The battle for seed independence

In order to address Africa's poor agricultural productivity
international players are intent on criminalising traditional
seed saving practices. This thrust is directed by a
triumvirate of corporate interests, actively assisted by first
world governments and front organisations parading as
non-governmental organisations.
Africa lies at the frontier of international agricultural
intervention for several reasons. Firstly the continent lags
badly in agricultural productivity. This is largely due to poor
investment and agricultural support.
Secondly, Africa has more unexploited arable land than any
other continent. Africa's vast area, inadequate historical
investment or support into agricultural development makes
it an attractive investment destination for speculators and
development alike.
Thirdly Africa's population is set increase from its present
1.1 billion to 2.4 billion by 2050. Because of endemic food
insecurity, agricultural development is a moral and
economic obligation for both the African and the
international community.
These facts have resulted in a new rush to assist Africa to
help itself. However this assistance is motivated by often
conflicting aims and consequences. While speculators seek
to cash in on opportunities, philanthropy and development
are not neutral either.
Africa has a history of exploitation. It continues to
haemorrhage money, losing tens of millions of dollars daily
in illicit flows . Speculation, aid and assistance are seldom
unconditional.
This is borne out by the recent drive to impose an
unsuitable, first-world intellectual property regime on the
sale and trade of seed. This will worsen this problem by
firmly placing control of the agricultural supply chain into
corporate hands, further disempowering the smallholder
farmer community.
Western agencies have long portrayed subsistence farming
as inefficient, not just in terms of productivity but primarily
because of its failure to contribute to capital flows. This
sector circulates very little money through the agricultural
supply chain, even when farmers are food secure. This lack
of financial clout renders the sector profoundly vulnerable.
They are also at risk of crop loss through climatic events
like floods, drought, or pest infestations. This has
traditionally been managed by cultivating a wide variety of
crops, trees and livestock, creating insurance through
diversity.
Because these systems are inherently complex they are
easily destabilised by ill-informed external interference.
Quick fix, technological interventions are an open invitation
to the law of unintended consequences.
It is also incorrect to portray smallholder farming as
inefficient and unsuitable. In fact it is more conducive to
community and regional food security than large-scale
industrialised agricultural production methods.
This was underlined by a World Bank and UN expert report
which explained how food security relies on a
"multifunctionary" approach to agricultural production.
Farming is about more than only producing food; it is also
about culture, medicinal plants, the maintenance of
ecological integrity, self-sufficiency, governance, public
participation and inclusion.
Several institutions have emerged to drive the improvement
of African food production. First is the African Union
agricultural programme, the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Second is
the externally funded African Green Revolution for
Agriculture (AGRA), founded by the Gates and Rockefeller
foundations, now also supported by the US and UK
governments, along with powerful private and corporate
interests.
While both of these are well-intended, producing some good
results, their thrust to improve the seed supply chain is
arguably the most risky intervention of all. While the
broader drive to improve traditional seed quality is not
entirely unreasonable the technocratic approach which
informs the transition, linked to strict and restrictive
intellectual property law, is unsuited to communal African
farming methods.
The most obvious risk is the direct intervention of the
world's largest seed companies. While these powerful
entities purportedly wish to assist, they have applied
constant pressure to impose this restrictive intellectual
property regime.
South Africa has been a springboard for this intervention
into sub-Saharan Africa. Its own seed market is effectively
controlled by the world's two biggest seed companies,
Monsanto and DuPont's Pioneer. Because of their
investment into seed research and genetic material - for
instance Monsanto purchased Malawi's national seed
company, while Pioneer recently acquired South Africa's
last large seed company Pannar in 2011 - they maintain
tight control of their investments through intellectual
property regimes.
These companies also sell genetically modified (GM) seed
and agricultural chemicals. While both AGRA and the Gates
Foundation have supported GM technology as a real
solution to food security, the IAASTD report downplayed any
significant potential. Experts feel GM is a technical
response to broader, more systemic problems like poor
infrastructure and concentrated supply chains.
These GM and hybrid seeds are protected by strict
intellectual property regimes, notably by an instrument
known as UPOV 1991. The seed companies, South Africa's
seed organisation SANSOR, the US State Department and
others have applied significant pressure on African
governments to adopt UPOV 91.
Consequently the African Regional Intellectual Property
Organisation (ARIPO) drafted a protocol to facilitate the
adoption of UPOV 91 through government regulatory
processes. However CAADP and AGRA have promised that
new seed varieties will not be patented or have intellectual
property protection. Therefore UPOV 91 is not just poorly
suited to achieve the stated aims, but is entirely the wrong
instrument.
Grassroots opposition has emerged as it is felt that UPOV
91 will effectively outlaw traditional seed saving and
sharing. A statement drafted by more than 75 representative
national and regional agricultural organisations strongly
objects to the ARIPO protocol and calls for its withdrawal.
Despite this, powerful vested interests remain fixated on
securing control of African agricultural production through
force, artifice and stealth. This is directly counter to the
principle that equality of fair opportunity be afforded to both
innovators and those who develop and rely on traditional
seed exchange.
While Africa needs innovation, it cannot be so that one form
of innovation is permitted to outweigh or dominate another.
The just and ethical development of African agriculture must
be consultative, not achieved through stealth or domination.
Using first world mechanisms to perpetuate the colonial
model is by definition neo-colonial.
Controlling seed means controlling food production.
Africans must choose how they farm. They cannot be
allowed to become perpetually indebted to a predatory
agricultural-industrial complex.
Ashton is a writer and researcher working in civil society.
Some of his work can be viewed at Ekogaia.