Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / foodpolFarmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four
common misconceptions⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 398 4943.
E-mail address: oliver.coomes@mcgill.ca (O.T. Coomes).
1 The first two authors share senior authorship. The opinions expressed in this
article are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the position of government
authorities such as the EFSA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.008
0306-9192/ 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Oliver T. Coomes a,⇑,1, Shawn J. McGuire b,1, Eric Garine c, Sophie Caillon d, Doyle McKey d,e,
Elise Demeulenaere f, Devra Jarvis g, Guntra Aistara h,i, Adeline Barnaud j, Pascal Clouvel k,
Laure Emperaire l, Sélim Louafi m, Pierre Martin k,n, François Massol o, Marco Pautasso p,q,r, Chloé Violon c,
Jean Wencélius c
a Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal H3A 0B9, Canada
b School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
c Laboratoire d’Ethnologie et de Sociologie Comparative (LESC), Université de Paris-Ouest Nanterre La Défense, UMR 7186 CNRS, 92023 Nanterre, France
d Centre d’Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive (CEFE), UMR 5175 CNRS, Université de Montpellier – Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier – École Pratique des Hautes Études, Montpellier,
France
e Institut Universitaire de France, France
f Laboratoire d’Eco-Anthropologie et Ethnobiologie, UMR 7206 CNRS, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), 75231 Paris, France
g Bioversity International, 00057 Maccarese, Rome, Italy
h Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary
i Yale Agrarian Studies Program, New Haven, CT, USA
j Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), UMR DIADE, BP 64501, 34394 Montpellier, France
k Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), UPR Agroécologie et Intensification durable des cultures annuelles, 34398
Montpellier, France
l Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), UMR 208 IRD-MNHN (PALOC), Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance, 75005 Paris, France
m Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), UMR AGAP, F-34398 Montpellier, France
n Laboratoire d’Informatique, de Robotique et de Microélectronique de Montpellier (LIRMM), CNRS and Montpellier University, 34090 Montpellier, France
o Laboratoire Evolution, Ecologie & Paléontologie (EEP), CNRS UMR 8198, Université Lille 1, Bâtiment SN2, F-59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq cedex, France
p (Formerly) FRB, CESAB (Centre de synthèse et d’analyse de la biodiversité), Technopôle de l’Environnement Arbois-Méditerranée, Aix en Provence, France
q Forest Pathology & Dendrology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland
r Animal and Plant Health Unit, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tArticle history:
Received 16 October 2014
Received in revised form 6 July 2015
Accepted 23 July 2015
Keywords:
Seed supply
Farmer seed systems
Crop genetic resource management
Informal seed sector
Planting material circulation
Social networksThe importance of seed provisioning in food security and nutrition, agricultural development and rural
livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity and germplasm conservation is well accepted by policy makers, practi-
tioners and researchers. The role of farmer seed networks is less well understood and yet is central to
debates on current issues ranging from seed sovereignty and rights for farmers to GMOs and the conser-
vation of crop germplasm. In this paper we identify four common misconceptions regarding the nature
and importance of farmer seed networks today. (1) Farmer seed networks are inefficient for seed dissem-
ination. (2) Farmer seed networks are closed, conservative systems. (3) Farmer seed networks provide
ready, egalitarian access to seed. (4) Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and disappear. We
challenge these misconceptions by drawing upon recent research findings and the authors’ collective
field experience in studying farmer seed systems in Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania.
Priorities for future research are suggested that would advance our understanding of seed networks
and better inform agricultural and food policy.
 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).IntroductionAround the world, researchers, policy makers, and foundations
are working hard to improve seed provisioning to farmers in devel-
oping countries in order to increase agricultural productivity,
nutrition and rural well-being. Between 2007 and 2012, for exam-
ple, fifty percent of the World Bank’s 191 projects promoting
42 O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50sustainable agriculture, totaling $513m, had a seed system compo-
nent (Rajalahti, 2013, cited in McGuire and Sperling, submitted for
publication). The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)
has placed particular emphasis on strengthening the seed sector
and promoting the commercialization, distribution and adoption
of improved crop varieties (AGRA, 2013). Many development
donors have projects, some spanning more than a decade, aimed
at improving farmer access to adapted and certified seed, as well
as supporting the informal seed sector (FANRPAN, 2010; Gill
et al., 2013). In addition, a diverse array of donors and NGOs invest
considerable effort in supporting community-based initiatives that
assist farmers in farmer seed enterprises, seed production and seed
sharing (e.g., Kugbei et al., 2000; Gyawali, 2010; Tin et al., 2011;
Lacoste et al., 2012).
Seed systems also lie at the nexus of important on-going
debates on themes ranging from seed sovereignty and the implica-
tions of intellectual property rights to GMOs and conservation of
agrobiodiversity and plant germplasm. These debates bring
researchers, policy makers, farmers, activists and politicians
together across divides in ideology and praxis over seed legislation,
regulation and commercialization (Kloppenburg, 2010; Aistara,
2012; Da Via, 2012; Bezner Kerr, 2013; Demeulenaere, 2014).
Informing these debates and seed policy interventions is a commu-
nity of researchers who seek to understand better how seeds circu-
late through societies and communities, in diverse contexts (e.g.,
Coomes, 2010; Calvet-Mir et al., 2012; Thomas et al., 2012;
Pautasso et al., 2013; Reyes-García et al., 2013; Coulibaly et al.,
2014; Labeyrie et al., 2014). The problem of understanding seed
circulation is a complex one because farmer seed systems are
embedded in social relations and institutions that constitute the
social, economic and political fabric of rural life; no single disci-
pline can provide the conceptual and analytic tools needed for a
compellingly holistic account. Research to date has made signifi-
cant advances, demonstrating the need for much closer attention
to farmer seed systems in the development of national seed policy
and for closer integration between ‘formal’ (commercial or
state-led) and ‘informal’ (farmer) seed sectors (Almekinders and
Louwaars, 2002; Louwaars et al., 2013; Pautasso et al., 2013;
Coulibaly et al., 2014; Deu et al., 2014).
This paper is the product of a series of interdisciplinary
workshops conducted biannually over three years that examined
the nature, role and significance of farmer seed networks in
Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania. The workshops
brought together the NetSeed network, a French initiative
funded by CESAB-FRB (Centre de Synthèse et d’Analyse sur la
Biodiversité-Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité), to share
datasets and field experience of researchers working on farmer
seed provisioning in different societies, cultures and economies
(Pautasso et al., 2013). Participants contributed considerable depth
of field-based understanding of farmer seed networks to workshop
discussions from a diversity of disciplinary perspectives, including
ecology, plant genetics, anthropology, ethnobotany, sociology,
political science, geography and development studies. Workshop
discussions entailed an iterative consensus-building process that
resulted in a general conclusion among participating researchers
that important misunderstandings persist in the research and
policy communities about farmer seed networks that merit
broader discussion.
In this paper we highlight four common misconceptions about
farmer seed networks that limit the appreciation of their impor-
tance in the international food and agricultural policy community.
By ‘common misconception’ we mean an oversimplification, over-
generalization or misunderstanding that is embraced by important
actors in debates, discourses or interventions aimed at promoting
seed system development. Clearly such misconceptions are not
necessarily universally held, but we provide evidence for each thatsuch views are embraced by at least some influential commenta-
tors and organizations working to further the development of seed
systems, farmers’ rights, or seed sovereignty. We challenge these
views by drawing on recently published research findings as well
as our collective field experience in studying farmer seed networks
in diverse settings and populations. Although recognizing that seed
access is relevant to broader concerns related to, for example, agro-
biodiversity, rural livelihoods and agrarian futures, we focus our
attention specifically on the nature, dynamics and contributions
of farmer seed networks to agriculture. Our aim is to advance
understanding of the importance of farmer seed networks in ways
that better inform research and policy in agricultural development,
food policy and agrobiodiversity/germplasm conservation.
Defining farmer seed networks
What do we mean by ‘farmer seed networks’? Farmer seed
networks transfer seed (and other generative material such as
cuttings, pseudostems or tubers) from domesticated or undomesti-
cated plants via farmer-to-farmer gifting, swapping, bartering, or
purchase, and also via trading or sale which occurs outside of the
commercial seed sector and formal regulation. The planting mate-
rial flowing through such networks may come from a range of
sources, including farmers’ own fields and gardens and those of
other farmers, local or district markets, NGOs and foundations,
National Agricultural Research Systems (NARSs) and International
Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), and agro-dealers and other
commercial seed suppliers. Much literature refers to such
networks as belonging to ‘informal seed systems’ through which
landraces and local seed varieties flow – in contrast, and often in
opposition, to ‘formal seed systems’ which convey improved, certi-
fied seed to farmers (e.g., Biemond et al., 2013a). While recognizing
that categories of ‘informal/formal’ are a useful short-hand in dis-
cussions about seed systems, we avoid their use in this paper for
three reasons: (1) this dichotomous depiction reinforces certain
misconceptions; (2) much permeability exists between ‘formal’
and ‘informal’ systems; and (3) ‘informal’ can convey, mislead-
ingly, a sense of absence of or diminished role of social rules and
norms that govern circulation. As such, farmer seed networks can
take a variety of forms and configurations, and we consider them
broadly to be social networks that emerge with the formation of
ties by seed transfer events.
The four misconceptions identified through our consensus-building
process and challenged in this paper are:
1. Farmer seed networks are inefficient for seed dissemination;
2. Farmer seed networks are closed, conservative systems;
3. Farmer seed networks provide ready, egalitarian access to seed;
and,
4. Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and disappear.
For each, we outline the proposition made and explicate the
supporting reasoning and argument, pointing to specific examples
that suggest that the view holds currency and sway among influen-
tial organizations, observers, scientists or advocates. We then pre-
sent counter-case arguments, illustrated by recent published
findings and our field experience, which challenge the proposition,
such that it may be viewed as a misconception. As discussions in
our workshops revealed, opinions on these propositions can vary
widely even among a group that is unified by a common interest
in farmer seed networks; our hope is that the reader will consider
our casting as fair and judge the arguments taken together in toto
that farmer seed networks do indeed make an important,
understudied and underappreciated contribution to agriculture.
We conclude with a discussion of priorities for future research
on farmer seed networks and their policy implications.
O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50 43I: ‘Farmer networks are inefficient for seed dissemination’
Misconception: Farmer seed transfers contribute limited volume
and dubious quality of seed for agricultural production, and thus
are inefficient drivers of agricultural development.
This misconception underpins many current agricultural devel-
opment policies and initiatives aimed at promoting large-scale
seed production and marketing by states, multilateral agencies,
foundations, or private enterprises. These efforts seek ‘‘to make
quality seed available to small-scale farmers. Since the benefits
of modern plant breeding can reach farmers only through an effi-
cient seed system, there is an urgent need to develop the private
seed sector’’ (World Bank, 2006: 25). Proponents of this view rele-
gate farmer-to-farmer exchanges or trade of planting material
within local market places to the status of ‘informal networks’,
and consider they contribute an unreliable and limited supply of
uncertified seed, often of dubious quality, for agricultural produc-
tion, resulting in ‘‘slow adoption of improved varieties, low yields
and heightened susceptibility to crop diseases’’ (ICARDA, 2014;
see also AGRA, 2013). In many countries, farmer-to-farmer trans-
fers of seed have been actively discouraged by state agricultural
policy that promotes commercial seed provision and moderniza-
tion of agriculture (Aistara, 2011; Thomas et al., 2011). Indeed,
farmer seed networks are often seen as a transitional stage on an
‘evolutionary’ path to formal commercial systems delivering
improved varieties, persisting only due to limitations in farmers’
education, purchasing power, or access to better outlets (Maredia
and Howard, 1998: 2; AGRA, 2013: 54). In this view, prescriptions
for improving yields and reducing poverty lie in provision of
improved seeds through the formal seed system (Awotide et al.,
2012; Martens et al., 2012).
Challenging the misconception
A growing literature challenges this view in three ways. First,
formal or commercial seed provision plays a limited role in devel-
oping countries, supplying a very small proportion of what farmers
sow, often measured well below 10% (Badstue et al., 2007; Dyer
et al., 2011; Jarvis et al., 2011; Okry et al., 2011; Samberg et al.,
2013; Sperling and McGuire, 2013). Even for staple crops receiving
the bulk of policy and fiscal support (e.g., maize), formal seed sys-
tems often supply less than 20% (Louwaars et al., 2013, for
sub-Saharan Africa). No firm figures as yet exist of the amount of
crop seed and other planting material moving through farmer seed
networks, but global estimates of 80–90% (e.g., Sperling and
McGuire, 2010a), which include seed self-provisioning, seem rea-
sonable. While some observers might respond that this merely
indicates the weakness of more ‘evolved’ (i.e., commercial) supply
channels (AGRA, 2013), we contend that the considerable contribu-
tion of farmer seed networks in seed delivery indicates they
currently serve farmers’ needs rather well, and can be favorable
in terms of choice, accessibility, cost, and non-economic utility
(e.g., social values).
Second, farmer seed networks are important for building viable
and diverse crop populations, and for the spatial as well as social
distribution of genetic, morphological and varietal diversity, for
staple and for minor crops. Studies have confirmed that farmer
seed circulation is important in shaping gene flow among crop
varieties. Farmer networks are particularly important for the trans-
mission of non-core crops and other plant species which are often
ignored by formal supply; Ellen and Platten (2011), for example,
highlight how seed transfers in English garden allotments build
agrobiodiversity beyond what is available from commercial suppli-
ers. This diversity is also the basis for future crop improvement
(Louafi et al., 2013). A wide body of literature is now available on
how these networks have shaped the amount and distribution ofdiversity in many crops, including maize (Bellon et al., 2011;
Dyer and López-Feldman, 2013; Hellin et al., 2014; Orozco–
Ramírez et al., 2014), sorghum (Deu et al., 1994, 2014; Barnaud
et al., 2008), barley (Abay et al., 2011; Bajracharya et al., 2012;
Jensen et al., 2013), millet (vom Brocke et al., 2003; Allinne et al.,
2008), wheat (Bishaw et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2012; Chentoufi
et al., 2014), quinoa (Fuentes et al., 2012), cassava (Dyer et al.,
2011; Kawa et al., 2013; Fu et al., 2014), and others (Jarvis et al.,
2007).
Third, farmer seed networks can provide quality planting mate-
rials that are acceptable to farmers (Sperling and McGuire, 2010b).
Claims that formal channels are the sole guarantors of ‘quality
seed’ conflate two aspects of quality best kept distinct: genetic
quality (attributes such as yield potential or seed color) and seed
quality per se (seed health, germination ability, freedom from con-
taminants). These claims are also normative, as seed quality in
farmer seed networks is rarely studied (Almekinders and
Louwaars, 1999). For genetic quality we note that farmer networks
commonly supply material which farmers appreciate, including
varieties with traits not produced by formal breeding (such as tol-
erance of characteristic local stresses, or particular organoleptic
qualities; Ceccarelli, 1994; Bellon et al., 2011) or crops neglected
by formal research. There is evidence that farmer networks can
maintain morphological and yield characteristics of elite improved
varieties over multiple seasons (e.g., Deu et al., 2014). For seed
quality per se, recent work challenges the notion that farmer net-
works only keep subgrade seed in circulation, finding few signifi-
cant differences in quality between seed from farmer or formal
sources (Bishaw et al., 2012, 2013; Gibson, 2013), and no evidence
to support the claim that seed recycling negatively affects quality
(Biemond et al., 2013b). Practices and institutions – e.g., around
seed selection and storage, or social certification in neighborhoods
and markets (Thiele, 1999; Sperling and McGuire, 2010a) – exist to
maintain quality in farmer seed networks, not least to avoid exclu-
sion of the supplier from these networks. Farmer seed networks
are simply conveyors of seed, and should not be conflated with
the practices and institutions that shape seed quality. This does
not negate the fact that there is much scope for improving quality
in farmer networks, but seed quality can also be poor under formal
regulation, due to inappropriate standards or weak enforcement
(Tripp and Louwaars, 1997).
II: ‘Seed networks are closed, conservative systems’Misconception: Farmer seed networks are considered to be of
limited value to agricultural development because they are closed
systems that circulate seed of local varieties through exchanges
among farmers over small geographical areas where infrastructure
and markets are poorly developed.Farmer seed networks are considered to be integral to the ‘in-
formal’ seed system that enables farmer access to seed – joining
farms and enabling seed flow – but are distinct and apart from
the formal sector which conveys new varieties and fresh, certified
seed from plant breeders to farmers. Farmer seed networks are
denoted as being geographically and socially marginal, and insular.
In contrast, national breeding and seed supply systems in the for-
mal sector are promoted as the best means to increase the adop-
tion of modern varieties and to raise productivity (for a current
example, see AGRA, 2014). On strengthening seed systems for food
security, ICARDA (2014) writes, ‘‘80–90% of food grains in many
developing countries still depend on informal seed systems that
consist of recycling older varieties saved during harvest and unco-
ordinated exchanges of seed among farmers.’’
44 O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50Challenging the misconception
Far from being closed systems, farmer seed networks convey
new domesticates, varieties and planting material from the wild
as well as modern varieties from the formal sector into agricultural
production. The movement of wild materials from forests and
grasslands into cultivated ecosystems has been an important
source of new domesticates and novel diversity in both the New
and Old World (Jarvis and Hodgkin, 1999; Dansi et al., 2010).
New varieties created by on-farm management and adapted to
local environmental and market conditions are disseminated
through farmer seed networks, increasing crop diversity and
enhancing incomes (Bellon and Risopoulos, 2001; Zannou et al.,
2004). Networks extend the reach of markets and commercial seed
supply, bringing seed to farmers where markets are thin or inac-
cessible to some. Frequent transfers of small quantities of planting
material can effectively disseminate new varieties (David and
Sperling, 1999; Aw-Hassan et al., 2008; Bishaw et al., 2010;
Garine et al., 2014). Increasingly, international and national agri-
cultural agencies are recognizing the efficiency of informal farmer
seed networks and turning to them to disseminate improved vari-
eties where linkages between the formal sector and farmers
remain weak (Kabore et al., 2010). Farmer networks also provide
the pathways for diffusion of creolized varieties (hybrids of local
and improved varieties), further broadening the spectrum of useful
diversity available to farmers as improved varieties, particularly of
open-pollinated crops, ‘go wild’ (Aistara, 2011; van Heerwaarden
et al., 2012; Deu et al., 2014; Westengen et al., 2014b). Dyer
et al. (2011: 1) note, ‘‘[c]assava populations are surprisingly open
and dynamic: farmers exchange germplasm across localities, par-
ticularly improved varieties, and distribute it among neighbors at
extremely high rates vis-à-vis maize.’’ Seed transfer is typically
accompanied by the transmission of information about crop vari-
eties, their agronomic requirements, yields, consumption qualities,
and vulnerabilities to pests and disease. Indeed, farmer seed net-
works are an important channel for the conveyance of agricultural
novelty, innovation and diversity across farmer populations,
regions and ecosystems, and often are capable of doing so more
efficiently than other systems in much of the developing world.
In addition to being open systems, farmer seed networks often
extend well beyond local communities and environments
(Zimmerer, 2010), and are dynamic in their formation and opera-
tion. Farmer networks can exhibit small-world properties (i.e.,
local networks with some long-distance links), as seed transfers
sometimes stretch several hundred kilometers, cross national
boundaries, and span distinct agroecosystems – between forests
and savannas, across elevation gradients in mountains, and
between floodplains and uplands (Zimmerer, 1996; Caillon, 2005;
Emperaire et al., 2008; Coomes, 2010; Bellon et al., 2011). Such
transfers typically entail small quantities but they are vital for
building crop and varietal diversity and for renewing planting
stock, and are important for gene flow, diffusing genetic material
(including transgenes) (Smale et al., 2008; Jensen et al., 2013).
Van Heerwaarden et al. (2012) write, ‘‘[e]ven though farmers pre-
dominantly rely on local seed sources, infrequent long-distance
flow causes transgenes to spread much further than would be
expected in the absence of seed flow.’’ Field research has enabled
the visualization and analysis of farmer seed networks and the
identification of farmers who hold a nodal position as individuals
who are particularly important in the custody and dissemination
of planting material (Salick et al., 1997; Subedi et al., 2003). As
yet, however, researchers have been limited by available analytical
techniques and field protocols from being able to portray the
dynamic and contingent nature that field reports suggest may
characterize seed transfer events (Poudel et al., 2008; Abay et al.,
2011; Kawa et al., 2013). Farmer seed networks and specific nodalfarmers thus may be more ephemeral than implied by recent
cross-sectional studies using social network analyses (Poudel
et al., 2015). This dynamism also presents challenges for under-
standing plant trade systems (Pautasso and Jeger, 2014).
The open and dynamic nature of farmer seed networks enables
them to be responsive to changes in contextual conditions and
resilient to environmental and price shocks. Seeds are effectively
stored in farmer networks – something quite distinct from physical
storage in granaries or community seed banks – and these net-
works offer an important alternative to providing seed in times
of shortage. Some farmers give seeds or exchange seeds with
others to ensure particular varieties will persist beyond their farms
and local environments and remain available to them at a later
date if needed, for example for taro in Vanuatu (Caillon, 2005).
Farmer networks – which include local markets – help ensure
access to varieties at risk; more broadly, they enable and incen-
tivize on-farm conservation of crop and varietal diversity by link-
ing farmers together and providing channels for mutual
assistance, i.e., a seed safety net (Sperling and McGuire, 2010a).
The act of exchanging seed gives rise to a social obligation that
ensures that seed be available upon need. Storage on-farm, by mer-
chants, or at community level enables the generation of seed that
may be remitted to donor farmers, and in this way, seed networks
serve the function of providing seed access in the face of climatic
shocks, pest and disease outbreaks, etc. While aspects of such
‘in-network storage’ may break down under extreme conditions
(e.g., social ties weakened after war; Sperling, 1997), for most
farmers in the developing world, farmer seed networks are vital
in ensuring long-term access to diverse crop planting material.
III: ‘Farmer networks ensure ready, egalitarian access to seed’
Misconception: In informal seed systems, seeds and germplasm
move fluidly among farmers, with few barriers to exchange and
at minimal cost.Advocates of seed sovereignty, farmers’ rights and informal
seed systems may presume that seeds and germplasm move fluidly
among farmers and at minimal cost. Seed movement among
farmers is enabled by a variety of features central to the ethos of
peasant life: social and cultural norms of mutual assistance;
reciprocity and solidarity in agrarian societies; a proclivity for gift-
ing and exchange ‘in-kind’ over monetized exchange; a reticence to
embrace formal property rights over local resources, including
planting material; and, resistance to the commodification of seed.
Accordingly, in the absence of markets, farmers’ social networks
transfer seeds ‘for free’, and farmers do (and should, by their rights)
have ready, unfettered and undifferentiated access to planting
material (Brush, 1992; Calle, 1996; Correa, 2000; Rudebjer et al.,
2011; Meienberg and Lebrecht, 2014). The presumed ‘informality’
of rural social relations that guide seed circulation is understood
as placing few impediments in the way of seed transfers.
Initiatives by NGOs and aid agencies aimed at promoting farmer
seed networks through, for example, collective banks, seed fairs,
and seed swapping, often rely upon the assumption of low barriers
to seed sharing and an idealization of the terms of seed exchange
(Pratten, 1997; Practical Action, 2011; Lacoste et al., 2012;
Navdanya, 2012).
Challenging the misconception
A growing body of empirical research on farmer seed networks
indicates, however, that the notion of ‘frictionless’ circulation of
planting material through rural social networks and seed systems
– providing farmers with ready and equitable access to seed – is
problematic.
O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50 45In agrarian societies, desirable seeds are considered to be a
scarce resource, one that is allocated by institutions – whether
markets or other social institutions – which govern seed move-
ment via specific social and cultural norms. These institutions have
the effect of discriminating among farmers such that some have
better access to seed than others. Seed access is conditioned not
only by the biological properties and ecology of plants that influ-
ence seed production and viability (and thus availability), but also
by cultural practices (e.g., how crops are cultivated, seeds stored
and managed, etc.) as well as by institutions and social relations
that impede or enable seed flow and thus determine the social
scarcity of seed (David and Sperling, 1999; Dennis et al., 2007;
McGuire, 2008; Jarvis et al., 2011). Such social relations and insti-
tutions may center on domains unrelated to seed transfer or even
to agriculture – such as marriage, kinship, or labor sharing – but
they can have an important influence on seed circulation. A major
thrust of research today lies in identifying and describing how such
institutions condition farmers’ access to seed. Among the Fang peo-
ple of Gabon, for example, the movement of seeds in metapopula-
tions across kingroups is shaped by marriage prohibitions (Delêtre
et al., 2011). Kawa et al. (2013) in Amazonia found that rural social
networks can constrain varietal distribution and contribute to low
crop diversity in agricultural communities. Communities with
weak social networks have been shown to be more vulnerable to
adverse conditions because of constrained access to locally
adapted seed, compared to those with strong social networks
(Poudel et al., 2005). Similarly, social exclusion in seed circulation
can occur among individuals, such as widows, orphans or tenant
farmers (Bezner Kerr, 2013, Table 3). The circulation of seeds can
also be limited by ethnolinguistic boundaries, as in the case of
maize in Chiapas (Brush and Perales, 2007) and of sorghum in
Kenya (Labeyrie et al., 2014) or in Africa more widely
(Westengen et al., 2014a). Cases of local institutions explicitly sup-
porting free access to seed in traditional societies are in fact rela-
tively rare (see Garine et al., 2014).
In addition to the rural institutions and social relations that
mediate the flow of crop planting material, farmers themselves
are selective about with whom they share seed and germplasm.
Seeds are much more than an input to agricultural production for
farmers – they are a source of wealth, pride, and identity. For
instance, among certain indigenous groups in Amazonia varietal
diversity of manioc is seen as a reflection of farmer expertise
(Emperaire and Peroni, 2007; Heckler and Zent, 2008) and even
as being central to the notion of womanhood (Heckler, 2004), so
access to varietal diversity through intergenerational transmission
(mother–daughter) is particularly important (Chernela, 1986).
Boster (1985, 1986) observes that seed transfers create social
bonds among the Aguaruna that reinforce the relationship
between the bride and her in-laws, strengthening social cohesion
and building cultural consensus. When farmers in Vanuatu dis-
cover a new variety of taro when opening a garden in an old fallow,
they seek to disseminate the propagules among as many other
farmers as possible, to perpetuate the finder’s name through time
(Caillon and Degeorges, 2007). In contrast, farmers in many regions
may also strive to protect their special varieties, through exclusion
in ‘secret gardens’, deception and reluctance to offer planting
material to others despite norms of mutual assistance and sharing
(Cleveland and Murray, 1997; Coomes and Ban, 2004;
Demeulenaere and Bonneuil, 2011).
Seed exchanges are transacted bearing in mind the potential
social costs and benefits of sharing material and information, as
well as the trustworthiness of the parties involved. When farmers
lack confidence in seed produced by neighbors, they seek out seed
in local markets (Sperling and McGuire, 2010a) which they may in
turn circulate onwards, farmer-to-farmer; where markets provide
poor quality seed, farmers may prefer sourcing from reputableneighbors (Badstue et al., 2007; Bicksler et al., 2012). As such, trust
plays an important role in terms of the selection of seed source,
whether by gift or sale, but also in determining with whom a
farmer exchanges seed. In addition to trust, recent studies have
sought to identify household and farmer characteristics that influ-
ence seed sharing.
Seed transfers have been shown to be affected by farmer age,
gender and wealth status (Howard, 2003; Rana et al., 2007;
Barnaud et al., 2008; Delêtre et al., 2011) and often entail debt or
specific social obligations. Indeed in some cases, farmers prefer
to purchase seed rather than having to borrow them (Smale
et al., 2008). Samberg et al. (2013) found that one-third of farmers
in southern Ethiopia would, in principle, ask neighbors for seed,
but only 11% actually did so; they did not want to shamefully
‘beg’. In the extreme, the fear of curse dissuades farmers from seek-
ing seed from others (Sumberg and Okali, 1997; Labeyrie, 2013).
Heritage and cultural identity values can be enhanced when seeds
are acquired from a relative or community elder (Meinzen-Dick
and Eyzaguirre, 2009). Alvarez et al. (2005: 541) observe both obli-
gation and debt in seed provision among farmers, ‘‘an older farmer
will never ask a younger one for seeds; in the field, older people
must help younger ones, not the opposite. . . Older Duupa are reluc-
tant to be indebted in any way to younger individuals.’’
Like agrobiodiversity, seed sharing is often associated with
wealth, and gifting is sometimes used to enhance the donor’s pres-
tige (McGuire, 2008). Farmers with leadership positions and
greater ethnobotanical knowledge (but not necessarily higher cul-
tivar diversity) are found to be more likely to give out seeds than
others (Kiptot et al., 2006; Kawa et al., 2013). Farmer mobility
and migration, which are often linked to wealth, also are related
to seed sharing as more opportunities arise to both accumulate
and disseminate new varieties (Eloy and Emperaire, 2011).
Farmers are also known to shape their social networks to secure
specific crop varieties – for instance, in Vanuatu there were no
direct and public exchanges of varieties following a seed fair;
however, farmers did notice who was cultivating what, and over
several years purposefully built their networks to access a particu-
lar variety they desired (Caillon, 2005). The lability and malleabil-
ity of rural social networks provide farmers with opportunities to
acquire seeds and thus influence seed circulation and distribution
among farmers, with the result that some farmers benefit from
better access to planting material than others. In short, farmer seed
networks do not necessarily ensure equitable access to seed among
farmers or communities.
IV: ‘Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and
disappear’
Misconception: Crop and seed commercialization and related
regulation will extinguish farmer seed networks, replacing them
with commercial (formal) seed provision systems.
According to this view, the expansion of markets for agricul-
tural products and key inputs, including seeds, is transforming
relations – by design or by effect – in ways that threaten the con-
tinuance of farmer seed networks. Seed commoditization, often an
explicit objective of agricultural modernization policy (Pray and
Umali-Deininger, 1998), is linked to commerce-oriented seed legis-
lation and regulation that restrict which actors and germplasm can
be involved in seed transfers (Kloppenburg, 1989). In post-war
France, for example, the state suppressed the circulation of seed
from traditional varieties of wheat and other crops to promote
improved, commercial varieties (Bonneuil and Thomas, 2010).
Today, seed quality standards such as certification, catalogs of
varieties allowable for trade, and the promotion of intellectual
property rights over germplasm, are all intended to direct seed
flow toward market channels, not only in Europe and North
46 O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50America but also increasingly in developing countries (Santilli,
2011; Aistara, 2012; de Jonge, 2014). Such regulation, accompanied
by the promotion of commercial seed outlets such as agro-input
shops by development donors (Toenniessen et al., 2008), is seen
to restrict greatly the scope for farmer seed network actors and
exchanges (Zerbe, 2001; Odame and Muange, 2011; Bezner Kerr,
2013). At the same time, interest among farmers themselves may
be waning, as more diversified and monetized livelihoods change
farmers’ weighing of the benefits and transaction costs of seeking
out sources and seed from commercial outlets versus farmer seed
networks (Zimmerer, 2003; Bellon, 2004; Fuentes et al., 2012;
Samberg et al., 2013). According to this view, these combined
forces inexorably lead to the withering away of farmer seed net-
works. While some farmer-to-farmer exchanges may persist,
restrictions to farmers’ autonomy by an ascendant commercial sys-
tem, coupled with weakening of the social institutions that under-
pin seed exchanges, would increasingly render these transactions
marginal in seed systems. Interestingly, groups holding opposing
views of the desirability of agricultural commercialization and
their impacts often espouse a common view: that farmer seed net-
works today are imperiled (e.g., Lipper et al., 2005; African Centre
for Biosafety, 2012; Navdanya, 2012; de Jonge, 2014).
Challenging the misconception
While the perception of threat to farmer seed transfers and to
farmers’ choices is understandable, and often well founded, farmer
seed networks are likely to persist over the long run in the face of
commercialization, legislation and regulation. Indeed, impacts on
farmer-to-farmer seed transfer should not be conflated with the
broader and often troubling effects of commercialization on small-
holders’ livelihoods (Amanor, 2012; de Jonge, 2014) and agrobiodi-
versity (Zimmerer, 2010; Gilbert, 2013; Dyer et al., 2014). The
nature and structure of farmer seed networks co-evolve reflexively
with their commercial and regulatory context, reflecting farmers’
changing needs, interests and strategies for engagement with
market-oriented agricultural development, food policies and seed
legislation. There are at least four factors that support the persis-
tence of farmer seed networks, despite commercial and regulatory
pressures.
First, seeds move through farmer seed networks regardless of
their provenance and mode of acquisition. Ample evidence indi-
cates, across many countries, that farmers routinely exchange cash
or services to access seed from local markets, shops, or each other,
often as their primary source of seed (Dennis et al., 2007; McGuire
and Sperling, 2013; Samberg et al., 2013). Seeds originating from
commercial seed systems may be sold through farmer seed net-
works alongside local or creolized varieties (van Heerwaarden
et al., 2009; CRS et al., 2013). Whereas farmer networks may be
more monetized than in the past (Sperling, 1997; McGuire, 2008;
Samberg et al., 2013), network exchanges and relationships persist,
and many aspects of complementarity exist between these net-
works and commercial seed provisioning (van Heerwaarden
et al., 2009; Zimmerer, 2013). This hybridity is increasingly recog-
nized by development actors, and particular linkages are promoted
in order to disseminate useful varieties (Louwaars and de Boef,
2012; Deu et al., 2014), build local enterprises (Almekinders,
2011; Li et al., 2014) and conserve agrobiodiversity (Almekinders
et al., 2000). Commercial relationships are not anathema to farmer
seed networks.
Second, farmer seed networks channel non-commercialized
seed for many crops and serve a range of purposes that go unmet
by commercial seed provision. Farmer networks may be the sole
seed source, particularly for crops overlooked by research
(e.g., local vegetables) or commercial seed supply
(e.g., vegetatively-propagated, grain legumes – due to profitabilitychallenges (Cromwell, 1996). For crops that are commercially
available, farmer seed networks may still be preferred for utilitar-
ian reasons such as variety choice, taste, balance of price with risk,
and ease of access (e.g., Bellon, 1996; Louwaars and de Boef, 2012;
Dyer and López-Feldman, 2013). Moreover, seed exchanges are
important to farmers for reasons other than seed access, such as
maintaining and forging social ties or building social capital and
prestige (Badstue et al., 2006; Labeyrie et al., 2014; Orozco–
Ramírez et al., 2014). Seed sharing relationships are found even
within commercialized seed systems (Isakson, 2009; Ellen and
Platten, 2011; Graddy-Lovelace, 2014), reflecting the importance
and attraction of seed networks to farmers.
Third, restrictive regulations on seed transfers that accompany
commercialization are often difficult to implement and enforce
among farmers who have good reasons to continue to exchange
seeds. Transaction costs for regulating small and localized farmer
seed transfers are high, making enforcement often impractical
and uneconomical. Indeed, seed of varieties that underpinned the
Green Revolution as well as those of genetically modified crops
grown in India, China and Argentina have spread widely through
farmer-to-farmer exchanges (Kesan and Gallo, 2005; Herring,
2007; Ho et al., 2009; Ramaswami et al., 2012), highlighting
enforcement challenges, even for seed with high commercial inter-
est. Also, innovative alternative forms of regulation are emerging
that aim to help entrepreneurs in farmer seed networks thrive
within commercial regulation, e.g., through recognizing new cate-
gories of vendors, quality standards (FAO, 2006; López-Noriega,
2012), and ownership or provenance designation (e.g., Salazar
et al., 2007). While recognizing that strict regulation and enforce-
ment have acted to restrict farmer seed networks in specific
instances, we note that the cost of enforcement and the creative
actions of farmers generally act in practice to counter restrictions
to seed movement.
Finally, and relatedly, farmers increasingly are able to mobilize
collectively and push back against commercialization and restric-
tive regulation. In Europe and North America, farmers have acted
to strengthen existing farmer networks and/or develop new ones,
with aims to preserve varietal diversity and farmer control over
seed transfer for commercial as well as non-commercial crops
(Steinberg, 2001; Campbell, 2012; Thomas et al., 2012; Phillips,
2013). Responses include political mobilization that directly con-
tests restrictive commercialization and articulates alternative
agrarian futures (Aistara, 2012; Navdanya, 2012; Demeulenaere,
2014; GRAIN, 2015), sometimes leading to policy innovations,
e.g., around seed legislation or plant variety protection (Aistara,
2014; de Jonge, 2014; Kloppenburg, 2014; Winge, 2014). As such,
farmer seed networks are emerging as a site of popular resistance
where particular versions of globalization are contested. In sup-
porting farmer-to-farmer seed transfers, many contest, for exam-
ple, the emphasis on policies promoting international trade and
productivity increases over other important considerations such
as the viability of small farms, local farmer agency, or sustainability
(Kloppenburg, 2010; Da Via, 2012; Bezner Kerr, 2013). This
illustrates another way in which such networks are taking on an
importance beyond simply the conveyance of seeds and germ-
plasm. While farmers may have more practical interests, such as
preserving access to diversity and sovereignty over seed, many
see the symbolic importance of farmer seed networks in agrarian
struggles.
Concern over threats to farmer seed networks spring from
worry over the loss of traditional varieties, local knowledge, gift
transactions (Bocci, 2009; Bezner Kerr, 2014) and their indepen-
dence and ways of agrarian life – all of which are serious concerns,
worthy of attention and discussion, but are distinct from the
relationships of exchange that underpin and beget farmer seed
networks. Farmer seed networks are not in robust health
O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50 47everywhere, but agricultural modernization has differentiated
impacts on farming, farmers are far from passive in the face of
change, and many aspects of farmer seed networks are resilient
and co-optively adaptive to new market and regulatory environ-
ments, persisting (or reemerging) in a range of hybrid forms and
settings.
Discussion and conclusions
In this paper we examined four current views regarding farmer
seed networks and criticized them as misconceptions that influ-
ence both the understanding and appreciation of the importance
of seed networks in agriculture. Our critiques are based on recently
published research and the experience of the authors in studying
and working with farmers on their seed systems. Certain elements
of the critique of each view are well known to those who work on
seed systems; others are perhaps not, or less so. More importantly,
our purpose in making this critique was to marshal a compelling
argument supported by recent empirical evidence that addresses
the rhetorical question that guides this paper – how important
are farmer seed networks? – and to advance this understanding
for those on all sides of policy, research and advocacy discussions
on ‘formal’, ‘informal’ and ‘integrated’ seed systems.
Farmer seed networks make a vital contribution to agriculture
because they are an effective means of moving seed not only
farmer-to-farmer, but also from nature, local markets, national
seed agencies, research stations, agro-dealers, and agribusiness to
farmers throughout the countryside. Seed networks are about the
conveyance of planting material and should not be conflated with
seed quality or with particular sources. They are open systems that
draw material from the wild and from improved varieties, redirect-
ing geneflow and enabling farmers to reshape – by cultivation and
further seed transfer – crop populations and the biogeography of
genetic, morphological and varietal diversity (Alvarez et al.,
2005; Thomas et al., 2012). Such material can move quickly and
over long distances from farmer to farmer as shown by historic
(e.g., Perrier et al., 2011; Fuentes et al., 2012; Roullier et al.,
2013) and recent introductions (Dyer et al., 2011); large quantities
of high-quality seed are not required to move in order for new
planting material to have transformative effects on agrobiodiver-
sity or farmers’ lives.
Although such networks are open systems, this does not mean
that seeds are free or that seed flow goes unimpeded among com-
munities, farmers, families, ethnic groups or polities. Seeds bear
social costs and meanings. Transfers among farmers follow and
reinforce social relations around identity, status and wealth and
access to planting material is more typically unequal than egalitar-
ian, even in the absence of market-mediated seed relations.
In-network storage of seed is an important safety net for farmers
in the face of crop seed loss and calamity, and an important com-
plement to physical storage in granaries or community seed banks.
Recognizing the efficiencies of farmer-to-farmer seed circulation,
NARSs, IARCs and foundations are increasingly working to use
farmer seed networks to disseminate improved varieties and certi-
fied seeds (Gyawali, 2010; Gibson, 2013; Joshi et al., 2014). In most
developing regions, where formal seed systems have limited reach,
a paucity of linkages to outlets and considerable inefficiencies in
seed delivery – due to poor infrastructure, thin markets and perva-
sive poverty – farmer seed networks overcome high transaction
and transport costs. For this reason much of the developing world’s
seed moves through these networks. And such farmer seed net-
works are likely to persist even as more commercial seed sectors
and seed markets develop – one has only to look at how
European farmers demand access and control over their seed to
see that the formal sector will not push out farmer-to-farmer seed
transfers (Bocci and Chable, 2009; Da Via, 2012).To go beyond the misconceptions challenged in this paper, we
close by arguing for more in-depth study of farmer-to-farmer seed
circulation and farmer seed networks. Research to date has been
largely exploratory in nature, based on a growing number of punc-
tual case studies, and few systematic and comparable data are as
yet available (Dyer and López-Feldman, 2013). More research is
needed to better understand the structure, diversity and functional
properties of seed networks. Comparative research which spans
geographical scales, ecologies, cultures and economies is particu-
larly promising but would require common data collection proto-
cols and a clearer (and shared) conceptual framework for
understanding factors that condition seed transfer as a dynamic,
contingent and embedded social process. In particular, distinguish-
ing between studies of seed transfer events (with a specific time
and ‘orientation’, i.e. direction of flow specified) and those of social
networks of suppliers/recipients (not necessarily oriented or fixed
in time) would sharpen analysis and add clarity to discussions. A
growing suite of analytic techniques is becoming available from
ecology, economics and social network analysis (Snijders et al.,
2006; Borgatti et al., 2009; Jackson, 2011; Doreian and Conti,
2012; Fletcher et al., 2013; Miranda et al., 2013) that will enable
researchers to advance beyond a descriptive mapping of network
structures (visualization) to examine factors affecting network
functioning. This will be especially important for developing an
understanding of how these networks evolve and respond to
change, or relate to key emergent properties such as diversity or
resilience. Both the openness and dynamism of seed networks will
continue to pose especially thorny methodological and analytical
challenges to researchers who inevitably must sample farmers
and seed circulation events selectively. Meeting these challenges
would represent significant breakthroughs.
On-going debates over broad issues such as the benefits of reg-
ulatory harmonization, the rights of farmers or the future of food
policy and agriculture are rife with speculation and rhetoric which
cloud understanding of how farmer seed networks articulate in the
broader policy context, i.e., beyond seed provisioning.
Interdisciplinary collaborations that bring ethnobotanists, plant
scientists and other agricultural specialists together with social sci-
entists and jurists are potentially fruitful in this endeavor
(Pautasso et al., 2013). An improved understanding of the seed
network-rural policy nexus would expand the analysis of a policy
or intervention beyond single and intended impacts, to consider
indirect or unexpected effects on farmer seed networks. This can
also give rise to new and more nuanced narratives, informing pol-
icy initiatives that more effectively leverage the advantages of
farmer-based seed transfer (e.g., for diffusion of improved vari-
eties) and strengthen seed systems to the benefit of farmers, for
instance, by promoting diverse provisioning channels and new
partnerships that improve farmers’ access and choice, supporting
local systems for managing quality (FAO, 2006), or recognizing
local identities and ownership (Graddy, 2013). Finally, the diverse
ways in which farmer seed networks engage entrepreneurially
with markets merits much closer study, from local seed value
chains (Sperling and McGuire, 2010a) to creolized ‘stealth seeds’
(Herring, 2007) and counterfeit seeds (sold with deliberately false
claims for variety identity or seed quality; Sseguya et al., 2012).
Such research promises to provide the foundations for advancing
the common goals of promoting sound food and agricultural poli-
cies, conserving plant germplasm and agrobiodiversity for future
generations, and enhancing the well-being of farmers around the
world.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the French Fondation pour la
Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB) that made possible NetSeed, an
48 O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50international collaboration of researchers studying farmer seed
networks. The Centre de Synthèse et d’Analyse sur la Biodiversité
(CESAB) provided essential logistical support for the biannual
workshops held in Aix-en-Provence. Additional support of this
research collaboration was provided by the following agencies:
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and
National Network on Complex systems (RNSC), and the Research
Council of University Montpellier II. The insightful comments and
suggestions of Mathieu Thomas, two anonymous reviewers, and
the Editor on earlier drafts of this paper were much appreciated.
References
Abay, F., De Boef, W.S., Bjørnstad, Å., 2011. Network analysis of barley seed flows in
Tigray, Ethiopia: supporting the design of strategies that contribute to on-farm
management of plant genetic resources. Plant Genet. Resour. Charact.
Utilisation 9, 495–505.
African Centre for Biosafety, 2012. Harmonization of Africa’s Seed Laws: A Recipe
for Disaster. The African Centre for Biosafety, Melville, South Africa.
AGRA, 2013. The Africa Agriculture Status Report: Focus on Staple Crops. Alliance
for a Green Revolution in Africa, Nairobi <http://agra-alliance.org/our-results/
agra-status-reports>.
AGRA, 2014. Program for Africa’s Seed Systems.
Aistara, G., 2011. Seeds of kin, kin of seeds: the commodification of organic seeds
and social relations in Costa Rica and Latvia. Ethnography 12, 490–517.
Aistara, G., 2012. Privately public seeds: competing visions of property, personhood,
and democracy in Costa Rica’s entry into CAFTA and the Union for Plant Variety
Protection (UPOV). J. Polit. Ecol. 19, 127–144.
Aistara, G., 2014. Actually existing tomatoes: politics of memory, variety, and
empire in Latvian struggles over seeds. Focaal 69, 12–27.
Allinne, C., Mariac, C., Vigouroux, Y., Bezançon, G., Coutron, E., Moussa, D., Tidjani,
M., Pham, J.L., Robert, T., 2008. Role of seed flow on the pattern and dynamics of
pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R. Br.) genetic diversity assessed by AFLP
markers: a study in south-western Niger. Genetica 133, 167–178.
Almekinders, C.J.M., 2011. The joint development of JM-12.7: a technographic
description of the making of a bean variety. NJAS – Wageningen J. Life Sci. 57,
207–216.
Almekinders, C.J.M., de Boef, W.S., Engels, J.M.M., 2000. Synthesis between crop
conservation and development. In: Almekinders, C.J.M., de Boef, W.S. (Eds.),
Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic
Resources. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 330–338.
Almekinders, C.J.M., Louwaars, N.P., 1999. Farmers’ Seed Production: New
Approaches and Practices. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Almekinders, C.J.M., Louwaars, N.P., 2002. The importance of the farmers’ seed
systems in a functional national seed sector. J. New Seeds 4, 15–33.
Alvarez, N., Garine, E., Khasah, C., Dounias, E., Hossaert-McKey, M., McKey, D., 2005.
Farmers’ practices, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation of agricultural
biodiversity on-farm: a case study of sorghum among the Duupa in sub-
sahelian Cameroon. Biol. Conserv. 121, 533–543.
Amanor, K.S., 2012. Global resource grabs, agribusiness concentration and the
smallholder: two West African case studies. J. Peasant Stud. 39, 731–749.
Aw-Hassan, A., Mazid, A., Salahieh, H., 2008. The role of informal farmer-to-farmer
seed distribution in diffusion of new barley varieties in Syria. Exp. Agric. 44,
413–431.
Awotide, B.A., Awoyemi, T.T., Diagne, A., 2012. Access to certified, improved rice
seed and farmers’ income in Nigeria. J. Crop Improv. 26, 558–579.
Badstue, L.B., Bellon, M.R., Berthaud, J., Juárez, X., Manual Rosas, I., Solano, A.M.,
Ramírez, A., 2006. Examining the role of collective action in an informal seed
system: a case study from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. Human Ecol.
34, 249–273.
Badstue, L.B., Bellon, M.R., Berthaud, J., Ramirez, A., Flores, D., Juárez, X., 2007. The
dynamics of farmers’ maize seed supply practices in the Central Valleys of
Oaxaca, Mexico. World Dev. 35, 1579–1593.
Bajracharya, J., Brown, A.D., Joshi, B., Panday, D., Baniya, B., Sthapit, B., Jarvis, D.,
2012. Traditional seed management and genetic diversity in barley varieties in
high-hill agro-ecosystems of Nepal. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 59, 389–398.
Barnaud, A., Joly, H.I., McKey, D., Deu, M., Khasah, C., Monné, S., Garine, E., 2008.
Gestion des ressources génétiques du sorgho (Sorghum bicolor) chez les Duupa
(Nord Cameroun). Cahiers Agric. 17, 178–182.
Bellon, M.R., 1996. The dynamics of crop infraspecific diversity: a conceptual
framework at the farmer level. Econ. Bot. 50, 26–39.
Bellon, M.R., 2004. Conceptualizing interventions to support on-farm genetic
resource conservation. World Dev. 32, 159–172.
Bellon, M.R., Hodson, D., Hellin, J., 2011. Assessing the vulnerability of traditional
maize seed systems in Mexico to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108,
13432–13437.
Bellon, M.R., Risopoulos, J., 2001. Small-scale farmers expand the benefits of
improved maize germplasm: a case study from Chiapas, Mexico. World Dev. 29,
799–811.
Bezner Kerr, R., 2013. Seed struggles and food sovereignty in northern Malawi. J.
Peasant Stud. 40, 867–897.Bezner Kerr, R., 2014. Lost and found crops: agrobiodiversity, indigenous
knowledge, and a feminist political ecology of sorghum and finger millet in
northern Malawi. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 104, 577–593.
Bicksler, A., Bates, R., Burnette, R., Gill, T., Meitzner Yoder, L., Ricciardi, V., Srigiofun,
Y., 2012. Methodologies for strengthening informal indigenous vegetable seed
systems in northern Thailand and Cambodia. Acta Hortic.
Biemond, P.C., Oguntade, O., Kumar, P.L., Stomph, T.-J., Termorshuizen, A., Struik, P.,
2013a. Does the informal seed system threaten cowpea seed health? Crop Prot.
43, 166–174.
Biemond, P.C., Oguntade, O., Stomph, T.-J., Kumar, P.L., Termorshuizen, A., Struik, P.,
2013b. Health of farmer-saved maize seed in north-east Nigeria. Eur. J. Plant
Pathol. 137, 563–572.
Bishaw, Z., Struik, P., van Gastel, A.J.G., 2010. Wheat seed system in Ethiopia:
farmers’ varietal perception, seed sources, and seed management. J. New Seeds
11, 281–327.
Bishaw, Z., Struik, P., van Gastel, A.J.G., 2012. Farmers’ seed sources and seed
quality: 1. Physical and physiological quality. J. Crop Improv. 26, 655–692.
Bishaw, Z., Struik, P.C., van Gastel, A.J.G., 2013. Farmer’s seed sources and seed
quality: 2. Seed health. Int. J. Plant Prod. 7, 637–657.
Bocci, R., 2009. Seed legislation and agrobiodiversity: conservation varieties. J.
Agric. Environ. Int. Dev. 103, 31–49.
Bocci, R., Chable, V., 2009. Peasant seeds in Europe: stakes and prospects. J. Agric.
Environ. Int. Dev. 103, 81–93.
Bonneuil, C., Thomas, F., 2010. Purifying landscapes: the Vichy regime and the
genetic modernization of France. Hist. Stud. Nat. Sci. 40, 532–568.
Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J., Labianca, G., 2009. Network analysis in the social
sciences. Science 323, 892–895.
Boster, J.S., 1985. Requiem for the omniscient informant: there’s life in the old girl
yet. In: Dougherty, J. (Ed.), Directions in Cognitive Anthropology. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 177–197.
Boster, J.S., 1986. Exchange of varieties and information between Aguaruna manioc
cultivators. Am. Anthropol. 88, 428–436.
Brush, S.B., 1992. Farmers’ Rights and genetic conservation in traditional farming
systems. World Dev. 20, 1617–1630.
Brush, S.B., Perales, H.R., 2007. A maize landscape: ethnicity and agro-biodiversity
in Chiapas, Mexico. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 121, 211–221.
Caillon, S., 2005. Pour une conservation dynamique de l’agrobiodiversité: Gestion
locale de la diversité variétale d’un arbre «des Blancs» (cocotier, Cocos nucifera
L.) et d’une plante «des ancêtres» (taro, Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) au
Vanuatu. These doctorale. Université d’Orléans.
Caillon, S., Degeorges, P., 2007. Biodiversity: negotiating the border between nature
and culture. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 2919–2931.
Calle, R., 1996. Juridical and sociocultural problems on the definition of a law
concerning property, usage, and access to genetic resources in Colombia. J.
Ethnopharmacol. 51, 127–146.
Calvet-Mir, L., Calvet-Mir, M., Molina, J.L., Reyes-Garcia, V., 2012. Seed exchange as
an agrobiodiversity conservation mechanism: a case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan
Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula. Ecol. Soc. 17, 29.
Campbell, B., 2012. Open-pollinated seed exchange: renewed Ozark tradition as
agricultural biodiversity conservation. J. Sustain. Agric. 36, 500–522.
Ceccarelli, S., 1994. Specific adaptation and breeding for marginal conditions.
Euphytica 77, 205–219.
Chentoufi, L., Sahri, A., Arbaoui, M., Belqadi, L., Birouk, A., Roumet, P., Muller, M.-H.,
2014. Anchoring durum wheat diversity in the reality of traditional agricultural
systems: varieties, seed management, and farmers’ perception in two Moroccan
regions. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 10, 58.
Chernela, J.M., 1986. Os cultivares de manioca na área do Uaupês (Tukâno). In:
Ribeiro, B.G. (Ed.), Suma Etnológica Brasileira – Etnobiologia. Ed. Vozes/ FINEP,
Petrópolis, pp. 151–158.
Cleveland, D.A., Murray, S.C., 1997. The world’s crop genetic resources and the
rights of indigenous farmers. Curr. Anthropol. 38, 477–515.
Coomes, O.T., 2010. Of stakes, stems, and cuttings: the importance of local seed
systems in traditional Amazonian societies. Prof. Geogr. 62, 323–334.
Coomes, O.T., Ban, N., 2004. Cultivated plant species diversity in home gardens of an
Amazonian peasant village in northeastern Peru. Econ. Bot. 58, 420–434.
Correa, C., 2000. In situ conservation and intellectual property rights. In: Brush, S.B.
(Ed.), Genes in the Field: On-farm Conservation of Crop Diversity. IPGRI, Rome,
pp. 239–260.
Coulibaly, H., Bazile, D., Sidibé, A., 2014. Modelling seed system networks in Mali to
improve farmers seed supply. Sustain. Agric. Res. 3, 18–32.
Cromwell, E., 1996. Governments, Farmers, and Seeds in a Changing Africa. CABI,
Wallingford, UK.
CRS, Mercy Corps, MAF/Seeds of Life, CARE, CIAT, UEA/DEV, 2013. Seed System
Security Assessment, Timor-Leste October 2013. CRS, Dili, Timor-Leste <http://
seedsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SSSA-Timor-Leste-report-final.
pdf>.
Da Via, E., 2012. Seed diversity, farmers’ rights, and the politics of re-peasantization.
Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 19, 229–242.
Dansi, A., Adoukonou-Sagbadja, H., Vodouhe, R., 2010. Diversity, conservation and
related wild species of Fonio millet (Digitaria spp.) in the northwest of Benin.
Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 57, 827–839.
David, S., Sperling, L., 1999. Improving technology delivery mechanisms: lessons
from bean seed systems research in Eastern and Central Africa. Agric. Hum.
Values 16, 381–388.
de Jonge, B., 2014. Plant variety protection in sub-Saharan Africa: balancing
commercial and smallholder farmers’ interests. J. Polit. Law 7, 100–111.
O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50 49Delêtre, M., McKey, D.B., Hodkinson, T.R., 2011. Marriage exchanges, seed
exchanges, and the dynamics of manioc diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
108, 18249–18254.
Demeulenaere, É., 2014. A political ontology of seeds: the transformative frictions of
a European farmers’ movement. Focaal 69.
Demeulenaere, É., Bonneuil, C., 2011. Des semences en partage: construction sociale
et identitaire d’un collectif ‘‘paysan’’ autour de pratiques semencières
alternatives. Tech. Cult. 57, 202–221.
Dennis, E., Ilyasov, J., Van Dusen, E., Treshkin, S., Lee, M., Eyzaguirre, P., 2007. Local
institutions and plant genetic conservation: exchange of plant genetic resources
in rural Uzbekistan and some theoretical implications. World Dev. 35, 1564–
1578.
Deu, M., Gonzalez-de-Leon, D., Glaszmann, J.C., Degremont, I., Chantereau, J.,
Lanaud, C., Hamon, P., 1994. RFLP diversity in cultivated sorghum in relation to
racial differentiation. Theor. Appl. Genet. 88, 838–844.
Deu, M., Weltzien, E., Calatayud, C., Traoré, Y., Bazile, D., Gozé, E., Trouche, G.,
Brocke, K.v., 2014. How an improved sorghum variety evolves in a traditional
seed system in Mali: effects of farmers’ practices on the maintenance of
phenotype and genetic composition. Field Crops Res. 167, 131–142.
Doreian, P., Conti, N., 2012. Social context, spatial structure and social network
structure. Soc. Networ. 34, 32–46.
Dyer, G.A., Gonzalez, C., Lopera, D.C., 2011. Informal ‘‘seed’’ systems and the
management of gene flow in traditional agroecosystems: the case of cassava in
Cauca, Colombia. PLoS ONE 6, e29067.
Dyer, G.A., López-Feldman, A., 2013. Inexplicable or simply unexplained? The
management of maize seed in Mexico. PLoS ONE 8, e68320.
Dyer, G.A., López-Feldman, A., Yúnez-Naude, A., Taylor, J.E., 2014. Genetic erosion in
maize’s center of origin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14094–14099.
Ellen, R., Platten, S., 2011. The social life of seeds: the role of networks of
relationships in the dispersal and cultural selection of plant germplasm. J. Roy.
Anthropol. Inst. 17, 563–584.
Eloy, L., Emperaire, L., 2011. La circulation de l’agrobiodiversité sur les fronts
pionniers d’Amazonie (région de Cruzeiro do Sul, état de l’Acre, Brésil). L’Espace
Géographique 40, 62–74.
Emperaire, L., De Robert, P., Santilli, J., Eloy, L., Van Velthem, L., Katz, E., Laques, A.-E.,
Da Cunha, M.C., Almeida, M., 2008. Diversité agricole et patrimoine dans le
moyen Rio Negro (Amazonie brésilienne). Les Actes Bureau Ressources
Génétiques 7, 139–153.
Emperaire, L., Peroni, N., 2007. Traditional management of agrobiodiversity in
Brazil: a case study of manioc. Human Ecol. 35, 761–768.
FANRPAN, 2010. FANRPAN Launches Regional Seed Project to Boost Food Security.
Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, Pretoria
<http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d00858/SA_SSP_press_release.pdf>.
FAO, 2006. Quality Declared Seed System. Plant Production and Protection Paper
185, FAO, Rome.
Fletcher, R.J.J., Revell, A., Reichert, B.E., Kitchens, W.M., Dixon, J.D., Austin, J.D., 2013.
Network modularity reveals critical scales for connectivity in ecology and
evolution. Nat. Commun. 4.
Fu, Y.-B., Wangsomnuk, P., Ruttawat, B., 2014. Thai elite cassava genetic diversity
was fortuitously conserved through farming with different sets of varieties.
Conserv. Genet. 15, 1463–1478.
Fuentes, F.F., Bazile, D., Bharagava, A., Martinez, E.A., 2012. Implications of farmers’
seed exchanges for on-farm conservation of quinoa, as revealed by its genetic
diversity in Chile. J. Agric. Sci. 150, 702–716.
Garine, E., Barnaud, A., Raimond, C., 2014. Quel pourrait être le territoire des
semences de sorghos que cultivent les Duupa du massif Poli (Nord du
Cameroun) ? Cahiers d’Outre-Mer 265, 67–92.
Gibson, R., 2013. How sweet potato varieties are distributed in Uganda: actors,
constraints and opportunities. Food Secur. 5, 781–791.
Gilbert, P.R., 2013. Deskilling, agrodiversity, and the seed trade: a view from
contemporary British allotments. Agric. Hum. Values 30, 101–114.
Gill, T.B., Bates, R., Bicksler, A., Burnette, R., Ricciardi, V., Yoder, L., 2013.
Strengthening informal seed systems to enhance food security in Southeast
Asia. J. Agric., Food Syst., Commun. Dev. 3, 139–153.
Graddy-Lovelace, G., 2014. Saving seeds. In: Thompson, C.B., Kaplan, D.M. (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1631–
1638.
Graddy, T.G., 2013. Regarding biocultural heritage: in situ political ecology of
agricultural biodiversity in the Peruvian Andes. Agric. Hum. Values 30, 587–
604.
GRAIN, 2015. Seed laws that criminalise farmers: resistance and fightback. GRAIN
and la Via Campesina, Barcelona <http://www.grain.org/article/entries/5142-
seed-laws-that-criminalise-farmers-resistance-and-fightback>.
Gyawali, S., 2010. Participatory crop improvement and formal release of Jethobudho
rice landrace in Nepal. Euphytica 176, 59–78.
Heckler, S.L., 2004. Tedium and creativity: the valorization of manioc cultivation
and Piaroa women. J. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 10, 241–259.
Heckler, S.L., Zent, S., 2008. Piaroa manioc varietals: hyperdiversity or social
currency? Human Ecol. 36, 679–697.
Hellin, J., Bellon, M.R., Hearne, S.J., 2014. Maize landraces and adaptation to climate
change in Mexico. J. Crop Improv. 28, 484–501.
Herring, R.J., 2007. Stealth seeds: bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics. J. Dev. Stud. 43,
130–157.
Ho, P., Zhao, J.H., Xue, D., 2009. Access and control of agro-biotechnology: Bt cotton,
ecological change and risk in China. J. Peasant Stud. 36, 345–364.Howard, P.L. (Ed.), 2003. Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity
Management and Conservation. Zed, London.
ICARDA, 2014. Strengthening Seed Systems for Robust Food Security.
Isakson, S.R., 2009. No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, food
sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity in the
Guatemalan highlands. J. Peasant Stud. 36, 725–759.
Jackson, M.O., 2011. An overview of social networks and economic applications. In:
Benhabib, J., Bisin, A., Jackson, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Economics. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 511–586.
Jarvis, D., Hodgkin, T., 1999. Wild relatives and crop cultivars: detecting natural
introgression and farmer selection of new genetic combinations in
agroecosystems. Mol. Ecol. 8, S159–S173.
Jarvis, D., Padoch, C., Cooper, D. (Eds.), 2007. Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural
Ecosystems. IPGRI, Rome.
Jarvis, D.I., Hodgkin, T., Sthapit, B.R., Fadda, C., Lopez-Noriega, I., 2011. An heuristic
framework for identifying multiple ways of supporting the conservation and
use of traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production system. Crit.
Rev. Plant Sci. 30, 125–176.
Jensen, H.R., Belqadi, L., de Santis, P., Sadiki, M., Jarvis, D.I., Schoen, D.J., 2013. A case
study of seed exchange networks and gene flow for barley (Hordeum vulgare
subsp. vulgare) in Morocco. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 60, 1119–1138.
Joshi, K.D., Khanal, N.P., Harris, D., Khanal, N.N., Sapkota, A., Khadka, K., Darai, R.,
Neupane, R.K., Joshi, M., Witcombe, J.R., 2014. Regulatory reform of seed
systems: benefits and impacts from a mungbean case study in Nepal. Field
Crops Res. 158, 15–23.
Kabore, R., Dabat, M.-H., vom Brocke, K., 2010. Coordination et durabilité des
nouvelles formes de production semencière vivrière au Burkina Faso. In: Seiny-
Boukar, L., Boumard, P. (editors), Savanes Africaines en Développement: Innover
pour durer, Garoua, Cameroon, p. 8.
Kawa, N.C., McCarty, C., Clement, C.R., 2013. Manioc varietal diversity, social
networks, and distribution constraints in rural Amazonia. Curr. Anthropol. 54,
764–770.
Kesan, J.P., Gallo, A.A., 2005. Property rights and incentives to invest in seed
varieties: governmental regulations in Argentina. AgBioForum 8, 118–126.
Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., Hebinck, P., Richards, P., 2006. Sharing seed and knowledge:
farmer to farmer dissemination of agroforestry technologies in western Kenya.
Agrofor. Syst. 68, 167–179.
Kloppenburg Jr., J.R., 1989. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant
Biotechnology, 1492–2000. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kloppenburg Jr., J.R., 2010. Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession:
biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. J. Agrar. Change
10, 367–388.
Kloppenburg Jr., J.R., 2014. Re-purposing the master’s tools: the open source seed
initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty. J. Peasant Stud. 41, 1225–1246.
Kugbei, S., Turner, M., Witthaut, P. (Eds.), 2000. Finance and Management of Small-
scale Seed Enterprises. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.
Labeyrie, V., 2013. L’organisation sociale des plantes cultivées. Influence des
échanges, représentations et pratiques sur la diversité du sorgho (Sorghum
bicolor [L.] Moench) chez les peuples du mont Kenya. These doctorale.
Université de Montpellier/SUPAGRO.
Labeyrie, V., Rono, B., Leclerc, C., 2014. How social organization shapes crop
diversity: an ecological anthropology approach among Tharaka farmers of
Mount Kenya. Agric. Hum. Values 31, 97–107.
Lacoste, M., Williams, R., Erskine, W., Nesbitt, H., Pereira, L., Marçal, A., 2012.
Varietal diffusion in marginal seed systems: participatory trials initiate change
in East Timor. J. Crop Improv. 26, 468–488.
Li, J., Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Leeuwis, C., Jiggins, J., 2014. Expressing the public
value of plant genetic resources by organising novel relationships: the
contribution of selected participatory plant breeding and market-based
arrangements. J. Rural Stud. 36, 182–196.
Lipper, L., Cavatassi, R., Winters, P.C., 2005. Seed Systems, Household Welfare and
Crop Genetic Diversity: An Economic Methodology Applied in Ethiopia. FAO,
Rome <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/af843e/af843e00.pdf>.
López-Noriega, I., 2012. Defensive protection of farmers’ varieties. In: Halewood, M.
(Ed.), Farmers’ Varieties and Farmers’ Rights: Addressing Challenges in
Taxonomy and Law. Earthscan, London.
Louafi, S., Bazile, D., Noyer, J.-L., 2013. Conserving and cultivating agricultural
genetic diversity: transcending established divides. In: Hainzelin, E. (Ed.),
Cultivating Biodiversity to Transform Agriculture. Springer, Heidelberg, pp.
181–230.
Louwaars, N., de Boef, W., 2012. Integrated seed sector development in Africa: a
conceptual framework for creating coherence between practices, programs, and
policies. J. Crop Improv. 26, 39–59.
Louwaars, N.P., de Boef, W.S., Edeme, J., 2013. Integrated seed sector development in
Africa: a basis for seed policy and law. J. Crop Improv. 27, 186–214.
Maredia, M.K., Howard, J., 1998. Facilitating Seed Sector Transformation in Africa:
Key Findings from the Literature. Policy Synthesis, USAID, Bureau for Africa,
Washington, DC.
Martens, B.J., Scheibe, K.P., Bergey, P.K., 2012. Supply chains in sub-Saharan Africa: a
decision support system for small-scale seed entrepreneurs. Decis. Sci. 43, 737–
759.
McGuire, S.J., 2008. Securing access to seed: social relations and sorghum seed
exchange in eastern Ethiopia. Human Ecol. 36, 217–229.
McGuire, S.J., Sperling, L., 2013. Making seed systems more resilient to stress. Global
Environ. Change 23, 644–653.
50 O.T. Coomes et al. / Food Policy 56 (2015) 41–50McGuire, S.J., Sperling, L., 2015. Seed systems smallholder farmers use, submitted
for publication.
Meienberg, F., Lebrecht, T., 2014. Semences agricoles: monopole privé sur un bien
pubic. Vers un Développement Solidaire, No 233. DB, Bern.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Eyzaguirre, P., 2009. Non-market institutions for agrobiodiversity
conservation. In: Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., Smale, M. (Eds.), Agrobiodiversity,
Conservation and Economic Development. Routledge, London, pp. 82–91.
Miranda, M., Parrini, F., Dalerum, F., 2013. A categorization of recent network
approaches to analyse trophic interactions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 897–905.
Navdanya, 2012. Seed Freedom: A global Citizens’ Report. Navdanya, Delhi.
Odame, H., Muange, E., 2011. Can agro-dealers deliver the Green Revolution in
Kenya? IDS Bull. 42, 78–89.
Okry, F., Van Mele, P., Nuijten, E., Struik, P., Mongbo, R.L., 2011. Organizational
analysis of the seed sector of rice in Guinea: stakeholders, perception and
institutional linkages. Exp. Agric. 47, 137–157.
Orozco-Ramírez, Q., Brush, S., Grote, M., Perales, H., 2014. A minor role for
environmental adaptation in local–scale maize landrace distribution: results
from a common garden experiment in Oaxaca, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 68, 383–396.
Pautasso, M., Aistara, G., Barnaud, A., Caillon, S., Clouvel, P., Coomes, O.T., Delêtre,
M., Demeulenaere, E., De Santis, P., Doring, T., Eloy, L., Emperaire, L., Garine, E.,
Goldringer, I., Jarvis, D., Joly, H.I., Leclerc, C., Louafi, S., Martin, P., Massol, F.,
McGuire, S., McKey, D., Padoch, C., Soler, C., Thomas, M., Tramontini, S., 2013.
Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 33, 151–175.
Pautasso, M., Jeger, M.J., 2014. Network epidemiology and plant trade networks.
AoB Plants 6, plu007.
Perrier, X., De Langhe, E., Donohue, M., Lentfer, C., Vrydaghs, L., Bakry, F., Carreel, F.,
Hippolyte, I., Horry, J.P., Jenny, C., Lebot, V., Risterucci, A.M., Tomekpe, K.,
Doutrelepont, H., Ball, T., Manwaring, J., de Maret, P., Denham, T., 2011.
Multidisciplinary perspectives on banana (Musa spp.) domestication. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11311–11318.
Phillips, C., 2013. Saving More than Seeds: Practices and Politics of Seed Saving.
Ashgate, Farnham, UK.
Poudel, D., Rijal, D., Johnsen, F.H., Synnevag, G., Subedi, A., 2005. Conservation of
crop genetic resources in community genebank: farmers’ willingness to pay for
conservation of rice landraces in Kaski, Nepal. In: Sthapit, B.R., Upadhyay, M.P.,
Shrestha, P.K., Jarvis, D.I. (Eds.), On-farm Conservation of Agricultural
Biodiversity in Nepal. Volume 2: Managing Diversity and Promoting its
Benefits. Bioversity, Rome, pp. 149–160.
Poudel, D., Shrestha, P., Basnet, A., Shrestha, P., Sthapit, B., Subedi, A., 2008.
Dynamics of farmers’ seed networks in rice seed flow systems: implications for
on-farm conservation. In: Sthapit, B., Gauchan, D., Subedi, A., Jarvis, D. (Eds.),
On-farm Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity in Nepal: Lessons Learned.
Proceedings of the National Symposium 18–19 July 2006. Bioversity, Rome, pp.
88–96.
Poudel, D., Sthapit, B., Shrestha, P., 2015. An analysis of social seed network and its
contribution to on-farm conservation of crop genetic diversity in Nepal. Int. J.
Biodivers. 2015, 312621.
Practical Action, 2011. Seed Fairs: Technical Brief <http://answers.practicalaction.
org/our-resources/item/seed-fairs>.
Pratten, D.T., 1997. Local institutional development and relief in Ethiopia: a kire-
based seed distribution programme in North Wollo. Disasters 21, 138–154.
Pray, C.E., Umali-Deininger, D., 1998. The private sector in agricultural research
systems: will it fill the gap? World Dev. 26, 1127–1148.
Rajalahti, R., 2013. The World Bank Support to Seed Sector Development, May 2,
2013. in Supporting Comprehensive Seed Sector Development, Washington, DC.
Ramaswami, B., Pray, C.E., Lalitha, N., 2012. The spread of illegal transgenic cotton
varieties in India: biosafety regulation, monopoly, and enforcement. World Dev.
40, 177–188.
Rana, R., Garforth, C., Jarvis, D., Sthapit, B., 2007. Influence of socio-economic and
cultural factors in rice varietal diversity management on-farm in Nepal. Agric.
Hum. Values 24, 461–472.
Reyes-García, V., Molina, J.L., Calvet-Mir, L., Aceituno-Mata, L., Lastra, J.J., Ontillera,
R., Parada, M., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Rigat, M., Vallès, J., 2013. ‘‘Tertius
gaudens’’: germplasm exchange networks and agroecological knowledge
among home gardeners in the Iberian Peninsula. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 9, 53.
Roullier, C., Benoit, L., McKey, D.B., Lebot, V., 2013. Historical collections reveal
patterns of diffusion of sweet potato in Oceania obscured by modern plant
movements and recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2205–2210.
Rudebjer, P., van Schagen, B., Chakeredza, S., Njoroge, K., Kamau, H., Baena, M., 2011.
Teaching Agrobiodiversity: A Curriculum Guide for Higher Education. Bioversity
International, Rome <http://www.bioversityinternational.org/uploads/tx_
news/Teaching_agrobiodiversity__a_curriculum_guide_for_higher_education_
1495.pdf>.
Salazar, R., Louwaars, N.P., Visser, B., 2007. Protecting farmers’ new varieties: new
approaches to rights on collective innovations in plant genetic resources. World
Dev. 35, 1515–1528.
Salick, J., Cellinese, N., Knapp, S., 1997. Indigenous diversity of cassava: generation,
maintenance, use and loss among the Amuesha. Econ. Bot. 51, 6–19.Samberg, L.H., Shennan, C., Zavaleta, E., 2013. Farmer seed exchange and crop
diversity in a changing agricultural landscape in the southern highlands of
Ethiopia. Human Ecol. 41, 477–485.
Santilli, J., 2011. Agrobiodiversity and the Law: Regulating Genetic Resources, Food
Security and Cultural Diversity. Taylor & Francis Group, London.
Smale, M., Diakité, L., Dembélé, B., Traoré, I.S., Guindo, O., Konta, B., 2008. Trading
Millet and Sorghum Genetic Resources: Women Vendors in the Village Fairs of
San and Douentza, Mali. IFPRI Discussion Paper 746, Washington, DC, IFRPI.
Snijders, T.A.B., Pattison, P.E., Robins, G.L., Handcock, M.S., 2006. New specifications
for exponential random graph models. Sociol. Methodol. 36, 99–103.
Sperling, L., 1997. War and Crop Diversity. AgREN Paper 75, ODI, London.
Sperling, L., McGuire, S., 2010a. Understanding and strengthening informal seed
markets. Exp. Agric. 46, 119–136.
Sperling, L., McGuire, S.J., 2010b. Persistent myths about emergency seed aid. Food
Policy 35, 195–201.
Sperling, L., McGuire, S.J., 2013. The central role of informal seed markets in farmers’
risk management. In: First International Conference on Global Food Security,
Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands.
Sseguya, H., Mazur, R., Abbott, E., Matsiko, F., 2012. Information and communication
for rural innovation and development: context, quality and priorities in
southeast Uganda. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 18, 55–70.
Steinberg, M.K., 2001. Valuing diversity: the role of ‘‘seed savers’’ in in situ crop
plant conservation. Culture Agric. 23, 41–45.
Subedi, A., Chaudhary, P., Baniya, B., Rana, R., Tiwari, R., Rijal, D., Sthapit, B., Jarvis,
D., 2003. Who maintains crop genetic diversity and how? Implications for on-
farm conservation and utilization. Culture Agric. 25, 41–50.
Sumberg, J., Okali, C., 1997. Farmers’ Experimentation: Creating Local Knowledge.
Lynne Rienner, Boulder, Colordao.
Thiele, G., 1999. Informal potato seed systems in the Andes: why are they important
and what should we do about them? World Dev. 27, 83–99.
Thomas, M., Dawson, J.C., Goldringer, I., Bonneuil, C., 2011. Seed exchanges, a key to
analyze crop diversity dynamics in farmer-led on-farm conservation. Genet.
Resour. Crop Evol. 58, 321–338.
Thomas, M., Demeulenaere, E., Dawson, J.C., Khan, A.R., Galic, N., Jouanne-Pin, S.,
Remoue, C., Bonneuil, C., Goldringer, I., 2012. On-farm dynamic management of
genetic diversity: the impact of seed diffusions and seed saving practices on a
population-variety of bread wheat. Evol. Appl. 5, 779–795.
Tin, H.Q., Cuc, N.H., Be, T.T., Ignacio, N., Berg, T., 2011. Impacts of seed clubs in
ensuring local seed systems in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. J. Sustain. Agric. 35,
840–854.
Toenniessen, G., Adesina, A., DeVries, J., 2008. Building an Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1136, 233–242.
Tripp, R., Louwaars, N.P., 1997. Seed regulation: choices on the road to reform. Food
Policy 22, 433–446.
van Heerwaarden, J., Del Vecchyo, D.O., Alvarez-Buylla, E.R., Bellon, M.R., 2012. New
genes in traditional seed systems: diffusion, detectability and persistence of
transgenes in a maize metapopulation. PLoS ONE 7, e46123.
van Heerwaarden, J., Hellin, J., Visser, R., Van Eeuwijk, F., 2009. Estimating maize
genetic erosion in modernized smallholder agriculture. Theor. Appl. Genet. 119,
875–888.
vom Brocke, K., Christinck, A., Weltzien, R.E., Presterl, T., Geiger, H.H., 2003. Farmers’
seed systems and management practices determine pearl millet genetic
diversity patterns in semiarid regions of India. Crop Sci. 43, 1680–1689.
Westengen, O.T., Okongo, M.A., Onek, L., Berg, T., Upadhyaya, H., Birkeland, S., Kaur
Khalsa, S.D., Ring, K.H., Stenseth, N.C., Brysting, A.K., 2014a. Ethnolinguistic
structuring of sorghum genetic diversity in Africa and the role of local seed
systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14100–14105.
Westengen, O.T., Ring, K.H., Berg, P., Brysting, A.K., 2014b. Modern maize varieties
going local in the semi-arid zone in Tanzania. BMC Evol. Biol. 14, 1.
Winge, T., 2014. Seed legislation in Europe and crop genetic diversity. Sustain. Agric.
Rev. 15, 1–64.
World Bank, 2006. Agricultural Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington,
DC <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAGISOU/Resources/Module7_Web.
pdf>.
Zannou, A., Ahanchédé, A., Struik, P., Richards, P., Zoundjihékpon, J., Tossou, R.,
Vodouhè, S., 2004. Yam and cowpea diversity management by farmers in the
Guinea-Sudan transition zone of Benin. Netherlands J. Agric. Sci. 52, 393–420.
Zerbe, N., 2001. Seeds of hope, seed of despair: towards a political economy of the
seed industry in Southern Africa. Third World Quart. 22, 657–673.
Zimmerer, K.S., 1996. Changing Fortunes: Biodiversity and Peasant Livelihood in the
Peruvian Andes. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Zimmerer, K.S., 2003. Geographies of seed networks for food potato (potato, ulluco)
and approaches to agrobiodiversity conservation in the Andean countries. Soc.
Nat. Resour. 16, 583–601.
Zimmerer, K.S., 2010. Biological diversity in agriculture and global change. Annu.
Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 137–166.
Zimmerer, K.S., 2013. The compatibility of agricultural intensification in a global
hotspot of smallholder agrobiodiversity (Bolivia). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110,
2769–2774.