Access to seeds is a serious problem small-scale farmers face. For farmers to improve access to seeds, NGOs working in humanitarian action and long-term development interventions have for decades implemented seed security responses. The theory of change is that through seeds, farmers are expected to improve productivity and thereby become food secure and generate sustainable income. However, while the need for access to quality seeds to maintain farming activities is undeniable, the questions addressed in this study are how seed security responses can effectively ensure farmers' long-term seed security, and how by being seed secure farmers can become food secure and earn sustainable income. The study findings in both contexts (humanitarian action and long-term development interventions) indicate that despite the type of seeds (OPVs, hybrids and local seeds) farmers have access to through seed security responses, their long-term food security remains a challenge, and a decent and sustainable income to satisfy household needs has not been achieved. Indeed, the findings reveal that seeds contribute to increased productivity, particularly local seeds, but increased production alone is not a sufficient solution to improve farmers' food security and income generation. Instead, the study suggests that to address food insecurity and improve income among small-scale farmers, an integrated approach between agriculture, particularly one that promotes use of local improved seeds, and other agrarian change measures should be implemented.
Moreover, it appears that in general seed security responses in humanitarian action, as the findings from the Uganda case study show, focused on solving seed availability while the main problem faced by farmers is access to seeds. Then, following seed security responses, farmers only have access to certain types of seeds in the short term, while their long-term access remains uncertain. The seed security responses, while effective in short-term seed provision, seem ineffective in addressing the long-term seed and food security problems. What is perhaps more surprising is that despite years of calls for assessments prior to seed security responses implementation, those assessments are still absent today and therefore the problem goes unidentified, hence unresolved. Additionally, monitoring and evaluation of seed security responses in humanitarian action continues to focus on the amounts distributed rather than on the effects of the responses, so the lack of in-depth evaluations prevents the inclusion of constructive outcomes and the exclusion of ineffective ones in future responses.
108 On the other hand, the findings from the Malawi case study reveal that the community seed bank has managed to subsist using a hybrid approach between community work and NGO support. However, its long-term sustainability remains a challenge, particularly due to the lack of recognition community seed banks and local seeds have at the national level. Lack of recognition limits community seed banks from marketing local improved seeds to generate a more reliable source of income to operate without NGO support. Farmers' needs in terms of preferred seeds and crops have been the main priority since the establishment of the community seed bank and that has positively contributed to improve farmers' access to seeds, despite not having had a significant increase in their income, as well as to create a strong bond among members to maintain the seed bank operation. Indeed, the findings suggest that all community seed bank members have equal access to seeds, and that no elite capture has created unequal access to services. While it is confirmed that through community seed banks, farmers seed security and food security have improved, the improvements do not last all year around and food insecurity especially during lean seasons remains a challenge. Consequently, the findings suggest increased collaboration between the government and the community seed bank to provide small-scale farmers with other agricultural inputs, such as organic fertilizers, that are also needed to improve productivity. Simultaneously, the government could provide more legal space for the commercialization of local improved seeds of a wide range of crops, as that would help the community seed bank to become self-sufficient and avoid relying on NGO support in the long-term.
Lastly, it is often more feasible for NGOs to keep applying the same responses and focus on a single development approach as the preferred solution to address food insecurity and income generation, especially when working with rural communities whose main source of livelihood is agriculture. Perhaps mastering one approach can sometimes be helpful and even necessary to optimize the use of resources to support people living in poor conditions, but in doing so the root causes of the problem may remain unsolved. Therefore, if agriculture continues to be the main development approach to address food insecurity and income generation constraints among NGOs, the way in which seed security responses are conducted should be revised. To begin with, the seed technologies promoted in seed security responses should be those that farmers prefer, need, and that can be obtained without NGO support in the long term.
Additionally, the responses should focus not only on providing seeds, but also address market constraints for different crops as well as farmers' access to land, as together these are key factors in enhancing food security and income generation. Future studies would do well to explore
109 market constraints and how to integrate seed security responses with more marketable crops, especially considering the increasing promotion of crop diversification. Finally, NGOs should consider that the lack of access to land is a major limitation to obtain enough harvest for both food and income generation. As severe land shortages persist among small-scale farmers, NGOs could also improve off-farm employment to supplement farm incomes, rather than involving all small-scale farmers in the same seed security response.
110