Part-1 of 3:
India's proposed Seed Bill’2019 and Proposed Amendments for Post-COVID-era
By:
Vijay SARDANA
Advocate, Delhi High Court and
Techno-legal Expert on Agribusiness
& Consumer Products Industries
&
Priyanka Sardana
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
&
Aastha Sardana
Researcher on Legal Matters
Disclaimer:
This note is prepared by the team at ARPL Techno-Legal Services after reviewing seed laws of about 60+ countries, live cases in the
field and problem faced by various stakeholders.
Why Seed Bill is crucial for Indian's food security?
The seed is the foundation of national food security. During COVID-19 lockdown we have seen how disruption in essential medicines and medical supplies forced leaders of powerful nations to demand medicines from other countries. COVID has forced us to think about all options in life normal and abnormal, simple and complex, borrowed or self-reliance, etc. Unless we think logically we will not be able to create policies and mobilize resources to ensure food security in very odd situations like long-duration lockdown.
Can India feed 1.40 billion people on borrowed food?
The
Seed Bill 2019 is an attempt to modify the existing Seed Act 1966. Government
of India is planning the review the Seed Act after 50 years. In the last 50 years,
we have seen that the present Seed Act and Rules were ineffective in controlling
the quality of seeds in India and average productivity in India is far below
than the world average.
The proposed draft is also not addressing the issues which India is facing and will
face in the coming days.
The
new proposed Act must address the following issues very effectively so that
farmers and national interest can be protected.
1. Indian Agriculture need better productivity to ensure
food security
2. Indian agriculture production must have cost competitiveness to meet the global competitiveness challenges in the export market
3.
It must also protect biodiversity in the
country
4. It must also prevent unfair and restrictive
trade practices in the seed sector
5. New Seed Act must also provide an opportunity for new
technologies but at the same time must prevent monopolistic or anti-competitive
practices in the trade.
6. COVID-19 tells us immunity in humans and bio-diversity in vegetation is the first line of defence to defend against the spread of infection.
7. Legitimate Farmers Rights must be protected.
8. There must be enough incentive to undertake research in the area of seeds.
9. National interest and sovereign rights of India
must be supreme in post-COVID-era and it must be ensured under the
law.
10. Dispute resolution mechanism should be fast,
simple and affordable to farmers as well.
This proposed seed bill is now coming for review and it should remain meaningful for at
least next 20 years, if not 50 years.
The proposed Seed bill should be drafted in
such a way that it addresses the concerns of the stakeholders and ensures
affordable food security for the country and at the same time should not compromise
the sovereign food security of the country.
After reviewing seed laws of about 60+ countries, live cases in the field and problem faced by various stakeholders, the following points need serious considerations by all stakeholders and policymakers before finalising the bill in the Parliament:
1. Who should have first right on seeds in India: Seed is vital for food security. The foremost requirement is “Seed
production” should to declared as a strategic sector to ensure food security
of the country. This will ensure that country must consider the seed sector
seriously. This will make way for making policies to meet the national food,
feed, fibre and bio-fuel requirements and food, feed and nutrition security.
Should we say, to a poor country that COVID-19 vaccine is available but on for those who can pay the premium, hefty royalty and exclusive marketing rights for all other products? Is this reasonable or unreasonable demand? How to decide what is unreasonable?
2. Address “Conflict of Interest” in
the bill: The whole bill is silent on what steps are taken to ensure there is no conflict of
interest between the approval
committees, review committees and other arms of the departments mentioned in
the bill and various applicants. This can be discussed in detail as well. This is vital to protect the sovereignty of national
food & feed security. This will also give the level playing field between the public sector and private sector innovations.
3. Title of the Bill should be
changed: The proposed title is not appropriate in
today’s context when there are many methods of “Plant Propagation”. It should
be “The Seed & Plant Propagation Materials Bill’2019”. This will be more inclusive and logical. Even nurseries and other planting materials quality can be monitored.
4. Scope of the Bill / Act: The
proposed scope is also outdated. The scope should be broad enough to address all the
related issues with seed and propagation materials including technological
advancements and research in the seed sector. The scope should also cover the
new technologies and techniques related to plant propagating materials. In the absence of this, the country will not be able to address the issues related to
them effectively in the absence of any suitable legal framework and also during
trade disputes.
5. Definitions: Many key
definitions are either missing or vague. This will lead to litigations or gaps
in the effective enforcement of the law. All definitions must be reviewed and missing
definitions should be included after wider consultation. Some of the missing terminologies in Seed Bill are Nursery, Harmful
Technologies, Benefit Sharing, Farmers’ Rights, Genetic Contamination, Gene
piracy, Gene Stacking, Seed Coating, different forms of genetic modification
techniques, etc.
6. The classification of seeds in
various categories should be discussed more carefully because in
the globalised economy it should make sense to all stakeholders. It should be based on scientific principles, not just political
boundaries within the country. This will create serious problems and litigations within India. Is there any way to check the movement of seeds
from one state to another? Should the classifications be based on political
boundaries or on agroclimatic zones? This will lead to multiple layers of
bureaucracy, transaction cost, corruption and will reduce the ease of doing business. It will be
difficult to address disputes because of political sensitivities. This will also create a market for spurious seeds and
farmers and the country will be the loser. Serious brainstorming is required.
7. Specify who should be accountable for Genetic Contamination or
pollution in nearby farms: In India, there is a drive to promote organic and natural farming. The whole bill is
silent on the issue of genetic pollution or contamination? Who will be accountable or liable for
creating genetic contamination if it happens in an organic farm? How to address this issue? Who should be accountable
for the seed supplying agency or promoter or native farmers in case of genetic pollution?
What should be the duty and responsibility of people with IPR rights to ensure that their gene does not spread to other farms without the permission of the farmers
or concerned authorities? If it happens, who is accountable? This is not an easy question to answer, but vital for peaceful growth. A recent case of potatoes farmer in Gujarat is a live example.
8. Evaluation of performance (s.20): This clause
must be clearly defined to ensure transparency and no conflict of interest
between the committee's members and applicants. Even ICAR and public sector
research seeds should be evaluated by a third party to ensure neutrality and
credibility.
9. Compensation to Farmers (S.21):
The proposed bill must highlight what all should be the criteria and components of
compensation which can help in the calculation of compensation. The Consumer Protection Act does not provide relief on time, therefore there must be mandatory Mediation and Arbitration in case of any dispute before litigation process. Mediation should
also be considered for an early resolution of the disputes.
10. Registration process:
Details
of the registration of various seed producers, processing units, dealers and
nurseries should be visible to farmers to check the spurious suppliers. GPS
coordinates of all processing units must be part of the registration process of the unit. This
will also help in the identification of the suppliers of certified seeds of various
crops. Bar-coding and other traceability tools must be made mandatory to check the spread of spurious seeds.
(to be continued...)
(Please also read this with Part-2 and Part-3 for additional points)
Meanwhile, feel free to send your questions or queries and observations to:
Email: technolegalsardana@gmail.com
Point number 3 pertaining to change in title is appropriate as it widens the scope of Bill
ReplyDeleteRegistration at point 10 ensures to the farmer his Right to Information without which the quality and quantity of produce may suffer due to spurious seeds. I am not in a position to offer objective comments on the rest of the points as it would require me read the entire bill in detail as well as to look into the justifications offered by the drafting committee for incorporating the changes in the existing bill. Without such insight it may be unfair to support or oppose
Point 5 Definitions: Bt cotton seed has a terminator gene inside so that it cannot be used next year for sowing. In effect this forces farmer producer to buy new seed every year from Monsanto,its monopoly supplier in collaboration with Mahabeej etc- resulting in s monopoly situation.Revise the definition of seed by adding 'reprodusible' to it to end the monopoly.This is necessary otherwise also in accordance with essential characteristic of seed as a living being. Virus,bacteria,fungi,plants and animals- all reproduce their offsprings. This is law of nature. Put a chalk in a bowl of water. After sometime it will absorb water,swell in size and grow. But it can not make its copy on its own. In other words,a non living thing cannot reproduce its copy on its own. A living thing can do this. Provide nutrition.In a few minutes a bacteria will reproduce to make thousands of its offsprings without human involvement.This very basic and essential characteristic of living beings is However taken away by Monsanto by making the seed literally as 'enunchs' - unable to reproduce on their own by incorporating terminator gene to make it sterile. Farmers who want to purchase enunch seeds will buy it from Monopoly companies. Others will be free to source them outside.
ReplyDeleteVandana Shiva' blog highlight world Monopoly in seed production and distribution in hands of just 4 companies such as Monsanto, Bayer etc who are otherwise a Chemical company engaged in bulk production of insecticides and pesticides etc. Forward integration in entirely different field ! Why ? Produce such seeds that are best protected through their own chemical? La Monsanto whose Bt cotton seeds are best protected through 'Roundup' it's best selling chemical! Thereby creating a captive market world wide ! I am not in touch with the subject matter for decades now and hence researcher must look deep into this linkage.Analysis may provide further insight into the ways in which these monopolies are pushing their agenda through amendments in Seed Act
ReplyDelete,through manipulation of very definition of farmer. Seeds Act 2004 excluded seed companies from definition of farmer.Cronies of monopoly seed companies in the Drafting committee have cleverly manipulated the definition. Comments have been asked from public. But these will be over ruled, because there will be no open discussion on public platform