FSG petitions parliament over Breeders Bill

The Food Sovereignty Ghana(FSG), a civil society organisation,  has petition  Parliament over the Breeders Bill 2013, which  has moved to the Consideration Stage, in its efforts to contribute to the debate.

This organisation believes would help ensure that the rights of small farmers are not trampled upon in the “zeal to protect the rights of the plant breeder”.

A statement issued by FSG in Accra and copied to Ghana News Agency at the weekend , noted that the Bill, as it stands, contains clauses that have serious implications on “our sovereignty as a people”.

FULL TEXT:

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT ON THE PLANT BREEDERS’ BILL, 2013.
To:
Rt. Hon. Speaker of the House,
Honourable Chairperson of Committee on Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs,
Honourable Members of Parliament,

Copy to:
The Clerk to Parliament,
Media Houses.

PETITION ON THE PLANT BREEDERS’ BILL, 2013.

We, the undersigned, representatives of the respective civil society, religious, and political organisations,

NOTING WITH DISMAY that the Plant Breeders’ Bill currently before Parliament has moved to the Consideration Stage;

DESIROUS to urgently contribute to the debate in order to help ensure the rights of the small farmer are not trampled upon in our zeal to protect the rights of the plant breeder;

CONCERNED that the Bill, as it stands, contains clauses that have serious implications on our sovereignty as a people, including unacceptable limitations on the policy space it leaves for the state to regulate the activities of plant breeders vis-à-vis measures to protect public health and the natural environment;

DEEPLY TROUBLED that the Bill, as it stands, facilitates bio piracy in that it does not require a breeder to disclose the origin of the genetic material used to develop the variety it wishes to protect and neither does it provide mechanisms for prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing, although African nations have championed these mechanisms in various international forums.

ALARMED that in the absence of these elements, the Bill sets up a framework for commercial breeders – most of which are likely to be foreign entities – to use local germplasm to develop varieties that are then exclusively appropriated by such breeders through the PVP system established by the regional legal framework:

WORRIED that the Bill will lead to erosion of crop diversity and thus reduce resilience to threats such as pests, disease or climate change.

FURTHER CONCERNED that the Bill hinders Ghana’s ability to fulfil its commitments under the international Treaty on Plant Genetic Resource for Food and Agriculture in particular, to realise, protect, and promote farmers rights, including the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other propagating material, and to participate in decision-making regarding, and in the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

EAGER TO help block a reckless loop-hole that is bound to saddle us with huge judgement debts, as a nation, we particularly oppose Clause 23. This clause will, at best, present us with a dilemma of regulating the activities of the plant breeder for the sake of public health or the environment and face judgement debts or accepting the right of the breeder and be damned. As it currently stands in Clause 23, a plant breeder’s right is “independent of any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material”, irrespective of the consequences;

DO HEREBY PETITION THE HOUSE TO URGENTLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:

(1) To add to Clause 9 (3)
The application for a plant breeder right:

— shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the applicant that such variety does not contain any gene or gene sequence involving terminator technology;

–shall contain a complete passport data of the parental lines from which the variety has been derived along with the geographical location from where the genetic material has been taken and all such information relating to the contribution, if any, of any farmer, village community, institution or organization in breeding, evolving or developing the variety;

–contain a declaration that the genetic material or parental material acquired for breeding, evolving or developing the variety has been lawfully acquired;

–shall be accompanied with the prior written consent of the authority representing the local community or the indigenous people in cases where the plant variety is developed from traditional varieties and evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing;

–shall be supported by documents relating to the compliance of any law regulating activities involving genetically modified organisms in cases where the development of the plant variety involves genetic modification.

(2) To delete Clause 10 on presumption of protection.

This Clause puts the onus on the Plant Variety Protection office or the Registrar-General to proof that the right holder does not deserve protection. Actually the onus should be on the right holder to prove that its application meets the substantive and formal criteria.

(3) To amend Clause 16 to extend the period for objections.

A period of at least 9 months after publication of the application and any further time before the application is disposed of should be considered for a written objection to be made with regard to published application.

(4) Amend Clause 20 (1) to limit the scope of breeders rights to production for commercial marketing, offering for sale and marketing. This limits the scope to commercial activities while allowing on-commercial activities to continue.

(5) Delete Clause 20(3), (4) and (5)

These sections extend the scope of breeders’ rights to harvested material and to essentially derived varieties. These provisions place significant restrictions on using protected varieties for research and breeding purposes thus limiting development of new varieties – especially by farmers who usually breed and adapt varieties to suit their local conditions.

(6) To add to Clause 20 the following:

Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent –

(a) the use of any variety registered under this Act by any person using such variety for conducting experiment or research; or

(b) the use of a variety by any person as an initial source of variety for the purpose of creating other varieties;

Provided that the authorization of the breeder of a registered variety is required where the repeated use of such variety as a parental line is necessary for commercial production of such other newly developed variety.

(7) To add a new section: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no registration of a variety shall be made under this Act

(a) which may affect public order or morality; or

(b) where there is reasonable ground to believe that the cultivation, reproduction or any other use of that plant variety may produce a negative impact on the environment, human, animal and plant life.

(c) No variety of any genera or species which involves any technology which is injurious to the life or health of human beings, animals, plants or the environment shall be registered under this Act.

(8) To delete Clause 21 (c) and 21 (3)

Section 21(c) is to be deleted as it refers to parts of Section 20 which are also proposed for deletion. Section 21 (3) limits farmers rights. It only allows farmers to use farm saved seed on their own holdings and this also may be subject to payment of royalty since the section speaks of safeguarding the legitimate interests of breeders. It does not allow farmers to freely exchange or sell seeds/propagating material.

(9) To add Clause 21 to expand farmers rights.

– a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed or propagating material of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act :

Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act.

Explanation : For the purposes of clause (iv), “branded seed” means any seed put in a package or any other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act.

(10) Delete Clause 23 on Measures regulating commerce.

“A plant breeder right shall be independent of any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.”

Please find in the appendices attached, detailed references and explanatory notes, and recitals of our reasons behind these proposed amendments.

Done, this Thursday, 21st November, 2013,
For Life, the Environment, and Social Justice!

Source: GNA