deliver in good time, then nursery operators did not
37
seem to mind the other quality factors apart from prices which were negotiable.
Unlike formal suppliers, seed dealers can supply seeds in as little quantities for fair
prices as needed by their clients hence the clients are not put off by highly priced
fixed quantities. Oyalo (1994), Nathan and Thomsen (2001), reported that farmers
were more willing to buy tree seeds in small quantities and thus would more readily
buy from seed dealers than the formal suppliers. Tripp (2000) observed the same
readiness in the purchase of crop seeds in small packs in several parts of Africa.
Table 9: Factors considered by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya when deciding which seed dealers to purchase tree seeds from
Dealer quality/factor Frequency Percentage Collects from known sources 1 1
Credibility in consistent supply 2 3
Offers credit facility 2 3
Dealers do collection themselves 1 1
Delivery at nursery site 1 1
Follow-up on seeds 1 1
High germination 37 48
Supply information on the seeds 12 15
Lowest price 15 20
Should have own nursery 2 3
Sorts seeds 1 1
Supply in good time 2 3
4.3 Seed sources comparisons by nursery operators
Nursery operators were asked to compare their main seed suppliers in regard to
selected quality items such as germination rates, seed prices, seedling quality and
seed delivery time. The comparisons are shown in Table 10 where one (1) indicates
38
best case for that quality aspect such as highest germination rate, lowest price of
seeds, best seedling quality and the most timely delivery (earliest chance of
acquisition) of seeds when needed and a high figure shows a low rank. Nursery
operators regarded the seeds they collected themselves as the most preferable with
most of the parameters. Self collected seeds were ranked first in germination rates and
delivery time and third in seedling quality. They were given rank zero for the price
because there was no financial cost involved in the collection. This is in agreement
with Tengnas’ (1994) observation that the benefits of local tree seed collection
include timely seed delivery and lower costs to the users but high germination rates
could only have been for those orthodox species whose seeds are easy for nursery
operators to collect and handle.
Table 10: Ranking of different seed suppliers by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya
Germination rates Prices of seeds Seedling quality In time delivery Ranking factor/
Supplier Mean rank
N† Std. Dev
Mean rank
N Std. Dev
Mean rank
N Std. Dev Mean rank
N Std. Dev
Self collection 1 54 0.6 0± 53 0.0 3 32 0.6 1 48 0.5 Dealers 3 42 0.8 4 42 0.3 5 19 0.7 3 39 0.8 Forest Department
2 13 1.2 3 12 0.8 1 9 0.4 5 12 0.8
NGOs 1 12 0.5 2 12 0.8 2 7 0.5 4 10 0.7 KEFRI 5 10 1.0 5 10 1.0 4 4 1.0 3 8 0.9 Ministry of Agriculture
4 4 0.5 1 4 0.5 6 2 0.0 6 3 1.5
Other nursery operators
1 6 0.5 0± 6 0.0 ≠ 0 2 5 0.6
† N represents the number of nursery operators that gave a rank to the supplier for that factor ± There is no price for seeds when self collected or exchanged with nursery operators hence ranked as
zero ≠ No nursery operator gave a rank for the seedling quality aspect for seeds exchanged with other
nursery operators.
The formal sources were ranked rather well in terms of germination rates, seed prices
and seedling quality (apart from KEFRI seed centre) but could not be relied on to
always deliver seeds in time. The poor ranking of KEFRI may have been as a result
39
of late procurement of seeds of the species not accessible elsewhere by the nursery
operators from the seed centre, which may not have performed well. The fact that the
other formal sources were ranked well in seed prices can be attributed to the provision
of free and/or subsidised seeds by the Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture and
many NGOs. Lillesø et al. (2004a) observed this kind of market distortion through
delivery of free or subsidised seeds in Uganda and recommended that it should be
discontinued. Informal seed dealers were also ranked poorly in the price of seeds and
seedling quality but fairly well in delivery time and germination rates. The ranks
given about seedling quality were often confusing and given by only a few nursery
operators such that they were not reliable. However the fact that nursery operators
were able to give an estimate rank of various seed sources shows that they may still
get a rough idea of germination percentage of seed from different dealers even if
many of them do not test seeds.
The similarity in ranking between self collected seeds and seeds exchanged with other
nursery operators can be related to the exchange of agricultural seeds between
farmers. Farmers were reported to select and save seeds of different varieties
especially in remote areas where formal seed systems were not accessible and even
where they were accessible (Cromwell et al., 1993; Tripp and Pal, 2001). Tripp and
Pal (2001), also observed that the proportion of seeds exchanged between farmers
was higher than that coming from other sources in Andhra Pradesh, India. Farmers
also accessed new varieties even before the private seed suppliers. This implies that
nursery operators also need to understand seed quality issues so as to exchange seeds
of high quality. With a good number of seed dealers having started as nursery
operators, it is clear that both nursery operators and seed dealers are closely linked
40
and should be developed together to ensure easier supply of seeds of high quality at
the farmers’ level.
The formal sources supplied seeds of high quality (reflected by high rank of
germination levels) but not in good time for coinciding with peak demand season.
These sources can be useful in supplying seeds of newly introduced species and
provenances to nursery operators and seed dealers which can be established into seed
stands which then will serve as the sources of seeds for the nursery operators.
Cromwell et al. (1993), reported that even in crop seeds, farmers are more interested
in the timeliness of seed delivery, accessibility of seed delivery points and the
appropriate quantity. As pertains to quality, the same authors reported that ISTA
standards do not bother farmers as long as seeds are of proven and reliable
physiological quality which agrees with the observations noted with the nursery
operators in this study.
The germination rates reported by nursery operators from the seedlings of the species
that were found in the various nursery stocks were very varied. The rates reported by
each nursery operator were expressed as percentages of those expected as given in
literature by Salim et al. (2002), and Albrecht (1993), for each species (Table 11).
Comparison of the percentages showed unreliable deviations for the sources (see
standard deviations for self, other nursery operators and general average) and
although ANOVA showed a significant difference (F = 0.863, P = 0.01; Appendix 5),
it was difficult to rely on the nursery operators’ reports. Many of the nurseries did not
have records to verify the germination rates and some of the reported seedlings had
grown for about three to four months hence nursery operators could have forgotten
41
the original germination figures. There was however no significant difference (P =
0.01) observed between the seeds procured from formal and informal sources
(average 25% for both). Better record keeping by nursery operators could have given
a better indication of the germination rates, which would help them to judge their
seed sources in a better way.
Table 11: Germination rates of seeds of different species procured by nursery operators in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya from different sources expressed as percentage of expected germination rates as given in literature
Seed supplier Mean percent Number of cases Std. Dev SE MeanSelf collected 27 115 91 8 Seed dealers 16 47 23 3 Forestry Department 3 9 4 1 NGOs 74 7 76 29 KEFRI 3 6 3 1 Ministry of Agriculture 16 1 Other nursery operators 61 4 94 47 Neighbours 33 2 47 33 Total / Average 25 191 75 5
As shown in Table 12, only 27% of the nursery operators were able to procure
enough seeds to meet their clients’ demand, in the three areas where the survey was
carried out. Others had shortfalls of some species that were in demand with the
highest shortfalls being reported by the urban and peri-urban nursery operators in
Nairobi. Many nursery operators however indicated that they were able to access
surplus seeds of some species such as Azandrachta indica, which were reported as not
being sufficient by others (see Appendix 7). This revealed unequal demand segments
of seeds, which could be met through proper linkages between nursery operators and
seed dealers resulting in less surplus for some and deficit for others. Surplus seeds
were given out or sold to other nursery operators, stored until the next season or
42
sowed and the seedlings displayed in the market until they could be purchased even
beyond the target season.
Table 12: Seed access shortfalls by nursery operators in selected parts of Kenya
Number of nurseries getting enough seeds
Number of nurseries not getting enough seeds
Area
Number Percentage Number Percentage Meru 8 40 12 60 Western Kenya 5 25 15 75 Nairobi 3 15 17 85 Overall 16 27 44 73
With the informal seed systems supplying five times the quantity of formal suppliers
as shown in Table 6, the diversity of species in agroforestry systems is likely to
reduce if only those species that can be found in abundance locally are supplied. The
failure by the informal seed dealers to supply seeds of some species is also likely to
impact negatively on their enterprises as farmers may be forced to look elsewhere for
the species they need. This can be resolved through vegetative propagation techniques
for the rare species to avoid cases of poor genetic diversity when farmers are forced
to collect seeds and exchange from the very few trees of such species that may exist
in a community. Better linkages between nursery operators, seed dealers and the
formal sources such as the Forest Department can help meet the demand for the rare
species such as indigenous medicinal species whose seeds the nursery operators
found difficult to access. These linkages were found to be poor.
4.4 Seed quality and handling by decentralised seed dealers
Seed dealers mainly considered physiological parameters when giving their opinion
for seed quality and paid little attention to genetic quality factors (Table 13). The
major concerns included high germination (22%), maturity of the seeds (33%) and
43
seeds that were still alive (14%). Only 6% reported good quality mother trees as an
aspect they considered in seed quality. Some influence of the level of education was
observed because all the seed dealers who reported good quality mother trees as a
parameter had attained either secondary school or college education. This was not
however related in anyway to training in agroforestry issues or experience in seed
handling as the seed dealers who reported mother tree quality were scattered in all
categories of the training and experience when data was sorted using Microsoft
Excell.
Table 13: Factors considered by seed dealers in peri-Nairobi, Meru and Western
Kenya as describing good quality tree seeds
Parameter Frequency Percentage
High germination rates 11 22
Seeds maturity 17 33
Healthy seeds 3 6
Seeds still alive (not old) 7 14
Seed colour (from experience) 3 6
Good quality mother trees 3 6
Seeds cleanliness 2 4
Seeds dryness 2 4
Others† 3 6 † Parameters labelled others included whole seeds that are not broken and seeds that do not float in
water
Poor premium on genetic quality issues in seed collection by the seed dealers was
also reflected in the low number of mother trees that seed dealers were harvesting
seeds from and the separation distances between the mother trees (Table 14). The
overall average number of mother trees was about half the recommended number
(sixteen trees instead of a minimum of thirty) while the separation distance between
mother trees was even worse (eighteen metres instead of about fifty to one hundred).
44
Lillesø et al. (2004a) also reported that in Uganda much local seed collection was
done sub-optimally in terms of number of trees and collection methods.
Table 14: The influence of training in agroforestry and experience in seed handling by seed dealers on the average number of mother trees harvested and their average separation distance in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya
Category No of mother trees Average distance (M) Mean N† Std. Dev Mean N† Std. Dev
None 7 58 8 5 35 4 1 week or less 22 37 17 32 38 42 2 - 4 weeks 25 47 18 17 13 55
Level of training in agroforestry issues Over 4 weeks 9 10 3 5 10 0
1 - 5 years 19 93 15 27 51 46 6 - 10 years 17 36 21 9 22 6
Seed dealer experience in seed handling Over 10 years 5 23 4 3 23 2
None 5 5 5 44 5 88 Primary 6 70 6 6 52 7 Secondary 27 65 27 33 32 46
Level of education achieved
Tertiary 24 12 27 13 7 7 Average / total 16 152 16 18 96 35
† N is calculated by species reported as harvested by seed dealers and since each seed dealer collected seeds for more than one species, the number goes beyond 30
With the majority of the species that were being supplied by the informal seed dealers
being exotic species it is clear that some species have low genetic diversity arising
from the initial seedlots that were used to establish the original trees which
naturalized as has been reported for Grevillea robusta (Harwood, 1992). This means
that collecting seeds from a small number of mother trees allows collecting offspring
of closely related individuals. The situation was made worse by the fact that
collections were mainly from very closely spaced trees, which could easily be related.
Earlier studies by Basweti et al. (2001) and Lengkeek et al. (2003a) revealed that
even the nursery operators who collected seeds for themselves collected from a very
small number of mother trees in both Nairobi and Meru. Indigenous species may not
be affected if there are a substantial number of remnant trees of the original
45
population which can still maintain genetic diversity and sufficient out crossing levels
(Lengkeek et al., 2003a). However with increasing clearance of natural forests and
woodlands for agricultural cultivation and other land uses, these remnants are
decreasing by the day and it is important to ensure wider collections of the indigenous
species too.
As shown in Table 14 (overleaf), training and experience in seed handling did not
influence the genetic quality parameters although the seed dealers that had not
received any training were collecting from the least number of trees. The trend was
distorted by the fact those not trained at all followed the category that had participated
in the longest period of training in the number of mother trees harvested from
(average of 7 and 9 mother trees respectively), although there was a low positive
correlation of 0.328 (Table 15). The separation distance of mother trees did not show
any trend that would support improvement with training although there was a positive
correlation but expressed by a very low coefficient (0.053). The experience trend
shows an opposite relationship with the number of mother trees harvested and their
separation distances from the one expected, which is shown by a negative correlation
coefficient (-0.278 and -0.3 respectively; Table 15). Those who attained secondary
and tertiary education were however harvesting from more mother trees although
there was no relationship between education level and the distance between the
mother trees. The relationship between the level of education and the number of
mother trees harvested from (also shown by a positive correlation in Table 15) may
have been coincidental but could also show that education had influenced their
reception to development information. Vandebosch et al. (2002) said that reception of
basic education is important in achieving development.
46
Table 15: Correlations of average number of mother trees harvested by seed dealers and their separation distances with the seed dealers’ level of training, education and experience in Meru, Nairobi and Western Kenya
No of mother trees Average distance
Pearson Correlation -0.278 -0.300 Experience in seedhandling Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.003
Pearson Correlation 0.328 0.053 Category of trainingon agroforestry issues Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.607
Pearson Correlation 0.565 0.122 Education levelattained Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.236 N 152 96
The content of the training courses that seed dealers had participated in, as reported
before, was broad and may not have had a lot of emphasis on seed genetic quality.
With little emphasis on genetic quality, training is not likely to impact much on the
genetic quality of seeds supplied by the seed dealers. Seed genetic quality premiums
are more likely to be imparted to seed dealers through formal recognition, more
specialized training and interactions with experts at fora in which genetic quality
issues are discussed clearly. Since seed dealers were collecting seeds from about a
half of the recommended number of mother trees and about a third of them
considered genetic issues in seed collection, more awareness is likely to push them
towards improving on seed genetic quality. Farmers were reported to consider genetic
issues when saving their agricultural seed because they were aware of the
implications of poor quality (Cromwell et al., 1993). If farmers were also aware of
the implication of genetic quality in tree germplasm they would push nursery
operators and seed dealers to put premium in quality by inquiring about the seed
collection details.
As shown in Figure 5, many seed dealers in the study areas ensured good seed
physiological quality by collecting seeds from the crown. Seventy nine percent (79
47
%) of the seed harvests were done from the crown, 17% from the ground and 4%
from both the crown and the ground. Collection from the crown was the most
common method and this ensured quality as seeds had not been exposed to soil
moisture, micro-organisms, pests and diseases. It is however easier for small-scale
dealers to collect seeds of some species from the ground and it is good in such cases,
for the dealers to ensure that collection is done regularly to avoid collection of spoilt
seeds. Early fruits and/or seeds should also be avoided as they are usually of poorer
quality (Mulawarman et al., 2003).
Ground (17%)
Crown (79%)
Both (4%)
Figure 5: Seed collection methods used by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya
The main criteria considered in the selection of mother trees from which seed dealers
collected seeds included maturity of the trees (22%), resistance to diseases and pests
(14%), straight stems (20%) and fruit or seed quality (7%). Other criteria considered
included growth rate (6%), size of the tree (heights and diameter; 4%), and abundance
of trees (3%; Table 16). It was positively observed that some seed dealers considered
aspects of the tree size, straightness, maturity of the trees, big boles and resistance to
pests and diseases. However, these were the minority of the interviewed seed dealers
48
and the same case was mentioned for the nursery operators who collected seeds for
themselves (Lengkeek et al., 2003a; Basweti et al., 2001).
Table 16: Criteria used by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western
Kenya to select mother trees for seed harvesting
Criteria Frequency Percentage
Abundance of trees 6 3
Size of the tree (heights and diameter) 7 4
Growth rate 11 6
Fruit/seed quality 12 7
Health of the tree 14 8
Number of branches 1 1
Maturity of the trees 39 22
Resistance to pests and diseases 24 14
Availability of seeds on the tree 13 7
Straight stems 35 20
None† 9 30 † While the percentage for other criteria is given as the frequency of each criterion in a pool of all
mentioned, the case of none is given as percentage of the total number of seed dealers since these 9 seed dealers gave no criteria while the others could give more than one criteria
As shown in Table 17, the reasons given for the number of mother trees harvested for
seeds by informal seed dealers included diversity of germplasm (33%) and as many
trees as were available (32%) or enough to give the required amount of seeds (26%).
Others included saving time in seed collection (2%), as many trees as had seeds on
them (2%) and trees felled for other purposes (11%). Most of these reasons revealed
that in many cases, seed dealers did not even consider the criteria given above
especially in cases of few available mother trees and seeds required in great
quantities. It is however notable that over 30% of the seed dealers had genetic quality
related considerations when collecting seeds. Sorting the data (using Microsoft
49
Excell) by training categories showed that the respondents who considered diversity
of germplasm (33%), had attained some level of training in agroforestry and tree seed
issues. These respondents who considered diversity of germplasm were however
scattered in all categories of experience showing no influence of experience.
Table 17: Reasons given by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western
Kenya for the number of mother trees harvested from in seed collection
Reason Frequency Percent
As many trees as available 56 32
Cross pollination and diversity (of germplasm) 58 33
Economics of time in collection 3 2
Seeds available in trees 4 2
Sufficient seeds for required purpose 46 26
Trees felled for other purposes 11 6
Total 178 100
4.5. Seed storage by seed dealers and nursery operators in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya
The storage of seeds by both the seed dealers and nursery operators could not ensure
long viability. Table 18 shows that the main containers used for storing seeds were
polythene bags (56% of seed dealers and 33% of nursery operators) and plastic
containers (34% of seed dealers and 6% of nursery operators). Other containers
reported by a few seed dealers and nursery operators included gunny bags, paper
bags, envelopes, tins, baskets and bottles (Table 18). The main storage areas were the
dealers’ main houses and grain stores which ensured air ventilation while two dealers
in Meru stored seeds at the forester’s office since they found it better ventilated than
their houses. A significant number of nursery operators (37%) did not store seeds and
preferred to stock them as seedlings, while all but a few (7%) seed dealers reported
50
storing seeds. Stocking seedlings instead of storing seeds is particularly important for
recalcitrant seeds, which do not store easily under normal conditions. However even
for the orthodox species, seed dealers and nursery operators would benefit from
setting apart specific rooms for storing seeds (Mulawarman et al., 2003). The plastic
containers and polythene bags which were found to be the common containers would
ensure longer storage when kept airtight and any remaining spaces filled with stable
material and kept in rooms where there would be less temperature and humidity
variations. The dealers who stored their seeds in grain stores have a better chance of
ensuring this.
Table 18: Containers used by nursery operators and seed dealers for seed storage in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya
Seed dealers Nursery operators Type of container Number % Number %
Gunny bags 3 2 2 4 Plastic containers 34 28 4 6 Envelopes 0 0 3 5 Nylon 6 5 0 0 Open containers 1 1 0 0 Paper bags 1 1 6 10 Polythene bags 68 56 21 33 Tins 4 3 2 3 Baskets 0 0 1 2 Bottles 0 0 2 3 None† 2 7 22 37
† While the percentage for other containers is given as the frequency of each type of container in a pool of all mentioned, the case of none is given as percentage of the total number of seed dealers/nursery operators since these 2 seed dealers and 22 nursery operators did not store seeds while the others could use more than one type of storage container
The seed storage period by seed dealers varied from around one week to half a year
with the average period being twenty weeks. As shown in Table 19, the average
period of seed storage increased with the period of training received by the seed
dealers but contrasted at some point because the seed dealers trained for more than
51
four weeks had the shortest average storage period. Analysis of experience in seed
dealings and level of education of the seed dealers did not show any trend in the
longevity of the seed storage period. This could have been because the seed dealers
and nursery operators did not face severe seed scarcity as a result of species’
seasonality in seed production and did not have to collect much more than their
periodic demands. As the seed dealers grow and expand their businesses however,
they may require long storage of some species and therefore need to ensure proper
storage methods and at the same time periodic verification of the stored seed will be
vital (Jones, 2004).
Table 19: Average seed storage period by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya comparing training category and experience of the seed dealers
Category Average storage
period in weeks No of cases
Std. Dev
SE of Mean
None 19 53 20 3 1 week or less 23 20 10 2 2-4 weeks 27 30 18 3
Level of training on agroforestry issues Over 4 weeks 9 15 3 1
1-5 years 25 61 21 3 6-10 years 22 33 7 1
Experience in seed handling
Over 10 years 9 24 11 2 None 14 12 3 1 Primary 14 60 12 1 Secondary 27 36 12.11 1
Level of education
Tertiary 15 11 8 1 Total/average 20 118 17 2
Several seed dealers (26%) and nursery operators (35%) that reported storing seeds
did not carry out any verification on the quality of the seeds after the storage periods.
The influence of training was observed when the data was sorted in that all the seed
dealers who did not carry out verification of the stored seeds had received no training
related to agroforestry and tree seeds handling. Among the ones that attempted
52
verification, 24% of seed dealers and 5% of nursery operators just did visual
observation on any pest attacks or seed colour appearance and judged from their
experience with the species. As shown in Table 20, the best means of seed viability
verification reported was germination of a sample of seeds (53% of seed dealers and
15% of nursery operators) followed by cutting test, which was done by 43% of seed
dealers and 5% of nursery operators. Three percent (3%) of the seed dealers and 3%
of the nursery operators reported using floating method and only sowed the seeds that
did not float. Since most of the species dealt with were orthodox and the storage
periods were not long it may not have been necessary to verify viability of stored
seedlots as it would not change significantly. As reported by Cromwell et al. (1993),
farmers have traditional methods to ensure as little as possible storage losses and
therefore since nursery operators had experience with the tree seeds they dealt with
frequently, they may not have needed to verify the germination of stored lots as they
were confident that the seeds were still viable.
Table 20: Means of verification on the viability of stored seeds by nursery operators
and seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and western Kenya
Nursery operators Seed dealers Means of verification Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage None 21 35 8 26 Visual observation 3 5 7 24 Germination of a sample 9 15 16 53 Cutting test 3 5 13 43 Floating method 2 3 1 3 Total 28 63† 45 150†
† The percentages in this case add up to more than 100 because some seed dealers would report more than one verification method. The tabulation also does not include those respondents who were not storing seeds hence the percentages for nursery operators add up to less than 100
Seed dealers that bought seeds from other people (who constituted 60% of all the seed
dealers) used the same verification methods although only 13% did cutting tests and
17% did germination tests. This was mainly done once they received the seeds after
53
which the seeds were bulked with other lots of the same species. All but 20% of the
dealers that procured seeds of the same species from different sources bulked them
into one consignment since they did not factor intra-specific differences. Seven (7%)
among those who did not bulk the seeds wanted to compare the health of the different
seedlots, 7% wanted to compare the germination rates while the other 7% wanted to
compare the provenances. The later 7% had gone through between two and four
weeks of training again showing a positive effect of training in genetic quality
considerations.
Among those who dealt with seeds procured from other people none had established
any contracts in order to be sure of the seeds sources but 17% had implied (not
written) contracts with their suppliers and 14% among these had access to the seed
sources. All these 14% had gone through at least two weeks of training showing some
effect of training on genetic quality premiums. A group of seed dealers in Laikipia
district were also reported to be very keen on genetic quality issues after intensive
training and interactions with organisations in seed handling (Anne Mbora pers
comm.). This shows the need for more effort in specialised training and follow-up on
seed quality issues especially genetic quality.
4.6. Laboratory tests for the quality of seeds procured from informal seed
dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya
The results of seed tests in the laboratory did not show any marked differences
between the various seed sources and even between the informal seed dealers as
shown by the standard deviations of the various species’ purity and germination rates
in Tables 21 and 22. Apart from two seed dealers (7%) who gave seeds of Eucalyptus
54
globulus labelled as Eucalyptus saligna, others genuinely labelled all the species.
Another seed dealer gave seeds with the label Eucalyptus meadnii that is not a known
species name but all the other labels were true to species. Germination energy trends
were also similar on weekly basis when seeds from the different suppliers were
compared. Although germination rates for seeds of some species from all the
suppliers did not exceed 50%, they were still in the range of expected germination
rates as given in literature (Albrecht, 1993; Salim et al., 2002).
Table 21: Seed test results for Eucalyptus saligna supplied by seed dealers of
different training categories and levels of experience in seed handling from Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya
Germination energy Category Purity
% MC % Germination
rate % 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeksNone 99 6.4 88 64 79 88 1 week or less 99 8.5 98 72 89 98 2 - 4 weeks 99 7.5 91 67 84 91
Level of training in agroforestry issues Over 4 weeks 100 6 94 70 87 94
1 - 5 years 97 6.9 90 65 81 90 6 - 10 years 100 7.4 93 68 84 93
Years of experience in seed handling Over 10 years 99 6 89 69 82 88 KEFRI 96 7.2 88 65 79 88
From the analysis of Eucalyptus saligna (Table 21) the results of purity tests,
moisture content analysis and germination tests did not show any significant
differences that could be associated with the level of training or experience in seed
handling. The same trend was observed for other species that were tested as shown by
the low standard deviations in Table 22. There was no difference in quality between
the seeds procured from formal sources (KEFRI) and informal seed dealers for all
species whose seeds were tested. Similar results were observed between agricultural
crop seeds obtained from private sources when compared with certified seeds from
public seed sources in India (Tripp and Pal, 2001). These observations could diffuse
55
the fear that most informal seed dealers are likely to deceive farmers with substandard
seeds if they are recognised as important seed distribution channels.
Table 22: Comparisons of purity levels and germination rates of seeds collected from different seed dealers in Meru, western Kenya and peri-urban Nairobi
Species† Purity % Germination rate % Germination energy Min Avg Max St
D Min
Av Max St D
Wk 1
Wk 2
Wk 3
Wk 4
Calliandra calothyrsus 93 96.3 99 3.1 69 70.7 72 1.5 24 66 70
Casuarina equisetifolia 90 94.9 100 3.9 32 38.7 49 6.9 4 32 39
Cordia africana 90 96.0 100 4.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0
Cupressus lusitanica 88 95.8 100 4.2 33 44.8 50 4.5 4 34 43 45
Dovyalis caffra 92 96.7 99 4.0 46 53.3 60 7 12 22 30 53
Eucalyptus globulus 70 74.0 78 5.7 91 91.5 92 0.7 67 84 92
Eucalyptus saligna 96 98.9 100 1.2 73 90.6 99 6.0 67 82 91
Grevillea robusta 98 99.1 100 0.6 63 73.1 81 6 9 28 48 74 † Seeds of Acacia mearnsii, Eucalyptus maculata, Eucalyptus grandis, Eucalyptus camadulensis,
Fagara macrophyla, Juniperus procera, Leucaena trichandra, Leucaena leucocephala, Markhamia lutea, Schinus molle, Sesbania sesban and Prunus africana were not compared because only one seed dealer had supplied the seeds of each of the species.
In the nursery experiment, Eucalyptus saligna seedlings from Meru and western
Kenya did not show any significant differences between the five categories of seed
dealers tested as well as seedlings from the KEFRI seedlot (Table 23). The ANOVA
on the Cupressus lusitanica seedlings heights from seeds acquired from Nairobi
dealers showed significant differences (P = 0.01 and P = 0.001; Appendix 6) between
the dealers’ seeds performances but the means did not reveal any patterns that would
indicate effect of training and/or experience. The mean height of seedlings of KEFRI
seeds was also close to the general mean in that case (Table 23). A t-test for paired
samples indicated that seedlings from only two seed dealers (the lowest and highest
56
means) were differing significantly from others (P = 0.01, 0.005 and 0.001) but the
differences were not related to the level of training or experience period. Quoting
CIAT (1992), Cromwell et al. (1993), reported that experiments conducted in East
Africa to compare agricultural crop seeds saved by farmers with seeds obtained from
a local agricultural research station found no statistical differences in vigour,
emergence and even yield, which is in agreement with the results of this study.
Table 23: Seedling heights of Eucalyptus saligna procured from Meru and Western
Kenya seed dealers and Cupressus lusitanica procured from peri-urban Nairobi seed dealers after 60 days in the nursery
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Source category†
Number of seedlings
Mean height (mm)
Std. Dev
Std. Error
Lower Upper 1 30 106.5 38.8 7.1 92.1 121.0 2 30 118.3 43.3 7.9 102.2 134.5 3 30 115.7 40.3 7.4 100.0 130.1 4 30 112. 7 24.5 4.5 103.5 121.8 5 30 89.0 18. 4 3. 4 82.2 95.9
KEFRI 30 89.9 28.4 5.2 79.3 100.6
Meru (Eucalyptus saligna)
Total 180 105.3 35.1 2.6 100.1 110.4 1 30 74.6 18.6 3.4 67.7 81.6 2 30 84.6 30.9 5.6 73.0 96.1 3 30 77.7 21.2 3.9 69.8 85.6 4 30 80.7 25.1 4.6 71.3 90.0 5 30 63.8 13.1 2.4 58.9 68.7
KEFRI 30 78. 0 22.9 4.2 69.4 86.6
Western Kenya±
(Eucalyptus saligna)
Total 180 76.6 23.2 1.7 73.1 80.0 1 50 55.1 10.8 1.5 52.0 58.1 2 50 70.0 13.0 1.8 66.3 73.7 3 50 98.3 18.1 2.6 93.1 103.4 4 50 70.4 13.0 1.8 66.7 74.1 5 50 73.7 13.4 1.9 69.9 77.5
KEFRI 50 79.1 11.7 1. 7 75.8 82.4
Peri-urban Nairobi (Cupressus lusitanica)
Total 300 74.4 18.6 1.1 72.3 76.6 † Sample seed dealers were categorised in such a way that the lowest category (1) had the least training
and experience in tree seed handling and the highest (5) had attained the highest training and experience in that area
± Eucalyptus saligna seeds from Western Kenya were sowed in the nursery later than those from Meru and a cold spell that prevailed in the first few weeks slowed their growth hence their heights were on average lower than those of Meru after 60 days in the nursery
57
4.7 Perception of seed demand by the seed dealers and client relationship
The demand for seeds was reported by seed dealers to peak as the rain seasons
approached although this did not seem to determine when they collected their seeds
apart from 33% of them who collected seeds just before the rainy season. Seed
collections were mainly done when species were in season (43%) while a significant
number of seed dealers (23%) did collections anytime of the year. Collecting seeds at
anytime of the year may lead to seeds that are not mature or inferior if they are not
collected in the right season for each species and this should be discouraged. A third
(33%) of the seed dealers reported meeting their clients’ seed demand while 67% had
shortfalls for a number of species (Appendix 8). Many species were also found by
some dealers to be in demand from clients but their seeds were not accessible. Again
some of these rare or insufficient species were in the list of species mentioned by
other seed dealers and nursery operators as having surplus seed supply and proper
linkages could reduce the gap. The suggestion by a majority of seed dealers on scarce
species is mainly that governments and NGOs establish and/or protect seed sources of
those species and link the dealers to those stands. The seed dealers saw tree seed
demand as increasing for the species they were dealing with together with rare
indigenous species, which they found more difficult to procure.
Grevillea robusta was the species with the highest seed demand generally and
consequently was the most dealt with species by a majority of the seed dealers (24%
dealings and 42% demand) followed by Eucalyptus saligna (20%). Seed dealers
normally supplied more of the species that were in high demand and devoted more
time to find the seeds of those species compared to those in less demand. Therefore
the list of those in high demand compared closely with those supplied in high
58
quantities (Figure 6; Appendix 9). The findings agree with those of private rice seed
dealers in Andhra Pradesh (India) who were also found to only deal with the varieties
that had ready demand with few attempting to sell new varieties (Tripp and Pal,
2001). The extension and NGOs should widely disseminate new species (and
provenances and/or cultivars) and inform farmers well so as to create demand of
species still low in the domestication pathways. Lillesø et al. (2004b), pointed out the
need for farmers’ awareness on varieties that can meet their requirements in order to
have a well functioning seed system that also avails such varieties. It is important that
any new species and/or provenances introduced have a high intra-specific variation as
the initial introductions are likely to be future seed sources for the informal dealers.
The success of Calliandra calothyrsus dissemination as a useful fodder species as
reported by Franzel et al. (2003), is a good example but efforts also need to be geared
into the dissemination of other species especially indigenous ones.
Araucaria sp (2%) Calliandra calothyrsus (4%) Callistemon citrina (2%) Cordia africana (2%) Cupresssus lusitanica (2%) Dovyalis caffra (13%) Eucalyptus sp (17%) Grevillea robusta (42%) Maesopsis eminii (2%) Milletia dura (2%) Pinus patula (4%) Prunus africana (2%) Pyracantha sp (2%) Teclea nobilis (2%) Thika palm (2%)
Figure 6: Species encountered by seed dealers as having highest seed demand
59
As shown in Table 24, the main clients for seed dealers included farmers, nursery
operators, schools, NGOs, the Forest Department, Community-Based Organisations
(CBOs) and others such as tea companies. Their turnovers and prices were compared
for the top four most dealt with species. Farmers and nursery operators were the
clients with the highest turn-over apart from the case of Grevillea robusta in Meru
and Western Kenya where NGOs had the highest turn-over. This could be attributed
to on-going promotional efforts of NGOs for the species and that demand segment
might just have been temporal. It was observed that NGOs did not have high
turnovers for the other species and even for Grevillea robusta in Nairobi. That left the
small-scale farmers, schools and nursery operators as the main clients. This is a
favourable aspect for developing seed and seedling enterprises as NGOs mainly buy
seeds and then distribute them freely or subsidised to farmers, which effectively
distorts the market for the informal seed and seedling dealers.
60
Table 24: Average clients turn-over and prices charged for seeds for four top dealt with tree species by seed dealers in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and Western Kenya
Species Area Clients Amount per
year (kg) % turn-over†
Cost (Ksh/kg)
Farmers 5.5 42.1 2200 NGO 8.5 72.5 1200 Nursery operators 8.2 56 1725
Meru
Schools 2.5 52.4 1900 Farmers 10.8 79.3 1012.5 Forest department 5 33 1000 Nursery operators 0.8 100 1000
Nairobi
Schools 5 50 150 Farmers 3 65.8 812.5 NGO 14.3 77.7 1250 Nursery operators 2.5 68.5 1150
Grevillea robusta
Western Kenya
Schools 4 67 750 Farmers 6.5 60.5 800 NGO 30 100 500 Nursery operators 1.8 58.4 1175 Schools 0.7 27.3 2000
Meru
Tea company 5 91 3000 Farmers 2.2 83.3 216.7 Nursery operators 5.1 100 1250
Nairobi
Schools 5 50 150 CBOs 2 100 Farmers 4 67 500
Eucalyptus saligna
Western Kenya
Nursery operators 3. 3 77.7 1166.7 Farmers 6.5 66.5 1000 Nursery operators 9 59 1375
Meru
Schools 6 40.5 1600 Farmers 9 80 1250 Nairobi Forest department 10 40 1500 Farmers 6 48. 7 916. 7 NGO 5 19 700 Nursery operators 5.5 42 750
Dovyalis caffra
Western Kenya
Schools 2.5 25.5 975 Farmers 1 67 1200 NGO 1 100 300 Nursery operators 0.3 100 1000
Meru
Schools 0.5 33 600 Farmers 5.2 77.7 566.7 Forest department 10 67 400
Cupressus lusitanica
Nairobi Nursery operators 0.75 100 1000
† The percent turnover is given as the average of what the seed dealers gave and since it varied with seed dealers, the totals add up to more than 100
61
Schools are important clients since their demand implied that the message of tree
planting was being imparted in the students who are the farmers of the future. They
could also influence their parents and create even more demand for tree seeds. It was
observed that schools had an average turnover of 50% and above, especially in the
peri-urban zone where the farming community has only small plots. These trees could
either have been planted in the school compounds or seedlings established in school
tree nurseries, which can be used as educational plots. Either way the pupils would
get the message of the value of tree planting. Experiences in Ecuador showed that it is
important to incorporate tree planting concepts in the school curriculum if the
message is really going to be adopted by pupils; else they may just be providing
labour for the nurseries in schools but will not invest in the knowledge later in their
lives (Desmond, 1989). Vandenbosch et al. (2002) also pointed out the importance of
incorporating natural resource management issues even in the basic education syllabi.
Prices appeared to vary with the clients but also with the turn-over and were low for
clients who bought in high amounts. However they were favourable for the farmers
apart from Grevillea robusta in Meru. A high standard deviation observed when
comparing Grevillea robusta prices as sold to farmers in Meru (1058), revealed a
high variation of prices implying that there was a possibility of stability later at prices
lower than Ksh 2200 per kilo as more dealers got involved in the business.
A big number of seed dealers (43%) did not take into consideration the environmental
conditions of the sources of seeds in their stock nor the intended establishment areas.
Other seed dealers (43%), considered the environmental conditions of seed sources so
as to advise clients on which batch to buy, while 10% only sold to neighbours and did
62
not bother to match the seed sources with seed supply as they only collected from the
neighbourhood. When the buyers of seed come from beyond the neighbourhood
especially from different agro climatic zones the seed purchased may not perform
well unless climatic details on the collection area and planting area are similar. Seed
dealers need to record the collection area details and inquire about the planting area
so as to match the seedlots, which contributes to the other aspect of genetic quality on
species/provenance-site matching. The fact that about a half of the seed dealers were
already considering the environmental conditions in tree seed supply is encouraging
and close interactions between them can raise the number that is observing this
quality aspect.
As shown in Table 25, the information that seed dealers gave to clients together with
the seeds included germination method and potential (42%), seed weight (5%),
method of storage (3%) and viability period (3%). Twenty three percent (23%) of the
seed dealers did not supply any information with their seeds, while 20% did not
follow up on the seeds they had supplied. The rest monitored the performance of the
supplied seeds in order to improve their operations and to gain more confidence with
their clients. Others followed up to solve any complaints that might arise with their
clients. The information supplied together with seeds shows that at least the seed
dealers were concerned with seed quality and some even followed up on the seeds
performance to ensure their enterprises grow in reputation. Tripp and Pal (2001), also
observed that even in rice seed supplies, private dealers maintained seed quality to
keep their reputation with the farmers.
63
Table 25: Information supplied with seed consignments to clients by the informal seed dealers in Meru, Western Kenya and peri-urban Nairobi
Information supplied Frequency Percentage
Germination methods 20 33
Germination potential 5 9
The seed sources 17 28
Storage methods 2 3
Viability period 2 3
Seed weight 3 5
No information 14 23
4.8 Informal seed dealers’ constraints, associations and linkages
The seed dealers identified several constraints that limited their development (Figure
7). While 17% of them did not report any constraint it is important to note that the
biggest constraints to their development were scarce seed sources of some species
(37%) and marketing challenges (30%), which mainly include demand fluctuations.
Other notable constraints were seed collection risks (17%) and poor linkages (10%).
The dealers suggested a number of solutions to their constraints that included
allowing seed collection in the forests, regulation of seed prices and more training on
seed handling. Many of these constraints could easily be handled by better
interactions between seed dealers and also with the formal seed supply sector. This
was also revealed by the fact that 10% of the seed dealers felt that poor linkages were
hampering their effectiveness and building on this fact, the seed dealers can be better
developed by bringing them together and forming seed dealers’ associations.
64
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
% o
f res
pond
ents
stat
ing
cons
trai
nt
Climati
c flac
tuatio
ns
Harvest
ing ris
ks
Irregu
lar pa
yment
s
Marketi
ng ch
allen
gesNon
e
Poor fi
nancia
l outl
ay
Poor li
nkag
es
Scarce
seed s
ource
s
Seed sto
rage
Constraints
Figure 7: Constraints identified by seed dealers in their business
Although 63% of seed dealers were aware of other seed dealers operating around or
near them they did not report forming any association among themselves. They
however had interactions ranging from exchanging information on seed sources and
seed handling (17%), exchanging or selling seeds to each other to satisfy demand
(17%) and helping each other with marketing or price setting (10%; Figure 8). Others
reported no interaction among themselves while 37% did not even know of other
dealers operating near them. Ninety three percent (93%) reported that demand for
tree seeds was increasing while 3% in each case saw demand as constant or
decreasing. Twenty seven (27%) of the seed dealers did not think forming an
association was a viable idea because they could not foresee any benefits and one
operator thought that groups always break up so there was no need of forming one.
The rest thought an association was a good idea as it could help in marketing tree
seeds (33%), sharing information on seed sources especially for rare species (33%)
65
and other benefits such as facilitating training and establishment of a credit scheme
(7% each). The same benefits have already been observed with the Tree Nursery
Operator Associations working with ICRAF support and would work with seed
dealers to ensure success of decentralised seed enterprises.
None (37%)
Figure 8: Suggested points of inWestern Kenya and
Since a majority of the seed deal
enterprises, then better linkages
other farmers and small-scale
Pitfalls that lead to collapse of fa
looked into when bringing the
strategies for smallholder seed su
identified as limiting seed dealin
training, lack of entrepreneurial
sustainability. Recommendations
Seed exchange (17%)
Not much (17%)
Information exchange
(17%)
)
teractperi-ur
ers ind
betwe
operato
rmer g
deale
pply (R
gs by f
skills,
includ
Marketing links (10%
ion between iban Nairobi
icated that an
en them shou
rs’ associatio
roups at form
rs together.
ohrbahc et a
armer groups
poor commu
ed training in
Price regulation attempts (3%)
nformal seed dealers in Meru,
association could improve their
ld be encouraged building on
ns that have also developed.
ative stages should however be
In a workshop on alternative
l., 1997), some constraints were
. These included lack of farmer
nity organization and lack of
seed management, processing
66
and storage as well as marketing and small-scale business management and building
on existing community organizations in order to strengthen sustainable seed supply
systems. In Namibia, farmer associations were observed as able to market Pearl millet
economically and sustainably (Lechner, 1997). The key factors of success observed in
the Namibia study were the availability of attractive variety, confidence in business,
government support and a policy of seed sales rather than free distribution. The same
factors can ensure the success of tree seed supplier associations as farmers appreciate
the benefits of agroforestry and demand for germplasm increases. Farmer seed
associations for crop seeds were also reported to be successful in Ghana and other
parts of Africa (Ocran, 1997).
Majority of the seed dealers (67%) had not interacted with the Kenya Forestry Seed
Centre (KFSC) or any other closely related institution (Table 26). Seven percent (7%)
had worked with KFSC and hence received training by them; some other 10% had
also been trained by them while 17% had marketed their seeds through them. While
33% still did not think there was any potential benefit they stood to get by relating
with the Centre in future, 17% felt they would benefit from training, 27% from
market intelligence, 7% with sources for difficult seeds and 3% felt such a
relationship would put confidence in the dealers by their clients.
67
Table 26: Interactions of informal seed dealers in Meru, Western Kenya and peri-urban Nairobi with the Seed Centre of the KEFRI
Type of interaction Number of seed dealers Percentage
Worked with the seed centre 2 7
Trained by the seed centre 3 10
Seed marketing through the seed centre 5 17
No interactions 20 67
KEFRI reported that they had embarked on a process of decentralising supply of
some orthodox species in high demand such as Calliandra calothyrsus and Grevillea
robusta and they had trained some dealers and then contracted them as their suppliers
of the species. This kind of relationship was also reported in other areas such as India
(Tripp and Pal, 2001), where rice seed companies contract farmers to produce seed
for them. It however did not show any orientation to developing entrepreneuring seed
dealers in their private capacity, which implies reluctance to the development of
small-scale tree seed provision. Cromwell et al. (1993), encouraged the formal sector
especially the research institutions to facilitate better linkages with informal seed
dealers in order to create sustainable systems at local levels. Ocran (1997) also
advised farmers seed dealer associations to make efforts to strengthen their links with
research institutes, extension agencies and regulatory authorities to obtain new
germplasm and technical advice. Lillesø et al. (2004b), recommend that institutions
provide better quality germplasm for establishment of good quality farmland sources
in order to upgrade the genetic quality of seeds so sourced and this could be
accomplished through better linkages with these informal dealers.
68
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusion
Informal tree seed supply systems already play a great role in the provision of tree
germplasm to farmers and other users such as community-based organizations and
NGOs. With more than eighty percent supply of tree seeds to nursery operators, the
informal seed supply systems are a significant channel that can be developed to
alleviate shortage of tree germplasm for farmers. Their capacity is however limited in
that they only deal with seeds of common orthodox species which do not require a lot
of investment in technology such as collection or storage equipment. Their poor
interactions with each other and with relevant institutions have also limited their
ability to analyze demand and reach the market effectively. Thus they have only dealt
with a few species while the demand for many other species remains unmet and users
may still have to look up to formal systems to supply the missing species especially
indigenous ones. The capacity to diversify and widen the range of species the
informal systems deal with, can however be built, since trade in tree seed is a new
concept that is still developing.
The seeds supplied by the seed dealers were comparable to those supplied by the
formal seed sector like KEFRI in terms of physiological quality. Since this is a
quality factor that can easily be detected by users in the early seedling growth,
reactions by clients may have led to more careful considerations in seed collection
and handling by dealers to ensure that they kept their business. The high viability
however, can not be maintained for long with the simple storage methods used by the
seed dealers and as seed volumes increase, investing more in better seed storage
69
equipment is needed. The genetic quality of the seeds that the informal seed dealers
dealt with was however low in terms of mother tree selection and site-provenance
matching. The suitability of the mother trees for the end product was rarely
considered in the seed collection either because of ignorance or little care since
genetic quality can not be judged easily from a seedlot by buyers.
Although experience in seed handling did not seem to influence the quality of seeds
supplied by seed dealers generally, there was evidence of influence of training on
agroforestry issues and seed handling especially on genetic quality. It was however
observed that most of the dealers who had gone through the training sessions had
short duration trainings which had several topics in them implying that seed quality
may not have been very much emphasized. Therefore the effect of training on the
quality of seeds supplied by the informal seed dealers was low although positive.
5.2 Recommendations
From the results and conclusions above, a number of recommendations can be made.
The first recommendation is that there is need for recognition of the informal seed
dealers by formal institutions. This recognition includes a change in the regulation
procedures by the governments (as Tripp, 1997 said), to ensure that friendly policies
are developed to allow trade on tree seeds by informal dealers. In Kenya so far, the
Kenya Plant Health Inspectory Services (KEPHIS) only allows farmers to exchange
seeds but not to trade directly in it (unless under a seed agent or merchant), which
means that all the respondents to the survey were acting illegally yet they supplied far
more tree seed quantities to farmers than the formal sector. The Forest Department,
KEFRI and NGOs should work more closely with the informal seed dealers in order
70
to ensure that the dealers are developed and can overcome the quality bottlenecks
revealed in this study. The informal seed dealers should also be allowed to access
natural forests as well as participation in the establishment of seed orchards in public
land from which they can later harvest good quality seeds. To ensure high genetic
quality premiums, the formal sector can establish centralized seed sources with
genetically diverse germplasm and allow the participation of seed dealers in their
establishment and access. The ownership of such stands should ultimately go to seed
dealer associations. It is important for governmental and non-governmental
institutions to support such initiatives and develop markets for the seed dealers rather
than distorting them (markets) with unsustainable subsidized or free seed supplies to
farmers.
More intensive training of seed dealers and closer interactions with research and
development agents has the potential to improve the quality of the seeds supplied by
these dealers. More specialized and interactive courses on seed technology need to be
offered on those people who have already been identified as seed dealers since the
courses offered so far seem to have combined many aspects of agroforestry. Even
when new entrants are identified in the informal tree seed business, there will be more
gain when they are trained since experience apart from training, did not appear to
yield much result in terms of high genetic quality. It is important to include nursery
operators in the training courses since they also use a lot of self-collected seeds. The
genetic quality of the seeds supplied by the seed dealers can then be improved
through careful monitoring of every training event to ensure that the tools offered are
put in practice.
71
Seed dealers will benefit from closer linkages among themselves. They should create
associations in different areas, which will help in lobbying for recognition. Working
in close collaboration with such bodies as the Kenya Forest Working Group (KFWG)
and Kenya Association of Forest Users (KAFU), the seed dealers can be easily
recognized and access better seed sources. They should also put premium on the
production of good quality seeds in terms of both genetic and physiological aspects
and as associations they can weed out the dealers who do not invest in quality so as to
maintain reputation. Working as an association, they will be able to bulk their seeds,
which would boost the genetic diversity in each seed-lot. In addition to linking
markets and increasing the seed dealers’ bargaining power, an association can also
lobby for micro-credit facilities. These loans can help the seed dealers acquire
appropriate seed collection gear to reduce some of the risks they are exposed to. With
such equipment, they will not collect seeds from poor mother trees because those
trees are the only accessible ones but will have the choice of collecting from the best.
The fact that some dealers and nursery operators reported unsatisfied demand of
species which others had in excess supply shows unequal demand segments of tree
seeds. This demand can be met through proper linkages between nursery operators
and seed dealers resulting in less surplus for some dealers and deficit for others for
seeds of the same species. Seed dealers can as well join the nursery operators in their
areas and work together in joint associations. Nursery operators who have already
come together in organizations have been seen to improve their marketing of
seedlings and reduce their dependency on central support. Associations of both
nursery operators and seed dealers appear to be more commendable as the nursery
72
operators appear to trust their own seeds more than the ones that come from the
vendors.
The Kenya Forest Seed Centre (KFSC) and other national tree seed centers in other
countries should devolve more of the orthodox species they deal with to the informal
seed dealers and forge partnerships with them. This relationship should be enhanced
to let the centres to deal with more complex recalcitrant and intermediate species and
reach bigger international markets. The dealers are closer to the farmers and can
supply seeds locally as needed. By letting the dealers also sell seeds to them, the
centres would be creating confidence in the dealers who did not see them as necessary
for linkages. The centres can buy the seeds from dealers for the orthodox species then
bulk them and sell since the prices of dealers were low and may just be close to the
centres’ investment costs in seed collection. This would also allow the centres to
impact on the quality of the seeds supplied by the informal dealers without being seen
as regulatory as well as competitive actors. As the capacity of the seed dealers to deal
with difficult species develops, the centres should devolve seed production and
distribution to them and only remain to offer quality and policy guidelines.
In the present situation of low genetic quality of seeds being supplied by seed dealers,
nursery operators should widen the genetic base of their seedlings by buying from
many seed sources of the same species and bulking it. Several nursery operators could
also achieve high genetic quality by coming together to bulk their seeds of the same
species and then sharing accordingly. This is better done when they have the
information on the seed sources so as to ensure different provenances are not mixed.
They also need to insist on the seed collection information before purchasing any
73
seeds and not just negotiating for the cheapest offer. For all this to happen,
development organizations working with both seed dealers and nursery operators
must ensure that the message of genetic quality is reaching all these actors in more
acceptable ways. Future studies should also be conducted to look at the geographical
coverage of supply by the seed dealers to determine the matching of the areas from
which seeds are being collected to where they are being supplied.
The study only considered nursery operators as the principal recipients of seeds from
the informal seed dealers. However the seed dealers reported small-scale farmers as
the major clients they deal with including CBOs. It implies that many farmers do not
purchase seedlings from nurseries and either establish seedlings for themselves or do
direct seeding of trees. Future studies need to collect the views of the small-scale
farmers on their perspectives of the quality of the seeds supplied by these dealers and
their interactions with them and also why they prefer not to purchase seedlings. It is
also important for the government and NGOs involved in promoting agroforestry
activities to invest in educating the farmers on the issues of tree seed quality. This
will raise the quality premiums of the seeds the farmers require from seed dealers and
the later will in turn invest in quality. The organisations should also disseminate
information on diverse species and provenances especially indigenous ones to create
demand for them and then the seed dealers can supply these species.
74
REFERENCES AFRENA. 1996. Maseno Project progress report 1995/1996. AFRENA Report No.
110 AFRENA. 1997. AFRENA Maseno Project progress and technical report 1997.
AFRENA Report No. 127 AFRENA. 1998. Agroforestry Research Network for Eastern and Central Africa
(AFRENA -ECA) Research proposal and five year plan 1999 - 2003. Submitted to ASARECA July 1998
Albrecht J. (ed). 1993. Tree seed handbook of Kenya. GTZ Forestry Seed Centre
Muguga, Nairobi, Kenya Basweti C., A. Lengkeek, P. Prytz and H. Jaenicke. 2001. Tree nursery trade in urban
and peri-urban areas. A survey in Nairobi and Kiambu Districts, Kenya. RELMA Working Paper No. 13. Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), Swedish International development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Nairobi, Kenya.
Betser L., J. Mugwe, and J. Muriuki. 1999. On-farm Production and Marketing of
High-value Tree Products in the Central highlands of Kenya. In Temu A. B. et, al (Eds) Off-forest Tree Resources of Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop held at Arusha Tanzania. The African Academy of Sciences.
Bockari-Kugbei S.M. 1994. The role of small scale enterprises in African seed
industries. PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK. Bonner F.T. 1998. Testing tree seeds for vigour. A review. Seed Technology, Vol. 20,
No. 1, 1998. USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Carter J. and P. Bradley.1994. The Kenya Woodfuel/Agroforestry Development
Programme. In: Shanks E and J Carter. 1994. The organisation of small-scale tree nurseries; Studies from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Rural development forestry study guide 1. Overseas Development Institute. London, UK.
Case D.D. 1990. The community’s toolbox. The idea, methods and tools for
participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation in community forestry. Community forestry field manual 2. FAO, Rome.
CIAT. 1992. Farmer participatory research and the development of an improved bean
seed strategy in Rwanda. Paper prepared workshop on farmer participatory research, 17-19 February, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Cooper P.J.M. and G.L. Denning. 1999. Scaling up the impact of agroforestry
research. Report of the agroforestry dissemination workshop. 14 - 15 September 1999. Nairobi, Kenya.
75
Cromwell E., S. Wiggins and S. Wentzel. 1993. Sowing beyond the state. NGOs and seed supply in developing countries. Overseas Develoment Institute (ODI), London.
Dawson I. and J. Were. 1998. Multiplication, that's the name of the game: Guidelines
for seed production of agroforestry trees. Agroforestry Today, Vol. 10 No. 4, October-December 1998.
Desmond D.F. 1989. Forest tree nurseries in agricultural high schools: An analysis of
Ecuadorean experiences. ODI Social Forestry Network Paper 9e, London. Esbo H. 1980. Seed quality control. In: Thomson JR (Ed). Advances in research and
technology of seeds; Part 5. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Foeken D. and A.M. Mwangi. 1998. Farming in the City of Nairobi. African Studies
Centre working paper 30. Leiden, The Netherlands Franzel S., C. Wambugu, P. Tuwei and G. Karanja. 2001. The adoption and scaling
up the use of fodder trees in central Kenya. Paper presented at the workshop on Forage Demand and Adoption by Smallholder Livestock Keepers, International Livestock Research Centre. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 23 - 25 June, 2001.
Franzel S., C. Wambugu and P. Tuwei. 2003. The adoption and dissemination of
fodder shrubs in central Kenya. Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AGREN), Network Paper No. 131, ODI, United Kingdom
Graudal L. and E.D. Kjaer. 2000. Can national tree seed programmes generate
economic, social and/or environmental benefits that cover their costs? Danida Forest Seed Centre.
Hampton J.G. and M.J. Hill. 2002. Seed quality and New Zealand’s native plants: an unexplained relationship? New Zealand Journal of Botany, 2002, Vol. 40: 357-364. The Royal Society of New Zealand.
Harris S.M. 1993. Working towards the wider distribution of tree seed in Africa: The activities of the Henry Doubleday Research Association. Rural Development Forestry Network (RDFN) Network Paper 16e. RDFN London, United Kingdom.
Harwood C.E. (ed) 1992. Grevillea robusta in agroforestry and forestry. Proceedings
of an international workshop. August 28 - 31, 1990. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya Hide J.M., C.F. Hide and J. Kimani. 2001. Informal irrigation in the peri-urban zone
of Nairobi, Kenya - An assessment of surface water quality used for irrigation. Report OD/TN 105 HR Wallingford and DFID. HR Wallingford.
76
Huxley P. and van H. Houten. 1997. Glossary for agroforestry. ICRAF, Nairobi. ICRAF, 2000. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. Corporate report,
2000. International Seed Testing Association (ISTA). 1999. International rules for seed
testing. Seed Sci. & Technol. 27, Supplement. ISTA, Zurich, Switzerland. Jaenicke, H. 2001. Innovative strategies for small-scale tree nursery development.
ICRAF position paper. Jaetzold R. and Schmidt H. 1983. Farm management handbook of Kenya Vol II.
Natural conditions and farm management information Vol II/C, East Kenya (Eastern and Coast provinces). Ministry of Agriculture and German Agricultural Team of GTZ. Nairobi
Jiggins J. 1993. Networking with women farmers. In: Alders C, B Haverkort and L
van Veldhuizen (eds). Linking with farmers: Networking for low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. Intemediate Technology Publications, London, UK
Jones N. 2004. Forestry Technology No 1: Seed Collection. Agroforestry Net, Inc.
www.agroforestry.net/pubs/Jonestech1.html. Page Last Updated: March 9, 2004 Kamondo B.M., M. Mwangi and J. Were. 1996. Strategy to ensure sufficient supply
of tree propagative material for agroforestry development in Kenya. In: People and institutional participation in agroforestry for sustainable development. Proceedings of the first Kenya agroforestry conference. Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Muguga, Nairobi Kenya. 25 - 29 March 1996.
Kenya Land Alliance (KLA). 2002. Land Use in Kenya: The case for a national land-
use policy. Kenya Land Alliance, Nakuru, Kenya. Koffa S. and D.P. Garrity. 2001. Grassroots empowerment and sustainability in the
management of critical natural resources: The Agroforestry Tree Seed Association of Lantapan. In Coxhead I and Buenavista G (Eds). Seeking sustainability: Challenges of agricultural development and environmental management in a philipine watershed. Los Banos, Laguna, Philipines. PCARRD, 2001
Lechner W.R. 1997. Seed multiplication and distribution through a farmers’
cooperative in Namibia. In: Rohrbach DDR, Z Bishaw and AJG van Gastel (eds). Alternative strategies for smallholder seed supply. Proceedings of an International Conference on Options Strengthening National and Regional Seed Systems in Africa and West Asia. 10-14 March 1997. Harare, Zimbambwe. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT
Lengkeek A. and S. Carsan. 2003. Diversity makes a difference. Farmers, perception
of tree species diversity in Meru district Kenya. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University. Also submitted to Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science.
77
Lengkeek A., S. Carsan and H. Jaenicke. 2003a. A wealth of knowledge. How
farmers in Meru, Central Kenya, manage their tree nurseries. In Diversity makes a difference. Farmers, perception of tree species diversity in Meru district Kenya. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University. Also submitted to Agroforestry Systems.
Lengkeek A., I.K. Dawson and H. Jaenicke. 2003b. Genetic bottlenecks in
agroforestry systems: Results of tree nursery surveys in East Africa. In Diversity makes a difference. Farmers, perception of tree species diversity in Meru district Kenya. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University. Also submitted to Agroforestry Systems.
Lillesø J.P.B., L.P. Dhakal, P.K. Jha and H.L. Aryal. 2001. Addressing smallholders’
demand for propagation material of woody species. Part I: Analysis and Strategy proposal. DFSC Case Study No.3. TISC Document No. 104. Danida Forest Seed Centre, Denmark.
Lillesø J.P.B., S. Moestrup and E. Brandi-Hansen. 2004a. Species, seed sources, seed
procurement and seed distribution for agroforestry in Uganda - (preliminary findings from a survey, April 2004). ICRAF.
Lillesø J.P.B., S. Moestrup and E. Brandi-Hansen. 2004b. Characterising, assessing
and recommending seed supply systems for agroforestry tree species (draft strategy April 2004). ICRAF.
Lossau A., B. Weiskopf and W. Kasten. 2000. Support for the informal seed sector in
development co-operation - Conceptual issues. GTZ, Germany and Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands
Martin F. and S. Sherman. 1992. Agroforestry Principles. ECHO Technical Note,
1992 Masangano C. 1996. Diffusion of agroforestry technologies. Michigan State
University. Ministry of Planning and National Development (MPND). 1989. Meru District
Development Plan 1989 - 1993. Government Printer. Mogaka H., S. Gichere, R. Davis and R. Hirji. 2002. Impacts and costs of climate
variability and water resources degradation in Kenya. Rationale for promoting improved water resources development and management. World Bank Report, Kenya.
Mulawarman, J.M. Roshetko, S.M. Sasongko and D. Irianto. 2003. Tree seed
management - Seed sources, seed collection and seed handling: A field manual for field workers and farmers. ICRAF and Winrock International. Indonesia.
Muriuki J., H. Jaenicke and W. Frost. 2001. Strategies for tree seedling production
and distribution. Tree Domestication Training Workshop Lecture Notes.
78
Muriuki J. and H. Jaenicke. 2001 . Tree nurseries under individual and group
management. A case study from Meru District, Kenya. ICRAF internal report. Muturi S.N. 1999. Agroforestry extension manuals. A survey of their use in Kenya.
Sida’s Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), Nairobi, Kenya. Nathan I. and K. Thomsen. 2001. Can smallholders be supplied with quality tree seed
through commercial distribution of tree seed in small bags? Paper presented at the International Workshop on Tree Seed: Matching supply with demand from small-scale farmers in tropical countries, Nairobi, Kenya 11-26 June 2001. DFSC, Denmark.
Njenga A. and W. Frost. 2001. Economic and Market condition analysis of peri-urban
nurseries: Results of a PFSA workshop conducted in Kiambu district, Central Kenya.. Working Paper, ICRAF.
Ngece K. 2003. Challenges in forestry conservation in East Africa. Is community
based forestry the key to forest survival? East African Ecotourism Development and Conservation Consultants. Nairobi, Kenya. January 2003
Ochsner P., I. Nathan and A. Pedersen. 2001. How to reach rural people in
developing countries with quality tree planting material. In: Assisting Forest Owner, Farmer and Stakeholder Decision-Making. International Union of Forestry Research Organizations. Proceedings of the Extension Working Party (S6.06-03) Symposium 2001. DFSC, Denmark.
Ocran V.K. 1997. The role of seed growers’ associations in seed production and
marketing in Africa. In: Rohrbach DDR, Z Bishaw and AJG van Gastel (eds). Alternative strategies for smallholder seed supply. Proceedings of an International Conference on Options Strengthening National and Regional Seed Systems in Africa and West Asia. 10-14 March 1997. Harare, Zimbambwe. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT
Omondi W.O. 1991. Role of quality seed in forestry and agroforestry. Proceedings of
the First National Tree Seed Workshop. Kenya Forest Seed Centre. 1-5 July 1991. Nairobi.
Oyalo OA. 1994. On-farm tree seed production. Experiences of KWDP/KWAP,
Kenya. ETC Kenya Consultants, B.V. Place F. and R. Kindt. 1997. The complexities of supply of tree germplasm: The need
for policy interventions. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Policy Aspects of Tree Germplasm Demand and Supply. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. 6 - 8 October, 1997.
Poulsen K. 1993. Seed Quality. Lecture Note C-14. Danida Forest Seed Centre. Rohrbach D.D.R., Z. Bishaw and A.J.G. van Gastel (eds). 1997. Alternative strategies
for smallholder seed supply. Proceedings of an International Conference on
79
Options Strengthening National and Regional Seed Systems in Africa and West Asia. 10-14 March 1997. Harare, Zimbambwe. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT
Roper J. and R.W. Roberts. 1999. Deforestation: Tropical forests in decline. CIDA
Forestry Advisers Network (CFAN), Quebec, Canada Ruigu S., M. Nyasimi and J. Aduwo (unpublished) Farmers’ seed production
strategies: a case of the improved fallow technology in Western Kenya. Salim A.S., A.J. Simons, C. Orwa, J. Chege, B. Owuor and A. Mutua. 2002
Agroforestree Database: a tree species reference and selection guide. ICRAF Nairobi, Kenya
Shanks E. and J. Carter. 1994. The organisation of small-scale tree nurseries; Studies
from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Rural development forestry study guide 1. Overseas Development Institute. London, UK.
Sombroek W.G., H.M.H. Braun and B.J.A. van der Poun. 1980. Exploratory soil map and agro-climatic zone map of Kenya. Kenya Soil Survey, Nairobi, Kenya
Spiers N. and M. Stewart. (1992). Use of Grevillea robusta in Embu and Meru Districts of Kenya. in Harwood, C.E., (ed). Grevillea robusta in agroforestry and forestry: proceedings of an international workshop. ICRAF, Nairobi.
Simons T. 1997. The importance of germplasm policies in tree domestication.
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Policy Aspects of Tree Germplasm Demand and Supply. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. 6 - 8 October, 1997.
Stubsgaard F. 1992. Seed Storage. Lecture Note C-9. Danida Forest Seed Centre.
Tengnas B. 1994. Agroforestry extension manual for Kenya. ICRAF, Nairobi
Tripp R. 1997. New seed and old laws. Regulatory and the diversification of national seed systems. Intermediate Technology Publications. London, UK.
Tripp R. 2000. Strategies for seed system development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A study of Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. ICRISAT Zimbabwe and Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK
Tripp R. and S. Pal. 2001. The private delivery of public crop varieties: Rice in Andhra Pradesh. World Development Vol. 29. No. 1. Elsevier Science Ltd.
80
Vandenbosch T., P. Taylor, J. Beniest and A. Bekele-Tesema. 2002. Farmers of the future: A strategy for action. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Nairobi, Kenya.
Wass P. 1999. Kenya’s forests are disappearing: So what? East African Wildlife Society. Swara Magazine, April - September, 1999. Nairobi, Kenya.
Wightman K.E. 1999. Good tree nursery practices: Practical guidelines for community nurseries. ICRAF, Nairobi.
81
APPENDIX Appendix 1: Survey checklist for nursery operators The objective of this survey is to provide information on access, quality and pathways of germplasm for agroforestry tree species through informal systems (apart from government and organizations). We are encouraging nursery operators to fill in this questionnaire and all information will be handled confidentially. Your collaboration will be highly esteemed. 1. Interview schedule no _________ 2. Name of nursery __________________________________ 3. Location of the nursery Village ___________________
District ______________ Division ____________ Location ___________
4. Name of nursery operator ___________________________ Sex (male/female)________
5. Age <20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 50-55, >56 _______ 6. Level of education None _____ Primary _____ Secondary ______
Tertially/college ___________________ 7. For the species you have in stock currently please give the following details Species Seed
supplier Seed sources
Amount of seeds procured*
Pretreatment method (if any)
Number of seedlings germinated*
* Used to calculate the % germination the nursery operator achieved 8. Please give the origin of the seeds for species that are not currently in stock
Seed origin Species Own farm
Neighbours Forest Market KFSC/ICRAF/NGO (specify)
Seed dealer
9. When do you go sourcing out for seeds? – 1. Anytime, 2. When less busy, 3.
When in season, 4. In the dry season 5. In the sowing season ______________________________
10. Do you place orders for seeds or just procure when needed?
__________________________________________________________________ 11. How do you ascertain whether seed is good before buying? __________________
82
12. Is there a seed dealer you stop dealing with? Yes/No
If yes how many and what reason(s) ___________________________________________________________
13. Do you store your seeds after procurement Yes/no
If yes what are the storage facilities? ____________________________________ Do you test the seed later after the storage? Yes/no ____ Which method do you use? ______________________________________________________________
14. What do you consider as the qualities of a good seed dealer
1. Lowest price 2. Information on the seeds supplied 3. Ensured high germination rates 4. Others (specify)
15. What are the major problems with seed supplied by dealers and what solutions
would you suggest? Problem Suggested solution (s)
16. If seeds have been procured from organizations other than private dealers (such as
KEFRI, Forest department etc), how do you compare the seeds of organizations with that of seed dealers? [Compare from one species which you have acquired from different sources or give general view]
Supplier \ Parameter
Price of seeds
Germination rates
Seedling quality
Delivery time when by order
Other
Seed dealers KEFRI/KFSC Forest Department
Ministry of Agric
Other NGO (specify)
Others 17. Do you access enough seeds of all species you require to satisfy the demand of
seedlings by your clients (yes/no) 18. If not, what species have shortfalls __________________________
____________________________________________________________
83
19. Are there any species with excess supply of seeds Yes/No __________ If yes, what species and what do you do with the surplus seeds ____________________________________________________
20. Any other comments on seed supply ____________________________________ 21. Please give us the contacts of your seed suppliers
Name Area of operation Contact address (telephone if possible)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE
84
Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire for seed dealers and nursery operators who collect seeds for themselves
The objective of this survey is to provide information on access, quality and pathways of germplasm for agroforestry tree species through informal systems (apart from government and organizations). We are encouraging seed dealers to fill in this questionnaire and all information will be handled confidentially. Your collaboration will be highly esteemed. Background details 1. Questionnaire number __________________
2. Name of seed dealer ____________________ Sex (male/female)________ 3. Age <20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 50-55, >56 _______
4. Level of education None _____ Primary _____ Secondary ______
Tertially ___________________
5. District ______________ Division ____________ Location ___________
6. How did you get into the seed business 1. Worked in forestry related issues 2. Interaction with MoARD staff activities 3. Initiated through NGOs 4. Used to operate nursery 5. For the love of trees 6. Other (specify) ____________________________________
7. For how long have you been doing this business? Number of years _________ 8. Have you ever attended any course on seed harvesting or technology or related
issues. Yes/No _______ If yes please give details in the table below Course Who offered Duration Details of content
9. What in your opinion constitutes good quality seeds _______________________
Seed stock and collection details
10. For the species currently in stock please give these details Collector Seed origin (give physical location where applicable) Quantity -
kgs Seed supplied (botanical name or local name)
Self Others Native (forest)
Own farm
Market KFSC (NGO specify)
Other
85
11. For the species whose seeds you collect yourself, please fill in the next table Seed harvesting methods Species
name No. of mother trees
Average distance (m) Ground Crown
Why this number of mother trees
12. What criteria do you use to select mother trees from which to obtain seeds?
(Interviewer not to give the criteria but let them come from the seed dealers) Selection criteria Tree species Fruit quality
Fast growing
Straight stem
Resistance to pest
Mature tree
Other (specify)
NB: Tick for all criteria used
13. Do you bulk seeds collected from various sources? Yes no. Give reasons _____ __________________________________________________________________
For seeds procured from others 14. Do you inquire on where the seeds were collected and the mother tree details? _
__________________________________________________________________ 15. How do you know that the seeds you are buying are good enough ___________ 16. Do you carry out any test on the seeds you deal with and how frequently? _____
_________________________________________________________________ 17. Do you have any contracted people who supply seeds of particular species to
you? If yes, do you have access to their seed sources or do you ascertain details on the mother trees they collect from? Give details ________________________
Seed storage details
18. Do you store seeds? Yes / No ______ If yes, please fill the following table for the species whose seeds you store
Name of seed species Method of storage Period of storage Quality verification method
Clients demand, supply and feedback information 19. What species have the greatest demand ________________________________
86
20. Who are your main clients and what is their proportionate turn-over for top three species Species Client Amount Cost/amount % turn-over*
Farmers Schools NGOs Nursery operators
Others (specify) Farmers Schools NGOs Nursery operators
Others (specify) * To calculate 21. Which is the peak demand season/trend for your seeds?
_________________________ How do you determine when to collect/procure seeds? ____________________
22. In your opinion, do you meet the demand by supplying enough of the species
clients need? Yes/No _____ If no what species have shortfalls ____________________________________
23. Are there species in demand that you can not get seeds of? Which species and
what are possible suggestions you can give _____________________________ 24. Do you know which environmental conditions match every seedlot you have?
Yes/No. How would that information help you __________________________ 25. Do you supply any information on the seeds/species when supplying - please give
details _________________________________________________________ 26. Do you inquire from your clients where they will plant the seeds? What kind of
information do you seek from them and how is it useful __________________ 27. Do you inquire for feedback from clients on the seed performance either in the
nurseries or fields? Yes/No How would that information help you _____________
28. Do you see the demand for tree seed increasing or decreasing ___________ How
are you adjusting to the trend? _________________________________ Linkage and network details 29. Do you know of any other seed dealers operating around? Yes/No How do you
interact with each other ______________________________________________ 30. Do you have an association of seed dealers Yes/no
If yes how has the association helped you _____________________________ If no do you think such an association would be of help to you in this business? Please explain _________________________________________________
87
31. Do you relate with the Kenya forestry seed center or any other organization dealing with seeds Yes /No If yes how has the relationship helped you? __________________________ If no do you think such a relationship would be of help to you in this business? Please explain __________________________________________________
32. What are the major constraints in the seed business? Suggest ways in which
they can be solved ____________________________________________ 33. Any other comments about seed supply ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking your time to answer the questions. We would like to carry some of the seeds you have in stock to help us in comparison with those we have at our stores. We are willing to pay for the quantities we will carry and to communicate the results of our study to you when it’s complete. We also wish to come and collect some more seeds later (after six months) for further comparisons.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE
88
Appendix 3: List of nurseries interviewed in the study and their localities Nursery name District Division Location Western Kenya Wakulima Youth Group Vihiga Luanda West Bunyole Shinda women group Vihiga Luanda West Bunyole Jua Kali Nursery Vihiga Luanda South Bunyole Wilfred Nursery Vihiga Tiriki West Taboa Equator Nursery Vihiga Tiriki West Taboa Luero Agroforestry Youth Group Siaya Yala Yala Township Wangneno Mbalawandu Youth Kisumu Maseno N. W. Kisumu Impala Park Kisumu Impala Milimani Kinda Self Help Tree Nursery project Kisumu Winam Kanyakwar Mukoya tree nursery Kisumu Impala Milimani Museum Junction Garden Nursery Kisumu Impala Milimani Nairobi route nursery Kisumu Impala Milimani Mama Flower nursery Kisumu Winam Milimani Nyalenda Tree nursery Kisumu Winam West Kolwa Mary Nurseries Kisumu Winam West Kolwa St Judes Tree nursery Kisumu Winam West Kolwa St Andrew Tree nursery Kisumu Winam West Kolwa Police line Tree nursery Kisumu Winam West Kolwa Kariero tree nursery Kisumu Winam West Kolwa Obila nursery Kisumu Winam West Kolwa Meru Nkumbuku nursery Meru North Muthaara Athwana Magaju nursery Meru Central Abo. Central Ruiri Bundi nursery Meru Central Abo. Central Ruiri Kireria Nursery Meru Central Buuri Naari Stephen M'Ikiao nursery Meru Central Kibirichia Kibirichia Athiri Gakando Group nursery Meru Central Kibirichia Ntugi Kipkona Group nursery Meru Central Kibirichia Ntumburi Zakayo Karuntimi nursery Meru Central Abo. West Katheri Central Karugwa tree nursery Meru Central Abo. West Githongo East
89
Nkubu Associated nurseries Meru Central Nkuene Kathera Kirindini Murithi Nursery Meru Central Nkuene Mikumbuni Kithua nursery Meru Central M. M. East Nyaki Joel Nursery Meru Central M. M. East Munithu Daniel's nursery Meru Central M. M. West Ntima Farm work nursery Meru Central M. M. West Ntima Murea seedlings Meru Central M. M. West Ntima Njuri Ncheke Museum nursery Meru North Uringu Nkomo Kirera Nursery Meru Central Abo. West Kithurine West Kamau nursery Meru Central Buuri Naari Kangau Youth group nursery Meru Central Timau Kangau Nairobi Njoma tree nursery Kiambu Limuru Ngarariga Grace nurseries Kiambu Lari Lari Roromo nurseries Kiambu Lari Gitithua Tigoni Chief's nursery Kiambu Limuru Tigoni Mombasa Road Nursery Machakos Athi river Mavoko Athi River Tree Nursery Machakos Athi river Mavoko Mugesan Nurseries Kajiado Ngong Rongai Kiserian Nursery Kajiado Ngong Kiserian Saitoti nurseries Kajiado Ngong Kiserian Kimani nurseries Kajiado Ngong Ngong Juja nurseries Thika Ruiru Juja Mutuku's nursery trees and flowers Thika Ruiru Ruiru Ricinus nursery Nairobi Kasarani Githurai Survey nursery Nairobi Kasarani Survey Francista Nurseries Nairobi Dagoretti Jamhuri Children Garden nursery Nairobi Dagoretti Riruta Dakikas Nursery Nairobi Langata Bomas Daffodils Nursery Nairobi Langata Karen Green nursery Gitaru Kiambu Kikuyu Muguga Indigenous and exotic tree nursery Kiambu Kikuyu Muguga
90
Appendix 4: List of seed dealers interviewed in the study and their localities Seed dealer name District Division Location Meru Nkumbuku Silinga Meru North Muthaara Athwana Abraham Muthee Kailemia Meru North Muthaara Kitherene Nyaga and Kinoti Meru Central MM West Ntima Stephen M'Ikiao Meru Central Kibirichia Kibirichia Benjamin Mutembei Meru Central North Imenti Nyaki M'Makinya M'Mungania Meru Central North Imenti Nyaki Reuben Meme Meru Central MM West Ntima Paul Muthuri Meru Central Buuri Naari Murugu M'Rintaara Meru Central Abo West Marathi M'Anampiu M'Nkanatha Meru Central Abo West Ntugi Western Kenya Christopher Liyala Busia Butula Marachi Central Wilfred Egesa Busia Matayos Bahayo South Peter Ogola Makokha Busia Matayos Nangoma Titus Mutoka Busia Nambale Nambale Township Alfred George Etiang'o Busia Nambale Nambale Township James Murende Kakamega Shinyalu Isukha Central Agnes Nekesa Trans Nzoia Kwanza Bwayi Angela Nekesa Trans Nzoia Sabaoti Waitalu Zakayo Kwendo Vihiga Luanda S. Bunyole Luka Echenye Vihiga Luanda S. Bunyole Nairobi Protus Simiyu Nairobi Langata Philip Kahia Kiambu Limuru Limuru Muturi Kinuthia Kiambu Kiambaa Karuri Peter Ndungu Kiambu Kiambaa Karuri Patrick Kimwana Kiambu Kikuyu Gitaru Chrysanthus Mabeya Kiambu Kikuyu Muguga Harrison Karanja Kiambu Kiambaa Kiambaa Munyao Ndolo Nairobi Langata Kibera David Magichu Kiambu Limuru Limuru Silas Ojienda Nairobi Dagoretti Riruta
91
Appendix 5: ANOVA table of the achieved germination rates given as percentage of expected germination rates as given in literature
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups (Combined) 33759.309 7 4822.758 0.863 0.537
Within Groups 1023173.958 183 5591.115
Total 1056933.267 190
Appendix 6: ANOVA on Seedling heights (mm) of Eucalyptus saligna procured
from Meru and western Kenya seed dealers and Cupressus lusitanica procured from peri-urban Nairobi seed dealers after 60 days in the nursery
Area / species Sum of
Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 24653.2 5 4930.6 4.4 0.001Within Groups 195875.5 174 1125.7
Meru (Eucalyptus saligna) Total 220528.7 179
Between Groups 7526.2 5 1505.2 2.9 0.014Within Groups 89184.1 174 512.6
Western Kenya (Eucalyptus saligna) Total 96710.3 179
Between Groups 50091.4 5 10018.3 54.7 0.000Within Groups 53842.3 294 183.1
Peri-Nairobi (Cupressus lusitanica) Total 103933.7 299
92
Appendix 7: Species shortfalls in nurseries compared species whose seeds are procured in excess and species with rare seed access in Meru, peri-urban Nairobi and western Kenya
Species with seed shortfalls
No of
nurseries
Species with excess supply of seeds
No of
nurseries
Species with scarcity of seeds
No of
nurseries
Acacia melanoxylon 1 Acacia mearnsii 1 Acacia sp 1
Acacia sp 2 Acacia sp 3 Albizia sp 1
Acrocarpus fraxinifolia 2 Acrocarpus
fraxinifolia 1 Araucaria cucii 1
Adansonia digitata 1 Albizia sp 2 Araucaria sp 5
Albizia chinensis 1 Aleurites moluccana 1 Azandrachta indica 5
Aleurites moluccana 1 Annona sp 1 Brachleana hutchinsii 1
Aningeria adolfi- friedericii 1 Araucaria spp 3 Calistemon citrina 1
Araucaria cucii 1 Azandrachta indica 4 Calliandra calothyrsus 2
Araucaria sp 1 Bauhinia sp 1 Callistris robusta 1
Atrocarpus eterophyla 1 Bischofia japonica 4 Casia sp 1
Azandrachta indica 1 Calistemon citrina 5 Chlorophora excelsa 1
Bischofia japonica 3 Calliandra calothyrsus 3 Cupressus lusitanica 1
Calistemon citrina 4 Carica papaya 5 Cupressus pyramidalis 6
Calliandra calothyrsus 30 Casuarina
equisetifolia 1 Cupressus sempervirens
2
Callistus robusta 7 Citrus sinensis 5 Delonix regia 1
Carica papaya 6 Citrus sp 1 Clonal Eucalyptus spp 1
Casuarina equisetifolia 32 Cordia africana 4 Eucalyptus grandis 1
Citrus sinensis 7 Croton macrostachyus 1 Entandophragma
angolense 1
Cordia Africana 2 Croton megalocarpus 1 Fagara macrophyla 1
Croton megalocarpus 1 Cupressus lusitanica 7 Ficus benjamina 2
Cuppressus lusitanica 16 Cupressus
pyramidalis 1 Ficus sp 2
Cyphomandra betaceae 1 Cupressus
sempervirens 2 Filicium decipiens 1
Delonix regia 5 Cyphomandra betacea 3 Hevea brasiliensis 1
Dovyalis caffra 29 Delonix regia 1 Leucaena trichandra 1
93
Ehretia cymosa 1 Dovyalis caffra 10 Teclea nobilis 1
Eucalyptus globulus 1 Eriobotrya japonica 2 Newtonia buchananii 2
Eucalyptus maculata 1 Erythrina sp 1 Ocotea usambarensis 1
Eucalyptus saligna 36 Eucalyptus camandulensis 2 Olea capensis 2
Ficus benjamina 6 Eucalyptus globulus 2 Olea europaea 3
Grevillea robusta 57 Eucalyptus saligna 4 Phoenix reclinata 3
Hakea saligna 2 Eucalyptus sp 2 Pinus spp 1
Jacaranda mimosifolia 9 Fagara macrophyla 1 Podocarpus sp 2
Juniperus procera 2 Ficus benjamina 2 Prunus africana 3
Leucaena leucocephala 5 Filicium decipiens 2 Schinus molle 1
Lovoa swynnertonii 1 Grevillea robusta 2 Terminalia mantaly 1
Macadamia tetraphyla 1 Hagenia abbysinica 1 Terminalia sp 1
Maesopsis eminii 1 Hakea saligna 1 Trichilia emetica 2
Malus sylvestris 3 Jacaranda mimosifolia 5 Warbugia ugandensis 1
Mangifera indica 8 Juniperus procera 1 Ashoka tree† 1
Markhamia lutea 8 Leucaena trichandra 1 Flowers 1
Melia azedarach 1 Macadamia tetraphyla 1 Indigenous species 3
Moringa oleifera 1 Maesopsis eminii 1 Thuiya† 1
Newtonia buchananii 1 Mangifera indica 3 Timber species 1
Olea capensis 3 Markhamia lutea 4
Olea europaea 6 Melia azedarach 1
Passiflora edulis 4 Milettia dura 2
Persea americana 13 Ocotea usambarensis 1
Phoenix reclinata 2 Olea capensis 3
Pinus patula 6 Olea africana 2
Podocarpus sp 6 Phoenix reclinata 1
Prunus africana 8 Passiflora edulis 4
Pyrus communis 2 Persea americana 5
Schinus molle 3 Pinus patula 2
Senna siamea 4 Podocarpus falcatus 4
Senna spectabilis 3 Polyscias kikuyuensis 1
94
Spathodea nilotica 6 Prunus aricana 10
Tamarindus indica 1 Psidium guajava 1
Teclea nobilis 1 Pyracanthus sp 1
Terminalia brownii 2 Schinus molle 1
Terminalia catappa 6 Senna spectabilis 4
Terminalia mantaly 12 Senna spp 1
Tipuana tipu 1 Sesbania sesban 1
Trichilia emetica 1 Spathodea nilotica 3
Vitex kenienis 10 Terminalia catappa 1
Warbugia ugandensis 1 Terminalia mantaly 2
Zizygium guajava 1 Tipuana tipu 1
Zizyphus cuminii 1 Trichilia emetica 2
Vangueria sp 1
Vitex keniensis 5
Warbugia ugandensis 5
Xanthoxylum usambarense 2
Ashoka tree† 1
Pastacia † 1
† It was difficult to identify species’ botanical name and there was no seedling sample present in the nurseries to help with the identification
95
Appendix 8: Species with seed shortfalls and rare seed access in the surveyed sites as
given by seed dealers
Species shortfalls Number of responses Scarce species
Number of responses
Calliandra calothyrsus 3 Araucaria sp 2 Casuarina equisetifolia 1 Azandrachta indica 2 Cupressus lusitanica 1 Calliandra calothyrsus 1 Dovyalis caffra 4 Casuarina equisetifolia 1 Eucalyptus saligna 1 Cupresus pyramidalis 1 Grevillea robusta 11 Cupressus sempervirens 2 Pinus patula 3 Eucalyptus sp 1 Prunus africana 1 Gliricidia sepium 1 Pyracantha coccinea 1 Grevillea robusta 3 Trichilia roka 1 Markhamia lutea 1 Olea capensis 2 Pinus patula 5 Prunus africana 1 Phoenix reclinata 1 Terminalia sp 1 Vitex keniensis 1 Waburgia ugandensis 2 Thuya 1 Indigenous species 2
96
Appendix 9: Frequencies of species mentioned as among the top three most dealt with by seed dealers
Species Indigenous/exotic Frequency Percentageּז
Araucaria sp Exotic 1 1 Calistemon citrina Exotic 1 1 Calliandra calothyrsus Exotic 7 6 Casuarina equisetifolia Exotic 2 2 Cordia africana Indigenous 1 1 Crotalaria grahamiana Indigenous 1 1 Cupressus lusitanica Exotic 9 8 Dovyalis caffra Exotic 19 16 Eucalyptus sp Exotic 27 4 Grevillea robusta Exotic 28 24 Leucaena sp Exotic 3 3 Maesopsis eminii Indigenous 2 2 Markhamia lutea Indigenous 2 2 Mimosa sp Exotic 1 1 Moringa oleifera Exotic 1 1 Olea capensis Indigenous 2 2 Pinus patula Exotic 3 3 Pyracantha coccinea Exotic 1 1 Sesbania sesban Indigenous 1 1 Teclea nobilis Indigenous 1 1 Tephrosia vogelii Indigenous 1 1 Terminalia mantaly Exotic 1 1 Vitex keniensis Indigenous 2 2
Percentages are given as the proportion of the frequency of the species out of the total number of זּtimber al species are mentioned and not as percentage of the number of seed dealers