|
PVP Bill (A joint position paper)
|
Masipag News & Views
|
Sep 30, 2001 19:32 PDT
|
POSITION PAPER ON PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION
25 September 2001
(This joint position paper was presented during the second Senate
hearing on the proposed PVP Bill in the last September 25. The groups,
listed below, were able to stall its planned approval at the Agriculture
and Food Commitee level of the Philippine Senate.)
Background
For the past decade, the Philippines has been under tremendous pressure
from industrialized countries and the global seed industry to allow for
intellectual property rights (IPR) on plant varieties. This pressure is
crystallized now in the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of the World Trade Organization
(WTO). TRIPS Article 27.3(b) states that all WTO members must provide
either patents or some "effective sui generis system" of IPR protection
on plant varieties. The stated deadline for implementation by developing
country members was 1 January 2000, but only approximately 20-30% of
them met that target.
The Senate and House of Represenatives have recently both re-filed bills
establishing such a system of plant variety protection (PVP). In the
House, the Committee on Agriculture has nodded on the proposed bill
authored by Cong. Acosta after one hearing -- foregoing the conduct of
public consultation on the matter. Meanwhile, the corresponding Senate
version by Senators Flavier, Osmeña III and Villar – quite similar to
that of congress -- is already on its 2nd hearing at the committee
level.
There is an apparent fast tracking of the processes surrounding the
passing of the said bills since these have already passed 2nd hearing
during the last congress. This is being justified by the need to comply
with the TRIPs when in fact there is no urgency at all. TRIPs Art.
27.3(b) has been under mandated review since 1999. There are strong
proposals being tabled in the review which could alter the content of
the agreement, such as the proposal to prohibit the patenting of life
forms on the grounds that they are discoveries, not inventions. Many
governments have officially requested that the implementation schedule
be suspended until a full and substantive review is completed. Other
governments argue that, in any case, plant varieties fall under the
provisions of Article 65.4 of TRIPs, which extends transition periods to
2006.
It is therefore very alarming that the Philippine government believes it
should rush to legislate a Plant Variety Protection Bill when the public
– particularly those who will be most affected by the bill: the farmers
– are not even aware of the issue.
We, the undersigned representatives of National Peasant Organizations,
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), organizations for the indigenous
peoples, church groups and scientist groups, therefore, register our
vehement opposition to both proposed bills on plant variety protection,
on the following grounds:
1. Plant Variety Protection is a violation of Farmers’ Rights
Any move to recognise breeders’ rights cannot be dissociated from the
need to recognise farmers’ rights. Plant variety protection directly
infringes on the inherent rights of farmers over their seeds – a right
essential to their survival. In fact, both the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources,
to which the Philippines is party, recognize these rights. A farmers’
"privilege" as discussed in the exceptions to the bill is absolutely not
the same thing as farmers’ rights. In fact, every country that practices
similar PVP has restricted the farmers’ privilege more and more over
time.
Farmers have been developing, conserving and exchanging plant genetic
diversity since the beginning of agriculture, long before formal
breeding was ever done. This has generated much of the world’s
biodiversity as we know it, which is a heritage off all humanity. For
example, farmers provided the bulk of the rice germplasm now hels in
IRRI’s genebank – some 100,000 accessions. PVP and other forms of IPR on
life will take this heritage and turn it into a commodity. Privatisation
of genetic resources clashes with the very essence of farmers’ rights,
which implies collective stewardship and responsibilities. PVP is
legalized bio-piracy.
By undermining farmers’ rights, therefore, PVP will bring about the
restriction and end of the contribution of farmers to agriculture.
2. Plant Variety Protection is a threat to Biodiversity, Sustainable
Agriculture and Food Security
The replacement of traditional varieties by High Yielding Varieties
(HYVs) is one of the main causes of biodiversity erosion in agriculture
as a result of its genetic uniformity and the use of pesticides and
fertilizers. The state of Philippine diversity in the rice fields, for
instance, is alarming. By 1982, 93% of irrigated lowlands in the country
were converted to IRRI’s HYVs and by 1985, displacing traditional
varieties.
PVP requires that varieties are distinct, uniform, stable and new (DUSN)
to be protected. Proponents argue that the system is aimed at bringing
in better seeds, but DUSN does not mean "improved," nor "high yielding"
nor more "nutritious".
The claim that the enactment of the PVP bill will help the Philippines
attain food security or even improve the agricultural sector is
unsubstantiated. There have been no studies put forth on the
cost/benefit relationship much less the impact of such a PVP system on
important issues like food security, genetic diversity, sustainable
agriculture and national economic development. Nor have alternatives
been proposed. Yet the impact studies conducted in other countries give
strong reason for concern: corporate concentration, narrowing of the
genetic base of agriculture, reduced information and germplasm flows,
etc.
According to the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
(UPOV), which the proposed Philippine bills are modelled on, some 50,000
plant varietes are under protection today worldwide. With 47 member
states and 200 species involved, this means an average of five varieties
per species. This is a very poor system, then, in terms of stimulating
innovation, diversity or food security.
3. Plant Variety Protection will harm research and innovation
TRIPs enforces the private ownership of genetic resources. This will
restrict access to seeds and breeding materials – a factor which is sure
to affect crop improvement, both in the big institutions and on the
farms. Private control means no more sharing, only at a price.
Scientists will not be willing to exchange materials freely any more and
farmer breeders will lose the most.
It will reduce the farmers’ ability to innovate due to the lack of
genetic materials being made available to him. Researches will be
impeded and scientists will be discouraged to improve on materials since
they will be subject to someone else’s monopoly rights (less "freedom to
operate").
The introduction of IPR in agricultural research is shaking up plant
breeding worldwide and imposing new costs and institutional problems
that make it difficult for countries like the Philippines to pursue a
food security agenda. Rather than harness creative potentials in our
country – including the farmers’ -- the proposed PVP will pave the way
for the private sector and transnational corporations to take control of
plant breeding and they will undoubtedly benefit the most.
4. Plant Variety Proteciton will further strengthen the control of
multi-national and transnational corporations (MNCs/TNCs) over
Philippine Agriculture
Since the introduction of HYVs in the Philippines, the farmers became
dependent on chemical inputs in utmost hope that this technology will
increase their produce, thus eventually improving their lives. After
decades of practice, reality has proven that mainly the agro-chemical
corporations benefited from this technology, and the farmers, all the
more, persisted in their poverty-stricken conditions. This is because
the ownership of farmlands, the choice of what technology to use, and
the decision of what type of development they should pursue, is not in
their hands.
With the introduction of a system granting monopoly righst over genetic
resources, the poor farmers who are used to breeding and choosing the
variety they find suitable and productive for the farm, will nce again
suffer the consequences.
Legalizing and enforcing private ownership on genetic resources will
benefit – only the MNCs and TNCs in the ‘life sciences.’ Privatization
will be reinforced and further commodification will take place. Without
a doubt, this means greater profit for TNCs/MNCs, and more suffering for
Filipino farmers.
*In view of the adverse impacts of Plant Variety Protection, we demand
that the Senate and House of Representatives to:
*Scrap the PVP bill! The Philippine government must assert the ‘no
patents on life’ position in the review of Article 27.3(b) of TRIPs in
the WTO as well as the renegotiations of the International Undertaking
at FAO.
*Legislate a bill protecting Farmers’ Rights over seeds and
agro-biodiversity which promotes ‘common use’ and prohibits any form of
IPR on genetic resources
SIGNED:
Rafael Mariano
Chairperson
Peasant Movement of the Philippines(KMP)
Emmanuel Yap
National Coordinator
Farmer Scientist Partnership for Development(MASIPAG)
Ric Guiao
National Coordinator
Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan Sa Pilipinas (KAMP)
(National coordinating body for Indigenous People's Group)
Giovanni Tapang
Chairperson
Samahan ng Nagtataguyod ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Sambayanan
(AGHAM)
(Group of professionals and advocates of science and technology for the
people)
Almira Mandin
Coordinator
Tunay na Alyansa ng Bayan Alay Sa Katutubo (TABAK)
(Professional with concerns for IP rights)
Neth Dano
Executive Director
Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE)
Rev. Rey Galeoagan
Spokesperson
Promotion of Church Peoples’ Response (PCPR)
Victoria Lopez
Executive Director
Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT)
(National network promoting appropriate technology and sustainable
agriculture)
Mervinsol H. Toquero
Coordinator
Program Unit on Ecology and Environmental Protection (PUEEP), National
Council of Churches in The Philippines (NCCP)
Victoria Corpuz
Executive Director
TEBTEBBA Foundation, Inc.
(Indigenous People’s International Center for Policy Research and
Education)
|
|
 |
|
