Government efforts to combat counterfeit seed in Africa: a 50-country comparative analysis

Background Counterfeit seeds (inferior seeds falsely labeled and marketed as certified seeds) pose a critical threat to agricultural productivity, food security, and farmer livelihoods across Africa. Despite growing recognition of this problem, systematic regional assessments of government policy responses remain limited. Methods The paper analyzes data from the Seed Sector Performance Index (SSPI) survey conducted across 50 African countries in 2025. National seed sector experts provided assessments of policy recency, legal penalties, and mitigation measures for combating counterfeit seed. The paper examines variation across eight Regional Economic Communities (RECs): Arab Maghreb Union (UMA), Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC), Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and Southern African Development Community (SADC). Results Substantial regional heterogeneity emerged across all dimensions. Policy recency varied markedly, with IGAD, SADC, and COMESA showing recent regulatory updates on average while UMA relied on older frameworks. Maximum fines ranged from $1 in some SADC and COMESA countries to over $35,000 in ECOWAS and CEN-SAD. At the regional level, average maximum prison terms range from approximately 10 months in UMA and ECCAS to 65 months in IGAD, based on countries with available data. Implementation measures showed uneven adoption: surveillance and inspection systems were widespread in UMA (100% of countries), EAC (100%), SADC (100%), COMESA (100%), and IGAD (100%) but more limited in ECCAS (80%). Awareness creation programs remained underdeveloped across most RECs. Expert assessments of government efforts to combat counterfeit seed revealed a significant gap between policy commitments ( de jure ) and implementation ( de facto ), with the latter lagging due to limited capacity. Conclusion Effective counterfeit seed control requires coordinated action across three fronts: strengthening surveillance and measurement systems, formalizing public-private partnerships for detection and enforcement, and expanding farmer awareness programs. Given substantial regional disparities in both policy frameworks and implementation capacity, interventions must be tailored to local contexts, prioritizing regulatory modernization in countries with outdated policies and enforcement capacity building where implementation gaps are largest.