Institutionalizing Quality Declared Seed in Uganda

Abstract

Farmer-led seed enterprises can produce good quality seed and market it. However, for them to thrive, they need a conducive policy and regulatory framework that is inclusive and less stringent than existing regulatory frameworks. One way to provide a more enabling environment for farmer-led enterprises is through the Quality Declared Seed (QDS) production and marketing system. In Uganda, this seed class is specifically introduced for farmer-led enterprises to produce and market quality assured seed of crops and varieties not served by the private sector. The class is anchored in the Ugandan National Seed Policy and its seed regulations and its operationalization plan. We identified a combination of three strategies that enabled the QDS class to be incorporated into the National Seed Policy. These were: (i) to generate evidence to demonstrate that local seed businesses (farmer groups) can produce and market quality seed; (ii) to engage stakeholders towards an inclusive seed policy; and (iii) to develop a separate QDS regulatory framework. By 2021, institutionalization has reached a critical mass. Areas of attention for full institutionalization are the decentralization of inspection services, awareness and demand creation for quality seed, increasing the number of seed producers, and solving shortages of basic seed (starting material for producing seed).

1. Introduction

Smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa access 90% of their seed needs from informal seed systems [1,2,3,4]. Open-pollinated crops are traditionally grown using seed from these informal systems. This seed is generally saved from preceding harvest or routinely purchased in local markets. This ‘seed’ grain may or may not have undergone some level of selection, sorting, and cleaning for a small premium on top of the grain price [5]. It is referred to as ‘home-saved’ seed.

Low adoption rates of improved crop varieties and quality seed are well-known issues in sub-Saharan Africa and have been for decades [3,6,7,8,9]. Over the last ten to fifteen years, numerous development partners and implementers (public sector, private sector, and non-profit actors) actively tested and implemented various seed delivery models, addressing the supply/access side of farmers’ adoption of quality seed and improved varieties [7]. Many of these input delivery investments focused on maize seed (especially hybrids) and fertilizer [10,11,12,13]. These public and private sector investments have had limited effects. From a development perspective, this raises a growing concern that after decades of funding by developing partners, formal seed sector interventions are not delivering [9].

An intermediate seed system with seed production and delivery models which reach smallholder farmers in remote areas is emerging [2,14]. For seed companies operating at the national level, the demand for certified seed of crops other than hybrids—and exotic vegetables—represents a difficult business case. It is costly for established seed companies to deliver seed to the last mile due to poor market infrastructure (roads and the network of agro-dealer shops). Variety preference is locally specific, distribution is complex and costly, and profit margins on seed from crops such as cassava, legumes, sesame, minor cereals, and potatoes are much lower than for hybrid seed [15] and thus not attractive to seed companies. This renders the formal seed system less effective in providing timely and adequate access to quality seed of crops other than hybrids and exotic vegetables [16].

Farmer-led seed enterprises, as part of the intermediate seed system, offer several benefits that help address these bottlenecks just mentioned [17,18,19]. It may be one of the effective seed delivery mechanisms, particularly for open-pollinated varieties. Farmer-led enterprises operate with low transaction costs and are better aware of, and capable of responding to, specific local demands. Nationally operating seed companies are not able to produce seed at the same prices as the farmer-led seed enterprises as local suppliers of good quality seed set affordable prices, especially for the non-hybrid crops. Furthermore, farmer-led enterprises can choose crops of interest for their local markets and target areas where commercial seed is not available. This makes seed produced by farm enterprises more accessible and affordable. These farmer-led seed enterprises are thus better adapted and suitable for satisfying the local demand for seed of the targeted food crops.

Farmer-led enterprises in Uganda can produce and market good quality bean seed. However, for them to thrive, they needed an enabling policy and regulatory framework that is less stringent than the existing national regulatory framework [19].

One option to provide a more enabling environment for farmer-led enterprises is the Quality Declared Seed (QDS) production and supply system; a concept first introduced by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in 1993 and updated in 2006 [20]. QDS is recognized as a seed class in Tanzania and Zambia, and offers an alternative to certified seed. QDS class caters for those crops, areas, and farming systems where highly developed seed quality control activities are difficult to implement. In particular, it may accommodate open-pollinated varieties of legumes, minor cereals, and roots and tubers more easily. These crops are important for food security but have low commercial seed value [15].

In Uganda, QDS is a recognized seed class produced by trained and registered farmer-led enterprises, with seed fields inspections by authorized district agricultural officers (DAOs) and seed testing by the National Seed Certification Service (NSCS) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), and marketed within the geographical region in which it is produced [21]. This paper describes the institutionalizing process of the QDS production and supply system in Uganda and shows how it can fill the quality seed gap between formal seed sold by seed companies and home-saved seed sold at grain markets.

In this paper, we focus on the seed system for food crops and leave out those for cash crops and closed value chains (e.g., sunflower, cotton, and coffee) as they are outside the scope of the intermediate seed system. Section 2 provides a brief theoretical and methodological framework. Section 3 introduces the seed sector and major actors in Uganda to set the scene in which QDS was adopted as a seed class. Section 4 describes the QDS class as implemented in Uganda, whereas Section 5 describes the key strategies that supported the institutionalization process. Section 6 concludes with reflections on the achieved level of institutionalization and highlights four challenges that need to be addressed for a sustainable QDS production and supply system.

2. Theoretical Framework and Methodology

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Seed sector transformation can be assessed using a framework for guiding sector transformation [22]. Seed sector performance is assessed along six functions. These are service provision, seed production systems, seed marketing development, revenue generation and reinvestment, seed sector coordination, and seed sector regulation and management [23]. The seed sector transformation framework allows for assessing the level of institutionalization, by using the S-curve of market transformation. The steps to transition from inception to institutionalization require that progressively more and different stakeholders get involved, the level of professionalizing increases, implementation shifts from project-based to regulation and market mechanisms, and mainstreaming of sustainability until it is standardized [22]. Along the curve, the six functions professionalize and become more organized. This curve is used in Section 6 to reflect on the level of institutionalization of the QDS class within the context of the Ugandan seed sector.

Integrated seed sector development (ISSD) is a theoretical framework that guides seed sector development. The framework acknowledges multiple seed systems that co-exist and jointly serve smallholder farmers’ seed demands. The eight principles that guide this development are fostering pluralism and building programs on the diversity of seed systems; working according to the structure of the seed value chain; promoting entrepreneurship and market orientation; recognizing the relevance of informal seed systems; facilitating interactions between informal and formal seed systems; recognizing complementary roles of the public and private sector; supporting enabling and evolving policies for a dynamic sector; and promoting evidence-based seed sector innovation [3,24,25].

In Uganda, this framework for seed sector development was applied through the ISSD Uganda program. ISSD was a two-phase program of four years each (2012–2016 and 2017–2021), funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Uganda. It aimed at empowering smallholder farmers to access affordable quality seed of superior crop varieties. It was designed to contribute to the development of a vibrant, pluralistic and market-oriented seed sector. The theory of change underlying the program recognized the importance of both formal and informal systems in sustainable access to quality seed of superior varieties. To increase the availability of seed of crops that were not covered by the private sector, the program worked with farmer led-enterprises to produce quality seed of mainly open-pollinated varieties such as legumes, minor cereals, and roots and tubers.

2.2. Methodology

System change requires a coalition of seed sector actors to jointly address key issues hampering the development of the sector as a whole. ISSD started with a seed sector stakeholder collaboration approach, rather than a classic development project. The methodology of bringing stakeholders together was based on facilitating multi-stakeholder processes and institutional development [26,27]. The process model acknowledges that each process is unique and follows its path, but include common process and phases. These are a reiterative cycle of initiating, adaptive planning, reflective monitoring, and collaborative action [26]. Multi-stakeholder processes generally go through different phases before building consensus and innovation. Facilitating this process was designed based on the “diamond of participation” [28], which describes connection, shared language, divergence, co-creation, convergence, and commitment zones [25,26,28].

This paper draws on data from the ISSD Uganda program (2012–2020). The material used to (re)construct the policy process in this paper includes several Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD) briefs [28,29,30,31,32,33,34] published in 2015, annual National Seed Sector Stakeholder reports, annual project progress reports, preparatory notes for discussions with MAAIF, internal communications and various versions of the seed policy and related documents.

3. Seed Sector in Uganda as of 2012

Farmers in Uganda access approximately 85% of their seed from informal seed systems; largely through home-saved seed and local grain markets [35]. In between formal and informal systems, a myriad of projects supported individual and farmer groups to multiply improved and/or farmer varieties, grow home-saved seed, and conserve varieties in-situ. Most of these community-based seed schemes were not sustainable after the project support ended as legal embedding was lacking [19]. The experiences in this intermediate system created the space to introduce the QDS class to increase the quality and quantity of seed available to farmers [2].

Until 1968, the Ugandan seed system was informal. In 1968, Uganda started a publicly led seed program, which was privatized in the early nineties. The privatization attracted international seed companies but due to the absence of policy framework and regulations, and weak institutional arrangement and capacity, they did not have incentives to invest in seed business [36]. The government responded to this challenge through the enactment of seed-related laws such as the Seed and Plant Act of 2006, the Agricultural Chemical Act of 2006, the Plant Variety Protection Act of 2014, and the Plant Protection and Health Act of 2015. However, the lack of a policy framework and regulations to operationalize these laws limited their effective implementation.

By 2012, the formal seed system included about twenty-three Ugandan seed companies producing and selling mainly maize seed, as well as some legume and sunflower seeds [33,37]. Systematic records on seed sector functioning were scarce and incomplete [15]. The market of national seed companies predominantly consisted of institutional seed buyers that bought in bulk, predominantly maize and legumes. Institutional buyers included the public agricultural extension service that distributed seed for free, and relief agencies, mainly active in Northern Uganda, that either distributed seed directly or used voucher schemes [9,28,38]. Seed companies sold only a small portion of seed directly to farmers. Direct marketing was hampered by poor rural road networks, causing high transport costs, and by a thinly spread agro-dealer network, with a ratio of one agro-dealer to 3400 farmers [37]. As a result, few companies had developed a loyal customer base.

Although the 2011 draft seed policy did recognize formal and informal seed systems, it was tailored towards converting the informal system into the formal system, whereby all seed produced needed to go through formal certification of the ‘certified seed’ class. Only in case of emergency or acute shortage, ‘standard’ seed that had not gone through formal certification could be sold. Most seed sector stakeholders perceived the seed sector narrowly as the seed industry, companies producing seed, and support organizations that enable companies to operate. The Seed and Plant Act of 2006 and its regulations of 2009 were similarly tailored towards supporting and strengthening a vibrant seed industry. As a result, the formal maize seed system was well developed, yet the policy documents did not address other seed needs of smallholder farmers [28]. Though the law was in place, enforcement was limited due to understaffing and under-resourcing of NSCS and low levels of awareness amongst stakeholders in the seed sector [32,37].

The limited financial and human resources in the seed certification service, with just four inspectors at the time, made it impossible to inspect each production field (three times as per the regulations) of the many out-growers that seed companies engage to produce seed. In addition, seed companies depended on the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) for parental lines and/or basic seed, which was in short supply, leading to the recycling of commercial seed to produce adequate volumes. The limited control and availability of starting material contributed to low quality and/or counterfeit seed perceptions in the market. Subsequently, farmers lost faith in the formally produced seed. Between 2012 and 2014, newspapers regularly reported public outcries over poor quality seed and the inability of MAAIF to regulate the sector [9,15,32,37,38,39,40,41].

The seed sector situation in 2012 proved a fertile ground for the introduction of the QDS production and supply system. A combination of factors such as donor weariness of supporting existing structures, a strong desire from MAAIF to improve and enforce quality assurance, public outcry over counterfeit and fake seed, and the release of several new legume varieties by NARO, created momentum for stakeholders to work together to address challenges around accessing quality seed.

4. Quality Declared Seed and Local Seed Businesses

As background to the process of institutionalizing QDS as a seed class in Uganda, we provide a brief overview of the QDS production and supply system and the local seed businesses, the producers of QDS.

4.1. Quality Declared Seed Production and Supply System

The pre-existing commercial seed class in Uganda is certified seed.

Table 1. Summary characteristics of certified seed and QDS classes in Uganda.

Characteristics	Certified Seed	Quality Declared Seed
Crops	Cereals, legumes, oil seed crops, roots, and tubers	Same as certified, except for maize and sunflower, which are excluded
Producers	Registered national and multinational seed companies	Registered farmer groups and individual farmers (local seed businesses)
Marketing	Direct marketing and through agro-dealer networks	Sold within the communities where seed is produced and not stocked with agro dealers
Input material	Basic seed	Basic seed
Field inspection	Minimum of three field inspections of all seed fields	Maximum of two field inspections of 10% of seed fields of the same variety
Inspectors	National level government seed inspection and certification agency	District level authorized government field inspectors
Seed testing	Multiple seed lots, depending on volume	One seed lot per variety, after bulking
Standards	Germination, genetic purity, moisture content, and seed health	Same standards as certified seed
Government Agency issued quality mark

Source: Seed and Plant Regulations (2016) [42], Seed and Plant (QDS) Regulations (2020) [21].

summarizes the main characteristics of certified seed and QDS classes. QDS applies to self-pollinating and vegetatively propagated crops, for which the formal seed sector has little or no interest. Such crops include cereals (sorghum, finger millet, rice), pulses (beans, pigeon pea, cowpea, field pea, green gram), oil seed crops (groundnut, soybean, sesame), roots and tubers (cassava, sweet potato, solanum potato), indigenous vegetables and pastures. The QDS class is not meant to compete with the certified seed class, but rather to complement it. It contributes to provision of adequate quantities of quality seed on the market. The starting material for producing QDS is basic seed, which is generally produced by NARO. This list of crops shows that the QDS class offers an opportunity to pull public breeding and dissemination of publicly improved varieties of food crops.

The main differences between QDS and certified seed are the marketing channels and the field inspection procedures. Certified seed is sold countrywide and through agro-dealer networks, while QDS is sold in the vicinity of the producers. The quality standards for certified seed and QDS classes are the same. However, the number of field inspections is different.

The QDS regulation requires that producers obtain basic seed from authorized sources. Seed producers register fields planted for QDS production to authorized field inspectors by submitting planting returns (registration form with crop name, variety name and planting date that is used to guide the field inspectors) within two weeks of planting. This submission starts the QDS certification cycle (Figure 1). Under the certification requirement for QDS, the authorized inspectors are the DAOs. For each producer, they inspect approximately ten percent of fields with the same variety once or twice during the season. Seed producers pay a small fee for inspection services to cover some of the expenses of seed inspectors that are not covered in their institution’s annual budget. In addition, this payment stimulates mutual accountability whereby services can be demanded.

When fields pass inspection, the crop is harvested and further processed as seed. After processing and storing, an authorized sampler takes a seed sample and sends it to the national seed laboratory for germination, purity, and moisture content tests. Only seed lots that have passed the minimum quality standards are issued with tamper-proof green QDS labels. This label is a quality seal to assist in marketing the seed to build confidence among the seed buyers. Seed producers pay a small amount for the labels. Once the seed passes the quality tests, the seed is packed in packs with clear branding and labeling and sold in village stores or directly by the producers.

4.2. Local Seed Businesses

The ISSD program introduced the Local Seed Business (LSB) model in 2012. ISSD was a two-phase program of four years each (2012–2016 and 2017–2021) to support the development of a vibrant, pluralistic, and market-oriented seed sector, and empowering smallholder farmers to access affordable quality seed of superior crop varieties.

LSBs are existing entrepreneurial smallholder farmer groups. They differ from community-based seed producers in that in the latter case seed is often not externally certified and marketed. ISSD, in collaboration with the district agricultural office and the Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes (ZARDIs) under NARO, selected an initial batch of thirty farmer groups; ten each in three agroecological zones (Northern, South-Western and West Nile). For the concept of LSBs as entrepreneurial entities, four selection criteria were important. These were pre-existence of the group, experience in crop production for seed or bulk gain sales, good governance structures, and interest to invest in the seed business.

Support to LSBs focused on building their skills in seed production and handling, linking them to seed markets, strengthening governance structures, and linking them to key stakeholders that provide the necessary services such as the sale of basic seed and inspection services. ISSD developed a support and training methodology around four building blocks as presented in Figure 2. The methodology centered around comprehensive season-based participatory training, and coaching focusing on skills, empowerment, and confidence of groups in doing business.

The building blocks have two dimensions. The first dimension is product and organization, and the other is an inward and outward focus. Inward focus relates to the quality of the seed produced and the professional setup of the LSBs. Outward focus relates to market demand, understanding customers, and connections with key actors in the seed value chain.

The first building block focuses on LSBs being technically well equipped. For two seasons, the groups are intensively trained on all production, harvesting, and post-harvesting practices. In particular, the internal quality control committee (IQCC) receives training on how to inspect fields of LSB members and recognize off-types.

The second building block covers market orientation. The LSBs are trained in marketing and marketing strategies so that they can produce what they can market. In market orientation, they gained skills in developing a unique value proposition, price setting, and customer profiling, among others.

The third building block deals with becoming professionally organized. Groups are guided in setting up relevant committees to support decision-making, seed quality control, and monitoring of the seed business activities. Key committees that define the LSBs’ professionalism include finance, production, marketing, and quality control committees. Good governance and inclusiveness are part and partial of this training. Women are stimulated to take up leadership roles.

The last building block involves strategically linking LSBs to access relevant services that support the well-functioning of the seed business. LSBs are linked to agricultural research institutes to access quality basic seed, a regulatory requirement to produce QDS class in Uganda. The seed producers are also connected to the District Local Government for quality assurance services and to the NSCS of MAAIF for laboratory testing of seed and issuance of tamper-proof green QDS labels. After the pilot phase ended, the number of LSBs increased to 106 in 2015. ‘New’ and ‘old’ LSBs were actively linked to improve collaboration. These linkages and exchanges were crucial for fast peer-to-peer learning by new groups and creating a strong zonal network amongst LSBs.

LSBs can sustain their business by satisfying local demand with seed of consistently high quality and by being close to their customers. This requires an entrepreneurial attitude and free seed hand-outs should be avoided under normal circumstances. The sustainability of QDS is based on its business logic in which the producers minimize costs of production and marketing, making it possible to sell QDS at an affordable price. We use an example of beans to show how QDS class can fill the quality seed gap between certified and home-saved seed. Figure 3 provides an overview of the sales prices for common beans for certified seed, QDS, and home-saved seed. As shown in the figure, the price gap between certified seed and QDS is much larger than the price gap between QDS and home-saved seed.

For certified bean seed the main cost factors for seed companies that determine the seed price are transport due to its bulkiness and formal certification, whereby every field needs to be inspected three times in a season. This provides a disincentive for seed companies to invest in producing certified legume seed. For a seed company to produce one kg of certified beans, the cost of production, treatment, certification, and marketing is roughly USD 0.81 per kg [15]. For a LSB to produce one kilogram of QDS, the cost of production, treatment, certification, and marketing is roughly USD 0.58 [43]. This is 28% less and therefore the sales price is also much lower, as shown in Figure 3.

5. Strategies towards Institutionalizing the Quality Declared Seed Class

The ISSD program identified a combination of three strategies that enabled the QDS class to be incorporated into the seed policy. These are:

• Generate evidence to demonstrate that local seed business model (farmer groups) can produce and market quality seed;
• Engage stakeholder towards an inclusive seed policy; and
• Develop a separate QDS regulatory framework.

The strategies combined generated proof of concept, a pathway to scale-out (more numbers of LSBs) and scale-up (embedding in the regulatory framework), and buy-in from a wide range of stakeholders. These strategies carved out a niche that was not in conflict with the existing structures. We elaborate on each of these strategies in the sections below.

5.1. Local Seed Businesses Producing and Marketing Quality Seed

The introduction of the term ‘local seed businesses’ was a deliberate choice to distinguish them from seed producer groups that worked on community-based seed saving and sharing principles. A few of the initial groups selected turned out to have more social objectives rather than entrepreneurial spirit and we parted with these groups. The participatory training was based on discovery, experimental learning, and adult education principles, with a particular focus on and reinforcement of entrepreneurial skills and the four building blocks.

Twinning (a purposeful exchange visit to learn specific skills and best practices identified in another fast-growing group) well-established LSBs and newer groups improved collaboration and the learning process. This farmer-to-farming learning helped farmers learn and see practices from other farmers, which they found easier to replicate. This made it easier to build the capacity of the new LSBs. In addition, the twinning approach helped groups to get to know each other and build a network, which in turn led to the establishment of zonal local seed business associations. The associations were formed out of demand from LSBs for more coordination and advocacy for institutionalizing QDS as a recognized seed class.

The collaboration with existing national and local governance structures from the beginning proved vital for the embedding of LSBs as viable entities within the district. The district agricultural office was involved in the selection of groups, and groups registered at the offices as seed producers. Groups that did well were promoted by the district creating visibility in the governance structure. District local governments also contributed to protecting their farmers from fake seed (see also Section 5.2 on multistakeholder processes).

The establishment of the LSBs in the agricultural zones of Uganda was facilitated by the partnership with NARO through the ZARDIs. The institutes hosted the ISSD seed and agribusiness experts, who formed a team with the relevant ZARDI scientists to train the LSBs. This embedding of the LSB development activities with the ZARDIs contributed to its successes. This also eased fostering connections between the LSBs and NARO crop breeders to access basic seed, a regulatory requirement to produce QDS.

As a result of the low number of groups per zonal team, it was possible to provide in-depth training and tailor the process to the needs of the groups. Once the LSBs passed the proof-of-concept phase, the ISSD program looked for ways to increase the number of LSBs to enhance recognition and convening power. Rather than doing it by itself, the nature of ISSD has been to create as much ownership with like-minded organizations as possible. As a result, organizations wanted to be part of the movement to improve access and availability of quality seed for smallholder farmers.

Scaling-out the LSB methodology countrywide was possible through working with these like-minded partner organizations. The ISSD program prepared an intensive training-of-trainers program using a LSB manual that was prepared by the ISSD team through several ‘write-shops’. The partner organization staff were taken through training-of-trainers to gain knowledge and skills in LSB development. They then used the same approach to identify and mentor additional LSBs. ISSD staff continued to provide technical backstopping to partner organizations and groups. These partnerships tripled the number of LSBs to 106 within one year. This demonstrated the success of the scaling-out approach in increasing the number of LSBs producing and marketing QDS class. In the second phase (2017–2020), the number of LSBs increased to 256, spreading over six agro-ecological zones of the country.

In 2020, the ISSD program commissioned a study to assess the contribution of LSBs to the seed sector. The study showed that LSBs increased the availability, access, and affordability of quality seed, albeit to a limited scale. LSBs are only operating in 68 out of 146 districts in Uganda, with usually one LSB serving a sub-county. They generally focused on one or two crops. As a result, QDS is only available in limited quantities in those sub-counties where LBS are operational and trained. This has implications for smallholder access to QDS class. On average, farmers that have bought QDS traveled 4.4 km to buy the seed, while they are comfortable with three kilometers at most. As shown in Section 4.2, QDS is sold much cheaper compared to certified seed; however, farmers still perceive the seed as expensive. In terms of quality, QDS is of high quality according to farmers, as well as key informants. A lack of awareness on access points, benefits of using QDS, and in general on potential yields of crops was noted as demand side bottlenecks of increasing use of QDS by smallholder farmers [44].

5.2. Stakeholder Engagement towards Inclusive Seed Policy

From the start in 2012, we promoted a multi-stakeholder partnership in which ISSD represented an approach with guiding principles rather than the implementing organization featured itself. The ISSD program contributed to sector transformation, and the achievements were attributed to stakeholder engagement rather than as a single organization’s wins.

Stakeholder collaboration was an important part of institutionalizing the QDS class in Uganda. The ISSD program invested efforts in these stakeholder engagements at national, agro-ecological zonal, and community levels.

5.2.1. National Processes

Stakeholders’ engagement is a critical process in building consensus towards a joint action in addressing a common challenge in the seed sector. One of the key strategies used to cause a change in the policy and regulatory environment in the seed sector in Uganda was engagement and dialogue with important stakeholders who had alternative views about the seed sector. In 2013, we conducted a stakeholder analysis and mapped out five important categories of actors with influence in the seed sector. These actors are the public sector, private sector, development partners, farmer groups, and NGOs. Each of these interest groups had different and sometimes opposing interests. The ISSD program, together with other stakeholders, provided several spaces for dialogue, bilateral engagements, and negotiation rounds which contributed to actors working together.

Stakeholder collaboration followed several stages of multistakeholder participation as described by Kaner’s “diamond of participation” [28]. Initially, discussions would follow the same pattern; the problems were widely known, and the ‘blame’ put on another actor. For example, shortage of basic seed is caused because “breeders are not producing sufficient quantities” or “seed companies are not booking basic seed at least two seasons in advance”. Another example is that the blame for counterfeit seed was put either on seed companies or on the government for not regulating the sector, depending on which actor group was making the statement. In addition to these blame games, solutions identified were broad-based solutions, that were not always actionable. Some examples of the proposed generic solutions are “”the seed sector needs a semi-autonomous national seed inspection service”, “the seed sector needs to know the seed demand”, and “seed companies and others need to order basic seed at least one season in advance”” [28] (p. 6). These became recurrent at every meeting without finding actionable pathways for implementation.

To break this pattern, the ISSD program, amongst others, contributed to the process to generate new and actionable ideas and solutions by organizing various workshops and meetings that used various facilitation skills and tools, such as using process and content facilitators in meetings, mind mapping, rich picture, various scoring methods, market place discussions, debates, and the carousel method whereby participants build on each other’s comments and observations [26,27]. Fundamental problems, such as fixed positions, participants not understanding each other, the wish to maintain the status, and the win/lose mentality became clear. By providing a safe space (through professional facilitation and using the right tools), new ideas and approaches emerged, converging reasoning towards solutions in the realm of existing and new information. These processes resulted in the introduction of QDS as a new seed class, joint work on the seed policy, and reaching consensus on ZARDIs producing basic seed (in 2015). The latter is also an important achievement because sufficient volumes of basic seed are necessary to produce certified seed and QDS.

While the development of a national seed policy was initiated in 2002, it was only in 2013 with the joint efforts of several seed sector stakeholders that the process was reinvigorated. It took two more versions and five years for the National Seed Policy to be approved by the Cabinet in 2018.

5.2.2. Zonal and District Level Processes

Together with the ZARDIs, the ISSD program organized stakeholder meetings at the zonal level to make sure that the voices of stakeholders at lower administrative levels were also heard. The ISSD program organized these meetings at least twice a year to deliberate on issues affecting quality seed access in the zone and decide what action could be taken. In these zonal multistakeholder platforms, similar facilitation skills were used as in the national meetings, to engage in processes to break patterns that were stuck and come to actionable new ideas and solutions [34]. Through meetings, stakeholders recognized the shortage of access points for quality seed for most food security crops and the importance of LSBs, inadequate availability of quality basic seed, and poor enforcement of regulations to reduce fake seed in the markets.

At the zonal levels, we facilitated stakeholders to pilot new solutions to some of the recognized challenges. A particularly successful pilot was the pilot on by-laws against counterfeit seed. Actors at the district level proposed the development of by-laws to give the district authorities a better framework to deal with fake seed in their market. The pioneer by-law was passed by the Koboko district local government. Using the by-laws, the district, through the DAO, conducted physical verification and germination tests on a consignment of 30 MT of bean seed that was delivered through the government’s seed distribution program in 2015. The DAO found that the viability of the seed lot was below 50%. Using the district by-law in place, the DAO was able to reject the seed consignment. The by-law was then taken up by more districts to facilitate enforcement on seed quality control.

Another example of a successful pilot was the engagement with the national bean and groundnut breeding programs to pilot basic seed production at ZARDIs, to increase the availability and proximity of basic seed to the seed producers. Prior to this pilot, breeding programs were the only source of basic seed without external quality control.

5.3. QDS Regulatory Framework

The third strategy that contributed to the acceptance of QDS as a seed class was to create separate space for the class in the regulatory framework, whereby the status quo of certified seed was not challenged. To achieve this, the ISSD program worked with the MAAIF from the start. ISSD and MAAIF jointly piloted how the QDS class could work before officially making it part of the seed sector regulatory framework.

The first pilot, initiated in 2013, was focused on providing evidence that LSBs produced quality seed that would pass the minimum standards of germination, purity, and moisture content. With MAAIF through its NSCS, the ISSD program tested a separate quality assurance system for the QDS class based on the FAO QDS guidelines for inspection. This involved instituting and training an IQCC within each LBS. The IQCC is responsible for routinely performing inspections of fields of its members to ensure that QDS production procedures are adhered to. They provide guidance to individual producers of QDS. They also have the mandate to reject fields planted for QDS based on the level of contamination that may make it invalid as a seed field. For example, when the seed crop planted for QDS is intercropped with another crop, this will automatically lead to the rejection of the field by members of the IQCC. Such fields are also reported to inspectors from NSCS when they visited. The inspectors validated the decisions taken by the internal LSB quality control officers. The pilot also focused on testing the inspection of seed fields planted for QDS by the NSCS inspectors from MAAIF and standardizing the issuance of the tamper-proof green labels as the certification mark for QDS class. The pilot performed well and provided evidence of LSB’s capacity to produce and market quality seed, as witnessed by the volume of seed produced and seed passing minimum standards [31]. The introduction of the tamper-proof green label was an important step in the recognition of QDS as a seed class. A major step in the recognition of this label was the official launch of the tamper-proof labels for certified seed and QDS by the president of the Republic of Uganda during the agricultural show in 2016.

Once the first pilot was successfully completed and QDS recognized as marketable quality seed class, the next step in institutionalizing the QDS class was a pilot on decentralization of inspection services to the District Agricultural Office. The inspection of seed fields for QDS by NSCS inspectors from MAAIF was not economically feasible in terms of distance and logistics required by the inspectors. In addition, once QDS would be rolled out nationwide, the number of inspectors would not be sufficient. Therefore, the ISSD program recognized the need to decentralize inspection of these fields to the district local government by the DAOs. In this pilot that started in 2014, the ISSD program supported MAAIF to train DAOs on field inspections. The trained DAOs were then authorized to inspect the seed fields, a step required in the certification process. Seed sampling for purposes of laboratory testing remained the responsibility of the NSCS seed samplers from the central seed testing laboratory. DAO’s involvement in the inspection of seed fields improved access to inspection services by LSBs due to their proximity and lower costs. Each LSB producing QDS pays a fee of UGX 50,000 (about USD 15) as a cost for each inspection. These fees were later revised to UGX 6000 (USD 1.7) per acre in the new Seed and Plant (QDS) Regulation (2020) [21]. This pilot provided evidence that seed field inspection for QDS can be decentralized to the district local government by involving and accrediting DAOs to conduct inspections [31].

These pilots presented evidence-based inputs towards the drafting of the new QDS regulations which was initiated by MAAIF in 2016. The development of the separate QDS regulation got traction after the approval of the National Seed Policy (2018). With regards to the QDS class, the policy statement in the national seed policy is that the “Government will put in place appropriate seed quality standards and mechanisms for regulation, production and sale of Quality Declared Seed to reduce use of home-saved seed and bridge the gap between formal and informal seed systems” [45] (p. 12). The new QDS regulations eased the rigors of full certification without compromising on the minimum standards for variety purity, germination, and moisture content. The certification process for the QDS class is designed as an alternative quality seed assurance system to complement the regular certification processes, thus relieving pressure on the limited resources of the NSCS.

6. Achieved Level of Institutionalization of the QDS Class

As shown in this paper, Uganda has achieved much in terms of institutionalizing QDS as a seed class that facilitates smallholder farmers access to quality seed of the preferred varieties at affordable prices. The institutional framework for the QDS class is anchored in the national seed policy, strategy, and implementation plan of the Government of Uganda. The Ugandan experience demonstrates that adoption and implementation of a new seed class addressing the needs of smallholder farmers is achievable. The complementarity of LSBs to national seed companies has been demonstrated, and the feasibility of their development is shown. Using a participatory approach with jointly piloting potential solutions, stakeholders better recognized that the effectiveness of the seed sector is determined by the use of good quality seed, which can come from different sources.

To assess the level of institutionalization achieved, the ISSD program used the S-curve of market transformation [22]. Uganda has reached stage 3, critical mass, in the transition towards sustainability. Driving commitment to QDS is no longer pushed by only civil society or frontrunners. Producers are professionalizing, and the number of farmer groups producing and marketing the QDS class is increasing. Interventions have shifted away from the project, with MAAIF extension workers picking up to support groups becoming producers of QDS. However, MAAIF has not yet fully decentralized the system and has not yet formally accredited the DAOs. The QDS class is getting known in areas where they are produced, but not yet countrywide as not all districts have LBS. MAAIF is investing efforts in coordination and creating a space for alignment and collaboration.

LSBs are proving successful in producing substantial amounts of seed for sale to farmers. Four areas of attention are highlighted to sustainably institutionalize the QDS class into the Ugandan seed sector. Two seed sector-wide challenges are faced by both certified seed producers and QDS producers. The first is the short supply of early generation seed that serves as starting material to produce certified seed and QDS classes. The second is the limited awareness of smallholder farmers about yield potentials of quality seed, where to access the seed, and the value-for-money of this seed. The two other challenges are more specific to the QDS class. These are the limited number of farmer groups that are producing and marketing QDS, and strengthening the decentralized quality assurance system.