Current Situation of Rapid Multiplication Techniques for Early Generation Seed Potato Production in Sub- Saharan Africa A U G U S T 2 0 1 8 Dieudonné Harahagazwe, Jorge Andrade-Piedra, Monica Maud Parker, Elmar Schulte-Geldermann RTB Working Paper Correct citation: Harahagazwe, D., Andrade-Piedra, J., Parker, M. and Schulte-Geldermann, E. 2018. Current situation of rapid multiplication techniques for early generation seed potato production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lima (Peru). CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). RTB Working Paper. No. 2018-1. Available online at: www.rtb.cgiar.org and https://cgspace.cgiar.org/ Published by the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas The CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) is a partnership collaboration led by the International Potato Center implemented jointly with Bioversity International, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), and the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), that includes a growing number of research and development partners. RTB brings together research on its mandate crops: bananas and plantains, cassava, potato, sweetpotato, yams, and minor roots and tubers, to improve nutrition and food security and foster greater gender equity especially among some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations. Contact: RTB Program Management Unit International Potato Center (CIP) Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru rtb@cgiar.org • www.rtb.cgiar.org ISSN 2309-6586 DOI: 10.4160/23096586RTBWP20181 © International Potato Center on behalf of RTB Creative Commons License This working paper is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. Disclaimer: This RTB Working Paper is intended to disseminate research and practices about production and utilization of roots, tubers and bananas and to encourage debate and exchange of ideas. The views expressed in the papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of RTB, CGIAR or the publishing institution. Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................. ii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 5 3. Results and Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 GEOLOCATION OF EGS SUPPLY FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 6 3.2 RMTs FOR EGS POTATO IN SSA............................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Seed supply schemes ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Who does what in RMTs? ................................................................................................................ 9 3.2.3 Current capacity in minituber production...................................................................................... 11 3.2.4 Predominant varieties in seed systems ......................................................................................... 12 3.2.5 Seed quality and internal health control ....................................................................................... 14 3.2.6 Seed classes ................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.7 Strengths and areas for improvement ........................................................................................... 14 3.3 Country profiles and challenges on formal seed systems ....................................................................... 16 3.3.1 Burundi .......................................................................................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Ethiopia ......................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Kenya ............................................................................................................................................. 21 3.3.4 Malawi ........................................................................................................................................... 23 3.3.5 Rwanda .......................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.6 Tanzania ........................................................................................................................................ 28 3.3.7 Uganda .......................................................................................................................................... 30 3.4 Comparative advantage of RMTs and seed cost ..................................................................................... 32 3.4.1 Yield gains ...................................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.2 Strengths and weaknesses ............................................................................................................ 33 3.4.3 Seed price ...................................................................................................................................... 34 4. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 36 References cited ................................................................................................................................................... 38 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................... 41 Annex 1. Study timeline ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Annex 2. Study questionnaire ............................................................................................................................... 43 Annex 3. Key informants met with during the study tour .................................................................................... 45 Annex 4. Capacity of seed facilities for potato minituber production in seven SSA countries............................. 46 List of Tables Table 1 Geographic coordinates and altitudes of production sites for EGS potato .......................................... 6 Table 2. Key stakeholders and major techniques used in producing EGS potato in seven SSA countries ....... 10 Table 3. End-users’ preferences for potato varieties grown in seven SSA countries ....................................... 13 Table 4. Terminology used in naming seed classes in formal seed potato systems of seven SSA countries ... 14 Table 5. Key strengths and areas for improvement of seed potato systems visited in four SSA countries ..... 15 Table 6. Production capacity of TC laboratories producing seed potato in Kenya ........................................... 22 Table 7. Main strengths and weaknesses of EGS potato production techniques as expressed by respondents in seven SSA countries .......................................................................................................................................... 34 List of Figures Figure 1: Schematic representation of RMTs for seed potato production ............................................................ 3 Figure 2: Schematic representation of formal seed potato supply schemes in SSA............................................... 8 Figure 3: Capacity of facilities used for potato minituber production in seven SSA countries using three techniques. ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Minituber production over time in seven SSA countries.. ..................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Burundi. ................................................... 17 Figure 6: Production of in vitro potato plantlets and minitubers at ISABU for the last 20 years.. ....................... 18 Figure 7: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Ethiopia. ................................................... 19 Figure 8: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Kenya.. ..................................................... 21 Figure 9: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Malawi. .................................................... 24 Figure 10: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Rwanda. ................................................. 26 Figure 11: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Tanzania................................................. 29 Figure 12: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Uganda. ................................................. 31 Figure 13: Actual potato minituber yields of two RMTs in comparison with the conventional technique in seven SSA countries. ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 14: Yield comparison between sectors for minituber production using the conventional technique, aeroponics, and hydroponics. Bars represent the double of the respective standard errors. ............................. 33 Figure 15: Unit costs of in vitro potato plantlets, rooted apical cuttings, and minitubers in seven SSA countries. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Acronyms AARC Adet Agricultural Research Center ADC Agricultural Development Corporation ARARI Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute ARI Agricultural Research Institute CIP International Potato Center DARS Department of Agricultural Research Services EGS Early generation seed ELISA Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay GPS Global Positioning System GTIL Genetic Technologies International Limited HARC Holetta Agricultural Research Center ISABU Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi LB Late blight N/A Not available and/or not applicable NARO National Agricultural Research Organization NGO Nongovernmental organization ORDA Organization for Rehabilitation and Development of Amhara PCR Polymerase chain reaction QDS Quality declared seed RAB Rwanda Agriculture Board RMTs Rapid multiplication techniques RTB CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas Rwf Rwanda francs SOPYRWA Pyrethrum Corporate of Rwanda SRK Stokman Rozen Kenya Ltd SSA Sub-Saharan Africa TC Tissue culture TPRC Tigoni Potato Research Centre USAID United States Agency for International Development S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A i Abstract The potato crop is increasingly becoming one of the top food crops in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in terms of production, regional trade, and consumption. However, potato growers (mainly smallholder farmers) still face many challenges that cause huge yield gaps with direct impact on their livelihoods and income. It is common knowledge that the major driver for these yield losses is seed degeneration and poor dissemination of improved varieties. In this study we assess the current situation in the production of early generation seed (EGS) potato to understand critical problems that limit the efficiency of technologies used. The survey was conducted in seven SSA countries (Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda) from November to December 2017. It consisted of site visits, face-to-face interviews, secondary information, and information exchange through various communication platforms. This paper provides insights on the principal actors in producing in vitro plantlets, cuttings, and minitubers, with emphasis on the technologies used, the production capacity in place, and challenges. One of the key findings is that the total production of minitubers in the seven countries increased tenfold from 2008 to 2017. In this regard, Kenya and Rwanda turn out to be the major investors and producers of EGS potato in SSA. Schematic representations are used to depict the organizational structures of national formal seed systems. Rapid multiplication techniques used, including aeroponics, hydroponics, and rooted apical cuttings, are described and their comparative advantages to the conventional technique outlined. We also provide an overview on the germplasm used in seed systems, with a special focus on end-users’ preferences. The paper also provides contextualized suggestions on how to improve the efficiency of the seed systems analyzed. Keywords: seed systems, in vitro plantlets, aeroponics, hydroponics, minitubers, rooted cuttings. i i S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Acknowledgments This research was undertaken as part of, and funded by, the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas and the International Potato Center supported by CGIAR Trust Fund contributors. We also extend special thanks to all scientists and other partners who kindly shared their data and perspectives. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 1 Current Situation of Rapid Multiplication Techniques for Early Generation Seed Potato Production in Sub-Saharan Africa 1. INTRODUCTION The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is currently the third most important food crop after rice and wheat for human consumption and is eaten by more than a billion people worldwide (Devaux et al., 2014). In 2007 a record 325m ts of potato were produced, becoming the first non-grain commodity for humankind. In fact, production of potato increased faster in developing countries than any other major crop (FAO, 2009). Likewise, demand for food, feed, and energy is rising, a trend that is expected to continue as global population and average incomes increase (Lobell et al., 2009). The impact of a growing population on food demand will be accentuated in developing countries in general, and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in particular, as the latter is expected to account for one half of the world’s population by 2050 compared with one fifth in 1999 (Alexandratos, 1999). On the supply side, experts suggest that maximum possible yields for major cereals achieved in farmers’ fields might level off or even decline in many regions over the next few decades (Lobell et al., 2009). That means potatoes will continue to play a key role in fighting hunger and increasing incomes of smallholder farmers, especially in countries like Rwanda and Kenya, where this commodity is one of the top priority crops (Ferrari et al., 2017; Kaguongo et al., 2014). To achieve this goal, however, efforts need to be made by various stakeholders to close huge potato yield gaps that prevail in developing countries, including SSA (Harahagazwe et al., 2018). As extensively described in the literature, potato yield gaps in SSA are mostly caused by seed degeneration and the poor dissemination of new varieties and good agricultural practices (Gildemacher et al., 2009; Schulte- Geldermann et al., 2012; Thomas-Sharma et al., 2016) in a region where over 95% of potatoes planted come from the informal seed systems (Ferrari et al., 2017; Kaguongo et al., 2014). The formal seed systems are still weak and inefficient due to many factors, making quality seed less accessible by smallholder farmers. It is in this context that the International Potato Center (CIP) conducted this study under the auspices of the CGIAR Research Program on Root, Tuber and Banana (RTB) crops. This study aimed at assessing and documenting the current situation of rapid multiplication techniques (RMTs) in SSA. The emphasis is on RMTs because they are the first step to producing high-quality seed and are frequently reported as a bottleneck in seed systems. 2 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 STUDY AREA This study was conducted in seven SSA countries: Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. These countries were selected to provide an overview of what is happening in SSA (excluding South Africa) because they are top priority countries for CIP’s potato research in Africa. Therefore, their potato research programs have been supported by CIP for many years. 2.2 DEFINITIONS Below we provide a glossary of key concepts commonly used in the production of early generation seed (EGS) potato. Seed systems. A seed system is a set of components such as breeding, management, replacement, and distribution of seed. The system becomes formal when its components are regulated by a government body and informal when managed by farmers themselves (Thiele, 1999). Early generation seed. EGS is planting material (commonly referred to as seed) produced either in tissue culture (TC) laboratories (in vitro conditions) or under protective structures1 (screenhouses, greenhouses, shade houses, etc.) (semi in-vivo conditions, sensu Struik and Wiersema, 2012) by specialized entities that are authorized by regulatory bodies. This seed can be in vitro plantlets, microtubers, cuttings, or minitubers, depending on the type of material and multiplication technique used. One of the common characteristics of this seed is that the weight does not mean much, as they are instead counted individually. Rapid multiplication techniques. RMTs are any type of manipulations that significantly increase tuber yield per plant. An RMT differs from the common way of planting in normal potting soil and destructively harvesting the plants at the end of their growth cycle (ibid.) in a bid to improve the efficiency of seed systems, mostly formal. Many RMTs exist, but the most common in developing countries are micropropagation (plantlets and microtubers), cuttings (single-node, tuber-sprout, axillary, leaf-bud, apical), aeroponics, and hydroponics (illustrated in Figure 1). 1. Protective structures are defined as any structures designed to modify the environment in which plants grown. They are classified into two groups: nonporous roof structures or greenhouses and porous-roof structures such as screen/shade houses (Santos et al., 2017). S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3 Figure 1: Schematic representation of RMTs for seed potato production (Bryan et al., 1981; Struik and Wiersema, 2012). In vitro conditions refer to tissue culture (TC) laboratories, and semi in vivo conditions refer to screenhouses and greenhouses. Micropropagation. It is the technique of cutting disinfected healthy plant material into individual stem pieces (single nodes) with one axial bud and the subtending leaf to obtain in vitro plantlets. The pieces are placed on a growth medium and are left to grow for about 4 weeks, depending on the genotype or cultivar and the growing conditions (Struik and Wiersema, 2012). This technique takes place in a TC laboratory using a standard culture medium called Murashige and Skoog. Microtubers can also be produced in TC laboratories (ibid.). Conventional technique. It is the standard way of producing tubers in substrate using in vitro plantlets under protective structures. In most cases the substrate used is made of normal soil (e.g., forest soil), sand and peat, or compost at a ratio of 2:1:1. It is the oldest technique used in SSA, and it was included in the study as a baseline for assessing the performance of RMTs. Single-node cutting technique. The technique consists of cutting a stem in order to isolate individual nodes for further use either in the TC laboratory (micropropagation) or under protective structures where they become new plants. When this technique is applied in screenhouses, stems of “mother plants” (produced from in vitro plantlets, small tubers, or sprout cuttings) are removed when the plants are at the five- to six-leaf stage. One large leaf is left at the base to provide the regrowth from the axillary bud. Two to 10 consecutive harvests can be conducted, and every time the single-node cuttings undergo the rooting and then the transplanting process (Bryan et al., 1981). Leaf-bud Rapid Multiplication Techniques In vitro conditions Semi in vivo conditions Plantlets Microtubers Cuttings Minitubers Tuber sprout Single- node Axillary Apical Aeroponics Hydroponics 4 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Sprout cutting technique. Sprouts used in this technique are first removed from seed tubers and every sprout is cut into pieces with one to two nodes on each piece. These pieces are then rooted in fine sand (less than 1-mm grain size) before they are transplanted under protective structures or in the field (ibid.). Hormones may also be used in combination with alternate exposure of tubers to light and darkness to boost sprout growth. Axillary cutting technique. It is a three-step method widely known in seed potato production. It is conducted as follows: (1) apical growing tips are removed from each stem to break the dormancy of axillary buds; (2) new shoots then develop from axillary buds at each leaf; and (3) these new shoots are harvested as cuttings when they are 10–15 cm long. The cuttings are then rooted in a moist and coarse sand (1–2 mm) prior to transplanting in screenhouses or in the field (ibid.). Leaf-bud cutting technique. When a normal potato plant is about to senesce, stems are cut into pieces composed of a node and a leaf each. These pieces are then placed in fine sand with the leaf left above the sand surface. After a period of 4–6 weeks, tiny tubers (5–10 mm in diameter) known as “tuberlets” are formed from axillary buds (ibid.). Rooted apical cutting technique. In this technique being introduced in SSA, two-node apical cuttings (4–5 cm long) are harvested several times at intervals of 2–3 weeks from in vitro-derived mother plants. The first harvest occurs when the plants reach the height of 12–15 cm and/or comprise 5–6 simple leaves. The cuttings are then rooted in trays with a substrate of coconut sawdust, clean subsoil, and sterilized decomposed manure in the proportion of 2:1:1. The cuttings are finally transplanted in the field once they are fully rooted. Maintaining the juvenile stage of the mother plant is key to retaining productivity, whereby the mother plant remains with simple leaves (Bryan et al., 1981; VanderZaag, 2013). Rooted apical cuttings are transplanted right away in the field, thereby saving one generation, as minitubers are no longer needed (Parker, 2017). Aeroponics technique. It is a method of soilless culture, whereby the underground organs are enclosed in a dark chamber and supplied with a nutrient solution through a tight misting system under protective structures to produce minitubers (Farran and Mingo-Castel, 2006). The system consists of a culture chamber, pump, spraying system, timer, and nutrient solution tank. A pipe with several nozzles passes through the culture chamber and sprays nutrient solution onto the roots at regular timings. The minitubers are harvested as they reach the desired size (Naik and Karihaloo, 2007). CIP recommends the use of in vitro plantlets in the aeroponics system, but sprout cuttings and axillary cuttings can also be used (Otazu, 2010). Hydroponics technique. The CIP model of a hydroponics system as being promoted in developing countries is a technique for producing high-quality minitubers without electricity, as it does not require installing pumps (Mbiri et al., 2015). The system comprises the following components: (1) the plants from in vitro plantlets, cuttings, or minitubers; (2) an inert aerated substrate in pots or beds; and (3) an upper tank with nutrient solution connected to watering pipes. There are various forms of hydroponics in the region, depending on the type of substrate used (most commonly sand). In that case, growers do prefer to use the term sandponics. Other substrates include coco peat, imported peat moss, and sawdust used at the Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC) S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 5 Seed Potato Complex (Kenya), Mtanga Foods Ltd (Tanzania), and Agricultural Research Institute (ARI)–Uyole (Tanzania), respectively. 2.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data and views presented in this report come from various sources: (1) face-to-face interviews conducted during site visits in Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, and Tanzania; (2) authors’ personal observations and data; (3) literature review; and (4) emails and phone calls. The study was conducted in November and December 2017 (Annex 1) using a questionnaire containing the following clusters of questions: what is being done?; how is it being done?; and what is the level of performance? (Annex 2). In each site we captured the coordinates and altitude using a mobile phone application (GPS Essentials version 4.4.23). For sites that were not visited, the geographic location was estimated using Google Earth. The key players (details are provided in Annex 3) were identified based on our own knowledge and through contact points in the respective countries following the RTB conceptual framework on seed systems for root, tuber and banana crops (RTB, 2016). In the three countries where site visits were not conducted, the questionnaire was emailed to the following contact scientists: Mr. Ernest Vyizigiro, of the Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi (ISABU–Burundi), Dr. Paul Demo (CIP–Malawi), and Dr. Prossy Namugga of the National Agricultural Research Organization Uganda (NARO–Uganda). Based on information gathered, graphs and descriptive statistics were generated using SigmaPlot V14 and Microsoft Excel programs. Seed supply systems in the countries were described using schematic representations; the strengths and areas that require special attention for the programs visited were outlined. 6 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Overall, results obtained in this study show that stakeholders in SSA are making substantial progress in increasing the production of EGS potato and improving the efficiency of seed potato supplies, despite the challenge of accessing accurate data. In many cases production is taking place without any proper data recording and reporting. The scarcity of data does not apply to historical data only, because even data as recent as from last season were hard to obtain. 3.1 GEOLOCATION OF EGS SUPPLY FACILITIES Global Positioning System data collected show that most of the EGS potato production sites are located at altitudes ranging from 1,800 to 2,040 masl (Table 1). Temperatures inside TC laboratories and protective structures for minituber production (especially through aeroponics and hydroponics) are usually higher than the optimal potato temperature of 17°C (Harahagazwe et al., 2012). Therefore, these infrastructures need to be installed at higher altitudes to minimize production costs of air conditioners, except in TC laboratories where they are mandatory regardless of the altitude. We even found that one of the greenhouses of Amhara Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) in Bahir Dar uses huge air conditioners. We also observed at Stokman Rozen Kenya Ltd (SRK) that an internal shade curtain in the greenhouse where rooted apical cuttings were being produced could lower temperature by as much as 9°C (i.e., from 34° to 25°C). Table 1. Geographic coordinates and altitudes of production sites for EGS potato Country Institution Location Latitude Longitude Altitude (masl) Burundi ISABU Gisozi S3° 33' 55.292" E29° 40' 50.171" 2,095 Ethiopia AARC Adet N11° 16' 35.173" E37° 29' 31.725" 2,168 ARARI–Bahir Dar Bahir Dar N11° 35' 5.366" E37° 22' 16.417" 1,794 HARC Holetta N9° 3' 10.825" E38° 30' 20.213" 2,352 ORDA Bahir Dar N11° 34' 21.856" E37° 25' 2.424" 1,827 Kenya ADC Seed Potato Complex Molo S0° 14' 44.318" E35° 43' 49.425" 2,459 GTIL Nairobi S1° 14' 47.202" E36° 46' 11.035" 1,789 Kisima Farm Timau N0° 7' 12.021" E37° 24' 55.253" 2,400 SRK Naivasha S0° 49' 14.786" E36° 15' 32.342" 1,926 TPRC Tigoni S1° 9' 5.191" E36° 41' 8.592" 2,080 Malawi Universal Industries Ltd Njuli S15° 39' 2.48" E35° 9' 2.199" 1,083 Rwanda Horizon SOPYRWA Kinigi S1° 26' 9.250" E29° 36' 6.322" 2,284 RAB–Musanze Musanze S1° 30' 6.962" E29° 37' 46.711" 1,864 Tanzania ARI–Uyole Uyole S8° 55' 2.063" E33° 31' 29.866" 1,807 Beula Seed Uyole S8° 54' 25.632" E33° 30' 35.294" 1,767 Mtanga Foods Ltd Mgagao S8° 8' 27.646" E35° 49' 23.549" 2,052 Uganda NARO–Kachwekano Kachwekano S1° 14' 55.687" E29° 58' 21.010" 1,820 masl = meters above sea level; AARC = Adet Agricultural Research Center; ORDA = Organization for Rehabilitation and Development of Amhara; HARC = Holetta Agricultural Research Center; TPRC = Tigoni Potato Research Centre; GTIL = Genetic Technologies International Limited; RAB = Rwanda Agriculture Board. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 7 Higher altitudes in the tropics also represent an ideal agro-ecology for producing clean seed because the cooler environment is not favorable for most pests and diseases. That is why potato growers in the tropics have been urged by scientists to grow seed potato from one generation to the next following a logical topo sequence—that is, from high altitudes downwards and never the other way around. This is a powerful strategy in seed management against degeneration, as described by Thomas-Sharma et al. (2016). 3.2 RMTs FOR EGS POTATO IN SSA 3.2.1 SEED SUPPLY SCHEMES A typical seed system in SSA starts with in vitro plantlets that come primarily from CIP’s genebank either in Lima or Nairobi, as most of the varieties officially registered have a CIP origin.2 At present, the programs do not have the capabilities or skills to clean up materials through a combination of meristem culture, thermotherapy (heat stress), and chemotherapy with antiviral compounds (Naik and Karihaloo, 2007). The exception is Tigoni Potato Research Centre (TPRC), where they have started to build this capacity; however, the facility is not yet fully operational. At ARI–Uyole and Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB)–Musanze, tuber sprouts are sometimes used to produce in vitro plantlets for varieties that are not available in their ex situ germplasm conservation (e.g. ‘Kikondo’, a variety grown in Tanzania). Europe is becoming the second source of in vitro plantlets as new European varieties, mainly from the Netherlands, are introduced and registered in SSA countries. Once the material is available in laboratories, the formal seed systems produce (1) plantlets and microtubers (though not common in SSA) under in vitro conditions; (2) minitubers or cuttings in protective structures; and (3) high-quality seed in the field. All the systems found in different countries follow this schematic representation (summarized in Figure 2). 2. Normally, CIP does not provide in vitro plants for seed production. They are distributed to introduce new germplasm to national programs or to renew degenerated materials from time to time. 8 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Figure 2: Schematic representation of formal seed potato supply schemes in SSA. Dashed lines mean that the system is still at experimental stage or is less important. Protective structures include screenhouses and greenhouses. Beside this seed supply scheme, some seed programs are experimenting with techniques that could allow seed to move from in vitro to field conditions by planting plantlets right away in the field (Figure 2). This is the case in Rwanda, where the government is pushing for a much shorter seed program by investing heavily in EGS potato facilities. The current production capacity in the TC laboratory of Musanze exceeds 1m plantlets in a season. A trial being conducted on-station during our visit shows that two in vitro plantlets planted together in a hill can easily produce over 40 tubers (Photo 1). S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 9 The other innovation in experimentation in SSA is the use of rooted apical cuttings (Figure 2). This technique, which is now a success story in Vietnam after 4 years since being introduced (VanderZaag, 2017, personal communication), is being tested by two large seed companies in Kenya (SRK) and Rwanda (Horizon SOPYRWA). The validation of this technique is still ongoing and on-farm trials are being conducted by the two companies. Preliminary results show that a rooted apical cutting can produce up to 15 tubers, depending on the variety (Parker, 2017). 3.2.2 WHO DOES WHAT IN RMTs? Following the scheme shown in Figure 1, key stakeholders conducting RMTs were mapped (see Table 2). Out of the 18 institutions studied, 9 belong to governments and 9 are in the private sector. In TC laboratories, stakeholders seem to be interested in producing in vitro plantlets; no one has been reported to be producing microtubers. Photo 1: Experiment on direct planting of in vitro plantlets in the field at RAB–Musanze, Rwanda. Trial in the field (left), harvest sampling (top right), and yield (bottom right) of a two-plantlet hill. Sampling took place 63 days after planting on a newly released variety called ‘Twihaze’. Photos: authors. 1 0 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Table 2.Key stakeholders and major techniques used in producing EGS potato in seven SSA countries Country Institution Institution Status In vitro Conditions Under Protective Structures* Cuttings Minitubers TC Plantlets Single- node Rooted Apical Conventional Aeroponics Hydroponics Burundi ISABU Public ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ethiopia ARARI TC lab Public ✓ ✓ AARC Public ✓ ORDA Private ✓ ✓ HARC Public ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Kenya ADC Seed Potato Complex Private ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SRK Private ✓ ✓ ✓ TPRC Public ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Kisima Farm Ltd Private ✓ GTIL Private ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Malawi DARS Public ✓ ✓ ✓ Universal Industries Private ✓ Rwanda RAB Musanze Public ✓ ✓ ✓ Horizon SOPYRWA Private ✓ ✓ Tanzania ARI–Uyole Public ✓ ✓ ✓ Mtanga Foods Ltd Private ✓ Beula Company Private ✓ Uganda NARO Public ✓ ✓ ✓ * Protective structures include screenhouses and greenhouses. DARS = Department of Agricultural Research Services. Under protective structures, the production of EGS potato in SSA is still dominated by the conventional technique (Figure 3), although as shown Kenya and Rwanda are currently the major investors in EGS facilities even though the conventional technique remains dominant. For minituber production in the region, 49% is being produced using the conventional technique, 30% by hydroponics, and 21% by aeroponics (Annex 4). This means that, like in Latin America (Mateus-Rodriguez et al., 2013), the conventional technique remains the most commonly used technology to produce minitubers in Africa. As one respondent stated during the interview, the conventional technique remains the easiest and most resilient way of producing clean seed potato when working conditions and funding are suboptimal. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 1 1 Figure 3: Capacity of facilities used for potato minituber production in seven SSA countries using three techniques. Figures represent total tubers that could be produced if current facilities were used at full capacity. As in the case of microtubers, several cutting techniques are not in use, including tuber sprout, leaf-bud, and axillary cuttings. However, sprout cuttings from minitubers are commonly used at CIP–Lima to produce initial planting material for aeroponics (Andrade-Piedra et al., 2015) and sandponics in Peru. The single-node cutting technique is almost absent in the region except in a few cases, like ADC Seed Potato Complex, where it is used to multiply the in vitro plantlets before they are transplanted in aeroponics. It is also under experimentation at TPRC, but they use minitubers instead of in vitro plantlets to produce mother plants. 3.2.3 CURRENT CAPACITY IN MINITUBER PRODUCTION Data collected in seven SSA countries show that the capacity for minituber production is significantly increasing thanks to RMTs (Figure 4), in part as a result of CIP’s interventions. Investments in RMTs included the implementation of a CIP project entitled “3 Seed Potato Generation Revolution” (also known as the 3G Project). This project was implemented in five countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, and Uganda) in 2008–2013 (Demo et al., 2015). Figure 4: Minituber production over time in seven SSA countries. Graph adapted from Demo et al. (2015). 2017 data were provided by respondents. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Ethiopia Burundi Malawi Uganda Ex p ec te d m in it u b er s (x 1 0 0 0 )/ se as o n Conventional Aeroponics Hydroponics 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Kenya Rwanda Burundi Ethiopia Tanzania Uganda Malawi N u m b er ( x1 0 0 0 ) o f m in it u b er s p ro d u ce d Country2008 2013 2017 1 2 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Over half a million in vitro plantlets can be accommodated at one time under protective structures for minituber production in the seven study countries, and more than 7.5m minitubers can be produced in a single season. This represents the quantity of seed required to plant over 151 ha per season, compared with only 10 ha per season in 2008—using minitubers locally produced (i.e., 93,500 minitubers in Uganda, Rwanda, Malawi, Kenya, and Ethiopia [Demo et al., 2015]) and 148,034 minitubers in Burundi. There was, however, no minituber production in Tanzania in 2008 (Kakuhenzire et al., 2015) as shown in Figure 4. Despite this huge capacity of EGS infrastructures in the seven countries, the actual production remains far below the expectations. The total number of minitubers produced in 2017 represents 65% of minitubers that can be produced in a single season of 3–6 months. 3.2.4 PREDOMINANT VARIETIES IN SEED SYSTEMS CIP’s impact in the region is very visible when one looks at the types of varieties grown and consumed for over three decades. In this study only 5 out of the 25 most preferred varieties did not originate at CIP (Table 3). The table also shows that farmers, who seem to be the final decisionmakers in selecting the varieties—not consumers as expected—are unlikely to favor a variety with long dormancy because consumers prefer varieties with longer shelf life. We also noticed that it is hard for new varieties to replace old ones that are still very popular in countries like Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Malawi. One of the reasons is that most of the improved varieties released require improved agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizers) that smallholder farmers cannot afford. As well, some of those new varieties underperform when it comes to seed production, because almost all tubers produced are too large to be used as seed. This is the case with the variety ‘Uganda 11’ (also called ‘Rutuku’) grown in Burundi and Uganda. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 1 3 Table 3. End-users’ preferences for potato varieties grown in seven SSA countries Country Most Preferred Varieties Most Disliked Varieties Variety FYR Reasons Variety Reasons Burundi Ndinamagara (Cruza- 148 or 720118) 1985 Good taste, short dormancy, and tolerance to drought, late blight (LB), and viruses Ingabire (CIP381381.26) Long dormancy Victoria (CIP381381.20) 1998 High yield, good chips, early maturing Rukuzi (KP90116.89) Long dormancy Magome (CIP382195.21) 2004 High yield Ruhanyura (CIP382171.4) Long dormancy Mabondo (800983) 1988 High yield Uganda 11 (720097) Long dormancy Ethiopia Gudene (CIP386423.13) 2006 High yield, good taste with storability Awash (CIP378501.3) Low yield, susceptible to viruses Jalene (CIP384321.19) 2002 High yield, good taste Gorebella (CIP382173.12) Low yield, susceptible to LB Belete (CIP393371.58) 2009 High yield, tolerance to LB Gera (KP90134.2) Deep eyes Dagim (CIP396004.337) High yield, tolerance to LB Degemegn (CIP37792.5) Susceptible to viruses Zengena (CIP380479.6) 2001 High yield Mara-Charre (CIP389701.3) Low yield Bubu (CIP384321.30) High yield, good taste Milki (CIP394640.539) Low yield Kenya Shangi (Local variety recently registered in Kenya) N/A Taste, short dormancy Tigoni (CIP381381.13) Long dormancy Dutch Robijn 1945 Long shelf life Asante (CIP381381.20) Long dormancy Konjo (CIP393077.159) 2017 Shelf life, good taste Kenya Mpya (CIP393371.58) Long dormancy Unica (CIP392797.22) 2017 Dual purpose (tolerance to LB, viruses, and drought, and highly preferred on market) Malawi Thandizo (CIP381381.13) 2012 High yield, resistance to LB Njuli (CIP396027.205) Long dormancy Zikomo (CIP381381.20) 2012 High yield, early maturing, resistance to LB Chuma (CIP395015.6) 2012 High yield, resistance to LB Mwai (CIP396036.201) 2012 High yield, resistance to LB Violet (local variety) N/A Popular local cultivar Rosita (local variety) N/A Popular local cultivar Rwanda Kinigi (CIP378699.2) 1984 Higher price on market but not good for processing due to deep eyes Cruza Violet color ring in the flesh and falls apart when cooked Gikungu (CIP387233.24) 1992 Its red skin is attractive on the market and it is liked by consumers (French fries and table potatoes) Sangema (800849) Long dormancy Kirundo (820119) 1989 Good vigor, high yield Victoria (CIP381381.20) Susceptible to LB Tanzania Kikondo (CIP720050) 1987 Resilient in field conditions, good shape of tubers with shallow eyes, and highly preferred on the market Sherekea (CIP393385.39) Test is not good, deep eyes Shangi (informally diffused from Kenya) N/A Good shape of tubers with shallow eyes and highly preferred on the market because of flesh color (yellow) Meru (Kenya Mpya or CIP393371.58) Hollow heart, thus not liked on the market Tengeru (CIP381381.13) 2012 High yield, highly preferred on chips market Asante (CIP381381.20) 2012 High yield, large size tubers Uganda Rwangume 1991 High yield, marketable, and good seed size Cruza Mushy when cooked and white skinned Kinigi (CIP378699.2) 1992 High yield and good for chips Kachpot 2 Susceptible to bacterial wilt Victoria (CIP381381.20) 1992 High yield and early maturing Rutuku (Uganda 11) 1972 High yield and good cooking quality FYR= Year of release and/or public use; Source: Data from respondents. 1 4 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3.2.5 SEED QUALITY AND INTERNAL HEALTH CONTROL The seed schemes are organized such that the more one bulks seed the more seed quality decreases due to seed degeneration (Figure 2). Most seed programs know how to diagnose viral and bacterial diseases using enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits from CIP. Yet we saw no evidence during our site visits that this internal quality control is systematically conducted, mainly due to the absence of ELISA kits (e.g., Ethiopia and Tanzania), limited staff and/or staff time (e.g., Kenya, Tanzania), and/or lack of regulations in the matter. We learned, however, from our respondents that this control is routinely carried out in Burundi, where minitubers are randomly sampled and tested using ELISA every season prior to planting in the field. We noticed, too, that although some programs do have polymerase chain reaction (PCR) equipment on hand, no one is trained on how to use it. That is the case of Holetta Agricultural Research Center (HARC), which recently received the equipment through a project funded by South Korea. 3.2.6 SEED CLASSES Across the region the different regulations adopt different terms to name seed produced from one growth cycle (commonly known as generation) to the other (Table 4). Some countries use the pre-basic and basic approach, whereas other countries prefer to use the G1, G2, Gn terminology or even both. This shows that there is a need to harmonize this terminology since most of these countries do belong to the same regional bodies. We maintain that the G-approach should be adopted across the region because it provides better information for the traceability of the seed over years. The pre-basic and basic terminology can be confusing because several generations can take place within the pre-basic or basic seed stage. Table 4. Terminology used in naming seed classes in formal seed potato systems of seven SSA countries Seed Type/Stage Burundi Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Rwanda Tanzania Uganda In vitro plantlets In vitro plantlets In vitro plantlets In vitro plantlets Nuclear In vitro plantlets In vitro plantlets In vitro plantlets Minitubers (1st cycle) Minitubers G1 Minitubers Nuclear Pre-basic Pre-basic Nuclear 1st field generation Foundation seed G2 (Pre- basic 1) Pre-basic Pre-basic 1 (G1) Basic 1 Basic 1 Pre-basic 2nd field generation Pre-basic G3 (Pre- basic 2) Basic Pre-basic 2 (G2) Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 3rd field generation Basic G4 (Basic) C1 Pre-basic 3 (G3) C1 C1 4th field generation C1 G4 C2 Basic 1 (G4) C2 C2 5th field generation C2 (commercial) G4 C3 Basic 2 (G5) - C3 6th field generation - - - C1 (G6) - - - 7th field generation - - - C2 (G7) - - - 8th field generation - - - QDS - - - G=generation; C=certified; QDS = Quality Declared Seed. 3.2.7 STRENGTHS AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Visiting the different programs was also an opportunity to exchange thoughts and provide any feedback that could help to improve the efficiency of seed systems based on our own observations. Table 5 outlines what we consider to be key strengths of every stakeholder visited. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 1 5 Table 5. Key strengths and areas for improvement of seed potato systems visited in four SSA countries Country Institution Key Strengths Areas for Improvement Ethiopia ARARI headquarters • Located in the largest potato production region of the country (over 50%) • Excellent traceability record system of all operations conducted in the TC lab • Excellent collaboration with AARC • There is a risk of having conflicting priorities in managing breeding, plant health, and seed germplasm in the same facilities (over 60 varieties) • Need to synchronize minituber mass production with field campaigns • Need to look at the sustainability of producing minitubers in screenhouse where temperature is regulated by huge air conditioners AARC • Located in the largest potato production region of the country • Big investment in screenhouses (12 units) • Excellent collaboration with TC lab at ARARI headquarters • Acquisition of a cold store could prevent minitubers from being multiplied again in screenhouses • There is a risk of having conflicting priorities in managing breeding and seed germplasm in the same facilities (around 12,000 progenies from 88 families) • Need to optimize minituber production using the conventional technique especially in terms of substrate management (full volume at once vs. adding up over time, and plant density as 1 plantlet per pot seems to be too little) ORDA • Located in the largest potato production region of the country • TC lab with high production capacity • The lab might be using too much Murashige and Skoog medium by using a dose of 5.5 ml/cutting instead of 2 ml as used by other labs • Need to optimize minituber production using the conventional technique especially by increasing the plant density (at least 2 plantlets per pot) and managing properly substrate over the growth cycle (top up as the plant grows as normally done in the field) HARC Long-term experience in seed potato production with appropriate and relatively complete facilities (strong support from external donors) Need to negotiate with the government to establish reliable procurement mechanisms, especially for consumables sourced from abroad Kenya ADC Seed Potato Complex • Excellent collaboration with TPRC (free germplasm exchange) • High production capacity in screenhouses • Need to relocate the TC lab a bit far from the storage facility to avoid related disease contaminations • Growth chambers are under-utilized. The aeroponics unit could produce more minitubers if plants from TC were used as initial planting material, instead of using rooted single-node cuttings • More transparent plantlet containers could produce better results SRK Production of rooted apical cuttings takes advantage of existing facilities and expertise on flower production • Need to synchronize the production of rooted cuttings with field activities • Negotiations with KARLO are needed to have free access to the variety ‘Shangi’ TPRC • Lots of experiments for optimization of EGS potato systems • Proximity of CIP’s regional office and experts Need to raise funds from the government for sustaining strategic staff positions and optimize the utilization of seed facilities Kisima Farm Ltd Big extension plans for seed potato production being rolled out: actual 1,000-t cold storage capacity is being doubled so that they can store seed harvested on 100 ha per season, an area that they plan to reach in the near future Optimization of the production in the aeroponics unit because yields of fewer than 30 minitubers per plant are too low GTIL Long experience in EGS potato production as a private investor Production of rooted apical cuttings may not produce optimal results under protective structure with porous roof 1 6 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Country Institution Key Strengths Areas for Improvement Rwanda RAB–Musanze • Full support from the government—potato ranked top food crop—with huge investments (TC lab and mass production under protective structures) • Rising demand in potatoes triggered by the increase of processing plants in the country • The selling price of minitubers judged to be high by next- users could make the formal seed system less sustainable • The large number of genotypes in seed facilities requires strategic planning to better optimize resources • Acquisition of a cold store could help in seed and germplasm management, especially minitubers from the aeroponics Horizon SOPYRWA Huge and computer-assisted greenhouse (0.5 ha) • Pushing for the establishment of a national platform for seed potato production could partially resolve output market issues • Need to optimize water efficiency by matching misting nozzle lines with the production metallic tables (beds) where rooted cuttings are laid down. Nozzles are not situated above the tables. Tanzania ARI–Uyole Lots of functional seed facilities provided by a completed project funded by the Finnish Government and implemented by CIP • Need to investigate the origin of contaminations prevailing in the TC lab • Acquisition of a cold store could reduce the postharvest losses, especially from aeroponic and hydroponic multiplication (25,000 minitubers lost last season due to a long dry spell) • Need to have clean materials of the most popular variety ‘Kikondo’ • Need to develop good retention and succession plans for trained staff Mtanga Foods Ltd Strong dedication for better potato value chain in the country, as all the 7 Tanzanian varieties are registered under its name • Need to improve the input market efficiency and sustainability • Acquisition of cold store could prevent the big post- harvest losses of minitubers from hydroponics Beula Seed Company Dedication for increased role in the seed potato value chain • Yields of 8 minitubers per plant in hydroponics are still low • Proper storage of minitubers is crucial in an area where there is only one rainfed growing season • Need to improve water use efficiency while washing away the chemical disinfectant (commonly known as JIK) from the sand 3.3 COUNTRY PROFILES AND CHALLENGES ON FORMAL SEED SYSTEMS For each of the seven countries we describe the production on EGS materials (in vitro plantlets, rooted apical cuttings, and minitubers) and varieties used in seed systems. We also give the main strengths and weaknesses in each of the four countries visited (Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, and Tanzania). 3.3.1 BURUNDI The formal seed supply system in Burundi (Figure 5) is one of the most robust and functional seed programs in SSA. Public investments play a key role at initial stages of the chain (i.e., from micropropagation to the second field generation). Private investments are still nascent as three model farmers located at Ijenda, Kiremba (Bururi), and Rutovu are still experimenting with the production of minitubers using the conventional technique. As indicated earlier, Burundi in 2008 produced over 1.5 times the total number of minitubers produced in five S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 1 7 countries combined (Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda); but this production did not change much over time (Figure 4). It is the only country in the study that was able to share long-term data (20 years) of production for in vitro plantlets and minitubers. Figure 5: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Burundi. Production of in vitro plantlets and minitubers In Burundi almost all in vitro plantlets are being produced by the National Agricultural Research Institute (ISABU) through its Potato Research Program. Production in that TC laboratory, which was established by CIP in 1987, has continued to rise over time, from 5,624 in vitro plantlets in 1996 to 138,978 in 2016 (Figure 6). 1 8 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Figure 6: Production of in vitro potato plantlets and minitubers at ISABU for the last 20 years. Data source: National Potato Research Program. With regard to minitubers, the trend was similar to the one for in vitro plantlets (Figure 6), and most of the production was obtained using the conventional technique. In 2015 three aeroponics units were established (Photo 2) and the effect on total production was immediate (Figure 6). Consequently, the number of in vitro plantlets decreased because aeroponics requires less material than the conventional technique to produce the same amount of minitubers (Annex 4). In ISABU’s efforts to integrate more RMTs into the seed systems, one unit of sand hydroponics was established in 2017 and the first trial started in September of the same year. Photo 2: Aeroponics units of ISABU–Gisozi constructed with financial support of the Belgian Technical Cooperation. Photo: authors. Varieties CIP’s genebank is at present the exclusive source of germplasm used in the formal and informal seed systems, and there is no import of seed tubers (Figure 5). Currently, there are 11 potato varieties released and grown in Burundi: ‘Ndinamagara’, ‘Victoria’, ‘Magome’, ‘Mabondo’, ‘Ingabire’, ‘Rukuzi’, ‘Ruhanyura’, ‘Uganda 11’, ‘Rutambiro’, ‘Kirundo’, and ‘Changi’. All are simultaneously multiplied throughout the value chain, from TC to Year 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 N u m b e r o f p la n tl e ts /m in it u b e rs ( x1 0 0 0 ) 0 100 200 300 400 In vitro plantlets Minitubers S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 1 9 farmers’ seed, except the newly introduced ones, which still have a long way to complete the cycle. In terms of preferences, varieties with long dormancy seem to be the least preferred (Table 3). ‘Ndinamagara’ (Cruza-148) was a variety released in the 1980s. It remains one of the most preferred varieties in the country, perhaps due to its resistance to late blight (LB) and its high-yielding ability and short dormancy (Harahagazwe et al., 2011). 3.3.2 ETHIOPIA In Ethiopia the survey was carried out at four major seed producers, namely AARC; TC laboratory of ARARI; ORDA, a local nongovernmental organization (NGO) that established a unit called “Bahir Dar Plant Tissue Culture Enterprise”; and HARC. The Ethiopian seed system is strongly dependent on CIP’s varieties and in vitro plantlets (Figure 7). New private companies from Europe have entered the seed market and got some of their varieties registered in the country. Figure 7: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Ethiopia. Production of in vitro plantlets In Ethiopia three TC laboratories are actively involved in seed potato production, two belonging to national institutions (HARC and ARARI) and the third owned by ORDA. We learned, however, that Mekelle Agricultural 2 0 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Research Center and a private company, SOLAGROW, also have TC laboratories that are actively involved in seed potato production (Berga Lemaga, 2018, personal communication). Established with financial and technical support from CIP, the laboratory at HARC is 10 years old and has a capacity of 61,600 in vitro plantlets. It is being financially supported by South Korea. With a capacity of 80,000 in vitro plantlets, the ARARI laboratory, located in Bahir Dar, reportedly is one of the most functional agricultural laboratories in the country. It contains more than 60 genotypes for both seed production (27 nationally released varieties and 16 local cultivars) and breeding purposes. The ORDA laboratory started in 2016 with a total capacity of 200,000 in vitro plantlets that can be contained in four growth chambers. The initial potato materials come from ARARI’s laboratory. For the time being, the company multiplies only two varieties, ‘Gudene’ and ‘Jalene’, to meet the demand expressed by farmers supported by ORDA through various projects. Unlike the two other laboratories specializing in potato production, the one run by ORDA produces several other crops, including banana, sweetpotato, and bamboo tree. Minituber production In Ethiopia most of the potato minitubers are produced using the conventional technique (Figure 3, Figure 7, and Photo 3). With support from CIP, the aeroponics and hydroponics techniques were introduced at HARC in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Seed systems in Ethiopia are able to conduct three growth cycles per year under protective structures. Yet this poses the problem of managing minitubers because there are two rainfed seasons in the potato-growing areas. At present, only HARC has a cold store (donated by South Korea), but it is not working due to technical issues. Photo 3: One the screenhouses of AARC to bulk minitubers using the conventional technique. Photo: authors. Varieties Currently, there are more than 30 potato varieties released in Ethiopia by the national research institutions but only a few are popular in the country (see Table 3). Nationwide, the most preferred are ‘Gudene’ and ‘Belete’. In addition, there are several European varieties registered in the country by private companies. ‘Mondial’ is one of those varieties that the National Potato Program has no access to. Main strengths and challenges The major challenge mentioned by all stakeholders involved in the production of EGS potato is the procurement of consumables and other specialized equipment that are not available on the local market. Owing to the S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 2 1 country’s currency policy, seed producers are not able to import from abroad, and local traders are believed to not be interested in this kind of business, which they consider to be too small. In fact, the TC laboratory at HARC might shut down shortly if this problem is not resolved. The second major challenge is the management of seed and breeding germplasm in seed facilities at HARC and Adet AARC. If activities are not properly planned, one of these objectives is likely to suffer. For example, at Adet there is a large local population crossed with the variety ‘Belete’ (12,000 progenies from 88 families), and the true seed is planted in screenhouses. 3.3.3 KENYA The formal seed system in Kenya is more complex than in other SSA countries as it involves all RMTs found in the region, including the recently introduced rooted apical cutting technique. It is also one of the countries that allow seed imports in the form of tubers ready to plant in the field (Figure 8). Figure 8: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Kenya. Dashed lines mean that the system is still at experimental stage or is less important. 2 2 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Production of in vitro plantlets Unlike other countries visited during this study, the private sector in Kenya plays a major role in seed potato systems. Companies like SRK and GTIL indicated that they have large-capacity TC laboratories and production is determined by the orders they receive from their customers (Table 6). It is worth mentioning that potato is one of many crops dealt with in those laboratories. Table 6. Production capacity of TC laboratories producing seed potato in Kenya Institution Laminar Flow Hoods Capacity (# of plantlets/season) Number of Varieties ADC Seed Potato Complex 2 100,000 18 GTIL 9 By order By order SRK 15 Over 200,000 8 TPRC 20,000 Total 26 Over 320,000 Data source: Respondents. Minituber production Most of the potato minitubers produced in Kenya come from ADC Seed Potato Complex, where the coco peat hydroponics represents over 70% of the total production (Annex 4). The complex plants 200 ha of seed potato of different classes per year and the cold storage facility has a 3,000-t capacity. The second key player in seed potato production in Kenya is Kisima Farm Ltd, despite their exclusive reliance on their aeroponics unit established in 2009 with CIP’s support to produce minitubers. Plantlets used in aeroponics by this company come from SRK and GTIL. Kisima Farm does not grow any seed tubers from abroad as a strategy to avoid introducing new pests and diseases. TPRC is also a major actor in seed potato production; unfortunately, however, we could not access more quantitative data as with other stakeholders. Rooted apical cuttings This innovation introduced by CIP is being tested by GTIL and SRK for mass production of rooted apical cuttings in Kenya. These two private companies were chosen because they have the minimum of conditions in terms of infrastructures and expertise to produce reliable results. At GTIL two greenhouses are dedicated to this technique, with a total capacity of 50,000 cuttings. At SRK the production capacity seems to be unlimited (Photo 4), as long as a clear order is made in advance. Currently, they produce 20,000 cuttings per week. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 2 3 Photo 4: Partial view of the big facility used by SRK to produce rooted apical cuttings. Photo: authors. Varieties In Kenya the varieties ‘Shangi’ and ‘Dutch Robijn’ are more popular than others (see Table 3) and represent 80% of total seed production at TPRC. ‘Shangi’ is so popular that it is spreading informally beyond national borders. Main strengths and challenges The seed potato sector seems to be growing in Kenya as new investors and other traditional key players take advantage of several opportunities there. One of the big challenges faced by private investors is access to seed of ‘Shangi’, which is protected by the owner (TPRC) on the grounds that royalties have to be paid. The issue is being discussed by the National Potato Council. The second major challenge is market creation for the recently introduced technique of rooted apical cuttings, as farmers are used to seed tubers. This is complicated by the fact that it is difficult to synchronize cutting production with field-planting campaigns, especially when the crop grows under rainfed conditions. 3.3.4 MALAWI The seed scheme in Malawi is similar to the one used in Burundi, except that they import seed tubers mainly from South Africa (Figure 9). 2 4 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Figure 9: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Malawi. Production of in vitro plantlets The TC laboratory used to produce seed potato in Malawi belongs to DARS and has been supported by CIP since its establishment. With a total capacity of 10,000 in vitro plantlets per season, the laboratory multiplies all the seven varieties registered in the country (Table 3). Minituber production The minituber production is conducted by DARS and a private company, Universal Industries Ltd. The two stakeholders have the capacity to produce seed for 3 ha per year (Annex 4). It is worth mentioning that CIP has played a role in getting the private sector involved in seed production in Malawi. For example, the aeroponics unit held by Universal Industries (Photo 5) was established with full support from CIP. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 2 5 Photo 5: External (left) and internal (right) view of the aeroponics unit run by Universal Industries Ltd. Photos: authors. Varieties In Malawi potato farmers used to grow two popular local cultivars, ‘Violet’ and ‘Rosita’, which are also grown in neighboring countries such as Mozambique. Only recently have five new varieties been released by DARS in close collaboration with CIP (Table 3). The variety ‘Njuli’ is not necessarily disliked by end-users, but it is not disseminated as much as other varieties for reasons that have not yet been determined. 3.3.5 RWANDA The seed system in Rwanda is heavily funded by the government in an attempt to shorten the formal seed cycle (i.e., from the time an in vitro plantlet is multiplied until the certified seed reaches the farmer). That is why RAB and other partners are conducting experiments in an attempt to plant in vitro plantlets directly in the field and skip the screenhouse/greenhouse segment altogether (Figure 10). 2 6 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Figure 10: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Rwanda. Dashed lines mean that the system is still at experimental stage or is less important. Production of in vitro plantlets The TC laboratory owned by RAB–Musanze is most likely the largest of national laboratories producing in vitro potato plantlets in SSA. With a total capacity of over 1m in vitro plantlets per season exclusively for one crop (potato), and with 10 laminar flow hoods accommodating up to 18 lab technicians and four growth chambers (Photo 6), this laboratory is a true powerhouse for the seed sector in Rwanda and beyond. For example, the laboratory produced 1,283,770 in vitro plantlets in fiscal year 2016–2017. It is the only laboratory out of the seven visited in the four countries during the study that employs ready-for-use Murashige & Skoog medium. Currently, the laboratory multiplies 17 varieties, but only 8 are under mass production (i.e., ‘Kinigi’, ‘Gikungu’, ‘Kirundo’, ‘Kigega’, ‘Twihaze’, ‘Nderera’, ‘Ngunda’, and ‘Mabondo’). In total the laboratory maintains 66 potato genotypes, including 49 accessions for breeding purposes. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 2 7 Photo 6: Partial view of brand new laminar flow hoods in a lab extension at RAB–Musanze, Rwanda. Photo: authors. Minituber production Despite new private investors entering the entire potato value chain, RAB’s potato program is considered to be the heart of the formal seed production in Rwanda (Ferrari et al., 2017), since it remains the major producer of minitubers in Rwanda with facilities located in three research stations (Annex 4). The majority of minitubers (over 1m/year) is produced at Musanze, headquarters for the potato program. It is also in Musanze where the two biggest aeroponics units in SSA are located, as they have 50 boxes for 9,000 in vitro plantlets each (Photo 7). In these facilities the first harvest occurs at around 70 days after planting for a growth cycle that contains eight sequential harvests. Photo 7: Partial view of one of the two aeroponics units at RAB–Musanze, Rwanda. Photo: authors. 2 8 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A There are 27 screenhouses owned by model farmers3 who buy in vitro plantlets from RAB–Musanze to produce minitubers, most likely using the conventional technique; however, the potato program does not have much information on their respective productions. We also learned from Twitter (@psdag_rwanda) that a project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is supporting cooperatives to establish aeroponics for potato minituber production. Rooted apical cuttings Rooted apical cuttings technique is being tested by a parastatal agricultural company, Horizon SOPYRWA, in their 0.5-ha computer-assisted greenhouse located at Kinigi. At present, the structure has a capacity of 800,000–1.2m rooted apical cuttings and 51,000 mother plants. This work started in March 2017 using in vitro plantlets from RAB–Musanze. Currently, mother plants produce 20–30 cuttings each in four to five sequential harvests. Preliminary observations show that the most popular variety (‘Kinigi’) performs more poorly in cuttings than other varieties. As in Kenya, SOPYRWA is conducting on-farm trials to assess the field performance of rooted apical cuttings. Varieties Despite its low processing ability due to deep eyes (as reported in Table 3), ‘Kinigi’ is by far the most popular potato variety in Rwanda and neighboring countries. It seems to be the all-time best variety in the Great Lakes region (Winnaz, 2016) as well. In general, red-skin varieties are preferred over white-skin ones. The attributes of ‘Kinigi’ make it so attractive on the market to the point it can be sold for Rwf 300, whereas the price for other varieties is as low as Rwf 180 (Nkurunziza, 2017). Main strengths and challenges On one hand, the seed system in Rwanda takes advantage of a conducive environment for business from the government, as outlined in Table 5. On the other hand, it suffers primarily from a less functional output market for both seed tubers and rooted apical cuttings. According to the respondents, the current system of middlemen that prevents producers from selling directly to retailers or users might push some actors out of business. Also, seed growers believe that seed quality standards for certification might discourage them from remaining in the seed potato business as the standards are seen as too strict for a viable seed value chain. 3.3.6 TANZANIA One of the distinctive features of the seed system in Tanzania is that the conventional technique for producing minitubers is no longer in use as in other countries (see Figure 11). This was a result of potato projects that brought a paradigm shift in production of EGS potato. 3. Model farmers are farmers who are supported by the Government of Rwanda and other development partners to serve as role models in their respective communities. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 2 9 Figure 11: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Tanzania. Production of in vitro plantlets Most of the seed potato grown in Tanzania, especially in the Southern Highlands (Njombe, Mbeya and Iringa), starts in the laboratory of ARI–Uyole. With a total capacity of 90,000 in vitro plantlets, this laboratory multiplies four registered varieties and one local cultivar (Table 3). It became functional with a potato project implemented by CIP and funded by the Government of Finland from 2012 to 2015 (Kakuhenzire et al., 2015). Currently, the potato program is being financially supported by Kilimo Trust, a regional NGO. Minituber production For minituber production, three institutions are very active: ARI–Uyole, Mtanga Foods Ltd, and Beula Seed Company. In this business, it is important to emphasize the level of engagement of this latter firm. Beula is increasing its investment in hydroponics production (Photo 8); it will take at least two field generations to start turning a profit. 3 0 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Photo 8: Partial view of two greenhouses (left) and inside (right) of hydroponic systems managed by Beula Seed Company, Tanzania. Photo: authors. Varieties Currently, there are seven potato varieties released in Tanzania: four registered in 2012 and three in March 2017 (Table 3). All these varieties were introduced and registered under Mtanga Foods Ltd’s name, in close collaboration with CIP and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. The first group of varieties (‘Meru’, ‘Tengeru’, ‘Sherekea’, and ‘Asante’) was introduced from Kenya, and the second set (‘Sagitta’, ‘Jelly’, and ‘Rumba’) was introduced from the Netherlands. Yet today, the most popular variety remains ‘Kikondo’ (Table 3), which is not officially registered. (This variety is commonly called “CIP” for the role CIP played in its distribution in 1987). Until 2012 ‘Kikondo’ accounted for over 50% of the country’s total area planted (Kakuhenzire et al., 2015). The variety ‘Shangi’, which is very popular in Kenya, crossed the borders and is informally grown in Tanzania by farmers. Negotiations are being held between the two countries, with CIP’s facilitation, to get this variety officially registered in Tanzania along with another new CIP variety (‘Unica’), also grown in Kenya and elsewhere at commercial scale. Main strengths and challenges Major strengths and areas that require special attention of actors interviewed are summarized in Table 5. The key challenge for the seed potato sector in Tanzania is the sustainability of the current achievements at ARI– Uyole, because the potato project which helped to build the current seed potato sub-program ended before it could establish strong operational and institutional foundations. The second major challenge is the continued weakness of the input and output markets: According to the respondents, seed demand is high but it is not quantified. 3.3.7 UGANDA The EGS potato system in Uganda is still strongly dependent on the conventional technique (Figure 12), but aeroponics is also used. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3 1 Figure 12: Schematic representation of formal seed supply system in Uganda. Production of in vitro plantlets In Uganda seed potato production starts with in vitro plantlets produced by the TC laboratory of NARO– Kachwekano. This laboratory has a capacity of 100,000 in vitro plantlets, but this potential has yet to be reached because the lab has only two laminar flow hoods. Currently, eight varieties are being multiplied: ‘Rwangume’, ‘Victoria’, ‘NAROPOT1’, ‘NAROPOT2’, ‘NAROPOT3’, ‘Kinigi’, ‘Rutuku’, and ‘Kachpot1’. Minituber production At NARO–Uganda minitubers are produced using both the conventional technique and aeroponics. Even though there is only one aeroponics unit, this technique produces more minitubers than the four screenhouses in which the conventional technique is used. That is why the program looks forward to expanding their aeroponics capacity in order to satisfy the seed demand. 3 2 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Varieties Currently, there are four popular varieties in Uganda (Table 3); three of them are being grown in other countries. That is the case with ‘Kinigi’, which comes from Rwanda, ‘Victoria’ or ‘Asante’ grown in around 10 SSA countries, and ‘Rutuku’ (also called ‘Uganda 11’) in Burundi. 3.4 COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OF RMTs AND SEED COST 3.4.1 YIELD GAINS A cross analysis of data provided by all participating actors shows that the current yield of conventional technique is 10 (±2) minitubers per plant, regardless of the cultivar and provided that all cultivars grown in SSA belong to the Tuberosum type, whereas the same plant is most likely to produce 42 (±5) minitubers in aeroponics and 11 (±2) minitubers in hydroponics (Figure 13). In other words, aeroponics produces four times the yield obtained by the conventional technique. The average yield obtained from aeroponics is similar to the multiplication rate of 1:45 reported in Peru (Mateus-Rodriguez et al., 2013). These results seem to disagree with accounts stating that aeroponics productivity in SSA exceeds 100 tubers per plant (Muthoni et al., 2011), as it does in Latin America, where Andigena cultivars known to have intrinsic higher yielding ability are used (Mateus- Rodriguez et al., 2013; Otazu, 2010). Despite the high-yielding ability of aeroponics, low yields of around 20 minitubers per in vitro-derived plants are reported in the region (Kakuhenzire et al., 2017; Tsoka et al., 2012). This is probably because it is much costlier and riskier (e.g., the need for continuous electricity) and requires more skills than other techniques, like sand hydroponics, which is more resilient with less upfront and running costs. Figure 13: Actual potato minituber yields of two RMTs in comparison with the conventional technique in seven SSA countries. Dashed lines represent average yields. Data provided by respondents. Multiplication technique Conventional (n=8) Aeroponics (n=10) Hydroponics (n=7) T u b e r n u m b e r/ p la n t 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3 3 The average yield of 11 minitubers per plant obtained in hydroponics (i.e., only one more minituber than the conventional technique) is consistent with the productivity of 8–13 minitubers reported in a similar study carried out in Belgium (Rolot and Seutin, 1999). But unlike in SSA, the overall yield per unit area in the context of Belgium was higher because the study used higher plant density. This means that the technique does not add much value in increasing yield compared with the conventional one if plant spacing remains the same. Therefore, we believe that it is important to also factor in the spacing dimension when assessing RMT productivity. The average yield obtained by the conventional technique regardless of the sector agrees with yields reported elsewhere; for example, 6–8 minitubers per plant in Latin America (Mateus-Rodriguez et al., 2013). Comparison between public and private sector actors shows that private companies produce more tubers per plant than public institutions using the conventional technique (Figure 14). The figure shows, however, that the difference between sectors was not statistically significant for both aeroponics and hydroponics. This is surprising, because one would have expected better yields from the private sector regardless of the technique used. One of the hypotheses to explain this could be that the private companies that tested these new technologies have not seriously looked into their efficiency because trials were partially funded by external donors. Figure 14: Yield comparison between sectors for minituber production using the conventional technique, aeroponics, and hydroponics. Bars represent the double of the respective standard errors. 3.4.2 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Despite many positive benefits of RMTs, especially increased tuber yield, they also come with challenges that need to be thought through before venturing into them, as summarized in Table 7. Stakeholders indicated that they like RMTs mostly for their ability to significantly increase multiplication rates and number of growth cycles per year. On the other hand, major setbacks reported by stakeholders include the high level of investments, skills, output storage (i.e., in vitro plantlets, cuttings, and minitubers), and output markets. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Conventional Aeroponics Hydroponics Tu b er s/ p la n t Public Private 3 4 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Table 7. Main strengths and weaknesses of EGS potato production techniques as expressed by respondents in seven SSA countries Technique Strengths Weaknesses Aeroponics Many minitubers of high quality per plant • In vitro plantlets are expensive, a common problem for all RMTs that use them • Extremely high investment • Technology requires an uninterrupted power supply • Consumables and equipment often not available on the local market • Lack of synchronization of aeroponics production with downstream activities due to sequential harvests (normally every 2 weeks) • Too small and fragile minitubers require cold storage facility • It requires highly trained staff • Risks of contamination within the boxes, causing phytosanitary problems • Difficult to clean properly inside the boxes due to the fragility of material used • Leakages of nutrients raise production costs • Use of metallic equipment causes rust within the boxes from oxidation • Very long growth cycles, which normally end with less productive periods Hydroponics • Minitubers of high quality • Relatively easy to establish and run • Substrate can be recycled • Difficulty to determine the optimal nutrient use efficiency • Sand disinfestation is reported to be expensive as it requires a lot of clean water to wash out the sterilization agent • Labor intensive when pots are used • Yield still low compared with other RMTs • Nutrients and equipment often are not available on the local market • Storage of minitubers requires special care • Leakages of nutrients raise production costs Rooted apical cuttings • Very high yield (cuttings) per mother plant • Good yield once cuttings are planted in the field • Cuttings cannot be stored • Output market is difficult to create and master due to cutting harvests carried out over time • Technology judged to be labor intensive • Bulky for transport from greenhouses to farmers’ fields Conventional technique • Very easy with stable yield in minitubers (backup technique when conditions for RMTs are not optimal) • Good tuber size and high survival rates when planted • Very low yield per plant • Risks of contaminations with soil-borne diseases • Substrate not recycled 3.4.3 SEED PRICE Stakeholders stated that they calculate production costs before defining the price of in vitro plantlets, cuttings, or minitubers, but not routinely. We realized that even those who conduct these analyses might not be doing it properly. For example, a partner in Tanzania calculated the cost of producing minitubers through hydroponics; but the calculation was based on a non-exhaustive list of variable costs and fixed costs were not considered. As a result, it seems that prices are defined based on rough estimates, sometimes affected by political decisions. In Rwanda, for example, the government recently decided to subsidize the EGS potato subsector and halve the unit price of in vitro plantlets for 2 years. This was possible because there is high political engagement for the promotion of the potato crop. The decision was taken as a response to requests from next-users of in vitro plantlets who were claiming the high impact of this material on the production costs and profitability of their seed business. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3 5 Seed prices found across the region are roughly the same within each category (i.e., in vitro plantlets, rooted apical cuttings, and minitubers). The exception was Malawi, where in vitro plantlets are extremely expensive ($1 each) (see Figure 15). These minituber prices of $0.11–0.22 each correspond to the range of production costs obtained in three countries of Latin America—Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia—where the production of one minituber is reported to cost $0.11, $0.14, and $0.19, respectively (Mateus-Rodriguez et al., 2013). These prohibitive prices of EGS potato suppress demand and discourage private investments. In some places, we realized that minitubers are not sold because nobody would buy them for profit-making. They are planted by their owners for a few more seasons until the seed is affordable on the market. This practice works well because the price of seed potato decreases as it moves along the value chain while increasing in tonnage. Figure 15: Unit costs of in vitro potato plantlets, rooted apical cuttings, and minitubers in seven SSA countries. Currency conversion made on 20 January 2018 using Google rates: Burundi francs 1770; Ethiopian birr 27.56; Kenya shillings 102.84; Rwanda francs 846; Tanzania shillings 2248.15; Uganda shillings 3638.8 for $1. Data provided by respondents. Countries: Burundi (ISABU), Ethiopia (ORDA), Kenya (ADC, SRK, GTIL), Malawi (DARS), Rwanda (RAB, SOPYRWA), Tanzania (ARI–Uyole), and Uganda (NARO). Producer IS AB U O R D A AD C St ok m an D AR S R AB SO PY R W A AR I U yo le NA R O G TI L U n it p ri ce ( U S D c e n t) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 In vitro plantlets Minitubers Cuttings 3 6 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS One of the key findings of this study is that all RMTs were introduced into SSA by CIP, and that they work quite well despite some challenges that come with any new technology. Since the introduction of RMTs, production of minitubers has increased significantly: total production in the seven countries increased tenfold from 2008 to 2017. This was only possible because new investments were made, by public and private partners alike, to build new TC laboratories and screenhouses/greenhouses while expanding existing ones. In this regard, Kenya and Rwanda turned out to be the major investors and producers of EGS potato in SSA. The CIP 3G Project may have played a key role in this transformation. Today, yield of conventional technique is 10 (±2) minitubers per plant regardless of the cultivar, whereas the same plant is most likely to produce 42 (±5) minitubers in aeroponics and 11 (±2) minitubers in hydroponics. In other words, aeroponics produces four times the yield obtained by the conventional technique. As expected, aeroponics has the highest potential to increase tuber yield despite low actual yields observed in some programs. But there are serious limiting factors that prevent aeroponics from being exploited to its fullest (e.g., access to uninterruptible power supply, management of minitubers from sequential harvests, and procurement of consumables). Hydroponics does not increase yield more than the conventional technique if the plant spacing remains the same. But the quality of tubers is better and the cost is considered to be relatively low. In addition, hydroponics is simpler, cheaper, and easier to implement than aeroponics. The optimization process of RMTs is key for success, as well as attracting private partners to invest in the seed business. This EGS subsector will only be financially viable and attractive to substantial investments if a cost–benefit analysis is routinely conducted through institutionalized data register and calculation of production costs per season. In this regard, most studied programs, both public and private, still have a long way to go. On the basis of the findings reported in this paper, several recommendations can be made that could sustain the current achievements and drive the growth of the seed sector in SSA: • There is a need to provide EGS potato actors with technical backstopping in the following areas: data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; RMT optimization; thermotherapy/chemotherapy; disease diagnostics; meristem culture; and strategic planning and priority-setting. This could be conducted through various forms of capacity development, including workshops, short courses, and apprenticeships. • Across the region most of the seed producers are facing serious market and demand issues. Therefore, there is a need to conduct socioeconomic studies and promotional activities. One effort would be to enhance the role played by private seed companies and agro-dealers through advocacy for the establishment and implementation of supportive policies. • There is a need to change the way the performance of hydroponics and aeroponics is assessed. Expressing the production per unit area might provide better insights on the return on investment than individually counting the number of minitubers per plant. This example emphasizes the need to develop standardized methods for collection and sharing data. S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3 7 • SSA has a huge potential in renewable energy. New technologies should be developed and integrated into EGS production systems in a bid to reduce dependency on electricity generated from traditional sources. For example, solar power could be an option for substrate disinfestation in the conventional technique. • EGS potato production is still dominated by national institutions in terms of volume, but the seed supply remains far below the expectations and demand from potato growers. Therefore, governments are urged to take deliberate actions that could increase public and private investment in the seed sector. • A community of practice on potato seed systems in SSA could help to implement the recommendations presented here and promote knowledge-sharing. Considering its global and regional mandate on the crop, CIP is well placed to facilitate virtual and physical regional networking. 3 8 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A REFERENCES CITED Alexandratos, N., 1999. World food and agriculture: Outlook for the medium and longer term. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, 5908–5914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.11.5908 Andrade-Piedra, J.L., Kromann, P., Otazú, V., 2015. Manual para la producción de semilla de papa usando aeroponía: diez años de experiencias en Colombia, Ecuador y Perú. CIP, INIAP and CORPOICA. https://dx.doi.org/10.4160/9789290604556 Bryan, J.E., Jackson, M.T., Melendez, N., 1981. Rapid multiplication techniques for potatoes. International Potato Center. Lima, Peru. 20 p Demo, P., Lemaga, B., Kakuhenzire, R., Schulz, S., Borus, D., Barker, I., Gebremedhin, W., Parker, M., Schulte- Geldermann, E., 2015. Strategies to improve seed potato quality and supply in Sub-Saharan Africa: Experience from interventions in five countries, in: Potato and Sweetpotato in Africa: Transforming the Value Chains for Food and Nutrition Security. CAB International, pp. 155–167. https://www.cabi.org/vetmedresource/ebook/20153367569 Devaux, A., Kromann, P., Ortiz, O., 2014. Potatoes for sustainable global food security. Potato Research 57, 185– 199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-014-9265-1 FAO, 2009. International Year of the Potato 2008: New light on a hidden treasure. FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0500e/i0500e00.htm Farran, I., Mingo-Castel, A.M., 2006. Potato minituber production using aeroponics: Effect of plant density and harvesting intervals. American Journal of Potato Research 83, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02869609 Ferrari, L., Fromm, I., Jenny, K., Muhire, A., Scheidegger, U., 2017. Formal and informal seed potato supply systems analysis in Rwanda, in: Future Agriculture: Social-Ecological Transitions and Bio-Cultural Shifts Organised by the University of Bonn and the Centre for Development Research. Presented at the Tropentag 2017, Bonn, Germany. 5 p. http://www.tropentag.de/2017/abstracts/full/327.pdf Gildemacher, P.R., Demo, P., Barker, I., Kaguongo, W., Woldegiorgis, G., Wagoire, W.W., Wakahiu, M., Leeuwis, C., Struik, P.C., 2009. A description of seed potato systems in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia. American Journal of Potato Research 86, 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-009-9092-0 Harahagazwe, D., Ledent, J.F., Rusuku, G., 2011. Field performance of CIP potato clones in two contrasting environments in Burundi, in: African Crop Science Conference Proceedings. Presented at the African Potato Association Conference, African Crop Science Society, South Africa, pp. 393–402. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/67717/76742.pdf?sequence=1 Harahagazwe, D., Ledent, J.F., Rusuku, G., 2012. Growth analysis and modelling of CIP potato genotypes for their characterization in two contrasting environments of Burundi. African Journal of Agricultural Research. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR10.781 Harahagazwe, D., Condori, B., Barreda, C., Bararyenya, A., Byarugaba, A.A., Kude, D.A., Lung'aho, C., Martinho, C., Mbiri, D., Nasona, B., Ochieng, B., Onditi, J., Randrianaivoarivony, J.M., Tankou, C.M., Worku, A., Schulte-Geldermann, E., Mares, V., Mendiburu, F. de., and Quiroz, R. 2018. How big is the potato S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 3 9 (Solanum tuberosum L.) yield gap in Sub-Saharan Africa and why? A participatory approach. Journal Article Open Agriculture 3, 180-189. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/96110 Kaguongo, W., Maingi, G., Barker, I., Nganga, N., Guenthner, J., 2014. The value of seed potatoes from four systems in Kenya. American Journal of Potato Research 91, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230- 013-9342-z Kakuhenzire, R., Temu, N., Kwigizile, O., Valkonen, J., Shayo, T., Msemwa, J., 2015. Seed potato development project in Tanzania (2012–2015). Final Project Report. International Potato Center. Uyole, Tanzania. 44 p Kakuhenzire, R., Tibanyendera, D., Kashaija, I.N., Lemaga, B., Kimoone, G., Kesiime, V.E., Otazu, V., Ortiz, O., Barker, I., 2017. Improving minitubers production from tissue-cultured potato plantlets with aeroponic technology in Uganda. International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research 3, 3948–3964. http://ijaer.in/more2.php?id=278 Lobell, D.B., Cassman, K.G., Field, C.B., 2009. Crop yield gaps: Their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.041008.093740 Mateus-Rodriguez, J.R., de Haan, S., Andrade-Piedra, J.L., Maldonado, L., Hareau, G., Barker, I., Chuquillanqui, C., Otazú, V., Frisancho, R., Bastos, C., Pereira, A.S., Medeiros, C.A., Montesdeoca, F., Benítez, J., 2013. Technical and economic analysis of aeroponics and other systems for potato minituber production in Latin America. American Journal of Potato Research 90, 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-013- 9312-5 Mbiri, D., Schulte-Geldermann, E., Otazu, V., Kakuhenzire, R., Demo, P., Schulz, S., 2015. An alternative technology for pre-basic seed potato production: Sand hydroponics, in: Potato and Sweetpotato in Africa: Transforming the Value Chains for Food and Nutrition Security. CAB International, pp. 249–253. https://www.cabi.org/vetmedresource/ebook/20153367580 Muthoni, J., Mbiyu, M., Kabira, J., 2011. Up-scaling production of certified potato seed tubers in Kenya: Potential of aeroponics technology. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry 3, 238–243. http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JHF/article-abstract/CB419031661 Naik, P.S., Karihaloo, J.L., 2007. Micropropagation of quality potato seed in Asia-Pacific. Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology. New Delhi, India. 47 p Nkurunziza, M., 2017. Farmers welcome new deal to boost potato production. The NewTimes. (published October 18th). http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/221971 Otazu, V., 2010. Manual on quality seed potato production using aeroponics. International Potato Center. Lima, Peru. 42 p Parker, M., 2017. Performance of apical cuttings to fast-track production of early generation seed potato. Preliminary report. International Potato Center. Nairobi, Kenya. 7 p Rolot, J.L., Seutin, H., 1999. Soilless production of potato minitubers using a hydroponic technique. Potato Research 42, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02358162 4 0 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A RTB (CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas). 2016. Multi-stakeholder framework for intervening in RTB seed systems. Lima: RTB Working Paper No. 2016-1. ISSN 2309-6586. 13 p. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/81049 Santos, B.M., Vallad, G., Torres-Quezada, E.A., 2017. Protected culture for vegetable and small fruit crops: types of structures. . Horticultural Sciences Department, UF/IFAS Extension. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs1224 Schulte-Geldermann, E., Gildemacher, P.R., Struik, P.C., 2012. Improving seed health and seed performance by positive selection in three Kenyan potato varieties. American Journal of Potato Research 89, 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-012-9264-1 Struik, P., Wiersema, S., 2012. Seed potato technology. Reprint. ed. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 383 p Thiele, G., 1999. Informal potato seed systems in the Andes: Why are they important and what should we do with them? World Development 27, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00128-4 Thomas-Sharma, S., Abdurahman, A., Ali, S., Andrade-Piedra, J.L., Bao, S., Charkowski, A.O., Crook, D., Kadian, M., Kromann, P., Struik, P.C., Torrance, L., Garrett, K.A., Forbes, G.A., 2016. Seed degeneration in potato: The need for an integrated seed health strategy to mitigate the problem in developing countries. Plant Pathol 65, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12439 Tsoka, O., Demo, P., Nyende, A.B., Ngamau, K., 2012. Potato seed tuber production from in vitro and apical stem cutting under aeroponic system. African Journal of Biotechnology. http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380798757_Tsoka%20et%20al.pdf VanderZaag, P., 2013. Rapid multiplication of clean planting materials for potato production in Vietnam. Sunrise Company, Vietnam. https://www.sunrisepotato.com/peters-rd/ Winnaz, 2016. Kinigi potatoes. Winnaz World (accessed on 22 January 2018) http://winnazworld.com/kinigi- potatoes/ S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 4 1 ANNEXES Annex 1. Study timeline Dates Activity Location Country 30 October–2 November • Discussion and understanding of terms of reference • Identification of contact persons in the 4 countries • Development of study methodology (including detailed travel plan, stakeholders, variables, etc.) • Identification of key actors in EGS potato production Nairobi Kenya 3 November • Planning meeting with CIP supervisors • Literature review CIP–Nairobi Office Kenya 3–15 November • Development of the study methodology to be utilized • Visit GTIL (10/11/2017) • Literature review • Stakeholder mapping • Working on logistics Nairobi Kenya 16 November • Visit Seed Potato Complex—Molo, Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC) • Interview with a senior research officer in charge of seed potato systems and seed potato technicians Molo Kenya 17 November • Visit SRK, a private company • Interview with the production manager and seed potato technician Naivasha Kenya 20 November Travel to Kigali 21 November • Travel Kigali – Musanze • Interview with the head of National Potato Program and TC lab technicians • Visit TC lab and screenhouses Musanze Rwanda 22 November interview with the general manager of horizon sopyrwa and extension assistant Musanze Rwanda 23 November Interview with the potato research fellow Musanze Rwanda • Visit Horizon SOPYRWA greenhouse • Meeting with CIP country manager, Rwanda Kinigi Rwanda Meeting with CIP country manager, Rwanda Kigali Rwanda Travel Kigali – Nairobi by air 24 November • Visit Kisima Farm Ltd • Interview with project development director and potato storage and marketing manager Timau Kenya 27 November Travel Nairobi – Mbeya by air 28 November • Visit ARI–Uyole • Meeting with the zonal director • Interview with the National Potato Program coordinator and potato research fellow • Interview with the managing director of Beula Seed Company and his deputy Uyole Tanzania • Travel Uyole – Iringa by road • Interview with the chief agronomist, Center for Development of Potato Industry in Tanzania Iringa Tanzania 29 November Interview with the business unit manager, Mtanga Foods Ltd Iringa (Mtanga Office) Tanzania • Visit Mtanga Foods Ltd farm • Interview with the farm agronomist, Mtanga Foods Ltd Mgagao Tanzania Travel Iringa – Uyole by road 30 November • Interview with potato scientists, ARI–Uyole • Visit Beula Seed Company sand hydroponics • Travel Mbeya – Nairobi by air Uyole Tanzania 1 December • Visit TPRC Tigoni Kenya 4 2 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Dates Activity Location Country • Interview with senior potato scientists (senior principal research officer and head of agronomy, potato breeder and biotechnologist) Meeting with the director, Tigoni Potato Research Centre Nairobi Kenya 4 December Travel to Adet (by air) 5 December • Visit Adet Agricultural Research Center • Interview with the acting center director and National Potato Program coordinator Adet Ethiopia 6 December • Visit ARARI headquarters • Interview with the TC researcher Bahir Dar Ethiopia • Visit ORDA • Interview with the plant TC enterprise manager, ORDA Bahir Dar Ethiopia 7 December • Travel to Addis Ababa • Meeting with the CIP country manager, Ethiopia Addis Ababa Ethiopia 8 December • Visit Holetta Agricultural Research Center • Interview with a potato researcher Holetta Ethiopia 9 December Travel to Nairobi by air 11 December • Follow up on data requests • Travel liquidations • Literature review Nairobi Kenya 13–14 December Data processing and interpretation Nairobi Kenya 15 December • Meeting with study supervisors • Literature review and report writing Nairobi Kenya 18–19 December • Report writing • Preliminary report uploaded to RTB MEL platform (19/12/2017) Nairobi Kenya 20–21 December Report writing Nairobi Kenya 8 January 2018 Submission of first draft report Nairobi Kenya 15 January 2018 Submission of final report Nairobi Kenya S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 4 3 Annex 2. Study questionnaire 1. Country: 2. Location 2.1. Name: 2.2. Coordinates: 2.3. Altitude: 3. Institution 3.1. Name 3.2. Age 3.3. Type (public, private or other- specify) 4. Profile of the respondent: 4.1. Name 4.2. Job position 4.3. Contact (email and tel./mobile) 5. What are the different rapid multiplication techniques (RMTs) used so far (including the ones that were dropped out): 6. For each RMT 6.1. Why the technique was chosen? 6.2. When the technique started? 6.3. Was there any CIP’s role in its introduction and implementation? If so, which role? 6.4. Who provided training, and how? 6.5. Is the technique still in use? 6.5.1. If No 6.5.1.1. When was it dropped out? 6.5.1.2. Why was it dropped out? 6.5.1.3. How many minitubers were produced per season (on average)? 6.5.2. If Yes 6.5.2.1. Main strengths and weaknesses (here we can categorize on biophysical, institutional, economic, etc.) 6.5.2.2. How many cycles per year? Planting dates. 6.5.2.3. Where the initial seed come from? 6.5.2.4. What are the varieties being used? 6.5.2.5. How many in vitro plantlets or tubers used per season (if applicable - for the last 20 years if the technique is older than that) 6.5.2.6. What is the average yield per plant (minitubers or cuttings)? 6.5.2.7. How many total minitubers produced per season (for the last 20 years if the technique is older than that) 6.5.2.8. How many total cuttings produced per season (if applicable - for the last 20 years if the technique is older than that) 6.5.2.9. Staffing (details per staff: name, gender, degree, years in the current field) 6.5.2.10. Needs in terms of knowledge and skills 4 4 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 6.5.2.11. What is your overall level of satisfaction with this technique (Indicate a value in a scale of 1 to 5; being 5= Very satisfied, 4=Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 2=Unsatisfied, 1=Very unsatisfied)? 6.5.2.12. What could be done to improve this technique? 6.5.2.13. Are you looking for a new technique to replace the existing one? Which one? 7. Do you have an estimate of the demand of the final product (in vitro plant, microtuber, minituber, tuber) 8. Do you have an idea of selling price and the production cost 9. In your opinion, what could be the role of private sector if your institution is public? 10. In your opinion, what could be the role of the Government if your institution is private? 11. Please suggest what CIP could do in order to improve your performance. 12. Is your institution planning to expand its capacity in terms of minituber production through RMTs? If so, what are the targets and by when? 13. Do you follow any internal or external measures for quality control and assurance? If so, how? 14. Do you clean up planting material? How? Cost? Duration? Main strengths and weaknesses 15. Do you have storage facilities? S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 4 5 Annex 3. Key informants met with during the study tour Country Date (2017) Institution Location Name of the informant Kenya 16/11 ADC Seed Potato Complex Molo Judith Natabona Oggema Paul Njuguna 17/11 SRK Naivasha Julius Muchim Simon Ndirangu 22–23/11 Horizon Sopyrwa Ruhengeri Gabriel Bizimungu Victor Kagayigayi Juliet Umwali Rwanda 23/11 RAB–Potato Program Ruhengeri Dr. Placide Rukundo Ntizo Senkesha Elias Munyankera CIP Kigali Dr. Sindi Kirimi Kenya 24/11 Kisima Farm Ltd Timau Martin Dyer John K. Kibet Tanzania 28/11 ARI–Uyole Uyole Dr. Dorah Mende John Kalaye Kigwinya Dr. Tulole Lugendo Bucheyeki Beula Seed Company Uyole Zabron Mbwaga Nyambilira Simon Center for Development of Potato Industry in Tanzania Iringa Owekisha Kwigizile 29/11 Mtanga Foods Ltd Iringa Justin Lyakaunda Mbagao Agrey Nyakunga Kenya 1/12 TPRC Tigoni Dr. Moses Nyongesa Dr. Charles Lung'aho John Onditi Miriam Wanjiku Ethiopia 5/12 AARC Adet Dr. Tadele Amare Dr. Baye Berihun Getahun 6/12 ARARI headquarters Bahir Dar Gashaw Belay ORDA Bahir Dar Yeshiwas Alemnew 7/12 CIP Addis Ababa Dr. Wellington Jogo 8/12 Holetta Research Station Holetta Abebe Chindi Note: Contact details for stakeholders listed in this table can be provided upon request. 4 6 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A Annex 4. Capacity of seed facilities for potato minituber production in seven SSA countries Country Technique Institution Screenhouses or Greenhouses Total Capacity (# of plants) Minitubers/ Plant Total Expected Minitubers/ Season Cycles/ Year Burundi Conventional ISABU 7 35,000 5 175,000 2 Aeroponics ISABU 3 2,916 50 145,800 2 Hydroponics ISABU 1 1,620 - Subtotal Burundi 11 39,536 320,800 Ethiopia Conventional AARC 12 27,600 8 220,800 3 Holetta Centre 8 15,000 6-10 150000 3 ORDA 1 5,500 16 88,000 2 ARARI headquarters 2 3,250 9 30,000 3 Aeroponics Holetta Centre 2 1,600 28-33 52800 3 Hydroponics Holetta Centre 1 1,200 6-12 14400 3 Subtotal Ethiopia 24 54,150 556,000 Kenya Conventional ADC–Molo 5 40,000 15-20 800,000 3 Tigoni GTIL 2 2 SRK 1 100,000 3-10 1,000,000 Aeroponics ADC–Molo 1 480 65 31200 Tigoni GTIL 2 2,100 18-25 52500 2 Kisima Farm Ltd 1 5,540 30 166,200 2 Hydroponics ADC Molo 4 60,000 15-30 1,800,000 3 Tigoni 10 Subtotal Kenya 16 208,120 3,849,900 Malawi Aeroponics DARS 1 2,160 30-50 108000 1 Universal Industries Ltd 1 2,160 30 64,800 1 Hydroponics DARS 1 1,500 10-20 30,000 1 Subtotal Malawi 3 5,820 202800 Rwanda Conventional RAB–Musanze 9 90,000 6-8 720000 2 RAB–Sigira 2 20,000 6-8 160000 2 RAB–Gakuta 1 35,000 6-8 280000 2 Aeroponics RAB–Musanze 2 18,000 40-45 810000 2 Subtotal Rwanda 14 163,000 1970000 Tanzania Aeroponics ARI–Uyole 1 1,600 50-80 128000 2 Hydroponics ARI–Uyole 3 18,000 5 - 8 144,000 2 Mtanga Foods Ltd 2 14,000 8 - 10 140,000 2 Beula Seed Co. 3 15,000 5 - 8 120,000 2 Subtotal Tanzania 9 48,600 532,000 Uganda Conventional NARO 4 8,000 6-8 64,000 2 Aeroponics NARO 1 1,440 40-50 72,000 2-3 Subtotal Uganda 5 9,440 136,000 Total 82 528,666 7,567,500 ADC–Molo = ADC Seed Potato Complex of Molo. Data source: key informants. D D D D D 4 7 4 7 4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 S I T U A T I O N O F E G S P O T A T O P R O D U C T I O N I N S S A 4 7