More Menu

International agreements on Agriculture and Trade

byPosted at
In the previous post we learned about International conventions on Biodiversity  In this post, various international accords on agriculture and intellectual property rights are introduced.

Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Intellectual Property Rights, (IPRs)
  3. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
  4. AoA - Agreement on Agriculture
  5. TRIPS agreement
  6. IPR and crop varieties
  7. IPR and bioresources 
  8. IPR and Genetically Modified (GM) crops
  9. Protests against WTO

Introduction

Biodiversity has always been essential to human survival. Any biological element that has value to humans is referred to as a biological resource. Different cultures and societies have made use of wild plants, animals, and germs in various ways. However, the most significant contribution made by humans has been the modification of biodiversity to produce domesticated plant and animal types for certain purposes. Unique to humanity are the domestication of diversity and traditional understanding of biodiversity. Humans have freely exchanged this information for ages, regarding it as a resource that belongs to everyone. For the purpose of disseminating or controlling the use of the information, cultural norms existed and were observed. The concept of private property grew stronger with the rise of industrialization, commerce, and capitalism. The concept of knowledge as private rather than public property also evolved. One method of claiming private rights over different types of knowledge is through intellectual property rights (IPRs). The concept of IPR was used to protect knowledge about bioresources in the previous century (such as plant and animal varieties). Numerous economic, social, and ethical issues have been raised by this.

Intellectual Property Rights, (IPRs)

A person's right to an idea, information, invention, or innovation, or, to put it another way, something that has come from their mind, is referred to as their intellectual property. IPRs stand for an individual's or organization's legal ownership of intellectual property. IPRs provide legal protection because the intellectual property cannot be used without the owner's permission.

An IPR regime's goal is to encourage innovation by assuring that the innovator (or innovators) receive enough financial compensation for their work without having to worry about it being stolen by another party. IPR grants monopoly rights over the innovation, typically for a predetermined amount of time. An invention's sole legal right to be produced, used, or sold commercially is protected by a patent. The most effective IPRs are patents. Plant breeders' rights, copyrights, trademarks, and other IPRs are examples. IPRs for biological resources have frequently generated debate. Plants found in nature cannot be patented. Bioresources are natural, hence it is impossible to claim that they are human ideas or inventions. However, breeders' choices and creations are thought to have sprung from a specific person or group of people.

Globally, the topic of intellectual property rights is hotly contested between industrialised and poor countries. Businesses worth hundreds of billions of dollars that organisations want to grow (or protect) are at risk, and many communities' ability to manage how traditional knowledge is used is also at risk. It is unlikely that the argument, which touches on every element of our lives - legal, economic, social, political, cultural, moral, and ethical - will come to a satisfactory conclusion any time soon. Therefore, it is important to comprehend how nations interact with one another on global fora regarding IPRs and associated issues.

The World Trade Organization (WTO)

The Marrakesh Agreement, which was signed in 1994, established the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO wants to make it easier for merchants, exporters, importers, and producers of products and services to conduct business. It is the only international agency that deals with trade regulations. The WTO has contributed to globalisation and affected the world in both positive and potentially negative ways. Although the WTO's initiatives have positively accelerated global economic expansion, they have also had a negative impact on local communities and human rights.

AoA - Agreement on Agriculture

A significant reorganisation of agriculture, food, and export-related policies in wealthy countries during the 1970s and 1980s had a disastrous impact on developing nations. The United States and the European Union's practise of dumping agricultural surpluses on international markets at prices below those required for production hurt developing nations as well.

Members of the WTO took action to modernise the agricultural industry and address the high trade barriers and subsidisation that stifle commerce in agricultural products. The overarching goal was to create a more equitable trade system that would boost market access and enhance the standard of living for farmers all around the world. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which went into effect in 1995, aims to lower the high levels of protectionism in global agriculture so that exporting farmers benefit from trade and consumers in importing nations gain. Market access, domestic support, and export subsidies were all covered by the AoA. Reducing the volume of and spending on subsidised exports are requirements of the AoA. Additionally, domestic subsidies that distort trade must be reduced. They decided to do away with agricultural export subsidies in 2015 and establish guidelines for other types of farm export support.

There are worries that free trade and market opening alongside other conditions in the WTO agreement actually hurt farmers in developing nations, and there is growing evidence to support these claims. The pact is primarily perceived as favouring wealthy farmers, corporations, and industrialised countries at the expense of subsistence farmers and producers in developing nations. Marginal and subsistence farmers may suffer if domestic subsidies are reduced. Prices rise in nations that depend on imports for their domestic food supply as a result of decreased export subsidies.

TRIPS agreement

The WTO established rules in the TRIPS agreement in 1995. (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, which is binding on all member countries, including India). Its goal was to synchronise and regulate IPR policies across all of the member nations to facilitate trade.

Members are required by WTO rules to grant patents on microorganisms, microbiological processes, and nonbiological techniques utilised in the development of plants and animals. Although they did not mandate the issuance of plant patents, they did mandate the issuance of IPR protection for plant varieties.

Australia, Japan, and the USA all permit plant variety patents. In the USA, they are most frequently utilised. The corporate sector has made large investments in agriculture in developed nations. Plant types were created using high-end and complex laboratory techniques like genetic engineering and nanotechnology, etc. They contended that since these are inventions, they must be protected by patents in order to safeguard their future investments. Even if genes and genetic sequences found in living things were not produced by humans, patents may nevertheless be granted on them.

TRIPS provide wealthy nations and businesses an unfair advantage. It undercuts the inventions and independence that millions of traditional farmers, pastoralists, and fishers have achieved, which have made a significant contribution to the advancement of humanity. The Convention on Biological Diversity and its commitment to sustainable development are neither strengthened or supported by this. As a result, emerging countries have enacted legislation to safeguard their citizens' rights. Due to the worries of traditional innovators, India does not permit the patenting of plant types. To adhere to the WTO agreement, it had to implement IPR restrictions. As a result, a legislation was created to safeguard the rights of plant breeders.

IPR and crop varieties

Plant Breeders' Rights (PBRs) are a kind of intellectual property (IPR) that apply only to certain plant kinds. A crop species can have numerous variants, as we are all aware. For instance, there are many different types of rice, including Ambemohor, Jiresal, Basmati, etc. The requirements for obtaining a PBR are different from those for a patent in that they are viewed as "improvements" rather than actual "innovations/inventions." Distinct nations have different laws. The practise of farmers gathering, trading, and selling crop seeds has always been natural. However, if a variety is PBR-protected, it cannot be regarded similarly because doing so would constitute "illegal" usage of the same. Farmers are subject to limitations, but the sale from the breeder is assured. The PBRs are in many ways the polar opposite of how crops were domesticated in the past. Growing diversity and benefits for all came about as a result of farmers' innovations and improvements to existing plant kinds. However, PBRs might deter farmer-level advancements and create a monopoly for corporate breeders only.

The Indian Parliament enacted the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, 2001 (PPV & FR Act). It was passed to ensure the formation of an efficient system for safeguarding plant varieties, farmers' and plant breeders' rights, and to promote the growth and cultivation of novel plant varieties. On October 30, 2001, the President of India gave his approval to this law. The PPV&FR Act, 2001 was passed to give plant breeders, researchers, and farmers who create new or existing plant varieties intellectual property rights.

Farmers are allowed to store, use, resow, swap, sell, and keep their farm products, including unbranded seeds from registered varieties. Farmers are fully excluded from paying any fees in any actions under this Act, and their varieties are eligible for registration. The sole way to impart the inheritable and transferable rights afforded by this Act is to register a plant variety.

Farmers are protected by this Indian regulation since they can preserve and reuse all crop varieties. Breeder businesses have already filed frivolous lawsuits against farmers. Farmer Percy Schmeiser was the target of legal action brought by Monsanto, a significant breeding corporation, in Canada. According to Monsanto, the farmer's crop was a GM Canola variety that Monsanto had created. Due to natural introduction from the surroundings, Mr. Schmeiser discovered the plants growing on his farm and merely harvested and replanted them. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled Mr. Schmeiser guilty. He nevertheless persisted in his struggle against Monsanto and for the rights of other farmers like himself. For his efforts, Percy Schmeiser received the Right Livelihood Award in 1997.

IPR and bioresources 

Pharmaceutical firms employ a wide range of natural products in their patents. Herbal remedies and agriculture represent significant business prospects for corporations. Commercializing bioresource use is thought to pose a threat to the communities that depend on them for survival. It will result in the removal of their essential means of living. Here are a few instances of commercial endeavours to control the bioresources market:
  • For the antibacterial qualities of turmeric, the USA had granted scientists patents. People in Asia have used turmeric on a regular basis for many years.
  • India protested when an American business, RiceTec Inc., received a patent from the US Patent Office in late 1997 to refer to aromatic rice farmed outside of India as "Basmati." The US Patent Office's grant was likely to have an impact on Basmati trade since India was and still is one of the main exporters of the rice to many nations. It was argued that giving RiceTec a patent infringed on the Geographical Indications Act in accordance with the TRIPS agreement because Basmati rice is typically farmed in India and Pakistan.
A geographical indicator is a designation or sign that is placed on some items to link them to a particular geographic location or origin (often shortened as GI) (a town, region, or country). The usage of a GI may serve as a certification that the product, as a result of its geographic origin, contains particular traits or enjoys a particular reputation. There was controversy over RiceTec's use of the name Basmati for rice that was not cultivated in India but was derived from Indian rice. The rice would have violated the idea of GI because it was not of the same quality as regular Basmati. The final ruling, which changed the invention's name from Basmati Rice and Grains to Rice Lines Bas 867, RT 117, and RT 121, was made on August 14, 2001. Only these three lines—which, incidentally, are developed from Pakistani Basmati varieties—were given the patent. It is difficult for anyone to use the Basmati moniker for rice farmed outside of India because India won the case and preserved its ownership of the name.

Even though India prevailed in its legal challenges to the patent, it exposed a threat to many of the country's agricultural types, pharmaceuticals, and other plant and animal products. In numerous communications to the World Trade Organization (WTO), India and other developing nations have emphasised the need to recognise the rights of holders of traditional knowledge to share in benefits from innovation that are based on their knowledge and the biological resources they have nurtured. In order to encourage benefit sharing with the people who created the resource and the information that goes with it, they have also suggested that patent applications should be required to reveal the source of origin of the biological resource and the knowledge that goes with it. This was highly opposed by the US because it would be "a legal and administrative nightmare." The United States' stance on this issue is likely to lead to increased theft of biological knowledge and resources. The corporates already have an advantage thanks to technological superiority and ample financial resources. Protecting the rights of local farmers, pastoralists, and fishers is therefore vital.

The WTO's guidelines have sparked serious concerns from indigenous groups as well. They contend that patenting will really result in biopiracy of local knowledge and variants. Developed nations have frequently disregarded attempts to steal traditional knowledge and permitted the patenting of living forms that were developed by tribal communities. These organisations were against privatising collective knowledge as well.

In order to secure the protection of biological diversity and the traditional knowledge linked with it, India's Biological Diversity Act (2002) was established. This law established many checks at the national, state, and local levels for protection against biopiracy and developed a regulatory framework and processes for the commercial exploitation of bioresources or traditional knowledge.

IPR and Genetically Modified (GM) crops

Commercial plant breeders have used a variety of strategies to create new varieties and protect their exclusive breeding rights. There are several crop kinds available with excellent yields. The next generation does not, however, have the same positive traits if farmers save and replant the seeds from their crop. Breeders occasionally applied Terminator Technology. The plant variety was given a terminator gene, which will only generate sterile seeds, making it impossible for anyone to store and replant the seeds. The usage of seeds made with Terminator Technology is forbidden in India. The Convention on Biological Diversity has also advised against using this technology out of concern that such genes might possibly escape and cause havoc in natural populations. Many corporate studies on plant varieties employ cutting-edge genetic engineering methods. The most recent of these is the development of transgenic organisms, in which genes from one species are separated and added to another plant in order to change its characteristics. The cases of transgenic crop use in India are listed below. These cases brought up a number of ethical, societal, and legal concerns.

Transgenic cotton : Bt Cotton

In several Indian states, cotton is farmed. It is vulnerable to various pests, with the bollworm being one of the most devastating and leading to significant crop losses. The release of Bt cotton for commercial cultivation during the 2002–2003 crop season received approval from the Government of India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). Following the liberalisation of global trade that occurred with the creation of the WTO, the first crop to get environmental approval as a GMO was cotton. Quality and price competitiveness evolved into crucial factors for both domestic use and export performance.

The term "Bt cotton" refers to transgenic cotton plants that have been given the endotoxin protein-inducing gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. It is distinct from other cotton breeds that are conventionally produced through selection, hybridization, etc. Bt Cotton had the benefit of being bollworm resistant, increasing productivity, but its field performance and environmental effects were not sufficiently investigated at the time of introduction. In some circumstances, the Bt Cotton crop thrived, but not in others. Widespread crop failures occurred, which may have been caused by a variety of factors including inadequate plant care knowledge, unfavourable environmental circumstances, etc. The lack of proper care for scientific plantations, such as planting regular and Bt cotton together, resulted in the bollworms' partial resistance to endotoxins. The failure of Bt Cotton was blamed for a number of farmer suicides and significant losses for farmers.

Bt Brinjal

Concerns regarding the usage of genetically modified crops were raised by the Bt Cotton case and other examples outside of India. Bt Brinjal was frequently denied entry because, if brought into India, the patented gene might have escaped and contaminated natural brinjal plants there. The Bt Brinjal had been prohibited by the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests. Biopiracy allegations were also made. It was discovered that the agencies had accessed at least 10 brinjal types from Tamil Nadu and Karnataka without first requesting permission from the state biodiversity boards or the National Biodiversity Authority. The company pushing Bt Brinjal was the first business in India to be charged with misappropriating native genetic material or engaging in bio-piracy.

Large-scale public meetings with more than 8,000 participants from all facets of society were organised. As predicted, a wide range of opinions were presented. The lack of independent scientific investigations and the fact that the science was difficult for most people to understand hindered the entire process. The opinions were frequently influenced by the media, organisations of civil society, and corporations, and were thus frequently in conflict. Other GM crops have likewise sparked widespread controversy and debate. Given that they are food crops and their effects on people have not been well investigated, GM mustard, rice, and brinjal pose further questions. In 2006, the "Coalition for GM Free India" was established as a sizable informal alliance of groups and people from more than 15 Indian states.

The Coalition has been actively promoting GMO awareness among media outlets, the general public, and civil society organisations. The Coalition also views opposition to GM crops as part of a larger effort to democratise the nation's science and technology policy-making process. Members hold that the best sustainable path ahead for Indian agriculture is through farmers' science and knowledge, particularly about ecological farming. Farmers and individuals opposed to GMOs have organised protests, street marches, and demonstrations in numerous states.

Protests against WTO

Protests against the WTO and its rules have been organised by numerous community-based and civil society organisations. Farmers blamed WTO as the main cause of all changes brought on by globalisation. Unmistakable data shows that in the early 1990s, structural reforms and globalisation both contributed to an increase in poverty. As the government loosened quantitative limits after India joined the WTO, the price of a number of important crops fell. Without a rise in supply, the cost of groundnuts, rice, and cotton decreased. Mustard was replaced as a source of edible oil by soybean import. Before 1998, small-scale crushers employing indigenous technology produced the majority of the edible oil. This was prohibited in 1998, and at the same time, import restrictions on soybeans were lifted, which resulted in significant employment losses in the local edible oil sector. More than 50,000 farmers from 14 different states demonstrated against the WTO in Mumbai in October 2005.

Large environmental organisations like Greenpeace came together in both rural and urban India as a result of trade and incursion by multinationals in India. They offered assistance to local groups whose way of life and means of subsistence had been permanently altered by developments related to trade. The opposition to major multinational corporations like Pepsi, Monsanto, and Coca-Cola is an example of the opposition to the changes that have altered their way of life (Alamgir, 2008). Indigenous groups have been negatively impacted by the WTO and the various accords that fall under its purview, particularly in industrialised nations. They have, however, also had an impact on small farmers in wealthy nations. Many times, the WTO is opposed by people's organisations because they believe it to be a new form of economic expansionism.

Reference

  • Economic Survey 2012, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 
  • Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy, RBI, Government of India. 
  • OECD (2007), Agricultural Policies in Non-OECD Countries, Chapter 5 – India, pp 92-94. 
  • World Bank (2008), Trade Policy Overview Report, Chapter 3. [http:// siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546- 1168296540386/ch3.pdf] 
  •  Understanding International Trade in Agricultural Products: One Hundred Years of Contributions by Agricultural Economists, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 92 (2), January 2010, pp 424-446.
Post a Comment
Tag,

Comments

Thank You