GMW: Seeds of Despair in India

[Guest guest]

GMW: Seeds of Despair in India

" GM WATCH " <info

Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:17:12 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

This article on India's draft Seeds Bill and its potential impact on

farmers is commendably clear and well worth reading in full.

 

As the article notes the Bill has variously been described as " savage " ,

" pernicious " , " appalling " , " anti-constitutional " , a " threat to

democracy " , and " anti-farmer " .

 

There is also the fear that it will give rise to an agricultural

bureaucracy that has the power to harass farmers.

 

QUOTES: " Making those kinds of profits off poor farmers is criminal. "

 

" Even the police do not have the right to search your house without a

warrant. Such provisions will just lead to (seed) inspector Raj and will

become another avenue for corruption. The Bill allows seed inspectors

to 'enter and search', 'seize documents', interrupt exchange or delivery

of seeds and even come armed 'with assistance'. Which means the

inspector can bring goondas, if he has 'reason to believe that an offence

under this Act has been committed'. The scope for harassment is huge. "

 

" seed companies could be using farmers' varieties and not giving

credit, nor sharing profits. "

------

Seeds of Despair

ANNIE ZAIDI

Frontline, Volume 22 - Issue 16, Jul 30 - Aug 12, 2005 (India's

National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU)

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2216/stories/20050812001408800.htm

 

The draft Seeds Bill seeks to dilute all the safeguards provided by the

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, to the

farmer, whose existence is already fragile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[image caption:

Farmers in a Karnataka village ploughing the field. Some of the

provisions

of the Bill are viewed as a direct assault on the traditional rights of

farmers who have been growing, exchanging, saving, reusing and selling

their own seeds for centuries.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN had once said that agriculture was the only honest

way for a country to acquire wealth, " wherein man receives a real

increase of the seed thrown into the ground, in a kind of continual

miracle...

"

 

The magic of this miracle is wearing thin for the Indian farmer. With

over 25,000 farmers committing suicide over the past few years and Prime

Minister Manmohan Singh admitting that the problems of the agricultural

sector extend `beyond weather', it is time policy-makers did a rethink

about agricultural policy and the related laws.

 

In this context, one important document that needs to be looked into is

the draft Seeds Bill 2004, which the Union government plans to unleash

upon the farmers. It is variously described as " anti-constitutional " ,

" savage " , " pernicious " , and " appalling " , and accused of taking " a

suicidal line " and being a " threat to democracy " . It is also

criticised as

being anti-farmer and preparing the Indian market for seed corporations,

transnational and Indian. There is also the fear that it will give rise

to an agricultural bureaucracy that has the power to harass the

farmers.

 

Some of the provisions of the Bill are viewed as a direct assault on

the traditional rights of farmers who have been growing, exchanging,

saving, reusing and selling their own seeds for centuries. For instance,

Section 13(1) prevents anyone from buying or selling any variety of seed

if it is not registered, and Section 21(1) prevents a farmer from

growing or organising " the production of seeds unless he is

registered as

such by the State government. "

 

In stark contradiction, the same Bill claims in Section 43: " Nothing in

this Act shall restrict the right of the farmer to save, use, exchange,

share or sell his farm seeds and planting material, except that he

shall not sell such seed or planting material under a brand name or which

does not conform to the minimum limit of germination, physical purity,

genetic purity prescribed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 6 " .

 

The Bill focusses on protecting " brands " ; " enhancing the growth of the

seed industry " is a clearly stated objective. Though branding and

compulsory registration might make seeds unaffordable for farmers, a

mechanism to regulate the price is not even discussed in the Bill.

There is

also no provision for a cap on profit that is to be made from a given

brand, nor has the parentage of the seed variety been questioned. So,

farmers may end up paying hundreds of times the cost of a " registered "

seed, which, in all probability, has been bred from the traditional

varieties developed by them.

 

According to Devinder Sharma of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food

Security, nearly three-fourths of the market price for brands such as Bt

cotton constitute the royalty on technology. The margins of profit of

seed companies are huge. He says: " Making those kinds of profits off

poor farmers is criminal. "

 

The Central government has built its case for a new Seeds Bill on the

premise that the existing Seed Act, 1966, is no longer suitable. But why

it is no longer suitable is not made clear. For instance, the first

stated objective of the draft Bill, according to the Ministry of

Agriculture, is to " overcome its [seed Act 1966] present deficiencies " .

 

What are these deficiencies?

 

The registration of all the seed varieties is not compulsory. And

commercial and plantation crops and non-notified varieties are not

covered.

But why it is so important to " cover " all varieties is not explained.

 

Farmers in Khasa village in Punjab, near the border with Pakistan, dry

their harvest of wheat. Under the proposed Bill, the parentage of seeds

is not required during registration. This means that seed companies

could be using farmers' varieties without giving them any credit or

sharing profits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The answer may lie in the second stated objective - to " create

facilitative climate for growth of seed industry " . This is likely to be

achieved, though at the cost of farmers' rights.

 

Says Devinder Sharma: " This new Seed Bill emphasises the use of only

registered seeds. Why? Who registers their varieties? Who gets

certification as producers? The seed companies, of course. Not the

farmer. "

 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Act,

2001, described as one of its kind in the world as few countries have

laws

of this kind that protect farmers, has not yet been notified though the

Act has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. Devinder Sharma, for

instance, alleges that the notification of the PPVFR Act is prevented

primarily because of intense lobbying by the seed companies. The 10th

Planning Commission report had promised that the PPVFR Act, 2001, " will

be enforced strictly " . This has not happened. Instead, the new Seeds

Bill has been drafted, diluting the provisions of the PPVFR act.

 

The PPVFR Act, for instance, mentions that based on the parentage of

seeds, there will be benefit-sharing. It also mentions that farmers can

claim compensation from breeders. It makes it mandatory upon the PPVFR

Authority to undertake " documentation, indexing and cataloguing of

farmers' varieties " .

 

Most important, Section 39 of the Act states that the farmer " shall be

deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, re-sow, exchange, share or

sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this

Act

in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of

this Act.... Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell

`branded' seed of a variety protected under this Act " .

 

Further, the Act states: " Where any propagating material of a variety

registered under this Act has been sold to a farmer or a group of

farmers or any organisation of farmers, the breeder of such variety shall

disclose ... the expected performance under given conditions, and if

such

propagating material fails to provide such performance under such given

conditions, the farmer or the group of farmers or the organisation of

farmers, as the case may be, may claim compensation in the prescribed

manner before the Authority. " But in the draft Bill, all these safeguards

for farmers are diluted and an aggrieved farmer is sent to the consumer

court for redress.

 

Also, in the PPVFR Act, Section 43 specifies that the farmer cannot be

prosecuted for infringement of the law if he can prove in court that he

was unaware of the existence of such a right. The new Bill does not

make such allowances to protect the farmers.

 

Some portions of the Bill seem completely non-contextual. For instance,

in Section 16, one of the grounds on which a sub-committee may cancel

registration is the need to protect " public order or public morality " .

But which registrations will affect the " public order or public

morality " and how are not explained.

 

Also, Section 22(1) puts a small farmer who barters seeds with his

neighbour in the same category as an importer-exporter and makes it

mandatory for both to acquire certification as " dealers " .

 

The most damaging aspect of the proposed law is that it gives seed

inspectors wide-reaching powers. For instance, Section 35(2) gives the

inspector the power to break open containers, and even break down

doors, if

he thinks that the proposed Act has been violated. This gives seed

inspectors the right to force entry even into farmers' homes.

 

Suneet Chopra, joint secretary of the All India Agricultural Workers

Union, believes that in this respect, the law is hard on farmers. " Even

the police do not have the right to search your house without a warrant.

Such provisions will just lead to (seed) inspector Raj and will become

another avenue for corruption. The Bill allows seed inspectors to

`enter and search', `seize documents', interrupt exchange or delivery of

seeds and even come armed `with assistance'. Which means the inspector

can

bring goondas, if he has `reason to believe that an offence under this

Act has been committed'. The scope for harassment is huge. "

 

The suspicion that farmers' interests are not at the heart of the Bill

is further strengthened with the proposed Central Seed Committee

consisting of only two farmer representatives - even these two are

nominated by the Centre. Apart from representatives from the

government and

the bureaucracy, the Committee also has two members from the seed

industry - the very people who should be regulated are thus part of a

Central regulatory body.

 

Activists such as Dr. Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign have accused the

government of leaving the primary stakeholders out of the necessary

debate. Suman Sahai said: " There is a fundamental flaw in the process and

philosophy of this new Bill. Legislation relating to agriculture should

ensure that farmers get access to seeds at reasonable cost; the needs of

the seed industry should be subservient. But the new Seeds Bill

questions the whole issue of ownership of seeds... . The parentage of

seed

varieties is not required during registration. Which means that the seed

companies could be using farmers' varieties and not giving credit, nor

sharing profits. "

 

According to the government, it is necessary to make the registration

of all seed varieties compulsory, especially given the need to enforce

patent laws as specified by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This

argument is misleading, Dr. Vandana Shiva of the Research Foundation for

Science, Technology and Ecology points out in her critique of the Bill

(<I>Navdanya</I>, May 2005). According to her, India has already amended

the Patent Act of 1970 to comply with the TRIPS agreement and, both

Houses of Parliament also passed the PPVFR Act, 2001. Thus, there is no

further obligation to the WTO. Also, according to Vandana Shiva, the

government is misleading people by claiming that the country has no

provision for " regulating transgenic materials " . India has a Genetic

Engineering Approval Committee to regulate genetically modified (GM)

crops.

 

Another provision that is detrimental to farmers is that the draft Bill

permits the fast-track entry of GM crops. According to the Bill,

provisional permission could be granted to transgenic varieties. This can

violate biosafety principles. According to Suman Sahai, such hasty

clearance hardly makes sense at a time when the whole world is being

extra-cautious and banning certain GM products. This is especially so as

Monsanto, in its own report on the study of GM corn (MON 863), says

researchers found that rats fed with the GM corn developed kidney

problems and

their immune system was damaged owing to changes in blood composition.

The Independent first broke the story and in mid-June, a German court

ordered Monsanto to make the report public.

 

Activists such as Vandana Shiva believe that India does not need a

'National Seed Register'. At least, farmers do not. Community

biodiversity

registers already exist and farmers can regulate their own seeds. What

India needs, in the wake of liberalisation, is a law to regulate the

seed industry, they say. In the past, Indian farmers have suffered

crushing losses thanks to the Bt cotton and maize seeds sold by Monsanto.

 

When it comes to tackling the seed companies, however, the draft Bill

is spineless. Instead of establishing strict liability for seed

manufacturers when the agronomic performance claimed by them on a

variety of

seeds is not realised on the field, the Bill simply points the ruined

farmer to the local consumer court. If a farmer must turn to the Consumer

Protection Act of 1986 for redress, then why have a new seed law at

all?

 

The Centre, according to experts, needs to refer the Bill to a Joint

Parliamentary Committee and prepare an amended draft, in consultation

with farmers groups and agrarian experts.

 

An outcry against the proposed law has been gathering strength almost

since the day it was drafted. The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) has been

organising farmers' meetings across the country to discuss the Bill.

Atul Kumar Anjan of the AIKS told Frontline that his organisation had

rejected the draft at its National Council meeting in Karnataka in

June as

it was " detrimental to farmers " . It has also sent its comments against

the Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee and is braced for a

nation-wide struggle unless the draft is revised.

 

Dr. Krishna Bir Chowdhary, former Chairman of the Farms Corporation of

India, and the current executive chairman of the Bharatiya Krishak

Samaj, has also sent his reactions against the Bill to the Parliamentary

Committee. In a national farmers' convention in Hubli, he gave a call to

all farmer organisations to focus on this issue and not get sidetracked

by the immediate problems of electricity and fertilizers.

 

Meanwhile, the Centre has been dragging its feet over the business of

gathering consensus over the Seeds Bill. According to highly placed

sources in the Ministry of Rural Development, the Parliamentary Standing

Committee, headed by Rajnath Singh, has not even circulated the draft to

other Ministries for comments.

 

However, Rural Development Minister Raghuvansh Prasad Singh has said

that the Centre will be " careful while passing any law " . When questioned

about the notification of the PPVFR Act, he said: " There is a due

parliamentary procedure. That process will be followed. "

 

One of the demands of critics of the new Bill is that it be harmonised

with the PPVFR Act, 2001, and the Biodiversity Act, 2002, so that none

of the rights already granted to farmers can be diluted. Also,

stringent penalties should be imposed on seed manufacturers when

spurious or

under-performing seeds are sold. Ironically, one of the stated objectives

of the Bill is to impose harsher penalties - up to six months in prison

or a fine of Rs.50,000, or both.

 

Yet the government's enthusiasm for punitive action beats a hasty

retreat when it comes to itself. It has taken great care to protect

itself,

through a clause which says that " no suit, prosecution or other legal

proceeding shall lie against the government or any person for anything

which is in good faith done or intended to be done. "

 

As matters stand, not many people are placing bets on the " good faith

and intent " of the government as far as the draft Bill is concerned.

But, in the light of the agricultural crisis and with the Prime Minister

making worried statements about farm sector growth, or the lack of it,

the government, according to experts, would do well to listen to the

warnings about the effects of the proposed Bill.

 

 

----------------------