Category Archives: Seed Sovereignty

LAW TO PROTECT PLANT BREEDERS

Posted on by

Dawn, Business & Finance weekly, December 7th, 2015

ASHFAK BOKHARI

WITH the introduction of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill 2015 in the National Assembly on November 27 by the Federal Minister for Inter-Provincial Coordination Riaz Hussain Pirzada, the country is close to meeting its obligations in the seed sector as required by the WTO’s Trips regime.

The Seed Amendment Bill 2014, another related legislation, has already been passed by the lower house and is awaiting a formal nod from the upper house to become a law. The two bills were originally moved in 2010 but were then put on the backburner.

After remaining frozen for four years, one bill, relating to seed business, was revived last year following the formation of the Intellectual Property Organisation (IPO-Pak) as a regulator of intellectual property rights (IPRs). The seed bill, an amended form of 1976 law, was re-launched as 2014 bill.

The plant breeders rights bill, which the NA Speaker immediately referred to the standing committee concerned, has been revived this year and re-launched as a 2015 bill. Pirzada had moved the bill in the house on behalf of the minister of state for parliamentary affairs.

The bill aims at establishing a viable seed industry for food security and ensuring the availability of high quality seeds and planting material to farmers.

How long it will take to become a law is anybody’s guess. Pakistan, being a member of the WTO, is required to provide protection to plant varieties under sui generis system under Article 27-3 (b) of the Trips law. The sui generis (unique) system for plant varieties must comply with the basic principles of national (equal) treatment.

The government has already adopted and enforced major IP laws such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and industrial designs. According to the stated objectives of the proposed law, the government will encourage plant breeders and seed organisations in both public and private sectors to invest in research and plant breeding; help breeders develop superior varieties of crops; provide access to protected foreign varieties and new technologies and effectively control the menace of counterfeit seeds.

Once the bill is passed, a registry of plant breeders’ rights will be established under the administrative control of IPO-Pak. The new law will effectively protect IPRs of the breeders which are described as a limited form of proprietary rights, which permit their holders to exclude others from producing and selling seeds of their plant varieties without legal authorisation.

The holder will charge royalty on the sale of seeds of his variety and will have the right to initiate civil proceedings against the persons found infringing his rights. Such protection may encourage foreign firms to invest in plant breeding in Pakistan.

Agriculture, including seed business, became a provincial subject after the passage of the 18th Amendment in the constitution in 2010. But, according to federal minister for food security Sikandar Hayat Bosan, all the provincial assemblies had passed a special resolution authorising the federal government to amend the Seed Act of 1976 and retain it as a federal subject.

During the long journey the two bills traversed, the basic reforms suggested in their drafts had been the focus of intense debate in the NA standing committee discussions, among civil society groups, farmers bodies and other stakeholders.

That the draft of new seed law tends to invite foreign private sector to effectively take part in the country’s seed development is evident from Bosan’s statement attached with the text of the law. The 1976 law, he says, had failed to fulfill the requirements of a ‘modern seed industry’ for the capacity of the public sector has, over the years, greatly declined.

Today, he says, “it is the private sector which is playing a stronger and more vibrant role across the world. The new innovations in hybrid technology and genetically modified crops have transformed the seed industry.” The new law will also allow the private sector “to produce basic seed for its multiplication and certification” and establish seed testing laboratories.

The bill permits registration of GM crops provided no terminator technology is involved in the development of seed variety.

What has offended the farmers’ community in particular is preventing them from carrying on age-old practice of re-using the saved seeds for next crop. They will have to buy seeds for each crop from the companies at a higher cost. This is unaffordable for small farmers, at least, and soon they may have to quit the farming.

The foreign office’s opposition to GM seeds is a significant matter as conveyed by Environmental Protection Agency’s chief during the proceedings of a public interest petition in Lahore High Court. While appearing on behalf of the federation on May 14, 2014, he said: “the Foreign Office has also conveyed its concern to the Climate Change Division that the subject of GM seeds is a matter of grave concern for national security and trade. It can be used as a biological weapon of mass destruction to destroy Pakistan’s major crops such as potato, wheat, rice, corn, cotton and vegetables through modified viruses, bacteria and other parasites.”

http://www.dawn.com/news/1224587/law-to-protect-plant-breeders

Cotton crop disaster: opportunity for global seed corporations

Posted on by

????????????????????????????????????

AZRA TALAT SAYEED

NEWSPAPERS have been rife with reports about a pink bollworm attack on the cotton crop this year. The scenario is indeed disastrous on many accounts.

Of course, the very first thing to be destroyed is the livelihood of the country’s millions of small farmers.

With cotton being a major cash crop, millions rely on its harvest for a sizable portion of their income. In fact, they go heavily into debt to not only buy the cotton seed but also expensive inputs like fertilisers and multiple pesticides that are sprayed on cotton. Without these, the seed cannot yield a good harvest.

According to small farmers from Multan and Sahiwal, nearly 90pc of the cotton crop has been destroyed. For farmers in Multan who sowed on leased land, the per-acre loss is approximately Rs40,000. And the loss for those who have their own land runs to about Rs20,000.

Another critical point is the amount of pesticides that have been used on the cotton crop this year. A newspaper advisory from the government mentions the ‘correct’ use of pesticides that farmers should be applying on the beleaguered cotton crop. This is indeed ironic, as one major selling point of Bt cotton is its ability to ward off pest attacks. But the attack of pink bollworms this year has at least put this claim to rest.

There are farmers who also feel that the crop’s failure will be beneficial for the gigantic seed corporations that thrive on their expensive patented seeds.

According to a farmer from the Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek, this could be a golden opportunity to push farmers to switch from cotton to corn. Corn is used for making ethanol. Pioneer, an American company, has also been promoting the use of certain branded corn varieties that are used for animal feed.

The animal dung from animals fed these corn varieties yield higher urea content and is considered a good source of biogas. But one has to yet see whether the patented hybrid corn seeds will turn out to be a boon or bane for Pakistan’s agriculture sector.

What is the cost of these branded seeds? Hybrid corn seeds of Pioneer, Syngenta and Monsanto are priced at Rs5,500-6,000 per 10kg; it takes about 10kg of seeds for per-acre sowing. The ‘beauty’ of these seeds is that none of them give seed for next year’s cultivation. Hence, the farmers have to buy new batches of seed every year.

That is the crux of the matter for the agro-chemical and biotechnology firms. No doubt, the ‘commodification’ of natural resources is a key strategy of market-driven forces.

At the moment, all cotton seeds in the market are being sold without trademarks. The price of 1kg of cotton can vary from Rs300 to Rs1,500. If women sow seed by hand, then at least 3kg is needed; if seed drills are used, then 5-8kg is required.

So if patented cotton seed, particularly the genetically modified Bt variety, is introduced next year (a major reason for the passing of the Amended Seed Act 2015), then there is no doubt that seed prices will jump.

The cotton crop’s failure this year can be exactly the kind of situation that benefits multinational corporations: it will now be argued that substandard seed is the cause of the current catastrophe.

However, it needs to be pointed out that Bt cotton has suffered a similar fate in India, where this seed is heavily protected under patents. The Nagpur-based Central Institute for Cotton Research has confirmed the pink bollworm’s resistance to Monsanto’s second generation biotechnology protection Bollgard-II in some parts of Indian Gujarat.

Meanwhile, our textile industry will face a further setback when it is unable to find cotton for local production. According to some newspapers, the All Pakistan Textile Manufacturers Association and the Pakistan Cotton Ginners’ Association are advocating for the import of Bt cotton seeds supported by Monsanto.

At the same time, Pakistan is increasing its sugarcane harvest to produce more ethanol. According to the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook, Pakistan increased its ethanol production from 97.2m litres in 2004 to 321.8m litres in 2014.

Based on media reports, much of the ethanol in the country is being sent to Europe. Do our farmers want to be energy suppliers to the oil-guzzling vehicle industry in the northern hemisphere? What about food for our own people?

azra.sayeed@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, Business & Finance weekly, November 23rd, 2015

National food security policy on its way: Bosan

Posted on by

ISLAMABAD: The national food security policy is being finalised and would be announced after complete consensus, said Minister for National Food Security and Research Sikandar Hayat Bosan.
“We have uploaded the draft on the official website of the ministry for comments and suggestions from the members of parliament and other stakeholders,” he said. The policy would be submitted to the federal cabinet for final approval before its announcement.
He said the National Food Security Council is also being set up, to be headed by the Prime Minister, to further boost the agriculture sector. The council would help resolve issues between the federal and provincial governments, pertaining to agriculture after the 18th Amendment.
“The ministry would also present the Plant Breeders Rights Bill during the upcoming session of the National Assembly, which would revolutionise the agriculture sector within three years,” said Bosan, adding the protection of breeders’ rights would build up confidence among local and foreign breeders and attract investment in the sector.
“Our government to give relief to farmers has announced a ‘Kissan Relief Package worth Rs341 billion, which is a short-term measure to prepare farmers to cultivate the next crop. Under the package, rice and cotton growers having 12.5 acres or less land would be provided Rs5,000 per acre support.”
“We have also tried to reduce the input cost by relieving duties on pesticides and fertilisers,” he added.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 21th, 2015.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/995603/agriculture-national-food-security-policy-on-its-way-bosan/

Punjab declares 10-year wheat seed replacement plan

Posted on by

LAHORE: The Punjab on Thursday declared its massive wheat seed replacement plan, spanning a decade, to multiply it’s per acre yield by almost three times — from current just under 30 maunds up to 80 maunds.

According to departmental statistics, it has already transported over 70,000 bags and the rest 30,000 bags would be transported in next two to three days, covering all 23,800 villages in the province, and meeting the most propitious sowing deadline of Nov 30.

The seed replacement programme was necessitated as almost all seed varieties currently under usage, which cover 80 per cent of 17.20 million acres, have become susceptible to a variety of diseases, like rust.

According to Punjab Agriculture Minister Farrukh Javed, these 100,000 bags would be sufficient to produce five million bags of seed, which would replace the current seed.

The Punjab plans to take per acre yield to 100 maunds, and the programme is an effort in this regard, he said and added: “The Punjab has spared Rs300 million for the project this year, out of which Rs240 million have gone for seed procurement.”

Envisages three times rise in per acre yield
Under the programme, one progressive farmer in each village would get four bags of seed for free, and would sell multiplied seed in his village from next year.

The department has prepared a data base of around 200,000 progressive farmers for the purpose and 23,800 of them would get four bags each this year. Next year, these farmers would be replaced with another 23,800, and the department hopes to replace the entire seed in next 10 years.

The framers, while praising the move, suggest that instead of providing four bags in each village, the distribution should be linked to acreage in every village. “It would be much more efficient way of seed replacement,” says Muhammad Azam of Narowal district.

There are 811 villages in the Faisalabad district and more than 1,200 in Narowal, but the cropping area in the Faisalabad district is 755,000 acres, whereas it is 400,000 acres in Narowal. Thus the seed requirements of both differ widely, which should be factored in.

The current distribution plan averages out at 165 acres per bag. There are districts like Faisalabad where seed requirement is much more than other districts.

If the Punjab government adjusts its distribution plan according to the acreage, its replacement plan could be shortened to less than 10 years and it is better advised to reconsider the distribution pattern, he said.

“But apart from re-calculating the requirement, the seed replacement plan could, and should, only be welcomed, as it has been long overdue,” says Naeem Hotiana of Pakpattan.

Almost entire range of seeds have become susceptible to diseases and needed to be replaced in the last decade or so. “It is a case of proverbial better late than never.”

He said if the province can triple its yield, as being claimed by the minister, it could easily spare huge acreage for diversification for other crops like vegetable and pulses.

Published in Dawn, November 14th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1219571/punjab-declares-10-year-wheat-seed-replacement-plan

Destruction of the Cotton Harvest: A Golden Opportunity for Transnational Corporations?

Posted on by

 Dr. Azra Talat Sayeed

In Pakistan, newspapers have been rife with news on the pink bollworm attack on the cotton harvest this year. The scenario is indeed disastrous on many accounts. Of course, the very first in line to be caught in the destruction are Pakistan’s millions of small farmers. With cotton being a major cash crop, millions rely on the cotton harvest to provide them with a sizeable amount of their income. In fact, they go heavily into debt to not only buy the cottonseed but also very expensive fertilizers and the many types of pesticides that are sprayed on cotton, without which conventional or genetically modified seeds will not yield a harvest. According to small farmers from Multan and Sahiwal, nearly 90 percent of crop has been destroyed. For farmers who have leased land their loss per acre is approximately Rs 40,000 in Multan. For those, who have their own land loss is about Rs 20,000 per acre.

Another critical point is the amount of pesticides that have been used on the cotton crop this year. A newspaper advisory from the government mentions the ‘correct’ use of pesticides that farmer should be applying on cotton. That is indeed ironical: one of the hypes used for promotion of Bt cotton has been its ability to ward off pest attack. But this year the attack of pink bollworms has put to rest this myth, at least.

For those of us who have long critiqued the promotion of genetically modified seeds one does not know whether to rejoice the failure of the harvest or to mourn the loss of livelihood and further ecological harm that this crop has been able to havoc on the environment?

There are farmers who also feel that this failure can be beneficial to gigantic seed corporations who thrive on their patented very expensive seeds. Next year would be an ideal year for seed giants such as Monsanto to insist on selling very expensive branded Bt Cotton.

According to a farmer from a small farmers alliance namely Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek (PKMT), this could be a golden opportunity for the push to change from cotton to corn sowing. As we all know, corn is being used for making ethanol. Pioneer, another American company has been promoting the use of certain branded corn varieties that are used for animal feed. The animal dung from these animals yield higher urea content and is considered to be a good source of biogas.

What is the cost of these branded seeds? An example is of hybrid corn seeds in the market. Seeds by Pioneer, Syngenta and Monsanto are priced at Rs 5,500 to Rs 6,000 per 10 kg which is what is needed per acre. The ‘beauty of these seeds is that none of them give seed for next year cultivation. Hence the farmer has to buy seeds every year. This was the main pivot for pushing for intellectual property rights on seeds under the TRIPs agreement in the WTO.

At the moment all cottonseed in the market is being sold with out trade marks. For one kilogram of cotton seed the price can vary from Rs 300 to Rs 1500/kg. If women sow seed by hand than at least 3 kg seed is needed; if seed drills are used than 5-8 kg is used. Of course if patented cotton seed is introduced next year, the reason for passing the Amended Seed Act 2015, then there is no doubt that cotton seed costs will jump sky high.

So indeed, the cotton crop failure this year could be exactly the kind of situation that the multinational corporations have been advocating: substandard seed is the cause of the current catostrope. However, it needs to be pointed out that Bt Cotton has suffered a similar fate in India where Bt Cotton seed is very much under patent protection. The Nagpur-based Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) has confirmed the pink bollworm resistance to Monsanto’s second-generation biotechnology protection Bollgard-II in some parts of Indian Gujarat

So on one hand Pakistan’s agriculture faces crop failure due to malfunctioning hybrid and GM seeds although the corporations continue the propaganda that patented seeds will not give very high yields. On the hand, crop pattern in itself is changing: there is increasing push to grow sugar cane ethanol. According to OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook, Pakistan has increased it ethanol production from 97.2 million litres in 2004 to 321.8 million litres in 2014. Based on newspaper reporting much of the ethanol in Pakistan is being sent to Europe.

There is every chance that corn will also gain ground for ethanol and/or as feed and urea production. If indeed, western countries in their ‘addiction’ to energy are looking for markets for not only their seeds but also land for growing ethanol, then Pakistan’s agricultural production is most probably fall back on colonial production and trade patterns.  We will be once again a cash crop supplier to Europe and other rich nations, as in the days of colonization.

Do our farmers want to be energy suppliers to the oil-guzzling vehicle industry in the North? What about food for our people? What is the cost of producing clean energy for Northern ‘democracies’? What are the chances for equitable land distribution in this current scenario? Will the landlords not be even more strong now? And of course the onslaught of land grabbing will certainly gain momentum to gain maximum profits from oil producing crops not to mention other lucrative corporate agriculture ventures? In how many more ways are we going to suffer from the imperialist nations’ constant plundering from our soils?

‘Seedy’ Business

Posted on by

ZUBEIDA MUSTAFA
www.zubeidamustafa.com

COTTON growers in southern Punjab are facing a serious crisis. Their crop production has shrunk drastically. The reasons stated, among others, are poor quality seeds and severe pest attack.

These factors can be addressed, provided the will exists. Poor seeds and pest attacks that are interconnected have a causal link with the rapid spread of genetically modified organisms (GMO) that have begun to shake public confidence the world over.

The tide is now turning as demonstrations have been held against GMOs, which shot to fame when they were promoted as the miracle seed to eliminate hunger. But the fact is that hybrid plants in which genomes from different species are mixed are too new and untested a technology to win universal acceptance.

Hybrid plants are too untested a technology to win universal acceptance.
Awareness is growing and people have begun to question the wisdom of genetic modification of seeds to increase agricultural production and pre-empt pest attacks. WHO has also cast doubts on health-related issues linked to GMOs. Many countries have banned their cultivation.

Pakistan has a different story. The GM seed producing biotech multinationals in the country appear to be doing well. Pakistan’s agriculture faces an existential threat as the GMO seeds being used widely in cotton plantation have not been tested rigorously in local conditions. Their impact is not fully understood.

This makes our economy very vulnerable as nearly 70pc of the population depends on agriculture for its livelihood with cotton occupying a pivotal place. It constitutes 10pc of the GDP, while cotton exports account for 55pc of the country’s foreign exchange earnings.

Pakistan’s GMO story is a relatively new one. Yet we failed to learn from the terrible experience of others who jumped onto the GMO bandwagon before us. Bt cotton seeds were smuggled into Pakistan in 2005. In the absence of a legal regulatory framework for the transfer and use of genetically modified seeds in the country, this was risky business especially in light of the earlier news of peasant suicides in India.

The authorities proceeded to approve Bt cotton for planting in Pakistan in 2010. By the government’s own admission — the illegality of the process notwithstanding — by then the GM brand of cotton was covering 60pc of Pakistan’s cotton acreage. Today, that figure is said to be 85 pc. Matters have now taken a serious turn. Ignoring the advice of experts for strong regulatory oversight, the government took up in 2014 24 pending applications for commercial licences for Bt cotton and genetically modified corn.

It appears to be going all out to accommodate the seed manufacturers that included biotech multinationals. A court battle has, meanwhile, ensued that has acted somewhat as a dampener, and no new licences have been issued recently. But Bt has penetrated the seed sector in a big way.

Ground-breaking research on GMOs by Tahir Hasnain, an agriculture expert, should explode many myths. He writes that cultivating Bt cotton is more expensive. The price of seeds is higher and the greater need for fertiliser, water and pesticides pushes up the costs. Ironically, new pests have emerged as the genetically modified varieties of cotton that have a low expression of the required toxins make the bugs resistant to them. GM was supposed to minimise pest attacks. Now the sale of pesticide manufactured by the same biotech companies has shot up.

A new phenomenon which could have grim repercussions is the shift to cash crops away from food that is beginning to take place on account of different harvesting seasons of GMOs leaving no time for wheat sowing. In 2014-15, wheat production declined in Pakistan. Mean­while, cotton has failed to reach the production level it had achieved in 2004, before the advent of the age of Bt.

The government is protecting the interests of the biotech multinationals whose financially underpinned ‘lobbying’ powers match the capacity of our policymakers to accept ‘favours’. The parliamentarians have been no different and have adopted a bill amending the Seeds Act, 1976, to “improve the existing law so as to enable it to meet the requirements of the modern seed industry”.

Pressure for change comes from the US which wants Pakistan to meet its ‘obligations’ under WTO regulations and create a larger market for the private seed producers. Previously, seed manufacturing was primarily in the public sector, The amended law now opens the door to giant biotech companies to enter the Pakistan seed market.

Since much of the criticism focuses on the absence of research and tests on the Bt cotton seeds in local conditions, in 2011 the US paid $5.5 million to Pakistani agricultural institutes to do research on Bt cotton. Unsurprisingly, this has produced no results.

Bt cotton is a good example of how corporate domination is secured by circumventing weak regulatory mechanisms and manipulating the corrupt ruling classes who are co-opted as lobbyists to pave the way for corporate goals.

Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1219280/seedy-business

GOOD NEWS?

Posted on by

Engro fertilizers has published this advertisement in the Urdu Daily “Roznama Jang” on October 21, 2015. It declares the following: “Good News: A subsidy has been announced on fertilizers.”

jang 21 octEngro declares that it is are very thankful to the Prime Minister Mian  Mohammad Nawaz Sharif and the Federal Minister for National Food Security and Research Mr Sikander Hyat Bosan for announcing a subsidy on fertilizers. This step will result in prosperity for all farmers in the country.

The advertisement read: “ We are announcing that because of the subsidy the cost of various Engro fertilizers will be reduced.” The advertisement then provides a list of six engro products with their reduced price list.  However, the list only provides a reduction amount, for example that DAP will now be sold at Rs 500 less for each bag. The original cost of the DAP bag is missing. Hence the corporation can easily raise the price and then declare a subsidy – otherwise why did this advertisement not provide the cost per bag – which would make it easy for farmers at the retail stores to demand a particular price for the products.

It quite clear that this package is hoodwinking not only the farmers but the entire nation. The subsidy will only be truly beneficial to the big land lords and of course Engro itself. According to the news in The Express Tribune 23 September 15, the subsidy is given directly to the fertilizer companies and they will set the price according to the subsidy given to them. So, the subsidy ensures that Engro retains its high profit margin – which for the last three-months profits ending June 2015 was declared to be Rs.4.05 billion after taxes – or an increase in profits by 109%.

The small farmer will lose on many accounts: First, even after the subsidy the cost is astronomicalfor purchasing various chemical fertilizers including urea and DAP. In addition, pesticides, hybrid seeds, tube well charges, diesel are all very expensive for the small and landless farmers. So, this chemically-intensive farming methods will only lead to massive debts for farmers which has been the pattern now for many many years. Second, this chemical intensive agriculture production is extremely hazardous for the environment: leading to contamination of our farmlands, water sources, livestock, and the entire food chain. The productivity and fertility of our lands are decreasing day by day. Third: the impact of fertilizers and pesticides is extremely harmful to the health of the communities across the nation, whether urban or rural.

So, no doubt the subsidy is for the rich and powerful!

IPRs for Farmers

Posted on by

Role of Agricultural Intermediaries

A number of state agencies and non-governmental organisations have come forward to facilitate farmers/breeders to register their crop varieties and obtain plant variety certifi cates. But can these agencies bring forth a change in the mindset of the small farmers and seed savers’ groups who view the current intellectual property regime with scepticism and continue to keep away from it?

Shalini Bhutani (shalinibhutani@hotmail.com) is a legal researcher and policy analyst based in Delhi.

Intermediaries are known to be persons or organisations that act as a link between the supplier and the end user. They are a third party in the exchange. The intermediaries ordinarily associated with India’s agriculture are those that bring farmers’ produce to the marketplace. These typically include commission agents, millers, wholesalers and retailers at different stages of the supply chain.

Another parallel supply chain has been established in Indian agriculture through an intellectual property (IP) law—a knowledge supply chain. This is under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001. The act grants IP protection in the form of plant variety certificates (PVC) to farmers/breeders. To be able to grant this IP protection, it first needs to bring the seed know-how onto its record books, in this case the official register of varieties maintained at New Delhi. It also requires the farmer to deposit in the National Gene Bank a sample of the seed or parental line seeds. This entire process supplies farmers’ seed knowledge and physical planting material from India’s farms previously not always accessible to the official system. To enable the process, a different set of intermediaries has come into play.

The implementation of the act began in 2003 with the PPV&FR rules issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. Following which, the PPV&FR Authority was set up in Delhi in 2005. The body began to receive applications for plant variety protection (PVP) in 2007. Since the screening involves a two-year process, the first registrations of plant varieties under this law began in 2009. Since then, several hundred farmers’ varieties (FV) have also either been granted PVCs, or are being tested for the grant of such IP protection. But this would not have happened sans the state’s hard selling of this IP law to farmers and “training” them on its legal provisions for registering FVs.

Farmers’ Positions

There have been many reasons why a large majority of small farmers and seed-savers’ groups on ground continue to keep away from the IP system in India. Their reasons range from the political [resistance to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the IP standards it prescribes] to the more practical (not knowing how to deal with intimidating procedures of law). It is important to recall here that the PVP law was passed not because farmers in the country asked for it, but because the WTO required a member country to provide IP protection for plant varieties.

Given the above, there has been limited buy-in by farmers of the idea of plant breeder rights, which they see coming from foreign seed companies and governments that foster such agribusinesses. The idea of privatising seed is foreign to farmers in the sense of it coming from the West as well as in terms of being culturally alien to how farmers organise their innovation based on sharing seeds. Knowledge production in agriculture for them has not been about propertising know-how of seeds through IP.

IP protection for living forms such as seeds is and remains a controversial subject in India, as in other parts of the world. To add to the controversy, the only law in the country that supposedly provides for “farmers’ rights” is this IP law.1 Thus farming communities are more divided than united on their position on the PPV&FR Act. Yet there has been a recent spurt in registration of FVs in India. To understand this trend, it is important to examine the role of the new intermediaries.

There are many go-betweens that have voluntarily emerged, helping to link the farmer to the agro–industrial complex where her knowledge is further processed. Those in between work as IP facilitators. These intermediaries are not engaged in buying the farmer’s gathered harvest as the conventional intermediaries did, but in harvesting the intangible—her knowledge. Unlike the supply chains for agricultural produce, the consumer at the end of the line is not an ordinary person but the plant breeding industry—be it public sector institutes or private seed corporations.

The point of deposit is not the mandi (market), but the national PPV&FR Authority. The process entails filing the prescribed documents before the PPV&FR Authority. In fact, both the law and the implementing rules envisage a role for such intermediaries. Section 16(1) of the act authorises any person to make an application on behalf of the farmer/breeder to the authority. As per Rule 25, an application to authorise such a person to register a variety is to be made through Form PV-1 by the farmer/breeder mentioned in Section 16(1).

No fee is required by the Authority for this authorisation form. But it is a different matter that the person so authorised by the farmer might charge for the services he renders to the farmer in filing a PVP application on her/his behalf. Retired agricultural scientists also “help” some farmers do the necessary documentation for filing PVP applications. Some charge a small consultancy amount for their services to the farmer.2 There could be costs to the farmers again if these activities remain invisible. This could go against the spirit of the act, which prescribes that there be no financial costs to the farmer.

Informally, many non-governmental organisations (NGO) also act as IP facilitators for farmers. They assist farmers with the necessary paperwork, literally showing them “how to” register their varieties with the Authority. Dadaji Khobragade, a well-known farmer–breeder from Maharashtra, was encouraged by the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) to seek PVP for the paddy he developed. In fact, NIF is further involved in the commercialisation of Dadaji’s paddy variety, having entered into a marketing agreement with a private company.3 Similarly, the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation has also assisted farmer groups in Tamil Nadu to seek PVP for rice varieties developed by them (Prajeesh 2015).

Given the legalese involved and the fact that most of the forms, etc, are either in the English or Hindi language, farmers will continue to need facilitators for their IP management, particularly if they chose to engage with the PPV&FR legislation.

State Agencies

The state itself is actively encouraging farmer–breeders to participate in the IP system. The Authority has harnessed several public agencies for the task; these are state agricultural universities (SAU), Krishi Vigyan Kendras and other Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) institutes. Their role is going to remain critical in this government exercise of IP acculturation of farmers. The Authority, with its limited staff and resources, is not going to be able to reach out to as many farmers as the system wants it to.

The nodal centres designated by the Authority for conducting distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (DUS) tests for plant varieties (for example, the Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad and the Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack for rice DUS testing) repeatedly double up as venues for farmer trainings to convince the latter to file for PVP.4 The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, under the Ministry of Agriculture, had on 1 November 2006 notified rice as a crop eligible for registration of varieties under the act.5 This meant that the five-year cut-off date to receive applications for FVs was October 2011. By that date, 3,672 applications had been received for FVs. All these are still being processed. The large numbers of applications are not merely evidence of farmer’s innovation in this particular crop, but also of the impact of the campaign undertaken by the state agencies to push farmers to seek IP protection.

There have been many training programmes for farmers organised by the Authority itself, with the sole purpose to have them register their plant varieties. These began in 2008–09. In 2013–14, the Authority conducted 274 such training programmes across different locations in India. This explains the highest number of applications received and granted for FVs during 2013–14 (PPV&FR Authority 2014).

Rewarding Intermediaries

The PPV&FR Authority has now decided to incentivise the IP facilitators to get more farmers to file for PVCs. The decision to do so was taken during the 21st Authority meeting and was endorsed again during the subsequent meeting held in Delhi on 17 April 2015.

The Authority in its 21 Authority Meeting held on 31 October 2014 decided to reward those facilitators from NARS and NGOs with recognition certificate, citation and cash of Rs 10,000 who facilitates filing of at least 100 applications at a time in different crops and for staff of Authority for more than 500 applications at a time. It was decided that such reward may also be extended to Zonal Project Directors, once in their lifetime, who facilitate in filing more than 500 applications through NARS from their zone, organise at least two biodiversity fair and promote community seed banks in tribal regions/agrobiodiversity rich regions.6

The stress on speeding up the registration for FVs is because the process is time-bound. FVs can be registered only within five years from the date of notification of a crop variety. In fact, the time limit was originally set at three years, but given the low response from farmers, it was later extended to five years. Yet again there are little or few guarantees of returns for the farmer post-registration. In the many years since the PPV&FR Act has been in force, not a single case of benefit sharing with farmers has occurred if and when their seeds have been used by the seed industry as base material for developing commercial seed products.

While rewards are being institutionalised for the IP intermediaries, some within the Indian national agricultural research system (NARS) are sceptical about the nature of benefits small farmers will obtain from the PVP system. However, they continue to encourage farmers to file for PVP as a pre-emptive IP protection in order to stake a claim on planting material in India before any of the multinational corporations can do so. The public sector itself is seeking IP protection under this act. The maximum number of varieties registered thus far is of extant varieties—868 out of a total of all 1,773 PVCs issued by the Authority through 2007–15.7 Roughly over 800 of the 868 belong to the public sector, mainly ICAR and other SAUs. The state also seeks IP protection for “new” varieties developed by public plant breeders.

IP Policy

The position of the government on PVP is certainly not a neutral one. It is decisively pro-IP in seed. Thus the unsuspecting farmer cannot hope to get objective guidance on the issue from either the state or the Authority tasked to register PVP. The pros and cons of going down the IP route are perhaps not entirely discussed even within the Government of India and its various departments dealing with the issue. Despite that, the proposed new National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy for India encourages more filings and registrations for PVP by farmers.8In the context of increased FVs, the draft document remarks that “(t)he trends in registration under this Act are very encouraging.” However, no official assessment has been carried out on the socio-economic impacts of registration of FVs on farmers.

In a different scenario, the state would invest in educating its farming communities on the possible consequences, or at least support their capacity building on IP issues so that they are independently able to make informed choices on the subject. The decision of whether to seek PVP or not ultimately needs to be theirs. To be able to decide, real-time experience sharing with small farmers from other countries with PVP laws will also be invaluable. In an ideal situation, the state would create opportunities for such experience sharing. But more importantly, if farmers choose not to file for PVP registration, the state ought to offer another option for the protection of their own seed. This would entail having policies that create a facilitative environment for the continuance of their seed cultures.

In closing, it is observed that seeking IP protection for their crop varieties is not something that comes naturally to farming communities in India. They have to be coaxed by the state to seek protection for their plant varieties. But whether the intermediaries at work will be able to continually sell the idea of IP to the unwilling farmers and make them subscribe to it, is a point that should be considered.

Notes

1 Chapter VI on Farmers’ Rights was not in the original draft of the legislation but retro-fitted due to public pressure before it was passed by the Parliament of India.

2 Disclosed by farmer applicants in personal communication with the author in March 2015.

3 “NIF signs agreement with Kaviraa Solutions to take forward farmer developed plant varieties”, National Innovation Foundation of India Press Note, 9 March 2015, http://nif.org.in/press_more.php?pid=20 (accessed on 25 May 2015).

4 Training-cum-workshop on Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 organised at ICAR–CRRI, Cuttack on 27 March 2015, viewed on 20 June 2015, http://www.crri.nic.in/News/crri_latest_news.htm

5 Gazette Notification SO 1884 E dated 1 November 2006, viewed on 20 June 2015, http://www.plantauthority.gov.in/pdf/gnotifi1316.pdf

6 Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the Authority held on 17 April 2015 at NASC Complex, Delhi, viewed on 23 May 2015, http://www.plantauthority.gov.in/Minutes/twentytwo.pdf

7 http://www.plantauthority.gov.in/, viewed on 12 July 2015.

8 (First Draft) National IPR Policy 24 December 2014, viewed on 12 July 2015, http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Poli…

References

Prajeesh, P (2015): “Farmers’ Rights to Seeds: Issues in the Indian Law,” Economic & Political Weekly, 21 March, Vol L, No 12.

PPV&FR Authority (2014): “Take It to the Farmer – The Farmers’ Rights through Awareness,” PPV&FR Authority, New Delhi, India, June.

Dilemma of the amended seed act

Posted on by

AZRA TALAT SAYEED

THE Senate Standing Committee on National Food Security and Research had approved the Seed (Amendment) Bill 2014 last month. And there are reports that the Senate will be meeting shortly to pass it.

However, is it constitutionally possible that the Seed (Amendment) Bill 2014 can be enacted? According to Sindh Secretariat’s legislation director, no resolution from the Sindh Assembly has been passed that would allow the proposed bill to be amended by the National Assembly. As far as it is known, Khyber Pakhtunkwa, Punjab and Balochistan have also not passed any such resolution.

Since the 18th amendment, agriculture has been a provincial subject. It is clear that without such resolutions from the four provincial assemblies, the Seed (Amendment) Bill 2014 cannot be passed by the National Assembly. If the bill is passed, it will be open to legal challenges.

For the activists who are opposing the proposed bill, the future course of action will be to challenge the bill through the legislative process. Another pending bill concerns plant breeders’ rights. In Pakistan, the crux of the new seed legislation is basically to grant intellectual property protection to plant breeders and allow the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) varieties.

Critiques against the pending legislations range from the seed being considered ‘private property’ of the intellectual property right holders to the hazardous impact and environmental pollution from genetically modified plants and animals.

The pro-GMO lobby, which mostly springs from US-trained research institutions, has also provided many reasons for the legal recognition of genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops. These will, of course, in time also include GE animals.

The crux of the new seed legislation is basically to grant intellectual property protection to plant breeders and to allow the introduction of genetically engineered varieties
Academic institutions and the private sector, especially the agro-chemical and the biotechnology sectors, have consistently claimed that GM technologies are needed to meet the food needs of the rapidly growing global population.

According to them, genetic engineering will also be able to address malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. And of course, the privatisation debate consistently promises prosperity and profits by the adoption of not only genetic engineering but all corporate agriculture interventions, including GE technologies and automated devices for higher productivity and for fighting climate change.

All of these claims are consistently challenged by environmentalists, development activists, scientists, and most importantly, small and landless farmers.

For those who oppose privatisation and free-market economies, the critical problem is not of science but the capitalist paradigm that is pushing all inventions and innovations for the sake of profit-accumulation.

Science for knowledge and science in the service of the people are not the beacons that are held in our universities or other seats of learning. Therefore, for such a lobby, it is difficult to believe the ‘prosperity’ mantra that the mainstream universities and academia are articulating.

The scepticism is valid when considering the debacle of the green revolution policies in the 1960s, the ensuing pauperisation of small and landless farmers worldwide, and its debilitating impact on the environment, loss of fertility of agricultural land, widespread extinction of animal and plant species, and rising hunger and disease.

The highly expensive agriculture technologies only push the small and marginalised producers more into debt, even though they are often orchestrated for their ability to bring prosperity to the poor. For this, the government policies are often ‘tuned’ to meet the demands of transnational corporations that will earn millions of dollars from capturing new agriculture markets.

For instance, a US Department of Agriculture supported institution — Information Systems for Biotechnology — recently published research on GM beta-carotene-enriched corn for poultry feed. For farmers in Pakistan, such feed, whether efficacious or not, is far too expensive and ends up only in decreasing their incomes.

Farmers in Pakistan and other agrarian economies are contesting GM technologies on various grounds.

First, the seeds come from genetic material that is the collective property of farmers across the world. Corporations have no right to access and use the genetic material that is not theirs.

Second, these technologies are extremely dangerous to the environment. Genetic science, especially in agriculture, is a major source of environmental pollution which could jeopardise many ecosystems that are critical for maintaining life on our beleaguered planet.

Third, these technologies are and will only further increase the pauperisation of our small and landless farmers. The reasons are the very high cost of production and privatisation, as well as the deregulation and trade liberalisation policies that are being pushed on millions of farming communities across the world.

The writer is a social activist working with small and landless farmers

Published in Dawn, Economic & Business ,July 13th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1194012/dilemma-of-the-amended-seed-act