A change of seed regime in France, with farmers the losers . . .

As noted the other day, a translation of the Le Monde article from Rebelión (ie, translated from French to Spanish there, and here into English).

It’s a very interesting example of the tendency, under captalism, of the commons towards private ownership. In France, in the past, there has not been a patents regime over life forms as the US has inflicted on its farmers for many years. In the US this has meant the big seed companies have been able to monopolise the market for seeds, prevent the natural growth, re-use and exchange of seeds, and harass farmers who dare to even grow crops too close to where someone has planted proprietary GM crops.

This has led, in France, to both a continuing tradition of exchange and re-planting of harvests, and to a variety of seed companies. These seed companies, however, as commercial enterprises will, are banding together, with the help of a captured government, to implement a previously-ignored EU law which will impose a tax on “proprietary seeds”. The effect is likely to be similar to a patent regime—with increased prices on seeds through the new tax, farmers are likely to move to cheaper commercial varieties, with a commensurate loss of control for farmers over their crops, and of biodiversity and competition in the seed business.

So, even outside the repressive patents regime pushed by the US, money is power and size is money, and the family farmers will ultimately be the victims of the greed of the few. If they can’t take ownership via a patent, then they’ll just find another way . . .

For farmers, re-planting their own seeds will be either prohibited or taxed

source: lemonde.fr

In the field of agriculture, the free use of seeds will very soon be a fond memory of the peasant methods from days gone by. These seeds, known as “farm seeds”, were selected by farmers from their own crops and returned for planting the next year. For some decades, this practice has been disappearing; ever since seeds were protected by Plant Variety Certificates (PVC), or the right of property belonging to the “owners” of the species. Returning seeds of these variety for planting was in theory prohibited.

The practice, in reality, was widely tolerated in France. But from now on there will be stricter regulation, according to a Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) bill passed on the 28th of November by the French parliament.

“Of some 5,000 plant varieties cultivated for commercial purposes, 1,600 are protected by a PVC and these constitute 99% of varieties cultivated by farmers,” explained Delphine Guey, of the National Inter-professional Seeds Group (NISG). Until now, however, according to the National Coordinator for the Defence of Farm Seeds (NCDFS), around half of cultivated cereals are returned for planting by farmers. Almost always, therefore, illegally. It appears, however that the time of “judicial uncertainty” has passed: according to Bruno le Maire, of the Ministry of Agriculture, “Seeds cannot be exempt from taxes, as is currently the case.”

What has changed

In effect, the bill from UMP senator Christian Demuynck translates a 1994 European regulation regarding the protection of plant varieties, which has been until now unenforced in France. As a consequence, Farm Seeds, previously tolerated, have been legalised . . . with the condition that some “compensation to the PVC owners” – that is, seed companies – be paid “with the objective that they continue to dedicate their strength to research and the continued improvement of genetic resources” states the text of the law.

Farmers who produce fewer than 92 tonnes of cereals will be exempt.

Since 2001 this text has been applied to only one species: wheat for bread. It is called a “necessary voluntary contribution” and was collected by the seeds association. Farmers had to pay 50 cents per tonne of wheat at the time of harvesting. This system will now be extended to 21 species on an open list, says Xavier Beulin, president of the National Federation of Agricultural Producers’ Unions (NFAPU). In short, to Guy Kastler, Director General of the Network of Farmers’ Seeds and member of the Farmers Confederacy “for half of cultivated species – soy, fruit, vegetables – re-use of your own seeds is prohibited, and for the other half – cereals and forage plants – you’ll have to pay to re-plant.”

Is a privatisation of seeds coming?

Several ecological and farmers’ associations fear a major intervention by the seeds sector in the access to seeds through a right of ownership extended to crops and derived grains. With this tax, “even farmers who use commercial seeds must pay for their seed,” laments Guy Kastler. The activist fears that the proportion of farm seeds used will be reduced as they will become expensive and therefore less attractive to farmers. Between the tax and the prohibition on planting their own seeds, farmers will be taxed more each time, no longer producing but buying seeds. In this way it is feared that there will be an increase in dependence on seed-producing companies.

From the point of view of Xavier Beulin, however, contribution from everyone to research of cultivated species is warranted, given that these have generally originated in Farm Seeds. Making a parallel with the Hadopi law which is intended to “protect creators” of films and music, the president of the NFAPU suggests that it is “normal that (those who use Farm Seeds) participate also in financing the creation of varieties, given they are the beneficiaries”.

Opposing this argument, the Union for Rural Coordination emphasised on their web site that Xavier Beulin is not only the head of the first agricultural union but also the director of the Sofiproteol group, “which is a part of the largest group of French seed companies (Euralis Semences, Limagrain…)”.

Is a loss of biodiversity coming?

A further fear: the impact of this measure on agricultural biodiversity. Obviously, planting only a single variety – as almost always emerges from the research – does not increase biodiversity. Because “in large fields none of the varieties used is the fruit of ancestral conservation; everything has been developed without the creation of variety,” Xavier Beulin stresses. However, replanting your harvest can create variations in species and favour variety, Guy Kastler suggests. “New characteristics appear which permit the plant to adapt better to the soil, the climate, the local conditions. In this way it is then possible to reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides. On the other hand, producers of seeds adapt their plants to their fertilizers and pesticides, so that everywhere they are the same – such that they tend to create uniformity in the plants, wherever they are cultivated”.

Towards a patent regime

The PVC in France is an alternative to patents on living things, which is in force, for example, in the US. This intellectual property right is obtained by businesses which, by means of research, have obtained cultivated species and which enjoy a monopoly on the sale of seeds from these species until they enter the public domain – as is the case in France for around 450 species.

Some, like Guy Kastler, fear that this fact is conducive to a patents regime, limiting the rights of farmers to freely use protected seeds. At any rate, unlike the PVC, patent law completely prohibits farmers from planting seeds from their own crops, with or without compensation, according to Delphine Guey. This is the case with GMO varieties belonging to the US Monsanto corporation, which, according to Marie-Monique Robinin the documentary “The World According to Monsanto”, has created a “seed police” specialising in the harassment of farmers who plant or exchange seeds from their own crops illegally.

The other difference with patents is that the PCV permits owners to freely use protected varieties to take advantage of their genetic resources and create new selections. Thus work on a gene from one species does not allow its patent, and therefore for it to be entirely appropriated. This differentiation has allowed, according to Delphine Guey, the preservation of a diversity of French seed businesses. And at the very least it has allowed producers a wider variety of species to choose between. However, if the patenting of living species is not permissible in France, the patenting of plant genes is, and is increasingly practised.

On Rebelión: http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=140740

Original article: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2011/11/29/pour-les-agriculteurs-ressemer-sa-propre-recolte-sera-interdit-ou-taxe_1610778_3244.html#ens_id=1610322

Translated by Peter Rochester (note)