Interhousehold variability and its effects on seed circulation networks: a case study from northern Cameroon

Abstract

ABSTRACT. We present a detailed ethnographic case study of sorghum seed acquisitions in a smallholder farming society in northern Cameroon. The effects of variability in household demographics and socioeconomic status on observed patterns of seed provisioning are explored alongside other variables such as age and gender. Our data set comprised 223 seed acquisition events. Independence tests (Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests) were carried out to test for significant dependencies between individual-or householdlevel characteristics and properties of seed acquisition events (categories of seed source, social relationship of exchange, and type of landrace). Results indicate that wealth is a structuring factor of the local seed circulation network in as much as it is highly correlated with household composition and size. Members from wealthy households benefit from a more diverse set of seed sources. Their greater number of coresidents and the importance of intrahousehold dynamics of seed transactions also play a role in making wealthy farmers more seed secure than others. The methodological implications of our findings indicate that when documenting seed exchange networks, the collection of data through a single informant or the undertaking of social network analyses at the household level may induce important biases.

Agricultural diversification as an important strategy for achieving food security in Africa

“…Also using an alternative measure of food security—food self‐sufficiency for which we excluded food bought from off‐farm income and sold farm produce showed a similar relationship to farming diversity (Figure d). We control for off‐farm income and sold farm produce because it has been shown to increase household income which can influence food (e.g., Frelat et al., ; Sibhatu & Qaim, ) and farming diversity (McCord et al., ; Wencélius, Thomas, Barbillon, & Garine, ). Indeed, when excluding food bought from off‐farm income and sold farm produce, only 12%–27% of households are food secure.…”

“…and farming diversity(McCord et al, 2015; Wenc elius,Thomas, Barbillon, & Garine, 2016). Indeed, when excluding food bought from off-farm income and sold farm produce, only 12%-27% of households are food secure.…”

Good year, bad year: changing strategies, changing networks? A two-year study on seed acquisition in northern Cameroon

“…Although no statistically significant inequalities appeared in seed provisioning during the bad year, ethnographical observations suggest that the economic status of households nonetheless affects the nature of the channels through which seeds can be acquired (Wencélius et al 2016). The distribution of seed acquisition events across the main categories of social relationships over the two cropping seasons indicates that all farmers do not have the same ability to mobilize these emergency partners and to cope with climate unpredictability (Louette et al 1997, McGuire 2008.…”

“…Questions relating to seed acquisitions were the same in the two periods. Because conducting interviews with all members of each household minimized the risk of omissions (Wencélius et al 2016), we believe the thoroughness of our 2010 protocol enabled us to limit any potential bias, such as omissions of some secondary crops or landraces, resulting from generating a post hoc inventory of plants grown.…”

Networking the environment: social network analysis in environmental management and local ecological knowledge studies

“…Four contributions to this Special Feature provide detailed studies of exchange networks of plant propagative material. The contribution by Wencélius et al (2016) challenges the standard approach in seed circulation studies that considers the household as unit of analysis. They studied the intra-household exchanges of seeds in a smallholder farming community from northern Cameroon and show that intra-household exchange patterns vary widely from one household to the other, depending on the household composition, e.g., polygynous versus monogynous households.…”