Farmers right to control seeds

[chuckChuck]

Big Wheel in a thread on "who wants their checkoff money back" correctly identified the NFU as the only farmer run organization that has been raising the alarm about UPOV 91 and the plan to make farmers pay every year for farm saved seeds using end point royalties or trailing contracts.

If you don't want to keep paying every year for all your seed with end point royalties or trailing contracts, then now is the time to speak up.

If farmers are going to pay millions and upon millions of dollars for farm saved seed every year, then farmers should be making the decisions on how this money is spent.

Contact your MP, The Minster of Agriculture and the Prime Minster and all the other farm organizations who are strangely silent on this issue and start saying we don't want to pay for farm saved seed every year!


http://www.nfu.ca/issues/save-our-seed
Save Our Seed!
Uphold farmers inherent right to control seeds
The National Farmers Union calls for a new Seed Act for Farmers in which Canada recognizes the inherent rights of farmers — derived from thousands of years of custom and tradition—to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. Current and proposed restrictions on farmers’ traditional practices, whether from commercial contracts, identity preservation (IP) systems, or Plant Breeders Rights legislation—criminalize these ancient practices and harm farmers, citizens, and society in general.

URGENT ACTION!
The corporate seed industry has convinced the federal government to take the next step towards setting up a system to make farmers pay seed companies for seed every year even when we use farm-saved seed. They are proposing to change regulations under the UPOV '91 Plant Breeders Rights Act, and are looking at two ways to do this - End Point Royalties or Trailing Contracts. Both would be collected on the harvested crop (a per bushel royalty) and the seed industry expects to collect millions of dollars more from farmers every year from these payments. This money would go to seed companies such as Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and DowDupont. The system for charging a royalty on crops harvested from farm saved seed would be developed for wheat first, with the intent of applying it to other cereal crops, pulse crops, and other crop kinds later.


The NFU calls for public funding and farmer-controlled check-off funding to support plant breeding instead. Farmers are urged to protect public plant breeding by speaking out at the federal government's consultation meetings:

The consultation meeting schedule is

Winnipeg – November 16, 2018 10:00 am to 4:00 pm at Delta Hotels by Marriot Winnipeg, 350 St. Mary Ave
Ottawa – November 30, 2018 10:00 am to 4:00 pm at the Hilton Garden Inn Ottawa Airport, 2400 Alert Rd
Saskatoon – December 4, 2018 10:00 am to 4:00 pm at the Saskatoon Inn and Conference Centre, 2002 Airport Dr
Edmonton – December 6, 2018 10:00am to 4:00 pm at Renaissance Edmonton Airport Hotel, 4236 36th St

To register for a consultation meeting send an email to Kyle Kierstead at kyle.kierstead@agr.gc.ca with the subject heading "Engagement session on value creation models" and say which meeting you want to attend, and your language of choice (English or French).
The corporate seed industry is pushing for even MORE power to control seed with its “Seed Synergy” campaign.

The corporate seed sector is carrying out a major project they call “Seed Synergy” which aims to influence the expected review of Canada’s Seed Act and Regulations.

The “Seed Synergy Collaborators” are the Boards and Executive Directors of 6 industry organizations that are dominated by the multinational seed companies: Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA); Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA); Canadian Seed Institute (CSI); Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada (CSAAC); Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA) (CPTA has no website – it hires private investigators to find and sue farmers suspected of PBR and patent violations); and CropLife Canada. They are promoting an extreme make-over of Canada’s seed regulatory system that would eliminate public oversight and allow corporations to maximize their power and increase their wealth under Canada’s new UPOV ’91 Plant Breeders Rights regime.

The Seed Synergy “Green Paper” (draft) outlines their vision. On the surface, it tries to appear as if it is solving practical problems and promoting efficiency. In fact, it would put the multinational seed and agro-chemical corporations in charge. A careful reading of the Green Paper indicates that Seed Synergy is proposing to:

Fast-track new patented GMO crop approvals to help biotech companies increase their returns from seed royalties.
Replace our public the variety registration system and its quality control measures with a list of any and all varieties seed companies want to sell.
Empower private seed companies to oversee the seed certification processes and control all the data involved, paid for with tax dollars.
Replace independent third-party field inspection of seed crops with the seed companies inspecting fields of the farmers contracted to grow their seed varieties.
Water down certified seed standards to the lowest level customers will tolerate as a way to save money.
Reduce common seed use as much as possible by making it expensive, difficult, impossible and/or illegal for farmers to sell a crop grown from farm-saved seeds.
Make farmers pay End Point Royalties to seed companies on their harvested crops. Double seed companies’ royalty revenues by having the tax-payer match EPR payments by farmers.
Create an industry-controlled database of all seed sales transactions to enforce Plant Breeders Rights royalty payment, make it easier to sue farmers suspected of infringement, and to identify popular royalty-free varieties for de-registration.
Make sure seed for any crop new to Canada is subject to Plant Breeders Rights.
Lobby for international acceptance of seed and crops contaminated with unapproved GMOs
Intensify Canada’s involvement in the international UPOV ’91 organization to enhance the power of seed companies to extract royalties and control access to seed.
Remove public funding from government regulatory agencies and authorize a consortium of multinational seed companies to set priorities Canada’s seed system.
Create a super-lobby group of agro-chemical biotech and seed companies to regulate seed in Canada.

New UPOV '91 law restricts rights to save, reuse, exchange, and sell seeds.

On Feburary 27, 2015 amendments to Canada's Plant Breeders Rights Act came into force after Bill C-18 was passed by Parliament. Now, the UPOV '91 Plant Breeders Rights regime applies to all new plant varieties if they were granted Plant Breeders Rights after that date. Varieties that were on the market before February 27, 2015 continue to be dealt with under the previous, UPOV '78, rules. For a 2-page printable summary of the current situation, see UPOV UPdate, Feb. 2016 and for more information about how the current law affects your seed-saving rights, please see the NFU newsletter article, Seed saving under the amended Plant Breeders Rights Act. The Canadian Seed Trade Association provides a database of crop varieties registered in Canada and their Plant Breeders’ Rights status where you can find out whether the varieties you grow are under UPOV '91, UPOV '78 or in the public domain.

What is UPOV?

The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an intergovernmental organization that has created model laws that allow seed developers to claim property rights similar to patents. Canada joined UPOV and adopted its 1978 model law by passing the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act in 1990. The 1991 model law, known as UPOV ’91, enhances the rights of multinational seed companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, Viterra, Pioneer, DuPont and Cargill, while restricting farmers’ rights. Canada formally adopted UPOV '91 on June 19, 2015.

[chuckChuck]

Royalty shift could equal more costly seed for farmers
Proposal proponents tout farmer access to better varieties because of market incentives

By Allan Dawson FOLLOW
Reporter
Published: November 9, 2018
Nobody likes paying more.

But it’s also often said you get what you pay for.

That’s the dilemma facing Canadian farmers being consulted about new options for paying higher royalties on cereal and pulse seed. It’s said those royalties will encourage foreign and domestic investment in variety development, which supporters of the options say will produce better varieties making Canadian farmers more competitive.

Why it matters: Farmers will lose their right to save seed royalty free, will the benefits outweigh this added cost?

Currently, farmers growing cereals and pulses covered by plant breeders’ rights legislation pay a royalty when they buy certified seed. But because farmers grow mainly farm-saved cereal and pulse seed there isn’t enough revenue to attract private research companies to those crops.

Now after two years of discussions initiated by the Grains Roundtable two options have emerged to get more money from farmers into developers’ hands — end point royalties and trailing contracts.

Both will be discussed at four consultation meetings organized by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) being held in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Saskatoon and Edmonton. The first meeting is in Winnipeg Nov. 16.
Saved seed

Both options undercut the economic advantage of farmers saving and sowing their own seed — something the National Farmers Union warned would happen as the federal government passed legislation in 2015 making Canada compliant with UPOV ’91, which provides for stronger plant breeders’ rights, including more options for collecting royalties.

How much more farmers will pay isn’t known. It depends on many variables, including competition. But according to a study prepared for the seed industry “value capture from FSS (farm-saved seed) using contracts produces a benefit to product developers that can approach $64.7 million per annum.”

The study, called Canada’s Seed System: Economic Impact Assessment and Risk Analysis, was prepared for the Seed Synergy Collaboration Group by JRG Consulting Group.

The study says if farmers couldn’t plant farm-saved seed resulting in 60 per cent of cereal and pulse plantings coming from purchased certified seed “certified seed sales would increase by $467 million,” — double the estimated 2015-17 average of $291 million.

The study says seed developers need to co-operate to maximize royalty earnings.

“A risk is that some seed companies decide not to have an FSS royalty rate, or decide to have a low rate compared to others as a means to capture market share,” the study says. “To overcome this risk, the collective industry body would need to ensure that all seed companies had an FSS royalty rate that was a fixed percentage of the associated fee on certified seed sales.”

That sounds like uncompetitive behaviour. It’s also not supported by the seed industry, Todd Hyra, SeCan’s western manager and president of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, said in an interview Oct. 18.

“As far as having minimums or making it mandatory I can’t see those being part of it,” he said.

“We don’t want to discourage competition because… we want the investment… ”

Hyra said he liked the study because it allows different numbers to be plugged into different scenarios to see how much revenue is generated.

Some farmers fear seed companies will deregister varieties not covered by breeders’ rights further limiting farmers’ ability to save and grow their own seed without paying a trailing royalty.

How costly?

Seed costs more for crops that for agronomic or legal reasons must be purchased new at every planting. Canola is one. The estimated average cost of Canadian canola seed from 2015 to 2017 was $65.88 an acre, according to data in the study.

In comparison wheat and oats — two crops grown mainly from farm-saved seed — averaged $15.48 and $15.68 an acre, respectively.

During that same period corn averaged $128.88 and acre and soybean seed $79.86 per acre.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that cereals and pulses seed prices will become just as expensive. Presumably, the potential profitability of a crop influences seed prices, as well as competition.

And despite the cost of canola seed it’s notable at more than 21 million acres, it’s Canada’s most seeded crop. Farmers obviously see value in growing it.

Most cereal and pulse crops are currently developed by publicly funded breeders, with additional funding coming from farmers through checkoffs.

Most canola, corn and soybean varieties are developed by private companies. The three are mainly genetically modified, offering traits not available in non-modified crops like cereals and pulses.

From the private seed developer’s point of view the problem is cereal and pulse growers don’t have to buy certified seed often enough.

“In contrast to cereals and pulse crops, canola product developers do exercise market power and because of this and the basic conditions noted, the ability to capture value results in high levels of investment in plant breeding,” the study says

“These public sector product developers (for cereals and pulses) do not exercise any potential market power. This behaviour, and the basic conditions, result in minimal value capture characterized by low investment and little private sector involvement.”

The study says private variety developers use “oligopolistic behaviours (to) capture value through pricing.”
Two models

The two proposed systems have marked differences.

End point royalties would see farmers pay a royalty to variety developers when they deliver grain to an elevator.

Trailing contracts oblige farmers to remit a royalty on the farm-saved seed they plant.

Industry officials say the trailing contract has the most support because it’s the simplest and the most flexible.

The study also says trailing contracts will return the most money to seed developers.

Trailing contracts, depending on the royalty fees, could also be used to influence how much certified seed farmers buy, by making certified more or less expensive than saving seed.

End point royalties require grain buyers to collect the money creating more administration and probably more cost.

End point royalties could also discourage certified seed sales.

The Prairie Oat Growers Association (POGA) fears the proposed changes could undermine farmer-run commodity commissions and associations financed via refundable checkoffs on delivered crops.

“Our commission supports the (oat) breeding program, but if all this money is going back to the breeding program and the farmer faces a non-refundable end point royalty, perhaps producers will start taking their checkoff money back and then who is going to manage the market development and agronomy?” POGA’s executive director Shana Dempsey-Mathieson said in an interview Oct. 31. “Our board feels those producer dollars should be managed by producers and they wouldn’t be, so producers would basically have no say in where those dollars are going then.”

POGA is also concerned about how quickly the process is moving because many farmers aren’t aware of it.
Foregone conclusion?

Several industry officials said Ottawa will implement regulations to collect more royalties, regardless of the consultations.

That isn’t so, Anthony Parker, CFIA’s commissioner for plant breeders’ rights, said in an email Nov. 1.

“Only after the comprehensive consultations have been concluded, and all views heard, will the government then decide whether or not to pursue regulatory amendments,” he wrote.

The proposal, which the government says could be expanded to include other crops, assumes investing more in plant breeding will result in higher-yielding varieties. But today’s Canada Western Red Spring wheats are already high yielding and high quality.

A graph on POGA’s website shows recent oat yields increasing, on average, more than other crops.

Could farmers end up paying more, but not necessarily be better off?

“The whole point is that both private and public programs would benefit from this (increased royalty payments),” Hyra said. “This is not just about private companies. It’s important that the public programs remain strong and viable and this is an opportunity to make sure the funds generated are getting there as well.

“You never know where the next innovation is going to come from. You wouldn’t want Canada to be shut out of an innovation that was developed in another part of the world by a small- or medium-size entity.”

Oat Advantage operated in Saskatoon by Jim Dyck is an example of a small, family-owned breeding company that could do more with more revenue, Hyra said. SeCan is commercializing two of Dyck’s new oats in 2019, he added.

When Canada ratified UPOV ’91 interest in bringing new varieties to Canada jumped, he added.

“And now with the potential for valuation creation — trailing contracts — that would ensure a more stable supply of money and so the interest goes up and you see more willingness to invest… and the potential that they (breeders) will get paid someday is certainly a good message,” Hyra said.
Industry to have say

https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-opinion/news/royalty-shift-could-equal-more-costly-seed/?utm_source=GFM+Publications&utm_campaign=deb33f81 69-Manitoba+Co-operator+daily+enews+Nov+13%2C+2018&utm_medium=ema il&utm_term=0_2da8244677-deb33f8169-88077149

[chuckChuck]

Here is the website for finding your MP. Click on their name and you will get their email and telephone numbers.

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members

[wd9]

Farmers never had nor never will have any rights wrt to IPR, only a privilege if allowed by the holder of those rights. Maybe the NFU missed that part in UPOV91? In UPOV78 it wasn't even in there at all, so at least its a step in the right direction.

Farmers could own varieties, buy germplasm, develop them with checkoff money. Kansas farmers own germplasm and varieties bred in partnership at the UofK. Around 70% of the wheat planted is their own. They even said we could buy developed germplasm according to our specs. Then you could replant as much as you want since you are the actual holder of the Intellectual Property.

Easy solution. If you want rights, own the property, otherwise STFU cuz you have none.

[Riley500]

Farmers never had nor never will have any rights wrt to IPR, only a privilege if allowed by the holder of those rights. Maybe the NFU missed that part in UPOV91? In UPOV78 it wasn't even in there at all, so at least its a step in the right direction.

Farmers could own varieties, buy germplasm, develop them with checkoff money. Kansas farmers own germplasm and varieties bred in partnership at the UofK. Around 70% of the wheat planted is their own. They even said we could buy developed germplasm according to our specs. Then you could replant as much as you want since you are the actual holder of the Intellectual Property.

Easy solution. If you want rights, own the property, otherwise STFU cuz you have none.

So let's force our check-off commissions to pool their money and develop a few farmer-owned varieties.

[bucket]

Farmers never had nor never will have any rights wrt to IPR, only a privilege if allowed by the holder of those rights. Maybe the NFU missed that part in UPOV91? In UPOV78 it wasn't even in there at all, so at least its a step in the right direction.

Farmers could own varieties, buy germplasm, develop them with checkoff money. Kansas farmers own germplasm and varieties bred in partnership at the UofK. Around 70% of the wheat planted is their own. They even said we could buy developed germplasm according to our specs. Then you could replant as much as you want since you are the actual holder of the Intellectual Property.

Easy solution. If you want rights, own the property, otherwise STFU cuz you have none.

UM....dumb question at this point ....where do our checkoff moneys, our excess railways charges and some tax dollars go .....wouldn't we own something from that?...or I would like some of my money back to own it....

[grassfarmer]

Farmers never had nor never will have any rights wrt to IPR, only a privilege if allowed by the holder of those rights. Maybe the NFU missed that part in UPOV91? In UPOV78 it wasn't even in there at all, so at least its a step in the right direction.

No, the NFU didn't miss that part. They highlighted that UPOV'91 had this garbage about being granted a privilege for the first time - it didn't exist before and that is why it wasn't in UPOV'78. To actual farmers this would be considered a move in the wrong direction, not a move in the right direction.

[GOODRUM]

I believe this is important, we need someone to speakup for us, if your farming its difficult to find the time.
Anyone interested in taking this on?

[wd9]

No, the NFU didn't miss that part. They highlighted that UPOV'91 had this garbage about being granted a privilege for the first time - it didn't exist before and that is why it wasn't in UPOV'78. To actual farmers this would be considered a move in the wrong direction, not a move in the right direction.

It did exist in PBR Act though. UPOV is guiding principles for a country's own legislation of which in Canada is the seeds act and PBR act.

It's completely meaningless. The farmer has a privilege only if the holder says so. Go ahead, replant your RR canola seed, see how many "rights" you have. You've got to understand your place in this game, it's not in the back of the bus, its not even on the bus.

[ajl]

One of the few times I agree with Grass. Farmer saved seed was a right always assumed to be there. UPOV '91 starts to remove this right. As farmers, we are merely exercising our rights. As far as canola is concerned, did plant breeders get rights granted to them by the originators of canola? Wheat and barley have been around for thousands of years, as have the forerunners to canola, (wheat, barley and mustard are all mentioned in the Bible so must have been around when it was written then) and farmers have used these plants for that time and so have rights to continue to do so.

[bucket]

If I could go to this meeting and be guaranteed that my questions wouldn't be answered with the default.." I don't know"...or the guys presenting were not reading from a script...It might be worth my time...

If the Seed Associations and government would give farmers as much time as they have spent negotiating this bullshit it would also be worth my effort....but to be given 8 hours in Saskatoon with numerous people there...they are using the typical divide and conquer strategy.

[chuckChuck]

Pre registration for the "consultation" is closed. Don't rely on these meetings to carry forward your views. The pro seed and chemical industry types on various commodity boards and their paid lobbyists will argue in favour of royalties.

Pickup the phone or email the ag minister, the prime minister, Goodale and your MP and tell them you don't want to pay royalties on farm saved seeds. If they hear enough nos they might do the right thing.

Here is the website for finding your MP. Click on their name and you will get their email and telephone numbers.

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members

[bucket]

Can someone please answer the following questions....

1. Who is responsible for dud varieties?

2. Who pays for **** ups like the tiffid flax fiasco?

3. What happens if the suppliers of seed are the same ones that buy grain and say they only accept their varieties?
I don't think companies should be able control the entire chain.

4. How does a farmer recoup his costs on this tax?

5. Who oversees that we receive value for the charges..or benchmarks where we are at today? And where we end up?

6. Who says we need more varieties with higher yield or quality? Customers are not buying higher volumes or quality.....

[grassfarmer]

As far as canola is concerned, did plant breeders get rights granted to them by the originators of canola?

I believe the RR canola was developed from varieties that were a product of public breeding in the first place. The irony that they are using RR technology and now going after an outright ban on farmer's seed saving as a means to completely end public breeding. It's all about control - he who controls the seeds controls the world's food supply and the ability to make money off that.

[wd9]

One of the few times I agree with Grass. Farmer saved seed was a right always assumed to be there. UPOV '91 starts to remove this right. As farmers, we are merely exercising our rights. As far as canola is concerned, did plant breeders get rights granted to them by the originators of canola? Wheat and barley have been around for thousands of years, as have the forerunners to canola, (wheat, barley and mustard are all mentioned in the Bible so must have been around when it was written then) and farmers have used these plants for that time and so have rights to continue to do so.

You have no rights. Why is that so difficult to understand?