Photo: Partners from Action Learning Project 4 (ALP-4) on Seed Governance & Peace met in Entebbe, Uganda, to discuss emerging insights from their ALP-4 activities. From left to right:
- Mustafe Abdilahi Abdi,the Agriculture Development Organization (ADO), Somaliland
- Oliver Callaghan – Wageningen University & Research
- Marthe Diallo – Royal Tropical Institute, based in Mali
- Dandena Gelmesa – Ethiopia Seed Partnership
- Abishkar Subedi – Wageningen University & Research
- Eelco Jacobs – Royal Tropical Institute, based in Mali
- Phillip Priestly – FAO
- Cathrine Kiwuka – NARO-PGRC, Uganda
- Tony Ngalamu – University of Juba, South Sudan
- Mohammed Hassena – Manager, Ethiopia Seed Partnership
- Geoffrey Otim – Mercy Corps. ISSD Africa ALP2/3 lead.
ISSD Africa ALP-4 seeks to answer the question “How can seed sector governance be organized in fragile and conflict affected contexts for a greater contribution to peace?” This ALP takes a deliberate step towards trying to explore and understand what the Humanitarian Development and Peace (HDP) Nexus means in relation to the seed sector and to inform how to operationalize that nexus in practice, with a particular focus on the relationship between seed governance and peace.
What is the HDP-Nexus?
Emerging as an outcome of the 2016 world humanitarian summit to ensure strong cooperation, collaboration and coordination between the humanitarian, development and peace sectors (UNDP, n.d.), the HDP-Nexus has been touted as a way of thinking that “seeks to capitalize on the comparative strengths of humanitarian, development, and peace efforts to address unmet needs, reduce vulnerability, and address drivers of conflict” (Hegertun, Mæstad & Nygård, 2023).
In practice, the HDP-Nexus is quite an abstract concept, with many practitioners working across the three sectors struggling to interpret and operationalize it (Redvers, 2019). Indeed, there are also conceptual questions asked as to whether “humanitarian principles impose either strict limits upon or irreconcilable obstacles to the mixing of H with either D or P” (DuBois, 2020); while others – for both good and bad – highlight the overlap between HDP-Nexus thinking and conflict sensitivity (Hörler, Schmidlin, & Wehrle, 2023).
Then how does the HDP-Nexus relate to the seed sector?
Importantly, the fundamental problem that HDP-Nexus thinking seeks to address is still ongoing – that humanitarian, development and peace interventions are too fragmented and lack coherence, and therefore do not effectively meet people’s needs. However, due to the potential ambiguity and difficulty of operationalizing the HDP-Nexus overall; this ALP is taking an exploratory and case-driven approach so as identify and understand context-specific dynamics. To begin this process, it is important to acknowledge and understand what literature already exists on the subject so as not to reinvent the wheel where possible.
What does the literature tell us?
So far, a non-systematic literature review of both academic and grey literature yielded a somewhat thin body of evidence on the relation between seed governance and peace in fragile and conflict-affect settings in Africa. However, some interesting topics for further exploration emerged:
- Farmer seed systems and sustaining peace (FAO, 2018) is one of the few pieces of literature that engages explicitly with the link between seed governance (within the context of farmer seed systems) and peace (building) through the concept of environmental peacebuilding. Though mainly evidenced at the conceptual level, the authors highlight the work by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and outline that farmer seed systems could be seen as a form of natural resource management, the function of which – conflict reinforcing or contributing towards social cohesion – is determined to a large part by the typology of governance arrangements around it. More broadly, the authors outline that resilience, social cohesion and positive local collective action are important and common elements of both farmers’ seed systems and sustaining peace.
- Research in Sierra Leone (primarily by Paul Richards) from the 1990’s and 2000’s present some entry points into how seed sector interventions and the dynamics of seed systems overall can contribute towards human rights (Archibald and Richards, 2002) the building and quality of trust networks between neighbors (Richards and Ruivenkamp, 1997), and the function of collective action in post-war rural communities – broadly in relation to development initiatives, but with specific examples relating to seed (Richards, Bah, and Vincent, 2004). The latter research (Richards, Bah, and Vincent, 2004) in particular, outlines the importance of cohesion and collective action to foster community-driven development and role of bad governance (phrased as undemocratic procedures) in disrupting this.
- Lastly, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) use seed-related case studies in their policy papers on how climate-resilient food security and humanitarian action can promote peace. SIPRI advises that Theories of Change (ToCs) should be explicit – rather than most commonly being implicit – about potential peace dividends.[1] For example: “if agricultural production improves in communities vulnerable to climate change and violence and programme participants obtain access to: (a) avenues for participation in, or cooperation with, cooperatives, local committees and municipalities; (b) higher incomes; (c) increased knowledge; and (d) improved natural resource and disaster risk management, then social cohesion and resilience to contextual conflict dynamics can be expected to increase.” (Bunse and Delgado, 2024). They also highlight the importance of sound contextual and conflict analysis to feed into the development of such ToCs.
What about outside of Africa?
When expanding the literature review to include non-African contexts, examples from Central and South America provide some interesting insights.
- Research from Columbia emphasizes the bridging role of agrobiodiversity as a one of the key conditions for peace in certain conflict-affected areas. In one example, sustaining and defending agrobiodiversity in seed directly engaged with the root causes of violence and conflict as agro-industrial development had led to violence over the control of seeds (Dexter & Ingalls, 2022); while in another case, seed served a strong symbolic frame for environmental governance following the 2016 peace process in Columbia (Baumann, 2022).
- Research from Mexico suggests that conflict can drive the creation of seed sovereignty and positive grassroots agrobiodiversity management – i.e., between the indigenous movement and the Mexican government. Where there is a strategic relationship between agrobiodiversity conservation, communities’ food security, and seed sovereignty, particularly in the context of conflict. (Hernández, Perales, & Jaffee, 2020)
Overall, there seems to be little concrete research on the link between seed governance and peace in fragile and conflict-affected contexts in Africa; and what research there is, is largely at the conceptual level. Research on food systems and peace, environmental peacebuilding, and broader literature on governance and peace/conflict dynamics could provide theoretical guidance, while literature in other languages than English (particularly French) could provide further insights. ALP-4 seeks to fill these gaps in research by grounding what we have found so far in the literature with input from practitioners working at the intersection between seed and peace.
What can we learn from practitioners? Uganda workshop, March 2025.
To begin addressing these gaps in the literature, in late March 2025, key partners to the ALP met in Entebbe in order to:
- Co-create a conceptual framework for ALP-4 with core partners.
- Decide on case study selection and next steps methodologically for ALP-4 studies.
- Discuss and deliberate on findings and updates from: HDP-Nexus mapping exercises and literature reviews within ALP-4, as well as findings from an ongoing literature review by ALP-2 on conflict and seed insecurity.
Over the course of two days in Entebbe, participants with backgrounds in seed sector development, seed governance, and peace and conflict, discussed and deliberated on the conceptual links between seed governance and peace. They developed core explanations of concepts and terms so as to all speak one language, and deliberated on what causal linkages might look like in practice. The framing of some of these casual linkages took the form of ToCs, as expressed below.
What could links between seed governance and peace look like as a theory of change?
1: Seed sector governance
IF informal/formal governance of seed systems is strengthened and decision making more meaningfully inclusive and transparent, THEN the access and availability of sufficient quantity and quality of seeds will improve food security and livelihoods outcomes and reduce the economic drivers of conflict (increasing opportunity cost of engaging in violence), BECAUSE the seed sector governance will respond better to the needs of users.
2: Maintaining key functions of seed systems in conflict-affected areas
IF the key functioning of the different seed systems is maintained in situations of conflict and insecurity is maintained, THEN the resilience of small-holder farmers will be supported and opportunity cost of involvement in violence will be increased, BECAUSE small holder farmers’ key livelihood assets will be protected, food security outcomes improved, and they will be less likely to resort to negative coping strategies including resorting to conflict or violence.
3: Productive dialogue and inclusive decision-making
IF dialogue between local communities and seed systems actors (formal/informal) is strengthened- and decision-making is more inclusive, THEN grievances over the unequal access and availability of seeds of preferred varieties will be reduced and horizontal/vertical social capital (trust, contact, collaboration) will increase, BECAUSE smallholder farmers will feel their needs are being considered/addressed; that decision-making is more transparent and seed system actors are more responsive to the needs of small-holder farmers.
4: Improved relationships and joint problem solving
IF constructive engagement and collaboration between communities over the production and supply of seeds including the ability to resolve disputes, THEN disputes will more likely be addressed in a non-violent manner and the degree of horizontal social capital (i.e. trust between people) will be increased, BECAUSE there will be collaborative management of livelihood assets (seeds) and increased trust between communities.
As with all ToCs, contextualization and conditionality are key. So these generic ToCs would only be applicable given the following conditions or in relevant contexts:
- IF the drivers of conflict are addressed AND/OR
- IF intercommunal fault lines are considered AND
- IF relevant key stakeholders are involved
What’s next?
Findings from the literature that has been reviewed and the workshop in Entebbe will form the basis of a conceptual framework (ongoing) that will guide the next steps of ALP-4. In tandem with this, a HDP nexus mapping study (across 4 countries) is planned in order:
- To map existing spaces for HDP-Nexus collaboration that include a focus on agriculture by identifying key stakeholders, governance mechanisms, funding sources, and thematic agendas.
- To evaluate the quality of collaboration within these spaces by examining the extent of joint analysis, common action planning, and joined-up programming.
- To analyze the integration of seed (security, systems, governance etc.) within these spaces and identify gaps and opportunities for seed-oriented organizations to contribute to or strengthen HDP-Nexus collaboration – particularly in relation to seed governance.
Get in touch!
If you as reader have any literature that you think could make a contribution to these activities, then please do reach out to Abishkar Subedi (abishkar.subedi@wur.nl), Oliver Callaghan (oliver.callaghan@wur.nl), or Eelco Jacobs (e.jacobs@kit.nl) – with a particular focus on non-English language literature, as this has not been explored in depth yet.
Bibliography
Archibald, S., & Richards, P. (2002). Seeds and rights: New approaches to post–war agricultural rehabilitation in Sierra Leone. Disasters, 26(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00212
Baumann, M. D. (2022). Agrobiodiversity’s caring material practices as a symbolic frame for environmental governance in Colombia’s Southern Tolima. Geoforum, 128, 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.01.002
Bunse, S., & Delgado, C. (2024). Promoting peace through climate-resilient food security initiatives. Promoting Peace through Climate-resilient Food Security Initiatives
Bunse, S., Delgado, C., & Riquier, M. (2024) Towards Humanitarian Action that Intentionally Promotes Peace in South Sudan. Towards Humanitarian Action that Intentionally Promotes Peace in South Sudan.
DuBois, M. (2020, May 7). Triple nexus – threat or opportunity for the humanitarian principles?. Centre for Humanitarian Action. https://www.chaberlin.org/en/publications/triple-nexus-threat-or-opportunity-for-the-humanitarian-principles-2/
FAO. Farmer seed systems and sustaining peace. 2018. Farmer seed systems and sustaining peace
Hegertun, N., Mæstad, O., & Nygård, H. M. (2023). Making Sense of the Nexus. https://open.cmi.no/cmi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3103372/Making%20Sense%20of%20the%20Nexus?sequence=1
Hernández Rodríguez, C., Perales Rivera, H., & Jaffee, D. (2020). Emociones, Semillas Nativas y Cambio Climático: El Movimiento de Soberanía de las Semillas en Chiapas, México. Estudios de Cultura Maya, 56(2), 227–259. https://doi.org/10.19130/iifl.ecm.2020.56.2.0009
Hörler, T., Schmidlin, N., & Wehrle, T. (2023). HDP Nexus and Conflict Sensitivity: Changing the Aid System for Good? Swiss Peace. 20230515_Essential_HDP-Nexus_final.pdf
O’Sullivan, O., & Puri, J. (2025, March 3). First USAID closes, then UK cuts aid: What a western retreat from foreign aid could mean. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/first-usaid-closes-then-uk-cuts-aid-what-western-retreat-foreign-aid-could-mean
Redvers, L. (2019, September 24). Searching for the Nexus: The view from the ground. The New Humanitarian. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/special-report/2019/09/24/triple-nexus-humanitarian-development-peacebuilding-views
Richards, P., Ruivenkamp, G., & Drift, R. van der. (1997). Seeds and survival: Crop Genetic Resources in war and reconstruction in Africa. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
Richards, P., Bah, K., & Vincent, J. (2004). Social Capital and survival: Prospects for community-driven development in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Social Development Dept., Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, World Bank.
Rietberg, P. I., Gevers, H., & Hospes, O. (2014). Seed governance. From seed aid to seed system security in fragile areas. Cordaid. http://seedsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Seed-gov.Edited-Final-report.FIN_.141024.pdf
UNDP. (n.d.). Humanitarian, Development and Peace Nexus. https://www.undp.org/crisis/humanitarian-development-and-peace-nexus#:~:text=Following%20the%20outcomes%20of%20the,at%20the%20national%20level%20to
Van Dexter, K., & Ingalls, M. (2022). Sowing peace: Violence and Agrobiodiversity in the Colombian amazon. Geoforum, 128, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.11.008
[1] Peace dividends are the returns that communities receive on their investments in peace. Peace dividend projects incentivize and sustain peaceful relations or non-violent behavior in communities that have engaged in peacebuilding or conflict management programming communities or access to a shared resource or service across the border that otherwise would not be accessible. (ConnexUs, 2022)