Pages

“Many people praise and acknowledge the healing power of plants, but few people actually take action to prevent their extension by planting and conserving them for future generations.”

Wednesday, 25 December 2013

FARMERS' PRIVILEGE UNDER ATTACK

  • BIO-IPR docserver
    ________________________________________________________

    TITLE: Farmers' privilege under attack
    AUTHOR: Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)
    DATE: June 2003
    URL: http://www.grain.org
    ________________________________________________________

    FARMERS' PRIVILEGE UNDER ATTACK

    GRAIN
    June 2003

    Intellectual property rights (IPR) applied to seeds give breeders, or
    whoever claims to have discovered or developed a new plant variety, an
    exclusive monopoly right in relation to the seed. Under patent law, that
    monopoly right is very strong. It will generally prevent anyone from using,
    selling or producing the seed without the patent holder's permission. Under
    a typical sui generis plant variety protection law -- an IPR system designed
    specifically for plant varieties -- there are usually a few exceptions to
    this powerful right built in. One of those exceptions is that farmers may be
    allowed to save, exchange, sell or reuse part of their harvest as a new
    batch of seed.

    The legal ability to reuse IPR-protected seed is called the "farmers'
    privilege". On the face of it, this a terrible misnomer. Saving seeds is as
    natural and essential as eating. That's how we are able to produce crops: by
    gathering seeds, or other plant parts like tubers, from mature plants and
    growing them. Under plant variety protection (PVP) law, this totally
    ordinary act becomes a privilege, a legal exception. The breeders are
    granted the rights, while farmers are allowed to do something despite that
    right -- and only under certain conditions. Breach those conditions and you
    breach the breeder's rights, for which you have to pay economic or legal
    consequences. That's why it is wrong to look at this privilege as a right in
    itself.

    CUTTING OUT THE COMPETITION

    The farmers' privilege is a hot issue because the seed industry wants to
    control who produces seeds -- they want to control the market. According to
    Rabobank International, current world seed sales of US$30 billion a year
    should jump to US$90 billion soon.[1] But a substantial part of world
    food production is based on farm-saved seed -- as much as 90% in sub-Saharan
    Africa or 70% in India. Even in industrialised countries, farmers also save
    seed rather than buy a fresh batch, if it makes sense for them and they
    can.[2] So there's still a sizeable market out there for the industry to get
    a grip on.

    It's also a hot issue because the seed industry is working hard to secure
    legal systems that restrict seed saving by farmers, be it through the World
    Trade Organisation (WTO), bilateral trade agreements or direct lobbying of
    governments. PVP or plant breeders' rights legislation is all about taking
    power away from farmers to produce and reproduce seeds. And these laws are
    gaining ground.

    Governments caving in to the pressure often say, "Don't worry, we will
    protect the rights of the farmers at all cost!" They swear that nothing will
    prevent farmers from continuing their "traditional" and "historic" practice
    of conserving, exchanging and further developing seeds. And so they write
    into their law this "farmers' privilege". Yet the fact is, the farmers'
    privilege is a legal "yes, but" on seed saving -- with the "but" getting
    bigger by the day.

    Country after country that has established a plant variety protection law
    has progressively made the farmers' exception more and more restricted. To
    the point that it becomes meaningless. Why? Because the breeders keep asking
    for stronger and stronger rights. Tightening the loophole that allows
    farmers to save seeds is the easiest way to give more power to the breeders.

    Restrictions on the farmers' privilege in PVP law come in several forms,
    often combined in one mixture or another:

    * farmers are prohibited from saving seeds of certain crops
    * only certain farmers (e.g. those with a specific farm size or income
    level) can enjoy the privilege
    * farmers have to pay an additional royalty to the breeder for any seed that
    they save on the farm
    * farmers can save seed, but not exchange it (they can only grow it on their
    own farm)
    * farmers can save seed and exchange it, but they can not sell it
    * farmer can save, exchange and sell seeds, but only without using the name
    of the variety

    In addition, governments are increasingly telling farmers that, as part of
    this privilege, they have to provide accounts to the breeders about what
    seed they saved. This is to better enforce the restrictions. Governments are
    also debating whether to let the seed industry circumvent the farmers'
    privilege through sales contracts -- in other words, allow companies to
    impose specific restrictions on saving seeds, printed on the bag, despite
    whatever the PVP law says.

    What is the purpose of all this cracking down on farmers? "To finance
    research!" the industry proclaims. Not quite. It's to control the market,
    the competition, full stop.

    A RAW DEAL TURNING ROTTEN

    If this seems like a total injustice, it is. But it is very real and it is
    important not to be fooled by glittery promises of protection for farmers'
    rights under sui generis plant variety laws.

    The World Trade Organisation recently published an update of where countries
    are in implementing its agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
    Property Rights, including the question of the farmers' privilege.[3] Below
    is a country by country account drawn from that report and from several
    other government sources.[4]

    The result is sobering, to say the least. Country after country, the
    historic and supposedly untouchable right of farmers to save and reuse seeds
    is under attack. But this is not where the story ends -- it is where it
    starts. Intellectual property rights for plant breeders, once adopted, are
    always being strengthened at the expense of the farmers. It is in that sense
    that PVP laws, and their imposition on virtually all countries through the
    WTO, really serve as a jumping board towards accepting full-fledged
    industrial patents on all forms of life.


    + + + + + + +


    THE FARMERS' PRIVILEGE AROUND THE WORLD[5]

    Question: By law, can farmers save & replant PVP-protected seeds without
    authorisation from the breeder?

    And the answer is...


    AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST

    BENIN
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    BURKINA FASO
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    CAMEROON
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    CHAD
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    CONGO
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    COTE D'IVOIRE
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    EGYPT
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (e.g. they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)

    EQUATORIAL GUINEA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    GABON
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    GUINEA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    GUINEA-BISSAU
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    JORDAN
    * NO. "The farmers shall be prohibited to use in their lands the harvest's
    product they have obtained by planting a protected variety or any
    [essentially derived] variety."

    MALI
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    MAURITANIA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    MOROCCO
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit or ornamental species

    NIGER
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    SENEGAL
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species

    SOUTH AFRICA
    * only if the only if the original seed was legally acquired (i.e. from a
    source authorised by the breeder)
    * only if the farm-saved seed is resown on the farmer's own land (no
    sharing, exchange or selling)
    NB: The government is working to change this situation. It wants to remove
    the farmers' privilege from the Plant Breeder's Rights Act and introduce a
    clause into the Seed Act saying that farmers may not save any seed from any
    plant variety that is either subject to IPR (any kind of IPR) or registered
    as certified seed.

    TOGO
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, tree or ornamental species


    ASIA

    CHINA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)

    HONG KONG, CHINA
    * only with those crops expressly subject to such an exemption
    * only if the original seed was legitimately acquired
    * only for use on the farmers' own holding

    INDIA
    * only without packaging and selling the farm-saved seed as a protected
    variety

    KOREA, SOUTH
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only up the amount of seed needed to replant own farm

    PHILIPPINES
    * only for and among small farmers
    * depending on the nature of the plant
    * any exchange or sale must be for reproduction or replanting on own land
    * selling the variety under the trade mark or name associated with it is
    expressly prohibited
    * subject to further conditions and guidelines still to be issued

    TAIWAN
    * NO.
    NB: The government may introduce some form of farmers' privilege in the next
    revision of the law.

    THAILAND
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * if the variety is published as a "promoted" plant variety, then its
    "cultivation or propagation by a farmer may be made in the quantity not
    exceeding three times the quantity obtained"

    VIET NAM
    * only without selling the farm-saved seed


    LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN

    ARGENTINA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only for replanting on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging, selling)
    * only if the crop is neither a fruit species nor an ornamental plant

    BOLIVIA
    * only if it is for their own use (no sharing, exchanging, selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, ornamental or forest species
    * only for farmers with a landholding of 200 ha or less under cultivation,
    of which a maximum allowance per crop within that area is as follows: 100 ha
    for soybean, wheat, maize, sorghum, sunflower or cotton; 50 ha for rice; 20
    ha for all other crops

    BRAZIL
    * only small farmers
    * no exchange of seeds except if it's on a non-commercial basis with other
    small farmers
    * not if it's sugar cane

    CHILE
    * only if the variety was legally acquired (i.e. a royalty was paid)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (publicising, exchanging or selling
    farm-saved seed as seed is expressly prohibited)
    NB: The government has prepared an amendment to the plant breeders' rights
    law which will introduce new limitations on the farmer's privilege. It is
    awaiting signature of the President.

    COLOMBIA
    * only if it is for their own use (no sharing, exchanging, selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, ornamental or forest species

    ECUADOR
    * only if it is for their own use (no sharing, exchanging, selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, ornamental or forest species

    NICARAGUA
    * only if it is for their own use (no sharing, exchanging, selling)

    PANAMA
    * only if the variety was legally acquired
    * only to replant it on their own farm (marketing, selling or any transfer
    of the material as seed or as propagating material is expressly prohibited)

    PERU
    * only if it is for their own use (no sharing, exchanging, selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, ornamental or forest species

    TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
    * not for commercial marketing or sale

    URUGUAY
    * only if the seed was legally acquired (i.e. royalties were paid to the
    breeder)
    * only if the seed is resown on land under the property title of the farmer
    * only if the seed is kept segregated from other seed at all stages
    (harvest, cleaning, conditioning, etc.)
    * the free exchange and the commercialisation of farm-saved seed is
    expressly prohibited
    * any volume of seed retained on the farm that appears unreasonably large
    given the size of the farm serves as basis for presumed infraction of the
    law
    NB: The government recently established that breeders may not oblige
    farmers, through sales contracts, to pay an additional fees when they save
    seed -- which is what breeders have been trying to do.

    VENEZUELA
    * only if it is for their own use (no sharing, exchanging, selling)
    * only if it is not a fruit, ornamental or forest species


    INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES

    AUSTRALIA
    * only for replanting on their farm (no sharing, exchange or selling)
    * only if the crop is not on the list of crops for which there is no
    farmers' privilege
    * in some cases, the breeder can require payment of fee

    CANADA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    NB: The government is planning to require farmers to pay for the privilege
    (i.e. imposing royalty payments on farm-saved seed).

    CZECH REPUBLIC
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer) wherein they own, lease or sublease the land on which it was
    produced
    * not in the case of hybrid or synthetic varieties
    * strictly maintaining the identity of the variety
    * small growers do not have to pay the breeder an additional fee to use
    their farm-saved seed, but other farmers do (around 50% of the normal
    royalty)

    ESTONIA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * a license fee has to be paid if the farmer grows a new crop from the
    farm-saved seed on a land area greater than 10 ha

    EUROPEAN UNION
    * only with the following crops: chickpea milkvetch, yellow lupin, lucerne,
    field pea, Berseem/Egyptian clover, Persian clover, field bean, common
    vetch, oats, barley, rice, Canarygrass, rye, triticale, wheat, durum wheat,
    spelt wheat, potatoes, Swede rape, turnip rape, linseed with the exclusion
    of flax, and, in the case of Portugal, Italian rye-grass.
    * not in the case of hybrid or synthetic varieties
    * small farmers are not required to pay any fee to the breeder when re-using
    the seed; all other farmers have to pay

    JAPAN
    * only if the original seed was legitimately obtained
    * only to be resown on the farmer's own holding (no sharing, exchanging or
    selling)
    * not for crops that are vegetatively propagated and on a list of species
    for which this privilege is expressly prohibited (as of 1999, this list
    included 23 species)
    * not when a contract prescribes otherwise

    KYRGYZSTAN
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only within two years time
    * depending on the crop (a list is determined by the government)

    LITHUANIA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * small farmers may be exempt from payment of fee to the breeder

    POLAND
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * limited to two hectares of agricultural varieties
    * only for 14 species

    SLOVAKIA
    * NO. The breeder's explicit and written consent is required under all
    circumstances, including with regard to "derived varieties" of the protected
    one and "certain other varieties"

    SLOVENIA
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to replant it on their own farm (no sharing, exchanging or selling)
    * only for certain crops
    * small farmers do not have to pay for this privilege, but all others must

    UNITED STATES
    * only if the original seed was legitimately obtained
    * only if the seed is from their own harvest (they didn't get it from
    another farmer)
    * only to be resown on the farmer's own holding (no sharing, exchanging or
    selling)


    NOTES:

    1. Lather Venkatraman, "Hike research spend in seed technology: Rabobank
    report", Hindu Business Line, Mumbai, 25 March 2002.
    http://www.blonnet.com/bline/2002/03/25/stories/2002032500240700.htm

    2. See, for example, Alvaro Toledo, "Saving the seed: Europe's challenge",
    Seedling, GRAIN, Barcelona, April 2002.
    http://www.grain.org/seedling/seed-02-04-2-en.cfm

    3. WTO Council for TRIPS, "Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b):
    Illustrative List of Questions", IP/C/W/273/Rev.1, Geneva, 18 February 2003,
    56 pp.

    4. GRAIN consulted plant variety protection laws or other government
    sources, as available from government websites, for this account. What is
    reflected is currently approved legislation, whether or not the provisions
    are being implemented yet. So, for example, the situation in the member
    states of the African Organisation for Intellectual Property (OAPI) is
    exposed, even though the PVP chapter of the revised Bangui Agreement has not
    yet been put into force.

    5. This list is incomplete. GRAIN would appreciate any additions or comments
    people have to share. Please contact us at mailto:grain@grain.org.


    _________________________________________________________
    ABOUT THIS LISTSERVER -- BIO-IPR is an irregular listserver put out by
    Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN). Its purpose is to circulate
    information about recent developments in the field of intellectual property
    rights related to biodiversity & associated knowledge. BIO-IPR is a strictly
    non-commercial and educational service for nonprofit organisations and
    individuals active in the struggle against IPRs on life. The views expressed
    in each post are those of the indicated author(s).
    HOW TO PARTICIPATE -- To get on the mailing list, send the word "subscribe"
    (no quotes) as the subject of an email message to
    mailto:bio-ipr-request@cuenet.com. To get off the list, send the word
    "unsubscribe" instead. To submit material to the list, address your message
    to mailto:bio-ipr@cuenet.com. A note with further details about BIO-IPR is
    sent to all subscribers.
    ABOUT GRAIN -- For general information about GRAIN, please visit our website
    http://www.grain.org or write us at mailto:grain@grain.org.
    Reply
    Delete

  • Ivor Hughes
    Jun 9, 2003
    View Source
    Yes well there the truth stands revealed .... now we can all see what IPR is all about as I have said in this forum so many times before .... a can of worms, a lawyers beanfeas
  • No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Recent Posts

    Traditional healing

    Traditional healing

    Medicinal trees

    Medicinal trees

    Biodiversity Policy & Practice - Daily RSS Feed

    Rainforest Portal RSS News Feed

    Rainforest Portal RSS News Feed