Day 2 Session

Seed Exchange by Seed Savers and Presentation by Farmer Breeders

Dr Narayana Reddy, Organic Farmer, Doddaballapur

Historically, buying and selling seeds in our country and culture was not a common practice and was actually considered as an activity which would be against the accepted cultural and religious values and beliefs. It was the role of the women to tend to smaller crop holdings and kitchen gardens near the home/dwelling, while the role of the men was to be the hunter gatherer. So women should have the honor of being the first ‘farmers’ we know of.

Earlier there used to be more than a dozen types of ragi, now the number has been much reduced to only one or two. This was crop which was held in high regard. Similarly vegetable crops such as tomato and others such as sugarcane have also been affected. Many crop varieties have narrowed down to just a few, whether vegetables or grain. For example in Mexico, where potato is a very widely grown crop, a new tubular variety was introduced by a multinational company. This provided a good yield in the first year and so farmers across the country adopted this variety. However, by the third year, this variety having less resistance, failed and the farmers suffered major losses. Therefore, we cannot depend on one variety alone. No one has the right to control the seed and push only one specific type or variety, and try to create a monopoly, whether it is the government or any seed company.

The Seeds Bill has not been passed yet, but if passed it will make it difficult for us to retain our own seeds. If it is passed and becomes a law, it will become illegal for farmers to save their own seeds which will be considered as an activity punishable by law. With regard to registration of farmers’ varieties, farmers who are typically poor or uneducated have trouble getting their land registered, leave alone their seed varieties. So under pressure from multinational seed companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta, the government is forcing such legislation and compelling farmers’ suicides.

The government should not force us to buy their seeds. We will preserve and collect our own seeds and grow and distribute them. The role of the government is to maintain records of revenue and preserve law and order and for this the role of the judiciary may also be important, but they should not interfere in the accepted regular activities of farmers to save, conserve and distribute their own seeds. Unless farmers produce their own seeds, it is not possible to survive in agriculture. And no government can prevent farmers from doing this. For instance, we grow bhendi (ladysfinger) and preserve the seeds and it works very well. This makes it very efficient, and drying seeds in the pod is a very effective way to preserve bhendi.

Discussion

1. In response to Dr Sharma’s question regarding registration of farmers’ varieties, Dr Reddy replied that farmers are not conversant with government procedures. There are too many hurdles and that the government should take on the responsibility of doing this work.
2. Dr Reddy also expressed the opinion that farmers should reject the Seeds Bill if it becomes legislation as the government does not have the right to impose any law.
3. With regard to the issue of University support for farmers, he felt that Universities do not adequately support farmers and are not doing their duty by them. They have done very little to promote seeds, breeding, etc. and for their budget, the support they provide is not justified.
4. Dr Sharma raised the point that scientists are normally of the opinion that farmers’ varieties are not high yielding. He asked whether in Dr Reddy’s experience, farmers’ varieties yield more than Universities’ varieties, or if the opposite were true. Dr Reddy felt that hybrids and University varieties should not be called high yielding, but renamed as high responsibility. This is because they yield more only when the inputs are higher. For instance farmers have to spend a lot of money to get higher returns from these varieties, which therefore comes at a higher price. He felt it was a myth that farmers’ varieties do not yield as much as hybrids and in fact the opposite is true.

Mr Kumaraswamy, Environmentalist, Shimoga

The intent of present legislation has been to benefit multi national companies with no regard for the conditions of farmers and their rights. The Agreement on Agriculture of June 1988 let to GATT. Likewise the Uruguay Round Agreement of 1994 let to TRIPS. These are meant only for the benefit of multi national companies. India’s market size relative to other countries is very large. Yet it is not benefiting as international trade agreements are made with a “one size fits all” policy. India has only the Indian Patent Act of 1970, but there is no agricultural patenting or patenting for micro organic life forms. Innovation is not creation and does not give the right to private seeds companies to claim plant varieties as their own through patenting.

Exchange of seeds is our shared heritage, but this is being taken away by UPOV and PVPFRA which promote multi national seeds companies. Universities and research institutes also work counter to the benefit of farmers. The government is giving support to half baked investigations which promote the interests of private seeds companies. For instance, BT cotton sells for Rs. 1,650 for 400 gm, of which the company gets Rs. 1,200 while the farmers who cultivate it get just a fraction of this rate at Rs. 300 to Rs. 400. Monsanto and Mahico promote BT brinjal, yet there is no visible difference between “nati” brinjal and BT brinjal.

Farmers should protest against the present requirement of registration of farmers’ varieties and certification, which the government should take up on their own. Farmers should organize themselves to protect the freedom of seeds and their rights.