suggests that the approach can significantly enhance farmers‘ knowledge of new options. In the pilot districts where the approach has been used in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, incomes rose by some 61 percent on average, and women farmers and farmers without formal schooling gained most (Davis et al. 2010). Critical reviews of the evidence, most related to use of integrated pest management, suggest that Farmer Field Schools have not generated changes beyond local communities (Davis 2006), tending to favor more privileged farmers within those communities (Tripp, Wijeratne and Piyadasa 2005). Tripp, Wijeratne and Piyadasa, as well as van den Berg and Jiggins 2007) express concern that the assessment of FFS has been narrow, potentially biased, and focused on the short-term. In an econometric analysis based on comparison of changes between control and treatment groups, Feder, Murgai and Quizon found that the training had no statistically significant impact on the yields or the pesticide use among the participants or others in the same communities, raising questions concerning the high costs per participant and the financial sustainability of the approach.

Evaluation of extension experiments is limited to date (Anderson and Feder 2004). Still, a range of options are now available for improving the performance of extension systems. The challenge now is to scale up successful innovations and close out ineffective systems.

# **Emerging Policy Environments**

The experience of maize technical change in Sub-Saharan Africa underscores the role of policy as a determinant of development, adoption and impact. This section discusses recent policy experience with respect for seed, fertilizer, input subsidies, and maize markets, highlighting Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia. The case of Ethiopia represents strong state intervention in input markets (a seed-fertilizer ―technology push‖) with a liberalized grain market. Kenya‘s government has retained some control over maize grain markets, but has largely liberalized fertilizer markets and to some extent seed markets. Zambia‘s and Malawi‘s governments exert strong control over both input and maize grain markets.

# _Seed Policies_

The burgeoning demand for maize grain in Sub-Saharan Africa would suggest a healthy farmer demand for certified seed, but even though maize seed markets may be better developed than are markets for most other crops, the practice of farmer seed-saving remains common. For example, although hybrids have been widely adopted in Zambia, survey data suggest that during the 2007/8 maize growing season, 59 percent of maize growers use non-traded or recycled seed (also see Chapter 9 for Kenya and Uganda).

The central role of the seed industry has been repeatedly emphasized in policy analyses of Eastern and Southern Africa, and much progress has been made in developing the private seed sector in this region based on hybrid seed. In 2009, seed companies, including a few public companies, accounted for 98 percent of the market. More than half were private national companies, and about one fifth each were multinational and regional private companies (Langyintuo et al., 2009).<sup>6</sup> Langyintuo et al. (2009) concluded that the major bottlenecks in the seed industry of Eastern and Southern Africa were lack of awareness of the availability and value

> 6 Nongovernmental organizations and national research organizations accounted for a scant 4 percent of all seed marketed in the region.

13