Pearl millet, locally known as Mahangu, is more than a crop in Namibia. For generations, communal farmers in Namibia have relied on pearl millet as a source of food. The crop also has deep ties to cultural identity and household resilience. The introduction of hybrid millet seeds, however, raises important questions about this everyday staple. On the one hand the formal seed system – backed by the state and international organisations – is modernising pearl millet seed practices at an unprecedented rate. On the other hand, over 70% of local farmers continue to use traditional seed varieties.
How does the promotion of the formal seed system affect the sustainability and seed sovereignty of local farmers? Who gets to decide what counts as a “seed,” and who gets left out of that decision? My research into Namibia’s pearl millet seed system set out to answer these questions, by mapping who does what, how decisions are made, where the system is working, and where it is falling short.

Two systems, one crop
On the formal side, the state seed sector sits at the centre. The state breeds early generation seed, certifies it at the country’s only seed processing plant, issues import and export permits, and distributes seed through different networks, such as the agricultural extension service and agrodealers. The state acquires its genetic material for breeding from international partners as well as local farmers.
On the farmer-led side is a much older and more vulnerable system which is managed by farmers themselves. Long before certification schemes existed, farmers were saving, exchanging, gifting, and selling pearl millet seed within their communities, practices that continue today, largely without formal recognition or support.

A system skewed
The two systems interact through the national genebank which directly works with farmers, both drawing on their varieties and supporting their seed saving practices. But interaction is not the same as parity. For instance, only seed produced through the state is legally recognised as “seed” in Namibia. Farmer-produced seed is officially classified as “grain.” This disparity clearly indicates the inequity in the system. So, while state investment continues to flow toward modernising the formal system, the majority of farmers are “voting with their fields” to have their traditional “seed” recognised.

The policy gap
Part of the problem could be with the legal architecture. Namibia does not currently have any laws or policies dedicated to plant genetic resources. The closest applicable framework includes the Seed and Seed Variety Act No. 23 of 2018 and the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), Act No. 2 of 2017. These statutes were either designed for the formal seed system or were not designed with a widely circulating, freely accessible crop like pearl millet in mind.

Why this matters
Namibia’s story is not unique. Across much of the Global South, formal seed systems built around certification, breeding programmes, and modern varieties are expanding, often with good intentions such as securing higher yields, food security, or conveying climate resilience. But when expansion happens without comprehensively engaging farmer-led seed systems in a participatory manner, it risks eroding the very seed sovereignty, crop diversity, and local knowledge that have sustained communities for generations.

My research builds on these issues, using several theoretical lenses, namely governance theory, Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD), political ecology, and seed sovereignty. I believe these lenses will unpack why this imbalance persists, and suggest how seed systems might better support farmer choices.

The goal is not to choose a side, but to answer the question: “How can Namibia’s seed system value different forms of knowledge, different approaches to farming, and the multiple values attributed to millet, before more of our traditional varieties, and their names and cultures, are lost for good?”

Cover image: Namibian farmers with their traditional pearl millet fields. Photo: Rachel Wynberg.