Representative image of farmers
Credit: iStock Photo
Bengaluru: Activists have opposed the Union government's alleged move to amend a law protecting the seed sovereignty of farmers in favour of the pro-corporate lobbies.
In a letter written to Minister for Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare Shivraj Singh Chouhan, activists said that the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPV&FR) Act 2001 and the related rules were unique in that they protect farmers' rights while being in alignment with India's commitments at World Trade Organisation and International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
The letter signed by Kavita Kuruganti of the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture - Kisan Swaraj and 13 others said officials and individuals associated with the PPV&FR Authority created under the act were engaging in processes to propose amendments to the law.
It said the committee to suggest amendments has been set up by the authority without including farmer and civil society organisations but giving space to two seed industry association representatives. This has raised serious questions over the committee's ability to voice the concerns of the farmers.
The framing of a concept to harmonise the law/rules with the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), which is "wholly pro-corporate breeders" and not pro-farmers, even though India is not a signatory to the convention is a "sinister" agenda of industry lobbies, the letter said.
Further, the letter expressed concern over the "opaque" process about the formation and working of the committee as no official communication was created with participants. It said the repetitive consultations with seed industry associations while exclusion of suggestions, even written ones, from civil society representatives was also a matter of concern. "Within the limited participation, almost 90 per cent of the participants did not get a chance to speak, as the chairman kept interfering with submissions being made," it said.
Stressing the need to institutionalise the consultation with farmers, they pointed to the "failure" to provide details of the proposed amendments and absence of wide publicity to the consultation process as moves that would negate the possibility of meaningful consultation.