page 21

seed treaty does not satisfy

camille warren, a seed europe

It was heralded by NGOs as “The Law of the Seed – a major step towards food sovereignty and justice”. An effort to keep plants and crops vital to world food security and biodiversity in the public domain, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was a worthwhile goal. But the treaty finally accepted on November 3, 2001 in Rome was seriously weakened by the cynical interests of seed companies and national governments.

list too short
The treaty's goal was to create a multilateral system that ensures member states “facilitated access” to crop germplasm, guaranteeing its continuous availability for development and protection. However, the treaty failed to establish a meaningful list of protected crops. It also compromised basic principles, allowing patents on food crops, and neglecting to establish farmer's rights.

Disappointing as the treaty is, NGOs are hoping that it will offer some form of protection in international law, and that it can be strengthened in practice. However, experience tells us differently. In the worst case scenario, this treaty could heighten the catastrophic genetic erosion now underway, as corporate control of agriculture increases. The energy and resources of campaigners would then need to be redirected in order to prevent the multilateral system from becoming a trading ground for germplasm.

where did it all go wrong?
The treaty took seven arduous years to negotiate under the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It clearly illustrates the pitfalls of leaving vital issues like food autonomy and biodiversity conservation in the hands of nation states and clusters of experts influenced by outside interests.

Southern nations, the borders of which encompass the vast majority of the world's biodiversity, failed to put up a united front that could have pushed for fairer terms. Countries such as Brazil and Colombia were influenced by promises of valuable bilateral treaty terms from countries such as Canada and the USA. Australia encouraged Africa to oppose tropical forages for its own interests.

National representatives haggled over whether to list or withhold certain crops, disregarding the needs of farmers and the poor. Ultimately, a mere 64 food crops were given the multilateral system's limited protection. Thus farmers and communities dependent on unlisted food crops remain vulnerable to continued exploitation as their governments scrabble for the best bilateral deals.

major stumbling blocks
One of the two largest stumbling blocks in the treaty negotiations was over benefit sharing from commercialization of listed crop germplasm products (most of which originate in southern farmers' fields). Seed industry representatives agreed in principle to benefit sharing, but under US pressure rescinded their offer, endangering the treaty. In the final draft, benefit sharing exists in principle but lacks detailed proposals about how to implement it, or how much will be “shared”.

The second major stumbling block was about intellectual property rights and genetic components derived from germplasm. A still disputed text makes it clear that after further breeding, intellectual property rights can be attached to developments from crop germplasm. The failure to set any precedents for germplasm protection in these areas, even for the few essential crops listed, is a major defeat in the battle to ensure corporate profits do not supersede biodiversity conservation and food autonomy for the world's poor.

Most worryingly, farmers' rights have been made subject to national legislation. In previous texts, farmers' rights to conserve, swap and sell seeds were universal, and formed the principal means of agricultural security for farmers in the global South and an important cornerstone for worldwide genetic biodiversity conservation. Unfortunately, national legislation is much more likely to favour corporate plant breeders' interests.

Working in synergy, these weaknesses create a treaty powerless to deter further corporate control of agriculture. They may even facilitate the flow of profit from the poorest nations to the richest companies by legitimizing corporate actions.

faint hopes
Much has been made of claims that this treaty will not be subordinated to existing agreements, implicitly referring to the corporate-biased TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement. This claim is legally dubious, as the relevant wording is included only in the treaty's preamble. Furthermore, experience indicates otherwise. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was supposedly not subordinate to TRIPS, which was forged a year later, yet many of its principles are directly contradicted by TRIPS. And in reality, governments are far more likely to comply with legal mechanisms backed by stringent enforcement such as trade sanctions than with under-resourced UN treaties like the CBD. Sadly, the well-being of the world's poorest farmers is a factor unlikely to motivate compliance.

effective strategies urgent
NGOs and the FAO are now doing the rounds at summits like the Biodiversity COP-6 in the Hague to convince countries to ratify the "seed treaty". However, the urgent need to protect free and continued access to major food crops cannot rest on its ratification. We need strategies that put food autonomy, community well being and farmers' rights first, strategies that proclaim that patents on life and biopiracy are unacceptable.