21. Impact of private varieties on exports – What should be legal provision if an IPR protected seed is distributed for cultivation in India only? Can farmers or traders export the output from such seeds or products their-off freely or not? In the value chain, when the transfer of rights will take place and when seed companies rights will cease to happen? Can IPR holder seed company claim rights on farmers' output? If yes, will they pay for the output in case they stop exports? Can IPR holder seed supplier claim a share in the profit of farmers? This should be explained and inserted clearly to avoid legal disputes.
22. What should be the punishment for the infringement of law by any person or party—just warning, fine, compounding or jail or both should be mentioned? And what should be the quantum of the punishment to ensure deterrence towards violation of the law? The proposed fine should act as a deterrence, not just formality. Badly designed punishment clauses will lead to corruption. Farmers and companies both will continue to suffer. The country will be looser.
23. Who will own the seeds available in the public domain or in nature? Can private party use and claim right on it? What should be the scope of privatisation and what should be the terms and conditions (PVP or patent) under the Proposed Seed Act? Can all species, including wild ones, be privatised or only privatised varieties may be used to breed new ones? Can local seed be privatised if “discovered" by natives? Can private ownership be extended to similar pre-existing varieties? What should be the role of IPR and benefit sharing in such cases? the proposed bill is silent on it.
24. Offences and Punishments (s.42): The proposal seems to be out of place. The global practice is it should be linked to the turnover or profitability of the company to make them effective deterrence and to ensure good compliance record. Accountability of the companies and performance of the seeds supplied by the companies is vital especially when there are many fly-by-night seasonal seed operators. Use of digital technology should be made mandatory for traceability and this should act as documentary evidence in case of litigation.
What is the punishment for seed inspectors and laboratory analysts, if they are involved in corrupt practices? Why law is silent and not keen to make the system accountable and transparent? The silence on this vital aspect is wrong in today's world when we want to promote good governance.
25. Uniformity of law and rules between states to ensure better enforcement: In order to ensure ease of doing business and effective enforcement, all states should follow the same model rules in consultation with the Union government. Local rules create more of transaction cost and corruption than ensuring quality seeds to farmers. This also hurts the image of India.
26. Make Sub-standard Seed Recall Provisions in the bill: If any defective or substandard seed has reached the market. The law must ensure that it should be removed from the market before it reaches the farmers. All laboratory results should be made public on the website of the state government where the substandard seed was identified, on a weekly basis. This will ensure that bad seeds are removed from the market before they reach farmers and farmers use them for sowing and suffer. Seed and planting material cannot be treated like any other goods in the market.
27. Payment for the seed samples by inspectors: Whenever seed samples are picked up by inspectors, they must pay for the samples on MRP basis and must keep the bills with sampling report to ensure credibility of the samples. This is must to ensure under Consumer Protection Act. Receipt or invoice must be made mandatory for all sales activities under this Act the farmers as well.
28. Traceability of the seed supply chain: Company and Traders must maintain the traceability records of the seed, in case of any dispute these will come handy to the enforcement department. Not maintaining traceability records must be an offence. This will check spurious seeds flow in the market.
29. Farmers, as consumers, should be allowed to use the laboratories for sample testing on payment basis: In case of doubt, farmers should allowed to use the notified seed laboratories of the states or universities to get their seed sample tested on payment basis. This will ensure the accountability of the sales channels.
30. The basic purpose of the act should be to ensure fair trade practice and no one should be able to distort the market due to their size and monopolistic technologies. farmers should also not use political force to settle scores.
The proposed bill in the current form is not suitable for the current and future requirements of farmers to ensure food security. This needs major redrafting after proper consultation.
If anyone is keen to have a discussion on the same, can send the message on the same.
With best regards,
Vijay Sardana & legal team
Interesting insight
ReplyDelete