28 May 2005Dr. vandana Shiva
The sovereignty of India’s seed supply systems rests on two sources of public seed supply – 80% of which comes from farmer bred traditional varieties, and 20% of which used to come from public sector seed breeding stations and seed farms. India’s food security has been based on the diversity of seeds and on the public supply system, both at the community and state level. The 1966 Seed Act has performed an effective function for seed reliability.
As a result of the World Bank driven new Seed Policy of 1988, MNCs like Cargill and Monsanto entered the seed supply system in India. With their entry, India’s agriculture has become destabilized. MNC seeds are costly, unreliable, and non-renewable.Farmers must buy them every year. High costs, non-renewability and non-reliability of MNC seeds have created severe distress among farmers. Farmers have become indebted. They have been forced to sell their kidneys. In most extreme cases they have taken their lives due to indebtedness resulting from high input costs. All suicides are concentrated in areas where farmers have become dependent on private seed supplies of MNC seeds.
The Seed Bill 2004 will push farmers deeper into debt. In spite of a decade of repeated failure of seed introduced by MNCs, the Seed Act proposes to replace India’s time tested, diverse, farm saved seeds with unreliable, uniform monoculture seeds which cannot be saved. The government’s justification for replacing the 1966 Seed Act as given on www.agricoop.nic.in are to:
1. create facilitative climate for growth of seed industry (in other words the act is designed to facilitate MNC growth and profits)
2. enhance seed replacement rates for various crops (ie., destroy indigenous biodiversity, destroy farmers seeds and make farmers dependent on non-renewable hybrids and GMOs sold by corporations)
3. boost the exports of seeds and encourage import of useful germplasm (the farmers right to seed does not figure imported seeds and germplasm have introduced diverse and pests and are not adopted to India’s diverse climates. Therefore they fail)
4. create conducive atmosphere for application of frontier sciences in varietal development and for enhanced investment in research and development (new technologies do not automatically produce better seed. The failure of Bt. cotton is a case in point. By promoting untested technologies the Seed Act threatens to deepen India’s seed crisis and the crisis farmers are facing).
All the justifications are geared to an MNC Seed Agenda, not a farmers seed agenda. The government is misleading farmers and the parliament by stating that the 1966 Seed Act is deficient and needs to be replaced by the 2004 Act. It is also making a false statement that the proposed legislation aims to liberalise import of seeds and planting materials compatible with the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.) commitments. The W.T.O. commitments related to seed are contained in Art 27.3(b) of TRIPS. India has implemented both a second amendment to the 1970 Patent Act to allow patents for GM seeds and a Plant Variety Legislation as a sui generis option. There is no further W.T.O. obligation. In fact, the patent laws need to be revisited since Article 27.4(b) itself is under review.
It is also false to state that liberalized import and export of seeds in a W.T.O. obligation. W.T.O. has agreements – the Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement to allow countries to regulate import on the grounds of safety. The U.S. controls agriculture imports through a bioterror law. Most countries do not allow introduction of plants without being subjected to quarantine law. Protecting agriculture from disease, pests and cop failure should be the first objective of a seed law, not liberalized trade.
The Seed Act 2004 is TRIPS plus. It is driven by MNCs like Monsanto seeking total control over India’s seed supply not by India’s obligations under W.T.O. The objective is not to improve India’s seed supply and strengthen India’s seed sovereignty. The objective is to hijack India’s seed supply and undermine India’s seed sovereignty. If we loose control over our seed, we loose our freedom. That is why the Seed Act 1966 should continue if necessary with amendments and the proposed Seed Bill 2004 should be withdrawn. The 1966 Seed Act, alongwith the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act which was passed by Parliament in 2001, protect the farmers and nations seed sovereignty.
The Government is also misleading the public in saying there is no regulation of transgenic material. Transgenic seeds are regulated by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) set up under the “Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or cells, 1989 under the Environment Protection Act 1986.”
The Ministry of Agriculture set up the M.S. Swaminathan Task Force to dismantle the GEAC by proposing that transgenic seeds get fast track clearance through the Ministry of Agriculture. The proposed Seed Act is in fact not aimed at regulation of GMOs but at the deregulation of the seed industry.
Why the 2004 Act is anti-farmer and anti-national
1. Scope
The 1966 Act covered in its definitions Agriculture as including horticulture. The 2004 Act has enlarged the definition to include horticulture, forestry, cultivation of plantation, medicinal and aromatic plants.
The Agriculture Ministry is thus encroaching into the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Commerce. The far -reaching enlargement of the scope of the Seed Act is unconstitutional.
2. The Central Seed Committee
In the 1966 Seed Act, the Central Seed Committee consisted of
i) a chairman to be nominated by central governmentii) eight nominees of government, of which two were growers of seediii) one person to be nominated by the Government of each of the States (Section 3)
In Chapter II, the 2004 draft proposes a Central Seed Committee consisting of
i) Chairman, who will be secretary of Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agricultureii) In addition, the following ex-officio members will be part of the Committee.iii) The Agricultural Commissioner, Draft of Ag & Cooperation, Government of India (GOI)iv) The Deputy Director General (Horticulture), ICARv) The Joint Secretary in-charge of seeds in the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, GOIvi) A representative of the Department of Biotechnology, GOIvii) A representative of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (GOI)
3. In addition, the Central Government will nominate
i. the Secretary (Agriculture) from five Statesii. Director of State Seed Certification Agency from one State, not represented under (i)iii. Managing Director, State Seeds Corporation from one State which is not represented under clause (i) or clause (ii)iv. Two representatives of farmersv. Two representatives of seed industry
This is a Government of India’s Committee, to govern subject matter that is a state subject under the constitution of State Governments right to be members has been removed. The GOI will “nominate” 5 States. Thus most States will not be represented, tearing down the federal structure that governs agriculture. The two representatives of farmers are not an addition, since the 1966 Act has two “growers of seed” which is farmers. Further, the farmers’ representatives are not nominated by farmers organisations but by the Central Government. And industry, which is supposed to be regulated by a Seed Act ends up becoming a regulator with the Central Seed Committee having two representatives of seed industry.
3. Notification and Registration
Section 5 of the 1966 Seed Act states that “If the Central Government, after consultation with the Committee, is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to regulate the quality of seed of any kind or variety to be sold for purposes of agriculture, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such kind or variety to be notified kind or variety.”
Thus only selected varieties were notified, Art 6 allowed the government to set
(a) minimum limits of germinisation and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety;
(b) the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germinisation.
Section (7) gave government the power to regulate notified varieties.
Notified seeds could be sold by applying for a certification from the Seed certification Agency. Section (9)
The role of Seed Inspectors was restricted to notified seed varieties.
4. Compulsory Registration: Means to replace farmers seeds with corporate seeds
The 2004 Seed Bill forces registration of “all kinds and varieties of seed.” (Section 13). Thus farmers’ varieties now have to be registered with a national authority. Seeds exchanged among farmers will be treated as “misbranded” (def (16) if seed is not registered.
Art 21 states: “No producer shall grow or organized production of seed unless he is registered.” Since all farmers are growers and producers of seed, and all farming communities exchange seed, Art 231 is an infringement of farmers’ freedom and farmers’ rights.
Further, the compulsory registration of seed, covering all varieties of crops, medicinal plants, forest species, plantation crops gives sweeping powers to Seed Inspectors. The 1966 Act restricted Inspection and Certification to only notified seeds.
1966 - Art 14 – The Seed Inspector may take samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety.
2004 - Art 35 -- The Seed Inspector may take samples of any seed of any kind or variety.
The power of Seed Inspectors to enter and search, which earlier applied only to the seed industry, with the enlarged, unlimited scope of the act, can apply to any farmer or tribal growing any plant.
The Penalty in the 1966 Act was Rs. 500. In the 2004 Act it is Rs. 5,000 – Rs. 50,000 and can go up to Rs.100,000. The open ended scope of the act covering all varieties and species makes all growers potential violators of the Seed Act. In fact, such criminalisation of the everyday activity of farming is the intent of the Act, to dissuade farmers from using their own varieties. Compulsory registration is industry’s mechanism to force farmers give up using their own varieties and become dependent on MNC seed supply. The objective of “enhancing seed replacement role” in fact means precisely this – stopping farmers from growing, their own timeless heirloom, heritage seeds which give crop reliability and conserve biodiversity.
5. Empty exclusions and the establishment of Inspector Raj and Police States
Art 1.3(b) and Art 43 are no safeguards for a police state and Inspector raj terrorizing farmers under this Act to push them to stop using their own seed and force them to buy corporate seeds.
1(3) (b) states that the Act shall apply to every producer of seed except when the seed is produced by him for his own use and not for sale.
This renders seed exchange illegal.
Art 43 states “Nothing in this Act shall restrict the right of the farmers 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 germinsation, physical purity, genetic purity prescribed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 6.”
6 (a) states that the Central Seed Committee may, by notification, specify the minimum limits of (b) germination, genetic and physical purity, and maximum seed health, with respect to any seed of any kid or variety.
Thus Art 43 is in fact an Article that allows Centralised Seed Authority to regulate the farmers own seed supply and exchange systems. This is an undermining of seed sovereignty of farming communities. Farmers care for their own seed quality more than a centralized authority can. Regulation of farmers’ own seed varieties needs to be left to farmers. That is why we have established Community Biodiversity Registers and Jaiv Panchayats.
The government needs to regulate the corporations, not farmers. The government needs to notify, certify, inspect corporate seeds, not native varieties tested and evaluated over millennia.
However, instead of regulating the seed industry, the Seed Act 2004 aims to police the farmers. Farmers have suffered huge losses due to failure of seed sold by MNCs. Monsanto’s hybrid corn failed in Bihar and cost peasants Rs. 400 crore in losses. Bt. cotton has failed repeatedly over 3 years. Instead of having a strict liability regimes, the Seed Act 2004 states in Art 20:
“Where the seed of registered kind or variety is sold to a farmer, the producer, distributor or vendor, as the case may be, shall disclose the expected performance of such kind or variety to the farmers under given conditions, and if, such registered seed fails to provide the expected performance under such given conditions, the farmer may claim compensation from the producer, dealer, distributor or vendor under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
If the farmers have to depend on the Consumer Protection Act, why do we need a new Seed Act? If all the 2004 Seed Act will do is police farmers, while criminal corporations go free, it must be dropped. Let the 1966 continue, with appropriate amendments to increase liability clauses in the background of the changes in the seed sector that have taken place since 1966. The most significant change is the entry of Seed Multinationals and the increasing risk to farmers of high cost, non-renewable, unreliable seed. Seed regulation in this context needs to regulate corporations for costs and reliability. These can be clauses added in the Seed Act 1966.
The powers of the Centre cannot be enlarged by shrinking rights of States and freedoms of farmers. The Seed Committee must continue to have representatives from all States. No Seed Industry Representative should be on the Committee. The regulated cannot become the regulator.
For farmers’ indigenous seeds and local, traditional varieties, neither the central nor the state governments should create an “Inspector raj”. Self-rule over seed (Bija Swaraj) should be the governance structure for farmers’ indigenous varieties. Community Biodiversity Registers managed by the Gram Sabha are the best record of seed diversity. They are democratic instruments for strengthening seed sovereignty. Centralised government cannot usurp the rights of local communities to their seeds.
The government has an obligation under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to conserve biodiversity. The objective of the Seed Act 2004 to “increase replacement rates” goes counter to the obligations of the CBD since it will lead to the destruction of biodiversity, increasing farmers vulnerability to climate change, drought, floods and other environmental disasters. Farmers’ seed freedom is the foundation for ecological and economic security and food security. Farmers’ seed sovereignty cannot be threatened by centralized state structures or unaccountable seed corporations. Bija Swaraj is our birthright. Laws must respect and recognize Bija Swaraj.
