A comparison of the 2026 Global Hunger Index and seed sector institutions highlights why effective regulations, investment and access to improved varieties matter for food security.
Whenever we discuss the fight against global hunger, the conversation inevitably turns to agricultural productivity, climate change, irrigation, fertilisers and access to markets. All important, of course. But I sometimes wonder whether we are overlooking one of the missing ingredients in the fight against hunger: the enabling environment in which a country’s seed sector operates.
Having spent all of my professional life in the seed sector, I am convinced that plant breeding has enormous potential to improve food security. But even the most brilliant new variety achieves very little if it never reaches the farmers who need it.
In March 2013, I gave a presentation to the African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA). I placed several world maps alongside each other, showing participation in the OECD Seed Schemes, the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA), the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and the International Seed Federation (ISF), together with the Global Hunger Index. A striking pattern emerged: countries experiencing the most severe hunger often had the weakest connections to these international seed sector frameworks. Now, I certainly wasn’t claiming to have discovered the secret formula for eliminating hunger. But the pattern was intriguing. Thirteen years later, I decided to revisit the comparison, using the latest available data. And I believe the findings deserve our attention.
What the Hunger Figures Tell Us
The 2026 Global Hunger Index, a peer-reviewed annual report that tracks hunger worldwide and encourages action to reduce it, paints a troubling picture. Somalia records a hunger score of 47.0, the Democratic Republic of the Congo 39.5, Chad 38.0 and Madagascar 36.5. By comparison, Tunisia scores 6.0, Morocco 9.0 and Egypt 10.5.
Looking at countries at opposite ends of the hunger spectrum, we see interesting differences in their seed sector environments. Many countries experiencing severe hunger lack participation in international seed certification systems, have no ISTA accredited laboratories and have limited connections to international seed organisations. The lower hunger countries selected generally have more developed seed sector frameworks.
Of course, I know, I get it, correlation is not causation. Hunger depends on many factors, including conflict, poverty, political instability and climate shocks. Nigeria, for example, participates in several international seed frameworks but still has a serious hunger score of 34.3.
But Nigeria also reminds us that joining an international organisation is only the beginning. The real benefits depend on what happens afterwards. OECD Seed Schemes participation needs competent certification authorities, ISTA accreditation requires properly equipped laboratories and trained staff, and UPOV membership needs an effective national plant variety protection system. All this requires investment, expertise and sustained implementation. Nigeria only joined UPOV in March 2025, so expecting immediate results would be premature.
In my view, the real measure of success is not how many international organisations a country belongs to, but whether those memberships translate into tangible improvements for breeders, seed companies and ultimately farmers. After all, membership in an international organisation, does not test a seed lot, register a variety or deliver a single bag of seed to a farmer.
Having Regulations is Not Enough
An interesting new contribution comes from the African Seed Sector Performance Index (ASSPI), whose 2025 assessment evaluates seed sector performance across 50 African countries. The differences are substantial. South Africa scores 8.64 out of 10, Egypt 8.13, while Somalia scores only 3.01. Importantly, the index looks beyond the existence of regulations and examines how effectively national seed systems actually function.
And that distinction is pretty crucial. A country may have perfectly respectable seed legislation on paper, but what happens if variety registration takes years, testing facilities are inadequate, phytosanitary requirements are unnecessarily restrictive, or intellectual property rights cannot be effectively enforced?
Let’s consider a breeder who has developed a promising drought tolerant variety. If regulatory obstacles delay registration, seed production or the movement of breeding material, farmers may wait years before they can use it. Meanwhile, the droughts are hardly going to wait for the paperwork to be completed. In my view, these are not simply administrative inconveniences. They directly influence whether seed companies invest, whether improved varieties become available and, ultimately, whether farmers can benefit from innovation.
And let me be very clear: I am certainly not advocating more regulations for the sake of having more regulations. I would much rather see fewer, better and more effectively implemented rules than a mountain of legislation that looks impressive in a filing cabinet but achieves little in farmers’ fields.
Don’t Forget the Seed Associations
There is another important component of the enabling environment that I believe deserves more recognition: strong national and regional seed associations. A functioning national seed association brings together breeders, seed producers and distributors, identifies practical obstacles and provides governments with an informed partner for developing solutions. Regional seed associations such as African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA), the Asia and Pacific Seed Association (APSA), and the Seed Association of the Americas (SAA) can amplify that voice and facilitate cooperation across borders. Having a national seed association, however, is not automatically the same as having an effective one. Associations need expertise, committed members and regular opportunities to engage with policymakers.
Having worked with seed associations around the world, I have seen how important these channels can be. Governments need to hear from the people who actually breed, produce, test and market seed. Otherwise, there is a real risk that regulations are developed without sufficient understanding of their practical consequences.
An Enabling Environment is Not Optional
I believe governments and international development organisations need to recognise that a flourishing seed sector does not happen by accident. It requires deliberate policy choices, predictable and science-based regulations, effective seed quality assurance, appropriate plant variety protection, efficient registration procedures and greater regional harmonisation. And just as importantly, it requires conditions that encourage both public and private investment. Supporting national seed sector development should be a central component of food security strategies, not an afterthought.
The seed sector also has responsibilities. Breeders must develop varieties adapted to local conditions, and seed companies must ensure that quality seed is available through reliable and affordable distribution channels. Innovation only delivers results when farmers can actually use it. The best seed in the world is useless if farmers can’t get it. We cannot expect farmers to benefit from innovations that never reach their fields, nor can we expect seed companies to invest and thrive in environments characterised by uncertainty, unnecessary barriers and weak institutions.
If governments are serious about improving food security, creating an effective enabling environment for the seed sector must move from the margins of agricultural policy to the top of the agenda. After all, you cannot plant a policy document, however beautifully written. But without the right policies and functioning institutions, the seed that could make a difference might never reach the farmer.
A flourishing seed sector is not a luxury reserved for wealthy countries. It is an essential building block of productive, resilient agriculture. For countries struggling with hunger, creating the conditions for that sector to flourish is not merely desirable. It is indispensable.
