Realizing Farmers’ Rights through Community Seed Banks in Uganda: Experiences and Policy Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper interrogates the role of community seed banks (CSBs) and related initiatives in the realization of farmers’ rights in Uganda and the policy and legislative space for the functioning of CSBs. The study finds that although community seed banks are a relatively new phenomenon in Uganda, there have been community based seed banking initiatives that have been instrumental in the realization of farmers’ rights to save and exchange seed and information; and especially providing a wide range of diversity of seed to farmers and improving access to good quality seed. Through partnerships with local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), research and government institutions, CSBs have received technical and financial support for conservation and seed production activities, thus enabling them to participate in seed value-chains through production of quality declared seed (QDS) and participate in decision making. Although the policy and legal environment for the functioning of CSBs is not well defined, various pieces of draft legislation provide positively for ways through which CSBs can be recognized and supported for the benefit of farmers. The study recommends that CSBs activities should be rolled-out to other parts of the country through a government financing mechanism that is suggested in the draft national policy on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The development of a policy and legal environment that includes an act that has provisions for the recognition of CSBs and the protection of farmers’ rights is important. Secondary information, interviews with key informants and Focus Group discussions (FGDs) are the primary sources of data used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".