THE LAW of the SEED

THE LAW of the

SEED

SUMMARY

Introduction 3

Why Agro-biodiversity is important… 9

The Lawof the Seed 21 Preliminary considerations 22 Part 1 –Conservation of agriculturalbiodiversity 31 Part 2 –Plantbreeding andSeedProduction 32 Part 3 –Farmers’Rights 34 Part 4 – Intellectual PropertyRights 36

Note toReaders 39

3

INTRODUCTION

Seed is the first link in the food chain and embodies millen-nia of evolution and thousands of years of farmers breeding aswell as the culture of freely saving and sharing seed. It is theexpression of earth’s intelligence and the intelligence of farmingcommunitiesdown the ages.

Theecologicalandbiological laws oftheSeeddrawupontheperennial lawsofnatureandevolutionbasedondiversity, adap-tation, resilience and openness. They also draw on principles ofjurisprudenceofhuman rights, public goods and the commons.

Incontrast, thedominant legislation today, related to seed, isintotalviolationoftheLawoftheSeedanddemocraticprocesseswithoutanybasisinjurisprudenceorscience.Anarsenaloflegalinstrumentsaresteadilybeinginventedandimposedthatcriminal-izeage-oldfarmers’seedbreeding,seedsavingandseedsharing.And this arsenal isbeing shapedby thehandfulof corporationswho first introduced toxic chemicals into agriculture, and   arenowcontrollingtheseedthroughgeneticengineeringandpatents.

The scientificparadigm is alsobeing transformed.Fromavi-brantholisticandecologicalsystem,agriculturehasbeenindustri-alizedand compartmentalizedintoafragmentedandmechanisticparadigmwhereNature’scontributionsandfarmers’contributionsdo not enter into the equation.

This because these contributions cannot be made into com-moditiesandcommercializedbythosecorporateinterestswhich,throughpatents,aimtogetabsolutepowerandabsoluteownershipover seed, circumventing all ecological and social responsibilityof the impactofmonopoliesandgeneticallyengineered seedas-sociatedwith it.

4

When those that need to be regulated write the laws to getabsolute power and absolute ownership over seed, which is lifeitself,whilefreeingthemselvesofallecologicalandsocialrespon-sibility of the impact of monopolies and genetically engineeredseedsassociatedwithit,wedonot justhaveacrisisoffoodandagriculture,wehave a crisis ofdemocracy.

Monsanto wrote the Patents on Life clauses of the TRIPSagreement of WTO. In the US, Monsanto wrote and sneakedinto the budget law, HR 993, a deregulation section 735, pro-tecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face ofecological and health risks. In India, the government sneakedin the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill (BRAI-India’sMonsantoProtectionAct)inParliamentonEarthDay,a corporate freedom law for deregulation of GMOs meant toreplace the existing law for GMO regulation.

Thereare3aspectsinthedominantsystemofseedrelatedlaws:• Industrial Patents on Seed which treat seed as an “inven-

tion”,andhencethe“intellectualproperty”ofcorporationsbymerely adding a gene, artificially, into theorganism;

• Breeders’RightsasinUPOV(TheInternationalUnionfortheProtectionofNewVarietiesofPlants)whichprivilegeuniformity and industrial breeding;

• Seed Laws extending industrial criteria of uniformity onfarmers’ varieties and open pollinated varieties, which arebred for diversity and resilience.

CorporationsshapedtheGlobalIntellectualPropertyandPat-entLawsintheTradeRelatedIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPs)Agreement of the World Trade Organization, defining seed astheircreationandinvention,thuspreventingfarmersfromsharingandsaving their seed.  This ishowtheTRIPsAgreementof theWorldTradeOrganizationwasborn.Article27.3(b)oftheTRIPsAgreementstates:“Partiesmayexcludefrompatentabilityplantsandanimalsother thanmicro-organisms,andessentiallybiologi-

5

calprocesses for theproductionofplantsor animalsother thannon-biologicalandmicro-biologicalprocesses.However,partiesshall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by pat-entsorbyaneffective  sui generis  systemorbyanycombinationthereof.”Again,thisprotectiononplantvarietiesispreciselywhatprohibitsthefreeexchangeofseedsbetweenfarmers,threateningtheirsubsistenceandabilitytosaveandexchangeseedsamongstone another.

TheTRIPSclauseonpatentsonlifewasdueforamandatoryreview in 1999, because the idea of “creating” and “inventing”life, and hence owning it, was so wrong.  India, in its submis-sion, had stated “Clearly, there is a case for re-examining theneed tograntpatentson lifeforms anywhere in theworld.Untilsuch systems are in place, it may be advisable to: - (a) excludepatentson all lifeforms;”

TheAfricangrouptoo, stated“TheAfricanGroupmaintainsits reservations about patenting any life forms as explained onpreviousoccasionsbytheGroupandseveralotherdelegations.Inthisregard,theGroupproposesthatArticle27.3(b)berevised,toprohibitpatentsonplants,animals,micro-organisms,essentiallybiologicalprocessesfortheproductionofplantsoranimals,andnon-biological and microbiological processes for the productionof plantsor animals.”

This mandatory review has been subverted by governmentsunder the influence of corporations within the WTO: this longoverduereviewmustbe takenup, toreversePatentson lifeandPatentsonSeed. 

Living organisms make themselves.  Life forms, plants andseedsareallevolving,self-organized,sovereignbeings.Theyhaveintrinsic worth, value and standing. Seeds are not invented bysimplyputtingageneintothem.  Addingatoxicgeneshouldinfactbecountedas“pollution”,notas“creation”,andfurthermore,GMOseedswith toxicgenes in themneed toberegulatedwithbiosafety inmind.

6

Uniformityisbeingpushedaspositivecriteria,inordertolegiti-mizecorporatecontroloverseed,basedonuniformity.Moreover,African governments are being pressured to adopt UPOV 1991throughregionalharmonizationofplantvarietyprotectionpoliciesand laws.

Such laws are being framed everywhere, preventing us fromrespondingtoclimatechange,preventingusfrommakingatransi-tionfromhighcostindustrialagriculture–whichisleadingfarmersto being pushed off the land and, in extreme cases, committingsuicide– to ecological agriculture.

The criteria for industrial breeding and industrial agricultureis ‘DUS’ – Distinctiveness, Uniformity, Stability – and is basedonintensiveuseofchemicals,waterandfossils.DUSignorestheneedfordiversity,nutritionandsafety,and theneedtocreatelowcost sustainable livelihoods in the context of economic collapseandslow-down,andtheconsequentneedtolocalizefoodsystems:

• While farmers breed for diversity, corporations breed foruniformity.

• Whilefarmersbreedforresilience,corporationsbreedvul-nerability.

• Whilefarmersbreedfortaste,qualityandnutrition,industrybreedsforindustrialprocessingandlongdistancetransportin a globalized food system.

Industrial breeding has used different technological tools toconsolidate control over the seed – from so called High Yield-ing Varieties (HYVs), to hybrids, genetically engineered seeds,“terminator seeds”, and now, synthetic biology. The tools mightchange,but thequest to control life and societydoesnot.

The deeper level at which the corporate law of the seed    isundermining the very fabric of life is the ethical dimension ofthis issue. We are all members of the earth family, a steward inthe web of life. Yet corporations are now claiming the role ofcreator. They have declared seed to be their “invention”, hencetheir patented property. A patent is an exclusive right granted

7

for an “invention”, which allows the patent holder to excludeeveryone else from making, selling, distributing and using thepatented product. With patents on seed, this implies that thefarmers’ right to saveand share seed isnow ineffectdefinedas“theft”, an “intellectual property crime”.

Patents on seeds are legally wrong because seeds are not aninvention.

Patents on seeds are ethically wrong because seeds are lifeforms, they areourkin membersof our earth family.

Owninglifebyclaimingittobeacorporateinventionisbothethically and legallywrong.

ItisinthiscontextthattheWorkingGroupontheLawoftheSeedofNavdanyaInternationalandtheInternationalCommissionon the Future of Seed and Food bring to citizens and Govern-mentsof theworld“TheLawof theSeed”, toputdiversityanddemocracy,sustainabilityandpeople’srights,atthecentreofthescientific and legal frameworks that govern the seed, inplaceofthe current trend of monocultures and monopolies, uniformityand privatization, corporate control and criminalization of bio-diversity and famers.

The Law of The Seed aims to bring back biodiversity andrecognitionof farmers’ rights, tobringbackdemocratic systemsin society to shape laws aswell as knowledge.

The Law of the Seed puts at its centre Seed Freedom – thefreedomof theseed,of farmersandofcitizens– inplaceof theillegitimate freedom of corporations to claim the genetic wealthof theplanetas theirproperty,andcriminalizecitizen freedoms.Thefreedomtosaveandexchangeseedisvital inourtimechar-acterized by multiple crises –   the biodiversity crisis, the watercrisis, the food crisis, climate crisis, and the economic crisis, allof thempart of a single crisis: a crisis of ethics andvalues.

The Law of the Seed comes out of an ecological and demo-craticimperativeforthelongtermfutureoftheplanetandofits

8

inhabitants.Throughit,wehopetosowtheseedforaparadigmshift in seed, foodandagriculture.Like the seed, this is aworkin evolution. Adapt it, use it for your context. Its future is inyourhands.

NoteTheEuropeanCommission’snewlyapproved proposedSeed

legislation(6May2013)continuestodisregardtheimperativeofprotectingandenhancingagro-biodiversityandcontinues toputtheglobalseedindustryandcorporationsabovetheinterestsandrightsof farmers andbreeders.

WehopethatthisLawoftheSeeddocumentwillhelpfarmersandseedbreeders intheirdemandsthatpoliticiansupholdtheirrights as seed savers and producers and so too help convincepoliticiansthatagro-biodiversitymustbeattheheartofanyseedlegislationiftheyaretotacklethehazardsofclimatechangeandfood security.

9

WHY AGRO-BIODIVERSITYIS IMPORTANT

Agricultural biological diversity, or more specifically, geneticresources for food and agriculture, are the storehouse that pro-vides humanity with food, clothes and medicines. It is essentialin thedevelopmentof sustainable agriculture and food security.

Evolutionistheprocessbywhichnaturepracticesitscapacityof selection; for selection to exist, nature needs diversity. Di-versity is also the basis for the farmer, for the breeder and forthe agricultural scientist in general. We need diversity to allowevolutionandthuscapacityofadaptation.Weneeddiversityinordertobeabletoselectthebestcharacteristicsforcrops.Thisdiversityhasbeendevelopedoverthousandsofgenerationsandour duty is to safeguard it for those in the future.

Inspiteofitsvitalimportanceforhumansurvival,agriculturalbiodiversity is being lost at an alarming rate. It is estimatedthatsometenthousandspecieshavebeenusedforhumanfoodandagriculture.Currentlynomore than120cultivated speciesprovide 90% of human food supplied by plants, and 12 plantspecies and five animal species alone provide more than 70%of all human food. A mere four plant species (potatoes, rice,maize and wheat) and three animal species (cattle, swine andchickens) provide more than half. Hundreds of thousands offarmers’ heterogeneous plant varieties and landraces, that ex-istedforgenerationsinfarmers’fieldsuntilthebeginningofthetwentieth century, have been substituted by a small number ofmodern and highly uniform commercial varieties. The loss ofagriculturalbiodiversityhasdrasticallyreducedthecapabilityof

10

present and future generations to face unpredictable environ-mental changes and human needs.

Also,meta-analysespublishedsince20051haveshownthat,asa general rule, reductions in the number of genes, species andfunctional groups of organisms reduce the efficiency by whichwholecommunitiescapturebiologicallyessentialresources(nutri-ents,water,light,prey),andconvertthoseresourcesintobiomass.Thus biodiversity increases the stability of ecosystem functionsthrough time.

Feeding theworld

ThenumberofhungrypeopleinOctober2012reachednum-bersneverattainedinthehistoryofHumanitygettingtoonebil-lion in2010and925millions in2012(almost20%oftheworldpopulation). Although today this number has slightly reduced,thereasonsthatcausedthecrisisin2008remain,andsomehaveintensified. In fact, food prices were highest at the end of 2010surpassingby29%thoseofthepreviousyearandabouncebackis expected in2013.

Nevertheless,theproblemisnotthelackoffood.AccordingtoFAO, there is sufficient food to feed up to 70% more of Earth’spopulation,butthehungryhavenoaccesstoit.Foodintheinter-nationalmarket isnotavailable to thosewhoarehungry,becausehungerandpovertyoftengohand inhand.Lackofaccess isduetolackoffoodproducedatthelocal level,ononehand,andalsoto lackof funds tobuy it fromthoseplaceswhere it is inexcess.

If we take into account that most of the hungry population(75%) live in rural areas, promoting ´in situ´ production seemsthe most efficient and perhaps the only durable solution. Lo-cal production must be streamlined to provide more options to

1CardinaleBJ,DuffyJE,GonzalezA,HooperDU,PerringsC,VenailP,NarwaniA,MaceGM,TilmanD,WardleDA,KinzigAP,DailyGC,LoreauM,GraceJB,LarigauderieA,SrivastavaDS,NaeemS,2012,Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity,Nature486:59-67.

11

smallscalefarmersandruralcommunities,toimprovequalityandquantity. This means supporting small farmers and communitiesin thedevelopmentof theirowncrops andagricultural systems.Unfortunately,technicalassistanceforthesmallfarmerandinter-national research to improveproduction in traditional low-inputfarmingsystems,includingthegeneticimprovementofneglectedcropsandlocalvarietiesadaptedtothesesystems,hasbeenverylimited and is often non-existent.

TheFAOin its report«Pathways to success» (Nov.2009) in-dicates that one of the best and most profitable ways to escapefrompovertyandhungerinruralareasistosupportsmallfarmers.Close to 85% of the world’s plots of agricultural land are lessthan two hectares in area and small farmers and their familiescomprisesome2billionpeople,athirdoftheworld’spopulation.

Genetic erosion puts at risk food productionand sustainable agriculture

Theconcentrationofpopulationinurbanareasandtherisingdemand for foodhas led, amongother things, to ahighmecha-nizedproductionofstandardized,homogeneouscropsandplantsto meet the demand. This in turn has led to the loss of manyheterogeneous traditional farmers’ varieties.

AccordingtotheStateoftheWorld’sPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture(PGRFA),over67%ofthewheatfieldsin Bangladesh were planted with the same cultivar (“Sonalika”)in1983.By the1990s inIreland,90%of the totalwheatarea issown to just six varieties. Of the 7098 apple varieties that weredocumented in the USA at the beginning of the twentieth cen-tury, approximately 96% have been lost. Similarly 95% of thecabbage; 91% of the field maize; 94% of the pea; and 81% ofthe tomatovarieties are lost. InMexico,only20%of themaizevarieties reported in 1930 are known today; in the Republic ofKorea,only26%ofthelandracesof14cropscultivatedinhomegardens in1985were still present in 1993.

12

The loss of local species and varieties leads to the irreversibleloss of the genetic diversity they contain, including the genes foradaptation to the conditions in which they evolved. This geneticerosionhasdangerously shrunk thegeneticpool available for thenaturalselection,andselectionbyfarmersandplantbreeders,witha consequent increase in the vulnerability of agricultural crops tosudden climatic changes, as well as the appearance of new pestsanddiseases.Forinstance,intheUnitedStatesin1970,thefungusHelminthosporiummaydis,destroyedoverhalfthestandingmaizecropinthesouthernpartofthecountry.Thecrophadbeengrownfromhybridseedsobtainedbycytoplasmaticmalesterility fromacommonorigin,whichalsocarriessusceptibilitytothisdisease.2Theproblemwasresolvedbybreedingresistantvarietiesusinggeneticresourcesobtained fromLatinAmericaandAfrica respectively.

Anyonecountryreliesoncropgeneticdiversityfromalloverthe world. No country is self sufficient in genetic resources forfoodandagriculture:theaveragegeneticinterdependencyamongcountriesfortheirmostimportantcropsisaround70%;however,thedegreeofdependencyvariesconsiderablybetweencountries,and in general developed countries are much more dependantthandeveloping countries.

Thevalueofboth farmers’ traditionalvarieties andwild rela-tives of cultivated plants in crop improvement and agriculturaldevelopment cannotbeoveremphasized. Indeed, the conceptof‘usefulness’variesaccordingtotheneedsandtotheinformationavailable.Forexample:OnelocalvarietyofwheatfoundinTurkey,collected by J. R. Harlan in 1948, was ignored for many yearsbecauseofitsmanynegativeagriculturalcharacteristics.Butinthe1980s,itwasdiscoveredthatthevarietycarriesgenesresistanttothe fungus Puccinia Striiformis, 35 strains of Tilletia caries andT. foetida, and 10 varieties of the fungus T. controversa, and isalso tolerant to certain species of Urcocystis, Fusarium. It thenwasused as a sourceof resistance to awhole arrayofdiseases.

2Kronstad,W.E.,Germplasm: the key to past and future wheat improvement,inSmith,El,Genetic improvement of yield in wheat,p.41-54,Specialpublication13,CropScienceSocietyofAmerica,Madison,Wisconsin(1986).

13

CropGeneticDiversityisindispensabletoprovideresiliencetofaceunpredictableenvironmentalandclimaticchanges, toadapttovariationinproductionssystems,tomeettheneedsoftheex-pandinghumanpopulation,todevelopresistancetocontinuouslyevolvingpestsanddiseases,touseinanyplantimprovementpro-gram,toprovidegreaterproductionstability,toimprovethelivingconditionsof farmers, and toprotect thenatural environment.

Typesof diversity and options

Withthelossofplantgeneticdiversity,optionshavebeenlostforpresentandfuturegenerations.Losingtheseoptionsreducesfreedom to select what may be necessary or desired. This losshasoccurred in different levels ofdiversity.

Intravarietal diversity:TherequirementofDUS,asapre-requisiteforseedregistration

inmanycases,hasledtoveryuniformvarietieswithpracticallynointervarietaldiversity.Uniformityhasthenbecomeakeyfeature.Itshouldbenotedhowever,thatDUScouldbeappliedonlyforveryconcreteandspecificcharacteristicsneededtocharacterizethevariety,whilemaximizingheterozygosisintherestofthegenome.

Intervarietal diversity:Inthe20thcenturyalone,hundredsofthousandsoftraditional

varieties, substituted by modern commercial uniform varieties,have been lost forever. For many major crops, more than 90%of those varieties available at the beginning of the century havebeen lost forever. See examples above (Genetic erosion…).

Interspecific diversity:AccordingtoFAO3,morethan7,000specieshavebeenusedin

thehistoryofhumanitytofeedHumanityandmeetbasichumanneeds. At present only 30 crops constitute 90% of the calories

3FirstReportoftheStateoftheWorld’sPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture(1997).http://apps3.fao.org/wiews/docs/SWRFULL2.PDF

14

in the human diet, and only three species (rice, wheat, maize)accountformorethanhalfoftheenergysupply.There is thenawealthof species thathavebeenneglected.

Uniformity increases vulnerabilityand reduces stability in food production

Thedominantsystemofseedproductionisbasedonuniformityand homogeneity. This trend fits well with industrial agriculture’srequirementforauniformresponsetotheapplicationofchemicalstocontrolpests,diseasesandweeds,ortofertilizers.Onthecontrary,farmershavetraditionallyusedcropandvarietydiversityasawayto adapt to diversifying risks, a concept that is very clear to themanagersoffinancialassetswhoalwaysadviseclientswhowanttominimizerisktodiversifytheirfinancialinvestments.Thisconcept,whichwas,andstillis,presentinfarmers’breeding,hasdisappearedfrom modern plant breeding, an activity which eventually affectsfoodproductionandhencefoodsecurityinaworldwhereoneofthemajorthreatsisclimatechangeanditsconsequencesincluding,amongothers,newly invasivepests anddiseases.

“Anti-evolutionary” requirements in favour of private rightsand the consolidation of monopolies

The tendency of plant breeding towards uniformity has beenlegitimatedbythe introductionof theDUS(distinctiveness,uni-formity and stability) requirements. In a number of countries,registrationofvarieties (and theneed toberegistered tobe“le-gally”cultivated)requirestestingforDUSand,forsomecrops,forVCU(valueforcultivationanduse)foraminimumoftwoyears.Distinctivenessmeansthatthevarietymustbedistinguishablebyoneormorecharacteristicsfromallotherregisteredvarieties.Uni-formity means that all plants from the same batch of seed mustbe the same. Stability means that the plants must be the samethroughoutsuccessivegenerations.VCUmeansthatcomparedto

15

other registered varieties, the new one being registered offers aqualitativeor technological advance.

Thethreeconceptsdonothaveabiologicaljustification.Who-ever decided to impose uniformity because it makes it easier todistinguishvarietiesfromeachother,probablyignoresthatinmanycountriesfarmersalsogrowheterogeneouslandracesofthesamecrop that despite their heterogeneity are identified with distinctnames and characteristics even if not uniform. They are kept incultivation because they are much more stable (over time) thantheDistinct,Uniform andStable varieties.

Uniformity and stability seems to be the opposite of what isneededinthepresenceofcontinuouslyevolvingpestsanddiseasesand in the presence of a moving target such as the increase oftemperatures anddroughtsbecauseof climate changes.

Moreoverbreedingandso-called“fieldtrials”areoftendoneinagriculturalresearchstationsunder“ideal”orartificialconditionsand not on farmers’ fields, thus ignoring characteristics that areactuallybeneficialtofarmers.Theinterestoffarmersisconsistencyof production over time (resilience) – while the interest of theseedcompaniesisconsistencyofproductionoverspace.Thetwointerests are therefore at opposite ends, and not only the plantbreeding programs but also the registration procedures, whichconcentrateon irrelevant aspects suchasDUS, areorganized torespondonlytothe latter.Legalconstraints thereforehindertheevolution of the system, which is hostage to the tool that wasdeveloped just to fulfill a good service to society.

Plant breeding opportunities to reconcile agro-biodiversityand theneeds of farmers

Itispossibletoreconcileresilience,biodiversityandfoodqualitywith foodsecurityandproductionof sufficient food.Scienceandtechnologyarepowerful“tools”toservesociety;however,theycanbeusedinalldirections(towardsuniformityandtowardsdiversity),anditisinexercisingwisdomthatmostbenefitscanbeharnessed.

16

For a while, commercial plant breeding has excluded localsolutions, which could not be profitably exploited, thus ignor-ing local (indigenous)knowledge,regardlessofwhether thiswasformally documented or not, and has disconnected the peoplewho are eventually affected by these technologies. Participatoryresearch, ingeneral, isdefinedas that typeof research inwhichusers are involved in the design – and not merely in the finaltesting – of a new technology. When the new technology is avariety,ParticipatoryPlantBreeding(PPB)isdefinedasthattypeofplantbreedinginwhichfarmers,aswellasotherpartners,suchas extension staff, seed producers, consumers, traders, NGOs,etc., participate in thedevelopment of anewvariety.

PPB is a dynamic and permanent collaboration that exploitsthe comparative advantages both of plant breeding institutions(nationalorinternational)thathavetheinstitutionalresponsibilityfor plant breeding, and of farmers and possibly other partners.InatruePPBprogramboththerolesofpartnersandtheextentandthemannerinwhichtheycollaboratechangewithtime.Itisalso important to mention that a truly participatory program isnecessarilyinclusiveinrelationtogenderandhasanempoweringeffect on theparticipants.

APPBprogramhas four importantorganizational features:1. Most of the program takes place in farmers’ fields (i.e. is

decentralized);2. The decisions are taken jointly by the breeder and the

farmers, andotherpartners;3. The program can be replicated in several locations with

differentmethodologies and typesof germplasm;4. Selection is conducted by farmers and breeders in each

location independently from theother locations.

The last difference is of particular importance because it isin thiswaythatpreference isgiventospecificadaptationwhich,on one side, maximizes yield and adaptation in individual loca-

17

tions, hence increasing production at global level, on the otherincreases agro biodiversity in space, because different varietiesare generally selected in different locations. As a participatoryprogramcontinues,thereisalsoarapidturnoverofvarietiesthusincreasing also agrobiodiversity in time.

Participatory–evolutionary breeding programs can be consti-tuted,forexampleinvegetativelypropagatedandinself-pollinatedcrops, by a mixture of segregating populations coming from awiderangeofcrosses. In thecross-pollinatedcrops,populationscanbemadebymixingexperimentalhybrids.Thesepopulationswillbeleftevolvinginamultitudeofenvironments,chosenbythefarmers and characterized by single abiotic or biotic stresses, orcombinationsofstresses,andunderdifferenttypesofagronomicmanagement with the expectation that the frequency of geno-typeswithadaptationto theconditions(climate, soil,agronomicpracticesandbioticstresses)ofthelocationswhereeachyearthepopulation is grown will gradually increase.

Thesimplestandcheapestwayofimplementingevolutionarybreeding is for the farmers to plant and harvest in the samelocation.Itisalsopossibleandactuallydesirable,toplantsam-ples in other locations affected by different stresses, or differ-ent combinations of stresses, by sharing the population withother farmers. The key aspect of the method is that, while thelines are continuously extracted, evaluated and exploited, thepopulation is left evolving for an indefinite amount of time,thus becoming a unique source of continuously better-adaptedgeneticmaterialdirectly in thehandsof thefarmers–asortofevolving gene bank.

IPRRulesbased on an obsolete science: a major obstacleto biological evolution and capacity of adaptation

Some10yearsafterthefirstcompletesequencingofthehuman

genome,fascinatinginformationwasreleasedonthemoleculeoflife. One thing was to know the structure, and quite another to

18

know how it works. The challenge is not trivial for the under-standingofthevariabilityoffunction.Thenumberofbasepairsin the DNA chain is one million in bacteria, 3.2 billions in thehuman genome, up to 150 billions in the plant with the largestgenome.Inallcases,onlyasmallpercentageoftheDNAismadeup of genes with the information needed to synthesize proteins,theremainingpart,oncebeingconsideredas“junkDNA,isnowknown tohavea relevant role. Indeed,most fragmentsof ‘junk’DNA,whethertheytranscribeornot,haveanessentialfunction,thatofactivatingordeactivatinggenes,orcontrollinganddecid-ing where and when to produce proteins. In a very simplifiedmanner, the DNA of a gene is transcribed, copied into anothermolecule (the RNA), which in turn produces a protein. Genescanthereforebeconsidered‘recipes’ formakingproteins,whichis what gives living organisms their appearance. Moreover, thedogma that one gene equals one protein is no longer valid, andit is now accepted that one gene may make many proteins, de-pending on the external and internal environment. For instancein humans 23,000 genes are endowed with the information forthesynthesisofonemilliondifferentproteins.Consequently, thebasicunitofheredity isnot thegenebut the transcript,and thegeneconceptnowgroupsalltranscripts(scatteredhereandthere)thathave the information fordifferentproteins.

Thus, the biological premise on which IPR rules are based,derives from an obsolete, mechanistic view of life, according towhich living systems are considered to result from the additionof independent and stable components thus liable to be opti-mized through selection. Life is based on the capacity to evolvethroughoutgenerations,andtobeplastic is tobeendowedwiththe ability to change during life. Thus living systems should begeneticallyheterogeneous,namelyendowedbothwithhighlevelsof heterozygosis favoring homeostasis of individuals, that is, tochange in changing environments, and thus maintain the samestructure/functions,andthegeneticvariationforevolutionthroughpositiveselection.Moreover, ithasrecentlybeenshownthat thegeneticvariabilitythatisreallyrelevantforproductionisbasedin

19

thenon-codingregulatorypartofthegenomes,notevenmentionedinIPRs.4Furthermorethefinallevelandqualityofproductionofsingle genomes is known to be highly dependent on the naturaland social environments controlling the amount and quality ofproteins produced according to local epigenetic dynamics. IPRsdonotconsidertheplasticitylevelsindifferentenvironmentsnorthe relevance of cultural traditions that often strongly influencethe structure of epigenomes in a heritable way. Apart from theknowncasesofepigeneticinheritance,thisisparticularlyrelevantin vegetatively propagated crops as well as in seed propagatedones. Environment induced differences are the reason for thelabeling inEuropeofanumberof localproductionscoveredbyspecific environment related labels.

41)R.J.Taft,J.S.Mattiick,2003:Increasing biological complezity is positively correlated  with the relative genome-wide expansion of non-coding DNA sequences,GenomeBiology,:5PI.2)Cavalier-Smith,T.,The evolution of Genome size,2002

21

THE LAW OF THE SEED

ThefollowingprincipleshaveinspiredthedraftingoftheLawof theSeed:

1. LongterminterestofHumanity,includingpresentandfu-turegenerations,shouldprevailovershortterm andprivateinterest.                                                                                            

2. The conservation of natural resources, including agro-bi-odiversity, shouldhaveprecedenceoveranyunsustainableuseby thepresent generations.     

3. Agro-biodiversity,beitgenetic,technologicalorevenderiv-ing from the effects of agricultural systems,canbeconsidered the fuelof theen-gine of Sustainable Development and the needed bufferto secure Sustainable Agriculture in an uncertain future,dominated by new phenomena such as globalization andclimate change.    

4. Maintaining and using diversity is equivalent to  keepingoptions alive for all.                                       

5. No specific agricultural production system should be un-democratically imposed.    

6. Diversityof productionsystemsshouldbeabletoco-evolve,toensurerespectfortheenvironmentandnaturalresources,respectforculturalandbiologicaldiversity,andhumanvalues. 

7. Innovation in agriculture is a cumulative, collective andcontinuousprocessthatshouldbeusedforthebenefitofall.  

8. Sharing, and not appropriation, should apply to biodiver-sity and  genetic resources as well as to their associatedknowledge.  

22

9. Plants,plantvarieties,theirpartsandcomponentsincludinggenes – even if isolated – (as well as essential biologicalprocessesfortheproductionofplantvarieties)shouldnotbe subject topatentability.  

Preliminary considerations

Considering that;• agriculture started about 10,000 years ago and that full

dependency on domesticated crops and animals startedduring theBronze Age;

Convinced thatCropGeneticDiversity is indispensable to:• provideresiliencetofaceunpredictableenvironmentaland

climatic changes,• adapt to variation in productions systems,• meet theneedsof the expanding human population,• improvethequalityoffood,includingnutrition,taste,and

appropriateness,• develop resistance to continuously evolvingpests anddis-

eases,• use in anyplant improvement program,• provide greaterproduction stability,• improve the living conditions ofmany farmers, and• enhance the integrityof agro-ecosystems;

Considering that;• sincethebeginningsofagriculture,aconsiderableamount

ofbiodiversityhasbuiltupincropproduction;theapplica-tionofscientificmethodstoplantbreeding,however,ledtothesubstitutionoftraditionallocalvarietiesbywidespread

23

geneticallyhomogeneous varieties, and thus to adramaticlossofdiversity;

• outofmore than7,000plant species thathavebeenusedbyhumanityforfoodandagriculture,thenumberofcropscurrentlyundercultivation isvery limitedandonly12ac-count formostof the caloric intakeofmankind;

Considering that all countries rely on crop genetic diversityfromall over theworld;

Alarmed by the continuing erosion of genetic resources alsowithinspecies (e.g. formajorcropsmore than75%of farmers’varietieshavedisappearedinthelastcentury)andtheunacceptablefiguresofhungerintheworld(morethan20%ofthepopulation);

Noting that hunger is not due to lack of food at the globallevelbuttolackofaccesstoit,weconsiderthatthebestwaytofighthunger is toproduce food at the local level;

Aware of our responsibility to past and future generations toconservetheWorld’sdiversityofplantgeneticresourcesforfoodand agriculture;

Considering that;• theessentialcontributionsofpast,presentandfuturefarm-

ers worldwide, particularly those in centres of origin anddiversity,todevelop,conserve,improveandmakeavailableplant genetic resources; and that

• long before Mendel and modern plant breeding, farmersplanted, harvested, stored and exchanged seeds, fed them-selves and others, and, by doing so, built a large reservoirofknowledgeaboutcrops,theircharacteristicsandpossibleuses,andtheirinteractionswiththesurroundingenvironment;

24

Considering,however, that;• allthisknowledgehasoftenbeenignoredbymodernplant

breeding;• thatfarmers,whileslowlyandsteadilyimprovingtheircrops,

also maintained, and continue to maintain, a large amountofbiodiversity, in the socalled“primitive”agricultural sys-tems practiced by poor farmers in remote and/or marginalconditions;

• diversityandheterogeneityservetobuffertheriskofcropfailuredue tounpredictable environmental variations;

• inthelastCenturyorso,plantbreedinghasmainlymovedfrom farmers’fields to research stationsand from farmersto scientists, and later from publicly to privately fundedoperations, and in thisprocessmany cropshavebeenne-glectedby science;

Considering that;• theGreenRevolutionwasbasedonmechanizationandthe

introduction of uniform cultivars, able to produce high-yields and perform well in many different locations andcountries, only in the presence of the artificial modifica-tionoftheenvironmentthroughagronomicinputssuchasirrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, rather than adapting thevarieties to specific environments and sites;

• thisstrategycausedmajorproblems,relatedtothe impactoftheheavyuseofchemicalsontheenvironment,neglect-ing the poorest farmers not able to purchase the neededchemicalsforthedesiredperformanceofthenewvarieties,andoverlooking agricultural biodiversity;

Considering that;• “participatoryplantbreeding” (PPB)5 in thedevelopment

5Definedastheprocessofplantbreedingthatcollectivelyinvolvesfarmers,

25

of a new variety, helps to maintain biodiversity and pro-mote resilience and food security while allowing for foodquality and productivity, and therefore needs to be used,particularly bypublic institutions;

• participatory programs allow users to decide which typeofvarietiesbettersuittheirneedsintermsofmanagement(e.g.organic,conventional),geneticstructure(hybrids,openpollinatedvarieties,purelines,mixtures)andcanthereforebe tailored to adapt toparticipants’priorities;

Considering that new scientific knowledge and better under-standing of on DNA/gene expression, including that related toepigenetic phenomena, and on how biological evolution works,should lead to a revision of current seed legislation;

Considering that;• the actual legislation on the marketing of seeds, designed

and put in place since the 1960s in Europe, and spreadthroughouttheworld,mainlyduetopressurebycommercialinterests, supported by some international agreements, ispushingactivitiesof“onfarm”conservationofbiodiversityand traditional breeding methods into illegality;

• thisismainlyduetothefactthatheirloomvarietiescannotberegisteredonofficialcataloguesbecauseofnotcomplyingwithUniformity andStability criteria set outby the legis-lation forobtaining mandatorymarketing authorizations;

• thislegislationwasestablishedwithoutdueconsiderationtosanitaryorenvironmentalrisks,outofmereinterventionism,inordertoorientagriculturalsystemstowardsindustrialisa-tion,throughhigheryields,mechanisation,standardisationofproduction,divisionofworktasksandthereplacement

scientists,extensionstaff,seedproducers,consumers,traders,NGOs,etc.,inagenderinclusivemanner.

26

oftraditionalfarmers’varietiesbyuniformvarieties,selectedwithmodern agronomicalmethods;

• the current legislation has not even acknowledged the in-ternationaltreatyonplantgeneticresourcesrecognizingthecontributionof localcommunitiesand indigenouspeoplesandtherightsoffarmersfortheconservationandenhance-mentof local varieties;

Considering that;• gift, exchange, selling and planting of traditional farmers’

seedsbelongingtothepublicdomainarebeingincreasinglypenalized and criminalized;6

• this is due to the imposition of rigid legislation on themarketingof seeds;

Alarmed by recent statements of the European Court of Jus-tice as illustrated in the ‘Kokopelli’ case (C-59/11), leading tothe subordination of biodiversity and freedom of commerce toproductivity;

Considering that;• thislegislation,initiallyseekingtheattainmentofobjectives

ofgeneral interest, isnoworientedtowardstheprotectionof mere commercial interests of thebreeding industry;

• thefullconvergenceofDUScriteriaforthegrantingofmar-ketingauthorizationsandforthegrantingofPlantBreeder’sRightshasledtotheexclusionofvarietiesbelongingtothePublicDomain from themarket; and that

• seed-saversorganisationsarethusforcedtooperateinclan-destineness, ormerely relyon unofficial tolerance;

6Example:Kokopellicase,broughtbeforetheFrenchSupremeCourtbytheprosecutingRepublicofFrance;

27

• given the negative evolution of agricultural biodiversityworldwide,nolegislationshouldleadtocriminalizediversefarmingandbreeding,northemarketingofheirloomvarie-tiesbelonging to thepublic domain;

Consideringthatthetrendsdescribedaboveneedtobeurgentlyreverted,especiallyasavastreformoftheEuropeanlegislationonthemarketingofseedsandplantreproductivematerialisongoing;

Considering the need to clearly state and reaffirm that theplacing on the market, gift or exchange of any seed or plantreproductive material bred through any breeding method andbelonging to thepublic domain, should remain free;

Whilerecognizingthatinthelasttwodecadesthedevelopmentof International Agreements such as the International Treaty onPlant Genetic Resources, including Farmer’s Rights and a Mul-tilateral System for Access and Benefit-Sharing, as well as theConvention on Biological Diversity and its Protocol on Accessand Benefit-Sharing (the Nagoya protocol) are important stepsforward toachievea fairandequitable system,weconsider thatthe ultimate and ideal objective should be the recognition ofseedsasCommonsanditsfullavailabilityforthosethathavenointention to appropriate it;

Worried however that agro-biodiversity and other essentialCommons for the survival of humankind and agricultural pro-duction arebeing steadily appropriated;

Consideringthatinnovationinagricultureisacumulative,col-lective and continuous process;

28

Considering that;• Seeds and life forms are not inventions, and thus allowing

patentholderstopreventfarmersfromsavingandconserv-ingseeds,makespatentsonseedsmorally,scientificallyandlegally inappropriate;

Considering that;• theTRIPSagreementincludesamandatoryreviewofArticle

27.3(b)whichdealswithpatentabilityornon-patentabilityofplantandanimalinventions,andtheprotectionofplantvarieties;

• this mandatory review must be completed to align Inter-nationalLawwith theLawof theSeed;

Considering that;• theseedindustryhasthepossibilitytodraftpatentclaimsat

theirdiscretionandtherebytoobtain“tailormade”patentssuitable for their commercialpurposes;

• these“tailormade”patentsallowpatentholderstopreventfarmers from saving and exchanging seeds;

• such “tailored” patent claims can be used to circumvent,oravoidbymereskilfuldrafting, thestatutorybarssetbythe legislator inArt.53bofEuropeanPatentConventionto plantpatents andplant breedingprocesses;

Consideringthatsuchskilfuldraftingofclaimscanbeachieved:• through appropriate choice of the category of the claims

(G2-12Tomato II),• throughchemical refiningof seedbyadditives (T 49/83 –

Propagating material/ CIBA-GEIGY),• through drafting species or variety non-specific or trans-

variety claims (G1/98Novartis II),

29

• through cutting-off critical steps of a process (WisconsinWARF G2/06),

• throughaddingredundant,buttechnicalprocesssteps(i.e.geneticengineeringsteps,transgenicsteps)toanotherwisebiologicalprocess (G1/08Broccoli /Tomato1);

Considering that the “whole content approach”, recognisedby the European Patent Office in the WARF case (G2/06) andby the European Court of Justice in the Brüstle case, when in-terpreting Directive 98/44/EC and recently emphasised by theEU Parliament Resolution of 10 May 2012 on the patenting ofessentialbiologicalprocesses is theappropriatesolutionto thesekindsof skilful draftingofpatent claims;

Consideringthatproductsderivedfromconventionalbreedingandallconventionalbreedingmethods,includingSMARTbreed-ing (precisionbreeding)andbreedingmaterialused forconven-tional breeding shall be excluded from patenting, as demandedby said recentEUParliamentResolution;

Considering that;• misappropriationof traditionalknowledgeandgenetic re-

sources by biopiracy shall be prevented and sanctionedagainst; and that furthermore

• digital libraries of traditional knowledge, including com-munitybiodiversity registers, should be introduced in allcountries with considerable biological resources; these li-braries should bemade compulsory in all countries;

• this initiative should be financed by public, national orinternational institutions so that this knowledge remainsin thepublic domain;

30

Considering that patent offices of all countries should be re-quiredinacompulsorywaytoconsultsaidlibrariesintheirpatentexamination andprosecution work;

Considering that;• patentson lifeandmisappropriationof traditionalknowl-

edgeandgeneticresourcesinbadfaithorgrossnegligenceshouldbeacknowledgedtoconstituteinfringementofOrdrePublic under Section 5, Article 27.2 of the TRIPS agree-ment7andArticle53(a)oftheEuropeanPatentConventionandnumerousnational PatentActs;

• a duty of disclosure of the source of biological materialand traditionalknowledge shouldbe required, as it is thecase, forexample, intheSwiss2007/08PatentActandasgovernments aredemanding in the reviewofTRIPS;

Considering however that non-compliance with this duty ofdisclosure, i.e. concealing the source of the biological materialand/or traditional knowledge in bad faith or gross negligenceconstitutesfraudonthepatentauthorityandthereforethesanc-tionsneedtobedissuasive,includingrevocationofthepatent,asprovided for examplebyUSLaw (37CFR ch. I § 1.56).

71Section5ofArticle27.2says:“Membersmayexcludefrompatentabilityinventions,thepreventionwithintheirterritoryofthecommercialexploitationofwhichisnecessarytoprotectordrepublicormorality,includingtoprotecthu-man,animalorplantlifeorhealthortoavoidseriousprejudicetotheenviron-ment,providedthatsuchexclusionisnotmademerelybecausetheexploitationisprohibitedbytheirlaw.”

31

The Lawof the Seed

Part 1 – Conservation of agricultural biodiversity

Article 1 - Overall objective of diversityLegislation shall not run against the overall objective of con-

servation and enrichment ofdiversity.

Article 2 - Genetic erosion Thecurrenttrendofgeneticerosioninplantgeneticresources

for food and agriculture, either among species, within speciesor at varietal levels, shall be reverted. Action shall be taken tominimizeand,ultimately,eliminatethecausesofgeneticerosion.

Article 3 - Plant genetic resources as commons Plantgenetic resources for foodandagriculture shallbecon-

sidered as commons.

Article 4 - Surveys and inventories of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture

Surveysandinventoriesofplantgeneticresourcesforfoodandagriculture,andtherelevantinformationandtraditionalknowledgeassociated to it, shall be carriedout.

Article 5 - “Ex situ” conservation of plant genetic resources Publicinstitutionsshallconservegeneticresourcesforfood

and agriculture. Due attention shall be given to its adequatedocumentation, characterization, regeneration and evaluation.

Access to these collections shall be made freely available forall, provided that there is no intention to appropriate them.

32

The Law of the Seed

Article 6 - On farm conservation of plant genetic resources Onfarmconservationmeanstheconservationofplantgenetic

resources in thefieldand landof farmers;on farmconservationanduseofplantgenetic resources for foodandagricultureshallbeencouragedandsupported,through,inter alia,publiclyfundedprogrammes.

Article 7 - “In situ” conservation In situ conservationofwildcroprelativesandwildplants for

food production shall be promoted, including in protected ar-eas,bysupporting, inter alia, theeffortsof indigenousand localcommunities.

Article 8 - Absence of restrictions for the use and production of plant genetic resources by farmers

Nothinginthepresentlawcanbeinterpretedasmeaningtherestriction of use and production of plant genetic resources byfarmers in their location of origin.

Part 2 – Plant breeding and Seed Production

Article 9 - Farmers as breedersFarmers,andlocalandsmallbreeders,especiallywomen,have

beenplantbreeders and seedproducers throughout agriculturalhistory;

Farmershavebred fordiversity,quality and resilience, asop-posedtotheparadigmwhichprivilegesDistinctiveness,Uniformity,and Stability (DUS);

Article 10 - Technology and BreedingScientificplantbreedingmustleadtotheenhancementofbio-

33

The Law of the Seed

diversity, theenlargementof thegeneticbaseofcultivatedcropsand theprotectionof traditional farmers’ varieties.

Article 11 - Research programs Public researchprograms shall givepriority, inter alia, to:• Understanding farmers’ knowledge ofbreeding;• Broaden the genetic base of crops and increase the range

of geneticdiversity available;• Promote theuseof localand locallyadaptedcrops,varie-

ties andunderutilized species;• Strengthen the capacity to develop varieties particularly

adaptedtoconcretesocial,economicandecologicalcondi-tions, including marginal areas;

• Enhance and conserve plant genetic resources by maxi-mizing intra- and inter-specificvariation for thebenefitoffarmers, especially those who generate and use their ownvarieties and apply ecological principles to maintain soilfertility and to combatdiseases,weeds andpests;

• Gatherknowledgeand informationofunderutilisedcropsandwild relativesof food crops.

Article 12 - Promotion of agro-ecological, participatory and evo-lutionary plant breeding programs

Publicplantbreedingprogramsmustrespecttheenvironmentalandculturalfarmingcontextandthereforeinclude,andgivepri-orityto,agro-ecologicalmethods,participatoryresearchmethodsand participatory-evolutionary breeding programs. For this Lawof theSeed these terms should beunderstood as follows:

Agro-ecologicalmethods8aretheonesthatapplytheecologi-cal science to the study,designandmanagementof sustainable

8Thiswidelyacepteddefinitionisbasedon:“Altieri,M.A.,1995.Agr-oecology: The Science of Sustainable  Agriculture,2nded.WestviewPress,Boul-der,Colorado”.

34

The Law of the Seed

agro-ecosystems; these methods require as few agrochemicalsand energy inputs as possible, and instead rely on ecologicalinteractions and synergisms between biological components, toproduce the mechanisms that will enable the systems to boosttheir own soil fertility, productivity and crop protection;

Participatory plant breeding (PPB) refers to a methodologythat collectively involves farmers, scientists, extension staff, seedproducers,consumers,traders,NGOs,etc.,inagenderinclusivemanner, for thedevelopment ofnew cropvarieties;

Participatory–evolutionarybreedingisamethodologywhereacrop population, coming from a wide range of crosses or frommixtures, is left evolving for an indefinite amount of time in amultitude of individual locations, allowing farmers to continu-ouslyextract,evaluateanddevelopspecificallyadaptedvarieties.

Part 3 – Farmers’ Rights

Article 13 – Farmers’ rightsFarmers’rightstofreelybreedandproduce,saveandexchange,

share or sell shall be fully recognised in accordance with thefreedomoftradeandcommerceundernationalandinternationallaw, inparticularwith

• the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act2001of India9, and

• article9onFarmers’RightsoftheInternationalTreatyonPlantGeneticResources forFoodandAgriculture,

andshallbeinterpretedinthiscontextandshallbefullyrespectedand implementedboth atnational and international levels. Recognitionof thecontributionof local communities and indig-

9“Afarmershallbedeemedtobeentitledtosave,use,sow,resow,exchange,shareorsellhisfarmproduceincludingseedofavarietyprotectedunderthisActinthesamemannerashewasentitledbeforethecomingintoforceofthisAct”.

35

The Law of the Seed

enousandfarmers’rights,referredtoinArticle9oftheinterna-tional treaty, can also be achieved through systems of collectiveownership of local varieties implemented by the public at theregional level and/or local level10.

Article 14 - Right to ExchangeThe gift or exchange of seed of any variety, or its placing on

the market, shall be governed by the principles of seed sover-eignty.11Farmers,seedsaversandgardenerscannotbeprosecutedorcriminalized foranyactivity related toexchangeof seedsandplant reproductive materialbelonging to thepublic domain.

Article 15 - Absence of administrative burdenFor the handling of varieties and plant reproductive material

belongingtothepublicdomain,noregistration,paymentoffees,traceability, certification, or any kind of administrative burdenshallbe required fromprivateorpublicoperators.

The expression “belonging to the public domain” means notprotectedby anykind of intellectualproperty right.

Article 16 - LabellingSeedsandplantreproductivematerialbelongingtothepublic

domainandplacedonthemarket,mayonlybesubjecttolabellingrules,setbyfarmercommunitiesthemselves,regardingdenomina-tion,simplebotanicaldescription,characteristicsofgermination,andguaranteeofsanitaryquality,reasonablevarietalandspecificpurities.

10SeeRegionalLawofTuscany,no.64of16thNovember,2004“Protectionandvalorizationoftheheritageoflocalbreedsandvarietiesofagricultural,live-stockandforestryinterest”.

11Seedsovereigntyintermsofinformalexchangemeansselfgovernancebyfarmingcommunities.Inthecaseofplacingonthemarket,seedsovereigntyim-pliestherecognitioninlaw,thesovereignrightsoffarmers.

36

The Law of the Seed

Labelsmustbe clear, true andnot confusing.Informalexchangesshallnotbesubmittedtocompliancewith

any labelling rule.

Article 17 - PackagingSeedsandplantreproductivematerialbelongingtothepublic

domainshallnotberequiredtocomplywithanypackagingruleother than theone relating to labelling.

Article 18 - Farmers’ rights as consumersFarmershavearight tosafe, reliable,affordable,diverseseed

andtofreelyreproduceplantmaterialexchangedwithotherfarm-ersorsmallbreeders.Monopoliesthatpreventfarmersfromhavingchoicesviolatefarmers’rights.12Allsalesofseedsbycorporationsshallbe governedbybiosafety regulations.

Part 4 – Intellectual Property Rights

Article 19 - Patents and Conventional breedingFor all plants that are not engineered by transgenesis  in ge-

netic engineering,breedingprocesses shall constitute ‘essentially

12Bowmanv/sMonsanto–MonsantosuedIndianafarmerVernonBowmanin2007accusingBowmanofpatentinfringementforplantingandsavingseedsthatcontainedMonsanto’sgeneticallyalteredRoundupReadyTechnologyeventhoughBowmanboughtthoseseedsaspartofamixofundifferentiatedcommodityseeds.andOSGATAetallv/sMonsanto-OrganicSeedGrowers&TradeAssociationetal.v.MonsantowasfiledinfederaldistrictcourtinManhattan,NY,onMarch29,2011,onbehalfof60familyfarmers,seedbusinessesandagriculturalorganizationsandchallengesMonsanto’spatentsongeneticallyengineered(GE)seed.Thisland-marklawsuitalsoseeksCourtprotectionforfamilyfarmerswho,throughnofaultoftheirown,mayhavebecomecontaminatedbyMonsanto’spatentedGEseedandfindthemselvesaccusedofpatentinfringement.(www.osgata.org)

37

The Law of the Seed

biologicalprocessesfortheproductionofplants’andassuchbeexcluded from patenting.

Products derived from conventional plant breeding and allconventionalplantbreedingmethods,andbreedingmaterialusedforconventionalplantbreedingshallbeexcludedfrompatenting.

Article 20 - Whole content approachInassessinginventionsandpatentapplicationsforcompliance

with the exclusionprovisionofArticle20, thewhole contentofthe specification of the patent application shall be considered,notonly the claims.

Technicallyunavoidablepre-processstepsandtechnicallyuna-voidablepost-processstepsand/orunavoidablepost-processusesof the products are considered to constitute part of the contentofthespecification,eveniftheyarenotexplicitlyincludedinthespecification and/or the claimsof apatent application.

Article 21 - Misappropriation of traditional knowledge and genetic resources through patenting

Misappropriation of traditional knowledge and genetic re-sources through patenting in bad faith or gross negligence shallconstitute infringementofOrdrePublicand shallbe sanctionedaccordinglybydismissalofpatentapplicationsand/orbyrevoca-tionof patents.

Article 22 - Digital libraries of traditional knowledge & biologi-cal resources

Digital libraries of traditional knowledge and biological re-sources shall be promoted and introduced in each country oforiginof theseknowledge and resources.

These digital libraries shall qualify as public institutions andshall remain in thepublic domain.

The content of these digital libraries shall be legally binding

38

The Law of the Seed

for the patent authorities of all countries and shall therefore beconsulted as state of the art by these authorities when assessingnovelty, inventive step and sufficient disclosure of inventions intheir examination andprosecution work.

Article 23 - Opposition to patent applications by authorities of the country of origin

Notwithstandingtherightsofanyotherlegalentities,thecom-petentauthoritiesforintellectualpropertyinthecountriesoforiginof traditionalknowledge&biological resources shallbeentitledto initiate, within or outside the respective countries of origin,appropriate legal procedures in opposition to unlawful patentapplications and unlawfully granted patents for such traditionalknowledge&biological resources.

Article 24 - Duty of disclosure of the source of biological materialThe sources of biological material and traditional knowledge

shall be explicitly disclosed in any patent application procedurebasedon, ormaking useof, such material.

Concealing or falsifying such source of material in bad faithorgrossnegligenceshallconstitutefraudonthepatentauthorityandbe sanctionedbydismissal of thepatent application and/orrevocationof thepatent in its entirety.

39

NOTE TO READERS

TheLawoftheSeedisputforwardasatooltobeusedbycitizenseverywhere and in every context to defend their seed freedom andseed sovereignty as well as to provide a practical guide to all futuredevelopmentof laws andpolicies on seed.

Wehopethatitwillserveasacatalystforcitizenstospreadaware-ness of the critical state of the seed and of biodiversity and of howscienceandlawsarebeingmanipulated,threateningtheseedandfoodsovereigntyofpeoples inallpartsof theworld.Wehope thatcitizenseverywherewilluseTheLawof theSeedasanadvocacy tool topushforlocal,regionalandnationallegislationthatfavorsandrespectsseedfreedomand the lawof the seed.

Weurgepeople’srepresentativesandinstitutionstouseTheLawoftheSeedasaninstrumenttohelpshapelawsrelatedtotheseed,puttingthe obligation of protecting biodiversity, farmers’ rights and overallecological productivity as the superior objectives, and to strengthenlawsgoverning theirpatentoffices tokeepseed in thepublicdomain.TheLawoftheSeedremindsandurgesnationalgovernmentsoftheirobligation to complete themandatory reviewofArticle 27.3(b)of theTRIPS Agreement of WTO as well as to commit themselves to theirconstitutionalobligationstoprotectbiodiversityandreversepatentsonlife andpatentson seed.

We hope also that the Law of the Seed will serve to ensure thatthe integrity and independence of scientific research is defended, anddedicatedtothepromotionandmainstreamingofbiodiversity,farmers’rights and the public good, and to boost research on seed diversity,quality and resilience which address the challenges of the ecological,economic and food security crisis within a world scenario of climatechange.

Thisdocumentisbasedoninputsanddiscussionsataworkinggroupmeetingofleadinglawyersandscientists,andmembersoftheInternationalCommissionontheFutureofFoodandAgriculture, that tookplaceatNavdanyaInternational,Flor-ence,ItalyinFebruary2013.Thedocumentincludessubsequentmodificationsoftheworkinggroupwhichhavebeenmergedandstreamlinedintothepresentdocu-mentbyaneditorialteamcomposedofVandanaShiva,ResearchFoundationforTechnology,ScienceandEcology/Navdanya,CarolineLockhart,NavdanyaInternational,andRuchiShroff,Navdanya.

TheWorkingGroupontheLawoftheSeedwascomposedofthefollowingpersons:MarcelloBuiatti–FullProfessorofGenetics,UniversityofFlorence;Presidentof

theInter-UniversityCenterofPhilosophyofBiology,“ResViva”LaSapienza,Rome;MemberoftheNationalCouncilforEnvironment,Rome.

SalvatoreCeccarelli–Leadingauthorityandpioneerinparticipatoryplantbreeding,CGIAR,agronomistandbarleybreederatICARDASyriafrom1984to2011,For-merlyFullProfessorinAgriculturalGeneticsattheUniversityofPerugia,Italy.

FritzDolder–Eminentpatentlawyersince1985inmanyEPObio-patentingcasesincludingtheNeemcaseandtwoopencasesonbroccoliandtomatoes;ProfessorofIntellectualProperty,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofBasel,Switzerland.

José T. Esquinas –Eminentexpertonplantgeneticresourcesandfoodsecurity,longstandingauthorityinglobaldiscussionsonpoliciesandethicsinfoodandagri-culture,keynegotiatoroftheInternationalTreatyonPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture.

MariaGraziaMammuccini–formerDirectorofARSIA,(RegionofTuscanyAgen-cyforAgricultureandResearch)from1995to2010,memberoftheGeorgofiliAcademy,Florence,VicePresidentofNavdanyaInternational,Italy.

BlancheMagarinos-Rey–RightsLawyerfortheEnvironmentandUrbanDevelop-ment,Lawyeronthe‘Kokopelli’Case.

Giannozzo Pucci – Publisher/Editor of The Ecologist, Italy, founding member ofASCI(Italianfarmers’associationtoprotectsmallfarmersandartisans),leadingenvironmentalistandVicePresidentofNavdanyaInternational,Italy.

VandanaShiva–FounderoftheResearchFoundationforScience,TechnologyandEcology,India,andFounderofNavdanya(9Seeds),Ph.Dinquantumphysics,leadingenvironmentalistandfarmer’srightsadvocate.

Designandlayout: EnricaZairaMerloPrinting: RISMATipografia,FirenzeTranslations: ESCcommunications,ConsueloTeseiPrintedon100%recycledpaper

NavdanyaInternational-www.navdanyainternational.it-www.navdanya.orginfo@navdanyainternational.it