Certified success?
Not everyone can get excited about seed but for anyone who derives a
livelihood, or pleasure, from growing plants, seed raises hopes and expectations
that no other stage in the growing cycle can stimulate. And, as for any
potentially long term, satisfactory relationship, trust is an essential
element. Little may be revealed to the prospective purchaser of new seed
by its appearance. Genetic purity is well hidden beneath a uniform size
and colour. Germination rate cannot be seen or felt. It may take months
for a crop to come to harvest and so it is not surprising that farmers
look for some guarantee of success when they purchase their seed.
Certification, by a nationally recognized authority, has been the mark
of quality assurance - in some countries for over a century - but is this
the best way to meet all farmers' needs?
What does certification actually mean - or imply?
Most countries adopt the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) or the AOSCA (Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies - USA and Canada) classification Schemes which are then implemented by a national authority. A consequential benefit of the Schemes is the removal of technical trade barriers for internationally traded seed. The schemes limit the multiplication process which starts from the breeders seed, which is produced by the breeder from original parents, through basic (or foundation) seed, which is produced by selected growers from supplies provided by the breeders, to certified (or registered) seed which is produced on a large scale by seed producers and is sold for commercial crop production. Seed that is certified must have met a defined standard of genetic purity and, usually, a number of physical quality standards such as germination rate and moisture content. Seed certification may be voluntary, or mandatory for certain crops, or is sometimes mandatory only when produced by state enterprises. Those countries that have a private seed industry, as opposed to one solely in the public sector, may allow seed to be sold as 'truthfully labelled'. Such seed has not been inspected and the producer is responsible for its genetic and physical quality, certain aspects of which must be described on the label.
Seed quality control is demanding
In order to control genetic quality, the certification agency will need to verify the source of the seed, make field visits at specified stages of the growing season and inspect post harvest. Physical seed quality requires laboratory testing for varietal purity (for example the presence of weed seeds), germination capacity, moisture content and health. Before certification, the authorizing agency must check that the seed has met the quality standards required, provide labels and make checks at the point of sale. In most developing countries the cost is borne by government, possibly supported by foreign aid, whereas, in most industrialized countries, the cost of seed certification and quality control are paid for by the seed producers who pass the cost on to their customers.
It is not difficult to imagine where the problems lie. Overstretched and under-resourced public agencies cannot always supply the well trained technical staff required to carry out inspections. The seasonal nature of the work compounds the staffing problem, and delays in inspection can mean the grower misses the optimum time for selling seed. Field inspections are also costly because sites may be widely dispersed. Zambia's Seed Control and Certification Institute has recently introduced a number of 'satellite' testing laboratories to make certified seed more accessible to farmers in remote parts of the country. The private sector has been allowed to apply for licenses to carry out quality control although the Institute retains overall responsibility for monitoring. The aim is to encourage farmers to buy tested seeds.
Where both certification agency and state seed producers are under the same authority, there are obvious risks to standards. Elsewhere, corrupt inspectors may demand incentives to approve seed or, indeed, powerful producers may be able to influence the decision of inspectors. Certification agencies generally put most of their resources into field and post harvest inspections but, at the point of sale, inspections are almost non-existent. It is easy for unscrupulous merchants to mix inspected seed with a rejected consignment in order to bulk up sales. Not only will farmers shy away from buying uncertain 'certified' seed but fewer will be encouraged to become commercial producers of seed if certification is mandatory but, at the same time, inefficient and, possibly, subject to corruption.
What standards should be set?
High levels of varietal purity and germination rate may not bring significant benefits in terms of yield. And if standards have been set using optimum growing conditions the reality, even in favoured seed producing sites, may mean that those standards are very difficult to attain. Seed will be rejected, certified seed will be more expensive and the seed supply system may contract. If farmers do not need the highest standards and if, by relaxing them, more good quality seed becomes available on the market, perhaps the regulatory authority should consider changing the regulations and allow a greater range of good quality, 'approved' grades. Farmers' representatives as well as seed growers and merchants should be party to the discussions.
If farmers become better informed about seed quality, and have avenues through which to make effective complaint when necessary, seed standards should improve. Farmers will know that the seed they sow in the ground is seed that they can trust.
