 Agro-biodiversity: A Public Good with Diverse Social and Private Values – Its Impact on Food Sovereignty
Dr. Devinder Sharma, Food Policy Analyst, Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, New Delhi
Protection of plant varieties seems to be no longer a national priority. Our food sovereignty is threatened by private companies that want to control genetic resources. UPOV 1991 is likely to be replaced by UPOV 2011, and this is being pioneered by Dupont.
Historical references
There are several historical references that demonstrate the importance of plant species. Historically, if I look at it, US President Thomas Jefferson and later Dean Umali, former chairperson of Magsaysay Award Foundation, realized the importance of plant species and plant genetic resources and were known to have smuggled seeds into their respective countries.
The US has made a remarkable effort in this direction. The USDA was actually set up to manage plant genetic resources flowing in from different countries. When Jefferson became President he issued a circular that all expatriate Americans, working outside the US, to send back whatever seed samples they could lay their hands on. Americans obliged and millions of seed samples came in.
The US received 10 million samples, and within a few years American farmers had done exactly what farmers all over the world would normally do, to make selections to find plants adaptable to their environment. Ironically, the department set up to manage the genetic resources flowing in, later called USDA, now controls global genetic resources that we talk about.
Plant genetic resources and IPR
The issue of intellectual property rights with regard to plant genetic resources has never been a major one until about 30 years ago. Globally, it was possible to take plant species from one country to another and also make efforts to conserve plant species. While countries such as the US were more interested in making efforts in this direction, bio-resource rich nations which were usually the poorer developing countries took it for granted that these resources were always available for their use. However even in India, after the Green Revolution, it became very important to collect, conserve and preserve all these plant genetic resources. The idea was to have a gene bank, as part of ex-situ conservation approaches, so as to have these collections kept safe.
With the use of high yielding varieties and resulting monoculture becoming more prevalent, the idea was to conserve plant varieties for future generations before they disappeared. The role of such varieties is also very important as can be seen from documented data, for example we have the example showing that an Indian variety was used for transferring an appropriate gene to resist mildew in a musk melon variety in America, and so on.
Gene banks and germ plasm
There are several examples where developed countries have taken and used genes from plants from the developing nations, whether it is soybean, sunflower or wheat. A specific example would be something which was considered a hopelessly useless variety from Turkey which was in the USDA germplasm collections, but which was able to provide the necessary resistant genes that wheat varieties required.
There was a stage when plant resources were considered to be mankind's heritage. We went on collecting germplasm and depositing it in the gene banks. In India, for instance, we made a large number of collections of various plant species and kept them in our gene banks. Later we were told that these genetic resources are a mankind’s heritage and so we must keep them at one central place so that other countries can also take advantage of these strains. By that time, the international agricultural research centres had come into existence, and the CGIAR was constituted.
The rice collections, for instance, were deposited with IRRI in the Philippines. The wheat and maize collections went to CIMMYT in Mexico. There have been several instances when such collections were useful to the host country. Ethiopia received its 1500 varieties of wheat after the famine in 1980s. Cambodia, earlier called Kampuchea, was given back 150 local rice varieties that came from its collections before Pol Pot had wiped out crop diversity. A lot of the rice varieties from the IRRI collections were used by the rice growing countries in their rice breeding programmes.
We must admire the political astuteness of the US which then proposed that since these genetic resources are kept in places like Manila and Mexico city there is always a possibility of some terrorist coming and blowing it up. That would be an irreparable loss for mankind. So what do you do? You keep a copy of these resources in safe custody. And where is this safe custody? At Fort Collins and Fort Knox in the US. This was done in good faith. Not many of the policy makers and administrators then could realize or see through the nefarious design of the US administration. Over the years, the genetic resources kept with USDA, which houses the world’s largest collection of plant germplasm in public control, have become the “property of USDA”. As we all know, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed in 1992 and before that time genetic resources were a mankind's heritage. The CBD, however, turns it into a national sovereign resource. However the collections in USDA are still outside the purview of CBD.
The FAO Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources assures the world of its patronage. After a lot of public pressure, the control over genetic resources was koved from World Bank to the FAO. These resources are meant to be kept in public domain. With changes in the CGIAR system, over the years, every effort has been made to take private control and monopolize. The CG has been very open to private access to the genetic resources lying under its control. I have been at meetings where the then IPGRI director general has said that they are not aware as to which countries these collections come from. This was in response to a question as to the CG merely being a custodian of genetic resources which have primarily come from the developing countries. It is therefore obvious that the CG is a willing parto to facilitate private control over public resources.
 Changes in UPOV
While India has been trying to conserve genetic resources, the effort world wide over the past 30 years has been to bring these resources under private control. Systematic developments have taken place in the UPOV structure, and it is very clear that farmers are being deprived of their right to sell, exchange and save seed. For instance, UPOV 1991 takes away various exemptions that were available in UPOV 1978 version. We can eventually look forward to another version of the UPOV in future that will take away farmers' rights to sell and save. Seed giant Du Pont nis already working on such a version, called UPPV 2011.
Control and monopoly over genetic resources is linked technological developments. We already know of terminator technology and also the so called ‘suicide seeds”. We must also realize that technology moves faster than the legal system. By the time you bring in a law to protect farmers’ rights, the technology has moved ahead and practically taken away that right from the farmers. The terminator technology is a classic example. It is now being accepted under the plea that it will check gene flow from transgenics.
Plant varieties are now being controlled by patents and utility patents. The Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act is being denounced all over the world by the seed industry, and the PVPFRA is under tremendous pressure from Free Trade Agreements to be made redundant. The CG is also following the same approach, trying to bring the varieties under control under one pretext or the other.
Private companies, hybrids and terminator technology
Not only in India, world wide there have been parallel attempts to gain control over seeds. US agribusiness giant Monsanto, for instance, has said that their target is to control the entire seed supply of the world in 25 years. This cannot be viewed lightly.
In the US, for instance, a new bill HR875 which is being debated actually sets up industry standards and takes away rights of people to even carry on organic farming. The industry is asking farmers to use only “patented seeds”. Farmers' rights to save seeds still exists in America but in practice it is not working. Why farmers are not really concerned is because in most crops hybrids are being used especially in wheat. Hybrids require farmers to buy seed every year and act in a way like a biological patent. So for all practical purposes US farmers have nothing to lose if they accept the provisions of the HR 875. This of course will have world wide repercussions. Companies will treat this as a precedent that the other countries must follow.
Policies in India
The Seeds Bill 2004 which is pending in Parliament is also a step in that direction, and there is a legitimate worry that the new government would push laws to conform to seed companies requirements.
Simultaneously, the Ministry of Agriculture is facilitating the process of private control over seed. For several decades now, the national Seeds project, funded by the World Bank, was actually to prepare the private seed industry to grow. A former Agriculture Secretary has been on record saying that the seed replacement ratio has to be enhanced to 50 per cent in the next few years. The practice to buy seed every year constitutes seed replacement ratio. The understanding in the Miniustry of Agriculture is that the ‘improved seed’ is a “stepping stone to food security”. The Seeds Bill is in conflict with the PPVFRA, and it is quite obvious that the government is in a tearing hurry to bypass the PPVFRA and hand over the seed business to the private companies.
Technology and its effect on seed conservation and genetic resources
Therefore it is very clear that the world is fast moving to a stage where proprietary control over seed is being strengthened. This is going at a very fast pace more so with the emergence of genetic engineering, and the laws are also fast becoming redundant.
I have always warned that with genetic sequencing and drawing of bio-technology patents, especially on genes and cell lines, the PPVFRA has already become redundant. We are in a stage where patents will be drawn to the point where we will have to question the relevance of what we protect.
Let me illustrate this. Swiss agribusiness company Syngenta had sequenced the rice genome several years back. The company claims that it has control over nearly 95 per cent of the rice genome. Rice has approximately 37,500 genes, of which Syngenta has sequenced 95 per cent. And Syngenta has also announced that it will not make the genetic structure and the gene sequences free of cost. In fact, the international community celebrated the control of Syngenta over the rice genome by declaring 2004 as the International Year of the Rice.
I had then questioned the relevance of protecting rice varieties when Syngenta has mapped the rice genome and claim monopoly control over the genes. In other words, whether we like it or not, the control of rice has actually gone into the hands of Syngenta. And subsequently, Syngenta did file for bulk patents on some 30,000 genes of rice. I find there is a big communication gap. While the NGOs worldover are keen on ensuring that the plant germplasm remains ‘protected’ we are somehow failing to rsie to the threats emerging from the patenting of genetic characters. In the next10 to 20 years, when genetic resources would mean genes and cell lines, the actual control over these resources will go into the hands of companies which have mapped and soight patents over much of the plant genomes. Developing countries can remain happy and satisfied that they have been able to ‘save’ the plant wealth from getting into the hands of the private companies, but in reality the one who would have properietary control would be owning the species. Over the next few years, plant genomes will be mapped, classified, documented and companies will draw out patents on genes. When that happens, who will have control over the plants? Will it be the PPVFRA? Will it be FAO? What will be the relevance of ‘protection’ of plant varieties, when genes are in private control? These are the questions that I find missing from public discourse.
The future - patenting and registration of plant genetic resources
We are now witnessing a global regime where we see that patenting is becoming a dominant force in an era of trade. In today's world while you should protect your varieties by documentation, registration etc., there is simultaneous protection through patents being granted which means you could potentially have both a patent and also a plant varieties protection right on the same variety. Also, many countries are going in for both. Under TRIPs, countries can have a patent or a sui generis system or a combination of both. At the same time, we also know that there are 6 kinds of patent controls being exercised on the same variety in many countries.
Even at this fast turn of events, there is a ray of hope. We need to grapple with issues bringing all the concerned stakeholders on a common platform. This battle has to be fought collectively, and NGOs have to take the initiative in deciphering the politics of control and manipulation. This conference therefore provides a unique opportunity.
Food sovereignty and control of the seed
These issues have a tremendous relevance to food sovereignty in a country like India. Farmers in India have been cultivating a vast array of crop varieties and in multiple cropping systems. Over the years, the genetic diversity has narrowed down with the advent of HYVs, and therefore the conservation and preservation of plant genetic resources remains a paramount concern and will play a crucial role in determining and ensuring food security.
Farm cropping systems are changing to adapt to the kind of control coming up all over the world. This goes against the very tenants of food sovereignty. Control of seed now implies control over the entire food chain.
Not only in India, but also globally, a large percentage of the farmers bank on seed saving. A network of farmers' seed savers exists in several countries. In rich countries, much effort is now being made to ensure, either legally or illegally, that farmers do not claim any right over seed saving and these rights have been taken away by the licensing agreements.
Conclusion
The dialogue today perhaps will be able to not only decipher all issues towards farmers' rights and genetic resources, but also provide safeguards to see that we are able to ensure farmers' rights. This is especially important since farmers have traditionally been breeders. But now the belief is that the work of plant breeding belongs to plant breeders only. There is a need to recognize the role of farmers as breeders in society.
The emerging conflict shows that farmers have no confidence in this system and there is a need to address the IPR system in a manner that farmers' interests are also protected. At the same time, the country's interests have to be protected at the international level.
We now faced with a dilemma: to provide food security at the farmers' level and protect their rights and community rights, and to ensure the plan germplasm is available to farmers to maintain food sovereignty. On the other hand, we also have to meet international standards where companies are trying to get proprietary control. This is especially important at a time when interests of public research and interests of companies is narrowing down. As a nation we have yet to wake up to real threats. This group will hopefully try to work on it, and come up with recommendations that can be worked upon by our policy makers.
The point that we need to understand is that when you become a member of a club, you have to follow its latest rules. UPOV is also a club. Sooner or later, you have to follow the latest provisions. UPOV 1991 will be forced on us, through whatever channels, in the days to come. Do we have any alternative? If not, than what should we do to protect farmers’ rights and the national food sovereignty? |
