(Image: Seed voucher and fair in Burundi. Credit: S. Walsh, USAID-BHA)
Fragile states – those suffering or recovering from a crisis such as violent conflict, political or economic upheaval, epidemics or natural disasters – are often characterised by unstable political systems with weak governance and only sporadic on-the ground support. Additionally, they suffer from low levels of economic investment, labour displacement and unstable security situations, often resulting emergency and development programs with a short-term focus on securing farmers’ basic needs rather than on long-term development for durable, resilient and productive systems.
Conflict is often the centrepiece of fragile states, being a driver and a result of fragility, and in many instances is compounded by the effects of climate change, the food crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. These natural and man-made disasters can spark or aggravate conflicts further, with effects that often spill over to all economic sectors, particularly hampering agricultural production systems.
Seed sectors in fragile states are often ineffective, with weakened institutional capacity to produce and make accessible seed that meets smallholder farmers’ needs. In these settings, humanitarian and development actors often take different approaches to seed security response; some apply market-based principles, others default to direct distribution in an effort to push seeds out quickly. A lack of agreed upon and practised principles for seed security response amongst humanitarian, development and peace (HDP) actors in these settings can lead to ineffective responses and undermine local seed systems, in both the short and longer-term. Key here is to emphasize that seed security responses can have effects over many seasons and that practitioners might best aim to integrate emergency-recovery-developmental approaches from the first stages of intervening in stress areas.
For effective seed security response, HDP actors must understand the complexities of conflict contexts and adapt their interventions to the unique challenges and opportunities inherent therein. For the geographic locations this Action Learning Project plans to work in, there are numerous conflict-related and other shocks contributing to fragility and exacerbating already severe humanitarian situations.
For example, in the Central African Republic, a large portion of the population continues to face a humanitarian crisis, with violence against civilians and insecurity contributing to internal displacement. People’s access to their livelihoods, including agriculture, continues to be severely limited as a result of insecurity. In several parts of Ethiopia, conflict and drought continue to cause new displacements. Over 17.5 million people across the country require humanitarian assistance in agriculture. In Northeast Nigeria, years of protracted conflict and extremist violence continue to prevent many people from growing the food they need or earning an income.1,4 An estimated 4.3 million people in Northeast Nigeria are at risk of severe hunger at the peak of this year’s lean season (June-August 2023) if urgent actions are not taken. While in Sudan, the recent conflict has led to several food distribution interventions ongoing to provide short-term relief. However, there are emerging reports of strained community relations with the arrival of IDPs and host communities like Gedaref due to pressure on local resources.
Understanding the conflict dynamics, and their effects on seed system functioning (the supply side) and farmers’ seed security (the demand side), are critical for humanitarian and development actors to design and implement effective seed security interventions. More effective interventions (honed to specific seed security features) help build the foundation for seed systems that ensure the needed seed quantity, quality and accessibility of preferred varieties —even for farmers in last mile areas. More conflict-savvy and conflict-sensitive interventions help ensure that the process of intervening causes no harm and also unfolds more efficiently.
Currently, there are a range of different principles, practices and standards for implementing seed security interventions in humanitarian and development contexts. For example, there exist: the 10 Guiding Principles for Good Seed Aid Practice in the Seed Emergency Response Tool (SERT) developed under the previous ISSD Africa program; SEADS Standards, a set of international principles and minimum standards that support people responding to humanitarian crises; and donor guidelines such as the USAID/Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance’s emergency guidelines. These guides aim to increase the effectiveness of seed security responses while doing no harm. However, many actors are not adhering to these standards, either because they are not contextualised to their regions, they are not aware of them, they lack incentives; or they lack basic capacity for upholding them.
Over the last three years under ISSD Africa, advances were made in understanding the effects of conflict in seed systems (formal, informal, and intermediate) and in creating tools for humanitarian and development actors to use when intervening in these contexts.
However, as outlined in the ISSD Communiqué brief on Resilience to Shocks and Stresses, more work is needed to engage and mobilise HDP actors behind the adoption and implementation of better practice guidelines; to deepen understanding of what factors make different types of seed security interventions effective in different types of conflict contexts; and to determine how seed security interventions can contribute to positive peace outcomes in fragile states.
Action research questions:
Key question 1: What humanitarian seed-related interventions are effective at increasing seed security in FCS contexts?
Sub questions which may be addressed during the course of study:
1.1 How might the diverse patterns of conflict affect the central features of seed security and differentially impact vulnerable groups?
1.2 What factors make varied types of seed security interventions effective in conflict contexts ?
1.3 How can seed security interventions in conflict contexts be designed to contribute to positive peace outcomes?
Key question 2: How can seed security principles, policies and/or practice guidelines be tailored and operationalised to better support seed security in FCS?
Sub questions which may be addressed during the course of study:
2.1 Which existing seed security principles, policies and/or practice guidelines are particularly relevant in FCS?
2.2 What are the barriers HDP actors face in adopting and operationalising key seed security principles, policies and/or practice guidelines?